Anarchist/communist arguments? [Archive]

View Full Version : Anarchist/communist arguments?

Lanky Wanker

3rd May 2011, 16:44

I came home from school and as usual, popped into my dad's garage. Anyways, you'd think he'd understand being a (self employed... lol) guy who never has any money, but we got into a debate about communism and he threw out all of the shit arguments. I know what he's saying is all crap, but I just don't know how to phrase it to explain it to him so it'll get through to his thick head. I'm sure a lot of you (if not most of you) have been in this situation at some point or another, so I'd really appreciate some help. Anyways, these are the points he kept bringing up:

"Ask anyone who's lived in a place like Russia under the Soviet Union. I've spoken to people who lived under communism and they said it was horrible" bla bla bla etc. etc.

"So you're saying Richard Branson shouldn't be paid all that money he gets?" << I said why not? Does he do that much more work than the people he employs? Why does he need all that money he has?

"So you think everyone should be on the same level and not allowed to progress and become rich?"

"There are poor people in communist countries like Cuba" << about 10 minutes before that he said that Cuba is an excellent example of communism (in a good way).

"What you're talking about is never gonna happen" << I tried to explain to him as simply as I could that that's basically because the capitalist leaders and upper class rich snobs who practically control the world don't want it to happen, and that most people don't actually understand it or know anything about it.

He actually said to me like a couple of years ago that he'd like to get a few people working for him so he could pay them to work and he could just relax all the time. I said to him "why should you get paid more than them if you're not doing as much work as they are?" and all he had to say was "because I'll have to make all of the decisions and pay the bills and everything" ...wow, such hard work eh?

Also, he doesn't understand that true communism/socialism in theory is not China. He keeps bringing up how crap the Soviet Union was and how it held people down, and he says it as though the Soviet Union was THE definition of true communism at its best. I told him to actually research/read some books on communism and/or anarchism because all he does is bring up the past and Cuba without any knowledge of what communism actually is, and in response (this actually made me laugh) he said "yeah and you go read some books on capitalism" LOL. So yeah, can someone give me some things to actually respond to his crappy arguments with and explain it to his thick, close off brain?

Manic Impressive

3rd May 2011, 17:10

you'd think he'd understand being a self employed, working class guy who never has any money
self employed would put him in the petit bourgeois class as no one extracts profit from his labour.

"Ask anyone who's lived in a place like russia under the Soviet Union. I've spoken to people who lived under communism and they said it was horrible" bla bla bla etc. etc.
Michael Parenti makes some good points in this talk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvSRnx7oVHQ&playnext=1&list=PLBA9AED19237592F5

"So you're saying Richard Branson shouldn't be paid all that money he gets?"
No one makes that much money without a lot of exploitation of workers.

"So you think everyone should be on the level and not allowed to progress and become rich?"
yes, what's so good about personal progression? I'd rather see the progression of society.

"There are poor people in communist countries like Cuba" << about 10 minutes before that he said that Cuba is an excellent example of communism (in a good way).
Those countries have not made the transition to communism and it is due to the dependence on world markets while also having to struggle under the weight of economic embargoes.

"What you're talking about is never gonna happen"
Historically society has progressed from one mode of production to another from feudal society to capitalism, what makes you think it wouldn't change again?

When arguing with capitalists I like to throw them lots of questions to keep them on the back foot. When they respond rebuff their statement and ask another question. That tactic gives you a bit more time to formulate your responses and makes them try to defend a system that they probably don't truly understand.

danyboy27

3rd May 2011, 17:18

I came home from school and as usual, popped into my dad's garage. Anyways, you'd think he'd understand being a self employed, working class guy who never has any money, but we got into a debate about communism and he threw out all of the shit arguments. I know what he's saying is all crap, but I just don't know how to phrase it to explain it to him so it'll get through to his thick head. I'm sure a lot of you (if not most of you) have been in this situation at some point or another, so I'd really appreciate some help. Anyways, these are the points he kept bringing up:

"Ask anyone who's lived in a place like Russia under the Soviet Union. I've spoken to people who lived under communism and they said it was horrible" bla bla bla etc. etc.

"So you're saying Richard Branson shouldn't be paid all that money he gets?" << I said why not? Does he do that much more work than the people he employs? Why does he need all that money he has?

"So you think everyone should be on the same level and not allowed to progress and become rich?"

"There are poor people in communist countries like Cuba" << about 10 minutes before that he said that Cuba is an excellent example of communism (in a good way).

"What you're talking about is never gonna happen" << I tried to explain to him as simply as I could that that's basically because the capitalist leaders and upper class rich snobs who practically control the world don't want it to happen, and that most people don't actually understand it or know anything about it.

