Communist or Libetarian state, were do you live?

[K. A. Pital]

Some little explanation for those who think Mexico/PRC level of income for a libertarian nation is okay.

It's not. It's okay if you're poor in a socialist nation. It's re-distribution mechanisms will help those at the bottom of the ladder if something happens, including your health.

If something happens to your poor worker health in a "Mexico level of income" country - you're _fucked_ very very much. I just can't begin to describe it. And if it's a lethal and deadly serious illness, well, you're dead meat.

The existence of a government "somewhere up there" which doesn't come out to the streets at night and has a police force which is smaller than private militias (I bet most of them are corrupt and serve the corporations anyway) doesn't help. Russia of the 90's is a very vivid reminder of how the government almost self destroyed while the life in the country was ruled by thugs and corporations. Nobody liked it sans the nouvorish criminals.

As for "comradely spirit", it's common knowledge that the people's relations were much more friendly and simple in the late USSR. Having fences on all 1 and 2 store windows and massive steel doors with magnetic locks and voicephones is just one change from those times.

And I don't know what "mainstream libertarianism" is. I say Stalin, Mao and Kim Jong-Il fall out of mainstream communism. Either that, or cut down this "no true scotsman" crap, objectivists and anarchists are a part of the movement, some even think there's no big difference between minarchists and anarchists regarding their anti-government legal measures.

[Coyote]

In truth, the OP really does seem to approach the situation from a somewhat slanted view-- sorta like:

"Country one: a communist state, but they follow true, by-the-book communism, not failed state communism, so it functions just great."

"Country two: a libertarian state, it functions but we all know what happens in those libertarian states! *nudge-nudge-wink-wink* so you be the judge!"

Or at least that's how it seemed to me. I'm no fan of Libertarianism as its been ballyhooed in the US but if it is indeed supposedto be a "functioning" state in this model why would it be a sort of Corporate Feudalism type slave state?

Really, both are in theory quite close. Communism, by the time it reaches its final evolution, relies very little on centralized government authority after it passes through its state control phase. Libertarianism is much the same way-- most libertarians I know are not interested in replacing government tyrants with business tyrants, most of them want to get rid of all tyrants and allow local control-- very similar to Communism (although you don't want to say that to their faces lest they start to cry).

[His Divine Shadow]

Okay, skip all that, I will just require you to prove your assertion that the ultimate goal of libertarianism is no government.

[K. A. Pital]

"Country one: a communist state, but they follow true, by-the-book communism, not failed state communism, so it functions just great."

No, it's not a communist state and not a "by-the-book" communism (what is by the book communism anyway? There's nothing in Marxism which explains how to build communism aside from the elimination of private property on means of production, and from Lenin to today's communists there's a huge road of "theoreticians" who claim to have The Only True Communism(TM). The OP proposes nothing like that; it details a socialist autocracy like the late USSR. It doesn't say it functions great, merely details several aspects of it's work, like the lack of collectivization (several communist states in reality did not collectivize agriculture).

"Communism" is a socialist autocracy = correct.

"Libertarianism" is a corporatist oligarchy = correct.

Now, if it was "communism - classless and stateless society!!! UN-HUH!!!" you'd have a point.

[K. A. Pital]

Okay, skip all that, I will just require you to prove your assertion that the ultimate goal of libertarianism is no government.

Libertarianism is based on the principles of non-intrusion of the state in personal matters - any "force" or "coercion" from the State is to be done away with. Essentially libertarianism doesn't have any goal par se, it's simply anti-coercion by the government since it thinks that people can only interact by consent (nice idea, just like communism). Now the consequence of labelling unilateral government action towards citizenry as "coercion" is that taxes are coercion too.

Unsurprisingly, libertarians hold this opinion - both minarchists and anarchists.

Do away with the taxes and you do away with the government. It's simple.

Saying you're simply "for the elimination of all coercion" or "for the elimination of taxes" - the position of a substantial portion of libertarians - means the same as "I'm for the destruction of government". QED.

[Coyote]

Okay, skip all that, I will just require you to prove your assertion that the ultimate goal of libertarianism is no government.

You mean me?

Not necessarily "No" government, but minimal interference on th eindividual from government. Quiki-Wiki, please forgive.

