Communism

[Mister D]

I would say individual liberty is, for communists, found in the collective. Which seems very contradictory.

I tend to agree, however, I want to be clear on the terms. I've come to believe that liberty and rights are found in community. I think there is a difference between holism (i.e. a historic, organic community) and a collective which is simply an aggregate of individuals. The contradiction stems from the fact that communists share with liberals an individualist anthropology and conceive of liberty and rights as individual in nature.

[Chris]

I tend to agree, however, I want to be clear on the terms. I've come to believe that liberty and rights are found in community. I think there is a difference between holism (i.e. a historic, organic community) and a collective which is simply an aggregate of individuals. The contradiction stems from the fact that communists share with liberals an individualist anthropology and conceive of liberty and rights as individual in nature.

Yes, as I posted elsewhere: "There are two types of collectivists, vertical and horizontal. One emphasises society, and the social order or it's structures--family, community, market, religion, etc--over the individual. The other seeks to level all that to where the collective (somehow, democratic central planning?) makes all decisions."

[kilgram]

Communism keeps coming up lately. There's commie Pope and commie Obama. There's commie kilgram, but he's not a Marxist communist.

So what is communism. Are there different kinds, I mean, authoritarian vs libertarian communism? How does communism solve problems, how does it decide to allocate resources in the productions of goods and services? How does it solve the free rider problem, the tragedy of the commons. Let's try and have a discussion on it. And, please, let's not talk about what it's not. Let's talk about what it is.

Obama is not communist. The pope is neither communist. Starting from here.

I am anarchist. To simplify things, I said I was communist (that is partially true). It is much more complex, and I am lazy to explain it. When I've explained it many times.

Marxism is the ideology that pretends to get the stateless (communism) through the socialist state (called the proletarian dictatorship).

Anarchism is the ideology that want to finish with the authoritarism. And the authoritarism is found basically in the vertical structures like state and others like capitalism and religion. Later, the social anarchism has the goals to abolish the state, religion and capitalism. It can be done in many forms. Forms that will depend of the society itself and how they organize themselves, for something it is anarchism. The ultimately form and organization of the society will only depend of the society itself, in the form of the individuals decide.

It is, normally in an anarchist society, the organization will be very nuclear, in small federations. And only, those federations will act where it affect to them, to organize better the society in a horizontal way. It is, every person have the same authority, there is nobody over them that is able to take decisions for them, as it happens in every authoritarian structure, from the Marxist ideology to the any form of capitalism or any other statist form that we can guess, for example a monarchy, a teochracy and also it is found in every organized religion where there are leaders that have absolute power.

Anarchism, is the ultimate form where people will be absolutely free. Also, there are organizations like the ones based in free gift, where people exchange voluntarily and freely their things, that they've produced or not. It means, that every person has control of its production, and moreover all the means of production are freely accessible by anybody, only limited to their abilities. Thing that does not happen in any other system (authoritarian systems).

It is where people will be free.

[kilgram]

Communism is a very broad term that encompasses lots of different types of people: Marxists obviously, but also many (if not most) anarchists and many futurists (like yours truly) as well.

I don't know much about the various schools of anarchist communism, admittedly. The only big-name anarchist communists I'm familiar with the material of include Alexander Berkman and Noam Chomsky. I think the relatively popular '90s rap-rock band Rage Against the Machine was also in the general anarcho-communist train of thought kinda sorta, though none too intellectually particular about it.

As an ex-Marxist, I'm intimately familiar with many varieties of Marxism, though it can be observed that the schools of Marxism all fall into one of four broad super-schools, which include, in order of invention, orthodox Marxism, Leninist Marxism, critical theory, and analytical Marxism. Most Marxists are very socially liberal, to answer one question from the OP. The exceptions to that rule most often come out of the orthodox and Leninist traditions, though there are many hardcore liberals among their ranks as well.

There are also futurist communists (like me). The most prominent futurist communist organization out there is Peter Joseph's Zeitgeist Movement, which has something like 500,000 members worldwide. As for me, I kind of fuse some elements of Marxist theories on historical progress in with Peter Joseph's thinking on mechanization having the potential to create a jobless, moneyless, stateless, communist future. Both the average Marxist and the Peter Joseph crowd broadly consider themselves scientific socialists (not humanist ones) and so do I.

There are also primitivist communists who are the opposite of the futurist ones. They aspire to return humanity to a tribal existence. They're not very popular.

As to what communism is in the abstract, it's a situation wherein all property is owned in common.