He actually said to me like a couple of years ago that he'd like to get a few people working for him so he could pay them to work and he could just relax all the time. I said to him "why should you get paid more than them if you're not doing as much work as they are?" and all he had to say was "because I'll have to make all of the decisions and pay the bills and everything" ...wow, such hard work eh?

Also, he doesn't understand that true communism/socialism in theory is not China. He keeps bringing up how crap the Soviet Union was and how it held people down, and he says it as though the Soviet Union was THE definition of true communism at its best. I told him to actually research/read some books on communism and/or anarchism because all he does is bring up the past and Cuba without any knowledge of what communism actually is, and in response (this actually made me laugh) he said "yeah and you go read some books on capitalism" LOL. So yeah, can someone give me some things to actually respond to his crappy arguments with and explain it to his thick, close off brain?

Communism has we knew it wasnt really communism at all, if you look up the basic definition of the word in the dictionnary, its pretty straightfoward; a classless, stateless society where the mean of production are controlled by the workers.

Now, some folks might not always agree about the degree of statelessness and classlesness of a communist society, but the core of the idea of communism is having the mean of production controlled by those who operate it.

Even tho the industries in the soviet union where nationalised, the political system was not democratic enough, the workers therefore where not in control of the mean of production.

that pretty much it.

Ele'ill

3rd May 2011, 17:31

My suggestion is to read a lot of books and get out into the world a little bit. I can read a book and debate from it but not very well- I learn far more from experience.

PhoenixAsh

3rd May 2011, 17:45

Revolution starts with U

3rd May 2011, 17:46

If you own your own land, how did you obtain it? You bought it from a guy who bought it from a guy, etc. But where did the first seller get it? He either inherited it, or he killed a lot of people for it. Where did the original inheritor get it? He killed a lot of people to do it.
Why should I respect this transfer of stolen goods built upon genocide?
Does he believe in political democracy? How can he believe no one has the right to make decisions for him without his input politically, but not economically?

#FF0000

3rd May 2011, 17:59

At least your dad didn't trot out or at least rely on the old "human nature" line.

He is wrong but your dad's not an idiot. Congratulations!

Ele'ill

3rd May 2011, 18:03

Hindsight and Manic touched on something important- ask questions. Not being able to respond to someone doesn't mean you're inadequate - simply saying 'you know, I'll get back to you on that' doesn't mean you're stumped- it means you want to take the time to come up with a well articulated response. When debating with family especially it's important not to get drawn into certain types of conversational patterns that quickly lead to you trying to provide evidence (personal and historical) to their one-liner dismissals which are being rapidly deployed before their move onto other topics of the capitalist system only slightly related. That's too overwhelming to try and discuss coherently for anyone. We don't want to change aspects of the system we want it abolished outright. One topic at a time.

CHEtheLIBERATOR

3rd May 2011, 18:15

There has never been a communist state in history

•Soviet Union under Lenin tried but he died to early
•post Lenin soviet union had totalitarian state run capitalism ( the exact opposite of communism)
• China tried under Mao but was unsuccessful and the government evolved into capitalism ( I've been to china and it is completely capitalist
• Vietnam is the came case as china
• I've got much respect for Cuba, but they are definitely not communist. What we see in Cuba is a semi successful socialist model. A socialist Model that should not even be remade in a new country, so to mention cuba as a communist country is ludicrous.

That's what you need to emphasize, the fact that he can't compare it to any other country

Manic Impressive

3rd May 2011, 18:19

Hindsight touched on something important-
I touched on it first :( :p

Ele'ill

3rd May 2011, 18:28

Asking them to defend and be proud of the current system they're defending is a good way to have them publicly admit that they cannot even support the current system let alone rail against alternatives.

Don't know enough to hold a conversation? Why are you? V:huh:V

Lanky Wanker

3rd May 2011, 18:35

Also...learn to ask questions to let him explain himself towards your arguments.

For example:

- So you mean we can't work hard and get rich?

Why do you need to get rich?
Why you need all that money

- I work hard

Yes...but what do you need the money for?

- I need to buy food, pay rent, want future for kids.

- So if that is provided, why do you still need to get rich?

etc...etc...

I did actually say that to him; why do you need money if all of your basic needs are taken care of? But of course, he said "for my own luxury; what if I want 2 cars instead of one, or if I want a £500 suit?" I know I've asked this before in another post but how do I answer this when he gets all smart about it? Obviously you can't really justify why you need a £500 suit over a £100 suit.

Revolution starts with U

3rd May 2011, 18:47

You can have a $500 suit. But you're going to have to work for it. You're not going to just siphon wealth off everyone else and scream "miine!"

