Why Communism Failed in under 5 minutes

[FreedomPhilosophy]

[NotDarkYet]

Sorry.  Imho that was painfully slow.

[Alan C.]

"Who will take out the trash?"

 

It's an allegorical question which socialists/communists can't answer.

 

Societies without private property invariably devolve into grinding poverty because of perverse inventives and lack of profitability.

[FreedomPhilosophy]

Sorry.  Imho that was painfully slow.

You could either turn up your player speed, or perhaps I could do a 1 minute or 10 second version?

[Josh Takacs]

I've never understood why they hate the idea of anarcho capitalism so much other then because it has the word capitalism in it. They should understand that they would be totally free to have communism as long as they leave others alone. 

[shirgall]

Um, my entire childhood was spent enduring the cold war. That was far longer than five minutes. :0

[Alan C.]

I've never understood why they hate the idea of anarcho capitalism so much other then because it has the word capitalism in it.

 

The objective of socialism/communism is to reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator. The appeal to fairness, egalitarianism, social justice, etc., gives them plausible deniability.

 

Envy - an emotion which occurs when a person lacks another's superior quality, achievement, or possession and either desires it or wishes that the other lacked it.

 

On Appeasing Envy by Henry Hazlitt

 

The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality by Ludwig von Mises

[NotDarkYet]

You could either turn up your player speed, or perhaps I could do a 1 minute or 10 second version?

 

 

Yes, double time was approx the right time vs info rate (for me).  The content was solid - just commenting on speed.

 

I think the best info-based youtube channels have super quick delivery:

 

See MinutePhysics:

 

 

See Vsauce:

 

 

See PBS Ideas:

 

 

 

 

They're infectious and are so crammed with momentum you wanna move on to the next video.  

 

 

If we're trying to grab an audience who are used to this kind of delivery, putting 3-5 seconds between sentences is going to turn them off.

 

I'm sorry if that comes off as offensive or rude.    Taking notes from others is hard (I know, I'm a musician!).  I'm trying to offer some positive notes to improve the next videos, for the sake of freedom!  

[FreedomPhilosophy]

 

I'm sorry if that comes off as offensive or rude.    Taking notes from others is hard (I know, I'm a musician!).  I'm trying to offer some positive notes to improve the next videos, for the sake of freedom!  

It's all good to know, thanks. I was aware the delivery was clumsy, but had spent more time than I had wanted to give on editing already.

[Libertus]

Communism failed because people like to own stuff. Oh, and because some people like to own other people. If you're not letting them do the first, you're actually doing the second.

[ParaSait]

So, do you mean you're explaining in 5 minutes why communism failed, or are you explaining why communism was only sustainable for 5 minutes?

[FreedomPhilosophy]

So, do you mean you're explaining in 5 minutes why communism failed, or are you explaining why communism was only sustainable for 5 minutes?

Haha, yes it was the former.

 

Communism would not last 5 minutes because nobody wants to do it or is agreeable how to do it, and then there are the inherent contradictions.

[LibertarianSocialist]

Communism has been proven to be quite a stable system in practice, and if not in the very long run, socialism surely is. Evidence can be seen of this in the Spanish Revolution, where several million practiced a range of anarchist systems from mutualism to syndicalism to full communism, and did so for three years until their violent defeat at the hands of Conservatives, Fascist forces and Bolshevism. During this period all evidence points to (often significant) increases in prosperity, well-being and liberty, all in the context of a brutal war against Franco.

 

My arguments being based on the definition of communism as a voluntary, stateless, classless, moneyless, gift economy arranged by the guiding principle of each according to his ability to each according to his need. And socialism as a system in which the means of production and distribution are owned socially, with producers given the full fruit of their labour under usufruct. As well as social ownership of all systems of power eg. political.

 

As to the idea that objectivity is necessary to coordinate a communist society is not true. All communists recognise the subjective nature of equality, value and social contribution, indeed our very philosophy is built around the impossibility of making such assessments objectively.

 

Labour cannot be organized without mass violence? Please elaborate.

 

Democracy is not failing, the reverse is true. Democracy can only exist in a society of reasonable equality, there can be no doubt that politics nowadays is dominated by the wealth elite, who have furthered their interests to the detriment of society. It is not Democracy that is failing but Capitalism. For elaboration on this last see the relevant parts of: studies in mutualist political economy.

