Author
|
Topic: Anarchist Communism (Read 21766 times)
|
|
|
|
|
onpon4
Enlightened
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 709
Sharing is good.
|
Okay, I'll keep that in mind- Doesn't that make running anything more complex than a knitting circle pretty challenging though? Being a farmer, you pretty much have to reply on strangers being interested enough in building tractors, running refineries, operating chemical plants and keeping a traffic network running. If any of them fail, you can't do much more than grow by hand for your own use, and everyone depending on people like you starve. The system just sounds really sensitive to disturbances, especially since it all hinges on someone being interested in the most unlikely of things.
People today do "work" so they can get money to buy food. People would contribute to food production to ensure that they get food. It's not really that unstable.
And this is fine for a piece of entertainment software. But less so for a nuclear power plant.
People have an interest in surviving, and they have an interest in having electricity.
Not if they vote to chain him up. There's no law to stop them after all. On a grander scale, if the Riverdale Valley industrial collective votes to run their trucks into the Riverside Valley farming collective and kidnap their women to hold in exchange for goods, who stops them?
Where did I say there would be no law?
And who decides on these regulations? I thought there was no organization? Without one, no way are you going to be able to stop liberal arts majors who really want to help providing power for humanity.
When did I say there would be no organization? I seem to remember stating specifically that no leaders is not synonymous with no organization.
No, that's not true. There are plenty of people out there already who do the absolute minimum they get away with. They are already ostracized to varying levels by their co-workers, but they continue anyway. I have not visited a single office that didn't have at least one of these guys.
That's because they are being forced to work, which is something they don't like.
In our current system the state will have time to cut welfare and state owned media will get the word out. in your system no one is actually overseeing this, so there's no way of knowing how bad things are before we run out of food. Sure, by the time we're down to canned stocks people will be grumbling a bit, but hey. The Easter islanders probably grumbled a bit when that last tree was cut down as well, imprisoning them on the island and impoverishing them for all eternity.
Ever heard of "word of mouth"?
Hard to see a flaw that isn't there. I'll happily agree that many people aren't lazy, but as a race we have a tendency to take the easy way out.
As a race, we tend to take the way that we feel benefits us most. I think that, to most people, prosperity seems like a beneficial thing.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alvarin
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 801
|
The closest anyone got to the true Communism were the Kibbutzim of early Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz) but even this failed over quite short time. They couldn't sustain themselves and need constant investments from the state. People abandoning the Kibbutz quite regularly and the internal rules are changed dramatically to try to survive, but it's just not working...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Draxas
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1044
|
Where did I say there would be no law?
When did I say there would be no organization? I seem to remember stating specifically that no leaders is not synonymous with no organization.
No law and no organization are what you tend to get with no leaders. In order to enforce laws and apply organization, you need someone in charge to delegate tasks and ensure that lawbreakers are punished. This is where the "anarchy" part of anarcist communism comes into play; people can arbitrarily try to make laws all they want, but without leadership there is no enforcement beyond personal vigilanteism.
As a race, we tend to take the way that we feel benefits us most. I think that, to most people, prosperity seems like a beneficial thing.
You're absolutely right. However, many people, when presented with the choice of "prosperity thanks to my own hard work" and "prosperity thanks to skating by off of someone else's hard work," will have no qualms about choosing the latter. The issue is that people tend to choose the route they feel benefits them personally the most, not society the most, so they choose personal prosperity over community prosperity.
Yes. bad execution. Not a bad system  .
So... you would want to live in a totalitarian regime? I know I wouldn't. Governance by fear tends to be fairly unstable, and work toward the detriment of all but the elite few. And then a bigger bully shows up, deposes the current ruler, and the vicious cycle repeats.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 19, 2010, 04:22:47 pm by Draxas »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
Alot of what onpon is saying sounds like Jim Jones' theories. The cult leader who's legacy is that 900 of his followeres (and himself) commited suicide or were murdered in 1978. Although christianity was Jones' premise, he only used religion to lure people into his group. Religion was a ruse as he was an athiest with a firm belief in communism. He promised his followers a communist eden on earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones
In my view, pure communism doesn't work just as pure capitalism doesn't work. Even though people like to think the U.S. is the shining pilar of capitalism, without our solcialist policies our country would fall apart.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Draxas
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1044
|
Just because the regimes in charge of North Korea, Cuba, and China haven't collapsed, doesn't necessarily mean they're "best" for the country. In fact, I'd say they're a far cry from it in all 3 cases.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
