[Conscript]

The risk of providing this initial money is what creates value.

You have a funny definition of value. I don't see any point in discussing this further, I've made my point already,

[Husky]

According to your definition of value, only back-breaking labor creates value.

[Conscript]

Do you consider air valuable Husky? Is it a commodity to you?

[Rei Murasame]

I agree here. But I don't think this supports your original statement from which this aspect of our conversation evolved from

Well, isn't OFCOM a government entity?

I think discussing an illegal product is a bad example. Let's say meth was legalized, destroying the criminal warlords' monopoly. What 'force element' would be there? The trade of beef or wheat today - where's the force element?

The legacy of force would be held over. To use a colourful analogy, if you build a house atop a foundation of human bones, you can't then deny that the bones are there and call it 'non aggression'.

Well, taking competition by force would be illegal under what I am advocating, so I don't see the relevance.

How would you make it illegal?

How do capitalists manage export products? Research? Co ops could employ similar (or superior ones they come up with) strategies in such cases. Since workers would run r/d departments of capitalist enterprises, who's so say they could not run a more efficient system? The market will sort this out though.

I mean that if the people who are buying the product are a different demography from those who are making it, then a closed country model won't explain why the wages of the workers might not rise.

Capital investment is risky. If an enterprise garners a legacy of providing good service and products, and this influences its sales, I do not see a problem. The capital employed developing an enterprise could have been consumed (hence its delayed nature), gifted to someone, given to charity, etc. Using savings to invest as a capitalist does is risky. A capitalist looks at a situation in society and says "society really needs/wants more cologne- i'm going to provide it". What if no one wants the cologne? Your savings are lost.

I don't see a problem either, I'm just telling you that this is built atop force.

If all cars are bad the likelihood of more competitors entering is high, in fact very high.

Usually, yes. Unless they happen to all be in some kind of price fixing collusion, in which case maybe not.

I don't like your first point of boycotting "life necessities". A car is not a necessity, for starters. And if a consumer cannot boycott his need for, say, bread, then he should thank the capitalist for providing it.

Well, 'life necessities' change depending on the era. I don't know about thanks or non-thanks, it just is what it is.

I agree entirely. Obviously using economic models to determine this is problematic as economic models make some assumptions which in theory are valid but not always true. E.g: the cornerstone of neoclassical economics is that rational preferences among outcomes that can be identified and associated with a value, individuals maximize utility and firms maximize profits, people act independently on the basis of full and relevant information.

Yes.

small capitalists are the backbone of the U.S's (and even more emphatically so in poor countries') economies.

I don't believe that you believe this. What would cause you to think that?

Not sure I understand you here.

The reason I invoked the defence spending issue, is because if the government takes you tax money and gives it to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Mitsubishi spends it on tanks and planes and then sells those to the government (which is pretty much what happens), then what that means is that the state and Mitsubishi have used force to extract protection money from the citizens.

Now, I don't have a problem with that, but I also acknowledge that taxes are taken up by force, by the capitalist state (or any other type of state for that matter).

The NAP justifies force in defense from force. If you attack me I have the right to self-defense. It's not a contradiction, as it states aggression to my person or ongoing peaceful projects (property) is illegitimate. Therefore, defending myself does not breach the moral principal.

Actually, denying the NAP is a performative contradiction. Hoppe's argumentation ethics is a creative justification of the NAP.

Other than that I justify its existence on a deontological basis and a consequentialist (or rule utilitarian) basis.

But you are dodging my point that you have to be in power, to be able to enforce the NAP. I don't understand why libertarians seem unable to understand this. The only way that you can stop people with big sticks from initiating force against each other, is if you have a bigger stick to threaten them all with.

And once you accept that fact, then it means you are going to have a state.

[Husky]

Well, isn't OFCOM a government entity?

The internet could function without OFCOM.

The internet is a network of networks.

Each constituent network sets its own policies. Only the internet protocol address space and the Domain Name System, are directed by a maintainer organization, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). And ICANN is a nonprofit private organization.

The fact that governments stick their noses in the internet does not mean it could not function without government presence. The government sets some regulations on internet activity, for instance attempting to prevent harmful activity.

The communications infrastructure of the Internet consists of its hardware components and a system of software layers that control various aspects of the architecture. All the providers of this equipment could run privately (and most do).

How would you make it illegal?

Private courts who would solve disputes such as this. Law would mostly be adjusted to local preference - "competing law." So if you point your gun at me behind the scenes when I am peacefully trying to sell wholesale beef, I can take this issue to court, or if I am directly attacked my defense agency (whether it was a privately run agency or a community co-operative) would defend me.

