Restoration of Capitalism

[Drace]

While I been focusing on the problems under capitalism, I found my self quite ill in being able to defend against the problems under communist society.

He made this point

My whole point is that: that fact will drive people to try to entrepreneurship...they will start creating small "means of productions" in an attempt to satisfy their desires.and unless you will have a stifling police force...a communist society will start to decay



but I have a house...and a lawnmower...
Now...let's say that on weekends...many of my neighbors like to watch sports on TV...
but I don't.
I say, "I want more stuff...I want that extra room...that extra car..."...but I can't get it through my normal job because it doesn't pay enough...
So...I come up with a plan...
I go to my neighbors and say, "You guys like to watch TV...and you'd rather do that than mow your lawns...so...if you pay me...I will use my lawn mower and mow your lawns....and you can watch TV"
and they say, "Sure."
So now I am earning money with my lawnmower....
im happy for you
saving up for that extra room...that extra car...


This was the first time the human nature argument was actually explained in a way that it came to a direct threat to communism.

I was only to answer that hypothetical arguments tend to over simplify things.
The argument was that a communist society would decay because of the human want for more?

I raised some points about consumerism being a result of capitalism and the inability to see what communism would look like but I wasn't able to satisfy myself with my answer.

Im somewhat doubtful if the question is even answerable.

But I wanted your thoughts.

What keeps a communist society from the humans want for more? While I argue that humans are not naturally greedy, but is is quite hard to deny that we are not materialistic.

There is also this point he made.



Say we have a communist society...
and someone ..makes an announcement....
he says...
"I have an invention that will help society IMMENSELY"...
(whatever it is...a cancer cure...a new technology...whatever...)
but he says...I will not share it unless I get X....
X = massive wealth....
What does society do?

[StoneFrog]

Destroy money, money is a tool of oppression and capitalism, it gets us chasing little peices of money and giving "value" to thinks that don't have value. The thing with the lawnmower won't happen really if their is no value given to the action. What i'm trying to say is don't look at actions and things with value, this is the capitalist way of thinking. We need to look at actions and thing for what they are, we do what needs to be done, not for what we can get out of it. Ways we can achieve such things is abolishing money, and a revolution in how we operate as a society. Its no good to just be over throwing the oppressors, but we must over throw the oppressors within each and everyone of us. Focus on what Society and your community needs, not giving value to actions and items.
If you don't keep your community health your going to suffer, so by focusing on the community aspect you in turn are increasings your living life style.

[Drace]

What i'm trying to say is don't look at actions and things with value, this is the capitalist way of thinking.

And I suppose you have a plan to get people not think the "capitalist way"?

[Cyberwave]

It's possible the communist society would fail because of human nature, yes. But it is only a possibility based on the current conditions. Human nature is not fixed; it can change depending on the conditions and circumstances, such as the political system in place.

If anything, however, it's capitalism that would fail thanks to human nature in my opinion. It enables and even calls for greed to fuel itself, and eventually you're going to have more weight on one side of itself and it will finally collapse. People will starve will a small handful live in luxury. I suppose you could argue the economy within capitalism might succeed in one place, but human development, democracy, and morality will fail.

Still, human nature can be the cause of failure or success for many things. It'd be silly not to try something just because of "human nature." Human nature basically states that religion can't work, and yet we still have religion, in some sense. If that makes sense.

[StoneFrog]

I don't think there is going to be a set in stone solution to it, it also comes down to the community itself. Different cultures are going to need to address it in a different way. So in community organisation is probably the best way to combat it. I don't think in any way this is a matter in which unions and the party can or should get involved.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

A few small cases of "capitalist behaviour" will not undermine communist society any more than software piracy undermines capitalist society. As long as the means of production remain under collective property and as long as income is more-or-less equal, communism is secure.

Having said that, let me answer your points more directly:


but I have a house...and a lawnmower...
Now...let's say that on weekends...many of my neighbors like to watch sports on TV...
but I don't.
I say, "I want more stuff...I want that extra room...that extra car..."...but I can't get it through my normal job because it doesn't pay enough...
So...I come up with a plan...
I go to my neighbors and say, "You guys like to watch TV...and you'd rather do that than mow your lawns...so...if you pay me...I will use my lawn mower and mow your lawns....and you can watch TV"
and they say, "Sure."
So now I am earning money with my lawnmower....
im happy for you
saving up for that extra room...that extra car...
Saving up? What makes you think you will be able to save up under communism? I'm afraid that will not be possible, due to the absence of money. There will be no money for you to save.

