Timeline for How is the Venus Project resource-based economy different than communism?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 9:20 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Oct 1, 2013 at 16:25 | comment | added | Val | @user1873 That is another issue. Actually the fact that others debunk what we with Marx say just means that I read Marx the right way. | |
| Oct 1, 2013 at 16:19 | comment | added | user1873 | @Val, Marx's theory about the rich get richer and the poor get poorer has been thoroughly debunked. The poor don't stay poor, a significant number move into the other quintiles over time (this also occurs intergenerationally) | |
| Oct 1, 2013 at 16:00 | comment | added | Val | @user1873 This sounds like a vulgar and anti-communist idea. I read these words differently: Capitalists (actually, not capitalists themselves but their intellectuals: market prophets, liberal democrats, journalists and etc.) feed us with the idea that anybody can become anybody in a free market society, you just must work harder. Marx debunked this deception. He said that poor have very limited window and, thus, will stay poor (slaves) while rich richer and enjoy the intellectual specialties/supremacy. I see that In any branch he wishes actually means stem cells-like specialization. | |
| Oct 1, 2013 at 13:39 | comment | added | user1873 | @Val, "When you compete with everybody, you must be self-reliant and do everything yourself" Why is specialization so common in Capitalistic societies? it is marx who thought that specialization disappears in communism "Marx actually believed that in the communist society beyond the Revolution, the division of labor would be utterly destroyed. All specialization would disappear.[...]nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes." | |
| Oct 1, 2013 at 12:45 | comment | added | Val | But I also see that this is communism that allows the people to specialize. When you compete with everybody, you must be self-reliant and do everything yourself and, thus, have no time to specialize. You do not trust other people and others do not trust you, since you are rivals and want to cheat each other. In communism, in contrast, you trust the others, including experts, and can rely on their decisions. Consider a life organism (cells in body and bees in hues are literally brothers). But this is this communism of cells that allows them relay on the brains (technocracy) and support it. | |
| Oct 1, 2013 at 12:38 | comment | added | Val |
Exactly. I started school in the Soviet Union and we were taught to manage natural resources: teacher explained why it is important to conserve resources and why do we place power plants and factories near the raw material/energy sources in educated way and it was mostly planned by technocracy rather than "workers". Liberals have criticiezed the soviet society for their giantomania. However, megalomania (efficient infrastructure) and technocracy is what I see promoted in the Zeitgeist. Might be my association with SU makes me to falsefully think that this is a communism should look like.
|
|
| Sep 30, 2013 at 21:56 | comment | added | Samuel Russell | @DVK you might like to help me edit this question into a better question: politics.stackexchange.com/questions/2077/… | |
| Sep 30, 2013 at 15:31 | comment | added | user4012 | too offtopic to debate here (make a new Question?) but Manchester school was far from the first liberal occurence of the idea (Locke? Thomas Jefferson?) | |
| Sep 30, 2013 at 14:44 | comment | added | Samuel Russell | There's nothing "non-aggressive" about the principle of hanging the last boss with the guts of the last bureaucrat; sentiments that go back to the beginnings of libertarianism. "Non-aggression" is a limited conception within libertarianism broadly, though it seems very very popular with contemporary US activists inspired by the Manchester School of liberalism. | |
| Sep 30, 2013 at 13:34 | comment | added | user4012 | the - admittedly largely tangential - point is that mashing together "libertarian" (as in, "non-aggression principle") with "violence is The Way" radical anarchists is... somewhat philosophically incompatible :) | |
| Sep 30, 2013 at 1:00 | comment | added | Samuel Russell | I would like to think that we ought to hold all evil butcher warlords to account, regardless of their politics; and, closely inspect people purporting to be anarchists or libertarians for evil butcher warlord tendencies much like we ought to inspect all purported politicians for the same tendencies. | |
| Sep 30, 2013 at 0:22 | comment | added | user4012 | Aside from listing Makhno (whome anyone USSR-born, left or right wing, generally considers an evil butcher warlord as opposed to a libertarian-anarchist thinker), excellent answer. | |
| Sep 29, 2013 at 22:54 | history | edited | Samuel Russell | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
italicise Woodcock's book.
|
| Sep 29, 2013 at 22:42 | history | edited | Samuel Russell | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Illustrative quote from Engels.
|
| Sep 29, 2013 at 22:36 | history | answered | Samuel Russell | CC BY-SA 3.0 |