3 ms·

> No gulags or prisons? But where do you put the people who oppose the ideas you are proposing? The same place the creators of Wikipedia put people who don’t l

> No gulags or prisons? But where do you put the people who oppose the ideas you are proposing? The same place the creators of Wikipedia put people who don’t like Wikipedia - nowhere, they don’t do anything to people who don’t want to participate. > But what about those who don't want to be convinced? Or the people who just don't like being told what to do? How will you incentivize them? My system is purely voluntary and it works with the participation of a small number of volunteers. You really have not appreciated that when I say it is libertarian I actually know what I am saying. > You'd need a way to keep tabs on these people to make sure they don't try to overthrow your administration before its had a chance to succeed. And what if they do find evidence of a conspiracy to abandon your ideas? You’re really letting your mind wander. Again think of Wikipedia. If someone wants to stop contributing, absolutely nothing will happen to them. > So no - communism is not just misunderstood At least on your end, the misunderstanding is significant. It would be great if, instead of telling me libertarian communism is an impossibility and wholly misinterpreting my goals, you kept an open mind and considered what a libertarian communism would be like. Do you know about the Sikhs in India? How they produce and give away over one million free meals a day across the country? How they have massive Langar kitchens that produce 100,000 free meals a day? I am a robotics engineer, and a damn good one. I want to create facilities which can produce tens of thousands of delicious healthy organic meals per day to distribute for free or with a payment optional model. I want to provide free community robotics classes so the members of the community can learn useful skills to help repair and improve the machine and to get better jobs. I call what I aim for communism because it is based on Marxist principles of community ownership of the means of production, and based on the ideals of libertarian communists from the past (there is a long history of that term going back to the 1800’s and you should look it up before so horribly misunderstanding it). You could say “giving things to people in need is capitalism! It’s charity!” And the truth is the meaning of the terms overlaps. And we can both be right. But I follow in the libertarian communist tradition and I’m quite proud of that. I don’t usually hear capitalists saying every person deserves food and shelter and clothes no matter whether they can or do work. I want to help create a world where having a job is totally optional. And we can do that through concentrated automation of core human needs with machines owned by the community they serve. Community ownership of the means of production. Imagine how much freedom a person would have if they did not have to work! They would have the freedom to spend time with loved ones, to paint, to read, to bike. For the average person this would be a life changing situation. One that our current form of capitalism seems to have no interest in producing.

0xbadc0de5 5y ago
What are your thoughts on how Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot conducted themselves? They also believed that they were doing the best possible good for their societies. I believe the disconnect here is you seem to be suggesting that Marxist / communist ideology can be safely restrained from eroding personal liberty. I do not and would rather not run the experiment because history has shown it tends toward genocide - regardless of the good intentions of its supporters. It's the parable of the scorpion and the frog. I'm happy to encourage people to continue to help the needy. But communism is a hard nope.
- SequoiaHope 5y ago
  How can you account for the millions of Americans who have died over the past 50 years due to lack of medical care? How about the millions of Vietnamese people killed in their own country fighting for independence from colonial rule? How about all those innocent people killed by the USA in the Middle East? The problem with all that and the people you mentioned is authoritarianism, not their preferred way of organizing production. In the USA post-McCarthy “communism” was understood as synonymous with authoritarian communism. But authoritarian communism does not and has never represented the whole of communist thought. There have always been libertarian communists also called anarchist communists, as Peter Kropotkin identified himself in his famous 1892 book. If you think all communism leads to authoritarianism then of course you would oppose it. But isn’t is the case that capitalism is just as susceptible to authoritarian control, as we see when the USA overthrows governments to secure cheap oil and a pliable labor force? We can an must oppose authoritarianism in all its forms. But you’re getting hung up on terms. I’m sure if I told you I want to marshall resources from donors to build a facility that makes automated meals for everyone, you’d be supportive. It is only when I say that every person deserves this regardless of their ability or desire to work that you will get concerned. In the words of Hélder Câmara: “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.”

0xbadc0de5 5y ago

What are your thoughts on how Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot conducted themselves? They also believed that they were doing the best possible good for their societies. I believe the disconnect here is you seem to be suggesting that Marxist / communist ideology can be safely restrained from eroding personal liberty. I do not and would rather not run the experiment because history has shown it tends toward genocide - regardless of the good intentions of its supporters. It's the parable of the scorpion and the frog. I'm happy to encourage people to continue to help the needy. But communism is a hard nope.

SequoiaHope 5y ago
How can you account for the millions of Americans who have died over the past 50 years due to lack of medical care? How about the millions of Vietnamese people killed in their own country fighting for independence from colonial rule? How about all those innocent people killed by the USA in the Middle East? The problem with all that and the people you mentioned is authoritarianism, not their preferred way of organizing production. In the USA post-McCarthy “communism” was understood as synonymous with authoritarian communism. But authoritarian communism does not and has never represented the whole of communist thought. There have always been libertarian communists also called anarchist communists, as Peter Kropotkin identified himself in his famous 1892 book. If you think all communism leads to authoritarianism then of course you would oppose it. But isn’t is the case that capitalism is just as susceptible to authoritarian control, as we see when the USA overthrows governments to secure cheap oil and a pliable labor force? We can an must oppose authoritarianism in all its forms. But you’re getting hung up on terms. I’m sure if I told you I want to marshall resources from donors to build a facility that makes automated meals for everyone, you’d be supportive. It is only when I say that every person deserves this regardless of their ability or desire to work that you will get concerned. In the words of Hélder Câmara: “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.”