Of course, you can still offer to mow your neighbor's lawn in exchange for something other than money. In exchange for a DVD, for example. But you will not be able to save up and buy an extra room or an extra car with a stack of DVDs.


Say we have a communist society...
and someone ..makes an announcement....
he says...
"I have an invention that will help society IMMENSELY"...
(whatever it is...a cancer cure...a new technology...whatever...)
but he says...I will not share it unless I get X....
X = massive wealth....
What does society do?
First of all, it is highly unlikely that any significant new technology will be developed by a single person. Most inventions in modern times are the fruit of collective work by teams of scientists.

But assuming that your scenario could actually happen, the society will do the same thing a capitalist corporation might do if one of its employees in the R&D department decides to hold his new invention for ransom: they will take the matter to court.

[gorillafuck]

A few small cases of "capitalist behaviour" will not undermine communist society any more than software piracy undermines capitalist society. As long as the means of production remain under collective property and as long as income is more-or-less equal, communism is secure.
He raises an interesting point, though. What if people agree to work for someone else for something in return, but then others start competing with that? Say, someone agrees to mow lawns for others for rewards in return, and then someone else agrees to mow lawns better (it's just an example) than the other person? How would socialism be able to stop a free-market barter system from developing into something large?

[FSL]

Didn't it occur to anyone that if people had homes with gardens and they didn't like dealing with them, there could be created a lawn mowing agency? Basically, gardeners who'd take care of the parks could also do this? Why are needs left unfulfilled until supposedly private initiative comes to save the day?

[Hexen]

It's possible the communist society would fail because of human nature, yes.

I think this is one of the main arguments that Capitalist society uses to convince people that their economic policy is the only way that works while others fail because of "human nature". I think because of this, I see another reason that a socialist revolution is very unlikely (especially in the US) as long people have this ingrained in their heads.

[mikelepore]

The basis of capitalism is that there is a large segment of the population who cannot survive except by selling their labor power to a property owning class. Workers "agree" to work for wages which represent a small fraction of their product because this is the condition for their survival that has been dictated by the owners.

It doesn't matter if a classless society sees people bartering with mowing lawns or other simple goods and services. There is no problem with that. Unlike capitalism, there are no people who inherit the power to set the conditions for the survival of dependent people.

[Luisrah]

But assuming that your scenario could actually happen, the society will do the same thing a capitalist corporation might do if one of its employees in the R&D department decides to hold his new invention for ransom: they will take the matter to court.

Exactly.

Anyone who holds the cure for cancer or AIDS today, and won't share it if he doesn't get X money, should be considered a mass murderer by the whole humanity, and be judged for crimes against humanity.

But society can't take the risk of not getting the cure.
Maybe we give him the money, and when he gives us the cure, we take the money back? ;)

[rednordman]

To be fair, no-one is going to become a millionaire by simply mowing lawns are they? Another thing, why is everything based on money? What about people who simply love to mow the lawn and do not need millions to do it, just the amount to maintain the mower?-there is such a notion as a favour isnt there?

I can very much understand how the arguement that the person put across is perplexing but its not actually a very good one in my opinion. Cyberwave is correct explaining human nature as not fixed. Things are only the way they are now because we have had it forced down our throats for years (and certainly not for our own wellfair either).

[Kwisatz Haderach]

He raises an interesting point, though. What if people agree to work for someone else for something in return, but then others start competing with that? Say, someone agrees to mow lawns for others for rewards in return, and then someone else agrees to mow lawns better (it's just an example) than the other person? How would socialism be able to stop a free-market barter system from developing into something large?
Well, actually, if these lawn mowing people are competing against each other, then the price of lawn mowing will decrease, which means that they will have less and less to gain from the barter system, so the problem will solve itself.

[Luisrah]

Well, actually, if these lawn mowing people are competing against each other, then the price of lawn mowing will decrease, which means that they will have less and less to gain from the barter system, so the problem will solve itself.

That smells like Adam Smith's hand.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Drace,

1. Human nature: I don't believe that what people do under our current system is "human nature" any more than what people did under feudalism is "human nature". Capitalism has only been around for a few hundred years and has taught people to think it's natural to do all sorts of things that other societies would have thought was insane. Like waking up at the same time and working every day - this is so against human nature that modern society has had to install bells and whistles at factories and schools - traditional peasants and farmers get up when they need to an work hard at harvest, but do fuck all when in the off season.

