Discussion about cummunism and other forms of collectivism.

The shoutbox is getting a little crowded, so I decided to start a new thread. Let me know If I should change the name of this thread.
My response with a quotation of illusion_paw words. We started an offtopic about Spanish civil war :)


lol? Do you even know about the relations between communists and anarchists in the civil war? Communists were against anarchists because they opposed the totalitarian regime they were trying to implant
But they were on the same side during the civili war and took part in creating the terror, so don't tell me what they planned to do after the war...

I don't see any reason why the concept of your belongings should exist while there is hunger or poverty and indecent standards of living. I believe human rights are more important than ownership rights
Most of the examples of "indecent standards of living" etc are those created by the people who don't want to work. Where're human rights there? "those who earn the money must share, because I and my familly are lazzy to work" brilliant.... PS Of course we're not talking about war already?

it was to fight against fascists, which if you know any history it all you know would be pretty bad if they won(they did and it was bad).
LOL It would be much worse If commies would win.
You know that statement "enemy of my enemy is my friend"? If anarchist were figting with conservatives and not fighting (military) with commies, they were on the same side, that what i was about :P

1. Most examples of indecent standards of living are actually in Africa, Asia and South America. Are you saying they don't want to work?
Man, heh I was talking about more civilized countries ;p Africa is totally different story. It's a place of rules of crazy dictators/"lords of war" or anarchy, constant fights and full of shit overally.
Btw Do U think that western countries should look after Africa all the time?
PS I think we should help'em some way :P

Anarcho-collectivist economy requires all individuals who are able to work to do so, in order to benefit from society. Basically this is a pool everything in and each takes what he needs. It's not "free stuff".yeah, forcing everyone to work. Actually forcing everyone to work how and where the authorities will tell them.
Also sooner or later this authorities will be above the law and will creat terror. Cause collectivism always creates new "owners class" - instead of factory owners we got government bureaucrats, whose can't be controled. Your "liberal communism" is really naive utopia. You got example of collectivist economy in eastern Europe. HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU STILL BELIVE IN IT U really must be fucking crazy, sry for offending u but what u're writing is ridiculous.
Btw it's funny cause, as far as I know economy on Thomas More's Utopia was actually collectivism. :)

CAPITALISM is working always and everywhere precisely because of the coordinating effect of market process. The prerequisite is that FORCE be BANNED from the relations of market participants, and private property be established (that is, not inhibited by force). Then voluntary exchange and dispersed knowledge synchronization takes place and all participants engaged in exchange benefit.
Without private property, there can be no market - no exchange. Prices cannot arise, so dispersed knowledge synchronization is impossible. CHAOS ENSUES. That's why no socialist economy can ever work, regardless of its political format - whether it's a centrally planned state socialism, or anarcho-collectivism - where property is eliminated by some tribal gathering or what have you, and the participants magically try to work without price mechanism. It's futile, that's why in former Yugoslavia, where worker co-ops were very much encouraged, the market had to be reintroduced anyway to help coordinate production planning, not to mention exchange for consumer goods. In other former Soviet bloc countries, where there was no market and all production was centrally planned, it was total chaos and shortage after shortage.

So, any anarcho-collectivist system is a tyranny within, luckily its proponents do not force people into communes. Yet.

WRONG. Capitalism has not worked and does not work because it doesn't exist.

that's true. But the praxeological concept of free exchange and market coordination is apodictically true for all instances. If you learned Austrian economics, you would know that.

Theoretically capitalism requires freedom of transportation, where buyers and sellers can go to locations where they have better opportunities

Capitalism requires only one thing - FREEDOM FROM COERCION against person and PROPERTY.
Every other "requirement" is a 'nirvana fallacy', that is, an utopian concept put forward by neurotic anticapitalists who completely do not understand that in real world there is scarcity and wealth must be produced by independent actions of enterpreneurs. So you come up with these idiotic "requirements" and then state that we need government initation of force to make them appear.

Look at the general market and it's relations in contemporary conflicts. There is freedom of location for big companies to move to countries where they can exploit labour at low prices, yet those workers can't freely move to places where they can sell there work at better prices.

that's because we don't have capitalism just as you said earlier. We live in a complete statism, where government bureaucracy clamps down on market processes and enterpreneurial activity, with exception to big companies who can afford to bribe the bureaucrats and politicians for some corporate welfare.
The solution is to ELIMINATE GOVERNMENT, not market.

There is a great theoretical work of Hans Herman Hoppe on the rise of imperialism, where he analyzes and vivisects the processes which make the birth of an empire possible - and these are precisely the statist tendencies and welfare-warfare policy, which make it possible.

The conditions of genuine capitalism are inexistent, thus capitalism is itself inexistent.

capitalism is non-existent, because majority of people believe in statism, idolize the government and think that wealth can be created by a politician. Majority also despises profits and egoism - the driving force behind any economic progress. Majority prefers to be led, is irresponsible and wants to have a free lunch. There isn't such thing as a free lunch.
Everything you need to know about capitalism has been written by Ayn Rand and associates in "Capitalism: An Unknown Ideal" and by Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard, especially in "For A New Liberty".

It's useless to doubt that communist economies theoretically have some aspects that are better than capitalist economies, and vice-versa. Anarcho-collectivism(not the same as anarcho-communism) involves elements of both. Think about it in this way... "welfare state" without the state and the most honest non-manipualted sense of the term "welfare". It allows the market to benefit but not harm people or render them without basic goods necessary for survival.

as I wrote before - anarcho-collectivism is impossible if it destroys the market price mechanism. If it doesn't - then it can only exist in a FREE-MARKET environment anyway, where force is banned and private property is enforced without exceptions. Then anarcho-collectivist communes would be voluntary associations, and would be left to themselves.
But, as anyone who had to do with co-ops in post-communist country like Poland knows, without market price mechanism and definite property titles, exchange is inhibited and economic activity falters. That's why co-ops are less efficient in serving their fellow men than typical market firms.

illusion_paw said:

Communes as in small civilization. This actually isn't a club.
Also, do you think it would be possible for an economy to work if everyone, in order to benefit from the economy must work(instead of allowing people to accumulate large sums of goods by manipulating them rather than earning them, anyone who doesn't work wouldn't be allowed to die, but would definitely have a low standard of living), and the collective economy of the general labour would be divided into giving all workers their minimum welfare standard of living(house, running water, food, electricity, etc... As well as public services such as transportation) but at the same time workers who worked more, get more of the collective wealth that wasn't used in assuring a general welfare? There can be a market parallel to this, but no one can use the market to sell something that would necessarily be bought(as in doing business with basic necessities, where people would have no choice at all but to participate in the market), this market being only for wants, and not necessarily needs? All this being done in the absence of any oligarchy.

This doesn't sound realistic. Not all people who don't work are lazy but genuinely disabled. Should they be screwed over because they cannot work? As far as necessity what do mean by giving everyone food and house? The bare minimum or are you giving everyone the best? If you mean bare minimum then why would anyone want to be part of that kind of society? Most people in the western world are accustomed to a certain lifestyle and would want nothing to do with a lower standard of living.

jesus owned

Collectivism and individualism are irrelevant terms since the collective is comprised of individuals and all individuals are part of a society (or a collective). This is why the anarcho-syndicalist society that illusion_paw described isn't actually that different to the anarcho-capitalist one aryo described.

The differences are just quasi-interlectual semantics games nothing more.