Manic Impressive

3rd May 2011, 19:02

Tell him there will be one $500 suit which will be shared communally by each member of the workers council and be loaned out when needed :p

but seriously explain to him that the exchange value of the $500 suit does not represent it's use value and thus in communism it's value would reflect the labour which was put into making it and not how much a capitalist thinks they can make from it.

On the car thing ask him why he would need the luxury of having two cars if it meant that someone would have to go without. Throw in something about starving children for dramatic effect. Then follow up with something about better and more efficient forms of travel and then finish by saying that talking about the minutia of exactly how many cars people will have is silly as no one truly knows exactly how things will be after a revolution.

Revolution starts with U

3rd May 2011, 19:08

Manic Impressive

3rd May 2011, 19:11

oh also use the medieval monk/serf defence

say that questions like asking how many cars will I have after the revolution is like a medieval serf saying to another medieval serf "so this capitalism thing, it's all pie in the sky it'll never happen. But how many chickens will I be allowed to keep after your capitalist revolution?"

Thirsty Crow

3rd May 2011, 19:14

That's not going to appeal to his interests. You're wasting your breath. It is good to point those things out. But if you want to get to the meat... only the people who put in the work will wear $500 suits, not people who just collect checks.
And do note that a 500 dollar suit usually matches the labour time necessary to produce a 100 dollar suit (therefore, less work will be required for what is now endowed with social prestige because of its price tag, among other factors). Unless a suit is really "special" in that more labour time is neccesary to produce it.
Hell, if you are so crazy that you wish to communicate the core of the ideas comprising tools for a revolutionary transformation of society, you could write little essays for your dad to read, covering basics like the labour theory of value and surplus value, basics of proletarian political democracy by means of assemblies and bodies of delegates and so on :D

Lanky Wanker

3rd May 2011, 20:22

Throw in something about starving children for dramatic effect.

LOL that made me laugh.

And I think I must be thick because I don't still fully understand how "luxuries" would work (even considering it's hard to define a luxury). Surely no one would bother buying a cheap suit if there's one worth way more (in terms of quality and materials) available to them? Like, how would you decide if a person got a nice BMW M5 over a little old Toyota Yaris? Sorry for sounding retarded by asking this so much.

Manic Impressive

3rd May 2011, 20:57

LOL that made me laugh.
;)

And I think I must be thick because I don't still fully understand how "luxuries" would work (even considering it's hard to define a luxury). Surely no one would bother buying a cheap suit if there's one worth way more (in terms of quality and materials) available to them? Like, how would you decide if a person got a nice BMW M5 over a little old Toyota Yaris? Sorry for sounding retarded by asking this so much.
none of us ever stop learning there's nothing thick about it. It really depends on which stage of communism you're in. If you're talking about the trasitionary phase then the answer depends on which ideology you agree with. If you're talking about the higher phase or communism then opinion will still be divided some think that money still needs to exist to measure the value of a commodity where as others like me don't believe that money needs to exist at all and that there are other ways to determine a commodities value for instance a gift economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy). So I don't think there's one definite answer it's more a case of we'll know when we get there.
However, I think we all agree that the most important thing is to meet the needs of everyone. It doesn't take the labour power of the world to meet the needs of everyone so there will be plenty of opportunity to produce enough to satisfy people's wants as well. So if cars are necessary then they will be provided if i-pods or mobile phones are in demand then they will be produced and distributed.

PhoenixAsh

3rd May 2011, 21:01

I did actually say that to him; why do you need money if all of your basic needs are taken care of? But of course, he said "for my own luxury; what if I want 2 cars instead of one, or if I want a £500 suit?" I know I've asked this before in another post but how do I answer this when he gets all smart about it? Obviously you can't really justify why you need a £500 suit over a £100 suit.

Well...what you have to consider is that its a debating tactic which needs to be integrated with other tactics. As this debate had already run its history leading up to the example you give here...the outcome may have been influenced by that.

In this specific example...I think you said too much in your question because you already provided info. This changed the course of the conversation. So...if you ask: "why do you need money" you will get a different answer than if you add something to that question. This is because your question is not considered on its own but in the context of the extra info. So this influences the outcome.

When you debate or have a conversation with opposed ideologies or ideas...there are several things to consider. The first one is..who am I going to let take the leadership (direction etc.) of the conversation? Me or the other party?

If you decide you should be the one you should decide if you are in a position to actually do so (boss; hierarchical relations) and if not, how you can do so without antagonizing the other party (or suffer the possible consequences :-) ). One of the best ways to do so is to appear not being the one who does it.

There are a few strategies for this. One is asking questions which appear to be aimed at learning from the wisdom of the other party but which steer the conversation into a specific direction. The way to do this is to know when to be specific and when to be as vague or open as possible.

