What would you miss most in a communist/socialist society ? [Archive]

View Full Version : What would you miss most in a communist/socialist society ?

Che a chara

16th February 2010, 03:13

everyone has their own wee likes that are deemed 'capitalist'. so in the event of a communist revolution what would you miss that would be eradicated in this society ?

i'd miss my wee bets at the local bookies. love me £5-10 football (soccer) accumulators !!

Che a chara

16th February 2010, 03:14

OOPS, CAN A MOD OR ADMIN DELETE THIS. PUT IT IN THE WRONG SECTION :blushing:

Che a chara

16th February 2010, 03:15

everyone has their own wee likes that are deemed 'capitalist'. so in the event of a communist revolution what would you miss that might be eradicated in this society ?

i'd miss my wee bets at the local bookies. love me £5-10 football (soccer) accumulators !!

Imposter Marxist

16th February 2010, 03:38

Mcdonalds french fries!

Comrade Anarchist

16th February 2010, 03:43

I'd miss my individual thought.

Drace

16th February 2010, 03:50

I'd miss my individual thought.

Stop reading Ayn Rand, please. Its getting annoying now.

Che a chara

16th February 2010, 04:02

I'd miss my individual thought.

what do you mean ?.... dissent ?

Ele'ill

16th February 2010, 04:07

This totally depends on an infinite amount of circumstances.

What do you miss currently under capitalism?

Drace

16th February 2010, 04:08

what do you mean ?.... dissent ?

Apparently if your not working for the bourgeoisie, you lose your individuality.

Che a chara

16th February 2010, 04:10

Mcdonalds french fries!

indeed, cappie fast food :thumbup1:

http://www.entertonement.com/clips/hvvvslckvr--Tasty-burgerSamuel-L-Jackson-Pulp-Fiction-Jules-Winnfield-

http://www.entertonement.com/clips/wjqmpqnxwl--The-cornerstone-of-any-nutritious-breakfastSamuel-L-Jackson-Pulp-Fiction-Jules-Winnfield-

'sammy' agrees :lol:

Ele'ill

16th February 2010, 04:18

I have not had fast food since I was a youngster but aside from the atrocious worker's rights and ecological impact those places have why wouldn't you have similar fries?

I can't imagine post revolution that everyone is required to indulge in vegan yam slop and deer turds.

Che a chara

16th February 2010, 04:28

Che a chara

16th February 2010, 04:33

Apparently if your not working for the bourgeoisie, you lose your individuality.

he seems to be uninformed. i had a wee peak at his posts and it all seems to be that he is under the impression that because of the previous ultra authoritarian stance of previous regimes that there will be a total blackout in the wants and needs of the individual. but the individual can have as much freedom as they want except if they engage in behaviour or actions that are exploitive, oppressive or anti-social.

Die Rote Fahne

16th February 2010, 04:37

Apparently if your not working for the bourgeoisie, you lose your individuality.

Don't feed the Libertarians (irl trolls).

Drace

16th February 2010, 04:44

he is under the impression that because of the previous ultra authoritarian stance of previous regimes that there will be a total blackout in the wants and needs of the individual.

No its worse than that. He thinks that if private property doesn't exist, then people are not individuals.

the last donut of the night

16th February 2010, 04:48

I'd sure miss the millions of people that starve today, that don't have a home, that die for imperialist aims, that disappear in the media's lies, or that keep their lives struggling to eat.

Agnapostate

16th February 2010, 04:53

Recognition of my contrarian nature. ;)

Weezer

16th February 2010, 05:03

I'd miss my individual thought.

:( You have no individual thought anyways. You're a Randroid.

RGacky3

16th February 2010, 13:58

I don't think anything I can think of, I don't know of anything I have now that I would'nt have in a communist system.

RGacky3

16th February 2010, 14:27

THeres not much I have now that I won't have under communism.

Demogorgon

16th February 2010, 15:53

:( You have no individual thought anyways. You're a Randoid.
So true. :lol: An ex-Randroid once characterised the movement to me as them all lined up in formation and chanting "we are individuals" as one. :lol:

At any rate though, talking about a loss of individual thought is just ridiculous at any rate. Even the most appalling of dictatorships couldn't take that from you because it simply isn't possible to fully control a human mind.

Skooma Addict

16th February 2010, 16:14

I would miss not working in the black market.

Bud Struggle

16th February 2010, 16:21

I would miss not working in the black market.

Are you kidding? After the Revolution--we can start up on hell of a black market. It's going to be like Capitalism without all of the rules and fuss. Being a Blackmarketeer is one of the main reasons I'm looking forward to Communism.

There will always be scarcity of some things in this world and there will always be someone who will pay a price for those things.

scarletghoul

16th February 2010, 16:26

I'd miss the revolutionary struggle. Of course it would continue under socialism, but not in the same way

Havet

16th February 2010, 16:28

Are you kidding? After the Revolution--we can start up on hell of a black market. It's going to be like Capitalism without all of the rules and fuss. Being a Blackmarketeer is one of the main reasons I'm looking forward to Communism.

There will always be scarcity of some things in this world and there will always be someone who will pay a price for those things.

I've had an idea: what about a business selling old forbidden cappie symbols? Like corporate logos, for example.

Skooma Addict

16th February 2010, 16:32

Well you do have a good point Bud. Working in the black market would bring quite a few profit opportunities. I just hope the punishment for getting caught isn't that bad.

Bud Struggle

16th February 2010, 16:37

I've had an idea: what about a business selling old forbidden cappie symbols? Like corporate logos, for example.

Excellent idea! It would be best if we could get all Capitalist symbols FORBIDDEN. And then everything could be tatally hidden and under the table. All we have to do is pay off some higher up Commissar.

Communism' is going to be fun! :D

Skooma Addict

16th February 2010, 17:15

Lol, but who would want to buy capitalist symbols? Paying off a commissar would be important. It would also be great if we could get an ally to become a commissar to begin with. We would also need to take full advantage of the division of labor. I know you own a business Bud, and I will have a degree in Supply Chain management eventually. I think that if we combined our skills and knowledge, we could generate a decent profit.

Incendiarism

16th February 2010, 17:35

I'd miss the terrible alienation and overwhelming sense of defeat under capitalism.

Bud Struggle

16th February 2010, 17:53

Lol, but who would want to buy capitalist symbols? Nobody if they weren't illegal--but once most everything was burned or destroyed--what would be left would be of interest.

Paying off a commissar would be important. It would also be great if we could get an ally to become a commissar to begin with. Even better. I'm guessing Malte would be our man. He founded RevLeft so he'll get some great job--and he's always looking for money--soooooo. ;)

I know you own a business Bud, and I will have a degree in Supply Chain management eventually. I think that if we combined our skills and knowledge, we could generate a decent profit. You, me, Heyen, and Malte--that's the management team!

Blackice

16th February 2010, 17:54

Racism, hopefully.

eyedrop

16th February 2010, 20:08

Gambling and poker.

Gambling about who has to do generic-undesirable-job this week doesn't have the same ompph as putting in a big bunch of money on something.

And playing poker just for the skills aren't as fun.

Comrade B

16th February 2010, 20:20

Got to say, I love gambling, football especially, I have actually made a profit off it. Still, a better society is a better society. If someone were to ask me in a socialist society what I would miss if we had a capitalist society the list would be much longer.

I also am a bit of a fan of crappy cheap food, but I am sure that at some point the government will be able to continue the production of crappy cheap food.

Dr Mindbender

17th February 2010, 00:00

I can honestly say i'd miss nothing.

Dr Mindbender

17th February 2010, 00:05

THeres not much I have now that I won't have under communism.

Yes there is, your chains.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

17th February 2010, 02:20

Yes there is, your chains.

You can't take our chains away! If I ever get a girlfriend, I'll need them. We can go into the bedroom and she'll play the capitalist entrepreneur that exploits my labor. I'll be the humble worker trying to feed a family of four. Sexiness will ensue.

I would miss my old identity, quite frankly. Our identities are so defined according to capitalism it would be a radical shift. I would prefer my old identity, ultimately, but it would take some getting used to. I suspect even someone who was abused takes awhile to overcome the loss of their past identity as a victim, if they do at all.

