The Anti Communist League (recruiting) (Little Upsilon)

http://international-proletariat.webs.com//PdAI%20Mani.pdf

Here is something I wrote, a while back. I invented my own economic system that does away with the idea of currency, altogether; no money or bartering or trade in any form. You are probably wondering how it works, then. If you want to find out, you should read the pdf file in the url, above because it takes too long for me to explain in 1 post, and this file does a good job of describing it. The first section of the manifesto is all about ripping capitalism a new asshole. The second section rips on communism, and the third rips on socialism. Finally, the fourth introduces my own system, which doesn't have any of the flaws of capitalism, nor communism. Anyway, this document is brain-candy for any of you political philosophers out there, so I am just putting out my idea here.

SP-- i've read your manifesto and it has the same weaknesses that all other systems have. it's man made and thus has the weaknesses that we humans have which is a "will to power". You have not answered all the same questions that are not answered by all the other systems. Who will make the rules? Why do you think that your system will not have the same weaknesses of the other systems?

You have presented an economic system. It may be that we need to start with a political system. In my opinion the most perfect political system was devised by Jefferson, Adams, et al who took their ideas from the French and English philosophers. Even though this system which is now embraced by much of the western world has evolved since its inception over two hundred years ago, but it remains the template for democracy and the way we live together. Once you have established the rights and responsibilities of the people it doesn't make much difference what the economic system is. Why? Because there is no pure economic system. Economic systems evolve into commercial partnerships between enterprise and government. The trick is to get the economic system to balance with the political system. The political system, in order to work has to have participation of the electorate. And it's important that the electorate be educated in order to make prudent decisions about the course that country will take. So education becomes the most important element in making the system work. But as you might guess you come back to the problem of who and what will be educated. Lack of participation by the electorate is biggest detriment to the whole system, thus back to the human element.

I said in the manifesto that it would be democratic. It would be no different than any other democratic nation from the political end of things. This system is an economic doctrine, not a political doctrine. The state controls everything, and the people control the state, therefore, the people control everything, therefore it is democracy. The only difference is that it isn't capitalist democracy. The people make the rules.

It doesn't have the flaws of capitalism. There will be no "market crashes" in my system, because indeed, there is no market. There will be no political corruption, because corruption depends on money...there is no money. There will be no crime, because crime revolves around money. No money, no organized crime. No more bank robberies, no more drug dealing, no more poverty, only freedom, labor, and an opportunity for all to achieve greatness. Oh, and no more TV advertisements, nor internet advertisements, nor any advertisements...exploitation would be illegal.

It doesn't have the flaws of communism. A dictatorship cannot function at all in my system, because it would place so much strain on the dictator. It is too much for one person to control everything. My system works because everybody controls everything. It is still democracy.

It doesn't have the flaws of socialism. Socialism has the problems of both capitalism and communism.

My system's only flaw is the fact that it is merely theoretical. It has never been tried. However, I think it's worth a try, because the government would not be limited by a budget. That means that there is theoretically NO LIMIT to the industrial and military power of such a state. The economic system does matter.

but therein lies the problem. if the country is democratic the people might say, we don't like your plan of there being no money, and that the means of production are owned by the government. we want something else.

I liked a lot of what SP wrote but it is the politics of that questions the viability.

With states of millions of people, the average person feels powerless whatever system. People with vested interests will always get involved for obvious reasons.

To me, states should be protecting our rights as communities and individuals, such as, the right not to be murdered and the right to be free from state control.

Much of what the state does can be undertaken by communities (town, villages etc.) so they're autonomous. With communities, people will be able to see the fruits of their work and labour, and see an actual path to getting involved and being productive with it.

With this, it means some communities might choose to be ultra-capitalist but this is the freedom that it is important. As a side note, I personally think that these communities that decide to be capitalist would realise without the people to exploit, they won't be able to make large profits and be compelled to make their own goods.

States should be made up of communities and not directrly elected leaders or parties. Communities would feed up from the bottom to a kind of senate of communities, to ensure basic civil liberties.

When people are in human-scale and manageable communities, they tend to be less competitive and more co-operative as they see the consequences of decisions and can more readily see other people's problems.

With this kind of politic setup, I believe this would bring out the best from people and less advesarialism and greed. If a community needs economies of scale, it can work in partnership with other communities.

