Communism, Capitalism and ideology

  • 99 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by RushKing (1776 posts) -

Many people in this forum have been calling communism an ideology. But an order for someone to be ideological one must advocate something that is not in their own best interest. While I do believe many communists (specifically the Marxists) are ideological in what they believe would be the best approach to getting there, due to wishful thinking about the state. Marxists advocate a state socialist transition phase and believe the state would eventually take itself apart when things are 'ready'. This is wishful thinking because institutions are all about self preservation. I believe the state and capitalism should abolished simoniously. Communism itself isn't inherently ideological. By calling me an ideologue, you are making a claim about my own self interest. To back up that claim you must prove why it wouldn't be in my best interest. I am an unemployed 21 year old with autism, and have never got a single job in my life. The market tends to favor people with strong social / networking skills. The market does not respect me as an individual, It's just another oppressive / coercive institution, and it doesn't matter if people made it voluntarily. If you are an American reading this, there is a 80% chance that you are also getting the shorter end of the stick CLICK, and economic inequality is not good news. CLICK

I also see people in this forum making a mistake by confusing utopia with the act of ignoring reality in favor of ones desire. Utopia is not a statement about doablity. I made this same mistake in the past. The reason why I do believe in the possibility of anarchist communism occurring, is because of real life historic examples in Spain (Aragon), real life present examples (communes like Black Bear Ranch), discoveries about our behavior in psychology (Philip Zimbardo's experiments) and some anthropology like hunter gatherers being egalitarian.

Capitalism is only 200 years old. feudalism and aristocracy each took up to 400 years to die. Am I saying capitalism is as bad is either of those? Nope, what I am saying is that we cant say capitalism is here to stay. This is very small blip in our history, but it's also the most dangerous one because of nukes and climate change. The entire ecosystem under threat, and none of this is necessary. Do you honestly believe all of these problems can be solved by passing a few regulations and taxing the rich? Those are the last things the state wants to do. Why would I ask only for a welfare state if I know it can take it all away any time it wishes? Hundreds of uneducated peasants in Spain made their own decisions and they were better off. There is no reason to treat other human beings like dogs.

#2 Edited by Hiddai (6085 posts) -

But everything is temporary as you say so what's the point? Who (3000 years ago) could imagine that there'll be no kings. (today's kings are meaningless).

#3 Posted by airshocker (29668 posts) -

Hiddai, there was a reason no one else has responded to this guy. Let the thread die.

#4 Edited by RushKing (1776 posts) -

@Hiddai said:

But everything is temporary as you say so what's the point? Who (3000 years ago) could imagine that there'll be no kings. (today's kings are meaningless).

I didn't say that. What I did do is give reasons why capitalism could not sustain itself. I believe siting and waiting for more damage to occur, would not a very good choice.

#5 Posted by thegerg (15223 posts) -

@RushKing: No, you didn't do that.

#6 Edited by RushKing (1776 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@RushKing: No, you didn't do that.

Do you believe in man made climate change? Do you believe the earth has unlimited resources?

#7 Posted by thegerg (15223 posts) -

@RushKing: Yes, and we've seen examples of communist regimes with horrible environmental policies. Pollution is not exclusive to capitalists. This thread seems to just exist to frame your excuses for not getting a job.

#8 Edited by RushKing (1776 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@RushKing: Yes, and we've seen examples of communist regimes with horrible environmental policies. Pollution is not exclusive to capitalists. This thread seems to just exist to frame your excuses for not getting a job.

China is one of the most capitalist countries on earth, It doesn't matter what the bureaucrats call themselves.

#9 Posted by thegerg (15223 posts) -

@RushKing: OK, and...?

#10 Posted by RushKing (1776 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@RushKing: OK, and...?

It takes collective action to build public transportation. The market doesn't give people that choice. The market wants everyone to drive their own car every day.

#11 Posted by thegerg (15223 posts) -

@RushKing: You're not too good at this whole "staying on topic" thing, huh?

#12 Posted by RushKing (1776 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@RushKing: You're not too good at this whole "staying on topic" thing, huh?

