'One cannot live in society and be free from society.'
---Lenin.: Would you consider relations between people to be healthier and happier if the individuals were unable to revoke the relationship, and unable to place for themselves provisions or standards upon the terms of the relationship.
You are adamant about denying the existence of the Industrial Revolution (and the corresponding capitalist mode of production) which has bonded the labor of all people together. Under capitalism individuals cannot 'revoke th[is] relationship' nor can they 'place for themselves provisions or standards upon the terms of th[is] relationship.' All they can do is accrue money to change their status within the relationship. Easy enough? They must submit to the interlocking labor market in order to accrue money. Thus the 'freedom' of the worker is contingent upon the terms set by the unified capitalists.
How did the capitalists gain this advantage?
That we are free agents at this time is a bourgeois illusion. The only class that is free is the very upper echelons of the capitalist class; and, yes, they are free---free to dictate terms to the worker at their convenience! Communism proposes to change that.
Were infact powerless as to whom they related to and in which way - kept forever in the state of the newborn or the slave.
?
: I acknowledge, pre-emptively, that by lumping billions of individuals into 2 convenient classes one can describe the 'proleteriat' [sic] as being chained to the 'capitalist class' or whatever (which, ironically would have you agreeing with me that irrevocable and unprovisional [sic] relations are an evil), but this doesnt provide a useful framework in analysing human interaction between individuals.
First, see SDF's response to this point.
Now consider (very) basic Marxist theory. There are two great classes, the capitalist and the proletarian. They have different interests. They have irreconcilable antagonisms. Only one can rule. Presently the capitalists rule. Communism proposes to change that. I never said that the capitalist class---after the proletarian revolution---gets to retain the rights they presently enjoy. Or even gets to simply walk away with all their land and loot and commence the counterrevolution. Oh no, I did not say that.
Now, back to your opening question:
: Would you consider relations between people to be healthier and happier if the individuals were unable to revoke the relationship, and unable to place for themselves provisions or standards upon the terms of the relationship.
Communists are not interested in the happiness of the capitalists. Not before the revolution and certainly not after it. Once classes have been resolved into one single class---the worker (i.e. work expected of everyone), then things will be happier. Especially if everyone contributes equally in the administrating of the society in order to prevent a new ruling class from emerging. This last point, I believe, is the key to a viable socialism.
The idea that each person can pick and choice individually which economic system to live under, as you often do, however, without acknowledging that society itself imposes limits upon each individual, is simply childish prevarication. There will always be limits. Communism proposes to make them equitable. That alone would be a very dramatic advance in the history of humanity!
