<p>Just to kick the thread off, @Cloudchamber advocates for anarcho-syndicalism(which she can explain better than I). @Woandering and myself are skeptical of her arguments. And thus the debate is born! Anyone can contribute of course but lets keep it all above board. </p>
<p>Yeah if we could get a base definition or a good link that would be nice. I love a good societal structure debate but Wikipedia isn’t incredibly clear and I don’t feel like researching this too much as I have no idea how much validity if any it has.</p>
<p>I disagree with Anarcho-Syndacalists. I do not believe the proletarian class can gain political independence in the yoke of a capitalist state. The state itself has to be overthrown if the working class wants to gain access to the means of production. We cannot expect any worker’s syndicate to “take over” the economy, a capitalist state will stop that from happening by any means. I do however agree with their abolishment of the wage. I however, disagree with anarchists in generally, mostly because, as a Marxist, I believe the working class must overthrow the state and take control of it. With the bourgeoisie out of power, the state’s primary function (in the Marxist sense, is to provide protection to private property) becomes obsolete and the state “withers away”, As Engels would put it. </p>
<p>@Ctesiphon </p>
<p>Are you aware of how many lives communist governments (directly) claimed in the 20th century? </p>
<p>@ThatOneWeirdGuy </p>
<p>Execution and other ideals built into particular examples of communism do not necessarily represent the validity of the idea. In most circles I have encountered. Communism is agreed upon as the best theoretical government by far. A big emphasis on theory there of course.</p>
<p>@Ctesiphon </p>
<p>The question I always have for your scenario is the question of what you rebuild in the place of the state after it “withers away”? I agree with you that it would be a good step, but how to organize after is a key part of that plan. As I actually see that happening soon in America (50 years or so), I think its a very relevant and highly overlooked question.</p>
<p>If not properly approached you could end up with something worse than what you started with. The best argument I have heard on the cons of a revolution is that you are by definition tearing down the previous structure, and probably need SOME rebuilding after. I believe the case cited was the French Revolution. That piece was used in an argument that rather than a physical revolution, we need an ideological revolution that thus modifies the existing system. While capitalism is far from good, there are many worse ways to do things.</p>
<p>So going back to the question, what’s a general timeline once the government goes?</p>
<p>@PengsPhils - What good is it if not actually put into practice effectively? Maybe the problem is humans, not our societal organization? Perhaps we should focus on, say, not killing each other as a start. </p>
<p>Communism is agreed upon as the best theoretical government? xD By whom? That is not an argument.</p>
<p>@ThatOneWeirdGuy </p>
<p>The “communist” governments that you say claimed millions of lives were not communist at all. The Soviet Union was state capitalist. North Korea is a degenerated worker’s state. China is state capitalist, they even have Macau and Hong Kong labeled “Special Administrative Regions”, essentially places were enterprise is less controlled and China can cash in on sea trade through raw capitalism.</p>
<p>Communism has no state, currency, or class. The Soviet Union, North Korea, or any “communist” government ever in existence had all of those. They were not communist. This is an unfortunate topic for communists because assumptions are made with the atrocities of the Soviet Union in the background, which was not even a communist government.</p>
<p>The Soviet Union had good beginnings - it was a proletarian movement, however I believe Lenin somewhat corrupted it with his idea of the “Vanguard party”. As i read in “The Coming Insurrection” (essentially an Insurrectionist Anarchist ‘manifesto’), the second small groups get into power it has the potential to become a milieu which in turn becomes an official entity, which allows for government. The vanguard party envisioned by Lenin is a group of “professional revolutionaries” that have to lead the proletarians because the common man simply isn’t smart enough to know how to do it himself. The common man is receptible to compromise and will bite at the little things that the state will give him. So, Lenin and his comrades ran the revolution. However, that vanguard party soon took power - and while Lenin managed it fairly well until his death, it became a power-battle between Trotsky and Stalin, the latter obviously taking charge. Stalin created a legacy we will not forget, the Communist Party became corrupted and became a dictatorship. He destroyed the New Economic Policy that was working for a while, implementing 5-year plans characterized by mass collectivization and rapid industrialization. Stalin did a lot to consolidate his power, but many of the estimates created by the U.S. agencies and other third-party agencies are exaggerated, in my opinion. He was an evil dictator, but not as much as he is painted out to be.</p>
<p>The issue with the Soviet Union in my eyes was - it was rushed. I believe that once the working class takes power, they have to transition to communism through a prolonged period of socialism. Socialism is when the working class is in POLITICAL power in the state. The idea here is that with the working class in power, there is no need to protect private property, which is viewed as the sole purpose of a state in the communist sense. Due to that, the state is no longer necessary. As the constructs of bourgeoisie government are removed, we progress to a society devoid of class and currency. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Communism itself has never been put in practice. No society has ever evolved to that point. You have brought up the classic human nature card. We communists have heard that one many times. Here you go:</p>
<p><a href=“Science overturns view of humans as naturally 'nasty'”>http://phys.org/news/2012-02-science-overturns-view-humans-naturally.html</a></p>
<p>Humans, like all animals, are hardwired to be cooperative. We need each other to survive, and that is learned from a very young age. It is the state that corrupts people and makes them power-hungry. Those that gain power in a state want more. So, what better thing to do than to rid of the state itself?</p>
<p>I think it is also important to make the distinction between the anarchist and communist viewpoint.</p>
<p>In general, an anarchist wants to overthrow the state and rid of it immediately after the revolution.
