Archive for the Communism Category

Nonpropertarianism (A Truly Free Market)

Posted in Anarchy, Communism, crime, discordianism, economics, Evolution, Free-thought, Leftism, Libertarianism, Nonpropertarian, Objectivism, Politics, property, resources, theory on March 16, 2011 by FЯEEDO

There are many Capitalists who boast a “free-market”. But what is it they mean by this phrase? What is “free” in their eyes? Surely they will tell you that it a system void of coercion, one of voluntary exchange. I am here to challenge that. Challenge, that is, that this “free-market” they espouse is really anything of the sort.

Even as a former Capitalist, the understanding escapes me how such an evident coercion could at the same time remain so well hidden. An infrastructure which, when recognized, makes even the Ayn Rand’s Minarchist state or the Ancap utopia to be known as an obvious planned and centralized regime but is also a central a theme to Socialism and other such ideologies beyond Capitalism.

I speak of the rule of property. So much bickering, there has been, between which form of this tyranny to have that none have found time to question the very underlining idea.

And I can hear the supposed “free-marketeers” now with their jeers of chaos. “There would be no order!”, they say “Shops would be looted every day with nothing to stop the looters!. Oh the shame. Are these not the same ones who herald the invisible hand of the market? Are these not the ones who, when confronted with an economic woe, would say that the market needs to be let to guide itself, to arrive at it’s naturally emergent balance out of the seemingly unguided chaos? I only offer you the same principle but to it’s actual ends. The degree to which the system has become decentralized and irregulated is the degree to which the natural evolutionary order may emerge. Now, I don’t know for certain how a Nonpropertarian economy would function but I have some fairly confident ideas of which I may discuss in this thread if the questions which require their discussion are posed.

Property is an inherently authoritarian concept, whether with it’s platform as labor, as needs, as collective ownership, or any other such formula for control. No “right” can be had without limiting the freedom of others to impose upon it, surely this is recognized. So the question is whether such a limitation is being imposed upon something which is anti-liberty. For if the liberty which the right limits is not anti-liberty than the right itself which limits this thing is in actuality the thing which is anti-liberty. So what does it mean posses something which has a claim by another, does it limit the liberty of the claimer? Surely, a person may find a reason to say that it does, for most objects have a political power of some kind when possessed. To take possession of water which one claims is to limit their freedom in consuming that water. So the Capitalist may take the tactic of pointing this out but it is really a half-witted move for they are blind to the fact that it is same vice-versa. The very person claiming the water in the first place is limiting the freedom of others to consume it, so this too is anti-liberty. So both sides are anti-liberty? That, too, is only half the story. For if a person were to claim something while no one else feels a need to do the same, who’s liberty is he infringing upon? Vice-versa, if one has a claim to a thing but has does not use it, what liberty is infringed by another taking his claim? But if both sides may be at some times anti-liberty and sometimes not, how are we to know how to maximize freedom? If only there were a way for the system to balance itself. Perhaps if we did not have this rule of making a claim to be imposed upon others, a solution might develop.

“So what..”, you say, “just get rid of property?”. “Ok, I’ll just go to your house and take all your stuff, how bout that?” To suddenly switch off the rule of property would indeed cause instantaneous disorder, panic and destruction. This is not the fault of this new Nonpropertarian environment, it is the example of something much more dangerous in a state of decay–the crumbling of the old and the construction of a new. Out of this chaos would evolve a new infrastructure for the allocation of resources, an infrastructure which can truly be called a free-market.



Posted in Anarchy, Communism, crime, economics, Leftism, Libertarianism, Politics, racism, Slavery on March 6, 2011 by FЯEEDO

This is why it still exist.

1. Illegal =/= Abolished

Though it is true that slavery(in it’s traditional sense) has been made illegal(also in it’s traditional sense) in every country the world, it is also true that slavery still exists in every country in the world. There is a huge demand for slaves and economic inequality leads to scenarios which makes it extremely easy to develop. There are estimated to be more slaves today than at any point in human history.

2. Illegal =/= Enforced

Slavery is an extreme problem in Mauritania today, among other countries, where the government refuses to enforce it’s anti-slavery laws. The slavery there is the same white over black slavery we saw(see) in America.

3. Illegal for you =/= Illegal for the government

Lets take America as an example. The 13th Amendment, the one which supposedly abolished slavery, is very clear on the matter that it does nothing of the kind.
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment…”
In other words, the government has simply done what it has always done. Whenever there is a thing in society which is undesirable, it doesn’t destroy it, it only gains a monopoly on it. The story is always the same.
Indeed, we see slavery all the time in America. Prisoners’ labor is sold off against their will to corporations who could have hired the people starving on the street because they can’t find a job.
The funny thing is(not in a good way), a much higher per capita of these prisoners are black. When the slaves were supposedly freed they had zero compensation and have been kept in a perpetual state of poverty ever since, causing elevated crime rates(due to a much higher incentive). And when they try to get out of poverty by selling drugs(a victim less crime) that also puts them in jail.