You are interested in states runned by people who call themselves communist. This thread was meant to talk about communism itself. You are the one who went off topic.

#13 Edited by lostrib (36931 posts) -

@RushKing said:

@thegerg said:

@RushKing: You're not too good at this whole "staying on topic" thing, huh?

You are interested in states runned by people who call themselves communist. This thread was meant to talk about communism itself. You are the one who went off topic.

communism is awful, and will never work on a large state/country wide scale

#14 Posted by theone86 (20555 posts) -

@RushKing said:

Many people in this forum have been calling communism an ideology. But an order for someone to be ideological one must advocate something that is not in their own best interest. While I do believe many communists (specifically the Marxists) are ideological in what they believe would be the best approach to getting there, due to wishful thinking about the state. Marxists advocate a state socialist transition phase and believe the state would eventually take itself apart when things are 'ready'. This is wishful thinking because institutions are all about self preservation. I believe the state and capitalism should abolished simoniously. Communism itself isn't inherently ideological. By calling me an ideologue, you are making a claim about my own self interest. To back up that claim you must prove why it wouldn't be in my best interest. I am an unemployed 21 year old with autism, and have never got a single job in my life. The market tends to favor people with strong social / networking skills. The market does not respect me as an individual, It's just another oppressive / coercive institution, and it doesn't matter if people made it voluntarily. If you are an American reading this, there is a 80% chance that you are also getting the shorter end of the stick CLICK, and economic inequality is not good news. CLICK

I also see people in this forum making a mistake by confusing utopia with the act of ignoring reality in favor of ones desire. Utopia is not a statement about doablity. I made this same mistake in the past. The reason why I do believe in the possibility of anarchist communism occurring, is because of real life historic examples in Spain (Aragon), real life present examples (communes like Black Bear Ranch), discoveries about our behavior in psychology (Philip Zimbardo's experiments) and some anthropology like hunter gatherers being egalitarian.

Capitalism is only 200 years old. feudalism and aristocracy each took up to 400 years to die. Am I saying capitalism is as bad is either of those? Nope, what I am saying is that we cant say capitalism is here to stay. This is very small blip in our history, but it's also the most dangerous one because of nukes and climate change. The entire ecosystem under threat, and none of this is necessary. Do you honestly believe all of these problems can be solved by passing a few regulations and taxing the rich? Those are the last things the state wants to do. Why would I ask only for a welfare state if I know it can take it all away any time it wishes? Hundreds of uneducated peasants in Spain made their own decisions and they were better off. There is no reason to treat other human beings like dogs.

Ideology simply means a system of ideas that forms the basis for one's beliefs, it doesn't necessarily infer that one is acting counter to their own interests.

I don't think you can sum up Marxists so easily. Simply going off what Marx wrote and ignoring that there have been many self-proclaimed Marxists since who have created their own nuanced views and disagreed with him on certain points, yes deconstruction of the state is the end goal. I wouldn't say he thought the state would disassemble itself, though. Quite the contrary, he said the state would come to dominate the worker. However, he asserted that by making the mass of workers the instrument that dominated the workers themselves this state would eventually evolve first into a form of communism that more closely resembles syndicalism, and then finally into a classless state where each produces according to his ability and takes according to his need.

I always marvel at anarchists who acknowledge that social progress is evolutionary, yet call for revolutionary change. Feudalism and aristocracy didn't die overnight, they took decades to fully die out even after the writing was on the wall. The American Revolution was part of a process that started over a century before it broke out with aristocratic-minded settlers striking out on their own in a new environment, the English Parliamentary system evolved over centuries with periodic turning points marking official changes that had been brewing for long periods of time, the French Aristocratic system had been degrading for over a century before the French Revolution, and even then it took the failure of the new democratic system and a return to monarchy for almost seventy years before France finally emerged as a republic. Russia didn't fully abolish feudalism until the latter half of the twentieth century. You admit that change doesn't happen overnight, so why do you demand that it does?