So in your example the answer to the question was obvious. You already directed it towards why you need money after all your basic needs are met. So the conv. partner was not thinking about why he needs money...but why he needs money after he has paid the bills and put food on the table.

Generally there is a rule of thumb when it comes to questions. If you look for possible argumenst you can use or bring into play...you ask open questions with only a general indication as to what you are asking for. This requires your conv. Partner to give info. Info you can use to assess and sort for your specific counters or direction of conversation.

If you want to lead the conv. partner towards a specific conclusion or specific answer you use suggestive questions (For example: Killing kids is horrible; don't you agree? = answer already provided in the question) or closed questions (for example: so you think killing kids is horrible? = yes/no/maybe as the only possible answers...sometimes this urges somebody to give more info ("Yes, but only when..." or "not necessarilly, it depends on..."). You can use these kinds of questions and alternate them to steer a conversation.

If you get an answer that you can not tackle...then it may also help to rephrase the answer.

So...in this case..you may reply something along the lines of:

If I understand what you mean you are saying that when somebody contributes more they should get more out of it?

Which is a statement which is already pushing a bit away from actual pay and money...towards contributing to society.

It also gives a clear signal that you are listening to and thinking about what the other person is saying. Making the conversation more enjoyable and making somebody more forthcomming with information.

You could also ignore and pause the whole answer alltogether and replace it with something related.

So....

Ok I see what you are saying. But you agree with me that everybody should have the right to have their basic standards met?

You do not deal with the answer you currently can not tackle. You also do not dismiss it. And you also do not surrender or agree with it. You simply take the answer and skip to a next topic.

Read the spoil if you want to see some of my thoughts for a few extra suggestions. There are more....a lot more. But these may be interesting.

A debate is often depending on strategy. So not only your arguments are important...but also the tactics you chose. You do not have to always approach a debate like a battle of wits...you can also go with the flow. But it helps...and you should always keep track of what is being said, what is being ment and what purpose it serves.

Bardo

3rd May 2011, 22:31

"Ask anyone who's lived in a place like Russia under the Soviet Union. I've spoken to people who lived under communism and they said it was horrible" bla bla bla etc. etc.

Ask any homeless person how capitalism is treating them...

How many homeless were there in the Soviet Union?

"So you think everyone should be on the same level and not allowed to progress and become rich?"

I think everyone should have the freedom to progress as people and not just as machines or wage slaves.

"There are poor people in communist countries like Cuba"

Ask him to compare the poverty rates of the United States v Cuba. Or the homeless rates, or those who go without health service ect. Cuba takes care of these problems as a poor nation overall, the US is the richest country on the planet and has no excuse.

Lanky Wanker

3rd May 2011, 23:53

Well...what you have to consider is that its a debating tactic which needs to be integrated with other tactics. As this debate had already run its history leading up to the example you give here...the outcome may have been influenced by that.

In this specific example...I think you said too much in your question because you already provided info. This changed the course of the conversation. So...if you ask: "why do you need money" you will get a different answer than if you add something to that question. This is because your question is not considered on its own but in the context of the extra info. So this influences the outcome.

When you debate or have a conversation with opposed ideologies or ideas...there are several things to consider. The first one is..who am I going to let take the leadership (direction etc.) of the conversation? Me or the other party?

If you decide you should be the one you should decide if you are in a position to actually do so (boss; hierarchical relations) and if not, how you can do so without antagonizing the other party (or suffer the possible consequences :-) ). One of the best ways to do so is to appear not being the one who does it.

There are a few strategies for this. One is asking questions which appear to be aimed at learning from the wisdom of the other party but which steer the conversation into a specific direction. The way to do this is to know when to be specific and when to be as vague or open as possible.

So in your example the answer to the question was obvious. You already directed it towards why you need money after all your basic needs are met. So the conv. partner was not thinking about why he needs money...but why he needs money after he has paid the bills and put food on the table.

Generally there is a rule of thumb when it comes to questions. If you look for possible argumenst you can use or bring into play...you ask open questions with only a general indication as to what you are asking for. This requires your conv. Partner to give info. Info you can use to assess and sort for your specific counters or direction of conversation.

If you want to lead the conv. partner towards a specific conclusion or specific answer you use suggestive questions (For example: Killing kids is horrible; don't you agree? = answer already provided in the question) or closed questions (for example: so you think killing kids is horrible? = yes/no/maybe as the only possible answers...sometimes this urges somebody to give more info ("Yes, but only when..." or "not necessarilly, it depends on..."). You can use these kinds of questions and alternate them to steer a conversation.

If you get an answer that you can not tackle...then it may also help to rephrase the answer.

So...in this case..you may reply something along the lines of:

If I understand what you mean you are saying that when somebody contributes more they should get more out of it?

