Our Political Positions

What if you work all your life on the farm? What if you are the one who starts to make it grow and produce work for others, then your mother and father pass on and someone comes and tells you that the farm is no longer yours. Who takes over? Are they as good of a leader as you were? What happens to you? Do you have to start from destitute or do you get money from the government to start over?

I believe that in the success of people who build great institutions you can find the success of a nation in the long term, as a company grows it might not chose the son/daughter or the founder for their next CEO but the special education and wealth that comes to those children allows them to go forth and create new companies or add branches to the current company and in doing so creating work and bringing in new ideas, growing up with the understanding of money and expensive education they receive not to mention the connections and friends they make both at their schools and in the adult world make them the ideal leaders.

As for those who start in the lower classes there is no reason why they cannot earn their way to the top by person merit as the founder I mentioned did, in fact by keeping old money and adding new money you can create a sense of hope and opportunity for all member of the nation. I know it is not a perfect system, but neither is Anarcho-Communism, you could just as easily get a bad CEO for a company or worthless son as you could just end up with a nation run entirely by the connected and influential in the system you propose, I mean if you are in charge of choosing who gets this farm then who are you going to give it to? Someone who can help you climb higher in the system or someone who can do nothing for you?

Remember some things are inherited that you can’t take away like influence and connections, and I believe that would truly and finally break the system you propose as it would be easy for people to keep the little man down and keep the children of important people up, simply because in a nation that takes everything from everyone those with power would undoubtedly make a pact to insure the protection of each other’s children at the expense of all those below, because in the end most people will do anything to know their children are safe after they are gone.

@ColonelHess
Lenincat mistook possession for privet property.


Posting this again for good measure:

[yt:113snpja]lcgPy4X5X2w[/yt:113snpja]

If you are the only person who works the farm, then you are the only person who has possession of the farm.

1. 17

2. Nope, in fact I am not even proletarian. I am a petite-bourgeois student, but it doesn’t contradict my beliefs, I hate the system not the player.

3. They can accomblish something, a better world for there children, doing well at there job, having fun at work, striving to help society.

There is no such thing as a authoritarian communist system, communism is anarchistic by its very definition. Now many Marxists wish to see a DotP before communism, but as far as I am concerned the fastest way to abolish capitalism is to abolish the state.

@ColonelHess The workers collectively become leader. So what if you worked all your life on the farm, your children still did not earn it.

Sure, if you try hard enough you can be rich, but you can also try just as hard and fail horribly. Also as we can see, many people get a jump boost. But yes, you can try hard enough and get to exploit others! So wonderful instead of being exploited, you exploit others out of there surplus labor.

In another thread you were preaching no currency and this sort of crap and I offered an example I thought up about how a rift in power could occur in a anarcho-communistic society.

Let's say that in part of this communist world there is a factory that produces canned goods. The factory is the main cause of employment in a small town, a river runs through the town. After a couple generations living in a communist world, education started to lose wind as there was no real reason to become a teacher if you were going to get no benefits and you could just work at the canned goods factory with everyone else in your small village. Let's say two main communities arise within the factory workers between the 30% of the population living on the north side of the river and the 70% living on the south side of the river over say, hunted game that was not being shared equally amongst both communities. The northern community was bitter over the southern community consuming some of the canned goods as times were tough that year, further lowering the communities ability to trade with more distant communities. The northern communities had greater access to hunt able meats and had no need to consume the canned goods, thus a rivalry occurred.


No matter how this story ends? Someone get's hurt . With no money in existence it puts you back to an era of hoarding resources and trade with other communities becomes difficult and rigged towards certain members of society. With no real government how can you restrict who has what? There is so many holes in this ... How did you think you would manage international equality on resources? Did you think that trade would just be easy peezy give aways or..

I honestly don`t think human nature can allow for any large quantity of people to share property indefinately. I think where you draw the line on property vs possessions is how you equally distribute the possessions without a government.

P.S. With all this exploitation going on in my country I feel as if we could have massive amounts of poor and hungry on the streets and riots and oh wait none of this is happening because our unemployment rate is low and our average pay is over 40k a year. Seriously in Canada we have a pretty high minimum wage and most people who are successful are the ones who took school seriously.

That brings up another thing, how do you create a good educational system without a government?

This is why I prefer Anarcho-Technocracy to Anarcho-Communism.

What was that again?

Where you the other person in that thread?

Anyway:
http://eoslife.eu/articles/35-social/97-anarcho-technocracy-the-politics-of-things

To go a step further, I believe Syndicalism must be achieved before this is possible. From there we abolish the concept of unskilled labor and being the automation proses that will put an end to work. If all goes according to plan, the workers coops will become the Technates.

Your scienario wouldnt happen, people would still take teaching jobs because they want to, and people will work in factorys because they want to. Things arent "shared equally" under communism, people simply take from the general pool of goods as they please. They arent rationed out, there just taken and given.

@Demondaze Any Anarchist society will gravitate to a communistic nature.

True. Technocracy in combination with Anarchism would be communistic.

However, Technocracy addresses two points you made in the next part of your comment.

People want to work little to no hours in factories. This is addressed in Technocracy with heavy automation.

In Technocracy everyone does have an equal share in resource consumption, meaning no one has more consuming power than anyone else. However resources are not "rationed", the idea is that efficient resource management and technological innovation will lead to an abundance of goods.

Oh right the dont rule people rule things, from that Australian poet. The point with that is that it isnt a real extended political philosophy like anarcho communism but rather a few quite vague philosophical guidelines. On a slightly related note the use of energy accounting as advocated by the technocratic movement could be usefull to make a gift economy more doable on a larger scale.

Well syndicalism might be usefull for fighting capitalism, but I think it should only be a part of a wider strategy to adopt parallel institutions that would replace statist institutions. Also things such as DIY culture and resurgence of small scale production (the laser printer you linked to in another thread) could potentially lower the importance of wage labour in the first place.

This is true. I'm fully open to diversity.

People want to work little to no hours in factories. This is addressed in Technocracy with heavy automation.

In Technocracy everyone does have an equal share in resource consumption, meaning no one has more consuming power than anyone else. However resources are not "rationed", the idea is that efficient resource management and technological innovation will lead to an abundance of goods.[/quote:1l3l0i9f]
I am in complete agreement with everything you said.

People want to work little to no hours in factories. This is addressed in Technocracy with heavy automation.

In Technocracy everyone does have an equal share in resource consumption, meaning no one has more consuming power than anyone else. However resources are not "rationed", the idea is that efficient resource management and technological innovation will lead to an abundance of goods.[/quote:gv5ql9zb]
I am in complete agreement with everything you said.[/quote:gv5ql9zb]

If you can get it to work.

Okay lord pessimism.

Lol, just seems like you're imagining a perfect fantasy world.

Not perfect, everything has some underlying problem. Everything I say should be viewed with some level of skepticism and critique.
And even if we did achieve my ideal society, I would NOT want that to be the end of human development.

In short: Progress 4 life

Primary difference between you and communists.

Thank you?

Still one of the few moderates on the forums, but I am slowly drifting towards the right and south of the graph.

I dont want to take the test again because it will get polluted