Tornado Alley (PROG)

[fuagf]

chunga, you're confusing me, but, heh, that's not hard. An individual choses
communist as an ideal and you hate him for it? So, doesn't it follow that you
hate him for exercising what you think is the most important thing for you both?

I think you must mean that you hate a system of government which you have been told is communism.
Is that a fair assessment of your position? Your other is a real puzzle to me as it seems contradictory.

How can you hate an individual for doing what you think he should TRULY be able to do?

Just so you know, I am still trying to work things out; have never belonged
to any political party and never felt that any one political or social
construction, which i have seen, is a particularly satisfactory end.

Seems to me that 100% individual freedom can only exist in a society
in a lawless society, and i don't think you are in favor of that, are you?

Please consider these links; is only mulling material .. LOL! .. :) .. not real easy, in places.

In Defense of Libertarian Communism
by Kerry Thornley

(This essay was originally published in Strategy of the New Libertarian Alliance #2, May Day 1982-3, with comments by Samuel Edward Konkin III at the end.)

For many years I accepted without question the prevailing opinion on the libertarian right that communist anarchism is "anti-market," that it was espoused principally by people who objected unconsciously to the idea of having to work and that it preached excessive violence. During the summer of 1975 I read Alexander Berkman's What Is Communist Anarchism? and confirmed a suspicion I'd been nurturing since 1969 that the last two of these charges, at least, were wholly in error. Berkman, like his comrades Emma Goldman and Rudolph Rocker, held views similar to those developed by Peter Kropotkin - except that Berkman was exceptionally eloquent and quotable in his expressions of them, while at the same time confining himself in What Is Communist Anarchism? to simple, working-class language.

All during his brief, tragic life he worked incessantly and tirelessly in support of all revolutionaries - including, in the early stages, the Bolsheviks in Russia and, later, all the anarchist dissidents, including Stirnerites, in Lenin's prisons, without ever claiming to share the predominant views of either. Needless to say, his support for fellow communist anarchists was unstinting.

As for the notion that revolutionary communist anarchists are bloodthirsty individuals, it is adequately refuted in the chapter in What Is Communist Anarchism? on violence. Berkman compares the social revolution to a fragile flower that must be cultivated gently. Believing that some violence is necessary, he argues that it is like rolling up one's sleeves before beginning the actual work of revolution, asserting also that when great thinkers like Bakunin and Malatesta ranted about destruction they were referring to the destruction of institutions, not of human beings.

ISN'T THAT WHAT R. PAUL AND HIS FOLLOWERS ARE ADVOCATING?

But the charges that libertarian communism ignores the laws of the free market do not simply result from ignorance of its doctrines, but comprise instad an intellectually formidable position. In the first place, Berkman failed miserably to comprehend the significance of monetary mutualist ideas about central banking - blaming the warlike nature of capitalism upon the overproduction of goods and the consequent necessity to find new markets, unaware that in a free society stored overproduced goods could become a basis for mediums of exchange. Moreover, he failed to see that the prospect of war is needed by multinational banking corporations and failed to realize that credit monopolies such as central banks virtually thrive upon the misery and destruction that create debt.

I THINK THIS IS A COMMUNIST TALKING .. DO YOU HEAR THE SAME SENTIMENTS FROM MANY HERE?

Beyond that mistake, however, his thesis does not express an ignorance of free market principles, but instead depends upon a view of human nature that differs from that of most Conservatives and laissez-faire capitalists. Conservatives accept Original Sin and libertarian rightists assume that the laws which result from present economic values will always prevail, although those values result in turn from centuries of authoritarian conditioning.

As Hagbard Celine points out in the Illuminatus! Trilogy, left anarchists disagree with right anarchists only in their predictions as to how people will behave in a free market - the leftists believing that cooperation will take the place of competition, the rightists assuming that people will remain as competitve as ever. In other words, while authoritarian economics are proscriptive, libertarian economics are predictive - a realization which facilitates left-right unity among anarchists and libertarians.