I'll agree with most of your last paragraph, with exceptions. For one, the solution to a partial solution is not to remove the partial solution and hope something better comes along. I'll admit, for example, that EPA regulation isn't always as efficient as it could be in protecting the environment. However, that doesn't mean I think we should abolish the EPA, in fact I think we'd be a lot worse off without it. I will agree, though, that relaying on a system with a flawed power structure to fix the problems it creates is flawed thinking. You don't need to overthrow the entire structure, however, you just need to build a working alternative. For one, radical change disrupts individuals who rely on the system rather than engaging them in creating alternatives. Part of the reason the process of change takes so long is because it requires some level of participation of the individuals who comprise society. This, in turn, leads to a synthesis that is better able to adapt to materialistic realities better than a system instituted and governed by ideologues. To paraphrase John Dewey, "the truth is what works," and you only find out what works through experimentation. Perhaps experimentation guided by ideology, but experimentation nonetheless.

#15 Posted by thegerg (15223 posts) -

@RushKing said:

@thegerg said:

@RushKing: You're not too good at this whole "staying on topic" thing, huh?

You are interested in states runned by people who call themselves communist. This thread was meant to talk about communism itself. You are the one who went off topic.

You started the thread with the same type of apples-to-oranges comparison by comparing communism to states "runned" by people who call themselves capitalist.

#16 Posted by LordQuorthon (5338 posts) -

@RushKing said:

But an order for someone to be ideological one must advocate something that is not in their own best interest.

What is this? I don't even...

#17 Edited by RushKing (1776 posts) -

@theone86 said:

I don't think you can sum up Marxists so easily. Simply going off what Marx wrote and ignoring that there have been many self-proclaimed Marxists since who have created their own nuanced views and disagreed with him on certain points, yes deconstruction of the state is the end goal. I wouldn't say he thought the state would disassemble itself, though. Quite the contrary, he said the state would come to dominate the worker. However, he asserted that by making the mass of workers the instrument that dominated the workers themselves this state would eventually evolve first into a form of communism that more closely resembles syndicalism, and then finally into a classless state where each produces according to his ability and takes according to his need.

I am aware of the different types of marxism. I am willing to from an alliance with libertarian marxists because they also have strong belief in workers' self management, But I'm diametrically opposed to traditional marxism, marxist-leninism, maoism etc. because I don't believe state domination is a road to communism. It gives too much power to a small circle of people who can't represent all of our interests.

I always marvel at anarchists who acknowledge that social progress is evolutionary, yet call for revolutionary change. Feudalism and aristocracy didn't die overnight, they took decades to fully die out even after the writing was on the wall. The American Revolution was part of a process that started over a century before it broke out with aristocratic-minded settlers striking out on their own in a new environment, the English Parliamentary system evolved over centuries with periodic turning points marking official changes that had been brewing for long periods of time, the French Aristocratic system had been degrading for over a century before the French Revolution, and even then it took the failure of the new democratic system and a return to monarchy for almost seventy years before France finally emerged as a republic. Russia didn't fully abolish feudalism until the latter half of the twentieth century. You admit that change doesn't happen overnight, so why do you demand that it does?

Do I believe communism can happen tomorrow? Nope, but I believe it should happen as soon as possible.

I'll agree with most of your last paragraph, with exceptions. For one, the solution to a partial solution is not to remove the partial solution and hope something better comes along. I'll admit, for example, that EPA regulation isn't always as efficient as it could be in protecting the environment. However, that doesn't mean I think we should abolish the EPA, in fact I think we'd be a lot worse off without it. I will agree, though, that relaying on a system with a flawed power structure to fix the problems it creates is flawed thinking. You don't need to overthrow the entire structure, however, you just need to build a working alternative. For one, radical change disrupts individuals who rely on the system rather than engaging them in creating alternatives. Part of the reason the process of change takes so long is because it requires some level of participation of the individuals who comprise society. This, in turn, leads to a synthesis that is better able to adapt to materialistic realities better than a system instituted and governed by ideologues. To paraphrase John Dewey, "the truth is what works," and you only find out what works through experimentation. Perhaps experimentation guided by ideology, but experimentation nonetheless.