I'm a communist. That wouldn't be special anymore. Atheist. Not that special. Intellectual. That's great, but the elitist that is carried with it would be gone. A sense of inferiority and weakness in certain situations. If suddenly I'm able to do what I've always wanted, how will I react? Right now, I'm on break from class. I have so many things to do, I can't even decide what to do. I figure that would be kind of strange at first.

ChrisK

17th February 2010, 09:25

I'd miss arguing with cappies about communism.

Bud Struggle

17th February 2010, 22:29

I'd miss arguing with cappies about communism.

Do you think that just because you "won" there won't be a counter culture? Do you think that everyone will just sigh and submit to Communism?

Capitalist will go underground and plot and plan on websites till that glorious day when the counter-Revolution will occur.

Ronald Reagan will be our Stalin and George Bush our Trotsky. Maggie Thatcher will be our Emma Goldman and Ann Colter our Whats-Her-Name Luxemburg.

You can stll hate us Cappies--it's just that you will be in charge.

For a moment. :)

ChrisK

17th February 2010, 22:37

:)
Do you think that just because you "won" there won't be a counter culture? Do you think that everyone will just sigh and submit to Communism?

Capitalist will go underground and plot and plan on websites till that glorious day when the counter-Revolution will occur.

Ronald Reagan will be our Stalin and George Bush our Trotsky. Maggie Thatcher will be our Emma Goldman and Ann Colter our Whats-Her-Name Luxemburg.

You can stll hate us Cappies--it's just that you will be in charge.

For a moment. :)

I guess what I mean is that I'll miss debating five of them at a time a still outdoing them

Bud Struggle

17th February 2010, 23:26

:)

I guess what I mean is that I'll miss debating five of them at a time a still outdoing them

You obviously haven't been posting on OI enough. :D

ChrisK

18th February 2010, 00:09

You obviously haven't been posting on OI enough. :D

True that.

Crusade

18th February 2010, 00:59

Resturaunts.

18th February 2010, 01:14

I'd miss the $1,000 deductibles I have to pay out of pocket at the start of each year before my medical "insurance" covers a cent of any medical bills, even if it's just for a goddamn filling at the dentist. I'd also miss working a job that I hate with a fiery passion while my supervisor spends her whole day on internet dating sites while making more money than me. Let's see... oh, I'd miss the persistent feeling of knowing my reproductive rights are always hanging in the balance. I'd miss not being able to acquire a college education, too. I'd also miss being hassled by Jehovah's Witnesses, presumably. What else? Anything? The US Marine Corps. I would miss the US Marine Corps. God I love the US Marine Corps.

:rolleyes:

Klashnekov

18th February 2010, 01:20

I'd miss porn

Scary Monster

18th February 2010, 01:22

Do you think that just because you "won" there won't be a counter culture? Do you think that everyone will just sigh and submit to Communism?

Capitalist will go underground and plot and plan on websites till that glorious day when the counter-Revolution will occur.

Ronald Reagan will be our Stalin and George Bush our Trotsky. Maggie Thatcher will be our Emma Goldman and Ann Colter our Whats-Her-Name Luxemburg.

You can stll hate us Cappies--it's just that you will be in charge.

For a moment. :)

Is this your wank fantasy? The thing is, who in the hell would want to fight for an old order (besides the selfish and fascist types) where people are unemployed, starve to death and work their asses off for pay that barely supports them and their children? Fuckin idiot.

gorillafuck

18th February 2010, 01:23

I'd miss porn
The best porn is free amateur porn, anyway.

Scary Monster

18th February 2010, 01:25

The best porn is free amateur porn, anyway.

Who settles for amateur porn? You obviously have never heard of pornhub.com... :lol: They have the free pro stuff as well as amateur :redstar2000:

RaÃºl Duke

18th February 2010, 01:37

I'll miss the people I knew who died to bring about this communist society.

If we are talking state-socialist, I'll surely miss a lot of more material things.

But in an ideal socialist/communist society I'm not sure there's much to miss...

RaÃºl Duke

18th February 2010, 01:41

Do you think that just because you "won" there won't be a counter culture? Do you think that everyone will just sigh and submit to Communism?

Capitalist will go underground and plot and plan on websites till that glorious day when the counter-Revolution will occur.

Ronald Reagan will be our Stalin and George Bush our Trotsky. Maggie Thatcher will be our Emma Goldman and Ann Colter our Whats-Her-Name Luxemburg.

You can stll hate us Cappies--it's just that you will be in charge.

For a moment. :)

It depends on how it plays out.

If we actually succeed in abolishing class society, there may well very be only a tiny amount of people who want the old order back. Can you tell me how many feudalists are still around in Europe waiting for the restoration of absolute monarchy, nobility, and landed estates?

However, if we get the same as we had before (i.e. some "state socialism" [state capitalism] society like USSR) than yes you will be right, there will be perhaps a counter-culture. Doubtful that it would include that specific cast of characters as idols though.

Drace

18th February 2010, 02:01

I'd miss my individual thought.

I'd miss your individualism too.

Girl A

19th February 2010, 17:30

I'd miss my individual thought.

After the Revolution, we will hook everyone up to machines that analyse our brain waves!

The Red Next Door

20th February 2010, 03:08

I miss seeing kids lose their mommies and daddies because some oil ceo wants some more Black gold, i miss rap songs that say "SUCK MY DICK HO AND EAT THE FILLING".

20th February 2010, 03:29

I'd miss the constant and irrational hatred for communists.

Ele'ill

20th February 2010, 03:30

Who settles for amateur porn? You obviously have never heard of pornhub.com... :lol: They have the free pro stuff as well as amateur :redstar2000:

Wow.

No, I mean World of Warcraft. It's like porn but more addicting.

I would probably miss the thrill of living off the grid.

Nolan

20th February 2010, 03:40

I'd miss my individual thought.

ZOMG how original

Cooler Reds Will Prevail

20th February 2010, 12:05

I agree with some of the people before who stated that they'd miss their identity as a communist. I've always been 'that guy' and I suppose I'd miss being special. It's a great conversation starter with girls too. "Tell me something about yourself." "I'm a communist." "Oh rly???"

I'd miss making fun of politicians. Though I suppose we can still do that through part of the socialist period, it just won't be nearly as funny. :(

I might miss my completely unproductive job where I get paid to do very little work that holds no value for society. I am in a rare position where I get to waste the bourgeoisie's money and make them think they're getting something out of it :lol:

Havet

20th February 2010, 15:43

I might miss my completely unproductive job where I get paid to do very little work that holds no value for society. I am in a rare position where I get to waste the bourgeoisie's money and make them think they're getting something out of it :lol:

What is your job?

Jazzratt

20th February 2010, 15:47

I'd miss seething with rage at injustice, nothing gets you up in the mornings quite like generalised rage. Also I'd miss days where I don't eat.

graffic

20th February 2010, 16:54

I'm a communist. That wouldn't be special anymore. Atheist. Not that special. Intellectual. That's great, but the elitist that is carried with it would be gone. A sense of inferiority and weakness in certain situations. If suddenly I'm able to do what I've always wanted, how will I react? Right now, I'm on break from class.

Are you joking? A stateless, utopian society like the one you are describing is not going to happen overnight. Struggles will continue between dissidents, theists, and so on. What matters is today. Class struggle and educating people away from the reactionary bollocks some believe will make life better, but not solve *everything*.

There is no conclusive, utopian answer to mankind that will finally end history for ever.

Hit The North

20th February 2010, 16:59

I'd miss this continual headache.

I'd miss my individual thought.

You can't miss what you've never had.

Vanguard1917

20th February 2010, 17:37

Hopefully, nothing.

Note: fast food, in the literal meaning of the phrase, will likely flourish under communism, in terms of quantity and quality. With the greater socialisation of food production, we will spend less time and energy making food and feeding (almost like animals) and more time and energy actually living like human beings. Preparing food at home (along with other domestic labour) will be increasingly marginalised and will largely be recreational in character where it does continue to exist. And this will, of course, signal the liberation of women from household toil.

The petty-bourgeois fantasy currently fashionable in the West, which dreams of a future where each family grows its own vegetables, raises its own livestock, bakes its own bread and cooks all its meals from scratch using ingredients as locally produced as possible, will be seen as nonsensical.