Which is a statement which is already pushing a bit away from actual pay and money...towards contributing to society.

It also gives a clear signal that you are listening to and thinking about what the other person is saying. Making the conversation more enjoyable and making somebody more forthcomming with information.

You could also ignore and pause the whole answer alltogether and replace it with something related.

So....

Ok I see what you are saying. But you agree with me that everybody should have the right to have their basic standards met?

You do not deal with the answer you currently can not tackle. You also do not dismiss it. And you also do not surrender or agree with it. You simply take the answer and skip to a next topic.

Read the spoil if you want to see some of my thoughts for a few extra suggestions. There are more....a lot more. But these may be interesting.

A debate is often depending on strategy. So not only your arguments are important...but also the tactics you chose. You do not have to always approach a debate like a battle of wits...you can also go with the flow. But it helps...and you should always keep track of what is being said, what is being ment and what purpose it serves.

some pretty useful stuff there, cheers for that. I do often find I let the conversation go wherever it takes me which probably doesn't help much.

Skooma Addict

4th May 2011, 00:24

I told him to actually research/read some books on communism and/or anarchism because all he does is bring up the past and Cuba without any knowledge of what communism actually is, and in response (this actually made me laugh) he said "yeah and you go read some books on capitalism" LOL.

?

Lt. Ferret

4th May 2011, 03:23

Jimmie Higgins

4th May 2011, 04:25

Most pro-capitalist arguments can easily be flipped and turned around. IMO the USSR was oppressive and so if someone points out those abuses you might say... "yes, lack of popular control over the basic necessities of life is terrible, and that's why I think workers should decide the conditions of work and production in society rather than having it dictated to them by unaccountable bureaucracies put in place by unelected CEOs.

"Ask anyone who's lived in a place like Russia under the Soviet Union. I've spoken to people who lived under communism and they said it was horrible" bla bla bla etc. etc.Yes, I wouldn't want to live in those systems either, but is "it might be worse" really a reason not to try and get rid of racism and war and poverty here? I live in capitalism right now, and it's shit living paycheck to paycheck, having hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical debt when you are uninsured and only make 22K a year.

"It could be worse" is the weakest fucking argument in defense of/apology for current problems. Even US slave-owners used to argue that slavery was better for people than if they had been left in Africa where might have died in tribal warfare. In fact, they used to argue that slavery was better for people than industrial free-labor!

"So you're saying Richard Branson shouldn't be paid all that money he gets?" << I said why not? Does he do that much more work than the people he employs? Why does he need all that money he has?
Some wealthy people work quite hard - not the super-elite, but many of the people below them so I generally don't use this argument. But I think it should be argued that wages are not paid based on merit - IT people got paid much more in the 1990s than today when it is a more common skill, so wage compensation is based on market forces and the class balance (i.e. if there are strong labor movements or not) generally, not worth and how hard someone works. If wages were based on value of the labor or how hard it was, migrant workers who pick the valuable produce of California would make much much more than lawyers.

Another way to take on this argument is to talk about how much the wealth of the rich has increased over the last generation. For the top 1%, their incomes went up 400% while it went up 1% for workers (this is for the US, but it is probably similar, if less dramatic, in 1st world countries as well). So maybe Branson works hard - has he increased how hard he works by 400%? I don't think so.

"So you think everyone should be on the same level and not allowed to progress and become rich?"Capitalism doesn't need help in preventing people from becoming rich, it does a fine job by itself. Despite unprecedented economic growth over the last generation, workers wages have stagnated, and more people are struggling today. Despite pro-business legislation, the US is ranked 19th among small-business ownership and most businesses fail, unable to compete with large corporations.

Socialists want everyone to be able to live without worrying about a landlord kicking you out, whereas Capitalism values banker bonuses more than the ability of hardworking people to protect themselves when those same banks then foreclose on their homes.

RGacky3

4th May 2011, 12:19

capitalism hasnt occurred like their books said and communism hasnt occurred like their books said, what one of you is arguing is theory versus practice, and their counter arguments would be their theory versus their practice.

Capitalism, when put into practice BY THE BOOK, looks like it is.

The USSR was put into practice not by the book, but just in name.

Lt. Ferret

4th May 2011, 12:59

capitalism doesnt involve state interaction, capitalism as it should be is just as fantastical and and capitalists are just as prone to pragmatism, as in using the state for their benefit, as communists are for pragmatism, as in adhering to market principles for their economies.

RGacky3

4th May 2011, 13:02

capitalism doesnt involve state interaction

Yes it does, it begins iwth it, i.e. property rights.

In socialism the more you go towards a democratid economy, the more it looks like what socialists say it will look like and not what capitalists say it will look like.