I believe the EPA should be around as long as capitalism is still around, and that it should be scraped during the revolution because it would no longer be needed, and the expropriation would allow everyone who depended on the state to have access to food. There would be no more rents to pay without a state to enforce absentee ownership, so state abolition would open up free shelter for the homeless.

I also believe communities will need to be built. People are way too atomized at the moment.

#18 Posted by RushKing (1776 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@RushKing said:

@thegerg said:

@RushKing: You're not too good at this whole "staying on topic" thing, huh?

You are interested in states runned by people who call themselves communist. This thread was meant to talk about communism itself. You are the one who went off topic.

You started the thread with the same type of apples-to-oranges comparison by comparing communism to states "runned" by people who call themselves capitalist.

Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production.

#19 Posted by thegerg (15223 posts) -

@RushKing: Ok....

That has nothing to do with environmental policies.

#20 Edited by RushKing (1776 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@RushKing: Ok....

That has nothing to do with environmental policies.

Yes it does, most bosses would rather get extra cash in their pocket at the expense of the environment. The state can't change the motivations of the owners in society.

#21 Edited by theone86 (20555 posts) -

@RushKing said:

@theone86 said:

I don't think you can sum up Marxists so easily. Simply going off what Marx wrote and ignoring that there have been many self-proclaimed Marxists since who have created their own nuanced views and disagreed with him on certain points, yes deconstruction of the state is the end goal. I wouldn't say he thought the state would disassemble itself, though. Quite the contrary, he said the state would come to dominate the worker. However, he asserted that by making the mass of workers the instrument that dominated the workers themselves this state would eventually evolve first into a form of communism that more closely resembles syndicalism, and then finally into a classless state where each produces according to his ability and takes according to his need.

I am aware of the different types of marxism. I am willing to from an alliance with libertarian marxists because they also have strong belief in workers' self management, But I'm diametrically opposed to traditional marxism, marxist-leninism, maoism etc. because I don't believe state domination is a road to communism. It gives too much power to a small circle of people who can't represent all of our interests.

I always marvel at anarchists who acknowledge that social progress is evolutionary, yet call for revolutionary change. Feudalism and aristocracy didn't die overnight, they took decades to fully die out even after the writing was on the wall. The American Revolution was part of a process that started over a century before it broke out with aristocratic-minded settlers striking out on their own in a new environment, the English Parliamentary system evolved over centuries with periodic turning points marking official changes that had been brewing for long periods of time, the French Aristocratic system had been degrading for over a century before the French Revolution, and even then it took the failure of the new democratic system and a return to monarchy for almost seventy years before France finally emerged as a republic. Russia didn't fully abolish feudalism until the latter half of the twentieth century. You admit that change doesn't happen overnight, so why do you demand that it does?

Do I believe communism can happen tomorrow? Nope, but I believe it should happen as soon as possible.

I'll agree with most of your last paragraph, with exceptions. For one, the solution to a partial solution is not to remove the partial solution and hope something better comes along. I'll admit, for example, that EPA regulation isn't always as efficient as it could be in protecting the environment. However, that doesn't mean I think we should abolish the EPA, in fact I think we'd be a lot worse off without it. I will agree, though, that relaying on a system with a flawed power structure to fix the problems it creates is flawed thinking. You don't need to overthrow the entire structure, however, you just need to build a working alternative. For one, radical change disrupts individuals who rely on the system rather than engaging them in creating alternatives. Part of the reason the process of change takes so long is because it requires some level of participation of the individuals who comprise society. This, in turn, leads to a synthesis that is better able to adapt to materialistic realities better than a system instituted and governed by ideologues. To paraphrase John Dewey, "the truth is what works," and you only find out what works through experimentation. Perhaps experimentation guided by ideology, but experimentation nonetheless.

I believe the EPA should be around as long as capitalism is still around, and that it should be scraped during the revolution because it would no longer be needed, and the expropriation would allow everyone who depended on the state to have access to food. There would be no more rents to pay without a state to enforce absentee ownership, so state abolition would open up free shelter for the homeless.

I also believe communities will need to be built. People are way too atomized at the moment.