Just saying.

rednordman

20th February 2010, 18:02

For me, I think that I would miss the unspoken solidarity between workers when we acknowledge the crimes and injustice that is inherent within the capitalist system. Its like nowadays, no one ever uses the word capitalism, yet complain about it and always talk about putting the world to rights.

If only for a split second, we actually believe we can take the world on, and no-one even mentions ideology. I suppose now, we know what the enemy really is. Just this time we do not have any type of 'scare' or alternate system anymore.

Ironically, this is what alot of people of the velvet revolution movements said also (just about the eastern block), and look how thats turned out...I suppose its different for them, as they actively and niavely embraced the oncoming 21st centry enemy.

Hit The North

20th February 2010, 19:28

Note: fast food, in the literal meaning of the phrase, will likely flourish under communism, in terms of quantity and quality. With the greater socialisation of food production, we will spend less time and energy making food and feeding (almost like animals) and more time and energy actually living like human beings. Preparing food at home (along with other domestic labour) will be increasingly marginalised and will largely be recreational in character where it does continue to exist. And this will, of course, signal the liberation of women from household toil.

All this tells me is that you hate or fear cooking and eating. Both the preparation of food and its consumption is a social pleasure and a great example of what living as a human being entails. Your Orwellian vision of collective fast food soup kitchens servicing the workers is preposterous and probably the toxic result of eating too many Big Macs.

Hit The North

20th February 2010, 19:32

I'd miss porn

Maybe after the revolution, when being a communist is once again considered sexy, you'd miss not having a girlfriend.

ZeroNowhere

20th February 2010, 19:35

All this tells me is that you hate or fear cooking and eating. Both the preparation of food and its consumption is a social pleasure and a great example of what living as a human being entails. Your Orwellian vision of collective fast food soup kitchens servicing the workers is preposterous and probably the toxic result of eating too many Big Macs. So then it would be more appropriate if it were done because of being a social pleasure, and not done if cooking is not something one finds particularly pleasurable most of the time, and one rather would prefer to just eat and go on to other things. Which is why he was saying that preparing food at home will be largely recreational in character where it continues to exist.

Maybe after the revolution, when being a communist is once again considered sexy, you'd miss not having a girlfriend.I'd miss a time when there weren't (m?)any communist boy bands.

Wolf Larson

20th February 2010, 23:30

I'd miss my individual thought.

I'd miss making fun of people like you.

Che a chara

21st February 2010, 00:13

why would porn go ?

Dr Mindbender

21st February 2010, 00:19

the preparation of food ..... is a ..... pleasure
Not in this house its not. I fucking hate having to chop stuff and while dealing with the post culinary aftermath having to use my fingers to remove the gunk that inevitably gets stuck in the sink plughole afterwards.

Get me some of those star trek replicators, then we're in business.

why would porn go ?
It won't it will be of better quality and eventually, hopefully, be interactive.

Che a chara

21st February 2010, 00:24

It won't it will be of better quality and eventually, hopefully, be interactive.

i hope you don't mean 'Demolition Man' style.

Vanguard1917

21st February 2010, 20:35

All this tells me is that you hate or fear cooking and eating. Both the preparation of food... is a social pleasure

But, for the most part, it isn't. On the whole, it's domestic labour which is mainly performed by women. Marxists seek to socialise as much as possible what is now domestic work. We see this as central to emancipating women under socialism.

And if you read my post, i said that such socialisation will mean that household food preparation, when it does continue to exist, will indeed largely be a matter of pleasure and recreation.

Today, however, its role is predominantly that of an unpaid female job.

Orwellian vision of collective fast food soup kitchens servicing the workers is preposterous and probably the toxic result of eating too many Big Macs.

I never said anything about soup kitchens. Those belong to capitalism. Socialist citizens will get only the best.

----------

Btw, i don't hate cooking at all (i wouldn't be a member of the Revleft cooking group if i did :)). But that's because i'm not forced to do it very often.

Dr Mindbender

21st February 2010, 23:44

i hope you don't mean 'Demolition Man' style.

No, I mean more like Star trek holodeck meets the 'Better than life' simulator from Red dwarf complete with groinal attachment style.

Although if Sandra Bullock is there i wouldnt be complaining either way. :wub:

Jazzratt

22nd February 2010, 02:44

I'd miss my individual thought.

You'd still have it. Problem for you is so would everyone else and everyone thinks you're a wanker now, so imagine what they'd think after capitalism.

Hit The North

22nd February 2010, 12:14

But, for the most part, it isn't. On the whole, it's domestic labour which is mainly performed by women. Marxists seek to socialise as much as possible what is now domestic work. We see this as central to emancipating women under socialism.

Of course, all unnecessary drudgery will be eliminated, or activity will be transformed so that rather than experienced as drudgery it is experienced positively through its socialisation. But what do you mean by 'socialising domestic labour'? Will there be paid workers who come in and do it for us, make our beds, scrub down our walls, etc.? That sounds like having 'servants' to me.

And if you read my post, i said that such socialisation will mean that household food preparation, when it does continue to exist, will indeed largely be a matter of pleasure and recreation.

Well that only confused me: when it does continue to exist implies that cooking your own meal will become some hobby practiced by a minority. Presumably the rest of the socialist citizenry will be enjoying burger and fries!

Today, however, its role is predominantly that of an unpaid female job. Not in my household it ain't. :lol:

I never said anything about soup kitchens. Those belong to capitalism. Socialist citizens will get only the best. I know, I was being deliberately mischievous.

But that's because i'm not forced to do it very often.

What do you mean? Surely you have to eat at least once a day. Don't say your mam still cooks it for you or some hard-pressed girlfriend?

Vanguard1917

22nd February 2010, 20:55

Of course, all unnecessary drudgery will be eliminated, or activity will be transformed so that rather than experienced as drudgery it is experienced positively through its socialisation. But what do you mean by 'socialising domestic labour'? Will there be paid workers who come in and do it for us, make our beds, scrub down our walls, etc.? That sounds like having 'servants' to me.

No, i'd imagine there would be public places where food is made and served, and where you can eat in or take away.

Well that only confused me: when it does continue to exist implies that cooking your own meal will become some hobby practiced by a minority.

Yeah, it will likely take on that character. The changes to society and the family brought about by socialism will likely transform the nature of such domestic work by bringing it out of the family unit household and into the wider social arena.

Presumably the rest of the socialist citizenry will be enjoying burger and fries!

Where did i say anything about burger and fries? Lobster and scallop for me, please.

Not in my household it ain't.

But in society as a whole it is, i'm sure you'd agree.

Hit The North

22nd February 2010, 22:36

Where did i say anything about burger and fries? Lobster and scallop for me, please.

Well, you called it 'fast food'. So unless you want your lobster and scallop deep-fried, maybe you need to move away from this designation.

But, anyway, you never said: who exactly does most of your cooking?

Bud Struggle

22nd February 2010, 22:56

I thought this thread was about Communist/Socialist Societies not your wish list of what your dream visit to Disney World would be like.

Vanguard1917

23rd February 2010, 22:18

But, anyway, you never said: who exactly does most of your cooking?

I couldn't list them all. But Mustafa from the local kebab shop has been doing a fair bit of it in recent months.

Dr Mindbender

23rd February 2010, 22:23

I couldn't list them all. But Mustafa from the local kebab shop has been doing a fair bit of it in recent months.

lol you'd better cut down on the kebabs otherwise the hospital will be providing a fair bit of it in the future.

:rolleyes:

Vanguard1917

23rd February 2010, 23:33

lol you'd better cut down on the kebabs otherwise the hospital will be providing a fair bit of it in the future.

:rolleyes:

He does fried chicken as well, you know.

ZombieGrits

7th March 2010, 04:22

I would miss complaining about capitalism :p

Philzer

17th March 2010, 14:38

Hi!

I would miss complaining about capitalism :p

fantastic!:D

But I´m afraid much people would miss the threedimensional freedom, like the american wa(sting)y of life.

Kind regards

RGacky3

18th March 2010, 09:25

fantastic!:D

But I´m afraid much people would miss the threedimensional freedom, like the american wa(sting)y of life.

Kind regards

What does that even mean?