As you go towards a market economy, the more it lookts like what socialists say it will look like and not what capitalists say it will look like.

Lt. Ferret

4th May 2011, 13:07

RGacky3

4th May 2011, 13:15

life is pretty tolerable and only getting moreso for more capitalist countries than not.

Not according to the stats, for most capitalist countries (you have to include the third world).

Lanky Wanker

4th May 2011, 16:14

PhoenixAsh

4th May 2011, 16:36

"How do you decide who gets what housing?" << I mentioned how it would fit each person's needs, for example how many rooms they need etc. and he said "if there's no private property, then what stops me from 'justifying' why I need a particular house over the person/people living in it already? Surely if I can justify why I need it over them, I should get it instead."

This is not a logical argument....for the following reason. There is no viable argument he can make to justifying why he needs that very specific house over another house.

Deal with this by asking him to do so. He can't.

Anything he says which has nothing to do with the amount of space needed or the quality of the house he is living in are void....since they can not possibly weigh heavier than the needs of the current occupants.

The viable argumenst just means his own house needs improving. Which can be provided.

He said if there are no leaders or one person to decide on something, how do you decide on 'smaller' things as a community? Would this work by just having the people who work within that business (housing or whatever it may be) deciding on it as a whole? Just like how the workers would control the means of production?

Yes. This has been proven and is implemented in the larger cooperations which have bussiness sense. It has been proven to increase productivity, creativity and in a capitalist system also profit.

Obviously, he brought out the stuff about what motivates people to work. I said people work for self-fulfilment and to progress as people, and he said "a guy sweeping the street doesn't; not everyone actually wants to work to their full potential." He kinda got me on that one lol.

So? He provided your rebuttal himself. Namely, others do. Or perhaps they do not want to work to their full potential because their work is no respected or as well rewarded as it should.

"Socialism WOULD work if everyone wanted it and everyone agreed on it, because if they did they would have voted for whatever socialist party they wanted to by now" << I told him that most people who vote don't even know what capitalism is (e.g. my mum and pretty much anyone else I know who's 18+ who votes) and those who do just judge socialism by the crap put out there by capitalists. He still wouldn't accept it.

Good...he accepted that it would work. Work from there. He simply stated a case: how to get everybody to want it.

He also brought up the "what if I want an expensive watch over a normal one" crap which I won't even bother asking about again because it's a never ending debate.

Ask him why he wants an expensive watch. What makes a watch more expensive for him.

Revolution starts with U

4th May 2011, 18:47

"How do you decide who gets what housing?"
Most likely you would apply at some sort of capital investment firm. This may sound weird, but it's essentially just a non-profit bank. There would be a basic standard for housing depending on your situation (single, married, with or without children, etc) and if you want something better, you would spend your built up labor time on improvements.
On a side note: if you miss a payment in this country on your mortgage, the banks send out independant "spies" to take pictures of your house and make sure it's still occupied.

<< I mentioned how it would fit each person's needs, for example how many rooms they need etc. and he said "if there's no private property, then what stops me from 'justifying' why I need a particular house over the person/people living in it already?
This is kind of a weird question. Is your dad's friend some kind of latent thief, just waiting for his chance to rip everyone off?
Either way, I'm sure the rest of the community isn't going to "respect" your justifications. As it stands now, nobody can stop the banks from "justifying" why they need your house more than you do.

Surely if I can justify why I need it over them, I should get it instead."
If you can prove it.. ya. What's wrong with that?

He said if there are no leaders or one person to decide on something, how do you decide on 'smaller' things as a community?
Democratically. Next question.

Would this work by just having the people who work within that business (housing or whatever it may be) deciding on it as a whole? Just like how the workers would control the means of production?
Yes, minus the capitalist mode of production, that's already largely what we do.

Obviously, he brought out the stuff about what motivates people to work. I said people work for self-fulfilment and to progress as people, and he said "a guy sweeping the street doesn't; not everyone actually wants to work to their full potential." He kinda got me on that one lol.
The same things that motivate you now. You need payment to survive and progress. Where the difference comes in is that you will be enumerated for the full value of your labor.

"Socialism WOULD work if everyone wanted it and everyone agreed on it, because if they did they would have voted for whatever socialist party they wanted to by now"
Is your dad's friend Bud Struggle? :lol:
Neither party nowadays, and not even the Tea Party supports full scale laissez faire capitalism. So.... I mean.... aren't they doing that?
Besides, most people don't vote. And all available data says that most of the ones that don't vote, are far more progressive than your average voter.

He also brought up the "what if I want an expensive watch over a normal one" crap which I won't even bother asking about again because it's a never ending debate.
Same as before. You can have an expensive watch, tho rarely would anything like that be able to get as expensive as it is. It's not expensive to build those watches, the price comes from the name, really. But if you want an expensive watch, you're going to have to work for it.

