Communism implementation treaty contradiction

[Des]

Is this contradiction going to emerge from every possible implementation of communism?

 

My description of the contradiction is set out below, as applicable to the Soviet Union, but is there any escape from this contradiction?

 

The soviet man has, and can therefore delegate to his elected representatives, the authority to make treaty with neighbours, thereby defining the borders of the Soviet Union.

 

The soviet man does not have, and therefore may not delegate to an attorney, the authority to make treaty with neighbours, thereby defining the border of his front lawn.

[labmath2]

Is this contradiction going to emerge from every possible implementation of communism?

 

My description of the contradiction is set out below, as applicable to the Soviet Union, but is there any escape from this contradiction?

 

The soviet man has, and can therefore delegate to his elected representatives, the authority to make treaty with neighbours, thereby defining the borders of the Soviet Union.

 

The soviet man does not have, and therefore may not delegate to an attorney, the authority to make treaty with neighbours, thereby defining the border of his front lawn.

 

Why couldn't the soviet man have an attorney to make treaties with his neighbor defining the border of his front lawn?

 

If i can convince all my neighbors that i own a piece of land (either directly or with the help of attorney), would i not own the piece of land?

[Libertus]

No, because in Communism you don't actually own anything.

[Des]

No, because in Communism you don't actually own anything.

The people of East Berlin did not own the land on their side of the wall?

Why couldn't the soviet man have an attorney to make treaties with his neighbor defining the border of his front lawn?

 

If i can convince all my neighbors that i own a piece of land (either directly or with the help of attorney), would i not own the piece of land?

My point is about the contradiction. Communism as implemented, asserted the right to make (national) borders (and say "this is ours"). However, if a smaller group like a family, made a border and said : "this is ours", then by communist theory of property, they were incorrect and it is not theirs.

 

Please understand that I have not done detailed study of either Soviet history or communist theory, am looking for someone knowledgeable in one or the other (or both), to clarify whether or not this contradiction exists.

 

Unless I am corrected, then there is a contradiction between the communist theory of property, and all possible implementations thereof within the universe, and therefore the communist theory of property is inferior to any theory of property which can be applied in a non-contradictory implementation.

[labmath2]

The people of East Berlin did not own the land on their side of the wall?

 

My point is about the contradiction. Communism as implemented, asserted the right to make (national) borders (and say "this is ours"). However, if a smaller group like a family, made a border and said : "this is ours", then by communist theory of property, they were incorrect and it is not theirs.

 

Please understand that I have not done detailed study of either Soviet history or communist theory, am looking for someone knowledgeable in one or the other (or both), to clarify whether or not this contradiction exists.

 

Unless I am corrected, then there is a contradiction between the communist theory of property, and all possible implementations thereof within the universe, and therefore the communist theory of property is inferior to any theory of property which can be applied in a non-contradictory implementation.

I have not done any research, but if memory serves members of the communist party owned property.

 

The communist theory of property is not that personal property does not exist. They just have a lot more property that belongs to the "collective." The party determines which is private and which is public.

[EclecticIdealist]

The people of East Berlin did not own the land on their side of the wall?

No, they did not as far as their government was concerned. All property belonged to the State and the individual members of the state were simply permitted to use specific land for their residence, etc.

 

My point is about the contradiction. Communism as implemented, asserted the right to make (national) borders (and say "this is ours"). However, if a smaller group like a family, made a border and said : "this is ours", then by communist theory of property, they were incorrect and it is not theirs.

 

Unless I am corrected, then there is a contradiction between the communist theory of property, and all possible implementations thereof within the universe, and therefore the communist theory of property is inferior to any theory of property which can be applied in a non-contradictory implementation.

What you are recognizing is the Communist assertion that property may not be owned individually, that for an individual to assert exclusive ownership of property is selfish and therefore, immoral. You will find that such a premise can be universalized in the sense that one can assert that no individual or group within the whole of society can morally exclusively own property, In other words, the idea is that all property belongs to everyone collectively, and to no individual or group individually. Individuals are permitted to exclusively use property by the state, but such permission may be revoked at any time for virtually any reason, and the permission to use the property given to another. Naturally, the state wishes to reward "loyal behavior" and so rewards the party members, especially the leadership with permission to exclusively use things, especially nicer things and more things, than those who are not party members, etc.