CommunityBeliever

18th March 2010, 10:27

so in the event of a communist revolution what would you miss that would be eradicated in this society ?Why would I miss being miserable? :confused:

MortyMingledon

18th March 2010, 12:16

I think it will be hard for the rebellious to find something wrong in society to legitimately rebel against after the revolution. Let's face it, in our teen years, we always look for something to rebel against, and right now we have capitalism to legitimately oppose, but what can we still oppose after the revolution?

RGacky3

18th March 2010, 12:34

but what can we still oppose after the revolution?

Your parents being total dicks.

Devrim

18th March 2010, 12:48

Proffesional football.

Devrim

Che a chara

19th March 2010, 01:45

Think this topic would be best discussed at this thread: :)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-you-miss-t129376/index.html

Che a chara

19th March 2010, 01:51

Following on from this thread http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-you-miss-t129374/index.html (can a mod/admin close or delete that one please :) ), Re: Devrim 's response (Professional football): would football and sports take a back seat and not be promoted in such a way as it is in today's socities ? i know it breeds competition, but sport is the only thing that brings the world together. How would this be incorporated in a communist society ?

Maybe sport within communism is an idea for another topic ....

anticap

20th March 2010, 19:00

Meridian

20th March 2010, 19:28

There's no reason why sports must be competitive. Looking at team-based sports, we see two groups of players who are evidently perfectly capable of grasping the concept of cooperation. The only trouble is that they're cooperating to defeat another group of players. OK, so combine the two teams and give them a common goal. It doesn't really matter what that goal is; the goals of most sports are completely pointless. The benefits of sports are physical fitness and learning to cooperate, so any goal that continues to provide those benefits is good. Ideally it would be something that needs doing anyway; there's no reason why sports must be a distinctly leisure activity. Besides, communists seek to blur the lines between work and play.
While I agree that there are no reasons why sports must be competitive, which I think is clearly evident, I fail to see the harm in sports that are competitive. While I am not a huge sports fan, it seems silly to me to take sports that are perfectly fine (besides the major influence of capitalization of them) and somehow try and make them cooperative instead of competitive. What is the point?

anticap

20th March 2010, 19:49

The point is that competition is necessary only when the goal is to defeat or destroy. Otherwise, what can be accomplished through competition can also be accomplished through cooperation. Most leftists consider cooperation a virtue unto itself, which ought to be fostered. The harm in competition is that it pits groups of people against each other when they ought to be cooperating to achieve common goals.

Competitive sports are essentially cleaned-up wars fought during peacetime. Why would we need, or even want, such a thing? It's not the capitalization of competitive sports that is the problem (although that certainly exacerbates it and creates other problems) -- it's the competition.

I have no nostalgic attachment to existing sports. Those who do would be sorry to see them go. I understand that. But all it takes is one generation raised without those sports, and they will cease to be popular. We could just as easily be raising children to play non-competitive sports.

Of course, my views are based on the assumption that we've achieved a global community of decent societies. As it stands, there's arguably still benefit in raising children to think in terms of "us versus them" and to want to defeat the "other," since we can't defeat capitalism without competing against it, whether by revolutionary war or political reform. The trick is to teach them to hate only their oppressors, not their comrades who have different colored skins or speak different languages or believe different myths.

LeftSideDown

21st March 2010, 13:36

It depends on how it plays out.

If we actually succeed in abolishing class society, there may well very be only a tiny amount of people who want the old order back. Can you tell me how many feudalists are still around in Europe waiting for the restoration of absolute monarchy, nobility, and landed estates?

However, if we get the same as we had before (i.e. some "state socialism" [state capitalism] society like USSR) than yes you will be right, there will be perhaps a counter-culture. Doubtful that it would include that specific cast of characters as idols though.

The problem is Capitalism > Feudalism. Everyone recognizes this. Socialism > Capitalism? Thats what you guys believe. There will be people who are convinced that capitalism is the most efficient economic order and that under Socialism no economic calculation is possible.

LeftSideDown

21st March 2010, 13:53

why would porn go ?

"Excess/wasteful production"

LeftSideDown

21st March 2010, 14:00

LeftSideDown

21st March 2010, 14:03

LeftSideDown

21st March 2010, 14:06

You guys, for the most part, so far, seem pretty confused. You are not talking about socialism/communism, you're talking about Utopia. Necessarily, nothing would be missed in Utopia. Its not like:
1) Socialism happens
2) Suddenly scientists make a machine that gives everybody what they want
3) Make joke about missing some atrocity in the world that is due to scarcity but you attribute to capitalism
4) ?????
5) PROFIT!!!

There will still be scarcity everywhere (Not enough cows in the world to give everybody a burger, some would have to go without, or you would just stop providing it, or you'd ration it, or a million other options), so what you would really miss is the efficient allocation of resources.

LeftSideDown

21st March 2010, 14:17

I'd miss making fun of politicians. Though I suppose we can still do that through part of the socialist period, it just won't be nearly as funny. :(

Because suddenly politicians/people will become perfect and they won't make mistakes?

Also, you will be able to make fun of politicians, but thats only so long as they tolerate you then... BAM!

Che a chara

21st March 2010, 14:25

"Excess/wasteful production"

Fair enough so. It pollutes the mind and carries negative baggage. most of it's too sleazy anyway.

Che a chara

21st March 2010, 14:34

Sports should be viewed as entertainment and as a hobby. Though i'd say in post-revolution it'd still be like a job and will have it's place because there would be no profit. Much like where the NFL is run or used ot be run up to last year, finance gained through TV revenue is split equally to all teams, plus a salary cap enforced.

Actually i'd think that sports would excel post-revolution, with it's co-operation, harmony and togetherness. If because there will be a competitive streak and that means it's bad, then that would be very narrow-minded.

I think that communism means happiness. Even if you're playing a sport, and you loose, you're still happy that you played in something you enjoy doing for a living and contributed to the 'entertainment'.

Robert

21st March 2010, 14:54

Even if you're playing a sport, and you loose, you're still happy that you played in something you enjoy doing for a living and contributed to the 'entertainment'.

Do you think the fans -- say, this guy -- will be just as happy, win or lose?

http://timesfour.com/images/vikingfan.jpg

LeftSideDown

21st March 2010, 15:01

Fair enough so. It pollutes the mind and carries negative baggage. most of it's too sleazy anyway.

Of course you can make these claims, because you know every individual and your intellect is so vastly superior that it should be YOUR choice what entertains them, not theirs.

Che a chara

21st March 2010, 15:01

Do you think the fans -- say, this guy -- will be just as happy, win or lose?

http://timesfour.com/images/vikingfan.jpg

:lol: well that guy must be happy, as he keeps coming back to see the Vikes suffer more punishment year after year ! :lol:

also, it'd be like banning marriages. If you split up and divorce, you'd not be happy, you'd be devastated. so why stop at sports ? outlaw marriages ! And, what if someone 'picks up' the girl/boy you like instead ? it's still like a competition.... who can get the better girl/boyfriend or who has the better girl/boyfriend. Know what i mean .... ???

LeftSideDown

21st March 2010, 15:02

Do you think the fans -- say, this guy -- will be just as happy, win or lose?

http://timesfour.com/images/vikingfan.jpg

Yes, because when he goes home and he can still pillage, loot and kill. (Cue jokes about capitalists doing all these things).

Che a chara

21st March 2010, 15:03

Of course you can make these claims, because you know every individual and your intellect is so vastly superior that it should be YOUR choice what entertains them, not theirs.

Eh ? I was voicing my opinion, not forcing it on anyone.

LeftSideDown

21st March 2010, 15:27

Eh ? I was voicing my opinion, not forcing it on anyone.

"It pollutes the mind and carries negative baggage"

You weren't voicing an opinion, you were stating a fact, or at least a fact as you saw it. You replied positively to my sarcastic statement "Excess production" which means that you would eliminate pornography (should you have the opportunity, based upon your based statement) thereby making the choice for everyone.

Che a chara

21st March 2010, 15:33

"It pollutes the mind and carries negative baggage"

You weren't voicing an opinion, you were stating a fact, or at least a fact as you saw it. You replied positively to my sarcastic statement "Excess production" which means that you would eliminate pornography (should you have the opportunity, based upon your based statement) thereby making the choice for everyone.

