Communism doesn't work

[Guest]

No matter how hard you try. See why:
<br>
<br>If there is no private property in land and other production factors, then there can also
<br>be no market prices for them. Hence, economic calculation, i.e., the comparison, in
<br>light of current prices, of anticipated revenue, and expected cost expressed in terms of
<br>a common medium of exchange—money—(thus permitting cardinal accounting opera-tions),
<br>is literally impossible. Therefore, socialism’s fatal error is the absence of private
<br>property in land and production factors, and, by implication, the absence of economic
<br>calculation. (Hoppe 1996, p. 143)

[Guest]

well, gosh, if hoppe said it in 1996 on page 143, it must be true!

[Rjak]

As I said elsewhere, the ECA has already been refuted. Calculation in kind, my friend.

[Guest]

Im sorry. Mises never backed off from the economic calculation problem concept. <br> <br>The USSR DID have private property: 4% of the farms where private and produced more than 30% of the agricultural output. They relied on capitalism for that and for a fake price system, based on copying the preexisting price relations and copying prices from capitalist countries catalogs. <br> <br>And of course a communist society can exist and has existed. The thing is, it will be poor inevitably and will never create, only destroy o at most sustain at the elementary level, any production goods (machinery or technology of other kinds). Im sorry, History favors private property. <br>

[Guest]

Well, gosh, if Hoppe did study some economics and history, maybe he is right and non-reality-based idealists are wrong. <br> <br>Embrace private property, my friend, it benefits all through increased output year after year (Compare Ireland w/ Somalia). Abolish the State, get rid of politicians and let the economy work for all and not only for the well-connected (that is called Mercantilism, not Capitalism. If you have corporate welfare the sistem is Mercantilistic, no competition exists, just political favors, sorry to tell you) <br> <br>We have a common enemy, but realism will help more than impossibles...

[Aaron]

[color=green]We have a common enemy, but realism will help more than impossibles...</font color=green> <br> <br>I hate this condescending "I have The Truth" stuff. <br> <br>You don't have to be a Communist to be opposed to private property.

[Rjak]

Excuse me, folks, I need to mop up the condescension. When I read this post, all the condenscension just started pouring off the screen all over my floor....

[Din]

[color=green]You don't have to be a Communist to be opposed to private property.</font color=green> <br> <br>And you don't have to be a Capitalist to embrace private property.

[Din]

[color=green]The USSR DID have private property: 4% of the farms where private and produced more than 30% of the agricultural output. They relied on capitalism for that and for a fake price system, based on copying the preexisting price relations and copying prices from capitalist countries catalogs.</font color=green> <br> <br>Twit - we are not leninists here. Go find some stalinist forum to troll.

[PatheticKammy]

edit

[Cal Ungovernable]

First of all, you mis-guided capitalist apologist, all of your information applies to state communism, not real communism. Even Lenin and Trotsky, the scurges of all real anti-capitalists, admitted that when the Bolsheviks took power, they instituted "nothing more than a mere state capitalism." [not exact quote, but something along the lines of that.]
Secondly, as communism is a classless, non-hierarchical society, it is more compatible with anarchism (libertarian socialism) than with Marxism. This is why libertarian communism is a synonym for anarchism. I would assume that even the individualist anarchists on this forum (Pomegranite, Din? not sure, sorry if your not, you guys. From your earlier posts, it seems as if you are.) would admit that state capitalism has nothing to do with real communism, whether they agree with anarchist-communists or not.
Further, LIBERTARIAN COMMUNISM (ANARCHISM) HAS EXISTED IN MODERN SOCIETY AND IS POSSIBLE!!!!!!!

1.) In the beginnings of the Russian Revolution, before Lenin and his minions took power, there was a very anarchist-communist-like society, with worker's self-managed councils, decentralization, and peasants managing their own work.

