Communists.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

asdasd

Finally, I'd appreciate knowing the names of the artists, writers, and composers who were viciously persecuted under free-market capitalism.

given the kind of logic on this thread from Marxists, he can name any non-Marxist state which locks people up for reasons unrelated to the how the means of production are organised - i.e. religious persecution in Iran.

Emphatcially that kind of thing is not caused by capitalism, it is religious and clearly it doesnt apply to all capitalisms - this fundamental piece of utterly simple piece of logic is never obvious to Marxists. Marxism is devoid of science, reason, or logic.

Democratic capitalist societies are the freest on Earth, the freest societies in Earth's history (although they have become less free with the rise of the Politically Correct left: which has it's origins in Marxism).

Take dadaKopf, not just free to support communist tripe on the internet, free - unlike many other extreme philosophies - to learn it in University, and free to get paid by Capitalist democratic States to teach the nonsense in University too. From which tenured position he can talk about capitalist oppression.

There is, of course, no chance of being bourgeois, or promoting "bourgeois" ideologies in any State he would wish on us. You cant actually have a crazy society and have truthtellers in high places.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

turgon

Another irony I find with communism is that they talk a lot on the Internet - but if capitalism was as restricting as communism their very Internet wouldn't be there.

But I suppose it all comes down to the "never been communism" argument. Whereas I realise that Russia wasn't pure communism, I'm very unsure that any "new" regime would be any nearer to true communism. I mean how many times has it been tried? I thought it would be probable that it worked out once.

Or maybe probability is too "capitalist" for them to consider.

brianthebard

asdasd wrote: »

The lack of scientific disipline here is obvious. The Marxist cult claims to be scientific, but when question or asked about its core theories, it throws a wobby and directs us back to source. Because the idea is core to the theory it must be true, the nasty bourgeois commentators must have not read Marx, or get a vulger understanding of it.

The way I remember it, you failed to disprove the theory of labour value then hid and pretended you hadn't lost, only to re-emerge when you want to sling insults.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

asdasd

The way I remember it, you failed to disprove the theory of labour value then hid and pretended you hadn't lost, only to re-emerge when you want to sling insults.

Jesus wept. There were tens of samples of how the labour theory of value was utter bunk in the earlier part of the thread. You answered none of them.

brianthebard

asdasd wrote: »

Jesus wept. There were tens of samples of how the labour theory of value was utter bunk in the earlier part of the thread. You answered none of them.

I answered your initial gold example, have you forgotten?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

asdasd

I answered your initial gold example, have you forgotten?

No you didnt. I let the idiocy go because there is only so much nonsense I can take, and the thread had moved on

To recap:

I gave an example of gold mining - one piece of gold found on the ground, and another mined. In actual real scientific terms labour is a function of work - and work is, unfortunately for the Marxtist - a scientific term. More work is applied to the Gold mined then the gold found. But both involve work in the scientific sense.

According to Marxtist theory one piece should be more expensive than the other.

You moved onto a Jeweler because you could not answer that question. You seem to think we have time, or inclination, to answer all stupid replies. Not so.

But If i really have to bother. For FFS.

The gold example is enough on it's own. Mining, or finding gold is primary production.

It is not an argument to ignore the original argument and move onto a different form of labour

But since you did.

Jewelery is a secondary form of production. And clearly Jewelers can apply the same work to the same gold input, and get different outputs depending on their talent level AND UNRELATED TO THE LABOUR EFFORT or WORK they put in. Unrelated to the hours, in other words.

In fact it is a trivial to imagine a useless jeweler ruining the value of the gold he has found by creating something that is of no use, so badly designed, that it has to be re-smelted. Jewelers like that go out of business, but it can easily happen. Were anybody untrained to try your hand at jewelery they would either destroy value, or add none.

i can see how your brain "works".The fact is that you are merely parroting Marxist theory, and cannot understand that you lost the argument despite the other examples we gave but think one example of answering a question we didnt ask without reply despite the other examples, just because didnt get around to answer, confirms you theory. That is the attitude of a cult. I have had better intellectual arguments from Intelligent Designers.

This shows once again how unscientific the minds of Marxists are.

Kick them out of the university now.

brianthebard

According to Marxtist theory one piece should be more expensive than the other.