Erm, no. Sure I originally asked why it would go.

I was just voicing my opinion, generalising maybe, but no-where did I state that I would favour it being banned. I was just replying to what I thought would be the reason if porn was banned.

LeftSideDown

21st March 2010, 15:36

Che a chara

21st March 2010, 15:43

"Fair enough so." You were agreeing that it would be excess production: something that is eliminated in Socialism. If you weren't you wouldn't have given reasons why it should be banned. IF you just thought my reasoning was correct you would've just said it, but you agreed that my reasoning was correct than expanded upon it as only someone would agreed with the results would.

When I said "Fair enough so" I just meant 'OK'. It doesn't mean i'm in agreement with you, just that I hear you. I'll make it clear, I don't favour porn being banned. But if it was to be, then one of the reasons i'm sure would be that it pollutes the mind, which i believe it does, but it is a personal choice which doesn't harm anyone or affect the safety of anybody else. So let it be :)

gorillafuck

21st March 2010, 15:43

There's no reason why sports must be competitive. Looking at team-based sports, we see two groups of players who are evidently perfectly capable of grasping the concept of cooperation. The only trouble is that they're cooperating to defeat another group of players. OK, so combine the two teams and give them a common goal. It doesn't really matter what that goal is; the goals of most sports are completely pointless. The benefits of sports are physical fitness and learning to cooperate, so any goal that continues to provide those benefits is good. Ideally it would be something that needs doing anyway; there's no reason why sports must be a distinctly leisure activity. Besides, communists seek to blur the lines between work and play.
Having two teams cooperate to reach a common goal would be boring.

LeftSideDown

21st March 2010, 15:46

Having two teams cooperate to reach a common goal would be boring.

Epitomized in my statement that what he was describing was a job.

gorillafuck

21st March 2010, 15:50

Epitomized in my statement that what he was describing was a job.
People don't watch other people do the majority of jobs for entertainment. There's a huge difference between watching football players do their jobs by competing and watching people at everyday jobs compete.

LeftSideDown

21st March 2010, 15:54

People don't watch other people do the majority of jobs for entertainment. There's a huge difference between watching football players do their jobs by competing and watching people at everyday jobs compete.

I know I agree, that was my point. "People cooperating to achieve a common goal" its laughable.

gorillafuck

21st March 2010, 15:55

I know I agree, that was my point. "People cooperating to achieve a common goal" its laughable.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/another-volunteer-action-t131491/index.html

Robert

21st March 2010, 16:58

well that guy must be happy, as he keeps coming back to see the Vikes suffer more punishment year after year !

Oooooh, that's a lick!:lol:

Devrim

21st March 2010, 23:24

Re: Devrim 's response (Professional football): would football and sports take a back seat and not be promoted in such a way as it is in today's socities ? i know it breeds competition, but sport is the only thing that brings the world together. How would this be incorporated in a communist society ?

I don't think the problem is about competition at all. You can't have professional football in a world without money.

Devrim

Bud Struggle

21st March 2010, 23:36

I don't think the problem is about competition at all. You can't have professional football in a world without money.

Devrim

Cuba has quite good baseball with those guys getting "worker" pay. (And it is worker pay.)

Che a chara

22nd March 2010, 01:53

I don't think the problem is about competition at all. You can't have professional football in a world without money.

Devrim

How would professional sport be perceived and run in a socialist country ?

Che a chara

22nd March 2010, 02:01

Cuba has quite good baseball with those guys getting "worker" pay. (And it is worker pay.)

Rightfully so it should be paid the same, but a career in sports is very limited, hence one of the reasons why astronomical wages are received.

People would still play and compete in sports post-revolution, but not get paid (because of what Devrim stated), but in a socialist country you'd be looking at the sport equivalent of a brain drain.

Jimmie Higgins

22nd March 2010, 02:47

I would miss cynical irony and kitsch. Right now I hate these things, but I think in a society where things aren't "so bad that they are funny" as often, I would miss them.

Things like commercials for "sham-wow" or shitty romantic comedies (or any movies with Matthew McConaughey for that matter), and just the daily flood of crass advertising are annoying now, but I think when they are gone we will miss the feeling of superiority we get from making fun of these things.

LeftSideDown

22nd March 2010, 04:30

http://www.revleft.com/vb/another-volunteer-action-t131491/index.html

I guess I should have stipulated "for the sake of providing quality entertainment" although there might be a few examples otherwise.

Robert

22nd March 2010, 05:04

Cuba has quite good baseball with those guys getting "worker" pay. (And it is worker pay.)

I remember when the Cubans played -- and beat -- the Cleveland Indians, I think it was, about 10 years ago. Remember that? I imagine they were a little happier on the team plane, flying home, to have won than to have lost. I was frankly a bit proud of them myself. David versus Goliath and all that.

Devrim

22nd March 2010, 06:54

How would professional sport be perceived and run in a socialist country ?

Their can't be profesional sport under communism. The whole point of communism is the abolition of wage labour. It would naturally destroy the basis of profesional sport.

Cuba has quite good baseball with those guys getting "worker" pay. (And it is worker pay.)

But then Cuba isn't communist or socialist. All you have here is people being paid under the market rate to play sport.

I really doubt that they get 'worker pay' anyway.

Devrim

Bud Struggle

22nd March 2010, 13:03

But then Cuba isn't communist or socialist. All you have here is people being paid under the market rate to play sport.

I really doubt that they get 'worker pay' anyway. Devrim

Maybe. But here's an interesting article about how Capitalism is is draining Cuba's talent away.

http://www.thestar.com/sports/baseball/article/766002--cuba-facing-big-league-baseball-crisis

Che a chara

22nd March 2010, 14:46

Their can't be profesional sport under communism. The whole point of communism is the abolition of wage labour. It would naturally destroy the basis of profesional sport.

I meant in a socialist country. Of course you wont have 'professional' sports in a communist society because money would have withered away, but you would still have people playing in sports. But in the transition stage, where wages are still exchanged for labour, albeit on a more equal basis as other jobs, how do we make sure that sport would still be 'competitive' and relevant in large scale as other countries ?

Che a chara

22nd March 2010, 14:54

Maybe. But here's an interesting article about how Capitalism is is draining Cuba's talent away.

http://www.thestar.com/sports/baseball/article/766002--cuba-facing-big-league-baseball-crisis

Yeah, that's something I would fear:

"Fidel Castro's communist government outlawed pro sports in 1961..."

Why would you want the sport equivalent of a 'brain drain' ? surely athletic and sporting ability should be nurtured as it's a skill and a way of life and promotes co-operation.

Sport is part of culture and has great history in many countries.

SandiNeesta

22nd March 2010, 15:04

Taking my change to the nearest Coinstar every week....something satisfying about watching my pennies add up:rolleyes:

SandiNeesta

22nd March 2010, 17:03

anticap

22nd March 2010, 21:11

You realize what you're describing is a job right?

You realize what you're asking was addressed in the sentence immediately preceding your question right?

anticap

22nd March 2010, 21:26

Since you two seem to be cooperating so well, I'll respond to you both as a team:

...in a sense both teams are cooperating. They are cooperating to create entertainment derived when individuals view athletic individuals working in groups against one another.

They are cooperating to defeat and humiliate a group of their fellow human beings on an artificial battlefield in a simulated war. This only adds an element of "excitement" to their cooperative endeavor because they were raised to think and behave like barbarians for whom "human solidarity" is, variously, either a curseword or a punchline.

Having two teams cooperate to reach a common goal would be boring.

Boring for whom? If you mean for the players, I've addressed that above. If you mean for spectators, I can only disagree. In my subjective experience, I find that watching people struggle together to reach a common goal is exciting with or without the above ugliness -- more so without, obviously.

Look, I didn't expect my opinion on this subject to go over well. It almost never has, when I've dared to broach it. Most people are far more conservative than they would like to admit, and cling to their traditions with bared claws. Just try critiquing the nuclear family sometime if you think sports is a sacred cow! (It might help to have some Marx & Engels quotes handy, to throw the howling wolves off your trail.)

"People cooperating to achieve a common goal" its laughable.