I don't see a problem either, I'm just telling you that this is built atop force.

Nope. With the state removed (a monopoly of force) competing courts would mediate trade by settling disputes. So you could trade peacefully. If someone violates the peace, he is tried under a court of law.

I don't believe that you believe this. What would cause you to think that?

Of course. Small businesses employ about half the workforce, and growth in small businesses dictates economic growth.

60% of private sector jobs come from small businesses.

In poor countries, the number is even higher.

The reason I invoked the defence spending issue, is because if the government takes you tax money and gives it to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Mitsubishi spends it on tanks and planes and then sells those to the government (which is pretty much what happens), then what that means is that the state and Mitsubishi have used force to extract protection money from the citizens.

Now, I don't have a problem with that, but I also acknowledge that taxes are taken up by force, by the capitalist state (or any other type of state for that matter).

Taxes are a classic form of coercion, indeed.

But you are dodging my point that you have to be in power, to be able to enforce the NAP. I don't understand why libertarians seem unable to understand this. The only way that you can stop people with big sticks from initiating force against each other, is if you have a bigger stick to threaten them all with.

And once you accept that fact, then it means you are going to have a state.

Let me try and make the argument as crystal clear as I can.

Government is a monopoly of force. We have to obey their law, use their police force, etc.

Under a voluntarist society, areas would adhere to the laws of reputable [private and competing] courts.

There is no such thing as "enforcing" the NAP. Don't think of it as enforcing.

Think of "enforcing" the NAP as reacting to aggression. You hurt me, I defend myself.

Anarchy has to have laws unless you're advocating illegalism. If you consider people acknowledging it is wrong to aggress against somebody as a state, and by "enforcing" this by defending themselves against aggression, then it's impossible to be stateless (in your eyes).

A state is a monopoly on aggression.

Removing the state means people are free to act as they wish, provided they do not aggress against other individuals.

You do not have to be in power to enforce the NAP. All that needs be done to "enforce" the NAP is self defense. And people will consult private courts to verify their situation of being aggressed against and then consult courts + arbitrators in order to receive compensation.

I don't care if you form communes, mass brothels, smoke weed all day, just do not force me to join. There's no telos or utopia in libertarianism; rather, voluntary actions ensure person liberty.

Liberty =/= comfort

[Rei Murasame]

The fact that governments stick their noses in the internet does not mean it could not function without government presence. The government sets some regulations on internet activity, for instance attempting to prevent harmful activity.

The communications infrastructure of the Internet consists of its hardware components and a system of software layers that control various aspects of the architecture. All the providers of this equipment could run privately (and most do).

But it could not have been built privately.

Private courts who would solve disputes such as this. Law would mostly be adjusted to local preference - "competing law." So if you point your gun at me behind the scenes when I am peacefully trying to sell wholesale beef, I can take this issue to court, or if I am directly attacked my defense agency (whether it was a privately run agency or a community co-operative) would defend me.

Why would this not eventually become a state?

Nope. With the state removed (a monopoly of force) competing courts would mediate trade by settling disputes. So you could trade peacefully. If someone violates the peace, he is tried under a court of law.

But why would it not immediately come back? What is inefficient about having a monopoly of force?

Of course. Small businesses employ about half the workforce, and growth in small businesses dictates economic growth.

60% of private sector jobs come from small businesses.

In poor countries, the number is even higher.

Okay:

• Where do loans for small businesses come from? Over 50% are funded by large banks.
  
  
• Who dictates in a liberal-capitalist economy? Not small business owners, in fact banks dictate the pattern of growth because they decide what is or is not a good investment.
  
  
• What does it matter if 60% of private sector jobs come from small businesses? 67% of the United Kingdom is are apparently working class, does that means that the working class dictates the behaviour of the UK economy? I'm pretty sure that they are not controlling much of anything.

It's almost like you aren't envisioning this in your mind. It should be impossible for you to say that 'growth in small business dictates economic growth'.

Let me try and make the argument as crystal clear as I can.

Government is a monopoly of force. We have to obey their law, use their police force, etc.

Under a voluntarist society, areas would adhere to the laws of reputable [private and competing] courts.

There is no such thing as "enforcing" the NAP. Don't think of it as enforcing.

Think of "enforcing" the NAP as reacting to aggression. You hurt me, I defend myself.

