My polipro

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

I think it would most likely divert them from their individualist principles if the communist societies were prosperous. And if the communist societies are not prosperous, then we would have wasted all our fuckin time with political activity.

I agree, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of entire communities basing themselves on exploitation of others appearing, or existing at least in a transitory period.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

I was being hypothetical, i don't think there would be any that choose capitalism. But even if there were some communities that stayed capitalist, if there was any indication of imperialist activity, i think the egalitarian communities would be well justified in taking pre-emptive action to ensure that their livelihood is secured.

Case and point.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

Maybe our definitions of communism differ, but I believe that to be a necessary prerequisite for communism.

I just didn't understand well what you meant.

In my concept of communism production surpases consumption but an "excess ration" is implemented not to waste resources. For example, you get 100 people and you produce 200l. of milk daily. Each person could get 2l. of milk out of that production, yet average consumption is less than that. You get persons that don't drink milk at all, some drink 1l. in a week, some drink 500ml. daily, and some (like myself) would drink 3l. daily. There would be more than enough, but no milk would be wasted.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

I was under the impression that you were speaking, as a capitalist would, of criminals. My misunderstanding then. But i still don't think prisons would be necessary to secure the true, full-on capitalists. I think they'll be sufficiently incapacitated if the revolution was successful in securing private property. Maybe you're thinking of a different circumstance than i am.

Well, imagine the next circumstances:

We succeed and we have our communist societies. We have our industries and all. Some people remained capitalist within our succesful revolution and deeply regret the change to have occured. Some accept their "bitter" and unavoidable truth and willingly, or not so willingly, join the communist community. However, others are quite resented and full with hatred. Some of them simply decide to slack and do nothing. Others decide to do nothing but try to steal as much resources as they physically can. And others decide to procede to sabotage. Some of them would simply try to create some sort of chaos within society by simple means like arson, blocking strrets, cutting electricity wires and so. And others would be more cunning, they'd pretend to be willing to work but in reality would search to sabotage society: maybe alter the production of medical substances so that they're harmful, sabotage the contruction of industrial machinery to harm economy and perhaps even generate physical damage, sabotage the construction of buildings and infrastucture and so on.

That's the kind of criminal I'm talking about.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

Depending on which countries we're talking about here, i could agree, but i think america's army would be unified (except of course those that may join the workers).

In many countries I'm sure the army would split in two. In USA it would also eventually happen in the case of a revolution.

Anarchist.Daggers wrote:

Well, they've already got the guns; if they moved fast enough, they could get supplies.

And for how long? Who produces the supplies? They themelves?

First we would refuse to build supplies for them, they'd take all they can by force, then they'd try to force us to build to which we can refuse. Refusal and sabotage would eventually hinder them enough while we build an army of our own.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

Would that really be enough? They have a lot of weapons (advanced weapons), whereas we begin with virtually nothing.

In the event of a revolution we count with the prime materials for those weapons. Aside from hindering the army with lack of provisions, we would count with enough ready material both to use and to improvise with. Would that be enough?

Yes. How?

Improvised weapons have proved effective against the most powerful armies in the world. But they hae been seen in action against other people's rather than their own, that is, they count with a supply line and are not attacking the source of their supplies.

US army for example is attacking Iraq, it has invaded Iraq, yet, supplies don't come from Iraqi industries, they come from US and European industries mainly. The army is fed in ammunition, in fuel, in spare parts, in food, water and what not.

However, in the case of a civil war, the conditions greatly change. In the event of a revolution in which most of the workers have revolted, the army has to attack the very source of its supplies and somehow force back to an even more ruthless slavery people that are enlightened to break free from oppression, people willing to fight with all they've got.

Chances are that at least a small faction of the army will join workers. The tactics would be guerrilla war and sabotage. The reactionary army woudl initially count with resources but the source of them has stopped producing those resources for them. The simple existance of the army demands a constant supply, if not of ammunitions and spareparts at least from food and fuel. Military action would demand ammunitions and spare parts.

The army would be consuming its forces against a phantom force that is aside strangling them in resources while it builds an army of their own.

The workers' army would grow in strength, experience, tactics, supplies and even technology while the recationary army smaller in number gets its conditions worsened by the day. Moral would eventually drop, many soldiers would eventually join our ranks and in the end the army would be engulfed by the revolutionary movement leaving asbolutely no physical strength in the hands of the reactionaries and culminating the bulk of revolutionary war.

Goddammit Zealot, that's too much reading!!!

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

I think it would most likely divert them from their individualist principles if the communist societies were prosperous. And if the communist societies are not prosperous, then we would have wasted all our fuckin time with political activity.

I agree, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of entire communities basing themselves on exploitation of others appearing, or existing at least in a transitory period.

If the revolution were to suceed, they wouldn't be exploited any longer, and if it failed, then obviously yes, the exploitation will continue. If my response is off point, then i merely misunderstand your meaning, and would like some clarification.

Zealot wrote:

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

I was being hypothetical, i don't think there would be any that choose capitalism. But even if there were some communities that stayed capitalist, if there was any indication of imperialist activity, i think the egalitarian communities would be well justified in taking pre-emptive action to ensure that their livelihood is secured.

Case and point.

I think i understand your meaning, but to be sure, hit me with an explanation.

Zealot wrote:

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

Maybe our definitions of communism differ, but I believe that to be a necessary prerequisite for communism.

I just didn't understand well what you meant.

In my concept of communism production surpases consumption but an "excess ration" is implemented not to waste resources. For example, you get 100 people and you produce 200l. of milk daily. Each person could get 2l. of milk out of that production, yet average consumption is less than that. You get persons that don't drink milk at all, some drink 1l. in a week, some drink 500ml. daily, and some (like myself) would drink 3l. daily. There would be more than enough, but no milk would be wasted.