Libertarians tend to agree with Marxists that economics usually determine politics, that economic forces are more basic to the structure of society - but neither seem to take into consideration how much prevailing human values determine human choices. An ignorant society composed of ignorant people will make foolish purchases and thereby become a market for junk merchandise and/or enormously destructive weaponry designed to wipe out foreign civilian populations instead of its own domestic and multinational oppressors.

UM, WERE SUB PRIMES DESIGNED TO WIPE OUT THOSE WHO THOUGHT THEY WERE EXERCISING INDIVIDUAL CHOICE .. AGREE, THEY MADE A CHOICE, BUT, JUST HOW FREE A CHOICE WAS IT? .. DRIVEN BY WE'LL HELP YOU OUT! .. ARE THEY POOR BECAUSE THEY HAD REAL CHOICE? .. DID THEY HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO MAKE A REAL CHOICE? .. WHAT CHOICE WHEN IN THE FIST OF UNSCRUPULOUS, MANIPULATION AND EXPERTLY DESIGNED TOMFOOLERY .. ALL FOR PROFIT WITHOUT A CARE IN THE WORLD FOR THOSE WHOM THEY FALSELY SAID THEY WERE HELPING ..
WERE THE SUB PRIMES DESIGNED TO WIPE OUT THOSE WHO MADE THE POOREST CHOICES? .. MOST POOR .. MOST NEEDY .. MOST GREEDY .. NOT ALL IN ONE, JUST SOME IN SOME OF ALL.

Unfortunately, ignorance tends to feed on itself. Spencer thought universal literacy would culminate in the solution of all of most of society's problems, but as Aldous Huxley observed he did not anticipate that most people would opt to read trivia - escapist fiction, inaccurate propaganda, advertising, etc. - instead of consciousness-raising materials and scientific papers.

SPENCER DIDN'T UNDERSTAND HUMAN NATURE, EH .. OR MAYBE JUST UNDERESTIMATED THE POWER OF THE trivia - escapist fiction, inaccurate propaganda, advertising, etc.

When television was in its infancy all kinds of optimistic predictions were made that it would eliminate war by establishing global communication between people of all cultures!

Of course, the economic and political requirements of the status quo tend to reinforce precisely those values that will maintain the established order, so there is some validity in the Marxist view of economic necessity, but the Russian and Chinese experiments have shown that a political takeover of society aimed at changing economic conditions does not suceed in significantly altering the economic substructure or in transforming personal values - and all libertarians understand the reasons.

But if, by .. TRUE .. libertarian methods, authoritarian values and the ignorance that they require are at a future point in history eradicated, what then? Will communist anarchism remain an anti-market philosophy or will the so-called laws of the market, being nothing mroe than descriptions of observed human behavior, change in accord with a proliferation of economic choices that result from psychologically liberated and informed values?

Like most higher mammals, human beings are herd animals, or tribalists. But the theological conceit that they are not mammals at all, but creatures "a little lower than angels,"causes them to behave in a way that alienates them not only from their own bodies, but also from their own emotional and social needs.

Imagine, as one example, belonging to a voluntary extended family of twenty-five individuals, children included, that lived in the same village neighborhood, labored in the same workplace, and enjoyed the same recreations together. Assume that these individuals had located one another through a computer matching service and taht therefore their lifestyle values were very much alike. Such a group might be further bonded in multilateral marriages, or it might be monoagamous and bonded vicariously in collective autoerotic sharing, or it might be sexually monogamous but held together by strong religious convictions or nonmystical values. Would such a group necessarily function in a manner that was anti-market? Even if it was organized internally for the equal sharing of what it produced?

Contrary to popular belief, human beings like to work,

DID YOU happen to catch this link yesterday?
"The nation’s corporate chiefs would be living far less affluent lives, Mr. Crandall said, if fate had put them in, say, Uzbekistan instead of the United States, “where they are the beneficiaries of a market system that rewards a few people in extraordinary ways and leaves others behind.”"