That still sounds like enforcement to me. It's like you are telling me not to see enforcement as enforcement. If someone rises up against you and you smack them down with weapons, that is enforcement.

Anarchy has to have laws unless you're advocating illegalism. If you consider people acknowledging it is wrong to aggress against somebody as a state, and by "enforcing" this by defending themselves against aggression, then it's impossible to be stateless (in your eyes).

A state is a monopoly on aggression.

Removing the state means people are free to act as they wish, provided they do not aggress against other individuals.

That sounds like you have all the functions of a state, without actually declaring that there is any monopoly on force. But this is why I don't really think that anarchy is possible, some people are still in charge, just they would not acknowledge that they are in charge if asked. It's a somewhat dispersed hegemony of classical liberalism which you are creating.

In anarcho-capitalism, the ideological state apparatus (ISA) still exists as a network of social institutions, but you have merely dispersed the repressive state apparatus (RSA) into several competing courts and private security agencies.

[Decky]

That still sounds like enforcement to me. It's like you are telling me not to see enforcement as enforcement. If someone rises up against you and you smack them down with weapons, that is enforcement.

This, the NAP is just the capitalists sitting on a mountain of slolen goods and telling the starving and naked that it would be evil if they took their property back from the theives.

[Husky]

This, the NAP is just the capitalists sitting on a mountain of slolen goods and telling the starving and naked that it would be evil if they took their property back from the theives.

You're such a clever boy, Decks.

In all seriousness, all the NAP is stating is: Do not harm someone, or harm someone's peaceful projects.

If you feel that is immoral to "enforce" a principle that states aggression is illegitimate, then you must show why.





Decky, on a scale of 1-10, how awesome do you think Stalin was?

[Eran]

But it could not have been built privately.

How do you know?

Why would this not eventually become a state?

Because a state, necessarily and by definition, implies aggression.

We are stipulating a society in which aggression is never considered legitimate. Hence no state can every be considered legitimate.

There are substantive differences between an interconnected network of dispute adjudication and property right enforcement, and a state.

What is inefficient about having a monopoly of force?

It is inefficient in a society in which aggressive enforcement of such monopoly is considered criminal.

In such a society, an organisation which attempted to aggressively enforce its force-using monopoly (i.e. an attempted government) would be highly inefficient, as it would encounter principled resistance from every quarter.

It is conceivable that in a sufficiently-small society, a force-using monopoly would emerge without aggression. Force-using competition is allowed, but no competitors emerge. Such a monopoly wouldn't be considered government, because, in principle, it is open to competition. There is nothing wrong with such an arrangement.

In larger societies, however, a force-using monopoly is unlikely to be competitive due to inherent dis-economies of scale.

This is very similar to the situation with supermarkets today. In small towns there is typically only one supermarket (thus having a "monopoly" over supermarket services). This is because the customer base cannot support two supermarkets (unless, of course, the only supermarket starts charging high enough prices). In larger cities, you always have multiple supermarkets.

banks dictate the pattern of growth because they decide what is or is not a good investment.

Not true. In a free banking environment, banks compete with each other, and no bank can survive making uneconomic lending decisions. The discipline of the marketplace takes away any power from banks to dictate the pattern of growth.

Under central banking and a heavily-regulated banking industry, government officials both protect banks from the consequence of making uneconomic lending decisions, and prompt them (more or less directly) towards desirable directions of making such uneconomic lending choices. It is thus government regulators that dictate (or, at least, influence) the pattern of growth.

That sounds like you have all the functions of a state, without actually declaring that there is any monopoly on force. But this is why I don't really think that anarchy is possible, some people are still in charge, just they would not acknowledge that they are in charge if asked. It's a somewhat dispersed hegemony of classical liberalism which you are creating.

This is a little like arguing that there is no such thing as democracy, merely a somewhat dispersed version of monarchy, as all the functions of the monarch are carried out by elected and nominated officials...

Sure - the useful functions of the state would be carried out by numerous organisations of various stripes. But since none of those has an enforceable monopoly over the use of force, and since no aggressive use of force is ever legitimised, we have a lawful, orderly society but no government in the normal definition of the term - hence an anarchy.

In anarcho-capitalism, the ideological state apparatus (ISA) still exists as a network of social institutions, but you have merely dispersed the repressive state apparatus (RSA) into several competing courts and private security agencies.

We might be having a purely semantic debate here - what counts as "state" and "government".

We use the conventional definition of government as "an organisation enjoying legitimised monopoly over the use of force in a given geographical area". By that definition, no organisation in the anarcho-capitalist society is a government. Hence there is no government. Hence there is anarchy.