This is where you go wrong, as I pointed out before, but you ignored it. I could go into further detail, but the above post has the final insult that I'm willing to take from you.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dreamlogic

Right, below is a fairly lengthy post, so no-one can accuse anyone of not responding to their questions... I'm splitting it into 2 posts actually to make it easier for if anyone wants to multi-quote or whatever. These opinions are purely just my own so if anyone who identifies as a communist etc is reading but wants to challenge or correct then feel free to do so. I'm more just challenging the questions asked(of which there have been a lot) rather than offering any definitive or "scientific" explanation of how things "should" be done.
(Of course if people want to come along and flame the discussion they will conveniently ignore this disclaimer anyway).

turgon wrote:

Going back to your happy factories. They sound grossly inefficient as people wont be working as hard and as long hours. How then are we to make enough supplies for the world?

Happy Factories, like the sound of that
In answer to your question, we'd no longer have the sort of giant corporations that we have today. Demand would be met though, I don't see why not. People would be working together to share in the rewards at the end. I don't think competitive rivalry etc is necessary for productivity. There is such a thing as healthy competition as a natural human trait. But I think when taken to the extreme, it's often bad for it(the product).
EDIT: I think this also addresses your later question about formula 1 car manufacturing etc.

For example my understanding of alienation is partly that workers have to be directly involved in a finished product so they be proud of their achievements. Thats fine if your building £250,000 Bentlys.

I'd say that would be up to the workers to choose how they want to be rewarded. The group would decide. Whatever is left over at the end of producing would be shared among all, I'd imagine. The system of producing would probably be much the same. Except the surplus isn't appropriated by a small few at the top as is currently the norm. If it was a Bentlys?(I'm guessing that must be a car brand) then they'd share out the collective earnings rather than giving people an actual car as you are suggesting. Basically it's better not to be too prescriptive here. It'd be up to the workers to decide co-operatively on how they'd be rewarded at the end... It'd be a system emphasising freedom of expression rather than having any hard and fast rules I think.

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

This is a good question, which I don't have any scientic answer to. Obviously careers such as brain surgery, air traffic control etc. are highly specialized and deserve to be rewarded as such. I wouldn't see a problem at all with rewarding talented occupations which contribute good to society. I don't think anyone receiving a lesser remuneration would have an issue with this because the extra income will have been justly earned.
So how are these earnings calculated under the current system anyway? I have no idea for example what a brain surgeon would typically be paid relative to say, a bank CEO?

turgon wrote:

Did he? I have re read all his posts in this thread and I still havent come across anything that remotely describes the chain of production in communism.

(She btw :pac:) turgon, I started posting in the thread quite late into the discussion. At that point, it was more like there was a comedy going on with some people giving out about marxists than a serious effort to grow in understanding. Meanwhile donegalfella was posting up cartoon images and what not. :rolleyes: So, I entered into the discussion more or less with this as the background of the discussion, coming from the perspective of an anti-capitalist. I did not come on here to read your mind and try to educate. You never asked me about "the chain of production" at all, so is it fair to accuse me of not describing it? I don't think so! I see you've asked some questions below so I'll do the best I can, okay? Don't expect miracles though. Your own education is your own responsibility! :pac:

Back to the questions then:

1
So too much is produced. In communism apparently we make only what we need, or something in or around that. As BtB said, one cant get this exactly. So we have to quantify need.

I'm not sure that we do have to. I mean this is open for debate of course but as I see it, people would be free to choose within the system! I'm not sure how I can elaborate on this to get somewhere with it if you're already entrenched in your own views... Maybe you ought to dig a bit deeper into the underlying philosophical concepts of choice, free will, consequences etc etc. And then come back to the question.

2
Now musical instruments. Once again you cant merely send out a form asking people what instruments they want. Because not only would fill in ones they play they would fill in ones they think they might do in the future. So I would apply for a piano and a guitar, but also a bango and drum kit because I would like to play them. ...

I don't know where your getting the impression that forms would need to be filled out etc. In an alternative system, people would be free to go into a shop and purchase these items when ever they wanted, much the same as they can do now. I don't see why not? They might not be able to purchase 10000 instruments at the same time though! And why would you need to do that anyway unless you wanted to sell them on to make yourself a profit..? But no, they'd certainly be able to purchase enough for their own use and that of their family and friends.

dreamlogic

turgon wrote:

So say I might explore the workings of an engine with a view to reducing car emissions. But at the end of the day, all my mental strain wouldnt get me any tangible reward, instead id simply feel good about having helped. Is this really motivation enough.

