Essay reply.
|
@FactMachine. I apologize upfront that this is going to be quite a lengthy reply in order to establish the framework from where I am coming from on this topic. Feel free to reply to me at any length with sources if you want and if you think anything I say here is just too stupid/or error filled for words than please don't hold back. I would like to get a more full understanding of your views in terms of your critique of communism and your thoughts on the Venus Project as a more viable alternative RBE (if you have talked about this at some length already here than you could just link me to a thread that has the bulk of your ideas expressed). (I would actually like to get Nomenclature's views also for that matter as I have never came across a post of his where he lays out what he means by Communism and how one would get there. If you know of a thread where Nomenclature discusses this I would be interested to be pointed in that direction). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- First, to address the points you made in brief before the longer response: "Communism is based upon the lie that you can have a "proletariat dictatorship" and that it tooooooootally won't result in tyranny, and instead it's going to create a utopia of absolute equality." I completely agree with the second half of this statement. Where I disagree is the idea that this is fundamental to Communism. "... the absolutely retarded idea that you need to establish a totalitarian dictatorship in order to eventually END the state" Again, I completely agree here. That is an "absolutely retarted idea". Where I disagree is the notion that establishing a totalitarian dictatorship in order to eventually end the state is fundamental to Communism. It is not. What is fundamental to the original/traditional idea of Communism is captured well in the opening paragraph of an article I am going to link you to later in this response: "There was a vision, called “communism,” which was held by Kropotkin and other anarchist-communists in the 19th and early 20th century. Marx and Engels shared essentially the same goal. In the stateless, classless, society of communism, the means of production would be held in common (by the community), work would be carried out due to social motives rather than for wages, and consumer goods would be available to all according to their needs." Now, this is very broad and there is a lot of disagreement on the particulars and can branch out in many different directions, but this is the underling philosophical basis for what a (truly) Communist society is, not if there is a need for a revolution, how that revolution is orchestrated (if needed/encouraged or peaceful), transitionary forms, ect. I will now get into more particulars about how the term "Communism" has had many, many mutually-contradictory definitions applications over time where a lot of the confusion comes in. At this point, I think accepting the label "Communist" is strategically a horrible decision that comes at a tremendous price due to all of the baggage associated with the term (and how strains of Communists themselves have f'cked up big time in just the manner you suggest with the notion of a Vanguard Party, ect. out of "herd-mentality", ignorance, stupidity, credulity, ect. ), some of which I will get into more detail about now. What follows is a term paper of mine from a Modern African History course at University. Although it does not 100% align with this topic, it deals with Marxist theory, evolution, applications, ect. and I think it is useful in this context (also it is quite a time saver to just copy and paste this). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Essay Topic: RESEARCH ANY TWO OF ETHIOPIA’S MENGISTU, MOZAMBIUE’S SAMORA MACHEL OR JOACHIM CHISSANO, ZIMBABWE’S ROBERT MUGABE, AND ANGOLA’S AGOSTINHO NETO. WHY WERE AFRICAN ANTI-COLONIALISTS ATTRACTED TO MARXIST IDEOLOGY? TO WHAT EXTENT DID THIS ATTRACTION INFLUENCE THE POLITICAL AND SOCIAL PROGRAMS THAT THEY CONSTRUCTED UPON INDEPENDENCE? “After emotions subsided, many of us saw the impracticality of our ideals. Tempered by the realities, we were willing to correct our mistakes. But the arrogance and self-righteousness of the leadership never allowed the possibility of admitting error. Like the characters in George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”, the leaders of the Revolution have evolved into New Masters; learning to walk upright, they have enslaved those they pledged to liberate. The Revolution brought the promise of a better life, both for the individual and for society as a whole; but that promise has been betrayed in the most inhuman way imaginable.” -Dawit Wolde Giorgis Senior Member of the Marxist-Leninist Party Former Deputy Foreign Minister to Mengitsu (Head of State of Ethiopia) In the twentieth century, many African anti-colonialists became attracted to various strains of “Marxist” ideology and applied their understanding of this in their struggle for liberation and