You appear to be using a different definition of government - what is it?

This, the NAP is just the capitalists sitting on a mountain of stolen goods and telling the starving and naked that it would be evil if they took their property back from the thieves.

The NAP is only protecting justly-acquired property. Thus stolen goods "owned" by thieves are not subject to its protection.

While it is true that historically, capitalists, by virtue of working in collaboration with politicians, have been thieves acquiring stolen goods, capitalists operating without the means for such collaborations and within an NAP-protected society would acquire earned rather than stolen goods.

Further, without the shackles of modern governments, there is no reason to expect anybody to be "starving and naked".

[The Immortal Goon]

This thread makes me think of this piece:

Authority, in the sense in which the word is used here, means: the imposition of the will of another upon ours; on the other hand, authority presupposes subordination. Now, since these two words sound bad, and the relationship which they represent is disagreeable to the subordinated party, the question is to ascertain whether there is any way of dispensing with it, whether — given the conditions of present-day society — we could not create another social system, in which this authority would be given no scope any longer, and would consequently have to disappear.

On examining the economic, industrial and agricultural conditions which form the basis of present-day bourgeois society, we find that they tend more and more to replace isolated action by combined action of individuals...
Let us take by way if example a cotton spinning mill. The cotton must pass through at least six successive operations before it is reduced to the state of thread, and these operations take place for the most part in different rooms. Furthermore, keeping the machines going requires an engineer to look after the steam engine, mechanics to make the current repairs, and many other labourers whose business it is to transfer the products from one room to another, and so forth. All these workers, men, women and children, are obliged to begin and finish their work at the hours fixed by the authority of the steam, which cares nothing for individual autonomy. The workers must, therefore, first come to an understanding on the hours of work; and these hours, once they are fixed, must be observed by all, without any exception. Thereafter particular questions arise in each room and at every moment concerning the mode of production, distribution of material, etc., which must be settled by decision of a delegate placed at the head of each branch of labour or, if possible, by a majority vote, the will of the single individual will always have to subordinate itself, which means that questions are settled in an authoritarian way. The automatic machinery of the big factory is much more despotic than the small capitalists who employ workers ever have been. At least with regard to the hours of work one may write upon the portals of these factories: Lasciate ogni autonomia, voi che entrate! [Leave, ye that enter in, all autonomy behind!]

If man, by dint of his knowledge and inventive genius, has subdued the forces of nature, the latter avenge themselves upon him by subjecting him, in so far as he employs them, to a veritable despotism independent of all social organisation. Wanting to abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to wanting to abolish industry itself, to destroy the power loom in order to return to the spinning wheel.

Let us take another example — the railway. Here too the co-operation of an infinite number of individuals is absolutely necessary, and this co-operation must be practised during precisely fixed hours so that no accidents may happen. Here, too, the first condition of the job is a dominant will that settles all subordinate questions, whether this will is represented by a single delegate or a committee charged with the execution of the resolutions of the majority of persona interested. In either case there is a very pronounced authority. Moreover, what would happen to the first train dispatched if the authority of the railway employees over the Hon. passengers were abolished?

But the necessity of authority, and of imperious authority at that, will nowhere be found more evident than on board a ship on the high seas. There, in time of danger, the lives of all depend on the instantaneous and absolute obedience of all to the will of one.

When I submitted arguments like these to the most rabid anti-authoritarians, the only answer they were able to give me was the following: Yes, that's true, but there it is not the case of authority which we confer on our delegates, but of a commission entrusted! These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves. This is how these profound thinkers mock at the whole world.

We have thus seen that, on the one hand, a certain authority, no matter how delegated, and, on the other hand, a certain subordination, are things which, independently of all social organisation, are imposed upon us together with the material conditions under which we produce and make products circulate.

We have seen, besides, that the material conditions of production and circulation inevitably develop with large-scale industry and large-scale agriculture, and increasingly tend to enlarge the scope of this authority. Hence it is absurd to speak of the principle of authority as being absolutely evil, and of the principle of autonomy as being absolutely good. Authority and autonomy are relative things whose spheres vary with the various phases of the development of society. If the autonomists confined themselves to saying that the social organisation of the future would restrict authority solely to the limits within which the conditions of production render it inevitable, we could understand each other; but they are blind to all facts that make the thing necessary and they passionately fight the world.

Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.