And just to piss me off even more, my dad mentioned the Soviet Union about 645,304 times. Again, sorry for the massive wave of questions if they're getting annoying. Thanks for all the advice to everyone who's posted/will post.
Ask him to describe just what was so bad about the Soviet Union. I bet he has no idea. Introduce him to some Perenti, or read Perenti yourself and introduce it to him that way.
Does he realize much of the left is just as critical of the SU as anyone else?
The SU had tons of problems... but I bet he has no idea what those problems are, other than what the propagandists have shoved down his throat. I'm sure he knows absolutely dick about what life was like for the average person in the SU.

Jimmie Higgins

4th May 2011, 19:07

i think the average human development in capitalist counties has not become near as divided as the socialists said it would. life is pretty tolerable and only getting moreso for more capitalist countries than not.

Where Marx was wrong on this was in thinking that crisis would trend towards getting worse each time, but the capitalists found a way around this - massive destruction of their competitors industrial capacity (WWI and WWII), introduction of credit for workers, among other things like an arms economy during the cold war.

But I think the last 30 years of neoliberalism - where in the US, inequality has returned to Guided-Age levels, 2 million people in prison, safety nets have been eliminated and rights revoked - that life is getting harder for people in the US without the fightback and unionization that forced better wage deals, job security, pensions, health-care etc.

Life had been improving for some middle class people in places like India and Brazil and workers in China have seen an increase (also the middle class moreso), but the economic crisis is reversing gains by laborers and some professionals as well.

Manic Impressive

4th May 2011, 19:20

Most likely you would apply at some sort of capital investment firm. This may sound weird, but it's essentially just a non-profit bank. There would be a basic standard for housing depending on your situation (single, married, with or without children, etc) and if you want something better, you would spend your built up labor time on improvements.
On a side note: if you miss a payment in this country on your mortgage, the banks send out independant "spies" to take pictures of your house and make sure it's still occupied.
I always thought you were an anarchist :confused: Banks which send out spies to check if you're paying your mortgage :blink:

Jimmie Higgins

4th May 2011, 19:50

So guys... guess what? Yet another debate today when I came home from school and went in to see my dad, only this time he had to bring up the issue in front of his friend (who I would never argue with about anything because even if he's wrong, he'll always win). "I think my son here is a communist z0mg" bla bla bla, this and that. I'd just like to randomly point out I actually think anarcho-communism/syndicalism sounds more like my thing so far. So here's what my dad's friend threw at me:I think part of the difficulty in these arguments is that people are throwing these arguments at you that are based on misconceptions of communism as either Stalinist USSR or a magical pixie land where everything's fixed automatically or by a benign ruling government. When people come at you like that, telling them how "from each according to his ability... yadda yadda" won't be very satisfying and you really need to break it down for them.

"How do you decide who gets what housing?" << I mentioned how it would fit each person's needs, for example how many rooms they need etc. and he said "if there's no private property, then what stops me from 'justifying' why I need a particular house over the person/people living in it already? Surely if I can justify why I need it over them, I should get it instead." He said if there are no leaders or one person to decide on something, how do you decide on 'smaller' things as a community? Would this work by just having the people who work within that business (housing or whatever it may be) deciding on it as a whole? Just like how the workers would control the means of production?So for this one, agains I would contrast what we have now to what could be. Who decides who gets housing now? Unelected Banks that can choose to give you a mortgage; unelected bosses who decide what your wages are and therefore limit your choices for living; land developers who decide what kinds of houses to build and for what price ranges and functions. By what chriteria do they decide these things? For profit and no other consideration. Because of such a housing situation, in the US we now have a case where land developers have spent a decade making homes that people couldn't afford and so banks had to give riskier and riskier loans in order for the housing market to continue functioning, but after the bust we now have all these unaffordable homes sitting vacant while there are huge numbers of people who are loosing their homes; we have a housing crisis where houses can't sell, but no deflation in rental prices or home prices. The market fails at allowing people to maintain a safe and reliable place to live.

By contrast, how else could housing be decided - democratically. Human need, could inform what kinds of houses we build and where - community committees could democratically work through how to break up large empty estates or unsold tract-housing after a revolution. Unlike capitalism, no one would show up at your sole residence and toss you out on the street like all the foreclosures we see today.

When it comes down to it that's the difference between capitalism and socialism: society based on profit considerations or a society based on democratic decisions.