By the way, Zeigest movement is pretty based in anarchism, well, is anarchism mixed with some conspiracy theories.

[kilgram]

I would say individual liberty is, for communists, found in the collective. Which seems very contradictory.

A community that is not free, there won't be individual freedom.

For example, I can be free to enslave you. You just have to sign a contract, and you are going to be my slave, and it will be absolutely made in voluntaryism and free will. Just I need that you've not been able to access to the basic resources to fullfil your basic needs to have you in my mercy.

[Chris]

Obama is not communist. The pope is neither communist. Starting from here.

I am anarchist. To simplify things, I said I was communist (that is partially true). It is much more complex, and I am lazy to explain it. When I've explained it many times.

Marxism is the ideology that pretends to get the stateless (communism) through the socialist state (called the proletarian dictatorship).

Anarchism is the ideology that want to finish with the authoritarism. And the authoritarism is found basically in the vertical structures like state and others like capitalism and religion. Later, the social anarchism has the goals to abolish the state, religion and capitalism. It can be done in many forms. Forms that will depend of the society itself and how they organize themselves, for something it is anarchism. The ultimately form and organization of the society will only depend of the society itself, in the form of the individuals decide.

It is, normally in an anarchist society, the organization will be very nuclear, in small federations. And only, those federations will act where it affect to them, to organize better the society in a horizontal way. It is, every person have the same authority, there is nobody over them that is able to take decisions for them, as it happens in every authoritarian structure, from the Marxist ideology to the any form of capitalism or any other statist form that we can guess, for example a monarchy, a teochracy and also it is found in every organized religion where there are leaders that have absolute power.

Anarchism, is the ultimate form where people will be absolutely free. Also, there are organizations like the ones based in free gift, where people exchange voluntarily and freely their things, that they've produced or not. It means, that every person has control of its production, and moreover all the means of production are freely accessible by anybody, only limited to their abilities. Thing that does not happen in any other system (authoritarian systems).

It is where people will be free.

So you not only want to abolish the state but you seek to abolish society as well. That is what you propose is doing away with (non-statist) capitalism, religion, and let's not forgot the firm and the family.

Then you say you want society to organize, but organization implies vertical hierarchy, and mention federations, elsewhere democracy, new layer(s) of hierarchy. I think you need to clarify if your against hieracal order or against it.

Then you say people will be free to choose, which ought to mean they may not choose communism, federations, not to mention democracy.

In the end, with your utopian dream, you fail to address the hard problems: "How does communism solve problems, how does it decide to allocate resources in the productions of goods and services? How does it solve the free rider problem, the tragedy of the commons." These need to be explained. If they cannot be then your new society will fail.

[Chris]

A community that is not free, there won't be individual freedom.

For example, I can be free to enslave you. You just have to sign a contract, and you are going to be my slave, and it will be absolutely made in voluntaryism and free will. Just I need that you've not been able to access to the basic resources to fullfil your basic needs to have you in my mercy.

You miss the point that in the horizontal collectivism you advocate the individual becomes subservient to the collective, to the, let us say, communism. If not then the people are free to not choose communism?

[kilgram]

You miss the point that in the horizontal collectivism you advocate the individual becomes subservient to the collective, to the, let us say, communism. If not then the people are free to not choose communism?

No, horizontality means that there is nobody over you. You defend a system where for example, I as the owner of the means of production must do the things as I say. It is authoritarism. The group becomes subervient to the individual.

Horizontally means that when is necessary to do things with group, they are decided by each individual that is affected by that decision, that means federalization.

That decision, will be done as every group finds more suitable.

As I've told you one day. You want to go out with your friends, they want to go to an Italian and you to a Mexican. You have to negotiate, vote, or something with the group. But you are going to do it from equal to equal, horizontally. That is the system that I defend.

[Chris]

No, horizontality means that there is nobody over you. You defend a system where for example, I as the owner of the means of production must do the things as I say. It is authoritarism. The group becomes subervient to the individual.

Horizontally means that when is necessary to do things with group, they are decided by each individual that is affected by that decision, that means federalization.

That decision, will be done as every group finds more suitable.

As I've told you one day. You want to go out with your friends, they want to go to an Italian and you to a Mexican. You have to negotiate, vote, or something with the group. But you are going to do it from equal to equal, horizontally. That is the system that I defend.

We know what horizontal means.

The question is how does communism implement it in the context of solving problems, disagreements, contentions for the same resource.

[Chris]

What if negotiation fails to reach agreement. Does then majority rule OVER minority, thereby creating horizontal authority?