The fact is that authority exists in the way we make things, because we interact with the material world. This idea is that we can just change the name of authority and exploitation, and impose a Newspeak to make sure we will never call the dreamed-upon system one of authority: private courts of the wealthy imposing their will upon the industrial serfs forced to serve them is called, "free association."

Because, "in principle" something may theoretically happen to disrupt a monopoly, means it is no longer a monopoly even if it is a monopoly.

But it is a problem we don't have to worry about because of the science of, "dis-economics," that will save us all.

Banks will always be paragons of virtue because they will lend money. Totally different than today where the government regulates an insures banks with their tyranny. We can go back to the good old days where the bank could blow all your money on an investment opportunity, lose everything, and then pass the failure on to you for having trusted them. A system that everybody loved. And if you don't like the idea of that, we'll just make up new words so that it's impossible to conceive of another system.

Want to know why slaving away in a fish plantin exchange for the right to eat the discarded guts while the boss takes all the processed fish and grows rich is a good thing?

Because even though the boss didn't gather the fish, process the fish, put the fish in the lake, create the lake, build the plant, guard the plant, fuel the plant, hire the workers, or anything else—the products are his "justly-acquired property." Why is this okay? Because the boss isn't working with a politician.

Want to do something about the squaler in which you live? Wrong again, you don't have to because it's NAP(tm) society. Sure, you can work yourself to death under threat of starvation, and the boss can probably force you to let him have a rape-threesome with your wife and daughter in exchange for your job (after all, there's no tyrannical law preventing this freedom for your boss) but you cannot use aggression in the NAP(tm) society because that would be wrong.

So just change the names! Instead of tyranny, it's freedom!

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought -- that is, a thought diverging from the principles of IngSoc -- should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words.

I hope everyone now consents to the beauty of libertarianism and non-aggression now.

[Husky]

TIG, you seem to be wrapped up in the literature of Marx and Engels, sort of blind of the real world.

Your value theory, the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, Marx's conclusion that aggregate price and profit are determined by, and equal to, aggregate value and surplus value are all false propositions. This result calls into question his theory that the exploitation of workers is the sole source of profit.

The intellectual base of your religion (it truly is a religion) rests on historical materialism. It is a pseudoscience; the concept and application of historical materialism are unfalsifiable.

The Marxist theory of history, in spite of the serious efforts of some of its founders and followers, ultimately adopted this soothsaying practice. In some of its earlier formulations (for example in Marx's analysis of the character of the 'coming social revolution') their predictions were testable, and in fact falsified. Yet instead of accepting the refutations the followers of Marx re-interpreted both the theory and the evidence in order to make them agree. In this way they rescued the theory from refutation; but they did so at the price of adopting a device which made it irrefutable. They thus gave a 'conventionalist twist' to the theory; and by this stratagem they destroyed its much advertised claim to scientific status.

Marxist theory is continuously re-interrupted, just as religious scripture is.

Furthermore, the transitional period after proletariat revolution is most frightening.

The prophet, Engels, speaking of how the state will supposedly wither away:

The society which organizes production anew on the basis of free and equal association of the producers will put the whole state machinery where it will then belong–into the museum of antiquities, next to the spinning wheel and the bronze ax.

So, we can go two ways: towards the religious interpretations of the prophets Marx and Engels, where the state would wither away, or a march towards Stalinism and totalitarianism.

In a private message TIG said the following to me on how to prevent Stalinism:

How does one prevent it [Stalinism] from happening? Three things:

1. Make sure you're on a basis stronger than that of Russia, which was floundering to get into capitalism at the time, let alone attempt to transcend it.
2. Keep everything democratic.
3. Root out the capitalists abroad more ruthlessly. They were the ones that sent tens of thousands of troops in to crush the revolution during Operation Archangel and others after there had been peace in a nearly bloodless revolution for two years. They were the ones that funded White dissidents. They were the ones that supported Stalin's rise.

The subject of economics on the other hand... Marxism is an absurdity. A middle school student could point out its flaws.

Tell me TIG, if a project needed 2x10^3 grains of sand, 40 000 construction worker labor hours, 10 000kg of cement, and its income would be 20 000 litres of oil, would it be profitable?

In summary, Marxism (thankfully) has been lambasted so hard by academia that its actual supporters in the real world of academia are almost unseen. Sure, in internet forums lurks (as seen here) a large amount of communists, but Marxist theorists have been bashed so devastatingly in real life... they have abandoned many of Marx's core principles...

The truth is, communists love authoritarianism. If violence and authoritarianism will allow them to achieve their goals, their goals being absolute equality, a hatred of talented men... then so be it.

