What's the difference between this and Communism?

[Jay]

Re: What's the difference between this and Communism?

I like the matrix. Apparently we tried everything except anarchism. Just recently I did some reading about anarchism stream in Ukraine during the Russian revolution of 1917.
It was a time when everybody wanted and implemented their own system

I may be a bit slow on the uptake round here, but I'm pretty sure that anarchism is the least favorable option unless you like the whole hunting and gathering thing.

[cakins]

Re: What's the difference between this and Communism?

"What's the difference between this and Communism?"


The concept of Communism:
Steal from the rich and give government welfare to everyone else.

The concept of American fascist corporatism:
Steal from the working masses and give their wealth to uber-rich parasites.

Note the absence of free-market capitalism in either case.

[ASH]

Re: What's the difference between this and Communism?

I may be a bit slow on the uptake round here, but I'm pretty sure that anarchism is the least favorable option unless you like the whole hunting and gathering thing.

There are many reasons why anarchism is not a good choice, but there is also a theoretical reason why true anarchism is unstable. The theoretical problem is that a state of true anarchism is susceptible to the organization of larger, stronger units that then impose rule on the unorganized individuals. Basically, if we start out with everyone left to their own devices, pretty soon I get a bunch of my buddies together who are more statist-minded, and suddenly we show up at your doorstep with guns, telling you what to do. The only way to resist is to band together with your neighbors, and pretty soon everyone has given up a bit of their individual sovereignty in exchange for the collective security provided by membership in a group.

Unfortunately, the very weak "failed" state which results from a move toward anarchy is in many ways worse than either pure anarchy (the unstable condition of no grouping) or a strong state, because when no single faction is strong enough to establish a monopoly of force, there tends to be endless conflict between factions. At least that's how I interpret life in places like Somalia. I had a high school history teacher who had been in the Peace Corps in Sierra Leone... his comment to me is that modern anarchists imagine a utopian vision of perfect personal freedom, but that real anarchism means machetes and rape and starvation.

[GRG55]

Re: What's the difference between this and Communism?

Communism claims everything is done for the people.

Even our spinmeisters won't go that far....

Oh really???

This is your President speaking yesterday...

U.S. readies massive toxic-debt plan

Sat Sep 20, 2008 5:28am EDT
NEW YORK (Reuters)

..."Given the precarious state of today's financial markets and their vital importance to the daily lives of the American people, government intervention is not only warranted, it is essential," he said...

[*T*]

Re: What's the difference between this and Communism?

Not sure I agree. We are hampered by using the same word for chaos as the political system of anarchism. This chains our thinking and arguably is a deliberate feature of our ideological education.

For one historical precedent, George Orwell wrote about the Spanish civil war (where he fought Franco's fascists), where anarchist collectives did form, in Homage to Catalonia. The anarchist collectives (republicans who fought alongside the communists, against the monarchist fascists) were eventually forceably crushed by the state.

In those days we fought the fascists. Now we vote for them.

From Encyclopedia Brittanica:

Philosophy of government that stresses the primacy and glory of the state, unquestioning obedience to its leader, subordination of the individual will to the state's authority, and harsh suppression of dissent. Martial virtues are celebrated, while liberal and democratic values are disparaged. Fascism arose during the 1920s and '30s partly out of fear of the rising power of the working classes; it differed from contemporary communism (as practiced under Joseph Stalin) by its protection of business and landowning elites and its preservation of class systems. The leaders of the fascist governments of Italy (1922 – 43), Germany (1933 – 45), and Spain (1939 – 75) — Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, and Francisco Franco — were portrayed to their publics as embodiments of the strength and resolve necessary to rescue their nations from political and economic chaos.

Hat tip okielawyer at sudden debt.

It seems a lot of words, like socialism, communism, republican, mean very different things on different sides of the Atlantic.

[kingcopper]

Re: What's the difference between this and Communism?

I do not believe that we in America have tried true capitalism since before 1910. The problem for us would be getting a whole new set of politicians in office that would subscribe to a REAL capitalistic state without the limitations of a federal reserve. Our frickin politicos gave the kitchen sink away as soon as any problems arose back in the 1900's and we never had a chance. Right now, however, I don't see many differences between our socialist state and China's communist one.

[VIT]

Re: What's the difference between this and Communism?

I like this discussion about anarchism. If you look on these systems no any system is stable in pure form for a long run. It should be some combination of all. Anarchism as somebody described provokes chaos is not exactly correct.

But the true idea that all people are equal and society is the cooperation of these individuals without domination of groups/corporations/government over them.

The only problem I do not see how it can be functional in modern world. Maybe we need to invent some computer-minded judges/government/police/non-profit corporations

Otherwise we can see some really ugly totalitarian states in the future (does not matter if they are under capitalism and democracy masks) which will be able to implement full control on their citizens. Orwell did not know about all these networks/chips and credits. This will be voluntary slavery :cool:

[vcif]

Re: What's the difference between this and Communism?

collectivism is the broadest category. all of the other isms fall under that heading-communism, socialism, fascism, whateverism. Bastiat knew this and explained it in The Law.