Eh, I almost find Marxist-Leninism to be a contradiction in terms, and I definitely find Marxist-Stalinism and Marxist-Maoism to be contradictions. You might be able to argue that Marx would support Leninism as a necessary, if lamentable, evolutionary step. However, it's not certain what he might say, and Lenin did specifically reject certain basic principles within Marx's ideology such as Hegelian social evolution. The idea of a cult of personality, though, seems totally antithetical to what Marx was proposing, and I don't think Marx would be too comfortable with the Cultural Revolution either. At any rate, I don't think you find too many traditional Leninists nowadays. I think the closest you might come to that are modern Trotskyist movements.

Learn to walk before you try to run. Idealism is good, but the true worth of any theory is in its practical application. Large, society-wide problems do exist, but they consist of smaller problems that still need addressing. By addressing issues on a smaller scale larger issues start to come into focus for the larger public. Furthermore, society is an entity that is comprised of individuals. You don't simply change society (at least successfully) by forced upheaval, that ignores the fact that what you're destroying is in part the individuals themselves, or something integral to them. Lasting social change requires slow processes of engagement with the individuals who comprise society.

I disagree with the concepts of scrapping and revolution. If you live in one house and you're building a new one you don't scrap your current house before you've made the new one livable. We need different approaches to environmental protection, and once some form of substitute for the EPA is in place or the EPA has been made more efficient then we can talk about doing away with the current structure. Or we can slowly phase out inefficient EPA policies while replacing them with better ones, resulting eventually in a brand new "house" while avoiding the destruction of the old one in a single event.

Don't rely on the state for the destruction of the state. The end of a capitalist state is not a prerequisite for the creation of constructively-minded communities. Stop focusing so much on the systems, start focusing more on the people.

#22 Edited by Jimn_tonic (819 posts) -

Capitalism will always demand intervention at some point. Underspending is just as much of a problem as overspending.

Take the events leading to the Great Depression, most economists thought workers would not mind a nominal wage cut. Since prices were cut, there would be no affect on purchasing power, but workers did mind, seeing a nominal wage cut as a decrease in living standards, and most unions rejected the idea of nominal wage cuts, so nominal wages stayed the same despite market pressure. This made the involuntary unemployment indefinite, An increase in spending, to shift demand, was the only way it could be fixed. There was no self-correcting process, as classical economist believed.

there's a myriad of other examples, that can be given to any ideology. imo, any ideology is doomed to fail if it doesn't change to serve certain situations. entropy is a bitch, but it is what it is.

#23 Posted by dave123321 (34061 posts) -

I like the mkts

#24 Edited by capaho (1253 posts) -

Didn't we already have this discussion in another thread? To say that communism is not an ideology is to not understand the definition of ideology.

The Definition of Ideology

#25 Edited by thegerg (15223 posts) -

@RushKing: The same can be said for those participating in a communist society.

#26 Edited by RushKing (1776 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@RushKing: The same can be said for those participating in a communist society.

1. Communism is a type of gift economy (or at least my anarchist conception), and gift economies date back farther than full blown barter or market economies.

2. I don't believe the state can create communism. Solidarity is organic.

3. Our motivations are not as simple as many people are lead to believe, and no doubt the market effects all of our behavior (including mine). Money is a motivator, but purpose is also a motivator. And personal responsibility is less pronounced in hierarchical institutions in comparison to non-hierarchical firms.

4. I don't advocate a free for all commons, I am for self management of the commons.

#27 Posted by thegerg (15223 posts) -

@RushKing said:

@thegerg said:

@RushKing: The same can be said for those participating in a communist society.

1. Communism is a type of gift economy (or at least my anarchist conception), and gift economies date back farther than full blown barter or market economies.

2. I don't believe the state can create communism. Solidarity is organic.

3. Our motivations are not as simple as many people are lead to believe, and no doubt the market effects all of our behavior (including mine). Money is a motivator, but purpose is also a motivator. And personal responsibility is less pronounced in hierarchical institutions in comparison to non-hierarchical firms.