The community organisation I run aims to do this within the capitalist system we have in the UK. I shall buy land and buildings in the local community and protect them in a trust for use by the community, not for resale. Money would be reduced as this become less meaningful over time as the community controls the means of production and distribution, while remaining close to the realities of living with one another.

To summarise, the state should only be there to protect against aggressive animal instinct (such as power and violence) and communities should be free to encourage the loving animal instincts (care for the vulnerable and team play).

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

I invented my own economic system that does away with the idea of currency, altogether; no money or bartering or trade in any form<!-/Quote-!>

Phail in the making.

There is a built-in economic safeguard against capitalism's return. The decades or centuries of overproduction will crash the market and stop capitalism before it ever starts.

And are you realistically envisioning communities or collectives of such could operate a space program? a massive engineering project like dams or motorways? run multi-trillion banking systems? airlines? the power grid? etc etc...

I am getting the feeling some of you would like to take us back to pre middle ages. We are a global economy now, no getting away from it. We have to be competetive with other countries hence we have to have entrepeneurs and investors et al. and thats the govts job to run this collective of 'communities'.
If you dont like the way they are doing their job, then fortuneatly we have the freedom to vote.

I envision a whole nation doing what you are suggesting, not communities.

I get it, none of you have an open mind (except David) to my idea. You capitalists are all tyrants. You think your system is always the best, and you bash everyone else down. I understand, I know how you function. That's ok. And look at the USA's economic situation right now...14T in debt, bad job market, bad housing market, some wars...you capitalists are just stubborn. Your system, just like all others, will fall. It is only a matter of time. Of course, my system offers a solution to all the USA's problems, but you are all too stubborn to try it. Well, that's your own fault.

SP==then we'll make you dictator so you can run it like you want. right? if it's democratic then it would evolve rather than be forced on people who are stubborn. dude you're digging your hole deeper and deeper.

See? You are a capitalist, and like all capitalists, you just want to crush any system that isn't like your's. You are just proving my point.

http://international-proletariat.webs.com//GloryWorkers.pdf

Death to capitalist tyranny!

you're making assumptions about my economics. you have very little idea where i stand on economics or where others who may disagree with your proposed system stand. there is no pure form of capitalism. and in todays world economy there are many variations in the way of doing business. are the Chinese communists or are they capitalists. in a world of over six billion people you seriously want to create a system that has no international units of exchange. the closest model for your system are the Amish who isolate themselves from the world primarily for religious reasons. they attempt to live Godly lives giving up worldly things. their focus is on being true to their idea of God and they recognize humanity's sinfulness and tendency to "will to power"

That is correct, sir. I do want to create a system with no unit of exchange. Currency only serves to limit the power of the working classes and of the people and the state. It only makes the rich men richer, and the poor men poorer. Whenever you assign a price tag to anything, all you are saying is "anyone who is too poor to afford this good, must go without it". Who ever decided that a loaf of bread was worth two dollars? Whose idea was it to make housing so expensive that many people go homeless? Nobody deserves to be homeless. Even the poorest of the poor are human beings! You might say that if they are poor, it is because they don't work, and they deserve it. That is not true at all! If you are poor, you were probably born into poverty. Most people can't help it. Capitalism doesn't give them the opportunity to gain respect, it just exploits their situation and keeps them in poverty! Everyone who is middle class wants to be rich, but chances are that they will never be rich. People who are born rich will always be rich; most of them don't even deserve their wealth. Are you all telling me that you don't see anything wrong with this?

One of the roots of the problem economically in the UK is that theres far too many key industries and companies that are foreign or foreign owned such as energy companies, as such as them are just sucking the wealth out of our country as those companies will be paying out most of their tax back in their home countries or tax heaven countries but not in ours, yet the government can't seem to understand why they're not gathering enough tax from them, we've litually been sold out to the highest (usually foreign) bidders.
If you think about it Crafty or green paws, think about how many big foreign global companies we have in our country in a number of different industries.

A big problem that faces any change to any system of things if a way to implement the changes and to enforce the rules.
Every one assumes making a decision in a Democratic way is the way to go. But as Parsifal brought up is humans are flawed and thus any political system would carry the same flaws.
Problem with democracy, once people realize they can vote them selves money, they will continue to do so until it brings an end to the nation.
That is why America made great pains not to set up a democratic country, but yet set up a republic. A Representative government with the assumption that these people would rule in the best interests for the country, which would in turn take care of the people. Again, as Parsifal mentioned, these same humans are flawed.
Once a full on democracy is established "the mob" would be herded by people of influence to vote in the interests of those people.
You will never have a perfect system or government until you can take the human factor out of it. Until then its best to eliminate restriction and obstructions to those who pursuit that idea of prosperity. Not Everyone achieves success, but its they drive of humanity to pursuit it.