self-determination. Ideas of racial hierarchy perished by the end of World War II. The violent nature of this ideological stance (racial hierarchy) was on full display following the devastating, failed eugenics program of the Nazi’s in Germany to jettison the superfluous, “inferior” races and establish the dominance of the Aryan “master” race. These events provided a robust basis for African people/states to challenge the legitimacy of white, European colonial rule in the African continent. The various strains of “Marxism” provided the ideological framework for starkly different, competing models of society. This appealed to African anti-colonialists for, amongst other reasons, the direct tension between the European colonial powers and the “Marxist” visions of societal organization, the promotion of a class-conscious message, viewing Capitalism as an inevitably imperial enterprise, economic ideas of exploitative labor associated with a Capitalist system (as seen by “Marxism”), and the fundamental idea of self-determination promoted in “Marxist” thought (particularly within “Leninism”). In order to understand the appeal of “Marxism” to African anti-colonialists, it is first necessary to briefly discuss the background of this mode of thought and how it has evolved as a function of time. It is important to note, “Marxism” does not refer to one solidified ideology but, various interpretations and specific strains of “Marxism” can be identified. As we will see, these differences are important and help explain how different African anti-colonialists applied them to societies they intended to institute. Particularly, we will explore Ethiopia’s Mengistu and Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe in order to analyze the role and appeal of “Marxism” to these respective leaders. Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a famous/infamous German philosopher best known for his work critiquing socio-economic systems. Marx’s theory history, known as historical materialism, submitted that forms of society proceed to rise and fall as they further and later become an obstacle to the development for human productive power. In perhaps his most influential work, The Communist Manifesto, Marx and his collaborator Friedrich Engels promote the theory of historical materialism at length and proceed to critique the current phase of societal organization; Capitalism. Marx submits that “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” and proceeds to break down his contemporary social organization into “two great hostile camps…Bourgeoisie and Proletariat”. Marx defines the bourgeoisie as “the class of modern Capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of modern wage-labor” while the proletariat are “the class of modern wage-laborers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labor-power in order to live.” Thus, Marx viewed capitalist profit as an extraction of surplus from the working class; simply state, employer exploitation of the working-class. In Marx’s historical materialism, the analysis of history and economics are inextricably linked. He predicted the inevitable breakdown of capitalism when the system had outlived its usefulness to give way to a Socialist society, and then eventually to Communism. Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924) was a Russian revolutionary who largely inspired and led the Bolshevik Revolution (1917) as well the architect and first head of the first Soviet state. Consistent with Karl Marx, Lenin called for a classless society in which the means of production would be owned in common (i.e. Communism). However, Lenin, unlike Marx pressed the need for revolutionary actions in order to bring about societal change (before the system “naturally” outlived its usefulness). Lenin submitted the need for a “vanguard of the proletariat” and viewed this vanguard as highly disciplined, centralized party that would commit itself to instill within the working-class Socialist sensibilities, with the vanguard working as a guide and leader to inform the proletariat of what is in their best interests. Moreover, Lenin maintained that eventually, the hierarchical, authoritarian governmental structures of the party would no longer be necessary and a “withering away of the state” would commence. Furthermore, Lenin’s ideas about the claimed inevitable imperialist nature of a capitalist system went on to be highly influential. Lenin explores these ideas most thoroughly in his work, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. “It is beyond doubt”, Lenin argues, “…that capitalism’s transition to the stage of monopoly capitalism, to finance capital, is bound up with the intensification of the struggle for the partition of the world.” Lenin continues, “The division of the world into two main groups-of colony-owning countries on the one hand and colonies on the other” is purported to be an inevitable consequence of the system because the struggle for colonies is the “struggle for economic