I find your laughter at that prospect distinctly unamusing. :(

LeftSideDown

22nd March 2010, 21:27

You realize what you're asking was addressed in the sentence immediately preceding your question right?

Trying to blur the lines between work and play? Well, from what I've read, you eliminated play and replaced it with work, something no one really wants to wats someone else do on a large scale.

danyboy27

22nd March 2010, 21:32

anticap

22nd March 2010, 21:37

People don't watch other people do the majority of jobs for entertainment.

Of course, observing the existing world, as you've so astutely done here, is not an argument against how things might be done in the future. And, of course, I never suggested that the future might entail taking the kids to watch choreographed ditch-digging. So let's try to stretch our minds just a touch and see if we might envision a world beyond the status quo, mkay?

LeftSideDown

22nd March 2010, 21:42

there is nothing that i currently have that will disapear of communism rise.

restaurants? the formula might change but i fail to see how they would disapear.

Movies? still around

video games? stll around

the only thing that will change is that i wont be restrained by my material condition.

Because as soon as the means of production are socialized suddenly rainbows, kittens, puppies and everything will start spewing from smoke stacks instead of pollution and scarcity will just end *snaps* like that. Because thats not a delusional illusion about the future of socialized means of production or anything.

danyboy27

22nd March 2010, 21:57

Because as soon as the means of production are socialized suddenly rainbows, kittens, puppies and everything will start spewing from smoke stacks instead of pollution and scarcity will just end *snaps* like that. Because thats not a delusional illusion about the future of socialized means of production or anything.
i never said that.
like in every society there will be problems, this is to be expected.

You seem to understimate the impact of the artificial scarcity, that why a fucking Ipod cost 300 dollars when the manifacturing cost is approx 10 dollars, that why booze cost 10 dollars for a pack of beer rather than 2, that why my bottle of milk cost 4 dollars rather than 0.50 cent, that why my eggs cost 3 dollars for 12 rather than 1 dollars for 18, that why my chicken cost me 10 dollars rather than 2.

LeftSideDown

22nd March 2010, 22:02

i never said that.
like in every society there will be problems, this is to be expected.

You seem to understimate the impact of the artificial scarcity, that why a fucking Ipod cost 300 dollars when the manifacturing cost is approx 10 dollars, that why booze cost 10 dollars for a pack of beer rather than 2, that why my bottle of milk cost 4 dollars rather than 0.50 cent, that why my eggs cost 3 dollars for 12 rather than 1 dollars for 18, that why my chicken cost me 10 dollars rather than 2.

You value all those things more than just their "bare costs" so what is the problem with charging you less than you value those things? If you don't value them at their prices you won't buy them, if you do, you will. Why should someone get less than the value they want to sell something to you at?

Let me put it simpler: IF you want 5 dollars for a tie you own (even if it only cost a dollar to make or whatever) because thats how much you think its worth why should you be forced to sell it for 1 because thats how much it cost to manufacture? Thats silly. Now if 5 dollars your minimum or your ideal, you may or may not be willing to compromise, but if all those things listed cost the prices you mentioned what would be the result? A shortage. Look at supply and demand.

anticap

22nd March 2010, 22:05

Because as soon as the means of production are socialized suddenly rainbows, kittens, puppies and everything will start spewing from smoke stacks instead of pollution and scarcity will just end *snaps* like that. Because thats not a delusional illusion about the future of socialized means of production or anything.

No, no, you've got it all wrong: capitalism is the system that resolves those issues, not socialism.

For example, under capitalism, pollution can't exist, because property rights will protect us from those dirty socialist factories that are churning out soylent green made from the corpses of all the kittens and puppies that are worked to death in the mines dragging coal to the surface (sadly for Whiskers and Rover, socialists haven't discovered the wheel -- having no incentive to invent -- so no mining cars like we have).

And under capitalism, scarcity has clearly been overcome: how do you think we're able to get away with so much waste! (That's how we know we're making progress, silly!)

*tsk, tsk* :thumbdown:

Ryke

23rd March 2010, 04:25

You value all those things more than just their "bare costs" so what is the problem with charging you less than you value those things? If you don't value them at their prices you won't buy them, if you do, you will. Why should someone get less than the value they want to sell something to you at?

Let me put it simpler: IF you want 5 dollars for a tie you own (even if it only cost a dollar to make or whatever) because thats how much you think its worth why should you be forced to sell it for 1 because thats how much it cost to manufacture? Thats silly. Now if 5 dollars your minimum or your ideal, you may or may not be willing to compromise, but if all those things listed cost the prices you mentioned what would be the result? A shortage. Look at supply and demand.

But this "shortage" is not actually a shortage of anything except a shortage of the ability or desire for people to pay what you want them to pay. Hence, artificial scarcity.

And no, consumers do not generally value things much beyond their "bare cost" if they have any real, conscious choice beyond simply "I buy it at the price they offer or I don't buy it at all, and eventually, if other consumers share similar priorities, the price will drop". The impact of supply and demand on prices really doesn't empower any consumer to do anything about prices. And you really can't delay your groceries a week or two because the prices are higher than you think they ought to be.

Devrim

23rd March 2010, 06:29

I meant in a socialist country. Of course you wont have 'professional' sports in a communist society because money would have withered away, but you would still have people playing in sports. But in the transition stage, where wages are still exchanged for labour, albeit on a more equal basis as other jobs, how do we make sure that sport would still be 'competitive' and relevant in large scale as other countries ?

I think that even in the transition process, attacking the wage system and the law of value is an important weapon of the working class in its struggle. I see the abolition of money and wage labour as a fundamental step.

Why would you want the sport equivalent of a 'brain drain' ? surely athletic and sporting ability should be nurtured as it's a skill and a way of life and promotes co-operation.

Maybe being a US baseball fan, you don't notice this as virtually nobody else plays the game, but it happens all the time in football, and is a basic part of modern professional sport. The best players in the world gravitate towards the English and Spanish leagues, and this forms part of an international process affecting every country. It is the way modern capitalist sport works.

Devrim

LeftSideDown

23rd March 2010, 06:56

But this "shortage" is not actually a shortage of anything except a shortage of the ability or desire for people to pay what you want them to pay. Hence, artificial scarcity.

And no, consumers do not generally value things much beyond their "bare cost" if they have any real, conscious choice beyond simply "I buy it at the price they offer or I don't buy it at all, and eventually, if other consumers share similar priorities, the price will drop". The impact of supply and demand on prices really doesn't empower any consumer to do anything about prices. And you really can't delay your groceries a week or two because the prices are higher than you think they ought to be.

No you're wrong... wrong wrong wrong.

IF TV's suddenly dropped to the price that they cost to manufacture, how many TV's would you buy? I don't know how cheap they actually are, but I'm assuming a large price drop say a previously 300 dollar HD Tv would now be something 20-50 dollars. They'd be gone in a second. So even people who wanted a TV would not be able to get one because people would buy 4-5 TV's where they only need one because they are so, comparatively, cheap. This is a shortage, where, at a certain price, there isn't enough quantity supplied to meet quantity demanded. Same goes for just about everything. The reason the prices are higher than the costs is to ensure anyone who wants to buy something (at a certain price) can, not just those who get to the store fastest.

Yes, of course, if given the option, consumers will always want the smallest price. IS it the manufacturers job to do this? Consumers want to pay nothing for everything, so if manufacturers did this... we wouldn't have manufacturers. Its very simple actually, even a simple course in micro-economics would be incredibly enlightening for you I think. The fact is, your demand for groceries is relatively inelastic (That is you can only buy so little groceries, so if the price raises you just have to shell out more money), however it is not PERFECTLY elastic (something doesn't really happen). If milk starts costing 100 dollars, bread 50 bucks, poptarts 20 dollars a smack, and bottled water 70 dollars, you're going to change your eating habits. IF your demand was inelastic you wouldn't... you couldn't. But you can, and if a grocery store/chain did this they'd quickly be undercut, and in fact most stores are undercutting these prices I listed, so such a supermarket wouldn't even get its feet on the ground.

And isn't an "artificial scarcity" good in some cases (namely environmental)? What if we just got all the oil out of the ground and with this increased supply sold it at a price where all of it could be sold (namely a much lower prices than we have now)? People would stop being careful with their gas and start buying hummers, suv's, and trucks again. Part of the reason behind "artificial scarcity" (your word, not mine) is conservation of resources.