[labmath2]

No, they did not as far as their government was concerned. All property belonged to the State and the individual members of the state were simply permitted to use specific land for their residence, etc.

 

What you are recognizing is the Communist assertion that property may not be owned individually, that for an individual to assert exclusive ownership of property is selfish and therefore, immoral. You will find that such a premise can be universalized in the sense that one can assert that no individual or group within the whole of society can morally exclusively own property, In other words, the idea is that all property belongs to everyone collectively, and to no individual or group individually. Individuals are permitted to exclusively use property by the state, but such permission may be revoked at any time for virtually any reason, and the permission to use the property given to another. Naturally, the state wishes to reward "loyal behavior" and so rewards the party members, especially the leadership with permission to exclusively use things, especially nicer things and more things, than those who are not party members, etc.

I think your explanation is closer o the reality.

[Libertus]

The people of East Berlin did not own the land on their side of the wall?

 

Not really, no. The "people" regulated the shit out of it, as if they owned the land and the tenants were merely allowed limited usage.

[Des]

I have not done any research, but if memory serves members of the communist party owned property.

 

The communist theory of property is not that personal property does not exist. They just have a lot more property that belongs to the "collective." The party determines which is private and which is public.

Okay, so if a collective can make a treaty to define borders and then that collective is the owner of that property, what if the collective is a man and his wife, and they make a treaty with their neighbours, same as the East German collective was doing with their neighbours - what then?

[Des]

Not really, no. The "people" regulated the shit out of it, as if they owned the land and the tenants were merely allowed limited usage.

What is the communist assertion wrt the validity of the institution of "making a treaty" (as distinct from, but related to the institution of "private ownership of property").

No, they did not as far as their government was concerned. All property belonged to the State and the individual members of the state were simply permitted to use specific land for their residence, etc.

 

What you are recognizing is the Communist assertion that property may not be owned individually, that for an individual to assert exclusive ownership of property is selfish and therefore, immoral. You will find that such a premise can be universalized in the sense that one can assert that no individual or group within the whole of society can morally exclusively own property, In other words, the idea is that all property belongs to everyone collectively, and to no individual or group individually. Individuals are permitted to exclusively use property by the state, but such permission may be revoked at any time for virtually any reason, and the permission to use the property given to another. Naturally, the state wishes to reward "loyal behavior" and so rewards the party members, especially the leadership with permission to exclusively use things, especially nicer things and more things, than those who are not party members, etc.

The questions are: Was it valid, per communist theory, for the collective of people of East Germany, to make treaty with the collective of people of West Germany, in which each agreed to limit use of the other's territory? e.g. the collective of West Germany will not tax the people of East Germany, or drive their tanks over East Germany?

 

Is it valid per communist theory, for the collective of Johan and Gertha Friedrichs, to make treaty with the collective of Berthus and Magda Jakobs next door, in which each agrees to limit their use of the other's farm? e.g. the Jakobs collective will not harvest from the farm of the Friedrichs collective?

[EclecticIdealist]

What is the communist assertion wrt the validity of the institution of "making a treaty" (as distinct from, but related to the institution of "private ownership of property").

The questions are: Was it valid, per communist theory, for the collective of people of East Germany, to make treaty with the collective of people of West Germany, in which each agreed to limit use of the other's territory? e.g. the collective of West Germany will not tax the people of East Germany, or drive their tanks over East Germany?

 

Is it valid per communist theory, for the collective of Johan and Gertha Friedrichs, to make treaty with the collective of Berthus and Magda Jakobs next door, in which each agrees to limit their use of the other's farm? e.g. the Jakobs collective will not harvest from the farm of the Friedrichs collective?

No, there are no individual, autonomous or semi-autonomous collectives within a greater state collective. Only once one gets to the state level does one have semi-autonomous collectives which may or may not be part of a greater Nation of state collectives (Such as the former USSR, or the PRC).

[Des]

No, there are no individual, autonomous or semi-autonomous collectives within a greater state collective. Only once one gets to the state level does one have semi-autonomous collectives which may or may not be part of a greater Nation of state collectives (Such as the former USSR, or the PRC).

