Speak in hyperbole and extremes without attention to nuance or context, brehs 
Stateless Society
- Thread starter Poitier
- Start date
heisenburrr
Have Fun Staying Poor
As for the impact of technology in this future organization of society here is an exceptional piece on it by Balaji Srinivasan : http://www.wired.com/2013/11/softwa...oud-formations-could-lead-to-physical-nations
heisenburrr
Have Fun Staying Poor
So we agree. I am somewhat puzzled now as to what was your point?
Of course communism is impossible and IMO hardly desirable but that is for another debate...
Now you argue that we NEED government... In what form? Not all type of governance/leaderships are equal.
That was what I was thinking.
Industrialism allowed for the world population to grow exponentially. Without a state or capitalism, how do you do fast manufacturing and production? No human is going to willingly work in a factory if all needs are met.
This is why I think automation is big. It can do the industrial processes for mankind while reap the benefits of that work, but would the people who own most of the world's wealth be willing to give it up, since they will be the ones who own the machine that carry out these processes initially?
JahFocus CS
Get It How You Get It
What is a "totalitarian regime?" That is a term that describes political organization, not economic systems. If you're referring to fascist states, yes, they result from aborted or failed socialist revolutions. Why? Because the bourgeoisie drops all pretense and is forced to maintain its rule through the full, naked use of force through the state. Fascism, you might say, is the purest form of class rule under capitalism, and develops to turn back a serious bid for power by the working-class.
Slavery is not democratic, come on breh.
Democracy doesn't mean a majority can vote you into unpeoplehood and enslave you. Individual and human rights are part of democratic thought and practice.The abolition of slavery was a violation of property rights, though. Was this a democratic or undemocratic act? (warning - Think and answer carefully, because your answer will reveal a lot about the true nature of private property
)Interesting... because for the vast majority of human history, humans did not live under states. States arose due to the emergence of class societies - a fairly recent development in human history...
Communism refers to a stateless, classless society.
I'd prefer a comparative examination of capitalism.
Looking at it independent of available alternatives seems like a waste of time.
That said, the anarcho version is untenable
I disagree that analyzing something is useless unless you're comparing it to something else.
But anarcho-capitalism is untenable?
The plot thickens 
You've given us some gold in this thread @DEAD7. A real gold mine of political, logical, and ethical contradictions, that are required to argue for capitalism.
Typical communist rhetoric.
How would you like to have someone supervise your actions in the restrooms because of some uncivilized messy bunch?
That breh wasn't even supporting communism in his post, how is he spouting "typical communist rhetoric?" 
I won't even entertain the silly example you gave as that has nothing to do with communism at all.
But anarcho-capitalism is untenable?
The rhetoric from socialism, is better. No debating.
The results however
JahFocus CS
Get It How You Get It
The rhetoric from socialism, is better. No debating.
The results however
I think it is important to think about things in a historical context... not just the span of a few decades, but on the scale of hundreds of years to a millennium or more. At some points in history, it seemed that slave society was forever and the best that could be done, same for feudalism. Democratic and republican thought was basically nowhere to be found in Europe in a dominant or influential position for almost 1,000 years or more... yet it ended up reemerging.
At any given point in time, I think it is a serious mistake to assume we are at the end of history. Writing the obituary to a system that addresses the contradictions of a system in place that is riddled with contradictions seems intellectually insufficient and irresponsible.
Slave societies and feudal societies only really gave way to a different mode of production when the contradictions inherent in them became too great. Perhaps capitalism has not reached that point yet
. That is a point that I will concede since capitalist crises can still be exported elsewhere and kicked down the road for future generations to deal with. But that can't be done indefinitely 
At the end of the road is either the solution to these contradictions or the common ruin of humanity... the latter case is sad to contemplate given our potential. 
I stopped here to
Before we go further let me ask, has socialism, in your opinion, ever been implemented? and if so, what were the results?
JahFocus CS
Get It How You Get It
I stopped here to
Before we go further let me ask, has socialism, in your opinion, ever been implemented? and if so, what were the results?
Why the
? lol.Hmmm, I would be inclined to say no, not really. The closest would be the very earliest years of the Soviet Union, when the soviets actually had power and not the state, and anarchist Catalonia... but both of these examples come either in the immediate aftermath of war, or in the midst of war. Russia had a relatively small working-class in the first place, around the time of the revolution. These revolutions of the 20th century were the first efforts to build working-class power or at least improve working-class living standards. Literally the first, ever, in history. Of course there were errors, mistakes, contradictions, etc. The working-class must learn from those experiences. But throwing it all away isn't the right thing to do. We don't judge democracy or republicanism by the failure of these models in antiquity, do we? Or the righteousness and legitimacy of abolition and freedom by the failures of large slave revolts or their contradictions/unsavory aspects?
In terms of results, those 20th century revolutions did yield some gains. There were also failures, shortcomings, and contradictions. Socialism isn't something that can be imposed or led from above... the Stalinist model has proven itself to be state capitalist and tyrannical. Socialism requires the working-class to organize in its interests and take power.
One thing I've been thinking about is how previous dominant classes have rose to power during previous shifts between modes of production (slave economies to feudalism, feudalism to capitalism). In those instances, the dominant class(es) were still numerical minorities in society. The difference for socialism is that the vast majority of humanity is working-class. How might that affect the transition and how it looks and develops? I don't have the answers to that.