2.)After Lenin, Trotsky and their state-capitalist lackies managed to seize power at the expense of the masses, many of the anarchists (who weren't massacred by the Bolsheviks ), were exiled out of Russia. Some joined the Makhnovist movement in the Ukraine. Although the Makhnovists did adhere to a quasi-leader, the self-educated anarchist peasant Nestor Makhno, the collectives they established and the towns they liberated from the Denikists (anti-Semitic White Army , who incidently ruthlessly murdered many of the Jewish Makhnovists ) and the Bolsheviks were autonomous and self-managed by the peasants.

3.) Most importantly, in the Spanish Revolution (1936-1939) millions of anti-fascist workers and peasants, with the aid of the anarcho-syndicalist union, el Condfederaccion Nacional del Trabajo (National Confederation of Labor) and the anarchist federation, el Federaccion Anarquista de Iberia (Iberian Anarchist Federation) organized entirely self-managed libertarian communist communities in the Spanish regions of Aragon, Madrid, Valencia, and Catalonia. The following account from George Orwell, a socialist author during the period [most known for his novels Animal Farm and 1984] proves my position:

The Anarchists were still in virtual control of Catalonia and the revolution was still in full swing. To anyone who had been there since the beginning it probably seemed even in December or January that the revolutionary period was ending; but when one came straight from England the aspect of Barcelona was something startling and overwhelming. It was the first time that I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle. Practically every building of any size had been seized by the workers and was draped with red flags or with the red and black flag of the Anarchists; every wall was scrawled with the hammer and sickle and with the initials of the revolutionary parties; almost every church had been gutted and its images burnt. Churches here and there were being systmatically demolished by gangs of workman. Every shop and cafe had an inscription saying that it had been collectivised; even the bootblaks had b een collectivised and their boxes painted red and black. Waiters and shop-walkers looked you in the face and treated you as an equal. Servile and even ceremonial forms of speech had temporarily disappeared. Nobody said 'Senor' or 'Don' or even 'Usted'; everyone called everyone else 'Comrade' or 'Thou' and said '!Salud!' instead of 'Buenos dias'...Above all, there was a belief in the revolution and the future, a feeling of having suddenly emerged into an era of equality and freedom. Human beings were trying to behave as human beings and not as cogs in the capitalist machine.

[Homage to Catalonia, pp. 2-3]

Therefore, libertarian communism or anarchist-communism or free communism or whatever you wish to call it is indeed possible. I suggest you read the Anarchist FAQ Sect. A5 ("What are some examples of 'Anarchy in Action'?") and Sect. I8 ("Is the Spanish Revolution evidence that libertarian socialism can work?"), The Unknown Revolution by Voline, The Makhnovists in the Russian Revolution by Peter Arshinov, Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution by Murray Bookchin, The Spanish Revolution by Jose Peirats, or at least Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell before quoting some capitalist apologist professor who doesn't have any knowledge whatsoever of the anarchist movement or of these revolutions.

[Din]

You do realize that the troll is probably not on the board any longer?

I would assume that even the individualist anarchists on this forum (Pomegranite, Din? not sure, sorry if your not, you guys. From your earlier posts, it seems as if you are.) would admit that state capitalism has nothing to do with real communism, whether they agree with anarchist-communists or not.

Admit would suggest that we originally denied it.

IS

Really strong emphasis for such a small word...

[ForkFace]

Secondly, as communism is a classless, non-hierarchical society, it is more compatible with anarchism (libertarian socialism) than with Marxism.

I hope by "Marxism" you mean "Marxism-Leninism". Marxism is, in itself, very compatable with anarchism. It's when you start getting muddled in Leninist nonsense that you run into problems.

[jacobhaller]

Marx embraced some bizarrely statist notions. Look at the concrete proposals in the Manifesto. Proudhon also embraced some bizarrely statist notions. That we can rework the latter theory suggests we can rework the former theory.

[ForkFace]

Marx talked about a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, not necessarily a "strong, centralized state" or any such thing.

He and Engles went so far as to amend the Manifesto to make it perfectly clear that the Paris Commune was an example of how the DOtP should be run.