"Marx vs Bakunin" - ideological split between the two Communists: Anarchy or state

Author: Best.Korea

Posts

Total: 15
Topic's author
#1
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,007
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Both Marx and Bakunin agreed:
Society should be made from small self-governing communes. Each commune is to own its means of production and regulate its territory. These communes are supposed to be small enough to allow easy management. So one commune would have around 50 - 100 people in it. They would regulate production, set prices of their products and manage problems.
Society would be consisted of these communes.

Now, where did Marx and Bakunin disagree?

Marx believed that after overthrowing capitalism, there should still be a state to ensure order and keep communes from fighting each other, as well as to protect the communes from capitalist invasion and influence.

Bakunin believed that state is to be abolished. After overthrowing capitalism, people would simply organize themselves in self-governing communes without any state.

Marx said that state is crucial for survival of communes.

Bakunin said that state would just turn into oppressive dictatorship.

Eventually, it was the Marx's wish that came into existence through revolution in Russia, China, Korea...ect.

After the revolutions and establishment of the communist state, Communist societies became something more than societies of communes. They became militarist societies, with arms race and Korea giving birth to Songun politics.

The communes still play a role in China and Vietnam, where some buisnesses are ran by communes.

The Bakunin's version of Communism, the self-governing communes without the state, didnt become reality. However, there were and there still are plenty of communes around the world that seem to be working fine.
#2
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Best.Korea
@YouFound_Lxam
Anarcho communism is an oxymoron; you can’t have no government and then a government that takes from the productive and gives it to the people that don’t earn a lot.

And communism is evil; it killed 71 million people.  Capitalism never killed anybody; people may have died under capitalism, but nobody got killed under capitalism.  Capitalism lets a small number of homeless people die.  Socialism and the evils of communism and Nazism (Hitler bashed capitalism), killed 100 million people.  To be a socialist is to be anti America and pro Russia as America believes in freedom, while Cuba, China, and Russia believe in the opposite; communism.  You can call it anarcho communism or state communism, it die matter; it is still an ideology that steals people’s lives and steals people’s assets.

And even America has failed; we should be teaching the horrors of Nazism and communism (very similar ideologies) to our youth to absolutely make sure America does not become a communist society.

America should be the place where woke, communism, socialism, social democracy, and any fiscally left ideology goes to die, because there is freedom, and then there is leftism, the opposite.
Topic's author
#3
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,007
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
I would say that USA is on the path of becoming socialist. More and more people believe in wealth redistribution and heavily regulated economy. If you look at popular opinions among youth, you will see that socialism is becoming increasingly popular.

The fallacy of capitalism is that it produces its own deathdealers: the socialism and the communism. Most of the people who are not happy with capitalism will choose socialism and communism. So what capitalism has to do is to make sure people are happy with capitalism. However, it fails to do that one thing. People are less and less happy with capitalism. They dont want a society of rich and poor. They dont want a society where someone inherits millions and gets to have the best of everything, while the little guy suffers. But what really deals a deathblow to capitalism is its ideology of competition. Competition makes people jealous, since it creates winners and non-winners. The wealthier the winners, the more jealous is everyone else.

Capitalism could even fail on another thing. As AI becomes implemented, there will hardly be a need for workers. Why pay a worker when you can buy a robot that can work for 24 hours a day and better than human. At that point, any country that invests in robots to replace workers will have great advantage in its economy and production.
#4
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Best.Korea
I would say that USA is on the path of becoming socialist.
Yeah, because our schools never taught the evils of socialism that well.  Hitler was a socialist.  If our education system did that, people would be arguing being pro socialist is hate speech to buisiness owners.

People are less and less happy with capitalism. They dont want a society of rich and poor.
It’s because they want to steal from the makers (the buisiness owners; without whom people would be hunting for food).  I’m a stock owner with $30k worth of stocks.  My generation spends their money while I Invest; it’s why Im in the top 5% for my generation.  I don’t want to give my wealth to spenders.

People are less and less happy with capitalism.
Socialism failed in Cuba.  I think you should tour Cuba and see the effects of socialism.  You don’t want that brought here.

They dont want a society where someone inherits millions and gets to have the best of everything, while the little guy suffers.
Usually, billionaires donate the vast majority of their wealth to charity.  The government is the worst charity source on the planet because it steals to survive and it gives money to inefficient causes.  This is why poverty is very common in places that don’t respect private property (Haiti, Africa).  A Haitian immigrant told me this.  She votes red because she experienced American freedom and she respects private property.

Competition makes people jealous, since it creates winners and non-winners. The wealthier the winners, the more jealous is everyone else.
This competition creates better products and services for we the people.  Don’t be jealous if other people’s success; instead generate your own.