 

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=LFBgVbHoB9Xt8AX_64LgCQ&url=http://www.mutualist.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/MPE.pdf&ved=0CB4QFjAA&usg=AFQjCNHOaCBFdO4ZMm4u3ey0_g5QclDKdA

[Libertus]

It is not Democracy that is failing but Capitalism.

 

Do you ever get tired of having the same argument over and over again? You're (of course) using the Marxist definition of Capitalism, and we get it. It refers to something very different from what Capitalists of the Anarchistic persuasion refer to. I'm not going to debate which one is the "correct" definition, just, that the two definitions are very different. It doesn't matter who uses the "right word" what matters is to define your terms to make clear what they refer to.

 

What Marx criticized was a system very similar to the ones in place today: crony capitalism, which is the system where influential people use the state to extort wealth from the general population by having it write laws that initiate and threaten violence against peaceful people if they happen to disagree. This is the crux of the matter and what crony capitalism, democratic socialism and all other forms of "democracy" have in common. What Anarcho-Capitalists are advocating is a stateless society. That means, there should be NO state apparatus which can be used in order to initiate violence. Neither by a majority nor by a majority of thieves and murderers. You must be new here.

[LibertarianSocialist]

I recognise crony capitalism as just another "flavour" of capitalism, as fascism, bolshevism and feudalism are all capitalist. My arguments about capitalism generally refer to market based capitalism of all types though, unless specified otherwise.

 

I am not a marxist although my economic critique of capitalism is heavily influenced by him. Furthermore, Marx's criticisms are relevant (at least in most) to all forms of market capitalism as they share a common core.

 

The original video posits that democracy is failing currently, ergo within the framework of crony capitalism. Simply stating an anarchic capitalist society would not have such flaws in no way answers the fact that he is ascribing the failure of society wrongly to democracy.

 

Democracy in no ways requires a state, and pure democracy is incompatible with it. We may be playing semantics here so I will not fault you for your statement, which was likely correct under your definition.

 

The state is an organisational body designed to enable the governance of a constituent body or area by a ruling elite through the use of coercive force.

 

Democracy is the egalitarian self-managment of individuals in a non-heirarchical manner, some may also use coercive force (mob rule).

 

Obviously you can have elements of the both at once as we do now.

 

Decentralized and voluntary democracy, as is advocated by anarchists as grass-roots community and worker self management, is completely stateless and minimally coercive.

 

When I say democracy is not failing (it is) it is not because of its own inherent flaws, it is due to pressure by the ruling classes to disassemble its last (pitiful and distorted) vestiges.

 

Lastly, given my definition of the state, what is the distinction of a state and a capitalist holding in ancapistan (apart from scale)? Surely the company town differs little from the tyrants village? Each represent a monopoly of coercive force over a given territory by nature of their perceived legitimacy. Each represent a hierarchical structure of top-down command, in each the citizens are as free (or unfree, depending on the law) to move to others should they reject the conditions of rule. Am I mistaken in this last or do men still have some vestiges of inalienable rights not superseded by the rights of property? If it is a question of perceived legitimacy, aren't we just making a nation of miniature (though justified) states?

 

What also of the role of warfare and oppression in competitive advantage? If warfare is as profitable (for the few, anyway, capitalism is not concerned with the interests of the many) as it has proven itself historically, would it not become necessary (or atleast desirable) to gain a competitive edge? Imperialism (or atleast violent class oppression) seems inevitable in any hierarchical society. What are the barriers to such action?

[Slavik]

I can do "why communism failed" in under 10 seconds.  "The initiation of the use of force"

[FreedomPhilosophy]

Communism has been proven to be quite a stable system in practice, and if not in the very long run, socialism surely is. Evidence can be seen of this in the Spanish Revolution, where several million practiced a range of anarchist systems from mutualism to syndicalism to full communism, and did so for three years until their violent defeat at the hands of Conservatives, Fascist forces and Bolshevism. During this period all evidence points to (often significant) increases in prosperity, well-being and liberty, all in the context of a brutal war against Franco.

 

My arguments being based on the definition of communism as a voluntary, stateless, classless, moneyless, gift economy arranged by the guiding principle of each according to his ability to each according to his need. And socialism as a system in which the means of production and distribution are owned socially, with producers given the full fruit of their labour under usufruct. As well as social ownership of all systems of power eg. political.

