The Almighty Unions

[egbert]

What is marxist communism? Do you mean a classless society?

A society where everyone is in the same serf class is still not a classless society.

So, if EVERYONE is a serf, WHO are they in serfdom to? DUH!

[.Morticia.]

What is marxist communism? Do you mean a classless society?

A society where everyone is in the same serf class is still not a classless society.

So, if EVERYONE is a serf, WHO are they in serfdom to? DUH!

:shrug:

some people can't imagine a society without authoritarianism

[Seth]

What is marxist communism? Do you mean a classless society?

A society where everyone is in the same serf class is still not a classless society.

So, if EVERYONE is a serf, WHO are they in serfdom to? DUH!

:shrug:

some people can't imagine a society without authoritarianism

It's not a lack of imagination. Marxists are full of imagination. It's due to human nature and factual historical experience. No society without authoritarianism has ever existed, on a large scale, anywhere on earth, ever in its history. Nor will such a thing ever come to pass, because human nature forbids it. That's why Communism, and it's larval stages of Marxism and socialism, never, ever work.

Once the OPM runs out, authoritarianism inevitably emerges.

Your utopian view of the world is ignorant of history and psychology.

[sandinista]

Apart from noticing that I have a coherent and quite pragmatic political position...

Yes Jimmy...keep telling yourself that. If you say it enough times I'm sure you'll believe it. fanatics

But quite seriously, forgetting about the verbals, what do you actually think about unions? We've heard the whole hatred/dismissal thing from Seth and (to a lesser extent) CES, what coherent position does the far left have on the value of unions in modern democracies?

Like I've already pointed out, discussing this with you in such a black and white left and right way is a waste of time. I am not "far-left", I do not speak for the "far left", I don't even know what that means to you because right/left BS means something different to everyone. Meaningless labels. As for myself, individually, within a capitalist system I support unions.

[PsychoSerenity]

No society without authoritarianism has ever existed, on a large scale, anywhere on earth, ever in its history. Nor will such a thing ever come to pass, because human nature forbids it.

I don't think that's true Seth. Throughout human evolution we've mostly existed in very egalitarian societies, and I remember from an anthropology lecture there were many early civilisations that were quite anti-authoritarian - with powers to force monarchs to step down if they became despotic and powers to veto decisions - large collections of iron age societies trading and working together across continents with all decisions being made at a local level - the Iroquois Confederacy for one.

In fact, real authoritarianism as we think of it today, can only have existed in the modern world, because it requires fast transport and communication.

[sandinista]

What is marxist communism? Do you mean a classless society?

A society where everyone is in the same serf class is still not a classless society.

So, if EVERYONE is a serf, WHO are they in serfdom to? DUH!

:shrug:

some people can't imagine a society without authoritarianism

It's not a lack of imagination. Marxists are full of imagination. It's due to human nature and factual historical experience. No society without authoritarianism has ever existed, on a large scale, anywhere on earth, ever in its history. Nor will such a thing ever come to pass, because human nature forbids it. That's why Communism, and it's larval stages of Marxism and socialism, never, ever work.

Once the OPM runs out, authoritarianism inevitably emerges.

Your utopian view of the world is ignorant of history and psychology.

again with the "human nature"... time to get a new line, that one's not working. BTW, capitalism has never, ever worked either.

[JimC]

sandinista wrote:

...BTW, capitalism has never, ever worked either.

Another absolutist statement, and one with no real meaning. Even at its worst, it still works, in that capitalist societies don't immediately implode. It might not work perfectly, it might be more or less oppressive to working people at different times or places, and it may run into resource issues in the future, but right now it still works...

No one can say socialism simply doesn't work, either. It certainly wasn't perfect, but coherent societies existed (and in a small scale, still do) operating on socialist principles. They have a tendency to exhibit totalitarian structures, and planned economies were often inefficient, but that didn't mean they could not work in a fashion, and they were often a much better solution for most of the population than the feudal or dictatorial systems they replaced.

