RE: Added Two Witnesses To The List of Ignored Bot Accounts | Steem Ocean
I have been quite ignorant of communism, despite having studied Soviet Russian History at college for a year. I was ware that the version of communism that was sold to 'the people' was very different to the reality that was delivered.. And also aware that Lenin and Trotsky were funded by Wall St. Bankers in America - possibly to deliberately derail the original communist intent. What I didn't know is that the Marxist ideal was to create a post capitalist world that was a true evolution. I didn't know that, partially because of the derailing and partially because (from what little I know of Marx) he appears to have been an intellectual type who (just like most other people at that time) had little understanding of real balance and the need to respect it.
The comment about fear and denial referred to the contradiction that 'anarcho-capitalists' fear anarchism, yet claim to be anarchistic. By denying their own fear of anarchism (fear of real freedom and of themselves and their failings) they essentially throw pieces of the situation into a black hole and pretend it doesn't exist. This denial of reality is the only logical way that anarchy can appear to sit and play nicely with capitalism, I think.
I know enough about Marxism that when a group starts saying it's a good idea, I reach for my gun.
Not in a fearful type way, but in a, 'this rabid dog is going to attempt to chew off my leg....and I really like my leg' kind of way.
I guess to address it in a closer approximation to the reality of it: This group is looking to take my means of production and means of existence/survival and regulate it to the whims of a social construct.
There is not much a component of fear in such a thing, but the action to not accept that type of aggression against subjective value.
There aren't many anarcho-capitalists, and the variations render a blanket descriptions rather useless. So you and I may have considerable variations in the ones we know.
The ones I know are typically abilities based, so there is no fear of freedom. (There may be bit of uncertainty in what we are meaning by freedom here.) Some are still a bit attached to minarchism or some formal 'order' to protect property rights. Others don't have that concern and would be just as happy to see all social constructs leveled.
I'm still not seeing which pieces of the situation are being thrown into a black hole.
I had a couple of typing errors in the last paragraph I wrote, I have now corrected them.
I suspect that without reading Marx's own words and studying it all in depth, it is quite likely that our own versions of what was said will be wide of the mark. I have not studied his work in depth at all, but having listened to those who clearly have, they describe many details and a depth that I had never heard anywhere else - despite have heard the majority of people claiming Marx to be dangerous/evil/wrong. In a world that seems to be constructed from over 50% misrepresentation of the truth, there is always value in going to the source. Whether or not I will ever do that with Marx is questionable though, as I already have what I consider to be a much more complete set of understandings relating to life than has come in previous generations which I am already living to some extent and which are serving me well.
As an example, it is my understanding that there are those who understand and respect free will and who saw Marx's ideals to be something to evolve towards over a long time period (voluntarily) and then there were those who were at the opposite end of the spectrum who would use force. The latter group is the one we mostly hear about.
My own current interpretation is that I prefer something closer to the indigenous values from our ancestors (the good parts) than I do anything that resembles a centralised power structure. As I understand, Marx basically devalued all that had come before capitalism, as well as devaluing capitalism - so missed out on a lot there.
Any time anything is denied, it is effectively 'lost' to the thinker involved. By denying their own fear of anarchic liberation, they act as if it doesn't exist, yet it does.
Here are the ten points in the communist manifesto:
1- Abolition of property and land and application of all rents of land to public purposes
2- A heavy progressive or graduated income tax
3- Abolition of all right to inheritance
4- Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels
5- Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6-Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7- Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing of cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8- Equal obligation of all work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9- Combination of agriculture with manufacturing; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country,
10- Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination with education and industrial production.
Values of our ancestors sounds interesting. I learn as much as I can about the early conditions of when we lived close to nature.
How are you seeing anarchic liberation?
(sorry to ask so many questions)
(No worries about your typing errors, i had to edit this comment a lot bc steemit does weird things with a number sequence, and there is slight variations in the sourcing of the ten points)
It's fairly clear that communism in general involved/involves a lack of respect for free will and balance - however, I am only speaking up with the cointerpoint to that perspective since there are those today who see it a bit differently and more of an ideal objective than as something to be forced into reality. They point out that capitalism actually has no true respect for balance and free will - which I am clear is both correct and absolutely provable. However, my position is that neither capitalism nor communism have full respect for free will within them.
As I look through that list of 10, as with most such lists of 'social aims', I can see some that I think are good and some that are terrible. I get a general sense of confusion from the direction of it all and see numerous contradictions.
The obvious flaw, as has been seen time and time again when this is acted out in real life, is that on the one hand there is the general claim that this is all 'for the betterment of the people' and a suggestion that balance will be the result, but meanwhile the power is being centralised in the hands of a few and possibly 'committees' etc. There is a continual denial of individual empowerment and that is the main problem here. Of all the 'isms' I am aware of, only true anarchy allows for true individual empowerment without overpowering of anyone.
The topic of ancestral understandings if obviously complex and large in scope, but the very short version is that I am referring to those individuals who understood their natural state of being and who lived in harmony with other life forms and the planet in a way that respects free will and does not overpower. Unfortunately, what they were unaware of then was how to be fully balanced internally and thus they lacked the power needed to repel attacks that later came and destroyed their cultures.
The Ubuntu movement that started out of South Africa is the only modern movement that I am aware of that has gained traction and which seeks to embody the kind of balance I am talking about - although I don't have direct experience of it, so I can't say much more on that.
Anarchy simply means 'no rulers'. As soon as someone attempts to use force to overpower another being, they are attempting to become a 'ruler' of that other being and are not acting in an anarchic way - therefore, the real definition of anarchy in a practical sense is 'the agreement to live peacefully, without rulers'. Liberation is, to me, a state of being which maintains or creates real balance and which feels good and which supports life and free will expressions. Both anarchy and liberation overlap in their meaning really.
We probably have differences in what we see as capitalism, but I think I can span much of that by saying that if capitalism or communism is built as/of a social construct they will not have full respect for free will within them.
I agree that all the points are not 'bad' or 'morally' problematic. The few that are, contain considerable aggression against what would be free will/liberty. There are some contradictions, but the bigger contradiction in the frame of reference is how could a anarchist abide by these points and still claim to be anarchist?
What happens historically in 'for the betterment of the people' there has been a group called vanguards who will 'lead' the revolution movement, but will then supposedly step down after the communist ideal has transformed society. For some reason the society is never transformed to the point the vanguards will step down.
"only true anarchy allows for true individual empowerment without overpowering of anyone."
Here we are in complete agreement.
The Ubuntu definition appears to bend a lot to who is using it, that leaves me a little skeptical of what it means. I have found 'live and let live' has a lot of echo to ancestry, and the natural state. I don't see balance and harmony occurring in nature all the time, but in brief stretches there is a 'live and let live' that appears to produce the most peace per unit of time. I suppose this is why I see the 'don't aggress against people or their property' in fairly close context to 'live and let live'.
In nature there is also varying response to aggression. Some severe and some mild. This may contribute some uncertainty that reinforces conflict avoidance. I'm not sure how to approach nature as a balanced or imbalanced measure. I have a pretty strong streak of realism in my philosophical thinking that attempts to look at the 'thing' as it is with the best tools of epistemology within reach.
That last paragraph is excellent. No disagreement there. There is just one thing that continues to arise. Even if you liberate yourself, the reality exists that you could live your life peacefully, and productively, and have a external social construct aggress against your peace and life on a regular basis. This does manifest a type of anger that I find hard to deny should exist.