A communist wants to overthrow the state and take charge of it, then since the state no longer serves any meaningful purpose, it will “wither away”. Communism and anarchism are not interchangable terms. There are anarcho-communists, anarcho-syndicalists - some many agree or disagree with the above definitions I have provided. </p>
<p>I am a Marxist - meaning I believe that Marx’s political theory is what will happen one day and we need to be ready for it. Marx, 150 years before our time, successfully predicted the rise of an income tax, an increasingly widening wealth gap, globalization(and thus an indirect and direct censorship of local culture), and the “reserve army of labor”, among many more. I believe there will be a point, in the next few hundred years, the situation will become unbearable for the common person. I think a revolution WILL occur some day based on this economic issue.</p>
<p>I don’t make the distinction on HOW revolution should be done. Lenin advocates communism everywhere with a vanguard party. In contrast, Stalinism advocated for communism in ONE country. I personally disagree with that in particular because it would be hard for a communist society to discuss and adopt a consistent foreign policy with other nations. I think the revolution will have to be run by those who are in the scenario itself. We cannot predict what a revolution will be like or look like. I don’t necessarily want a revolution or advocate one. However my belief is that a revolution will inevitably occur one day, and the people living in that time should be ready for it. I’m not an edgy 13 year old who wants to revolt against opresion!111!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>These are not bad questions. What do you believe that the state “withering away” completely represents? I think I should clarify on what a state is. On google dictionary or something, it says “a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government”. The idea with the communist revolutionary theory is that we must take control of the state. This does not mean direct destruction of state infrastructure(like universities, hospitals, roads, etc.) </p>
<p>There are varying opinions though on how a communist society should be governed. (Keep in mind though, government does not mean a state). An idea I think would work is that towns and surrounding areas should be divided into communes, where direct democracy can be implemented. These communes will be bordered and designs so that they can produce anything they need within its borders. New York City and the surrounding country side could be a possible commune. If for some reason a commune is unable to provide itself with a necessary resource, say, food, I am sure there is another community that would have a surplus of food. Some believe that instead of communes there should be wide tracts of land that would be governed by direct democracy. I disagree with that viewpoint because direct democracy on a large scale can become tedious and ineffective.</p>
<p>Keep in mind though, this is only one viewpoint. I’m fairly casual with how I “predict” the communist society, because I think decisions should be made in the action itself. Whatever turns out to be the best option that takes into account all material conditions should be what is done.</p>
<p>@ThatOneWeirdGuy</p>
<p>I’m not really trying to make an argument for communism here, I agree with you on most of what you’re saying. Yeah, not working in theory is the big strike, with humanity being the primary enforcer of that impediment. I mention it as the best theoretical government because if we were to be what we consider to be “good” under general terms, communism would play out very well. However, of course, corruption quickly manipulate the system into what you see in reality, and the selflessness is not often found in the population as a whole, so no one ends up happy.</p>
<p>My point however was that what you associate with communism is just a symptom of the nature of humanity you hinted at, and not communism itself. Once again, “Perhaps we should focus on, say, not killing each other as a start.” has nothing to do with communism. Communism actually works very well in controlled environments, and it used on a very micro level in daily life if you want to get technical. Small groups/teams keep the corruption down and it is a great method in those cases. So, don’t write communism down as “kill everyone”, because that simply is not what it is.</p>
<p>I just saw the @Ctesiphon replies pop up, will read once I post.</p>
<p>@Ctesiphon </p>
<p>While I think you are right in some ways that a true version of communism has never actually been implemented, I think that is a testament to how little it takes to corrupt it and thus shape it beyond recognition from the original idea, as we have seen in practice. In order for communism to become that great theoretical society, it has to go through so many places for it to go wrong. And even if it was ever achieved, many versions would still be incredibly unstable. And that is why I am not a fan of communism at all in practice despite the fondness of the ideals.</p>
<p>As much as you try to make the argument that humans are good and not bad (to make a sweeping generalization for the sake of time), I don’t think your article proves anything other than the issue is not black and white like people tend to make it. Morality is completely subjective. So is the idea of good and evil, yada yada, etc. The point being, humans are not one or the other. Humans want to survive, its evolutionary of all animals as well. Even if they have to kill, pillage, destroy other societies, ruin a perfect setup of communism, you name it. There’s an ever evolving balance there in each one of us, and it can take as little as one person going sour for whatever genetic and environmental reasons to destabilize a communist society.</p>