@JahFocus CS
and what would prevent free market capitalism(voluntary trade/association) from emerging from this stateless socialism?
and what would prevent free market capitalism(voluntary trade/association) from emerging from this stateless socialism?
JahFocus CS
Get It How You Get It
@JahFocus CS
and what would prevent free market capitalism(voluntary trade/association) from emerging from this stateless socialism?
To start, how is voluntary trade = free market capitalism? Trade has been around forever, going back even to hunter-gatherers - you consider all trading to be capitalist? And how is voluntary association part of capitalism? If you're referring to the "freedom" of people to choose employers and considering that to be voluntary/free association... how much freedom is it when you have to work for someone or starve? All the commons have been expropriated and placed under private control so those elites can benefit... Under capitalism, people do what they have to do to survive. Most people aren't in jobs that really use what they're best at - people take what they can get to put food on the table. Tons of constraints come in when individuals search for jobs.
Assuming a scenario of stateless socialism... with workers controlling production and production for human need, not profit... a person or group of people would have to seize the means of production to reestablish private property. If they try to bring wage slavery back, the community will of course resist it. I'd imagine it couldn't be accomplished by convincing people to revert to capitalism, just like no one (well, exceedingly few people) today would sign up to become a serf or a slave. The only way to reestablish those relations would be by force.
If a person doesn't want to work, perhaps they could opt out
. But that would come at the cost of what would've been their share of social production. I can't think of any examples where a person could opt out and legitimately try to start an enterprise that would be employing people through wages... It is difficult to envision a scenario where one person or a small group of people could nonviolently and non-coercively accumulate the wealth and control of means of production to do that. It is even more difficult for me to envision a scenario where people would sign up to be employed like that. Please share if you can think of any scenarios How do you think it would arise, without violence or coercion? How would a minority arise to reestablish private property?
I believe there would be incentives to reintroduce capitalist processes and practices, and that voluntary association/free trade would have to be regulated to keep capitalism from emerging... as it has in every instance where socialism was attempted.
Lets focus on the track record of socialist* systems
Its by all accounts a failed system.If you plan to stick to the 'its never been implemented', then what we are doing is comparing a fully implemented system, complete with millions of evolved systemic process, to a theoretical system conjured up at zero cost, and thought out using abstract people.
This places the burden of proof(as to its superiority) on socialism.
I've conceded the rhetoric war is won by socialism hands down, but the reality heavily favors capitalism IMO.
How could we go about implementing voluntary socialism? 
The more I think about it, the sillier it sounds...
edit:
@ us both accusing the others system of choice of leading to a de facto state
The more I think about it, the sillier it sounds...edit:
@ us both accusing the others system of choice of leading to a de facto state
Last edited:
JahFocus CS
Get It How You Get It
I believe there would be incentives to reintroduce capitalist processes and practices, and that voluntary association/free trade would have to be regulated to keep capitalism from emerging... as it has in every instance where socialism was attempted.
Lets focus on the track record of socialist* systems
If you plan to stick to the 'its never been implemented', then what we are doing is comparing a fully implemented system, complete with millions of evolved systemic process, to a theoretical system conjured up at zero cost, and thought out using abstract people.
This places the burden of proof(as to its superiority) on socialism.
I've conceded the rhetoric war is won by socialism hands down, but the reality heavily favors capitalism IMO.
What would these incentives to reintroduce capitalist processes and practices be?
What are you defining "voluntary association" as? And "free trade?" I mentioned earlier how choice is constrained in capitalism with regards to employment.
I think a fundamental difference here is that we're focused on different aspects of economics. I'm focused on the production process and you seem to be more focused on the end product. And the system encourages that focus on only the end products and obfuscates the social relationships and tyrannical distributions of power that underlie production...
Further, I think the definition of socialism is of vital importance. In the cases you're thinking of, can you point to mass, sustained worker control of the means of production? Because that is a necessary condition for socialism. If you want to just classify those states as socialist simply because they called themselves socialist, I don't think that's very appropriate if they don't have many or any features of socialism. It is also of vital importance to consider the factors, on a case-by-case basis, of the collapse of the states you have in mind (which examples are you really thinking of here? USSR and China?). It seems very simplistic to just say in all of those cases, "ah, it was socialism that led to their collapse."
In your mind, what were the specific features of "socialism" that produced collapse in your examples?
How could we go about implementing voluntary socialism?
edit:
100% of people won't agree on a system because different classes have different material interests. The ruling classes wouldn't consider socialism to be "voluntary." Slaveholders didn't consider abolition to be voluntary and the bosses wouldn't either. They'd cry "theft" and "tyranny" when the workers gain control of their lives and reorient production for people and not profit.
Thing is, the working class is the vast majority of humanity. And they produce everything. If they decide the exploiters' jig is up and their rule won't continue, then that would be that... Democracy isn't about the right of a small elite to oppress the vast majority. There is no right to oppress others. Is your objection to socialism that people would "have" to work (people have to work under capitalism too... or they die)...? Or wouldn't be able to lay exclusive, private claim to resources and the means of social production to establish control and power over others? As I mentioned previously, I do think that people should be able to opt out. It would just eliminate their entitlement to proceeds from society's production (since they chose not to contribute). And I don't see how that option is made viable unless those people choose to use force to expropriate the means of production... or if they opt to become hunter-gatherers in some region of the world
and
yeah