territory”. Later, after Lenin’s death, Joseph Stalin (eventual leader of the Soviet Union) declared the doctrine of Marxism-Leninism as the only true Marxism. Under this set of ideas, since it is believed capitalist nations resort to aggressive imperialist actions, Marxist nations should be prepared for war. Stalin went on to re-mold traditional Marxist ideas into the political ideology referred to as Stalinism. Stalinism is associated with a “monolithic party” (one-party state), silencing dissent (forcibly), a “cult of personality”, and a powerful authoritarian state with government ownership of industries. Mengitsu Haile Mariam was an African anti-colonialist who helped to overthrow a centuries-old monarchy in Ethiopia and attempted to reform Ethiopia in accordance with Marxist-Leninist doctrine. In 1974, Mengistu was made chairman of the Armed Forces Coordinating Committee (a committee of revolutionary soldiers), and subsequently went on to be a vice-chairman of the Provisional Military Administrative Council (PMAC) following the arrest of the emperor. Mengistu became known as an acknowledged strongman of a regime that went on to nationalize industries and farmlands following his orders to assassinate at least sixty aristocrats and former officials of the imperial regime. Mengistu later went on to become the head of state in Ethiopia. In accordance with Stalin’s form of Marxism (Marxism-Leninism), Mengitsu proceeded to unleash a violent campaign of “Red Terror” to destroy armed opposition to his rule within the civilian population (killing thousands of political opponents). He was an absolute ruler of Ethiopia, a quasi-Stalinist dictator who oversaw the establishment of the Workers’ Party of Ethiopia in 1984, a national constitution in 1986, and an “election” by a national legislature of himself in 1987. Armed rebellion attempted to rise up against Mengistu’s reign, a series of terrible droughts and famines afflicted Ethiopia, with the Ethiopian famine of 1984-85 gaining world-wide recognition. The famine was ignored by Mengistu and ended up claiming approximately one million people’s lives. He was found guilty of genocide for these offenses in 2006. Robert Mugabe, president of Zimbabwe, is another African anti-colonialist with ties to Marxist ideology. In 1963, Mugabe helped to form the Zimbabwe African national Union (ZANU) as opposed to the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU) organization. He was arrested for “subversive speech” in 1964 and remained imprisoned for a decade. In that time, Mugabe earned law degrees and helped lead a coup (while still in prison) ousting ZANU’s leader in 1974. Later in that same year, Mugabe was released from prison. He went on to be joint leader of the Patriotic Front (PF) of Zimbabwe in an effort against Prime Minister Ian Smith’s white-dominated Rhodesian government; leading a civil war against the government. In 1979 the war ended, and Mugabe’s party, now going by the title ZANU-PF, won a notable victory over competing black parties, making him the prime minister. Initially, many in the West viewed Mugabe as an “independence hero” and promising leader. After taking office, Mugabe took a position of racial reconciliation as opposed to vengeance. In Mugabe’s Manifesto, he states, “Racism, whether practiced by whites or blacks, is anathema anathema to the humanitarian philosophy of Zanu…Zimbabwe cannot be a country of just blacks. It is and should remain our country, all of us together.” However, these sentiments dissolved as time passed (many years later) and it became clear that Mugabe was fashioning an authoritarian state with him at the head. Mugabe envisioned making Africa a giant in economic, political, and military power, comparable to the United States and the Soviet Union, with himself as the leader. Mugabe confiscated approximately a dozen private companies associated with the rival ZAPU party and took farms that were owned by Nkomo (his former liberation ally). At a political rally in 1982, Mugabe declared that “ZANU-PF will rule forever”, a pronouncement that comports with Marxist-Leninist style Marxism (as discussed previously) of seizing control of the government, instituting a powerful, authoritarian one-party system, drive out competition, and pertinaciously hold on to power. Humanitarian crisis of substantial portions have confronted the population under Mugabe’s rule in Zimbabwe, with claims that the conditions created amount to him being guilty of genocide. Both Mengitsu and Mugabe have been attracted by specific strains of Marxist ideology; in Mengitsu’s case it is an explicitly Marxist-Leninist strain as decreed by Stalin, and in the case of Mugabe Marxism-Leninism that progressively evolved into a more extreme, authoritarian state as a function of time. Lenin’s position on the relationship between capitalism and imperialism (the colonial system) and plan to actively carry out armed revolutionary acts to supplant the system by means of a vanguard party appeared to