The Spanish revolution was essentially reactionary and consisted largely of workers continuing their former social roles. People behave differently and will collaborate more than they usually would against a backdrop of war and external threats, You simply cannot use this as an example of how communism would work otherwise.

 

There is no example of communism being created from the ground up absent of the social upheaval of war, other than the example I gave of New Harmony, which flopped. The *reasons for this failure* are highlighted in my program and you do not deal with them at all, instead you offer a distraction of a spurious counter-example.

Labour cannot be organized without mass violence? Please elaborate.

 

 

Labour can either be organized via the market dynamics that develop out of private ownership, or in the absence of property rights via state violence, i.e. "the dictatorship of the proletariat" (aka slavery).

[LibertarianSocialist]

The Spanish revolution was essentially reactionary and consisted largely of workers continuing their former social roles. People behave differently and will collaborate more than they usually would against a backdrop of war and external threats, You simply cannot use this as an example of how communism would work otherwise.

There is no example of communism being created from the ground up absent of the social upheaval of war, other than the example I gave of New Harmony, which flopped. The *reasons for this failure* are highlighted in my program and you do not deal with them at all, instead you offer a distraction of a spurious counter-example.

 

Labour can either be organized via the market dynamics that develop out of private ownership, or in the absence of property rights via state violence, i.e. "the dictatorship of the proletariat" (aka slavery).

The anarchist regions were certainly not a continuation of workers former social roles in the context of wartime pressures. The revolution entailed a complete social revolution, seeking nothing less than the complete abolition of capitalism, how is this reactionary?

 

If you read up about the spanish civil war (and WW2), you will see that the coercive war climate was one of the greater barriers to social revolution. It directly facilitated the rise of counter-revolutionary forces, including bolshevism and fascism, as false solutions to capitalist oppression (hence why they both used the terms socialism, communism and syndicalism so frequently, even in their names).

 

Do I know for certain communism would work on the level of a whole society for any reasonable duration? No I don't. It has yet to prove itself outside of the few years it survived. This is why communism can only be embraced voluntarily as a natural evolution of socialism, also you can't force a population to adopt and maintain a communist society, you can only remove the barriers to its embrace.

Exactly what aspects of anarchist communism were facilitated or made possible by the coercive war climate? Was it the voluntary nature? The dismantling of illegitimate and coercive power structures? The increase in aggregate liberty? The increases in productivity and prosperity? Perhaps the voluntary and decentralized democracy?

 

To all those examples of forced expropriation you will give, the anarchists justify this on the grounds that such possessions were attained illegitimately. Illegitimate power structures were also destroyed by force, but removing such structures is hardly "oppression". Social Revolution MANDATES force and conflict, the question is, is this legitimate? Rather than arguing that socialism is wrong because it involves violent coercion, argue that such use is illegitimate. Furthermore, wouldn't an ancap act similarly? The large number of independent producers living parallel to the collectivizations shows how accommodating it was.

 

I dismissed the New Harmony example as a strawman. It is only one example of a socialist community and equating its failure to the impossibility of socialism is akin to proving the impossibility of capitalism on the failure of any of the numerous company towns.

 

Furthermore, New Harmony was an example of authoritarian socialism, which I will never defend, as I find it unsustainable and undesirable. Owen ended up stifling the commune through his paternalism. He sought to model those individuals within his community under some ideal of character by means of authoritarian control, enacting strict codes of conduct and forcing everyone to live in one large building. Josiah Warren, an individualist anarchist who participated in the community, himself came to the conclusion that its failure was in large part due to restrictions on personal ownership and the individuality this allows -a stance that should be emphasised is in no way incompatible with libertarian forms of socialism or communism.

 

Lastly, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" was a state capitalist system, in fairness you do acknowledge this. This is entirely unrelated to the gift economy of real communism. In this is the free gifting of goods in a voluntary, autonomous fashion, unreliant on any state intervention, and using a non-monetary market of human need instead of a profit-driven monetary one. Furthermore, there exists many types of socialism which embrace profit-driven monetary market exchange, including mutualism and syndicalism.

[Alan C.]