Capitalism could even fail on another thing. As AI becomes implemented, there will hardly be a need for workers. Why pay a worker when you can buy a robot that can work for 24 hours a day and better than human. At that point, any country that invests in robots to replace workers will have great advantage in its economy and production.
AI should be treated as a hypothetical while it has not taken half the country’s jobs.  When AI comes and does this, we will need more government intervention in people’s lives.  But AI has not made the vast majority of human unemployable, so cross that bridge when we get there.
Topic's author
#5
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,007
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
Yeah, because our schools never taught the evils of socialism that well.
Better start teaching it, but even that wouldnt prevent people from demanding socialist policies. USA is a country of democracy. People will naturally be more willing to vote for wealth redistribution.


It’s because they want to steal from the makers (the buisiness owners; without whom people would be hunting for food).
Thats what happens when you create a system based on greed. People become greedy and want the wealth. Wealth redistribution does not destroy the buisness owners. It reduces their wealth, so that others may have some too.


 I don’t want to give my wealth to spenders.
If great majority of people become poor and you become rich, and you live in democracy, its obvious that people will take the wealth for themselves.


Socialism failed in Cuba.  I think you should tour Cuba and see the effects of socialism.  You don’t want that brought here
The people will bring socialism to USA. There is no "Cuba is failing" in their minds, when capitalism destroys their wealth and doesnt allow them to aquire wealth.


Usually, billionaires donate the vast majority of their wealth to charity.
Usually takes a lifetime for that. People want results now, not having to wait 50 years until some capitalist dies.


This is why poverty is very common in places that don’t respect private property
No democracy respects private property of a buisness, not the US nor any other. Its not in nature of democracy.


She votes red because she experienced American freedom and she respects private property.
Well, if she respects private property, she shouldnt have come to USA. The USA is becoming more and more socialist.


This competition creates better products and services for we the people.  Don’t be jealous if other people’s success; instead generate your own.
So people shouldnt be jealous? Tell that to the people who suffer their entire life while the capitalists have it easy.
Also, the system is made so that the vast majority of people cannot succeed. 
#6
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Best.Korea
USA is a country of democracy. People will naturally be more willing to vote for wealth redistribution.
Has it ever occurred to you that the democracy in America is right wing on economics?  Even our poor people relieze that the rich tended to earn their wealth by making the world a better place, so they don’t want to take what is not theirs.  Private property is respected in America.

People become greedy and want the wealth.
Nothing wrong with this.  I’m richer than 95% of my generation; it’s MY money; I earned it.  I’m not giving it to others.  If you think that’s wrong, adopt a homeless person.

It reduces their wealth, so that others may have some too.
You are not entitled to someone else’s money without their consent.

If great majority of people become poor and you become rich, and you live in democracy, it’s obvious that people will take the wealth for themselves.
Nope; I tell people that I have $32,000 in net worth.  They are impressed; not jealous.

The people will bring socialism to USA. There is no "Cuba is failing" in their minds, when capitalism destroys their wealth and doesnt allow them to aquire wealth.
It’s allowed me to aquire $32k in net worth and growing.  This is why American communists should be sent to Cuba and capitalist Cubans should be sent to America; so we let the communists destroy their economy and we benefit from hard working people moving here.  The people that spend get good quality products and services from capitalism.

Usually takes a lifetime for that. People want results now, not having to wait 50 years until some capitalist dies.
Over 700 billionaires live in the US.  If they have about 30 years of life left on average, every 60 days, a billionaire dies and donates their money to charity.

No democracy respects private property of a buisness, not the US nor any other. It’s not in nature of democracy.
The American democracy is right wing and hyper capitalist (and this is BASED).  Democracy isn’t inherited left wing.

Well, if she respects private property, she shouldnt have come to USA. The USA is becoming more and more socialist.
Where was she going to move?  Republicans who didn’t embrace Trumps big lie did very well in elections, implying America is becoming more right wing.  Socialism is cancer and socialists like yourself don’t belong in America; go to Cuba; where your ideology belongs.
So people shouldnt be jealous?
That is correct; envy is bad if you use it to steal from the well off.

Tell that to the people who suffer their entire life while the capitalists have it easy.
No matter how much you are suffering, it doesn’t justify theft.
Also, the system is made so that the vast majority of people cannot succeed.
This is inaccurate; America has a per capita income about 6x that of Cuba and a poverty rate significantly less than Cuba.  
Topic's author
#7
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,007
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
Even our poor people relieze that the rich tended to earn their wealth by making the world a better place, so they don’t want to take what is not theirs.
Then you dont have to worry about socialism taking over in the USA, no?
#8
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Except that the people that advocate socialism tend to be middle class college kids that don’t want to work for what they get and just want it for free.  The dirt poor have to work for their money, so they see the value in hard work (and if you believe that being a CEO is easy, try being one; I’m not stopping you).  It’s why socialism doesn’t really take off in places like Africa despite the poverty.