I would like to think excess product would quickly be given to those people still starving and suffering (obviously we couldn't trust giving it directly to the state, but i'm sure there'd be ways around it).

And for my sake, regarding this "excess ration" system you speak of; how, exactly, would it work? We would estimate the amount of produce needed based on previous "quarters'" consumption? Something like that, or am i mistaken?

Quote :

Well, imagine the next circumstances:

We succeed and we have our communist societies. We have our industries and all. Some people remained capitalist within our succesful revolution and deeply regret the change to have occured. Some accept their "bitter" and unavoidable truth and willingly, or not so willingly, join the communist community. However, others are quite resented and full with hatred. Some of them simply decide to slack and do nothing. Others decide to do nothing but try to steal as much resources as they physically can. And others decide to procede to sabotage. Some of them would simply try to create some sort of chaos within society by simple means like arson, blocking strrets, cutting electricity wires and so. And others would be more cunning, they'd pretend to be willing to work but in reality would search to sabotage society: maybe alter the production of medical substances so that they're harmful, sabotage the contruction of industrial machinery to harm economy and perhaps even generate physical damage, sabotage the construction of buildings and infrastucture and so on.

That's the kind of criminal I'm talking about.

Okay, first of all, to be clearer about the actual situation the world is in at this hypothetical point in time, are we considering that capitalism still exists in many nations? If so, i doubt this would happen to the extent you imply. If they were truly bitter, they'd just leave, so they could be content again. But if they were so butt-hurt by the fact that an egalitarian community had been established, and they feigned interest in the society in order to become a sort of sabotuer, i think their influence would be minimal (by their sheer lack of numbers, it would seem to me). And if you meant that communism was implemented world-wide, then they would be overwhelmed by peer-pressure and their environment (Having a feel of comaraderie, unity, and brotherhood). If everyone (except these dissenters of course) was doing their part to help society be run for the good of all the people, i think they'd feel too bad to do anything drastic. And for those who see it fit to do no work, and simply leech off of others' labour, i think they too would sucumb to peer-pressure. Who would honestly befriend someone like that? I think they'd feel compelled to work if not only for the fact that we are social beings who don't feel especially comfortable completely alone (of course there are a few exceptions to this). Besides that, if communities were federated, we could simply not offer the benefits of such federation to those who wouldn't do their part (honestly though, i'd just prefer to feed, clothe and shelter them the same, and let them break down over time).

Zealot wrote:

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

Depending on which countries we're talking about here, i could agree, but i think america's army would be unified (except of course those that may join the workers).

In many countries I'm sure the army would split in two. In USA it would also eventually happen in the case of a revolution.

Meh, i suppose the national guard would be our closest ally (considering they're closer to the people), as far as the armed forces go, but i really can't see the other entities of the armed forces joining the people.

Zealot wrote:

Anarchist.Daggers wrote:

Well, they've already got the guns; if they moved fast enough, they could get supplies.

And for how long? Who produces the supplies? They themelves?

Of course you're right in what you imply here, but how long could we last against such vast amounts of resources?

Quote :

First we would refuse to build supplies for them, they'd take all they can by force, then they'd try to force us to build to which we can refuse. Refusal and sabotage would eventually hinder them enough while we build an army of our own.

This is why i think the movement must be massive. If we're to build our own army and resources, then we'd require the help of the vast majority of the peasantry and the proletariat (One or the other just won't cut it). So i don't think your proposal is necessarily farfetched, but i think it requires our numbers be pretty overwhelming.

Quote :

In the event of a revolution we count with the prime materials for those weapons. Aside from hindering the army with lack of provisions, we would count with enough ready material both to use and to improvise with. Would that be enough? Yes. How?

But could america not count on the support of the international bourgeois states? This has always been a major impediment upon proletarian revolution.

Quote :

Improvised weapons have proved effective against the most powerful armies in the world. But they hae been seen in action against other people's rather than their own, that is, they count with a supply line and are not attacking the source of their supplies.

US army for example is attacking Iraq, it has invaded Iraq, yet, supplies don't come from Iraqi industries, they come from US and European industries mainly. The army is fed in ammunition, in fuel, in spare parts, in food, water and what not.

However, in the case of a civil war, the conditions greatly change. In the event of a revolution in which most of the workers have revolted, the army has to attack the very source of its supplies and somehow force back to an even more ruthless slavery people that are enlightened to break free from oppression, people willing to fight with all they've got

Chances are that at least a small faction of the army will join workers. The tactics would be guerrilla war and sabotage. The reactionary army woudl initially count with resources but the source of them has stopped producing those resources for them. The simple existance of the army demands a constant supply, if not of ammunitions and spareparts at least from food and fuel. Military action would demand ammunitions and spare parts.

The army would be consuming its forces against a phantom force that is aside strangling them in resources while it builds an army of their own.

The workers' army would grow in strength, experience, tactics, supplies and even technology while the recationary army smaller in number gets its conditions worsened by the day. Moral would eventually drop, many soldiers would eventually join our ranks and in the end the army would be engulfed by the revolutionary movement leaving asbolutely no physical strength in the hands of the reactionaries and culminating the bulk of revolutionary war.

I don't disagree with any of this, but i think you're overlooking the likelihood that other bourgeois countries would be more than willing to give aid to the armed forces of america (since their loyalties do not lie with the people, but with the principles and society-type that enable them. And our revolution would be a direct threat to those principles and that society).

I agree with ADBC.