I just wanted to know if any of you are Anarchists or Communists. If you are I would like to add you to my friends and ask you to join my Anarchist group. If you aren't either then talk to me anyway so I can make you one. ;)

Tags: Anarchy, Communism

Views: 2000

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I'm not anarchist at all. I describe myself as socialist, and accept that the main difference between 'socialist' and 'communist' is the relative acceptability of those two terms.
I'm not a communist nor an anarchist ,though i'm very sympathetic to both causes.I come from a part of India specifically the state of Kerala,where we have had the first democratically elected communist government in the world way back in the late 50s.Even now ,we oscillate between a communist and non-communist government every election cycle.
the reason i said i was sympathetic is that the communists have endured a lot during the early years of my country's independence, and in the past two elections i have voted red (though thats cuz i knew the candidate personally and not for the ideology,plus the choices were abysmal )
I'd consider myself a nominal Anarcho-syndicalist. Although I think that collaborative technology will have to progress a bit more before such a government is feasible. Also education.
I'd like to submit that anyone defending the idea of communism is caught in a logical contradiction. Communism rejects the idea of private property. However, in order to even argue for communism (or to speak or think or type or do anything at all), you are inherently accepting the fact of self-ownership (ownership of your vocal cords, brain, etc) and the possibility of owning at least enough space to stand on. The mere act of living proves that communism (and common ownership of property) is untenable.

Anarchism, contrary to what some of you are saying, is the exact opposite. It's the state of nature, without any artificial and coercive contrivances like 'group property.' Anarchism allows the flourishing of economic activity based on the natural human condition of self-ownership and the private property that necessarily follows from that. Anarchism and pure capitalism are the same, and are the opposite of communism. If you've been taught otherwise (probably in the communistic institution known as public schools), you've been sorely misled.
Darren wrote:
“I'd like to submit that anyone defending the idea of communism is caught in a logical contradiction. Communism rejects the idea of private property. However, in order to even argue for communism (or to speak or think or type or do anything at all), you are inherently accepting the fact of self-ownership (ownership of your vocal cords, brain, etc) and the possibility of owning at least enough space to stand on.”

You misunderstand the concept of private property. Private property is the means of production. That is the factories, buildings, and, machines and so forth that are used to create a society’s material basis for existence. In socialism, this would be the property of all of society.

Things that an individual owns for his own use, such as his clothes and his home, are personal property, which is quite a different thing.
Hold on. So I own myself (which I think we can all agree on), and my home and the land it sits on. I then build a factory to make widgets that other people buy. You're saying that there's some way to morally justify the confiscation of my factory by "the people?" It's morally just to put a gun to someone's head and make them hand over the fruits of their labor?
I consider myself a DeLeonist, although I never belonged to the SLP. As an atheist and a socialist, I'm particularly interested in the relationship between church and state. I want both of them to wither away.
Mike wrote on 8 July 2008 at 4:05pm

"How does capitalism rely on exploitation? There certainly is exploitation in our capitalist societies, but it isn't necessarily part of a capitalist society. People exchange money for goods and services, and you generally can't force people to pay for things they don't want to, or vice versa."

Workers sell their labor power to their employers for a price that is set by the market forces of supply and demand. Workers do not receive the value that they add to the company’s product – that’s how profit is created. The value that the worker adds to production, less his compensation, is surplus value to the employer, but exploitation to the worker. If I recall correctly, the rate of exploitation is the value of the products produced divided by the value added by labor minus compensation paid to labor. The inverse of the rate of exploitation is the rate of surplus value.

A prediction of the Labor Theory of Value is that over time, the rate of exploitation in a market economy always increases. We see that in recent history, where in the standard expense model of production 50 years, the cost of materials, fixed capital and labor were about equal. Now the cost of labor is much lower than the others.

The result is a growing disparity between profit and wages, resulting in the progressive stratification of wealth.
The Labor Theory of Value?? Seriously? Value, plain and simple, is determined on an individual level and measured by what that individual is willing to pay for something. That's all there is to it. If a worker is willing to go to work for X dollars per hour, then that's the value he places on his labor. He values that money more than the time he spends at work--otherwise he wouldn't take that job. The employer prefers that person's time over the money they're paying him--otherwise they wouldn't hire him. Since it's a voluntary arrangement, we know that both parties are benefiting from the transaction. Markets have cycles as they continually try to achieve equilibrium--sometimes the cycle favors the employee, sometimes if favors the employer--but they both are always benefiting from the arrangement.
If a worker is willing to go to work for X dollars per hour, then that's the value he places on his labor.

How simplistic of you. How about the worker who does not have anything to eat? Just because he is desperate he should be getting sub-subsistence wage? Because that is what you are proposing here.
Well, I could have been more detailed. X is a price at which the employee is willing to sell his labor and which the employer is willing to pay. When the supply of labor exceeds the demand, there is greater profit for the employer. When the demand for labor exceeds the supply, there is greater profit for the employee and less for the employee. But at no time does a willing employee receive less than they're willing to work for because then they simply wouldn't take the job--that's just the definition of willing. They may decide to start their own business instead (which, by the way, would be vastly easier in a true free market than it is in today's government-regulated markets with all the license requirements, wage rules, safety rules, forced payments, etc).

Regardless, no one is entitled to a particular "subsistence" wage since that implies they are entitled to use force to extract that wage (and under such an ethic, humanity would die out since everyone would be constantly stealing from each other and killing each other).
Honesty, I can't believe that your are espousing that crap. You are proposing that we should make away with all the stuff people fought and died for to achieve. I'm guessing that it would be a wonderful paradise in your mind to go back to the 19th century when people were working 16 hour days in order to barely survive and if they got sick, well, too bad...

You socioeconomic beliefs couldn't sink any lower in my eyes. I knew right-libertarianism was inhumane but thanks for stating it so plainly.

Hey, I know, lets go back to a more backward system. Feudalism! Yeah, that's the thing! All those lowly scum who used FORCE to make away with feuds and take away what was not rightfully theirs. Thing should go back to the way they were.

RSS

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service