resonate deeply with both actors. Mengitsu was the chairman of the Armed Forces Coordinating Committee (a committee of revolutionary soldiers), and subsequently went on to be a vice-chairman of the Provisional Military Administrative Council (PMAC) while Mugabe went on to be joint leader of the Patriotic Front (PF) of Zimbabwe leading a civil war against the government. Moreover, both Mengistu and Mugabe went on to use their newfound political influence to create a more centralized, powerful state their party and particularly themselves at the lead; thus, exploiting the idea of the vanguard party to accumulate self-power. This resonates with Stalin’s strain of Marxist thought which has lost sight of many of the traditional goals submitted by Marx (i.e. worker control over production (not state control), gradual disintegration of the state, community control over worker surplus, ect.). However, a bridge between traditional Marxist thought (by the works of Karl Marx) and the Stalinist style Marxism-Leninism can be found in many of the violent, hierarchical, and authoritarian party structure proposed by Lenin to be necessary transitory conditions. Thus, the African anti-colonialists Mengitsu and Mugabe were heavily influenced by Marxist-Leninist thought and proceeded to mold their societies around a similar type of Marxist ideology that was dominant in the Soviet Union. Bibliography 1. Giorgis, Dawit Wolde. Red Tears: War, Famine and Revoltion in Ethiopia. Trenton, New Jersey: Red Sea Press, 1989 2. Class Notes, “The Cold War and Africa”, 3/31/2016 3. Wolff, Jonathon. "Karl Marx." Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy. August 2003. Accessed April 2016. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/. 4. Marx, Karl. The Communist Manifesto. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1954. 5. Resis, Albert. "Vladimir Illich Lenin: Prime Minister of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics." Encyclopedia Britannica. July 2014. Accessed April 2016. http://www.britannica.com/biography/Vladimir-Ilich-Lenin. 6. "Marxism-Leninism." The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know. Ed. E. D. Hirsch, Jr., Joseph F. Kett, and James Trefil. 3rd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2002. Academic OneFile. Web. Apr. 2016. 7. Lenin, V. I. Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. New York: International Publishers, 1990. 8. The Editors of Encylopedia Britannica. "Stalinism: Political Doctrine." Encyclopedia Britannica. Accessed April 2016. http://www.britannica.com/topic/Stalinism. 9. The Editors of Encylopedia Britannica. "Mengitsu Haile Mariam: President of Ethiopia." Encyclopedia Britannica. Accessed April 2016. http://www.britannica.com/biography/Mengistu-Haile-Mariam. 10. Bloomfield, Steve. "Mengistu Found Guilty of Ethiopian Genocide." Independent. December 12, 20016. Accessed April 2016. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/mengistu-found-guilty-of-ethiopian-genocide-428233.html. 11. Kirchick, James. "Mugabe: A Tyrant from the Start." Los Angeles Times. September 30, 2007. Accessed April 2016. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-op-kirchick30sep30-story.html. 12. Reid, Sue. "Mugabe's Genocide: The Images of Despair That Reveal the Full Horror of Zimbabwe." Daily Mail. December 21, 2008. Accessed April 2016. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1099467/Mugabes-genocide-The-images-despair-reveal-horror-Zimbabwe.html. 13. The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. "Robert Mugabe: President of Zimbabwe." Encylopedia Britannica. Accessed April 2016. http://www.britannica.com/biography/Robert-Mugabe. 14. Meredith, Martin. Mugabe: Power, Plunder, and the Struggle for Zimbabwe. New York: Public Affairs, 2002. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Now, for a source that discusses the origin, development, perversion, and history of the term "Communism"/"Anarcho-Communism" can be found here: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ Both of these readings combined establish the base framework for how I view the term "Communism" (although as I mentioned, I think there is a serious problem with maintaining the label "Communism" in association with the original fundamental tenants of this socio-economic program at this point; it has become quite a "loaded term") and we can proceed from there if you like. 2
points