I can do "why communism failed" in under 10 seconds.  "The initiation of the use of force"

 

Even if no force was involved, and the communistic society was entirely voluntary, it would still fail because of a lack of money and prices.

[AncapFTW]

I can do "why communism failed" in under 10 seconds.  "The initiation of the use of force"

Wouldn't that be "Why government fails in under 10 seconds?"

[Slavik]

Even if no force was involved, and the communistic society was entirely voluntary, it would still fail because of a lack of money and prices.

That is true, let me alter my statement a bit.  "The initiation of the use of force and absence of the medium of exchange".  I think this fell under 10 seconds

[LibertarianSocialist]

Even if no force was involved, and the communistic society was entirely voluntary, it would still fail because of a lack of money and prices.

Why is a monetary price a necessity of market exchange? Worth is a concept totally independent of price. Money is an object in its own, with its own worth. It simply functions as a standard, an aid to comparison by virtue of relative value. All objects have perceived worth outside their monetary value. Hence when buying a good you look at its price and then compare it, by vague estimate, to the true measure of price, labour input, and then evaluate your own subjective value. How otherwise would we know if we are getting played, or the deal of the century, based on money value alone?

 

There exists many flaws in the calculation of monetary cost, a perfect example being cost externalization. The externalization of costs (via things like carbon emmissions, environmental disaster, depressed wages, work health 4 safety violations, nearly all forms of cost cutting) result in a dollar value that is sometimes terrifically unrelated to the true cost (to society) of production. I know you guys are going to say "but that's corporatism!", evidence please, because it sounds like capitalism, and I can argue the inability of a propertarian society to address externalisation if you wish, elsewhere.

 

You also make the assumption demand can't exist outside a monetary based market system. As stated before money price is a thing independent of both true price (labour input) and subjective value. Profit based market demand can only meet demand where backed by coin, therefore it is quite possible to see ships dumping their cargo outside impoverished nations for lack of money-backed demand. Are we to assume they simply have no need?

The solution of communism is to use human need as the means of currency, unlimited to all, and so removing the schism between monetary and human demand.

[Thomasio]

The solution of communism is to use human need as the means of currency, unlimited to all, and so removing the schism between monetary and human demand.

 

You're missing the main flaw of communism.

If you want all demand met by supply, everybody would demand a property like Hugh Hefner has, but no one would be willing to produce the supplies necessary for that, let alone there isn't enough room in the world for 7 billion properties of that size.

 

In communism you have to see how much is produced and you can try to spread out supplies as even as possible, but you will always face the problem that no one is willing to work harder to improve things for everyone, unless that gives him a personal edge over everyone else, which leads to the corruption we see in all communist systems.

 

Communism without corruption might be a good system, yet I haven't seen any kind of idea of how to prevent corruption in communism.

[LibertarianSocialist]

You're missing the main flaw of communism.

If you want all demand met by supply, everybody would demand a property like Hugh Hefner has, but no one would be willing to produce the supplies necessary for that, let alone there isn't enough room in the world for 7 billion properties of that size.

 

In communism you have to see how much is produced and you can try to spread out supplies as even as possible, but you will always face the problem that no one is willing to work harder to improve things for everyone, unless that gives him a personal edge over everyone else, which leads to the corruption we see in all communist systems.

 

Communism without corruption might be a good system, yet I haven't seen any kind of idea of how to prevent corruption in communism.

Homo economicus, that creature of insatiable need, where else did he come but from the loin of that depraved beast, capitalism? For all his efforts, for all his slave toil, is he happy? Whose insatiable appetite comes not from within, but is rather thrust upon him by his fellows as he does upon them. If economic standing has shown its limit to the provision of well-being, why then accumulate any more? What matters the tycoon if he doubles the portfolio of possessions he will never see, riches he will never use? To this must be conceded that man's highest goal under capitalism is not the provision of need, but something else altogether.

Past (and often concurrently) the provision of basic necessity, man's driving force under capitalism becomes the ever upward seeking of status. Conspicuous consumption, leisure and domination become the driving force of man's existence. What then can come of this but the vast immolation of human labour to the gods of ego and idleness? Where the "gangster" foregoes his real needs for the gold chains which only serve to represent his slavery to the opinion of others, where the egoism of the CEO foregoes the needs of his workers so to buy a bigger yacht than his competitor, only to lay idle nine-tenths of the year.