<p>I do however almost fully agree with the Marxist interpretation of capitalism. Now that the initial capital we got from stealing land and people has stopped growing (besides oil and the middle east) and time is progressing, we are starting to see the separation you are talking about very quickly. We just disagree on that next step: revolution, when, and to what end.</p>
<p>I’m still working on my personal take, but I think your time estimate is a bit too long. We need to be ready sooner, as the current generation especially is growing up very anti-capitalism overall. We could see the change by the next generation I think.</p>
<p>Essentially, I am trying to work out a model of socialism that builds on capitalistic ideals and keeps some if not most of the market freedom, but under high regulation. A high tax society that covers nearly all the basics of daily living while still allowing classes with upward/downward movement to exist. Wages would drop dramatically, however the need for money would drop in coordination with wages. Essentially, to regulate how large the wage gap can get while keeping the minimum status of an individual at a level we deem much more human than we currently have. I don’t think we can ever get rid of the human motivation for wealth, luxury, and classes, but I do think we can design a system that plays to this trait while not having it come completely at the expense of others. I’m not explaining that last bit as well as I’d like, but essentially the argument is that we have to account for the “bad” side of humans as well as the “good”. Once again for the sake of time, ignore that sweeping generalization and evaluate it as just that.</p>
<p>As I said, a work in progress for sure, but something I think people need to look at. When the time comes I think the most likely scenario is that the world isn’t ready to implement something else and the risk of what will develop in that environment is incredibly high.</p>
<p>@PengsPhils @Ctesiphon I wasn’t referring to communism or any sort of argument against it (I’m well aware of the human nature argument) when I said something along the lines of “let’s not kill everyone.” I was merely referring to the actual problem - the internal (and changeable) human condition, not how we organize society. </p>
<p>Also, if you want to get technical once again, the concept of the free market and voluntarism is in our lives everyday, constantly, on a micro scale, which overlap with what I think you call communism on a micro scale, and cooperation. </p>
<p>@ThatOneWeirdGuy</p>
<p>As far as microcosms of capitalism, yes of course. I would say that just further shows that no single ideology works perfectly and they need to use each other, but that’s neither here nor there. On to your actual argument, which actually has a good point.</p>
<p>So, to clarify, your argument is that the system is less import than the people using it, correct? While I think that’s very agreeable, how do you suggest going about changing the human condition? That’s a bit of a task there. I haven’t explored this before, but my first instinct is that it will be much harder and take much more time to do that, if there even is a way to do it. Meanwhile, we will have to live with the societal structure we have. </p>
<p>On top of all that, can’t we work on that at the same time as the structure? I don’t think that we should give up all hope because humans aren’t perfect. In fact, we should put more work in because of that, to try to make life better. Even if we do change the human condition, there will still be better and worse ways to organize.</p>
<p>Basically, sure, we can try to change the human condition and raise better humans, but we can also work on this simultaneously. Neither is going to happen overnight.</p>
<p>@PengsPhils </p>
<p>Yes, that is my argument.</p>
<p>It does take more time than revolutions, but it is also much more long-lasting. And yes, of course, as the “zeitgeist” (not making any reference to the movement, if you’re familiar) of humanity changes, so will the “system” gradually. Or maybe there will be all-out revolutions. I’m just saying that what I’m proposing is first priority. </p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying we should all give up hope because humans aren’t perfect lol. I’m saying we can work toward a peaceful society. As to how we go about this; there’s no easy answer to that question, as it’s very complicated and I don’t know a lot of it, but I do know that it is first and foremost related to how we raise our children, from what I’ve read on the matter in psychology. </p>
<p>Here’s something you might find interesting on the matter:</p>
<p><a href=“- YouTube”>- YouTube;
<p>I would just recommend you the book straight up, but this is something you can listen to right now. It’s an interview with the author. The interviewer also talks about peaceful parenting in the podcast show he does called Freedomain Radio, along with many other topics, but that’s beside the point. </p>
<p>I’m not trying to attack you or anything here, but I’m genuinely curious, have you actually read anything of substance from authors like Hayek, Mises, Rothbard, etc? Genuine advocates of the free market and voluntarism. </p>