Never the less, there I think you are correct in worrying that some things from capitalist society will "hang on" after a revolution. This will be particularly true if the revolution is weak and people are uncertain of the outcome. What revolutionary workers will need to do is to knock the feet out from under capitalism. With full and participatory control over production and distribution, we can create working class hegemony so that even if someone wanted to become a new capitalist, it would be impossible for them to do so without a full counter-revolution.

When the capitalists began to win control of society from the feudal system, they enacted laws that basically prevented the nobility from ruling by virtue of their rank and birth, then they "knocked the feet out from under feudalism" by enclosing peasant lands and transforming the peasants into a working class.

Of course the capitalists used a great deal of repression to accomplish these tasks because they were a minority in society trying to transform all of society. A real worker's revolution will be led by the majority class in society and therefore not need to repress large groups of people.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

That smells like Adam Smith's hand.
Yes, because Adam Smith's theories are correct... when it comes to small-scale barter between neighbors. Too bad they turn into complete bullcrap when you try to apply them to a large-scale industrial society.

[Jimmie Higgins]

2. Re: Individual invention: first off, if you are talking to someone who is already convinced that no matter what, capitalism is good and revolutions will always turn into tyrannies, they will tend to throw a million and one abstract hypothetical situations at you rather than talk about the larger picture of how societies do or do not function. Personally, if someone starts giving me a list of hypotheticals, then I consider it a cue to reevaluate the usefulness of the discussion and weather it's time to turn the discussion to sports or movies because they are probably not going to be convinced by what I have to say.

Ok, but to this particular question. First of all it is highly unlikely that in a socialist society, someone will have been able to come up with an advanced technology or discovery without the use of communal tools such as university research facilities, past research by others, laboratory equipment or other resources provided through public universities or granted by whatever bodies that people set up to channel resources to scientific or technological research. Public use of the results of the research or development would be the "contract" in exchange for resources provided just as corporate R and D departments demand ownership of the scientific discoveries made through the use of their labs and resources. I'd imagine anyone holding their results "hostage" and demanding some kind of special consideration could be delt with by restricting their use of public research facilities.

If someone somehow invented or discovered something completely without any help through education or scientific facilities, and made some outrageous demands, then it would be up to whatever decision-making bodies workers set up to decide how to deal with it. If it was up to me, I'd say, fuck it, let him be selfish and keep his secret invention to himself - he won't be able to develop it and even if he could, he couldn't market it. If one asshole could figure it out, I'm sure the cooperative effort of many researchers putting their heads and skills together could find out how it works anyway.

[Lynx]

Communism is not incompatible with barter or with people working for themselves. No exploitation is taking place.
In the higher phase of communism, where money and the reciprocity that goes along with it have been abolished, individual actions to provide services would necessarily be associationist or the equivalent of bartering.

Remarkable advances in science or engineering do not occur within the mind of a single person. It has to be written down and tested.

Coorrection: Robert Goddard may have been an exception, yet even he had to put pen to paper and enlist the aid of others.

[StoneFrog]

If someone had the cure for cancer i am sure the pharmaceutical companies would do everything in their power to suppress it. Cancer is one of the biggest markets in the US, take that away and companies would look billions. So for someone in our time now would try to sell his cure for cancer they wouldn't want it, they make more money from people being sick.

[Drace]

Hypothetical arguments are useless because they always tend to take one side. It forms a completely unrealistic view by pre-supposing things.

Any hypothetical argument also tends to conform to the established system. At the time of feudalism, you could have been confronted with the same question for your capitalist views.
"How would people be able to own their own property? If they own the property than they can just build a castle and hire serfs and we will have feudalism again. This human nature of wanting more will cause a capitalist society to decay"

And lots not forget that Thomas Hobbes did make similar arguments! He proposed that people cannot progress into any other form of society because they are inherently evil and need to be ruled, and thus absolutism was the only form of government.

The hypothetical situation can also be refuted by reality.

The hunters and gatherers who worked cooperatively and the present day communes show this. In villages, as well, where people do own their own property, entrepreneurship never seizes to exist. I myself lived in a village before. Occasionally we carried out favors for each other at no cost at all. But even if we were to take some money for our favors, it did not reach anyone's mind to start make money off each other,

There would not have to be a systematic way to solve the problem of entrepreneurship. Just as the "drive for more" didn't turn nobles into previous god societies, has not caused capitalists to turn into nobles, and to no longer own slaves, communism will by the same force continue to exist by the people's conscious.