I'd imagine they could have rewards in place such as time off in lieu of hours worked etc. Whether there would be money as reward is not out of the question either. This would depend. But the central point here is that the worker would not be there primarily to be overworked and underpaid relative to their output. Work would be important, it would also be valued. But so would other things like spending time with family etc.

Because in the end, the designer of the car is "above" the one who simply tighten screws.

Well there would be no point in having someone designing who wasn't qualified to do so! But why does this mean that one person is above the other? I think this idea is encouraged by the capitalist mindset tbh. It is a value judgement. Perhaps over time this will change...

3
So will workers solidarity effectively mean the managers cant innovate when said innovation removes workers?

If the collective earnings are shared out then it would also be in the workers interests to innovate I'd say...

The alternative appears to be to get the worker to produce the whole component himself.

There wouldn't be a need for the worker to produce the whole singlehandedly! Who's saying they'd be expected to?

But this obviously breeds inefficiency. The reason the system above was created was because the computer companies wanted to make most products for as little labour. But given your reducing this ratio, and theres is only a certain amount of labour, can we really produce as much as is now produced? Will we all be able to have our home computer?

As I mentioned before in another post, the focus would be more on quality products than quantity and moving produce off the shelves. A laptop might last for 7 years say, rather than the average 3 or so years it does currently.. Less demand for new computer = less need for supply. Also as mentioned before, human expertise would be channelled away from destructive technologies and into human-centred areas of technology. This would also lead to an increase in quality.

asdasd wrote:

But do we really need to read Homeopathic literature - some of which must be articulate and jargoneering enough - to dismiss Homeopathy? No, we dont.

You could say that about anything could you not? Even capitalism

donegalfella wrote:

But suppose that this democratic consultation results in people not being willing to surrender their private property to the communist state. What do you do then?

In the sort of society I would envision this massive concentration of wealth would not exist in the first place.

I would note that a political system cannot make people's lives matter. Only people can make their lives matter.

I agree to an extent. But I would also note that people are part of a society.

A political system can pave the way towards self-fulfillment by giving each person the freedom to pursue life, liberty, and happiness in his or her own way—but whether someone makes his life matter or not is ultimately up to him.

Can't argue with you here at all. I would make the point though that captialism does not "pave the way" for most people.

I agree. But the arms industry is a product of belligerent statism, something that communists never exactly rejected ...

This is irrelevant to communism. It's already been pointed out numerous times that you have to forget about this idea of "a communist state". Like an anarchist state, which I think you mentioned earlier yourself, the term "communist state" is oxymoronic. Your questions are interesting I think, but I can't answer them because when I think of communism I am already conceiving of it as an international philosophy. Both (state and communism) are contradictory to my mind.

military research has produced a great many innovations that have become "human-centred technologies" in the civilian world

Human well-being should be the priority. You're not in disagreement on this point I hope..?

You want to downsize an industry that develops drugs that alleviate suffering and prolong people's lives? Why?!

I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't load the questions like that DF : / I am simply against drug-manufacturing being in the hands of capitalists who are obviously more interested in what "the market" wants than what the person needs. The pharmaceuticals industry is an obvious example of profits taking priority over the well-being of the consumer.

I don't see many people on this thread disputing the fact that the USSR was a communist state.

I thought general opinion would've moved on from this old cold war propaganda by now. I think that by constantly bringing this up maybe you want to actually avoid discussing communism in terms of being a philosophy of statelessness...

But the never-say-die communist left is oblivious to history.

Anyway just in response to this, I can't agree at all with this bald statement you are making. What you are getting at here seems to be a more general point about the nature of historical awareness..? Usually someone from a privileged background is going to more inclined towards a view of history that is biased in favour of their political beliefs... It goes a bit overboard though to say that any group who's history doesn't agree with theirs is "oblivious to history"! Or am I misinterpreting what you said?

turgon wrote:

The issue is that communists like Stalin and Mao felt that to make people truly free it was necessary to slaughter millions and millions of people who rebelled (or didnt) against their system.

Stalinism and Maoism are not communism. They are bastardisations of the theory. Next question?

asdasd wrote:

"economic and technological stagnation"
He's cracking me up.

Would you like to elaborate on why you think this isn't the case?

Take dadaKopf, not just free to support communist tripe on the internet

Are you saying you object to freedom of expression on the internet?