"Mr. Hindery, the cable television entrepreneur, said he would have worked just as hard for a much smaller payoff, and others among the very wealthy agreed. “I worked because I loved what I was doing,” Mr. Weill said, insisting that not until he retired did “I have a chance to sit back and count up what was on the table.” And Kenneth C. Griffin, who received more than $1 billion last year as chairman of a hedge fund, the Citadel Investment Group, declared: “The money is a byproduct of a passionate endeavor.”"
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=21332240

as the biography of many a millionaire will attest. What makes labor alienating under present social conditions is that it is organized after the military model, wherein participants are told when to work and when not to work, how to dress and what relations to maintain on the job with their fellow workers.

INDIVIDUAL CHOICE?

With such a distorted notion what is necessary to production it is no wonder that the average person suspects that if working conditions were controlled directly by the workers themselves everyone would sluff off! Or that a few would work and all the others would sit back.

A peculiarity of my own background is that I come from a Mormon family, and from ages twelve to sixteen I was intensely active in the church. Mormons are famous for contributing untold hours of free labor to their church, and it works that way because, for them, work is a social occasion. As Alan Watts would say, they have managed to break down the dichotomy in their church activities between work and play.

That communist anarchists are by and large ignorant of free market principles is simply not true. For while their choices of words are different from those of the libertarian right and they therefore seldom use the term "free market,", it can be seen from a close reading of either Peter Kropotkin or Alexander Berkman that they recognize, as one example among many, that economic values are subjective, although they did not know this would become known among Austrian capitalists as the "law of marginal utility." In keeping with their contrasting view of human nature, the anarchists use marginal utility concepts to justify equal rations, since subjective value also implies that it is impossible to ascribe an objective value to anyone's labor.

Evidence that the communist libertarian view of human nature tend to be the more correct one is contained in A.S. Neill's Summerhill, where it is observed that in an environment of complete freedom children tend to be self-regulating and to master their subjects in the absense of any immediate rewards for so doing. That the resentment generated by compulsory measures .. NOT FREE CHOICE ..is also absent in such a milieu seems to go a long way to explain why bribery, or reward, also becomes unnecessary. Further evidence is to be found in abundance in the study of anthropology, the Hopi Indians being only one very conspicuous, very extreme example of how far cooperation can develop in the direction of eliminating competition without crippling productive activity.

A logical political compromise between communist anarchism and libertarian capitalism would seem to be individualist anarchism of the kind espoused by Josiah Warren and Benjamin Tucker - for it makes the least number of assumptions in either direction about human nature and developed from experience with both utopian communist communities and the laissez-faire capitalism of teh last century.

Instead of making metaphysical assumptions about the nature of human beings in a free society, it asks: With people as they are how can we arrange social institutions to allow for the optimum in both individual choice and useful cooperation?

Once we construct our alternative institutions with that question in mind, generations of human beings will begin to grow up in genuine freedom - and no past or present communist anarchist or laissez-faire capitalist can predict with certainty what will happen after that, but it seems to me they should be able to agree that this is where to begin.

http://freemania1.com/thornley1.html

JUST ONE MORE ..

Capitalism

Q: What is capitalism?
A: The control of commodities (goods and services) through corporations that produce only to make profits for their shareholders (the capitalist class). In contrast, socialism is the control of commodities through a government that produces only to serve people (the working class).

Q: Rich people deserve to be rich because they work harder. Why should they give up their money?

A: Capitalists gain their wealth from the labor of others--not from their own work. The workers who actually create the wealth-by picking the crops or assembling the engines, for example-should get a fair share of the wealth they create. Why should someone be a millionaire, with three houses, a private plane, and the like when other folks can't even afford enough to eat?

Q: Aren't people greedy by nature?

A: No. For example, in capitalist countries, little children quickly learn to share and cooperate, but they are later taught to take more than they need compete viciously in "the real world." Socialism and Communism

Q: How can communism be achieved in the US?