4. I don't advocate a free for all commons, I am for self management of the commons.

That has nothing to do with the fact that those participating in a communist society "would rather get extra cash in their pocket at the expense of the environment" just as much as those participating on capitalism. WTF are you on about?

#28 Posted by RushKing (1776 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@RushKing said:

@thegerg said:

@RushKing: The same can be said for those participating in a communist society.

1. Communism is a type of gift economy (or at least my anarchist conception), and gift economies date back farther than full blown barter or market economies.

2. I don't believe the state can create communism. Solidarity is organic.

3. Our motivations are not as simple as many people are lead to believe, and no doubt the market effects all of our behavior (including mine). Money is a motivator, but purpose is also a motivator. And personal responsibility is less pronounced in hierarchical institutions in comparison to non-hierarchical firms.

4. I don't advocate a free for all commons, I am for self management of the commons.

That has nothing to do with the fact that those participating in a communist society "would rather get extra cash in their pocket at the expense of the environment" just as much as those participating on capitalism. WTF are you on about?

#29 Edited by thegerg (15223 posts) -

@RushKing: Try to stay on topic here. If you want to discuss environmentalism you need to actually participate in the conversation, you're all over the place.

#30 Posted by theone86 (20555 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@RushKing said:

@thegerg said:

@RushKing: The same can be said for those participating in a communist society.

1. Communism is a type of gift economy (or at least my anarchist conception), and gift economies date back farther than full blown barter or market economies.

2. I don't believe the state can create communism. Solidarity is organic.

3. Our motivations are not as simple as many people are lead to believe, and no doubt the market effects all of our behavior (including mine). Money is a motivator, but purpose is also a motivator. And personal responsibility is less pronounced in hierarchical institutions in comparison to non-hierarchical firms.

4. I don't advocate a free for all commons, I am for self management of the commons.

That has nothing to do with the fact that those participating in a communist society "would rather get extra cash in their pocket at the expense of the environment" just as much as those participating on capitalism. WTF are you on about?

Not necessarily, not necessarily not. The purpose of today's current consumer society is wealth accumulation, which in many ways habituates individuals into practices that end up being damaging to the environment. While a communist society in general would not necessarily change this, it is possible that there are certain types of communist societies that would draw the focus away from unfettered wealth accumulation and instead towards a form of economy that draws attention to environmental issues and encourages sustainable practices.

#31 Posted by thegerg (15223 posts) -

@theone86 said:

@thegerg said:

@RushKing said:

@thegerg said:

@RushKing: The same can be said for those participating in a communist society.

1. Communism is a type of gift economy (or at least my anarchist conception), and gift economies date back farther than full blown barter or market economies.

2. I don't believe the state can create communism. Solidarity is organic.

3. Our motivations are not as simple as many people are lead to believe, and no doubt the market effects all of our behavior (including mine). Money is a motivator, but purpose is also a motivator. And personal responsibility is less pronounced in hierarchical institutions in comparison to non-hierarchical firms.

4. I don't advocate a free for all commons, I am for self management of the commons.

That has nothing to do with the fact that those participating in a communist society "would rather get extra cash in their pocket at the expense of the environment" just as much as those participating on capitalism. WTF are you on about?

Not necessarily, not necessarily not. The purpose of today's current consumer society is wealth accumulation, which in many ways habituates individuals into practices that end up being damaging to the environment. While a communist society in general would not necessarily change this, it is possible that there are certain types of communist societies that would draw the focus away from unfettered wealth accumulation and instead towards a form of economy that draws attention to environmental issues and encourages sustainable practices.

"Not necessarily, not necessarily not."

You're right about that, I should have been more clear. As I said earlier "the same can be said" about motivations of communists and capitalists.

"it is possible that there are certain types of communist societies that would draw the focus away from unfettered wealth accumulation and instead towards a form of economy that draws attention to environmental issues and encourages sustainable practices."

The same can be said about capitalist societies.

#32 Edited by RushKing (1776 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@RushKing: Try to stay on topic here. I know you're autistic, but try. If you want to discuss environmentalism you need to actually participate in the conversation, you're all over the place.