[Turning Point]

Because a state, necessarily and by definition, implies aggression.

We are stipulating a society in which aggression is never considered legitimate. Hence no state can every be considered legitimate.

How, may I ask, would one go about 'stipulating a society in which aggression is never considered legitimate...hence no state can ever be considered legitimate.'

A state is a natural outgrowth of society. There was a state during the Paris Commune of 1971, and a state after the October Revolution based on the soviets.

Marxists would advocate (historically) that the old state bureaucracy should be smashed, that new forms of political power should be created from-below.

These new forms of political power, be they soviets in Russia or rural peasants' associations in China, would serve as the foundational building blocks for a new type of popular power.

But regardless, there is going to be aggression, repression, etc. no matter what. Historically in Russia and in China this took the form of the Cheka in Russia, the anti-traitor campaign in China, etc. Alongside this new popular power developed new forms of repression as well.

Repression, aggression, can't just be magically whisked away and made irrelevant; even under the most egalitarian and democratic society, even under socialism, there would still be repression and aggression, there would still be a state.

I really don't understand libertarian and/or anarcho-capitalist logic that the state can be and will be dissolved. How would you plan on doing that? Because once you create new forms of power, once you create a new society, you create a state, a bureaucracy, laws, courts, an army or militia, etc., all follow with it IMHO

EDIT:

The intellectual base of your religion...

Marxism isn't a "religion," as we Marxists unlike those who are religious for the most part (except in a few cases) take into account the material world, only what we can see and prove. Materialism is how we view the world around us.

or a march towards Stalinism and totalitarianism.

You clearly don't understand Marxism as you seem keen on using such loaded terms as 'totalitarian,' 'stalinism,' etc.

Marxism is an absurdity. A middle school student could point out its flaws.

Yes, clearly a mere middle school student could point out the flaws of Marxism.

No, IMHO it takes a lifetime of thought to figure out Marxism and to point out its flaws as well as its virtues; it is not something that your average middle school student could comprehend.

The truth is, communists love authoritarianism. If violence and authoritarianism will allow them to achieve their goals, their goals being absolute equality, a hatred of talented men...then so be it.

The object of Marxism is the emancipation of the worker-masses and no, we Marxists don't 'love authoritarianism' as you are so keen to imply.

Although I disagree with TIG's politics to an extent (over the Soviet Union under Stalin, Stalinism, etc.) I at least commend him for quoting Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc. rather then resorting to newspeak as so many libertarians on this forum have done.

Tell me TIG, if a project needed 2x10^3 grains of sand, 40 000 construction worker labor hours, 10 000kg of cement, and its income would be 20 000 litres of oil, would it be profitable?

What the heck does this even mean? Would it be profitable? Is this supposed to prove that we Marxists are wrong or something?

Your post is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[Rei Murasame]

TIG, you seem to be wrapped up in the literature of Marx and Engels, sort of blind of the real world.

TIG managed to cover pretty much all of what my response was going to be though. I actually didn't know that Marx and Engels had actually addressed this argument so directly themselves. I don't agree with TIG's end goals, but facts are facts.

Basically, Eran asked me if we are all operating on a different definition of 'government'. I think that is basically the case, since I'm defining government as something like 'the authorities who are in charge'.

[Husky]

Marxism isn't a "religion," as we Marxists unlike those who are religious for the most part (except in a few cases) take into account the material world, only what we can see and prove. Materialism is how we view the world around us.

Marxists believe mankind, led by a vanguard of secular saints, will establish a secularized Kingdom of Heaven on earth. Similar to believing in the coming of The Messiah, eh?

You clearly don't understand Marxism as you seem keen on using such loaded terms as 'totalitarian,' 'stalinism,' etc.

How is totalitarianism and stalinism loaded terms? I mean exactly their dictionary definition.

The object of Marxism is the emancipation of the worker-masses and no, we Marxists don't 'love authoritarianism' as you are so keen to imply.

What checks and balances would prevent the vanguard party from purging me for being a bourgeois reactionary? Oh wait, that is indeed required and encouraged.

What the heck does this even mean? Would it be profitable? Is this supposed to prove that we Marxists are wrong or something? :?:

Well you want to abolish the price system. So how would you figure out if the mentioned venture would be worthwhile or not, an efficient use of resources? Would it be worth sacrificing the materials mentioned for the mentioned income? With no price system... ?

Your post is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Because you are a statist and will throw me in a cage if you ever come to power.