A: Unity of the working class will be needed. Workers will have to realize that capitalism cannot solve the problems it creates and that it is only beneficial to the few who own the factories, mines, press and government. Hopefully, we will achieve this in the voting booth; but if the capitalists attack, we will defend ourselves and our system.

Q: Can people decide what job they want in communist countries?

A: Yes, and better than under capitalism. Now, you get a job based on the education you receive, and the people you know: poor education + bad connections = a poor job, generally. Communism will allow people who have aptitudes for certain work the education--for free--to learn the skills it takes to do that work.

Q: Why would anyone be motivated to work hard under communism? If you work harder, shouldn't you get more?

A: People can learn to be motivated by working for the common good. If we help each other, we both gain. Capitalism encourages us to fight against each other for crumbs, while the very few stuff themselves on the pie.

Q: Why don't you like democracy, why is communism better?

A: Democracy and communism are not opposites. Communists believe in TRUE democracy, as opposed to our "bourgeois democracy." What that means is when you only get to choose between millionaires running for election, working class people (the vast majority of society) aren't really represented. Elections in a capitalist system are almost always decided by who can get the most corporate money. True democracy will be realized under communism because everyone will have an equal say in society.

Q: The world has never been fair, so how can the communists make it fair?

A: Fairness is a function of how wealth is distributed. Under capitalism, workers receive only a small percentage of the wealth that they create. Under socialism, workers receive a larger share. Under communism, workers (all people) will receive everything.

Q: What is the difference between communism and socialism?

A: The short answer is socialism is "from each according to their ability and to each according to their DEEDS," and communism is "from each according to their ability and to each according to their NEEDS." The longer answer is socialism is the step between capitalism and communism. Socialism still has people working for wages, therefore monetary equality has not be reached. Socialism is the society that will pave the way for a communist society by setting a foundation of co-operation and sharing of all things in common. Communism is the realization of these goals.

Q: What would be the benefits of socialism in the US?
A: Free health care. Free education. Decent housing and jobs at decent pay for everyone.

Q: Is there total equality under communism?
A: Yes.

Q: Is socialism inevitable?
A: If the human race is to survive--yes, it is. Capitalism cannot solve the problems it creates. For example, the capitalists want to pay workers less and less so they can have more and more for themselves. But when the workers have less, they can buy less, which means the capitalist end up with less as a result. It's a vicious circle that has no solution under capitalism.

CAN WE SEE HOW CHEAPER IMPORTED GOODS AND EXPORTED JOBS COME INTO PLAY HERE? .. TODAY.

Q: Does socialism automatically end exploitation, racism, sexism and homophobia?
A: No. These societal ills are products of capitalism, but they will not vanish immediately with socialism. They have been around for centuries, and will take generations of the humanistic system of socialism and a constant struggle to cure. But, socialism will make ending these problems possible, while capitalism encourages them. At the same time, we can't wait until "after the revolution" to fight these ills. The fight against exploitation, racism, sexism and homophobia is a crucial part of the struggle for socialism.

Q: How can you have communism and still have individual freedom?
A: By limiting bureaucracy, establishing human-rights laws (the CPUSA and YCL have always advocated bill-of-rights socialism), and reminding all workers that they need to remain involved in union and civic activities.

Q: How free are the people in communist countries? What kind of rights do they have? Can they think for themselves and make their own choices?
A: These things vary according to each [socialist .. PLEASE NOTE: NOT COMMUNIST .. country. Generally, no one has the right to become wealthy or spread capitalistic propaganda. In capitalist countries, we have only illusions of freedom and democracy because the media is owned by only a few corporations and the political campaigns are financed by the billionaires.

THOSE OF THE 'WINNERS' WE COULD ADD?

Q: Are there taxes in communist countries?
A: Generally no. However I do believe that socialist countries levy taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals.

Q: How can people get ahead in a communist country?
A: Ahead of whom? Under capitalism, people get ahead of other people. Under socialism, and eventually communism, all people get ahead together. Organizing, communists, and the YCL

Q: I support what the YCL stands for, but why use the name communist?
A: "A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet." In other words, we ARE communists, no matter what we call it. And, changing the name would not keep the capitalists from making up lies and disinformation about us. By calling ourselves Communists, we acknowledge our roots as the organization that helped win Social Security, unemployment insurance, the right to organize, and many other rights that many people nowadays take for granted.