Topic's author
#9
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,007
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
Socialism is mainly about preventing the rich from becoming too rich, and at the same time helping the poor so they dont starve or die due to lack of medication, and that they have a home.

So yes, if a rich guy is interested in buying a too expensive car, he should be prevented from doing so. I support banning luxury items.

At the same time, if a poor person is starving, that poor person should be helped. Same if he is sick, in need of a job or in need of a shelter.

Hence, why homeless shelters are to be built, why poor people should get more job opportunities, and medical services when in need.
#10
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Socialism is mainly about preventing the rich from becoming too rich
No such thing as too rich.  The way you get rich in a capitalist society is by making other people’s lives better.

and at the same time helping the poor so they dont starve or die due to lack of medication, and that they have a home.
Food is cheap enough to where virtually every adult can buy their own food.  Medicine can be expensive, but the solution is to buy it from Mark Cuban because he sells common drugs cheaply to uninsured people.

America has one of the lowest rates of homelessness in the western world possibly because of our absence of socialism.  If you make essentials free, people don’t have the incentive to work, so necessities don’t get produced, which means people starve and live in bad homes and get no healthcare.  It’s better to work for the things you need to survive (even if a tiny portion of the population is without these things) then to enact socialism, encourage the population to not work (because they wouldn’t have to work to live) and create starvation and suffering for EVERYONE, not just the unlucky homeless population.

So yes, if a rich guy is interested in buying a too expensive car, he should be prevented from doing so. I support banning luxury items.
The rich rarely buy luxury items.  Their wealth is in their stock.  And banning luxury items in addition to being a loss of freedom, is a slippery slope.  You don’t need a new car; you can use a used one; it’s what I do.  But people are allowed to buy new cars with their money.

At the same time, if a poor person is starving, that poor person should be helped. Same if he is sick, in need of a job or in need of a shelter.
YOU can help them, just like you can adopt kids.  But when you force strangers to subsidize the charity you want to see done, it’s theft.
Topic's author
#11
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,007
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
No such thing as too rich.
Sure there is. If you want to buy an expensive car while someone is hungry, or in need of help...ect.



Food is cheap enough to where virtually every adult can buy their own food.
Except those 40 million people on food stamps. Usually, countries that reject Socialism are, to no surprise, forced to implement Socialist policies to save their economy.



Medicine can be expensive, but the solution is to buy it from Mark Cuban because he sells common drugs cheaply to uninsured people.
What if a person has no money to buy it?



America has one of the lowest rates of homelessness in the western world
Actually, USA ranks up same as China. Even Vietnam has lower rate of homelessness than the USA. Also countries like Norway, Finland and Switzerland have far lower rate of homelessness.


If you make essentials free, people don’t have the incentive to work
Socialism is not about making essentials free for everyone. It is about helping those in need. If we know that a person cant get a job and cant work, we are not supposed to let that person starve or be reduced to begging on the street. We are to help that person by providing essentials and finding a job opportunity for that person. So the person would still have to work if the job opportunity shows.


The rich rarely buy luxury items
There is an entire market of luxury items, expensive cars, watches...ect. So yes, they are buying it.


But when you force strangers to subsidize the charity you want to see done, it’s theft.
You can call it theft. However, it saves lives of poor people. So its a beneficial theft.
#12
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Sure there is. If you want to buy an expensive car while someone is hungry, or in need of help...ect.
Few rich people buy expensive cars; they build their wealth by investing in the companies they started up.

Except those 40 million people on food stamps. Usually, countries that reject Socialism are, to no surprise, forced to implement Socialist policies to save their economy.
Those 40 million people (if adults) should get a job and the government should be the one to supply that job if they can’t get one themselves (but private sector jobs are better).  And I said virtually every adult.  There are exceptions, but they are more rare in America than Europe or Latin America.

What if a person has no money to buy it?
They get a job if they are old enough to not be living with parents.

Actually, USA ranks up same as China. Even Vietnam has lower rate of homelessness than the USA. Also countries like Norway, Finland and Switzerland have far lower rate of homelessness.
Those nations are outliers.  Europe’s homeless rate is significantly higher than America’s.

Socialism is not about making essentials free for everyone.
Socialism is about taking to a very large extent from the productive and giving it to those that are not.  If you start up your own business, that counts as being productive.

If we know that a person cant get a job and cant work, we are not supposed to let that person starve or be reduced to begging on the street.
If a person genuinely can’t get a job, they should get taken care of by consenting entities.  Parents, religious charities, secular charities.  The government is not a consenting organization because it was funded through theft.

There is an entire market of luxury items, expensive cars, watches...ect. So yes, they are buying it.
There are SOME rich people that spend tens of millions of dollars on expensive cars and watches.  They probably make up the minority of the top 1%.

