You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Collective vs. Private Ownership (Part 2 of a Series)
Ok, Larken, I'm starting to think you are serving the oligarchs, too.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-there-is-no-communism-in-russia
You know that what happened in those 'communist' countries was anything but communism.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/category/author/voline
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread
As an 'anarchist' you are well aware of the above book, if you are not, then please stop referring to yourself as an anarchist, because you are clearly something else.
Thanks for your time,
FBA
Edit
It's pretty sad that my puny vote puts me at the top of your trending comment section.
Of course what communists SAY they want is never what it ends up being. But that outcome is inevitable, for the reasons explained in the article--which your comment didn't address at all.
Again, Larken, your definition of communism is the one that the banksters propagated through Marx.
I dispelled that with Emma's report from the scene.
What you have labeled 'communism' was anything but.
You can't paint me with that brush, either, because my proposal will be voluntarily adopted or it won't.
How you don't see that removing gov't from crapitalism doesn't change the oligarchy that enslaves us through wages and rents is beyond me.
Either you are another plant, or you haven't read the material, it is as simple as that.
If you haven't read the material it's like an engineering professor teaching Spanish.
Sure you can, but it's not the same as getting it from a native speaker.
You have a pretty high profile, Larken, you owe it to the followers of yours that won't seek other sources, to speak fully about anarchism, not just the features that bring privileges to/from the oligarchy.
Or, you can go down in history as just another shill profiting from proselytizing a knowingly false religion.
So tell us what communism is, if not collective ownership.
Because Larken didn't refer to communism as what went on in China or the USSR, he described it as collective ownership of everything and then he demonstrated that collective ownership of anything is impossible. So in fact, the only thing you can argue is how communism is NOT collective ownership, or try to prove that an infinite number of people can control a specific item or resource (and Larken made a pretty good case on the impossibility of that).
The only clouds in my proposal are the ones you brought that keep you from seeing the light.
Why you would insist on going back to subsistence at a time that technology is poised to end drudgery is delusional.
We will never go back to the luddites, stop dooming and glooming yourself, dude.
The door to utopia is there to be opened by the workers and threads like this one is where they will find it.
I'm not sure why you can't read what I said, but you sure missed a lot of it.
Go back and reread it this time with a test of the accuracy of your recall in mind.
"Communism is what you do when you are a decent human being that values life higher than material goods."
LMFAO...are you seriously saying that all non-communists literally value life less than they do 'material goods' (a definition would be nice)?
Is this seriously the extent of your position--telling everyone who isn't on "Your Team" that they're greedy, selfish, idiots?
"Communists good...all others bad..."
OK, bro, we get it!
Communism is what you do when you are a decent human being that values life higher than material goods.
'Collective ownership' is a catch phrase that is used to obscure what is really being discussed, much like 'lying hitlery' or 'trumped up trickle down'.
It is simply a term that has caught some fish for the oligarchs.
I'm not here to defend what has come before.
I only defend 'communism' because that is the word that most simply describes what I have proposed in the minds of the dupes that only have gov't sponsored educations.
As you can see from my post: https://steemit.com/anarchylibrary/@freebornangel/this-is-for-you-larken-and-jared-too I do not advocate 'collective ownership'.
What Larken is putting out is simply mis-guided drivel.
He re-hashes the same arguments that have been used by the oligarchs since Bakunin's day.
Since 'collective ownership' is not what I am advocating there is no need for me to defend it.
My solution is 'Keep working, stop paying'.
The things you obtain in your adventures are, of course, your's, and the 'collective' will defend you from attack and robbery, as an attack on one is an attack on all.
The flaw in Larken's argument is that he attempts to paint communism as a rule by force nightmare while he advocates rule by force for the oligarchs that will be at the top of his crapitalust pyramid.
Unless you eliminate wages, banks, and money you will always serve those that have more than you, this is what an-crap is all about, keeping the sleeple on the farm and growing wool.
Any attempt to tar me with that brush will miss it's mark as my proposal sells on it's merits, or not at all.
Now, what you got to ask yourself is do you want to continue to clean the toilets of the wealthy for minimum wage as advocated by Larken, or do you want to live like a billionaire from working a fraction of what you work today?
"Communism is what you do when you are a decent human being that values life higher than material goods."
Ah yes. Welcome to that mythical land where the tools of survival are too mundane to worry about and scarce resources don't exist unless it's to argue about "saving the planet". Then resources are so scarce we could run out tomorrow.
"'Collective ownership' is a catch phrase that is used to obscure what is really being discussed, much like 'lying hitlery' or 'trumped up trickle down'.
It is simply a term that has caught some fish for the oligarchs."
Gee, whatever happened to the proletariat owning all of the means of production like it mentions in the communist manifesto? Is that not collective ownership?
"The flaw in Larken's argument is that he attempts to paint communism as a rule by force nightmare while he advocates rule by force for the oligarchs that will be at the top of his crapitalust pyramid.
Unless you eliminate wages, banks, and money you will always serve those that have more than you, this is what an-crap is all about, keeping the sleeple on the farm and growing wool."
By all means, let's do away with money and go back to being hunters and gatherers with a life expectancy of 30 years. Because if you want to have a modern industrial civilisation, minerals have to be extracted and processed, trees have to be planted, grown, harvested and turned into lumber. Cereals, fruits and vegetables have to be grown, harvested and brought to market. Cattle have to be raised and slaughtered. Since one man can't possibly produce all those things, people have to trade for what they need and we found out long ago that bartering can't cut it, so you need some kind of medium of exchange.