Oh and Supreme Proletariat, this is the best example of what you would run into in a democratic society. there are those out there that you will never convince and never get to cooperate. Thus having to force those that will not go along with the plan into joining this community.
Rather than lashing out at those who do not share your view, you should discuss in a civilized manor. "You capitalists are all tyrants" and "Death to capitalist tyranny!" immediately shuts down the debate and makes you look the fool.

Sup Pro-- there is no doubt that capitalism is not perfect and there are many examples of it being responsible for marginalization of persons. But it also has been responsible for the increase in much of the world's standard of living and innovation. Truly there needs to be checks and balances but to throw it out, putting all the means of production in the hands of government is not realistic. And to say that you're also going to do away with a world wide medium of exchange is totally unrealistic. It's like saying we're going to make cows fly.

Here are some questions that you have left unanswered:
1. How do you install such a system worldwide?
2. Are you going to stop all bartering and individual means of trade between individuals, coops etc.
3. How will nations determine the value of their trade items such as oil for wheat and corn etc.
4. Who will determine people's needs and what if the people want more than you're willing to give them?

these are just a few of the issues that must be considered and worked out. what say you?

Parsifal, to answer your questions:
1. I am not sure any system will ever grow to become worldwide.
2. Yes.
3. No numeric economic value will be assigned to goods of any kind. The workers produce the goods, and the goods go to the state. The state would then figure out who needs that good, and whoever needs it would get it. This would especially be true on the industrial level, where one factory needs "x" number of car engines; the workers at a car engine factory would make the car engines, and send them to the state. The state would relay them to the factory that needs them. The factory that makes the car engines, in turn, might need "x" amount of steel, "y" amount of power, and "z" amount of coal. Then, three facilities, producing steel, power, and coal respectively, would send their production to the state, who would then relay it to the car engine factory, and so on. It would be a circular system. On the individual level, a worker would be rewarded based on a set of standards that would be established democratically by the Supreme Proletariat (hence, my name).
4. As stated above, the democratically elected members of the Supreme Proletariat would be comprised of retired workers who were elected directly by the people. They would be responsible for legislative matters, while the Marshall of the Army of the Proletariat would be responsible for the executive functions of the state.

This is how I get around all of capitalism's problems. There is no starvation, because even if you don't work, you will only have your bare minimums met; you would probably get a 2-room house, and enough food for 1 person. The food would not be the best quality because you would need to work if you want a better life, but at least you wouldn't starve or go homeless.

i think it interesting that all countries except Cuba have/are moving towards a free market economy. they realized that they couldn't get the production they needed to feed the peasants and they were wanting more freedoms.

also, i think it's interesting that people from underdeveloped and communistic countries are beating the doors down to move to the US and Western democracies. Hmmmm....I wonder why?

Sup Pro-- here's another system that you might consider.

in the biblical old testament, when Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt they wandered around for 40 years. When the came to Sinia Moses went up on the mountain and was given the ten commandments. Before this the Hebrews had no law or economic system because they had been freed from Pharoah and could start over again. they could now create their own system. The beginning of that system was the ten commandments which would lead them towards the common good. This was predicated on them forming a covenant with God who promised to provide if they kept His commandments. The law evolved with such things as providing for all the poor,orphans, widows and aliens. And every seven years all loans were forgiven and the land was returned to the original owners.

This worked for a long time until the Israelites decided they wanted a king like Egypt. They wanted to be a world power. And that was when the prophets said to the king that had come to the throne of Israel-- you will be thrown into bondage because you have broken the covenant. And so it was. It was not so much God reaching down and punishing them but it was their own stupidity and greed and their thinking they could it better than God.

That's what humanity does when it breaks covenant with the Creator of all things by exploiting people and the earth when we decide that we want to be God instead of creating neighborly community.

Pretty revolutionary huh. But we keep trying to come up with our own "will to power" answers. and that's true not only for the economic and political creations but also for religion.

But God will reign with or without us.

Oh, would thing you didn't answer SP. AND this is very important. How do you propose to install this system?

How do all systems get changed? The only way to do it is through revolution.