If it is morally (by communist ethics) acceptable for the collective of East Germany to make a treaty with the collective of Poland, defining a border, and each limiting their use of the territory beyond such border, why is it not as acceptable for the East German provinces of Sachsen and Sachsen-Anhalt to make treaty with each other in like fashion, and so on down to the collectives of nuclear families? What principle distinguishes between the one collective and the other?

[EclecticIdealist]

If it is morally (by communist ethics) acceptable for the collective of East Germany to make a treaty with the collective of Poland, defining a border, and each limiting their use of the territory beyond such border, why is it not as acceptable for the East German provinces of Sachsen and Sachsen-Anhalt to make treaty with each other in like fashion, and so on down to the collectives of nuclear families? What principle distinguishes between the one collective and the other?

Because smaller collectives don't have the authority or permission to do so.  Don't make the mistake of attempting to universalize Communist ethics or morals in the same way that you might universalize libertarian ethics. Communist ethics are inherently about subjugation of individuals and groups to the will of the collective as decided by the leaders of the collective; not as decided by the individual members or sub-groups.

[Des]

Because smaller collectives don't have the authority or permission to do so.  Don't make the mistake of attempting to universalize Communist ethics or morals in the same way that you might universalize libertarian ethics. Communist ethics are inherently about subjugation of individuals and groups to the will of the collective as decided by the leaders of the collective; not as decided by the individual members or sub-groups.

Sure, it can be unmasked as such, I will wait and see if a communist idealogue happens across this topic and gives a different answer. The answer you give here, would imply we should wait for other intelligent life in the universe to come tell us if we are authorised to have a semi-autonomous collective of earthlings, or not. We ought not to overstep the authority assigned by the collective of the milky way.

[EclecticIdealist]

The answer you give here, would imply we should wait for other intelligent life in the universe to come tell us if we are authorised to have a semi-autonomous collective of earthlings, or not. We ought not to overstep the authority assigned by the collective of the milky way.

Again, this presupposes that communism is practiced by our alien neighbors in the Galaxy, and that they would not simply regard human beings as an inconvenient infestation on one of "their worlds" and simply eradicate us as we might eradicate a colony of ants, termites, or other insects inhabiting "our living space". If the borg did decide that "[our] biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to [their] own." we would doubtless have very little choice in the matter. just as in this world, when it comes to oppressive, totalitarian regimes, Individual "Resistance is (usually) futile."

[labmath2]

Sure, it can be unmasked as such, I will wait and see if a communist idealogue happens across this topic and gives a different answer. The answer you give here, would imply we should wait for other intelligent life in the universe to come tell us if we are authorised to have a semi-autonomous collective of earthlings, or not. We ought not to overstep the authority assigned by the collective of the milky way.

What makes any collective valid? Simple, what makes any institution valid? An institution becomes valid by getting people to recognize that it is valid. Barack Obama become president of the united states by getting enough people to recognize that he is president of the US. The NFL is the official institution of American footbal because everyone accepts that they are.

[Libertus]

Sure, it can be unmasked as such, I will wait and see if a communist idealogue happens across this topic and gives a different answer.

 

I can guarantee you that no communist touches your argument with a 10 foot pole. They switch to being consequentialists, once you question their morality.

[Des]

What makes any collective valid? Simple, what makes any institution valid? An institution becomes valid by getting people to recognize that it is valid. Barack Obama become president of the united states by getting enough people to recognize that he is president of the US. The NFL is the official institution of American footbal because everyone accepts that they are.

[using institution(1) for association meaning of the word, and institution(2) for an established concept]:

There is an institution(2) that people may and do associate and call themselves a club or a nation.

There is an institution(2) of democratic social order.

There is an institution(2) of moral rules which do not discriminate on extraneous facts.

It is inconsistent to accept both the institution(2) of democratic social order and the institution(2) of moral rules which do not discriminate on extraneous facts.

I'd modify your statement to say that the presidency is recognised and accepted, and the moral rules also recognised and accepted, but, given the inconsistency, only one can be valid. Either the institution(1) of the US, based on the institution(2) of democratic social order, or the institution(2) of moral rules which do not discriminate on extraneous facts, is invalid.

 

"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."

"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

 

(a witty way in which a mathematician once pointed out that the impossibility does not prevent acceptance of both propositions, by people inclined to accept the impossible).