This caring about other things than material stuff is all very nice, but if you want to propose a model for society, you have to get off the clouds and start dealing with reality.
All I've seen you do is talk in circles and tell AnCaps that they are shills, even though AnCaps explicitly state they are against the concept of a ruling class.
I read one of your articles and it was the same thing...references to your past as an "AnCrap" and your "seeing the light" and becoming an "AnCom"... you seem to think you have some kind of secret knowledge which elevates you above the rest of us but I have yet to see you convey an actual idea or explain WTF you're even talking about when you toss out comments like "keep working, stop paying" (OK, Yoda!).
Its as if the science of economics doesn't even exist to you...and, like all commies I've ever encountered, you seem to think that people working for self-interested reasons instead of "love for their fellow man" is some great evil--if I get paid $10/hour to clean toilets that's me being a shill/slave of the 'oligarchy' but if I do it out of 'love' for humanity then scraping skidmarks off of the toilet bowl is fine, LOL.
You don't address any points/ideas Larken or anyone else makes and you don't make any points of your own other than to blame all of the world's ills on "crapitalism", which is odd, since (the way AnCaps define "capitalism") it only represents the ideas of peaceful trade and wealth accumulation. Why do you get to say that State Communism "isn't real communism" but we don't get to say that State Capitalism "isn't real capitalism"? Why has state-run capitalism done so much better than state-run communism and do you maybe think this gives us a hint at what system is most compatible w/human-nature?
Ok, @kingkawdad, you get your worldview.
That economics is not a science is just a fact.
If you don't mind being worked for your lack of knowledge that is fine for you, but when you advocate simply ending the dictatorship of rulers, but keeping the rules of the oligarchy, what have you changed?
The wealthiest rule us now, they will rule us if we adopted an-crap.
You got to read the books, open your mind to ideas not given to you by those that will kill us to control us, and decide for yourself.
Here is a short book: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/624/624-h/624-h.htm
That book is responsible for my identifying as an-com.
Edit----------
If you want to put up a post, or comment mine, we can hash this out, I got time,....
You're doing it again...telling me that I lack "knowledge" and that the rich plumber down the street 'rules' me...that I'm somehow unwittingly promoting the current system which I clearly state I'm AGAINST...and economics isn't a science? Bizarre statement to make considering its a well-established social science.
Simply telling others that they're dumb and not on your level of enlightenment w/o ever explaining your position is just you being a dick. Larken Rose and others have made clear, simple arguments in support of their ideas and attempted to engage you but you only repeat your dickish comments.
To say that I--who have views FAR outside the mainstream--don't have an open mind is just silly.
Why would I want to continue hashing anything out w/someone who doesn't do anything but tell 'ancraps' how stupid they are?
"I'm right and you're wrong and if you can't see that you're just a stupid-head!"
NOW we are done.
We can let the folks decide who the troll was,...
Well, what do you want me to do?
If all you have is bullshit garbage in garbage out gov't funded schooling you have no clue what is outside the box that is your knowledge base.
Mine, too.
Nobody can know what they don't know.
What I do know, and can point you to my sources, if you like, is that crapitalism is slavery to those that have of those that have not.
They set themselves up as the greatest thing since sliced bread while they deny that very bread to the children of the poor.
$10 an hour is all they want to pay, less where they can, while taking the collective millions not paid in wages to build walls to keep out the very source of their wealth.
Stick it in your ear until you look behind the veils that separate you from the knowledge I have.
You see Larken has not bothered to defend himself, because he has looked behind the veils,...
Please forgive my curtness,....
Still talking in circles...capitalism bad, communism good...and no need to explain why or show Larken & Co. where their thinking is off...
Lazy dick.
How am I the lazy one? You are the one embracing your ignorance,...
Ok, we're done...GFY troll...
Are you the same freebornangle that posted to marcstevens.net forum and frequently called it crapitalism regardless of many people giving you many of the same arguments Larken has in the above article? If so, do you still refer to it as crapitalism?
Andy (aka. &e)
Lol, what are the odds of it not being me?
Just because I got shouted down there by the true believers in our lord and savior didn't stop me from continuing on in the finest of anarchist traditions.
I just gave up on changing the closed minds there, and moved on.
It will happen here, too.
Except here it takes on a life of it's own, can't be taken down like it can on a forum, and teases me with money.
I went and read your first link @freebornangel. Emma Goldman describes Communism as something distinct from Soviet Russia, but she makes the same logical fallacy as every other socialist by saying that you can have joint ownership of something. If resources are scarce, as they tend to be or become as populations grow, joint ownership will result in conflict, and that conflict will necessarily give rise to either state ownership or individual ownership of resources. If the state ends up owning everything, we all know what happens then, starvation and economic collapse. In a word, misery. If individuals own everything, people tend to be well fed, sheltered and prosperous.
https://steemit.com/anarchylibrary/@freebornangel/this-is-for-you-larken-and-jared-too
Well, the third one actually does a more complete job, as does this one: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/624/624-h/624-h.htm
Communism is something distinct from what happened in Russia as the word socialist says in ussr.
I will make a post detailing my proposal, perhaps you will come offer your opinion there.