RE: Added Two Witnesses To The List of Ignored Bot Accounts | Steem Ocean
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.