You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Collective vs. Private Ownership (Part 2 of a Series)
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.