<p>@Ctesiphon </p>
<p>@Cloudchamber brought up, in our original post, that in order for something like your communism and his anarcho-syndicalism to be possible, the society must go through a prolonged mental change, where the meaning of society changes a bit for everyone. While I doubt the possibility of this ever happening, I do think that this would be the only possible way a no government/state society could ever arise. </p>
<p>Before I go on with my arguments, could you please explain the difference between anarcho-syndicalism and communism, in your view?</p>
<p>EDIT: Sorry, I just read your first comment which gave me a little definition. If I take it correctly, that anarcho-syndicalism has a government, whereas communism doesn’t, then I would like to point out to everyone that the original debate was actually a no government situation vs government. @WilliamSmithers </p>
<p>@TeamRocketGrunt just tagging you here. Hi!</p>
<p>@Ctesiphon I reread a bit of your longest post, so I’m just continuing another thought. </p>
<p>Like someone said above, if “A communist wants to overthrow the state and take charge of it, then since the state no longer serves any meaningful purpose, it will wither away,” then somewhere during that change, corruption will take hold. The very small possibility I see with this, is if a incorruptible leader came and established that communism, keeping control over his communist yet corruptible friends. </p>
<p>The other possibility, perhaps unlikelier than the idea above, is a slow sort of brainwashing of everyone. Just as monarchy moved to democracy, push for ideas that would move democracy to communism/anarchy. </p>
<p>@ThatOneWeirdGuy My slow brainwashing would be similar to your “how we raise our children.” </p>
<p>@ThatOneWeirdGuy</p>
<p>As far as raising our children, yes, we do play a hand there. I am actually very familiar with this subject from a neuroscience standpoint, with some light psych. From my background there, I would not be investing too much in that being the magic key to change the human condition. Especially if we are teaching them individualism. That is one of the main ideas that will cause problems in making a better society, and I would see that as immediately conflicting. I’ll be honest, a 45 minute video is a bit too much of an investment with no info on why I should want to read the book in the first place. I could go for a 5 minute range video/article if you have a good intro, or more reasons why I should consider the book. To me it just seems like an explanation of one link that is a tiny part of a resulting human mind. I don’t think that single thing is worth so much knowledge on, unless it goes into broader topics. So basically, give me a good summary of the book if you could :)</p>
<p>As far as the free market, I have not read any of those guys in particular, but I don’t feel they have much to say that would change my mind. First off, I’m not against the free market if it comes with smart regulations. Nothing interfering with supply/demand, that’s the solid underlying principle. I would want to regulate the tax system. I have a feeling we aren’t going to be in any sort of agreement there so let’s move on from there. Point being, I have plenty of reading and knowledge about how capitalism works. While I haven’t read the particular guys, I have extensively studied America as the main case, as well as our ideologies.</p>
<p>You are advocating libertarianism/voluntarism (i see now with your profile picture 
), but I think they have the same hit as communism: they don’t work well in practice. You want all human action to be voluntary, but that relies even more than capitalism on “good” people. People who would eliminate the need for intervention by essentially taxing themselves voluntarily. That’s not the world we live in either, and not happening anytime soon. The ideas of individualism promote the exact opposite of voluntarism, yet you advocate both. What’s the rationale there?</p>
<p>I like the idea behind your argument, but the argument you are supporting and the ideas you are using simply don’t match. All that said, if you are familiar with the origins and historical context of american capitalism, I don’t think either of us will be changing our minds on that one, so let’s try to be productive and focus where we are in agreement.</p>
<p>When it comes to raising better humans, one thing is not going to do it. With the recent discoveries in epigenetics, we now know humans are incredibly dynamic, and with so many input sources I am skeptical that parenting is the answer but rather the entire culture would be easier to address. From what I know, I would be inclined to believe ideas shape a human brain much more in the long run than simple childhood events. While events can be impactful, they are static while ideas are dynamic in each person’s head, especially at a young age.</p>
<p>I think the first step would be to stop emphasizing individualism and start teaching more about community. These days most people, myself included, have been raised to think of themselves first and any community effects as an afterthought. If we want to have a good society, we have to start teaching our youth that the community matters as much as them. We can’t exactly work behind a veil of ignorance if we are too tied up in ourselves. That’s the biggest problem I see in people today. Most if not all of our theoretically best societies rely on people being concerned with others, yet most students aren’t even exposed to the idea intellectually and if not until very late in their development.</p>