It is this, and not the provision of any real need which serves as impetus for the preening farce that is capitalism.

 

What then of the man of leisure and exorbitance under communism? Surely he would be reduced to what he is, a man of glutton, idleness and selfish vice, his fortunes showing themselves for what they are, as theft of the toil of others, rather than of "personal initiative and capitalist virtue". He will be ridiculed, shunned and excluded, and soon enough no man would labour to help him, if they had not already institutionalised him as a predatory element.

Of the man not yet consumed by the beast of hierarchical egoism, what of him? What reason does he have to live then BUT to provide for his REAL needs? And in a system of post-scarcity, where goods are made solely for personal utility, and not as clandestine shackles to be worn by others, surely labour will become one of life's great pleasures, as will the altruistic production for others past his own immediate needs.

 

Of what corruption and of what communist societies do you speak? Perhaps you may wish to learn more of anarchic (is there any other?) communism, or at least give a more clear real world example. The anarchist faq, atleast in part, is a must read:

 

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI4.html#seci46

 

Theory of the leisure class discusses status-driven conspicuous consumption, leisure & domination as the driving force behind much of capitalism:

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_the_Leisure_Class

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Why is a monetary price a necessity of market exchange? Worth is a concept totally independent of price. Money is an object in its own, with its own worth. It simply functions as a standard, an aid to comparison by virtue of relative value. All objects have perceived worth outside their monetary value. Hence when buying a good you look at its price and then compare it, by vague estimate, to the true measure of price, labour input, and then evaluate your own subjective value. How otherwise would we know if we are getting played, or the deal of the century, based on money value alone?

 

There exists many flaws in the calculation of monetary cost, a perfect example being cost externalization. The externalization of costs (via things like carbon emmissions, environmental disaster, depressed wages, work health 4 safety violations, nearly all forms of cost cutting) result in a dollar value that is sometimes terrifically unrelated to the true cost (to society) of production. I know you guys are going to say "but that's corporatism!", evidence please, because it sounds like capitalism, and I can argue the inability of a propertarian society to address externalisation if you wish, elsewhere.

 

You also make the assumption demand can't exist outside a monetary based market system. As stated before money price is a thing independent of both true price (labour input) and subjective value. Profit based market demand can only meet demand where backed by coin, therefore it is quite possible to see ships dumping their cargo outside impoverished nations for lack of money-backed demand. Are we to assume they simply have no need?

The solution of communism is to use human need as the means of currency, unlimited to all, and so removing the schism between monetary and human demand.

The true measure of price is not labor input. The price is what someone is willing to pay for the good. This can be seen in every relatively free economic exchange. 

 Human need is subjective so how can it be a medium of exchange? It's impossible to agree on a standard of human need. 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

 The anarchist faq, atleast in part, is a must read:

 

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI4.html#seci46

 

 "In that system, distribution is according to need, not deed. Given this, it is a common objection that libertarian communism would lead to people wasting resources by taking more than they need."

 

"Needs" is a vague term. It's not philosophically precise and cannot be defined. Technically there are no needs, only wants, but using the general notion of needs (what is basically necessary for survival, health and relative happiness)  you cannot arrive at any valid conclusion that isn't just an opinion. So the idea that communism provides for people's needs is a pretense. It can only provide for what an individual communist thinks people need. 

 

 

 

But, some argue, what if an individual says they "need" a luxury house or a personal yacht? Simply put, workers may not "need" to produce it. As Tom Brown put it, "such things are the product of social labour . . . Under syndicalism . . . it is improbable that any greedy, selfish person would be able to kid a shipyard full of workers to build him a ship all for his own hoggish self. There would be steam luxury yachts, but they would be enjoyed in common."

 

People would also have to share responsibility for the yachts in common.  That would include maintenance, liability, etc.  So either you limit the yachts to those who are willing to take their share of responsibility or you make everyone responsible for them whether they use them or not. The first gets rid of common usage and the second makes those who do not use the yachts (maybe they think we don't NEED yachts) slaves to those who do. As this principle would be the same throughout a communist economy then you will get the same slavery throughout it. People who "need" less will be slaves to those who "need" more. So a humble man who wants to live simply "without yachts, etc) with just the basics will still have to provide his time and labor. THAT's a waste of resources. 