Libertarians generally view constraints imposed by the state on persons or their property (if applicable), beyond the need to penalize infringement of one's rights by another, as a violation of liberty.

The government exists for very bare-minimum purposes. I've often heard it described as "secure the borders, deliver the mail, and for everything else, butt out".

The logical conclusion of this is that Corporations will rush in to fill the power gap and do as they please, but then the sect of Libertarians that are more prone to sip the Kool-Aide step in at that point to say that the "market" will decide if those corporations rise or fall because "informed consumers" will decide for themselves not to shop at the corporations that are being "bad".

Both forms of governance are (IMO) naive to the point of being downright bizarre in their assumptions, because neither takes base human nature into account. Communism operates on the assumption that everyone on the face of the planet wants to wake up and go right to work for nothing more than the "common good" and that there would be no slackers; Libertarianism operates on the equally naive principle that everyone on the face of the planet is a decent and principled person who constantly strives to educate him or herself and watch out for the welfare of others.

Almost childlike optimism, really.

[Hugh]

Personally having to wander during the early 2000's as a street beggar in capitalist Russia I must say there's nothing funny about lack of government order.

Were there no beggars in Russia before 1989? We had our fair share, IIRC. At least in a capitalist country it is possible to make a comeback (you are no longer a beggar, I hope?) In a capitalist country, they have to give me heating and electricity, or else I won't pay them. I don't have to freeze for three hours in the snow waiting in line for a few breads. And when the health care system fails me I have the option to seek out a private doctor.

What they're doing with my tax money is a different question...

[Coyote]

No, it's not a communist state and not a "by-the-book" communism (what is by the book communism anyway? There's nothing in Marxism which explains how to build communism aside from the elimination of private property on means of production, and from Lenin to today's communists there's a huge road of "theoreticians" who claim to have The Only True Communism(TM). The OP proposes nothing like that; it details a socialist autocracy like the late USSR. It doesn't say it functions great, merely details several aspects of it's work, like the lack of collectivization (several communist states in reality did not collectivize agriculture).

That's true, the OP did, indeed, present the state autarky-- my apologies.

But correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the end result of classical, "proper" communism to eliminate the need for centralized state control, allowing decision to be made at the commune level in an almost Athenian Democracy type end-result? It would be a state where the people all had their own means of production, I guess something like replicators wehere they could manufacture their own needs themselves without having to go to a middleman or negotiate with a producer...

[His Divine Shadow]

Libertarianism is based on the principles of non-intrusion of the state in personal matters - any "force" or "coercion" from the State is to be done away with. Essentially libertarianism doesn't have any goal par se, it's simply anti-coercion by the government since it thinks that people can only interact by consent (nice idea, just like communism). Now the consequence of labelling unilateral government action towards citizenry as "coercion" is that taxes are coercion too.

While thats your conjecture based on wording it is true that libertarianism has no real eventual goal. So how can we prove it's libertarianisms eventual goal? Most texts and most of its followers all seem to include a government to some degree. And the few nutcases that don't want anything...

Coyote, nope I didn't mean you, I didn't quote Stash Bush as I thought my post would appear right below his

[K. A. Pital]

Were there no beggars in Russia before 1989?

Nope. It was the government's policy. How could you become a beggar anyway? There was a quota of flat area per family for which you did not need to pay - it was granted to you as a Soviet citizen. Even if your family kicked you out in the streets for some reason, you could always go to the police and they'd put you back in place and explain to the family that they were, um, wrong.

At least in a capitalist country it is possible to make a comeback (you are no longer a beggar, I hope?)

No, it's not possible to make a comeback for the large majority of beggars. Today there are circa 4-5% of population being homeless IIRC. That's millions. Not counting the millions who died in the democide during Yeltsin's years - the colossal population drop was caused not just by low births but by incredibly high rise mortality.

In a capitalist country, they have to give me heating and electricity, or else I won't pay them.

In a capitalist country, they can turn off electricity if you won't pay them. That's what we know here. We have private water and private electricity and probably even gas by now; the costs rise, the breakdowns are common (and what would you say to a capitalist water provider if he switches it off? "technical works!" - you've got anything to say? )

I don't have to freeze for three hours in the snow waiting in line for a few breads.

I used to do that. So? I don't remember being in hunger. In 1993 and 1998 I was in hunger. That's a tad different than just staying in queues - the wealth of a tiny minority was achieved through the pauperization of the majority. Which country are you from anyway? I'm from the USSR (Omsk, Russia).