Spaces where people have more personal autonomy give us positive traits like courage, which are required to discuss about environmental policy. Capitalist enterprises call for blind obedience to someone in authority, and personal responsibility appears to be less pronounced. The truth is that people are responsible for their actions and hierarchical institutions can give people the illusion that they are not.

#33 Posted by thegerg (15223 posts) -

@RushKing said:

@thegerg said:

@RushKing: Try to stay on topic here. I know you're autistic, but try. If you want to discuss environmentalism you need to actually participate in the conversation, you're all over the place.

Spaces where people have more personal autonomy give us positive traits like courage, which are required to discuss about environmental policy. Capitalist enterprises call for blind obedience to someone in authority, and personal responsibility appears to be less pronounced. The truth is that people are responsible for their actions and hierarchical institutions can give people the illusion that they are not.

"Capitalist enterprises call for blind obedience to someone in authority"

No, they do not.

#34 Posted by RushKing (1776 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@RushKing said:

@thegerg said:

@RushKing: Try to stay on topic here. I know you're autistic, but try. If you want to discuss environmentalism you need to actually participate in the conversation, you're all over the place.

Spaces where people have more personal autonomy give us positive traits like courage, which are required to discuss about environmental policy. Capitalist enterprises call for blind obedience to someone in authority, and personal responsibility appears to be less pronounced. The truth is that people are responsible for their actions and hierarchical institutions can give people the illusion that they are not.

"Capitalist enterprises call for blind obedience to someone in authority"

No, they do not.

It's my property, do what I say or leave. Or else I'll call the cops on you, subordinate.

#35 Posted by thegerg (15223 posts) -

@RushKing said:

@thegerg said:

@RushKing said:

@thegerg said:

@RushKing: Try to stay on topic here. I know you're autistic, but try. If you want to discuss environmentalism you need to actually participate in the conversation, you're all over the place.

Spaces where people have more personal autonomy give us positive traits like courage, which are required to discuss about environmental policy. Capitalist enterprises call for blind obedience to someone in authority, and personal responsibility appears to be less pronounced. The truth is that people are responsible for their actions and hierarchical institutions can give people the illusion that they are not.

"Capitalist enterprises call for blind obedience to someone in authority"

No, they do not.

It's my property, do what I say or leave. Or else I'll call the cops on you, subordinate.

No.

See how simple it is?

#36 Posted by RushKing (1776 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@RushKing said:

@thegerg said:

@RushKing said:

@thegerg said:

@RushKing: Try to stay on topic here. I know you're autistic, but try. If you want to discuss environmentalism you need to actually participate in the conversation, you're all over the place.

Spaces where people have more personal autonomy give us positive traits like courage, which are required to discuss about environmental policy. Capitalist enterprises call for blind obedience to someone in authority, and personal responsibility appears to be less pronounced. The truth is that people are responsible for their actions and hierarchical institutions can give people the illusion that they are not.

"Capitalist enterprises call for blind obedience to someone in authority"

No, they do not.

It's my property, do what I say or leave. Or else I'll call the cops on you, subordinate.

No.

See how simple it is?

Have fun in jail punk.

#37 Posted by thegerg (15223 posts) -

@RushKing said:

@thegerg said:

@RushKing said:

@thegerg said:

@RushKing said:

@thegerg said:

@RushKing: Try to stay on topic here. I know you're autistic, but try. If you want to discuss environmentalism you need to actually participate in the conversation, you're all over the place.

Spaces where people have more personal autonomy give us positive traits like courage, which are required to discuss about environmental policy. Capitalist enterprises call for blind obedience to someone in authority, and personal responsibility appears to be less pronounced. The truth is that people are responsible for their actions and hierarchical institutions can give people the illusion that they are not.

"Capitalist enterprises call for blind obedience to someone in authority"

No, they do not.

It's my property, do what I say or leave. Or else I'll call the cops on you, subordinate.

No.

See how simple it is?

Have fun in jail punk.

It's not unlawful for someone to refuse to work for you. Is that really what communists think?

#38 Edited by RushKing (1776 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@RushKing said:

@thegerg said:

No.