RGacky3

23rd March 2010, 13:47

They'd be gone in a second. So even people who wanted a TV would not be able to get one because people would buy 4-5 TV's where they only need one because they are so, comparatively, cheap.

You honestly believe that? Thats rediculous, why would people buy 4-5 TVs, you know whats cheep? coke, but some how people don't hoard coke.

Chambered Word

23rd March 2010, 13:54

I'd miss not being able to oppress people while emitting gruesome Stalin laughs with blood on my chops.

No seriously, I'd be so happy I'd go crazy and probably drink myself to death or something. And I don't even drink.

danyboy27

23rd March 2010, 14:12

You value all those things more than just their "bare costs" so what is the problem with charging you less than you value those things? If you don't value them at their prices you won't buy them, if you do, you will. Why should someone get less than the value they want to sell something to you at?

Let me put it simpler: IF you want 5 dollars for a tie you own (even if it only cost a dollar to make or whatever) because thats how much you think its worth why should you be forced to sell it for 1 because thats how much it cost to manufacture? Thats silly. Now if 5 dollars your minimum or your ideal, you may or may not be willing to compromise, but if all those things listed cost the prices you mentioned what would be the result? A shortage. Look at supply and demand.
supply and demand dosnt require an artificial scarcity system.
that why labor voucher would be for.

lets say an item cost 5 labor voucher, and that, due to its constant popularity the production of this item cant suffice, the cost of the item will be ajusted BECCAUSE its rare, not for profits, labor voucher cant be stocked for profits, its just a simple way to deal with REAL scarcity.

a person who work hard would still be able to get luxuries and other goods, without being screwed and it will avoid good stuff to be wasted.

Where i live, we have milk quota, million of gallon of milks thrown away in the sewers to keep the price of a liter at 3 bucks, we have people who raise chicken and have to put measures in place to decrease their productivity for quota in order to keep the cost of a chicken relatively high.

all this bullshit for some artificial scarcity system.

Ryke

23rd March 2010, 15:00

No you're wrong... wrong wrong wrong.

IF TV's suddenly dropped to the price that they cost to manufacture, how many TV's would you buy? I don't know how cheap they actually are, but I'm assuming a large price drop say a previously 300 dollar HD Tv would now be something 20-50 dollars. They'd be gone in a second. So even people who wanted a TV would not be able to get one because people would buy 4-5 TV's where they only need one because they are so, comparatively, cheap. This is a shortage, where, at a certain price, there isn't enough quantity supplied to meet quantity demanded. Same goes for just about everything. The reason the prices are higher than the costs is to ensure anyone who wants to buy something (at a certain price) can, not just those who get to the store fastest.

Yes, of course, if given the option, consumers will always want the smallest price. IS it the manufacturers job to do this? Consumers want to pay nothing for everything, so if manufacturers did this... we wouldn't have manufacturers. Its very simple actually, even a simple course in micro-economics would be incredibly enlightening for you I think. The fact is, your demand for groceries is relatively inelastic (That is you can only buy so little groceries, so if the price raises you just have to shell out more money), however it is not PERFECTLY elastic (something doesn't really happen). If milk starts costing 100 dollars, bread 50 bucks, poptarts 20 dollars a smack, and bottled water 70 dollars, you're going to change your eating habits. IF your demand was inelastic you wouldn't... you couldn't. But you can, and if a grocery store/chain did this they'd quickly be undercut, and in fact most stores are undercutting these prices I listed, so such a supermarket wouldn't even get its feet on the ground.

And isn't an "artificial scarcity" good in some cases (namely environmental)? What if we just got all the oil out of the ground and with this increased supply sold it at a price where all of it could be sold (namely a much lower prices than we have now)? People would stop being careful with their gas and start buying hummers, suv's, and trucks again. Part of the reason behind "artificial scarcity" (your word, not mine) is conservation of resources.

First, I'm not arguing that the price of goods should be set to their manufacturing price in capitalist society; that would, in fact, mostly serve to fuck up everything. It's not presented as a serious idea, at least not without wide-ranging changes that would have to be elaborated on at length. It's more a question of ethics or justification (it should, not could, in the current scheme of things). That it's economically not feasible is one reason why we don't actually advocate that. Either way, this is essentially an ethical question, or one of what ought to be, and not what can be under capitalism. If capitalism gets in the way of what ought to be, then we should consider saying "fuck capitalism". It's not that simple, but it's a necessary step at some point.

There's a bunch of related things that need to be taken into consideration for pretty much every point in that post, though, if I'm going to consider it for the sake of argument. For one, people do not buy as many goods as they can simply for the sake of consuming. If I could afford six TVs I would still buy none, because I neither need one nor have any use for one that isn't filled just as adequately by the one I already have. How many TVs would anyone buy? As many as they have a use for. How many is that? Not very many. Would there be shortages in stores? Almost certainly. Would everyone who needs a TV have one in a matter of, say, a month? Almost certainly. If there were some kind of organisation as to how we distribute those very cheap TVs (which are both clearly a luxury, especially to those who have a near-equivalent TV already, and now also immediately scarce), we could even avoid many of the problems. If we ignore the consequences on the economy of selling TVs at zero profit, the shortage aspect isn't horrible. For food, however, selling at zero profit would require some kind of planification as to how we go about doing that, much more so than with TVs.

Oh, also, if TVs were manufactured for their use rather than for profit, as would necessarily be the case without profit, they would be made to last considerably longer at no significantly greater cost, as would a lot of things, notably appliances. That's something to take into account, as you could make roughly as many TVs and sell less of them.

Even in the case of goods that can be bought in large quantities, even things that are bought frivolously, won't be bought in industrial quantities by customers just because they could be. Make stickers for kids available at their practically-zero manufacturing cost, and they still won't buy them up ridiculously faster.

Human behaviour in practice does not make nice curves on a graph, although it follows those trends broadly. You can't expect that because supply and demand say that ridiculously low prices will result in ridiculously high demand, this will necessarily translate to reality that simply. People, individually, do not buy goods to fulfil the predictions of supply and demand, goods have a use-value which isn't directly taken into account by the laws of supply and demand.

LeftSideDown

23rd March 2010, 17:25

First, I'm not arguing that the price of goods should be set to their manufacturing price in capitalist society; that would, in fact, mostly serve to fuck up everything. It's not presented as a serious idea, at least not without wide-ranging changes that would have to be elaborated on at length. It's more a question of ethics or justification (it should, not could, in the current scheme of things). That it's economically not feasible is one reason why we don't actually advocate that. Either way, this is essentially an ethical question, or one of what ought to be, and not what can be under capitalism. If capitalism gets in the way of what ought to be, then we should consider saying "fuck capitalism". It's not that simple, but it's a necessary step at some point.

Okay, well ethics can say anything, and depending on your morality you can justify anything. Mises said something once like "There is no such thing as a scientific ought" because once you start dealing with "oughts" and "should's" you leave the realm of science and enter into morality. I'm glad you don't advocate it, and, even under socialism, you'd have to set prices higher than manufacturing cost in order to conserve resources. So, if you really think about it, by charging higher prices, capitalists are actually environmentalists :laugh:. What "ought" to be isn't scientific and varies from person to person, and while I'm sure your "ought" is the best "ought", it ought not to be instituted on the basis of one opinion.

There's a bunch of related things that need to be taken into consideration for pretty much every point in that post, though, if I'm going to consider it for the sake of argument. For one, people do not buy as many goods as they can simply for the sake of consuming. If I could afford six TVs I would still buy none, because I neither need one nor have any use for one that isn't filled just as adequately by the one I already have. How many TVs would anyone buy? As many as they have a use for. How many is that? Not very many. Would there be shortages in stores? Almost certainly. Would everyone who needs a TV have one in a matter of, say, a month? Almost certainly. If there were some kind of organisation as to how we distribute those very cheap TVs (which are both clearly a luxury, especially to those who have a near-equivalent TV already, and now also immediately scarce), we could even avoid many of the problems. If we ignore the consequences on the economy of selling TVs at zero profit, the shortage aspect isn't horrible. For food, however, selling at zero profit would require some kind of planification as to how we go about doing that, much more so than with TVs.