 

 

 

Theory of the leisure class discusses status-driven conspicuous consumption, leisure & domination as the driving force behind much of capitalism: http://en.m.wikipedi...e_Leisure_Class

 

The Anti-capitalistic mentality discusses why intellectuals tend to hate capitalism. 

 

https://mises.org/library/anti-capitalistic-mentality

[LibertarianSocialist]

The true measure of price is not labor input. The price is what someone is willing to pay for the good. This can be seen in every relatively free economic exchange. 

 Human need is subjective so how can it be a medium of exchange? It's impossible to agree on a standard of human need.

 

  

 

Sorry, what I meant by price was rather worth. Labour+pre-existing inputs equals theoretical worth -not that I think this is in anyway calculable. Need can be conceptualized as an imaginary currency where anyone is free to simply decide to have as much as they wish, obviously such a subjective and limitless currency cannot perform those functions of money as today ie. a store of wealth.

 

"Needs" is a vague term. It's not philosophically precise and cannot be defined. Technically there are no needs, only wants, but using the general notion of needs (what is basically necessary for survival, health and relative happiness)  you cannot arrive at any valid conclusion that isn't just an opinion. So the idea that communism provides for people's needs is a pretense. It can only provide for what an individual communist thinks people need. 

 

People would also have to share responsibility for the yachts in common.  That would include maintenance, liability, etc.  So either you limit the yachts to those who are willing to take their share of responsibility or you make everyone responsible for them whether they use them or not. The first gets rid of common usage and the second makes those who do not use the yachts (maybe they think we don't NEED yachts) slaves to those who do. As this principle would be the same throughout a communist economy then you will get the same slavery throughout it. People who "need" less will be slaves to those who "need" more. So a humble man who wants to live simply "without yachts, etc) with just the basics will still have to provide his time and labor. THAT's a waste of resources. 

 

The Anti-capitalistic mentality discusses why intellectuals tend to hate capitalism. 

 

https://mises.org/library/anti-capitalistic-mentality

The point of distribution according to need is that it is opinion based. Communists argue the futility of an objective standard of need or contribution. Keep in mind communism is voluntary, their is no one forcing individuals to accept a communist system, they have the right to refuse to surrender the fruits of their labour. Needs are not decided by "an individual communist" for others, nor even a central committee, needs are decided directly by the individual themselves.

 

Didn't the article discuss why supporting individuals who wanted yachts was voluntary? There is no obligation to support such people.

 

I read part of the anti-capitalistic mentality. Reads like a fairy tale. There is a very good reason Austrian economics isn't used outside of the realm of capitalist apologetics, justification and propaganda. It isn't used because it doesn't reflect actually existing capitalism. It is meant to be a fairy-tale, a fake story to justify a horrible system. Why else would It be almost entirely axiom-led, rather than say, empirically. If you want to know why I hate capitalism read: Chapter Eight - Crisis Tendencies in Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, or just examine any period of recorded history.

 

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=eDhyVbg5obSbBZyIgJAP&url=http://www.mutualist.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/MPE.pdf&ved=0CB4QFjAA&usg=AFQjCNHOaCBFdO4ZMm4u3ey0_g5QclDKdA

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

  

 

Keep in mind communism is voluntary. . .

It is? Okay, then we have no real problem. We an-caps (with our fairy tales, etc) can go our way and you go yours. Agreed? 

[Libertus]

Communism is voluntary? So what happens if a group of people decides to accumulate capital, trade labor for wages and defend their private property including means of production from intruders (absentee ownership)?

 

You mean, communism is voluntary - for communists.

[shirgall]

To me, "voluntary" would mean that only people that voted for taxes would pay them. Only people that voted for conscription would be subject to it. Only people that use services would pay for them. People would be free to make what they want and sell to whomever they want for whatever price they want. Does voluntary communism look like this?

[LibertarianSocialist]

As stated in a previous post (perhaps not here, I apologize if so), communism is voluntary, socialism is not. Communism is not mandatory whereas some for of socialism is. Both socialism and capitalism are involuntary and exclusive ideologies, though capitalism has no justification. Private property is an exclusive concept, one which socialists feel is invalid on the grounds that latter generations cannot consent (eg. Lockean proviso). This proviso essentially invalidates anything but an equal distribution of wealth, for example possession (usufruct) based property. Socialism is justified on the ground that people should not be bound to rules and decisions taken before their ability to consent, and that coercion invalidates consent (ie. artificial scarcity from property monopoly). Or in the least those laws are invalid if they would have been better off without them. This leads to one conclusion, any accumulation of wealth not directly created by the individual concerned (social and natural wealth) ought to be enjoyed equally by all.