There is, of course, no chance of being <insert class>, or promoting <insert class> ideologies in any State he would wish on us. You cant actually have a crazy society and have truthtellers in high places.

That's not the first time on this thread you've described the capitalist system unbeknownst to yourself!

The lack of scientific disipline here is obvious. The Marxist cult claims to be scientific, but when question or asked about its core theories, it throws a wobby and directs us back to source.

I'm still waiting for you to answer the question that was asked of you at least twice already about why a state would go to war, having stated yourself that the views of its population are irrelevant? Could it be something to do with the "capitalist cult" ?

donegalfella wrote:

..they can teach, write, and publish whatever views they like, under the twin liberal banners of freedom of speech and academic freedom.They sometimes even receive significant economic compensation..

In a non-capitalist system, people would be free to speak/teach etc about an ideal of capitalism if they wanted to do that. The system would mean that there'd be a ceiling on what they would earn from it though. Obviously.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

turgon

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

+1
I think theres something to be read into the fact the the only person who answered doesnt even consider themselves communist.


Im going to address specific points first, and then the general jist after. Feel free to skip to the general part if too long!

dreamlogic wrote: »

I'd imagine they could have rewards in place such as time off in lieu of hours worked etc. Whether there would be money as reward is not out of the question either.

But what other rewards are there?

I always imagined money would be gone in communism. If everythings to be redistributed, whats the point in money. But maybe thats where I was misled.

If it is only money, I dont see how this system differs to the current one.

dreamlogic wrote: »

But the central point here is that the worker would not be there primarily to be overworked and underpaid relative to their output.

But would you not contend that all your really seeking is that the employees own their place of buisness? Something that can be done within capitalism anyway?

dreamlogic wrote: »

If the collective earnings are shared out then it would also be in the workers interests to innovate I'd say...

If everyone was selfish. But communism oft times goes hand in hand with workers solidarity. So even though 60% of the factory will receive better earnings they might vote No out of compassion to the other 40%.

dreamlogic wrote: »

As I mentioned before in another post, the focus would be more on quality products than quantity and moving produce off the shelves.

Of course. But quality often reduces productivity.

The Bently car I mentioned is actually a hand made car. Asfaik you have to order one years in advance so that you are put on a list ands the time consuming process started. If every car was to be made this way there is no way we would all have cars, we just couldnt make enough.

dreamlogic wrote: »

Also as mentioned before, human expertise would be channelled away from destructive technologies and into human-centred areas of technology.

It might be worth mentioning the the destructive technologies can spill into technology we all use. A lot of innovation occured through the Space Race, which wouldnt have happened if not for competition.

dreamlogic wrote: »

Human well-being should be the priority.

But whos version of well being? Im sure we have all different ideas of what it is to live "well."

dreamlogic wrote: »

The pharmaceuticals industry is an obvious example of profits taking priority over the well-being of the consumer.

Well if the company doesnt take care of the well-being of the consumer they obviously wont use it. Thus, well-being and profits are tied together.


Ok so generally.

What your posts described was more worker ownership of the factory they worked in rather than full blaze communism. One has to consider that communism kind of ties all these factories together. So they all become inter-dependant.

I dont think the amount a worker earns would be proportional to the amount the factory earns. For example some industries might earn more than others, but in communism everyone is equal, so these profits are equalled out.

Also the very issue of "earning." Does communism still operate on prices? Of course the true "worth" of a product would have to be established (proportional to worked hours I assume). I could kind of see that working.

Theres still the whole issue of need. How much is produced? If not enough forks are produced can I set up a fork factory? But then I have to set my price even to all other forks?

At this stage Im just confusing myself. I can see some modules working, but not the whole package.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

turgon

I just find it strange that these are very educated people putting forward Marxism,, who dont seem to realise that their inability to answer questions concerning its practical application partly disproves the system.

I wouldnt mind this, of course, if it werent for the fact that they envisage forcing us all to adhere to communism, without being able to tell us how it works.

And they dont realise either its totally self destructive to debate the way they do. Someone viewing this debate has no reason to follow communism when all questions about its practicality are bluntly dodged, or the semantics of said question trawled over for a few hours.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dreamlogic

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Yes, of course they should. The brain surgeon's job is a matter of life and death!

More generally, who would determine the relative compensations ?

The people involved in the organisation.

I agree with you that capitalism doesn't "pave the way" for people who are lazy, dumb, and unmotivated. A meritocratic society rewards effort and dedication. But why is this unfair?