After reading your post I read some more material from the internet and I've returned with a more nuanced but still critical view of Communism. It appears that the original concepts which lead to communism where not revolutionary ideology but came in the form of early renaissance utopian idealism, these ideas became more refined during the late 18th century and before Marx ever spewed a single drop of feculent ill conceived rhetoric a whole myriad of attitudes towards subjects such as revolution and what the nature of the state ought to be(if any should be present at all) where discussed within communist circles. Marx and his associates produced a communist philosophy which called for revolution using both violence, intimidation through civil disobedience and peaceful persuasion depending on what was necessary in a given set of circumstances. There is much debate about whether or not Marx actually thought violent revolution was necessary, or if he was actually referring to a strictly social and philosophical revolution which would lead to an inevitable shift in the structure of society, but Marx's use of the word "revolution" appears to be more general in the sense that it could mean either or, and the methods used to carry out that revolution could vary between peaceful protest and outright terrorism depending on what the circumstances necessitated. No clear line is ever drawn in communist doctrine. I will have to admit my incorrectness on one thing, that Marx ever specifically stated that a centralized government was necessary to achieve a true communist state, but all the same Marxism creates the perfect framework to lure in the gullible masses with false promises of egalitarianism and use it to rise to power, and that's why the Marxist-Leninist breed of communism is so popular. RBE bypasses this because there is no notion of authority or decision making at all. Instead of having any form of human authority or mob rule logic itself would be the absolute authority. Instead of any individual "making a decision" about how things should be done when it pertains to decisions that effect other people or the environment on a significant level we would determine the most objectively logical course of action with the intent of producing the most favorable result relative to the inherently logical goals and values such as: 1)Increasing quality of life 2)Maintaining the environment 3)Accumulating intelligence about the universe Etc. Communism lacks the scientific basis for arriving at decisions and instead either ends up with mob rule or totalitarianism. That's why communism is just as fundamentally deficient as every other system other than an RBE. Lastly, Karl Marx was an abject slime ball of rubbish and was a horrible person, here is a video to support that claim. Be warned however that the man who made this video is a fervent supporter of capitalism and conservatism and can be fairly biased about certain issues. https://www.youtube.com/ Stefan will speak of how Marx claimed his ideas had a scientific basis, this will no doubt raise questions about the supposed scientific basis for the RBE, which you probably already had questions about just from reading this post. I will allow you to ask those questions as you see fit instead of addressing that now in case I miss something that you might have brought up while I'm attempting to answer those questions before they're asked. @FactMachine. Stefan will speak of how Marx claimed his ideas had a scientific basis First, as a preface, I am very familiar with Stefan Molyneux and agree with a lot of his views. We just radically disagree about Capitalism and some other things. Two, I am in no way attempting to claim that Marx was a "good guy" or did not have his fair share of flaws/shortcomings (he certainly did). We could get in to some of those substantial deficits later if you like. What I am arguing is that Marx had some notable ideas worthy of one’s attention (primarily in his critique of Capitalism, also his Historical Materialist Model, while I think it is far too simplistic overall, has value and makes some good observations). Marx did think that his views had a scientific basis specifically in his theory of Historical Materialism. Marx took the view that the evolution of human society/social development is bound by physical laws in a very similar way to the laws of physics (thus the term "materialism", e.i. there is nothing "in the air" about it, human social development is governed by laws just like biology and physics, and if you locate the relevant variables one can predict the future of human social development much like we can predict the trajectory of throwing a baseball on Earth with Newton's Laws). Now, if you recall from the Communist Manifesto, Marx speaks very "matter-of-factly" about his views on the evolution of human societies and makes his prediction of what will happen in the future (due to him believing he is laying out a 'scientific' argument/theory). Here is an excerpt of an article discussing this topic that sums this view up well: "Why should we accept that the entire universe, from the smallest particles to the most distant galaxies are determined, and the processes that determine the evolution of all species, are governed by laws, and yet, for some strange reason, our own history is not. The Marxist method analyses the hidden mainsprings that underpin the development of human society from the earliest tribal societies up to the modern day. The way in which Marxism traces this winding road is called the materialist conception of history. Those who deny the