Re: Lisp is Sin

Gidday, Ulrich,

Ulrich Hobelmann <u.hobelmann@xxxxxx> writes:

> David Trudgett wrote:
>> On the contrary, he seems to have been of the
>> belief that, at a minimum, an organised and violent revolution would
>> be necessary on account of his other belief that the ruling class
>> would not give up their position of privilege voluntarily.
>
> Basically saying that the solution to the poor wages paid by factory
> owners wasn't for the workers to build their own factory, but to
> simply steal one.

Although the owners of capital came to be so through a process of
theft and illegitimate appropriation, violence is never a legitimate
solution. That's what Marx et al. got wrong, and it's what those who
believe in the power of the state get wrong.

No one in Australia, for example, owns the land upon which sit their
factories or houses, even though they may have a "legal title" to
it. Forgetting for a moment the legal reality that title does not
confer ownership because the state arrogates to itself and itself
alone ultimate ownership, the truth still remains that the land is not
legitimately owned, because it was stolen by force from the original
Aboriginal owners when Europeans invaded this continent. Other
countries, such as the U.S., have similar histories in this
regard. The British people committed a crime of aggression against the
Aborigines who lived here, and such a crime does not confer valid
ownership or title.


> The question is: what did they do before the factory came to life?
> Hand-knit carpets? If so, why didn't they continue to do so?

Instead of asking rhetorical questions, you should rather spend your
time finding out the answer.


>
> A simple fact, both in capitalism and in socialism is that you are
> free to produce whatever you produced in the way you produced it, but
> there is no guarantee that anyone will buy it.

As you know, communism is a specific form of socialism, and therefore
nominally covered by your general remark. Did you also know that
communism means a moneyless society? So where does "buying" come into
the picture in that case? It obviously doesn't. If you produce
something useless in communist society, people just won't use it, so
the smart communist will produce something useful, which will get
used. Unlike in capitalist societies, you do not have to "afford"
something before you can use it.

Note that I am referring to communism in the sense of anarchistic,
decentralised communism (the only legitimate communism), and not to
centrally planned state communism, which can never work because it
inherently involves both high complexity and high levels of violent
repression.

It is also interesting to note as an aside that the former Soviet
Union did use money, and that this fact alone rules it out as a valid
example of true communism, and some believe that 'state capitalism' better
describes the reality of the former Soviet Union.


> Cooperatives are cool, but they too have to adapt to the market
> pressure if they want to be competitive. Unless some central
> government allocates some money for them anyway.

There does not need to exist any "market". And competition as a way of
life, as opposed to cooperation, is harmful and dangerous to
individuals and society and the environment.


>
>> Christianity, some say, is a theory that has never been put into
>> practice. Of course, that is not entirely true, as many individuals
>> and communities throughout the ages have come a lot closer to the
>> Christian ideal than, say, present day mainstream Churches of all
>> flavours. Which is to say that, when looking at the present
>> disgraceful state of Churches, Christianity is no more than a distant
>> theory to be discussed in the abstract by theologians. Yet
>> Christianity exists.
>
> I haven't heard of any Christian, except maybe Mother Theresa.

You've led a sheltered life... ;-)


> Jesus said that the rich won't come to heaven, and stuff like that.

Not quite, but close. He said that it is as impossible for a rich man
to enter the kingdom of heaven as it is for a camel to pass through
the eye of a needle; but that for God, anything is possible. See Mark
10:17-29 for the details, if you are interested.


> At least all of Christian USAians don't give up their job etc.

What is rich? Anyone who has a job? Anyone who owns their house? Two
houses? Three houses, two cars and five TVs? Oprah or Gates-rich?

It is a relative term, but if your possessions stop you from doing
what is right, such as shutting up and doing unethical work for the
boss so you can keep your job and pay the mortgage, then your riches
are preventing you from "entering the kingdom of heaven" as Jesus put
it. Obviously, this situation becomes exponentially harder the more
wealth is accumulated, and that fact is what Jesus was referring to.


> Nonetheless, even though I'm basically against
> Christianity-as-religion (and all other Theist
> the-sole-god-that's-the-only-way-to-heaven religions), Jesus was a
> *very* cool guy (more in a cultural and political way) and IMHO a
> good person to inspire us.

Actually, Jesus was a seriously demented madman and blasphemer who
believed he was God and said so, or he was the greatest person who
ever lived and was right when he identified himself with the
godhead. He didn't really leave much room for middle ground; he meant
to make you decide.


> Just leave out the Antisemites like Saul/Paul or Luther to keep it
> clean :)

Paul and Luther were anti-semites?


>
>> Communism can be regarded in a similar light. State communism, making
>> necessary use, as it does, of violence, is abhorrent and far from any
>> true spirit of brotherhood. Yet voluntary and free communism can exist
>> in small and large communities if they are simply left alone. So, yes,
>> free communism does exist despite communist states, in the same sense
>> that Christianity exists despite Christian Churches.
>
> But these communities can perfectly exist within capitalism.

Only up to a point, because capitalist societies are violent and
coercive by nature, and such communities will always be subject to
that violence and coercion which surrounds them (for an extreme
example, you need look no further than the mass murder at Waco,
Texas). Also, community members are less free to leave, because their
main alternative would be to endure life in the surrounding capitalist
hell.

A violent state will not acknowledge the sovereignty of a free
anarchist community, and will seek to levy tribute from it by force in
several different ways. That turns the community into a ghetto.


> Again: I don't see where anarchism has to be socialist, except that
> people are free to choose so (and I like the idea).

Any economic system that ultimately requires the violence of the state
to support it, such as capitalism and state communism, has nothing in
common with anarchism.


>
> In communist states, however, there's enough coercion that maybe a
> free anarchist community couldn't exist, unless it operated like a
> black market in the underground.

True enough, but don't suppose that it is a lot easier in
"enlightened" democratic states like the U.S.^H^H^H^H, Brit^H^H^H^H,
Austral^H^H^H^H^H^H^H ... oh well, I'm sure there are examples.


Cheers,

David

--

David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/

The State is a soulless machine that owes its very existence to violence.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Peaceful Mozzies vs. Isms
    ... "I suspect that more people have died because of capitalism, communism, ... fascism or Christianity than have ever died because of Islam..." ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: History will Absolve Fidel
    ... >> And how would one know that since any information that leaves Cuba is ... >Thus the point that communism bad capitalism good is disingenious. ... True capitalism coupled with rampant corruption and lawlessness could ... Christianity is mostly toothless. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Lisp is Sin
    ... >> agenda promulgated by Marx, Lenin, Stalin et al. ... revolutionary) most likely did not intend violence as a necessary ... >> communism, but there is, which shows that your view is not entirely ... Christianity, some say, is a theory that has never been put into ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government"
    ... of the violence that Communism used to gain power. ... I pointed to reading "The Black Book of Communism." ... I also await your justification of your "communism used violence to gain ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government"
    ... because of the violence that Communism used to gain power. ... I pointed to reading "The Black Book of Communism." ... Communism's violence, 100 million people died. ... I also await your justification of your "communism used violence to gain ...
    (alt.politics.bush)