<p>@PengPhils I am actually on your side of the free market argument, but I would like to point out where @ThatOneWeirdGuy argument is actually wrong, and therefore your rebuttal doesn’t work. </p>
<p>One of the biggest reasons for free market is that because of our greed, the free market system works perfectly. I recently went to a seminar (Advocating for free market) where several demonstrations showed how personal greed pushes the free market system. Their argument simplified would be: because we all have our individual interests and needs, free trading with our peers can make us all happy. A central force such as the government cannot know all information, and therefore cannot make everyone’s choices for us, so the government should not interfere with the trading. For a free market system, trading should only be I give you something you want, and you give me something I want, on terms we both agree with. Demonstrations and statistics show that indeed, highest utility (or happiness) and highest profit margins are produced when there is a free market. </p>
<p>That was their side of the argument. Like I said, I’m on your side, against completely free market. My rebuttal is that in human greed, while we trade freely, we may also be affecting a third party and the Earth. For example, water supply requires pipes in the Earth. These are externalities. </p>
<p>In a free market system, individuals would be allowed to supply water to anyone who wishes it. Therefore, the could be more than one company with more than one pipe buried in the same area. This would ruin the Earth and other people who rely on it. Markets such as the water supply market require regulation and perhaps even government monopoly in order for the preservation of the Earth. Free market would not work. </p>
<p>That said, I am of the view that free market can and do work in some markets while government intervention is required in other areas.</p>
<p>@Woandering </p>
<p>Thanks for the addition! I agree with all of that, I just figured that greed was accepted these days as the main idea of capitalism and got into that contrast with the individualism and voluntarism a bit, but yeah, in agreement. Capitalism is driven by individualistic profit at the expense of others and by now most have realized that. When one gains, another loses. When one gains big, many lose. But I think our time is better spent trying to work in the areas where one of us will be changing our minds., like the second half of the post.</p>
<p>@PengsPhils I’m not talking about teaching kids individualism. I’m talking about teaching them the non-initiation of force and simply raising them peacefully and rationally. Community can be a great thing. We are communal animals. So long as it’s not violent and is voluntary. I’m also not talking about raising kids peacefully and rationally as a magical switch. While it will make a massive difference, like I’ve said before, that’s not everything. And yes, of course there are other influences on a child other than his/her family. It’s the entire culture and literally everything the child comes into contact with as well. It is a cultural problem. And the continuation of any culture lies within the children. I’m glad you’ve read about epigenetics. </p>
<p>The book is pretty self-explanitory on the title. You can google it. You can only watch the first 7 minutes of that video if you want. That’s enough. </p>
<p>I would recommend that you actually read and expose yourself to stuff outside of your circles and what you’ve been told and have already read. I’ve read the Communist Manifesto and am partially through Das Kapital. You can read stuff from those authors. Already deciding that they won’t change your mind raises my eyebrows and seems a little intellectually dishonest. Not trying to insult, just pointing that out and sharing my thoughts with you. </p>
<p>I also recommend the book Practical Anarchy by Stefan Molyneux. Very interesting and informative. As the title suggests, the author gives ideas about how a stateless society may be run. </p>
<p>@Woandering I am for the free market. Concerns like the environment can be addressed through voluntary means. If you are concerned with win-lose associations, look no further than the initiation of force. The state has a monopoly over the initiation of the use of violence. </p>
<p>I also recommend to you that book ^.^ </p>
<p>Btw, I wanna just say you guys are great. Most people on the left I talk to are extremely aggressive, use emotional arguments, and really just downright dicks. Cudos to you for defying that stereotype. You seem genuinely friendly and curious. </p>
<p>@ThatOneWeirdGuy When entrepreneurs are fighting over supplying water, I don’t see how volunteers for the environment are able to stop them. Could you explain how you think voluntary means are able to account for externalities?</p>
<p>I believe the state should have a monopoly over the initiation of the use of violence. If companies could physically start a war everyday, the country would be a mess, especially if the state has to clean it up. </p>
<p>I also thank and congratulate you on being civilized, too. I recently went to a libertarian seminar with people who couldn’t debate properly. Professors would ignore or provide vague answers such as: during a discussion of no government, a professor suggested in answer to my question that the private sector would find a way to create patents. And I really needn’t talk about the students. </p>