existence of any laws governing human social development invariably approach history from a subjective and moralistic standpoint. But above and beyond the isolated facts, it is necessary to discern broad tendencies, the transitions from one social system to another, and to work out the fundamental motor forces that determine these transitions. Before Marx and Engels history was seen by most people as a series of unconnected events or, to use a philosophical term, "accidents". There was no general explanation of this, history had no inner lawfulness. By establishing the fact that, at bottom, all human development depends on the development of productive forces Marx and Engels for the first time placed the study of history on a scientific basis. This scientific method enables us to understand history, not as a series of unconnected and unforeseen incidents, but rather as part of a clearly understood and interrelated process. It is a series of actions and reactions which cover politics, economics and the whole spectrum of social development. To lay bare the complex dialectical relationship between all these phenomena is the task of historical materialism. Humankind constantly changes nature through labour, and in so doing, changes itself." Although Marx was a critic of Capitalism, he saw many good aspects to the system as well (which is why it comes in later on in the chain of history). Now, Marx was not under the persuasion that Capitalism had already necessarily outlived its usefulness in the era for which he lived. As a social-economic theorist working inside the framework of his Historical Materialism model, he simply predicted the inevitable breakdown of capitalism when the system had outlived its usefulness to give way to a Socialist society, and then eventually to Communism. Marx was not taking the stance that this had to happen now (his time period). Rather, Capitalism may still of had usefulness for 20, 50, 100, or 200+ years from his present day. This is why Marx almost exclusively wrote about Capitalism rather than other models (because the other models were off at some uncertain point in the future). Now, you can see how this quickly creates a strong divide between people who are hopeful for this quasi-utopian type society some distant point in the future. That is, some people think/thought that it is best to wait and allow Capitalism to play out while it still has usefulness and would eventually give way to the model that supersedes it (much more true to Marx’s model) and others thought, “No, this sh’t needs to end now”. This is where the different camps of Revolutionary Socialism and Evolutionary Socialism took root. Lenin is the most salient of the Socialist-Revolutionaries. He constructed/argued for the need for a Vanguard Party (strict internal hierarchical structure in order to bring about the Revolution now, and then later (ostensibly) the people in charge will willingly concede some of their power during the transitionary phase toward Communism, and then ultimately they are supposed to concede all of their power in order to bring about a Communist society with the fundamental tenets beings as I stated in my OP : In the stateless, classless, society of communism, the means of production would be held in common (by the community), work would be carried out due to social motives rather than for wages, and consumer goods would be available to all according to their needs . This is how the hierarchy, authoritarianism, violent, ect. attributes that are typically ascribed as inextricably bound to Communism real starts to take hold (although this is not intrinsic to Communism, though it is valid to say that this was a direct product from people who legitimately considered themselves Communist (and the sheep that followed the role of those in charge) because they had in principle a goal of bringing about a Communist society and this was their Revolutionary means to speed up the process). Subsequently, it is easy to see how this could get “hijacked” by malevolent, power hungry opportunists such as Stalin because if he controlled the Vanguard Party then all he would have to do is never relinquish power and claim that this is the one true form of Marxism (and thus Stalinism is completely disconnected from (true) Communism because in principle they have zero intention on bringing about a Communist society). Now, I completely agree with you that the people who were “on board” with Lennin’s ideas are “absolutely retarted” and that this is such a horrible, self-contradictory, idea/movement that to a reasonable person it is HIGHLY predictable that this was an unjustified structure from the start and was going to end up very badly (in a Dystopian society rather than quasi-Utopian). So, people who subscribe to this form of the label Communism (Marxism-Lenninism) do share a high burden of responsibility for the ills/crimes typically associated with Communism (and there are many self-professed Communists that still believe in this type of scheme). As