[The Immortal Goon]

TIG, you seem to be wrapped up in the literature of Marx and Engels, sort of blind of the real world.

And is the analysis on authority somehow flawed?

Your value theory, the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, Marx's conclusion that aggregate price and profit are determined by, and equal to, aggregate value and surplus value are all false propositions. This result calls into question his theory that the exploitation of workers is the sole source of profit.

And is the analysis on authority somehow flawed?

The intellectual base of your religion (it truly is a religion) rests on historical materialism. It is a pseudoscience; the concept and application of historical materialism are unfalsifiable.

And is the analysis on authority somehow flawed?

Marxist theory is continuously re-interrupted, just as religious scripture is.

And is the analysis on authority somehow flawed?

So, we can go two ways: towards the religious interpretations of the prophets Marx and Engels, where the state would wither away, or a march towards Stalinism and totalitarianism.

Here I will address the tangent.

The intellectual basis of Marxism is, indeed, historical materialism. But it is not a "religion," as libertarians in their belief in invisible hands and abstract morals from on high tend to frame every belief.

I don't think you understand this basic concept:

materialism, also called physicalism, in philosophy, the view that all facts (including facts about the human mind and will and the course of human history) are causally dependent upon physical processes, or even reducible to them.

idealism, in philosophy, any view that stresses the central role of the ideal or the spiritual in the interpretation of experience. It may hold that the world or reality exists essentially as spirit or consciousness, that abstractions and laws are more fundamental in reality than sensory things, or, at least, that whatever exists is known in dimensions that are chiefly mental—through and as ideas.

Marxists are the former. We are materialists. We examine the physical relationship of the physical world to our physical selves. By understanding that, we can draw some conclusions about the future.

You seem to be the latter. You have an idea about what things should be like and what to conform things to come to that idea.

I'm not saying one is better than the other (though I clearly think so) but casually undermining six thousand years of philosophy in order to ad hom your idealism into being better than materialism isn't going to work.

As for the idea in general, I'm still going to fall back on materialism. I see no compelling reason to put feelings in your idea.---This view hasn't been universally true in philosophy since at least 500BC. In fact, Aristotle, who was the one who came up with the idea that you're advancing, came up with it as a means to try and undermine the standard Heraclitus view of thought by adding Plato's logic (which, as I've covered at least once in this thread, is a form of idealism, which we marxists‚—as materialists—reject). So, again, the materialists believed in the unity of opposites for a long time—the idealists came up with explanations having to do with the spirit and other things after that.

Aristotle carried the torch for a lot of western thought, but materialism came back into fashion in the 19th Century:

Within the modern philosophical canon, Hegel has often been seen as the echt LNC-skeptic, well before his reputed deathbed lament, “Only one man ever understood me, and he didn't understand me.” Hegel saw himself as picking up where Heraclitus left off—“There is no proposition of Heraclitus which I have not adopted in my logic”—and indeed the Heraclitean view of a world shaped by the unity of opposites through strife and resolution does seem to foreshadow Hegelian dialectic. In fact, however, an unresolved contradiction was a sign of error for Hegel. The contradiction between thesis and antithesis results in the dialectical resolution or superseding of the contradiction between opposites as a higher-level synthesis through the process of Aufhebung (from aufheben, a verb simultaneously interpretable as 'preserve, cancel, lift up'). Rather than repudiating LNC, Hegel's dialectic rests upon it. In Marxist theory, too, contradictories do not simply cancel out but are dynamically resolved (aufgehoben) at a higher level in a way that both preserves and supersedes the contradiction, motivating the historical dialectic.

This is true, after Hegel, for many philosophers of the modern era. The unity of opposites has been said to be so fundamental, in the internet age, that there's a project showing that even children can grasp the concept.

So this idea that materialism is somehow religious is completely off kilter. Even the concept that it is, "continually re-interpreted," is to miss the entire point of a material analysis. We look at the present material reality, reflect on how things have worked in history, and then apply that knowledge.

Idealists are generally the ones that demand answers about what, exactly, a post-class society will look like and then act like we dodge the question when we admit we don't know. Because for us, we follow the strands of current society and take notes on what happens from there. We do not start out with an orthodox idealist position of the way things should be and follow the lines back—as you do and assume that we do.

It's the opposite conception of how the world works. While idealists like yourselves look at the human spirit and human faith in God and morals and whatnot, the materialists look at the material world to explain things in a historical way. We developed the concept of the agricultural revolution in order to (correctly) undermine your idealism.