4. Involuntary servitude is illegal =/= Servitude against one’s will is illegal

I am, of course, speaking of wage slavery. Wage-slavery is where someone is in such an economic condition that they are desperately dependent on their employer. Those who are against considering wage-slavery real slavery are making the claim that “choosing” something when there is really no other choice at all can really be considered voluntary. Money is just as much a device of political power as elections are. When someone must make a contract with someone much more economically secure than they are, it is the rich-man with all the leverage in the decision. This kind of pressure is equivalent to coercion. If you disagree still, I dare, I just dare you, to find a starving child in china who works for some industry making stuff for America who receives just enough so they can move their weight in the job the next day(all day) and tell them to their face that it isn’t slavery, that they chose this for themselves.

It’s time to re-abolish slavery.

Zeitgeist: Moving Forward

Posted in Anarchy, Atheism, AWESOME, Capitalism, Christianity, Communism, conspiracy, crime, Defiance, economics, Environmentalism, Evolution, Experiment, Free-speech, Free-thought, futurism, God, happy, Health, Internet, Islam, Leftism, Libertarianism, LOGIC, medicine, Mind-control, Morality, Philosophy, police, Politics, Protesting, Psychology, Purpose, Quotes, Religion, resources, Science, Skepticism, Slavery, Socialism, theory, youtube, Zeitgeist on January 30, 2011 by FЯEEDO

This movie was by far my favorite of the three. There wasn’t actually anything I disagreed with this time. None of the religious conspiracy theories. I’m very impressed, I recommend you watch it.

The Spanish Revolution in a Few Words

Posted in Anarchy, Capitalism, Communism, Defiance, Justice, Leftism, Libertarianism, Morality, Politics, Socialism on September 6, 2010 by FЯEEDO

Some words from the French Anarchist historian Gaston Leval who was an active participant in the Spanish Anarchist Revolution:

In Spain during almost three years, despite a civil war that took a million lives, despite the opposition of the political parties (republicans, left and right Catalan separatists, socialists, Communists, Basque and Valencian regionalists, petty bourgeoisie, etc.), this idea of libertarian communism was put into effect. Very quickly more than 60% of the land was collectively cultivated by the peasants themselves, without landlords, without bosses, and without instituting capitalist competition to spur production. In almost all the industries, factories, mills, workshops, transportation services, public services, and utilities, the rank and file workers, their revolutionary committees, and their syndicates reorganized and administered production, distribution, and public services without capitalists, high salaried managers, or the authority of the state.

Even more: the various agrarian and industrial collectives immediately instituted economic equality in accordance with the essential principle of communism, ‘From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs.’ They coordinated their efforts through free association in whole regions, created new wealth, increased production (especially in agriculture), built more schools, and bettered public services. They instituted not bourgeois formal democracy but genuine grass roots functional libertarian democracy, where each individual participated directly in the revolutionary reorganization of social life. They replaced the war between men, ‘survival of the fittest,’ by the universal practice of mutual aid, and replaced rivalry by the principle of solidarity…

This experience, in which about eight million people directly or indirectly participated, opened a new way of life to those who sought an alternative to anti-social capitalism on the one hand, and totalitarian state bogus socialism on the other.

Capitalism Does NOT Mean Free-Market!

Posted in Anarchy, Capitalism, Communism, Leftism, Libertarianism, Politics, Socialism on June 30, 2010 by FЯEEDO

I’m so sick of all the miss-used terminology being thrown around. So lets set things straight.

Capitalism is not the free-market.

Pure Capitalism is where all things are individually owned.

Corporate Capitalism is where all things are owned by either individuals or corporations. It’s the closest thing to what we have today.

The Free-Market is where all ownership is decided purely through voluntary association.

Free-Market Capitalism is where all things have been made to be owned by individuals though voluntary association. Which, believe it or not, is nearly impossible. It just doesn’t work out that way when things are left to be on their own.

Socialism is where the means of production is collectively owned(which could either be by the community or just by the workers).

Free-Market Socialism is where the means of production have been made collectively owned through voluntary association. Yes, that’s right, I said Free-Market Socialism. It’s no oxymoron.

In a Free-Market there is a choice, Capitalism and Socialism are simply two choices to be made.

I would argue that in a truly Free-Market both Capitalism of the extreme right and Communism of the extreme left would be incredibly rare. The most probable thing to emerge is a system in which all things being individually used are individually owned and all things collectively used are collectively owned, which implies Socialism.

When people pull for supposed Free-Market principles in the classical economics of today, all their really doing is supporting Corporate Capitalism because they propose less public control over economics while at the same time supporting the existence of Corporations, which are invented by the government. They claim they are granting freedom. And they absolutely are–freedom for the tyrants to control the common man.

Free-Market Socialism is true freedom.

Capitalism and Communism Suffer From the Same Insanity.

Posted in Capitalism, Communism, Leftism, Politics, Socialism on June 30, 2010 by FЯEEDO

One wants all things to be individually owned.

The other wants all to be collectively owned.

And neither of them see the obvious problem with that?

I do not adhere to a labour nor to a need-theory of property, rather a consequentialist-based property theory.

The most practical system, the one that would seem to offer the most efficient results, is one in which all things individually used are individually owned and all things collectively used are collectively owned.

It’s pretty straight forward people.

Further; workers are the ones who use the work-place faculties and would thus be the more proper owners.

Worker ownership of the means of the production is the very definition of Socialism.

Socialism is not some extreme left. It is the mid-way point between Communism and Capitalism.