I agree that effort and talent should be rewarded. As for dedication, well I think this should depend on what the person is dedicated to.

Should a hard-working, diligent, productive person be deemed "equal" to some lazy sod who rarely shifts off his sofa? Should life reward them commensurately?

Again you are loading your questions here. You are assuming that someone who is a critic of capitalism is opposed to hard work!

Not at all. Unlike you, however, I don't see any conflict between pursuing profit and pursuing human well-being.

Well you are saying profit comes first then. You can't have it both ways.

It's quite clear that people in modern capitalistic countries have the longest life expectancies, the best educations, and the highest standards of living that the world has ever seen.

At the expense of other countries. I don't think that's okay, myself.

Capitalism has given Average Joe a quality of life that would have been the envy of monarchs a few hundred years ago. And I think that's a good thing.

There is no way that I could agree with this. Capitalism hasn't "given" us anything! Changes in quality of life, fair pay, 40 hour week, end of child labour, workers entitlements etc all had to be fought for by organised labour movements. Left to its own devices, capitalism would never have opted by itself to introduce these changes!

You seem to be presuming here that the pharmaceutical market supplies all kinds of drugs that we don't need, while withholding things that we do need. Can you give some examples?

Yes. An obvious example would be the massive growth in the use and abuse of antidepressants etc. These drugs are marketed and advertised on tv in the US. Luckily we haven't gotten that bad here (yet). Also there is evidence that companies are less likely to introduce new medicine into the market, as they prefer to produce and promote what is already selling well. Some extracts from an article:

"Newer isn't always better, when it comes to drugs," Randall Stafford, a medical professor at Stanford University, told Stanford Medicine Magazine in an interview last year. "The FDA approves drugs on the basis of their superiority to placebo, not their superiority to existing drugs."
... as pharmaceutical companies merge and consolidate to raise their profits, they often drop innovative but less-lucrative drug applications.
... the intellectual-property protections have created an "oligopolistic market" that has increased the cost of drugs to consumers and limited innovation by encouraging companies to create and market me-too drugs instead.

What makes you assume that I'm from a "privileged background"?

I didn't assume that tbh. I used the word "someone".
Just reading back over what I wrote I can see how maybe it could be read the way you read it... Yeah I should've moved to a new paragraph or something to make myself clearer, sorry.
What I was trying to express there, was the general idea of class consciousness; how awareness - or lack of- affects a persons view of the world.

As for my view of history, I simply don't accept the allegedly "scientific" Marxist view that the course of human history is an inevitable dialectical progression towards communism. Marx's dialectical materialism is a load of pseudo-Hegelian tosh, as far as I'm concerned. The reality is that Marx was simply gazing into a crystal ball back in the 1860s, making fanciful guesses based on his own tendentious analysis of the Victorian factory system.

Why do you call it pseudo-Hegelian?
Also you call it a tendentious analysis? So does this mean that you see nothing wrong with the working conditions of the time?

In typical nineteenth-century fashion, he dressed up his speculative guesswork in the language of "science." But there is nothing remotely "scientific" about his method.

There was nothing scientific about Christianity. So whether you view something as "scientific" or not is hardly an argument against it being embraced by the masses, just like consumerism is embraced by the masses in the current era.
Economics is not an exact science anyway...

To predict the future, one would need to be able to predict the future actions, interactions, preferences, and choices of approximately six billion people, as well as of many trillions of people who don't yet exist. I've never known someone to solve an equation that involves trillions of irrational or unknown variables. Even the best psychologists and mathematicians in the world are unable to predict what a single child will do or say five minutes from now.

Well it is possible to project and notice trends and to follow a trend to its logical conclusion. What you say here is interesting to a point but also I find it to be counter-intuitive. It seems to me that you're positing quite a chaotic view of the world here. But isn't being human what enables us to transcend chaos? We can foresee danger and build shelter etc. Doesn't our survival depend on a certain capacity or willingness to prognosticate?

If I asked you to give Aryan white supremacists another shot at ruling the world, what would be your response?

My response would be: I wouldn't want any elite group or authority to rule the world. I want everyone to have their view represented.

No, they are what the theory inevitably becomes when put into practice.

But I thought you were against inevitability..?! Isn't this a contradiction of what you said earlier about historical inevitablity? Can you explain the difference here please?

Can you name any system not based on liberal capitalism that upholds the basic tenets of academic freedom?