And when the health care system fails me I have the option to seek out a private doctor.

You must be rich then. Thanks to the Soviet system remaining in Russia I was able to run three operations (one after a knife wound in the belly) for free. I shudder to even think what it would cost me in the hands of a "private doctor".

[K. A. Pital]

That's true, the OP did, indeed, present the state autarky-- my apologies.

But correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the end result of classical, "proper" communism to eliminate the need for centralized state control, allowing decision to be made at the commune level in an almost Athenian Democracy type end-result? It would be a state where the people all had their own means of production, I guess something like replicators wehere they could manufacture their own needs themselves without having to go to a middleman or negotiate with a producer...

The end result of the classical communism is a classless, stateless society and communal ownership of means of production. Essentially even Marx himself did not know what it would look like - millions of small cooperatives? How do they interact without money? Marx's decision making process was also un-though for. He didn't know what forms the communal ownership will take.

The thing you're talking about is Leninism, where the worker communes (councils or soviets) are the democratic power and eventually only they remain, as workers are both the producers and consumers of the production.

Technically the idea with replicators was proposed by techno-communists in the mid-80s-late-90s (I'm a humble technicist too). But it goes against othrodox Marxism - because it emphasized everyone owning a mini-factory for everything, it's impossible to call this "communal ownership".

A classical Marxist society would look like, hmm, a great nanotechnological factory, the controls for which are plugged into every citizen, thus everyone can use it to construct anything. That's the closest thing which comes to the communist ideal. Information and projects in digital form would be exchanged freely and without copyrights, the whole material production by this mega-network would basically look like an Open Source community.

[Teleros]

The government exists for very bare-minimum purposes. I've often heard it described as "secure the borders, deliver the mail, and for everything else, butt out".

And not even that if you go all the way like David Friedman. I had a look over some of his work for a project, and his big struggle was with defence: he admitted that a government might be needed for that, but only grudgingly.

Libertarianism operates on the equally naive principle that everyone on the face of the planet is a decent and principled person who constantly strives to educate him or herself and watch out for the welfare of others.

Not quite - I'd say libertarianism operates on the idea of people making their choices rationally. Still baloney, but hey.

I shudder to even think what it would cost me in the hands of a "private doctor".

It depends on how the system works - before the NHS doctors were known to work for free for poorer people, let them pay less or have longer in which to pay, and so on. I'm not saying it's perfect - because it's not - but there are ways in which you can at least avoid some of immediate costs.

[Rogue 9]

Oooooooo, tough one.

Right now I would have to say that I'd elect for the libertarian society, though it's not something I'd be eager about. On balance, I value liberty too much to put up with a censorial government, though the thought of society dominated by corporations isn't something I'd be jumping for joy over either. But one thing: When you say the corporations "have control over the populace," how much and what kind of control are we talking here?

[Battlehymn Republic]

No posthuman slavocrat Draka nation option?

[Lord of the Abyss]

Oooooooo, tough one.

Right now I would have to say that I'd elect for the libertarian society, though it's not something I'd be eager about. On balance, I value liberty too much to put up with a censorial government, though the thought of society dominated by corporations isn't something I'd be jumping for joy over either. But one thing: When you say the corporations "have control over the populace," how much and what kind of control are we talking here?

As much as they like, I'd guess; they have the force advantage over the government. You have liberty for one reason and one reason only; because the government prevents those stronger or more numerous from taking it away from you. You won't have liberty under either system.

As for me, I'd reluctantly go with the Commies. They strike me as much more likely to evolve into something I'd like, or at least just slog along. Libertopia seems to me likely to turn into a corporate slave state, warlordism, or plain old bloody anarchy and general starvation when the system collapses.

[Honorable Mention]

I'd undoubtedly go with Libertopia. Pretending that the companies that were in "control" actually played by the rules they set for one another so as to remain in control - which I doubt would last long - at least with such a degree of economic and political freedom I would have more of a fighting chance against major suckitude. I'd also gladly take "no known instances of success" Libertopia over "historically failures" commie-land.