See how simple it is?

Have fun in jail punk.

It's not unlawful for someone to refuse to work for you. Is that really what communists think?

You refused to leave when I commanded you to. I'm the capitalist, it's my business and you have no say over it. If you don't want to get locked up, you either had to obey or scram. No buts

#39 Edited by thegerg (15223 posts) -

@RushKing: Refusing to leave property that you do not have authorization to occupy is unlawful whether the person telling you to leave is a capitalist or not.

Are you suggesting that you would be permitted to go anywhere you please in a communist society?

#40 Edited by RushKing (1776 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@RushKing: Refusing to leave property that you do not have authorization to occupy is unlawful whether the person telling you to leave is a capitalist or not.

I believe factories offices etc. belong to all the people who occupy and use them, therefore a single individual (the capitalist) should not have despotic control over the workplace.

#41 Posted by thegerg (15223 posts) -

Respecting the rights and property of another is not "blind obedience". It's simply knowing how to operate as a functional person in society.

#42 Edited by RushKing (1776 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@RushKing: Are you suggesting that you would be permitted to go anywhere you please in a communist society?

No, people need privacy so a home may be off limits. If the house is no longer in personal use it should be up for grabs I believe. If someone were to move out for like a year or so they would have to notify their local assembly before hand. Self managed firms can still have qualifications to meet, an order to join. People would enforce the rules themselves without third parties.

#43 Edited by thegerg (15223 posts) -
@RushKing said:

@thegerg said:

@RushKing: Refusing to leave property that you do not have authorization to occupy is unlawful whether the person telling you to leave is a capitalist or not.

I believe factories offices etc. belong to all the people who occupy and use them, therefore a single individual (the capitalist) should not have despotic control over the workplace.


In a modern society with heavy capitalist influences (like the US) a property owner (whether he is capitalist or not) does not have despotic control over the workplace. He is bound by the rule of law just like everyone else.

#44 Posted by thegerg (15223 posts) -

@RushKing said:

@thegerg said:

@RushKing: Are you suggesting that you would be permitted to go anywhere you please in a communist society?

No, people need privacy so a home may be off limits. If the house is no longer in personal use it should be up for grabs I believe. If someone were to move out for like a year or so they would have to notify their local assembly before hand. Self managed firms can still have qualifications to meet, an order to join. People would enforce the rules themselves without third parties.

So rather than "blind obedience" (as you see it) to "someone", you propose "blind obedience" to a "local assembly" and "firms."

#45 Posted by RushKing (1776 posts) -

@thegerg said:

Respecting the rights and property of another is not "blind obedience". It's simply knowing how to operate as a functional person in society.

If you can't justify the authority of the capitalist, we have no reason to blindly obey them. Saying private property rights over and over again is not a justification.

#46 Posted by thegerg (15223 posts) -

@RushKing said:

@thegerg said:

Respecting the rights and property of another is not "blind obedience". It's simply knowing how to operate as a functional person in society.

If you can't justify the authority of the capitalist, we have no reason to blindly obey them. Saying private property rights over and over again is not a justification.

I don't suggest that we blindly obey anyone regardless of whether he is a capitalist, communist, or anything else.

#47 Posted by thegerg (15223 posts) -

@RushKing: " I am an unemployed 21 year old with autism, and have never got a single job in my life. The market tends to favor people with strong social / networking skills."

And do you honestly think that a society that relies so heavily on the voluntary social cooperation of many individuals would favor them any more? Haha, don't be delusional.

#48 Posted by RushKing (1776 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@RushKing said:

@thegerg said:

@RushKing: Are you suggesting that you would be permitted to go anywhere you please in a communist society?

No, people need privacy so a home may be off limits. If the house is no longer in personal use it should be up for grabs I believe. If someone were to move out for like a year or so they would have to notify their local assembly before hand. Self managed firms can still have qualifications to meet, an order to join. People would enforce the rules themselves without third parties.

you propose "blind obedience" to a "local assembly" and "firms."

No, the point is that people would have more autonomy in a communist society than a capitalist one.