You're right, people have time preference (the reason for interest), and people also have budget constraints. But how many TV's would you buy if you knew that, because of the low price, there would constantly be a shortage so that if your TV broke than you'd be out for months or years. Better to stock up on as many as you can and even put them in storage so that if your TV breaks you have a spare available, since there will be a shortage at that lower price. They wouldn't have it in a month, because people would be buying many more TV's than normally and the shortage would be almost continuous (especially if all other prices stay the same relatively). And its not just for yourself, what about parents who want to buy a TV for their children, or adults who want to buy a TV for relatives (maybe there is some places where the price hasn't dropped). On what basis would this organization decide who gets a TV? Almost any criteria would be completely arbitrary and, in essence, it would serve to be a rationing institution which would not need to exist in a society where the price reflects the value people place on them. Why should money be wasted on an institution like that which creates nothing, but could be avoided by just pricing something so that there is not a shortage? I'm sorry, when you say "planification" (Is that even a word) I tend to think others will be making choices for you; your liberty is reduced.

Oh, also, if TVs were manufactured for their use rather than for profit, as would necessarily be the case without profit, they would be made to last considerably longer at no significantly greater cost, as would a lot of things, notably appliances. That's something to take into account, as you could make roughly as many TVs and sell less of them.

Source(s)

Even in the case of goods that can be bought in large quantities, even things that are bought frivolously, won't be bought in industrial quantities by customers just because they could be. Make stickers for kids available at their practically-zero manufacturing cost, and they still won't buy them up ridiculously faster.

You're right, there is the law of diminishing returns to check people. There is also the fact that some things expire, but if it was dirt cheap there would be waste. For instance, if milk cost "cost" than you might hear about people bathing in it (I know its silly), or having milk-balloon fights, or washing cars in milk, or any number of other things that could happen as the cheapness of milk would make it a substitute for other goods that would be more expensive. The market encourages thriftiness and discourages waste for the most part.

Human behaviour in practice does not make nice curves on a graph, although it follows those trends broadly. You can't expect that because supply and demand say that ridiculously low prices will result in ridiculously high demand, this will necessarily translate to reality that simply. People, individually, do not buy goods to fulfil the predictions of supply and demand, goods have a use-value which isn't directly taken into account by the laws of supply and demand.

Low prices = ridiculously high demand, but high quantity demanded (there is a difference). And you're right, you can't translate humans onto graphs and have them be accurate in any real degree (part of the reason I oppose central planning), but if TV's price dropped to half across the board, more would be consumed. Also, I don't breathe because I'm constantly thinking about my need to reproduce and make offspring, and yet I still do because there are laws you follow with or without your knowledge of them. Use-value < subjective valuations.

Che a chara

24th March 2010, 04:03

You don't think most of those pro sports players get into it for other reasons other than money? Admiration, popularity, chicks??? And they make a living playing a GAME...I'd do that for what I make now.

True, but you'd be looking at a minority here. And also, if there is some sort of hostility towards sports (as shown in Cuba), why would people want to compete and play ?

Che a chara

24th March 2010, 04:03

Maybe being a US baseball fan, you don't notice this as virtually nobody else plays the game, but it happens all the time in football, and is a basic part of modern professional sport. The best players in the world gravitate towards the English and Spanish leagues, and this forms part of an international process affecting every country. It is the way modern capitalist sport works.

oh no no my friend, i'm European. I detest baseball and would call for it's abolishment :lol:

Yes I understand about footballers going to where they'd get paid the most. Money rules the game now, but that's what would worry me, that because of this sport would die out as there wouldn't be enough 'trade' for them 'here'. And that shouldn't be the case.

I would hope that in the revolution the best sporting equipment and training facilities would be brought into place. why shouldn't they?

Che a chara

24th March 2010, 04:14

They are cooperating to defeat and humiliate a group of their fellow human beings on an artificial battlefield in a simulated war. This only adds an element of "excitement" to their cooperative endeavor because they were raised to think and behave like barbarians for whom "human solidarity" is, variously, either a curseword or a punchline.

:eek: That's a bit heavy. I hope there isn't this sort of hostility shown in a socialist society. It's not as if people are being oppressed or exploited in playing on a field. Sport is a hobby. People play it to enjoy it, (as 'SandiNeesta' said). win, lose or draw, and will wake up the next morning dying to have another go.

I'd really like to know if there is any definitive line about what would happen with sports post-revolution. Hopefully democracy would prevail, and the people vote for it's continuation despite the competitive, albeit friendly, nature.

anticap

25th March 2010, 04:55

:eek: That's a bit heavy. I hope there isn't this sort of hostility shown in a socialist society. It's not as if people are being oppressed or exploited in playing on a field. Sport is a hobby. People play it to enjoy it, (as 'SandiNeesta' said). win, lose or draw, and will wake up the next morning dying to have another go.

I'd really like to know if there is any definitive line about what would happen with sports post-revolution. Hopefully democracy would prevail, and the people vote for it's continuation despite the competitive, albeit friendly, nature.

You've conflated "sports" with "competitive sports." I've already offered my objections to this.

Drace

25th March 2010, 05:01

My individualism....in bed.

Bob George

25th March 2010, 07:27

I'd miss my freedom.

Before you say you can be free in a communist/socialist society, no matter how absurd it is to say such a thing, no one can truly be free without the freedom of ownership and the freedom of enterprise. These freedoms give the individual power. Without them they are a total slave to the state, a slave to society, a slave to community. But with ownership, with enterprise, an individual can become powerful in their own right. They aren't stuck in a situation their whole lives. They can better their situation. They aren't doomed to be a labourer all his life because that's what the commissar decided was his best ability to serve the needs of others. They can be anything they want to be if they have the freedom to own the fruits of their labour, and the freedom to engage in enterprise.

anticap

25th March 2010, 09:36

They aren't doomed to be a labourer all his life because that's what the commissar decided was his best ability to serve the needs of others. They can be anything they want to be if they have the freedom to own the fruits of their labour, and the freedom to engage in enterprise.

Is this satire? Have you read any works of communist theory? If no, then you must be here to troll: you can't be here to learn, since you're already posturing as though you understand the subject; if yes, then you must be here to troll, since you must know that communists, of all stripes, have always defined freedom in the very sense you describe (the freedom of people to "be anything they want to be"), and have always maintained that it will only be achieved with communism. Here's Marx (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm):

As soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.

The commissar dooming millions to demeaning labor is the capitalist.

Moreover, you don't own the fruits of your labor under capitalism -- the capitalist does. You're paid a wage beforehand, and the fruits of your labor are taken from you -- like a baby taken by a nun from a teenage mother -- to be sold on the market for a profit by the capitalist. Your wage is not the fruits of your labor; it represents only a fraction of those fruits.

And, again, your working life is not under your control, but the capitalist's. You are not "free," but are, in effect, a slave: freeze chattel slavery and wage-slavery in time, and the relations are the same, with a laborer and a taskmaster (the former relying on the latter for his subsistence). They appear different only because you sell yourself daily, and can choose your master. This is why the more intellectually honest advocates of capitalism actually argue for "voluntary" slavery: because they recognize that you are not a free autonomous agent while on the job, and that objections to slavery by pro-capitalists are therefore arbitrary and inconsistent. If it's acceptable to sell your individual autonomy for eight hours, then why not for 80 years?

And finally, as to the "freedom to engage in enterprise," it is mostly illusory. Certainly one is free to hang out a shingle, but the likelihood of success (even defined as simply not going under) is determined by factors well beyond the control of the heroic small-time entrepreneurs who populate the capitalist mythos.

MortyMingledon

27th March 2010, 10:41

And also, if there is some sort of hostility towards sports (as shown in Cuba), why would people want to compete and play ?

Cuba is actually quite fanatic about sports, with the government actively encouraging youths that display talent in a particular sport to join a governmental sports-training. The Cuban government does this both to keep up public health (and thus keep down health care costs), as well as to show its superiority over capitalists nations. One example of the effectiveness of Cuba's sports program is its boxing; they won five out of 11 gold medals at the 2004 Olympics: http://boxing.about.com/od/amateurs/a/medals.htm.

Perhaps you meant "professional" sport?