[Ian]

again with the "human nature"... time to get a new line, that one's not working.

Funny that you keep belittling that line every single time someone brings it up. There's a clear truth in it, but that's too bad for your preferred ideology. If I woke up tomorrow and learned that my government had just been "liberated" in a communist coup, the first thing I'd do is load my gun.

Human nature might indeed change enough to someday want a communistic society. Perhaps many generations from now. In the meantime, why agitate for it so much? No such government can possibly work on present-day society without resorting to horribly repressive measures of control - as history has shown time and time and time and time again.

[sandinista]

Funny that you keep belittling that line every single time someone brings it up.

Because it's wrong. Not so funny.

Human nature might indeed change

and apparently you agree.

There's a clear truth in it, but that's too bad for your preferred ideology

No, there's not (truth in it). Some may pretend there is to bolster their ideology and you may swing both ways to bolster your ideology. Not sure what your point is.

If I woke up tomorrow and learned that my government had just been "liberated" in a communist coup, the first thing I'd do is load my gun.

meaning?

No such government can possibly work on present-day society without resorting to horribly repressive measures of control - as history has shown time and time and time and time again.

What "such government"? History has shown what? Sorry Ian, but that whole post makes very little sense.

[sandinista]

sandinista wrote:

...BTW, capitalism has never, ever worked either.

Another absolutist statement

Another broken record. I suppose you think there are no absolutist statements?

and one with no real meaning.

Like every one of your posts talking about absolutist definitions like left right and center?

Even at its worst, it still works

depends how you define "works". Any society "works" if you define "work" to suit your position.

[.Morticia.]

What if marxists won in a fair election? What then?

[sandinista]

well...I'd grab my big gun and pull a rambo of course. duh.

[Seth]

No society without authoritarianism has ever existed, on a large scale, anywhere on earth, ever in its history. Nor will such a thing ever come to pass, because human nature forbids it.

I don't think that's true Seth. Throughout human evolution we've mostly existed in very egalitarian societies, and I remember from an anthropology lecture there were many early civilisations that were quite anti-authoritarian - with powers to force monarchs to step down if they became despotic and powers to veto decisions - large collections of iron age societies trading and working together across continents with all decisions being made at a local level - the Iroquois Confederacy for one.

In fact, real authoritarianism as we think of it today, can only have existed in the modern world, because it requires fast transport and communication.

Sorry, no sale. The Iroquois Confederacy was a highly authoritarian regime that brutally suppressed weaker tribes and tribes that refused to align with the Confederacy.

That societies are able to work with one another does not dispose of the notion that even within tribes, authoritarian structures emerge. Some of the Plains Indian tribes in the US, like the Sioux, had very Libertarian internal structures where everyone had input and decisions were made by consensus, but these tribes had absolutely no problem imposing upon neighboring tribes, like the Crow, in the most authoritarian manner possible: outright slaughter, slavery and subjugation.

There are very, very few societies in human history that have not resorted to imposing their ideals on other, particularly outsiders or disfavored internal groups, through authoritarian methods.

[Seth]

What if marxists won in a fair election? What then?

Individual rights to life, liberty and property are not subject to popular vote. Any election imposing Marxist redistributionism and elimination of private property and subjugation of the individual to the will of the collective would be invalid on its face as an exercise in majoritiarian tyranny, and should forcibly resisted by those determined to protect individual liberty and rights.

That's why we have a right to keep and bear arms, to prevent the imposition of majoritarian tyranny, among other evils.

So, in essence, Sandinista is correct.

[sandinista]

Individual rights to life, liberty and property are not subject to popular vote.

Besides the sloganism, what do you mean by that? Life, liberty and property? Sounds like some kind of libraian mantra that makes about as much sense as any religious mantra. The rest of your post is just more slogansim. "protect individual liberty and rights"?? rights to what? Liberty meaning what? You and JimC should have a cliche contest.