You can call it theft. However, it saves lives of poor people. So it’s a beneficial theft.
There are times when beneficial theft is bad.  If I forced you to adopt a kid from Somalia that is starving and forced you to pay for him and raise him, it would technically be beneficial theft since the starving child benefits.  The starving child may even enjoy being taken care of by a non consenting entity.  However this doesn’t make it okay because as many financial transactions ought to require mutual consent as possible and a tax on work shouldn’t exist.
Topic's author
#13
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,007
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
 There are exceptions, but they are more rare in America than Europe or Latin America.
Is irrelevant. Having 12% of population on food stamps proves that not everyone is capable of buying enough food. Otherwise, you wouldnt need food stamps. This just confirms that USA is relying on redistribution of wealth in order to function. So when you are using USA as a positive example, you are arguing in favor of the redistribution of wealth.


Those nations are outliers.  Europe’s homeless rate is significantly higher than America’s.
Is a false statement. You do not get to pick which part of the world not to compare to USA.
USA is one country. Europe is not one country.
I have already listed you countries in Europe that do significantly better than USA in housing. This proves that USA is not the best country in terms of housing, nowhere near that actually.


If a person genuinely can’t get a job, they should get taken care of by consenting entities. 
Is a false statement. The consent of the rich is not needed in the case of someone's life, since someone's life is more valuable than someone's consent over the wealth. Thus, the government does not ask the rich "will you help the poor?" when the respect for such consent would mean death for the poor.


The government is not a consenting organization because it was funded through theft.
A necessary theft.


There are SOME rich people that spend tens of millions of dollars on expensive cars and watches.  They probably make up the minority of the top 1%.
Is a false statement. Not minority, but great majority of the top 1% are living a luxury life, buying expensive things built specifically for the wealthy.


this doesn’t make it okay because as many financial transactions ought to require mutual consent as possible and a tax on work shouldn’t exist.
So you would have a person die in order to respect the consent over financial transaction, when the disregard for such consent would save lives? In other words, you value money over life. It is exactly that which makes capitalism impossible, and why USA is doing the wealth redistribution and has already redistributed plenty of wealth in the past 80 years.
#14
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Having 12% of population on food stamps proves that not everyone is capable of buying enough food. 
It’s 12% of the population, but less of the adult population because people on food stamps tend to have more kids (which if your on food stamps, you shouldn’t reproduce and force strangers to pay for your kids).  These people should get food from consenting sources (or if there are none, get canned food that has been expired for a day that the store can’t legally sell).  I’ve eaten expired food before; they will be fine.

Is a false statement. You do not get to pick which part of the world not to compare to USA.
USA is one country. Europe is not one country.
I have already listed you countries in Europe that do significantly better than USA in housing. This proves that USA is not the best country in terms of housing, nowhere near that actually.
When you’re a big country like America, you tend to have more average results because you have a bigger sample size than if you’re from a small country.  America does not have the lowest rate of homelessness in the world; but we are better than Europe on average.

The consent of the rich is not needed in the case of someone's life, since someone's life is more valuable than someone's consent over the wealth. Thus, the government does not ask the rich "will you help the poor?" when the respect for such consent would mean death for the poor.
If you REALLY believe this, then the government should force you and all communists to adopt a poor child if the alternative is death for that child.  If your unwilling to sacrifice for the poor (you’d adopt if you were willing to sacrifice for the poor), why should the rich act any differently?

Not minority, but great majority of the top 1% are living a luxury life, buying expensive things built specifically for the wealthy.
The rich buy expensive houses because they are assets that appreciate with time, but cars and watches don’t.

In other words, you value money over life.
If the government believed human life was worth infinite dollars, it would be morally justified to force every household to adopt as many starving children as they could afford if it saves just one life.  The belief that human life is priceless goes hand in hand with authoritarianism.
Topic's author
#15
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,007
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
It’s 12% of the population, but less of the adult population
Poor adult or poor kid, still counts as poor.


When you’re a big country like America, you tend to have more average results because you have a bigger sample size than if you’re from a small country.  
False, but if what you are saying was true, your comparison to Europe would be invalid since Europe has 3x population that the US has. Plus, it would make no sense how China, then, has same rate as USA when China has much bigger sample size.


If you REALLY believe this, then the government should force you and all communists to adopt a poor child
Is a false statement. Communists should not be alone in the work. The rich must help too. The government should force everyone to help the poor. That is much better than letting the poor starve.


The rich buy expensive houses because they are assets that appreciate with time, but cars and watches don’t.
Expensive houses? They should satisfy themselves with an ordinary house. Or is that too hard?


If the government believed human life was worth infinite dollars, it would be morally justified to force every household to adopt as many starving children as they could afford if it saves just one life.
Is a correct statement. You would let children die. That makes you morally unjustified. You think that letting children die is good. It agrees with your corrupt capitalist viewpoint where profit is more important than someone's life.