for the Stalinist philosophy, there are people who are self-professed Communists that still align with similar forms of social structure to Stalin’s even though it has essentially no recognizable elements to Marx’s Communism and in many ways is the complete opposite (the people who support this are either: A. Dumb as f’ck B. Moral Monsters). Now, the reason I went into more depth about this is to illustrate a point about what is fundamental to Communism. So, when you hear people talk about China, USSR, North Korea, Cuba, ect. as “Communist countries”, you know they don’t have a f’cking clue what they are talking about. That is, they are claiming that a square circle exists (e.i. two mutually incompatible definitions are somehow compatible). Again, a Communist society (as it was originally conceived) is a stateless, classless, society where the means of production would be held in common (by the community), work would be carried out due to social motives rather than for wages, and consumer goods would be available to all according to their needs. For example, that would be like pointing to a modern society and claiming that it is an RBE because they call themselves or others call them an RBE even though it is functioning on a monetary system. Now, what one could argue, is that said societies above are claiming to be transitioning toward a Communist society by means of a Vanguard Party or otherwise, just as one could potentially make such a claim by pointing to another society and say it is transitioning toward an RBE. But, to say that it is at this moment, given the fundamental definitions and facts of reality, is completely non-sensical. This is why the term “Anarchist Communism” is useful because they are simply stating that they are in favor of a (true) Communist society without the Lenninism, Marxism-Lenninism, Stalinism, ect. Now, why they would be tempted to adopt the label “Communist” and particularly the Hammer and Sickle logo at this point (given what it is commonly associated with) is beyond me and seems dangerously idiotic (potentially genocidal stupidity). "RBE bypasses this because there is no notion of authority or decision making at all. Instead of having any form of human authority or mob rule logic itself would be the absolute authority. Instead of any individual "making a decision" about how things should be done when it pertains to decisions that effect other people or the environment on a significant level we would determine the most objectively logical course of action with the intent of producing the most favorable result relative to the inherently logical goals and values such as: 1)Increasing quality of life 2)Maintaining the environment 3)Accumulating intelligence about the universe Etc. Communism lacks the scientific basis for arriving at decisions and instead either ends up with mob rule or totalitarianism. That's why communism is just as fundamentally deficient as every other system other than an RBE." In a Communist society, there is no centralized authorities/state, that does not preclude there being systems of organizations with de-centralized structures/worker management/counsels/ ect. with limited domains of authority. How exactly this would work is a matter highly debated internal issue amongst Communists/Anarcho-Communists. That is to say, the decision making process of REB/Venus Project is not inconsistent with Communism, it just is not a staple either (it is on the table as one option amongst others that would have to be consented to). Numbers 1) and 2) are intrinsic to the Communist design. Number 3) is not, although it is by no means precluded. It would have to be agreed upon/consented to whether this is a main goal of society, if it is peripheral, or if they want to “cut off” at a certain level of technology (which would inevitably squelch scientific progress after a certain point). This is why I say that there are many strong similarities/overlapping parts to “anarcho-communism”/(true) communism and the Venus Project/RBE. The Venus project is more specific in many of its visions while communism is broader in its potentialities/applicability (Socialism is an even broader term still than Communism) that could potentially end up looking something quite similar to the Venus project or if they choose to organize decision making processes in profoundly different ways and/or remain at a lower level of technological advancement, then the end result would be nearly entirely different than the Venus project. 1
point
Writing on health and medicine topics has never been easier with NursingBird. Explore our database to get the most prominent paper examples. Use the form below and boost your studies. NursingBird is a professional writing company that helps students with their education. We provide research paper, term paper, and essay topics as well as examples to help students get started. Our database of topics is constantly expanding, so no matter what your topic may be, we can help you find the perfect one. |