Put simply, for us the material leads to the idea. Since material conditions change, we do too. For you, the idea leads to the material. Which is probably why libertarians are laughably dependent on just changing definitions to ideas in order to try and distort a view of the material world.

The subject of economics on the other hand... Marxism is an absurdity. A middle school student could point out its flaws.

And is the analysis on authority somehow flawed?

Tell me TIG, if a project needed 2x10^3 grains of sand, 40 000 construction worker labor hours, 10 000kg of cement, and its income would be 20 000 litres of oil, would it be profitable?

Is the answer that the analysis on authority is somehow flawed?

In summary, Marxism (thankfully) has been lambasted so hard by academia that its actual supporters in the real world of academia are almost unseen. Sure, in internet forums lurks (as seen here) a large amount of communists, but Marxist theorists have been bashed so devastatingly in real life... they have abandoned many of Marx's core principles...

And is the analysis on authority somehow flawed?

The truth is, communists love authoritarianism. If violence and authoritarianism will allow them to achieve their goals, their goals being absolute equality, a hatred of talented men... then so be it.

[Husky]

Do you think Marx's propositions I mentioned are true or false.

Do you think historical materialism is falsifiable?

Do you deny that Marxist scripture is continuously re-interpreted to suit contemporary Marxists wishes and allow them to maintain their position?

So this idea that materialism is somehow religious is completely off kilter. Even the concept that it is, "continually re-interpreted," is to miss the entire point of a material analysis. We look at the present material reality, reflect on how things have worked in history, and then apply that knowledge.

When/if Marxist predictions do not come true, does that discard historical materialism in your eyes?

Tell me TIG, if a project needed 2x10^3 grains of sand, 40 000 construction worker labor hours, 10 000kg of cement, and its income would be 20 000 litres of oil, would it be a viable venture?

Is the answer that the analysis on authority is somehow flawed?

Please answer this one mate.

In summary, Marxism (thankfully) has been lambasted so hard by academia that its actual supporters in the real world of academia are almost unseen. Sure, in internet forums lurks (as seen here) a large amount of communists, but Marxist theorists have been bashed so devastatingly in real life... they have abandoned many of Marx's core principles...

And is the analysis on authority somehow flawed?

I'd like an answer here.

The truth is, communists love authoritarianism. If violence and authoritarianism will allow them to achieve their goals, their goals being absolute equality, a hatred of talented men... then so be it.

I will be purged if the proletariat revolution happens.

Your ideology will kill. And kill. And kill. In order to achieve its aims.

[Rei Murasame]

Your ideology will kill. And kill. And kill. In order to achieve its aims.

Are you saying that yours doesn't kill, though?

[Husky]

It doesn't kill innocent people. It provides you the right to defend yourself from those initiating aggression.

Communism will purge any "bourgeoisie sentiments" after the revolution.

[Rei Murasame]

I'm pretty sure that communists would try to kill me if I took up arms against their ideas of 'dictatorship of the proletariat', that's a given, since their interests differ from mine on a key class issue.

However, by the same measure all forms of liberals (including libertarians) would try to kill me if I took up arms against their ideas of 'dictatorship of the haute-bourgeoisie' (which you won't call that, but that is what it is). I also differ with them on a key class issue.

So either way, I'm potentially getting shot at, right? Although, in history, your side has done a lot more shooting in a lot more countries than theirs has. Like, let's take the UK as an example. Can classical liberals explain to me why they took it upon themselves to destroy every single Gael village they could find, and then flood their land with sheep which remain amongst the desolation there to this very day?

I mean, anyone can just go and walk around in the North of England or in parts of Scotland, and you can see that liberals have killed and exiled large numbers of people, in order to enforce land contracts for parcels of land that did not exist until they just randomly decided that they did without asking for anyone's input on how it would be divided up.

[Husky]

I'm pretty sure that communists would try to kill me if I took up arms against their ideas of 'dictatorship of the proletariat', that's a given, since their interests differ from mine on a key class issue.

However, by the same measure all forms of liberals (including libertarians) would try to kill me if I took up arms against their ideas of 'dictatorship of the haute-bourgeoisie' (which you won't call that, but that is what it is). I also differ with them on a key class issue.

So either way, I'm potentially getting shot at, right?

You're so wrong Rei.

Rei... we've established the communists will kill us post-revolution.

In a libertarian anarchy you could freely express your opinion. Freely communicate with others about your ideas. Etc. Could you do that post revolution, as all "bourgeoisie ideas" are purged?

As long as it is peaceful, I don't care.