[stud40111]

This is an excellent discussion.

I'm so glad I joined the forum :)

[Robocommie]

I think the thing is, this whole scenario of a lawn-mowing service from one guy to his neighbors is a pretty silly argument for why a socialist society would crumble from within. So the guy is mowing his neighbor's lawn in exchange for something. So what? What the hell worker's collective is he undermining? One person mowing a lawn is a LOT different than a freaking steel mill or an assembly plant.

He's using his own damn labor and deriving benefit from it, so what's the problem? However, if he starts up a lawnscaping company and has workers, well then those workers would have to have democratic control of said lawnscaping company for it to be legal under socialism.

The argument is empty because it somehow suggests that any kind of exchange or barter will "undo socialism" which is absurd. It's as absurd as suggesting that me sharing a bag of chips with a friend will undo capitalism because I'm not charging my friend for the chips.

Edit: Or, to put it another way, he claims that people will start to create small "means of production." I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean. Unless he's suggesting that people will start puttering around in their garage and start assembling their own machine presses and blast furnaces and the like. Frankly, if industrialization was that easy, I think we'd already be living in Communism right now. Why spend 80 grand on a new car when you can MAKE one?

[Die Rote Fahne]

The idea of greed being human nature is a capitalist invention.

People are greedy because of the survival instinct. The more you have, the easier life gets.

That is where this misconception comes from.

[Luisrah]

The idea of greed being human nature is a capitalist invention.

People are greedy because of the survival instinct. The more you have, the easier life gets.

That is where this misconception comes from.

Exactly.

When you have a life that has no danger of crumbling, greed goes away.

[Robocommie]

I think people do have a drive to make their lives more comfortable, and more secure in their material needs, but I think there's a limit to that instinctual urge, and furthermore I think the urge to accumlate beyond what's needed for your own comfort is largely influenced by the social prestige associated with wealth.

And under socialism, I feel we can bring everyone enough of a quality to their life that that prestige will become mostly irrelevant.

[Antiks72]

The idea of greed being human nature is a capitalist invention.

People are greedy because of the survival instinct. The more you have, the easier life gets.

That is where this misconception comes from.


I think people are greedy because of the culture around them. They read one too many Ayn Rand books and believe it. Then, they turn on talk radio and listen to Rush Limbaugh drone on about it, and finally Fox News finishes the job.

[Robocommie]

I think people are greedy because of the culture around them. They read one too many Ayn Rand books and believe it. Then, they turn on talk radio and listen to Rush Limbaugh drone on about it, and finally Fox News finishes the job.

Well, though capitalist exploitation predates modern conservative media. And there are a lot of conservatives who give away to charities, which is pretty selfless, though there's a LOT of conservatives who don't.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Am I the only one who see's "human nature" as a false idea used by capitalist exploiters to gain control over one's economic status? To me, there is no such thing as "human nature", but rather human conditioning, in which can be reconditioned or altered. The idea that man has a natural feeling is the exact same argument that the religious doctrines have been using for years on the idea that humans are either born good or born evil, for it is that persons nature in 'God' that determines such.

[Robocommie]

Am I the only one who see's "human nature" as a false idea used by capitalist exploiters to gain control over one's economic status? To me, there is no such thing as "human nature", but rather human conditioning, in which can be reconditioned or altered. The idea that man has a natural feeling is the exact same argument that the religious doctrines have been using for years on the idea that humans are either born good or born evil, for it is that persons nature in 'God' that determines such.

I think the idea of human nature isn't outright fallacious, I actually support the idea that as a species we have behavioral characteristics, and this is also why I think the philosophical debate about whether man is "good" or "evil" to be valid. I think the thing is, capitalists talk about human nature like that's self-evident or clear, when in fact it's been an issue of political debate for a very long time.

People say it's human nature to be selfish, but we are social animals. We're more akin to bonobos or chimpanzees, species-wise, who are very cooperative, social beings. This is why we have societies and cities, because we cooperate! We are not tigers or bears, which are solitary creatures.

People can say that human nature is selfish but that doesn't explain why almost every major world religion, and every set of folk wisdom and culture values sees reaching out to others, and reaching out to those less fortunate, as an inherent good. We are far too communal in behavior to be truly selfish by nature.