Libertarian socialism is not forced collectivism, it is the belief that all men are born equal and have the inalienable right to a life of equal opportunity, not dictated by the decisions of past generations, and of access to the earth's natural resources, whom no one can rightfully own.

 

It is only where individuals use the accumulation of wealth as a weapon (as they will in an unequal society) that socialists object. Joining a game of monopoly near the end is no fun, I assure you, and hardly fair for the player coming late.

To me, "voluntary" would mean that only people that voted for taxes would pay them. Only people that voted for conscription would be subject to it. Only people that use services would pay for them. People would be free to make what they want and sell to whomever they want for whatever price they want. Does voluntary communism look like this?

Left-wing market anarchism looks like this. Communism would likely be a voluntary evolution of this, In which individuals may regress at any time.

 

Y'all should watch some of Kevin Carson's interviews on youtube. Maybe you wouldn't hate socialism so much.

 

[shirgall]

If there is still voluntarism but no private property, when the collective decides my house is better for the commissar I just give it up willingly then? No socialist or communist system ever overcomes conditions of local scarcity, and therefore a system of property is necessary. I guess we've never seen a communist state then, only Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist, etc. It's a much of a unicorn as the libertarian state.

[LibertarianSocialist]

If there is still voluntarism but no private property, when the collective decides my house is better for the commissar I just give it up willingly then? No socialist or communist system ever overcomes conditions of local scarcity, and therefore a system of property is necessary. I guess we've never seen a communist state then, only Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist, etc. It's a much of a unicorn as the libertarian state.

Commissar?

 

Depends on the situation. Property is controlled by those it effects. Your house will come under occupancy and use, and is solely managed by you as it does not involve or harm others.

 

Private property creates artificial scarcity. Look at the enclosures. One can hardly claim the land was consolidated on the ground that the peasantry would have enacted a nation-wide tragedy of the commons. The enclosures were an attempt at primitive accumulation, with the direct intent of creating artificial scarcity. Such private property enabled artificial scarcity is a mandatory precursor to surplus labour extraction under capitalism.

 

State communism (and socialism) is an oxymoron. You have only seen Leninism et al. because they are state capitalist. We do however have examples, as stated in previous posts, of communist communities such as found in the Spanish Revolution of 1936.

[shirgall]

Depends on the situation. Property is controlled by those it effects. Your house will come under occupancy and use, and is solely managed by you as it does not involve or harm others.

 

And the minute my neighbors have a few square feet of open space I can store my toolbox there. Or my children. Or dogs. "Sorry, I'm using that space now, it's not yours anymore."

 

Mere locality creates local scarcity. You literally can't have everything close at hand, ever. The only examples of communism I have ever seen are communist states. It's ironic that everyone says there's never been a libertarian state so it can't work, and people are saying there's only been communist states, so we've not been able to see it worth either. 

[LibertarianSocialist]

And the minute my neighbors have a few square feet of open space I can store my toolbox there. Or my children. Or dogs. "Sorry, I'm using that space now, it's not yours anymore."

 

Mere locality creates local scarcity. You literally can't have everything close at hand, ever. The only examples of communism I have ever seen are communist states. It's ironic that everyone says there's never been a libertarian state so it can't work, and people are saying there's only been communist states, so we've not been able to see it worth either.

 

This is not how occupancy and use works or did work in the real world, I don't feel like elaborating, plenty of information elsewhere.

 

So what is local scarcity and how is it addressed by private property in a way personal property cannot? Is it that the productive cash crops of the much esteemed entrepreneur must be defended from the rapaciousness of the starving masses? This is not a picture of the theft of scarce resources, it is a picture of systematic deprivation, of artificial scarcity.

 

Again, we have examples of real communism, which despite the context of their birth, proved to be highly successful and stable systems, look at the Spanish Revolution of 1936.

 

Those "communist states" were state capitalist, just ask Makhno.