All of the collectivist systems are pyramid schemes and none of us are at the top. the idea that communism is for the people or makes everyone equal is a lie perpetuated in order to enslave people so that a select few can live at their expense.

The only alternative system is voluntary free market exchange where no one is allowed to steal from anyone else.

Once the door to theft is open through any collectivist system, then the people in power will always steal more, regardless of how much they allow the sheep to steal from each other.

[ASH]

Re: What's the difference between this and Communism?

Not sure I agree. We are hampered by using the same word for chaos as the political system of anarchism. This chains our thinking and arguably is a deliberate feature of our ideological education.

Very good point about semantics. I think there are at least three ways of looking at the word "anarchy":

1. What the word means based upon its roots -- literally the negation of government. That is the sense in which I meant that anarchy is unstable. A state of anarchy is unstable because organization into less free societal structures conveys a competetive advantage to those who adopt such structures. Although I later wrote about "chaos" in real-world situations, my use of the word "unstable" was not meant to describe social chaos. Rather, I was describing the structural fragility of a state of anarchy, when in competition with societies organized along other principles.

2. What people who apply the word to themselves mean by it. Your example of those who fought the fascists in Spain is a good example of this. Some of those who protest the WTO call themselves anarchists. My uncle-in-law, a professor of government science at Cornell University, is a self-described anarchist. They all probably want slightly different things, and at least some of them probably don't strictly mean the negation of government. Personally, I think a lot of people who describe themselves as anarchists are not really that precise in their thinking, so I hesitate to use them as an example of what an anarchist is. Heck, my uncle-in-law ought to know, since he's a political scientist -- but he bears little resemblence to a WTO-protestor. I must confess that I suspect most anarchists of being "lifestyle" anarchists -- much as a poser from Southern California might claim to be a Buddhist without being too doctrinaire about what that entails.

3. What conditions obtain in real-world communities that approach anarchy. My example of hapless failed states do not illustrate "ideal" anarchy, but rather what happens in the real world when government cannot establish a monopoly of force (or close to it). I think those who protest that "pure capitalism/Marxism/anarchy/democracy etc. etc. has never been tried" are engaging in too much of a theoretical argument, if they follow up with a recommendation that their pet ism be tried in its absolute utopian form. Better they should consider what will likely happen if their favorite doctrine is pursued imperfectly. My example of failed states is what I perceive to be the likely outcome of a real world attempt to live in a state of anarchy.

[ASH]

Re: What's the difference between this and Communism?

But the true idea that all people are equal and society is the cooperation of these individuals without domination of groups/corporations/government over them.

The only problem I do not see how it can be functional in modern world. Maybe we need to invent some computer-minded judges/government/police/non-profit corporations

I think you succinctly state both the ideal vision of anarchy (perfect liberty) and the problem with its implementation.

I would like to note that the solution you propose is a STATE OF LIBERTY safeguarded by a PERFECT and IMPARTIAL government, rather than anarchy. The whole reason utopianists want anarchy is because government is imperfect. Government can be oppressive, corrupt, and unfair -- and its implementation requires surrender of some freedom by individuals. In the real world, however, life in societies without a government to establish a monopoly of force is typically unpleasant. It seems to me that recognizing this, you have instead opted to desire a perfect government. I like the computer-minded angle; it is essentially just a restatement of the goal of official impartiality and the rule of law, but it takes that a step further to use disinterested technology in the place of humans. However, at its heart, I think your vision is simply a restatement of the Western desire for individual freedoms safeguarded by the rule of law.

[Jay]

Re: What's the difference between this and Communism?

I think you succinctly state both the ideal vision of anarchy (perfect liberty) and the problem with its implementation.

I would like to note that the solution you propose is a STATE OF LIBERTY safeguarded by a PERFECT and IMPARTIAL government, rather than anarchy. The whole reason utopianists want anarchy is because government is imperfect. Government can be oppressive, corrupt, and unfair -- and its implementation requires surrender of some freedom by individuals. In the real world, however, life in societies without a government to establish a monopoly of force is typically unpleasant. It seems to me that recognizing this, you have instead opted to desire a perfect government. I like the computer-minded angle; it is essentially just a restatement of the goal of official impartiality and the rule of law, but it takes that a step further to use disinterested technology in the place of humans. However, at its heart, I think your vision is simply a restatement of the Western desire for individual freedoms safeguarded by the rule of law.

Hasn't this already been tried?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0Azxj7SuaE

[VIT]

Re: What's the difference between this and Communism?

Computer minded law was more like a joke. But you have got the idea.
If you able to enforce law very strictly and keep it constant this will be pretty sad society.

Even today US has one of the highest rate of prisoners per capita.