Q: Why is unity so important?
A: It's the best tool the working class has. Without unity, we fight each other for the crumbs while the capitalist takes the majority of the pie. With communism we each get an equal share of that pie. Uniting gives us the strength to take on the capitalists and win!

Q: Do communists believe in god? Do they outlaw religion?
A: Some communists believe in god, some don't. Gus Hall, the chair of the CPUSA says, "Our fight is not with God, but with capitalists." Freedom of religion would continue under communism--as long as the religion does not seek to destroy the system and replace it with capitalism or any other earlier system (such as slavery or feudalism).

Q: What has the YCL ever done to improve this country?
A: It has always worked to help raise class consciousness in the working class, and organize the unorganized. Along with our fraternal organization, the CPUSA, and organized labor, we have been leaders in the fights for the right to organize, unemployment insurance, social security, affirmative action, and civil rights, as well as the fights against english-only laws, immigrant bashing, hate crimes, and the like.

Q: Why do people join the YCL?
A: They see the present conditions that have been wrought by capitalism. They want to fight against racism, sexism, exploitation, homophobia, and immigrant-bashing. They want to make the US and the world a better place by fighting for jobs, justice, education and equality.

Q: Do people treat you differently if you are a communist?
A: Yes. Even those who disagree with our politics know that we are very serious about making changes. Many bless us, a few curse us, but no one ignores us.

Q: Why is the working class so important?
A: We are the majority class. It is our work which creates the wealth which allows a very few people to live in obscene luxury. Because we are the majority class, we have the real power to transform society.

Q: What kind of people are in the YCL?
A: Those want to change the world into a much better place. The YCL encourages all young people who sincerely want to make the world a better place to join. Young people of all races, genders, religions, sexual orientations, and nationalities are welcome.

Q: Do I have to be a communist to join the YCL?
A: No. If you are sincere about fighting the effects of capitalism, like racism, sexism, exploitation, lousy schools, unemployment, homelessness, and so on, you should join the YCL right away, whether you are a communist or not. International Issues

Q: Has there ever been a communist society that succeeded?
A: Technically, there never has been a communist society. Some socialist societies, such as China, Vietnam, and Cuba are succeeding. Communism is the long term ideal; just as the world has evolved from feudalism to capitalism, so it will evolve from capitalism, first through socialism (in which the working class is dominant), then eventually to communism (in which there are no classes). Our job is to hasten that evolution.

Q: What communist countries still exist?
A: China, Vietnam, North Korea, and Cuba are socialist states.

Q: Was the Soviet Union a real communist country?
A: No. It was a socialist state.

Q: Why did communism fail in the Soviet Union?
A: Capitalist countries were able to spend more on the cold war. For example, Reagan was able to build a greater military force by obscenely increasing our national debt. Also, capitalist countries secretly spent billions of dollars on corrupting certain Soviet officials.

Q: Didn't Stalin kill millions of people?
A: Maybe. We have only been told what the capitalist class wants us to believe. Ask yourself two questions. If Stalin had really purged his officer corps in the 1930s, how was the Soviet Union capable of winning WWII? (The Soviets lost more than twenty times as many fighters as did we Americans.) If the Soviet Union had been unable to win in WWII, what would your world be like now?

Q: Why do so many people want to leave Cuba?

A: Relatively few want to leave. They have all suffered due to our 40-year blockade, but most do not believe that they can become wealthy capitalists by leaving Cuba.

Q: Is Cuba a dictatorship?
A: No. Although the Cuban people have a strong central government, they are very active in local and national democratic elections, especially through their union activities.

http://members.tripod.com/antilemming/what.htm

ps .. edit: Congratulations on Venezuela, to you. All power to the media, eh. ;)

Good night, fuagf.