Well capitalism is not under any serious threat currently. I think you'd find that if/when it does come under threat that there would be a certain crackdown on free speech etc. Take McCarthyism for example.
Even today there are certain writers/journalists who are marginalised, in the USA especially. Alot of the mainstream media/news over there is very propagandistic, patriotic etc.
If communism(or any other -ism) was international, and it was a fair system, I'd see no reason why they'd feel threatened or why academic freedom would be a problem.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

S-Murph

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Capitalism does not reward talent, effort nor hard work. It is totally incapable of measuring these values.

No, I'm saying that profit becomes the motive that impels people to do innovative, creative, enterprising things that ultimately benefit the greater good of mankind. The common good follows from the pursuit of individual self-interest.

Profit is not the motivation within capitalism. Money is the means to attain something else. The motivation within capitalism is that something else, not profit or money.

Communism is not necessarily opposed to self interest. Communism is opposed to the system of reward based upon material wealth. Something which can be seen to be unnecessary throughout our lives.

Because Marx took his idea of the dialectic from Hegel, and somewhat clumsily mapped it onto his vision of history as the unfolding of class warfare towards inevitable communism.

Its very much questionable whether Marx viewed communism as an inevitibility. Rather, he pointed to tendencies. Even if he did see communism as inevitible, he certainly does not speak for every Marxist since.

It's tendentious in the sense that it promotes one controversial and highly questionable point of view, namely that history is inexorably destined, through a process of class struggle, to end in a communistic society.

Not entirely true. See above.

That's my point, though. The Christian is not obliged to offer any scientific evidence for the impending Last Judgement. But the Marxist, it would seem, should be expected to support his hypotheses with scientific data and objective fact.

What evidence do you require?

Comparing Marxism, which outlines tendencies within capitalism, and history in general, using scientific method - to Christiantity which makes definite and concrete assumptions about things, without any basis, is not valid. They are not comparible.

turgon

S-Murph wrote: »

Capitalism does not reward talent, effort nor hard work. It is totally incapable of measuring these values.

You are joking, right?

S-Murph

turgon wrote: »

You are joking, right?

Your serious, right?

Joycey

turgon wrote: »

You are joking, right?

Why would you say that?

Explain how the accumulation of money/resources as a result of a piece of paper which symbolises my ownership of some piece of land or means of producing something can be equated with "talent, effort or hard work".

johnathan woss

In my experience the Irish communists I've met have been intolerant, opinionated, arrogant and very light on facts.

They think they know what's best for everyone else, all us poor brainwashed deluded sheep.

Not many of them (i.e. none of them) had the impressive, calloused hands that hard work gives you.

In short they were the people I'd least like to actually share a "commune" with.
Presumbably though they'd be directing us what to do when the utopia arrives and would have their own "vanguard" commune complete with caviar and fine wines :pac:

Joycey

johnathan woss wrote: »

In my experience the Irish communists I've met have been intolerant, opinionated, arrogant and very light on facts.

I dont think ive ever actually met an Irish communist... Doesnt seem to be too many in this thread either.

In my experience it is the people who have never so much as picked up a book on the subject yet assume that people who are open to alternative ways of looking at/shaping society are "opinionated, arrogant and very light on facts" who blow the hardest and with the least good reason to in these kind of discussions...

johnathan woss

What books do you suggest I read ?

I've read the communist manifesto, thought it was a good read actually.

S-Murph

johnathan woss wrote: »

In my experience the Irish communists I've met have been intolerant, opinionated, arrogant and very light on facts.

They think they know what's best for everyone else, all us poor brainwashed deluded sheep.

Not many of them (i.e. none of them) had the impressive, calloused hands that hard work gives you.

In short they were the people I'd least like to actually share a "commune" with.
Presumbably though they'd be directing us what to do when the utopia arrives and would have their own "vanguard" commune complete with caviar and fine wines :pac:

In my experience, Irish Anarchists tend to be middle class hippy college students.

But of course, however, I think its only fair, and sensible, to judge the ideology of anarchism not by the people who partake in it, but by the ideas, theories and policies put forth.

You cant judge Marxism/communism/socialism/anarchism by the people who are involved. Thats just silly. You should judge the merits of an ideology based upon, as with above, the ideas.

johnathan woss

Yes but all these people are very light on fact and detail when explaining how the ideas would actually be translated to the real world.