[Spyder]

I'd undoubtedly go with Libertopia. Pretending that the companies that were in "control" actually played by the rules they set for one another so as to remain in control - which I doubt would last long - at least with such a degree of economic and political freedom I would have more of a fighting chance against major suckitude. I'd also gladly take "no known instances of success" Libertopia over "historically failures" commie-land.

Economic and political freedom? Good luck getting into the old boys clubs when you're earning 8 cents an hour thanks to a lack of labour laws.

[Honorable Mention]

I'd undoubtedly go with Libertopia. Pretending that the companies that were in "control" actually played by the rules they set for one another so as to remain in control - which I doubt would last long - at least with such a degree of economic and political freedom I would have more of a fighting chance against major suckitude. I'd also gladly take "no known instances of success" Libertopia over "historically failures" commie-land.

Economic and political freedom? Good luck getting into the old boys clubs when you're earning 8 cents an hour thanks to a lack of labour laws.

It's a shitty situation either way, but here I gots my guns and can put my 8 cents towards anything I want. It's easier to facilitate change under those canditions if/when, like I said, suckitude levels demand it.

[Honorable Mention]

er, and since I can't edit, by "anything I want" I mean political organizations to newspapers to an interest group to whatever.

[Spyder]

I'd undoubtedly go with Libertopia. Pretending that the companies that were in "control" actually played by the rules they set for one another so as to remain in control - which I doubt would last long - at least with such a degree of economic and political freedom I would have more of a fighting chance against major suckitude. I'd also gladly take "no known instances of success" Libertopia over "historically failures" commie-land.

Economic and political freedom? Good luck getting into the old boys clubs when you're earning 8 cents an hour thanks to a lack of labour laws.

It's a shitty situation either way, but here I gots my guns and can put my 8 cents towards anything I want. It's easier to facilitate change under those canditions if/when, like I said, suckitude levels demand it.

Actually you likely don't, maybe some grain if you're lucky and no it isn't.

Libertarianism sounds free but the reality is that only the rich would get to experience any real degree of freedom. If you're not born into wealth, you're completely fucked. Anarchy has the problem that eventually someone will take advantage and form their own power bloc, which would be pretty much identical to your libertarian state right there.

Under the communist state there will at least be a system you could work with and have some possibility of a life outside a cardboard box.

[Honorable Mention]

Actually you likely don't, maybe some grain if you're lucky and no it isn't.

Libertarianism sounds free but the reality is that only the rich would get to experience any real degree of freedom. If you're not born into wealth, you're completely fucked. Anarchy has the problem that eventually someone will take advantage and form their own power bloc, which would be pretty much identical to your libertarian state right there.

Under the communist state there will at least be a system you could work with and have some possibility of a life outside a cardboard box.

I really don't disagree with the shortcomings you've listed, but I'm trying to look into the future of these hypotheticals. Neither appeals to me as is, and that's really the point because they're deliberately extreme; however, if I had to pick which one would be easier to deviate from if people wanted change, I think Libertopia would be easier. Even if my own eight cents can't contribute anything, I could always get the backing of someone who supports me philosophically and politically that will fund my cause, whether it's an alternative newspaper or something else. Yes, I realize that the likelihood of finding someone wealthy who would support me as a critic of the system (or lackthereof, I suppose) is not highly probable, but it certainly isn't impossible.

[K. A. Pital]

I don't understand what the hell people are talking about "facilitating change"? The OP says you're a nobody in both cases. You can't go up high in the party ranks, and you're not one of the rich guys in libertopia.

[Honorable Mention]

I don't understand what the hell people are talking about "facilitating change"? The OP says you're a nobody in both cases. You can't go up high in the party ranks, and you're not one of the rich guys in libertopia.

Are we limited to only our own resources?

[K. A. Pital]

Are we limited to only our own resources?

What does that mean? If you start inventing this shit, the dilemma loses all of it's meaning - ordinary life in both places. If were "not limited to our own resources", we can make friends with big bosses and party members and feel ourselves fine either way. The chance of this is neglible anyway, so for the purposes of this thread, the idea is you don't wield any power over the country's political force neither do you get any bonuses from the rich or the powerful - else the dilemma fades away.

[Honorable Mention]

Alright, family's got enough money to afford a private university and law school. Hopefully the big wigs need lawyers, since corporate law is what I'd like to enter. If not, I make eight cents and have a fancy law degree. A gamble, but I'll take it.