Obviously, he brought out the stuff about what motivates people to work. I said people work for self-fulfilment and to progress as people, and he said "a guy sweeping the street doesn't; not everyone actually wants to work to their full potential." He kinda got me on that one lol.Yeah that's right, people probably wouldn't want to do shit jobs in the future. So one thing would be just eliminating jobs that are not needed like salespeople or advertisement jobs or corporate law and so on. Shit jobs that are unavoidable or will be handled in a way that makes the most sense for people - they will probably try and automate as much as they can, but they might also decide some unpleasant, but necessary jobs can be done on a rotating basis or things along those lines. With or without wages, humans have to do some unavoidable but unpleasant tasks - the difference is that without class systems forcing certain people to always do these jobs, in smaller communities, communes, or often within families, people find other ways to deal with it that makes it an easier task.

If you live in a community where things are decided cooperatively, don't you think that most people would want their trash to be picked up? In that case, there would be a clear motivation to have trash collectors - if no one wanted to do that task, then maybe the community decided to divide it up so that each week, each block gathers their trash into one dumpster - or the community decides to rotate trash pick up so that collectors only have to do that job one weekend 6 times a year.

Basically, I don't know how exactly people in the future would decide these things, but the point is that unlike in capitalism, it wouldn't be the profit motive driving these decisions, but what people themselves want and vote for.

"Socialism WOULD work if everyone wanted it and everyone agreed on it, because if they did they would have voted for whatever socialist party they wanted to by now" << I told him that most people who vote don't even know what capitalism is (e.g. my mum and pretty much anyone else I know who's 18+ who votes) and those who do just judge socialism by the crap put out there by capitalists. He still wouldn't accept it.That's how I would have answered that one too. People often do vote for large socialist parties and often these parties end up betraying their promises to workers once in power because the parliamentary system is designed in the interests of capital. Trying to use systems of government designed to limit full popular power - even while allowing some popular input - and maintian the capitalist status quo can not take us to real democracy and socialism any more than a ocean liner can take us to Oklahoma. But in the few cases in which elected socialist parties did try to actually change things, there were big revolts by the rich. In France, the rich pulled their money out of the country when the Popular Front was elected; in Chile, there was a US backed military coup against Allende; and even Chavez has been attacked and attempts to remove him made because he proposed really modest reforms and nationalizations. All these examples failed but not due to lack of popular support - due to lack of support from the real ruling class who will invite fascists to take over before they would allow real popular socialism to take root.

Revolution starts with U

4th May 2011, 19:50

I always thought you were an anarchist :confused: Banks which send out spies to check if you're paying your mortgage :blink:

I don't get your point. This is really happening, in this country. Banks send out independent spies on homeowners, daily. That had nothing to do with a post revolution society. That's happening right now. Perhaps you need read that post again... :confused:

Thirsty Crow

4th May 2011, 19:55

Manic Impressive

4th May 2011, 20:16

I don't get your point. This is really happening, in this country. Banks send out independent spies on homeowners, daily. That had nothing to do with a post revolution society. That's happening right now. Perhaps you need read that post again... :confused:
oh that's a relief I thought you'd gone nuts :D

maybe it was because of the irrelevance of your side note to the rest of your answer or maybe because you were talking about capital investment firms.

So with these capital investment firms what happens if for some reason you haven't built up enough labour time to get a house? do you go homeless or have shitty housing?

RGacky3

4th May 2011, 20:37

Where Marx was wrong on this was in thinking that crisis would trend towards getting worse each time, but the capitalists found a way around this - massive destruction of their competitors industrial capacity (WWI and WWII), introduction of credit for workers, among other things like an arms economy during the cold war.

Except he was right with his premis, because since WW2, especially since the 1970s, every crisis DID trend towards getting worse each time, the introduction of credit for workers was simply a way to dely a crisis which came anyway later and much worse, WW2 and the subsequent cold war did avoid some crises, but ultimately Marx was right, because then with that you have deficits, and all they do is throw an influx of capital into the market, they don't protect it from the actual systemic crisis.

I think that was something Marx got absolutely right, delays and patches over the process don't show he was wrong.

So with these capital investment firms what happens if for some reason you haven't built up enough labour time to get a house? do you go homeless or have shitty housing?

I don't think there is even a need for shitty housing, the only reason you have shitty housing now is because there is not profit incentive for cheap decent housing.

I don't even think it neads to be measured in labor time, it could just be democratic, i.e. its decided that a shittier job gets a better house, or one requiring more education gets a better house, or elderly people get a better house, or whatever.

Revolution starts with U

4th May 2011, 20:42

oh that's a relief I thought you'd gone nuts :D

maybe it was because of the irrelevance of your side note to the rest of your answer or maybe because you were talking about capital investment firms.

So with these capital investment firms what happens if for some reason you haven't built up enough labour time to get a house? do you go homeless or have shitty housing?

As I said, there would be have to be a standard housing model for anyone based on their situation; single, married, with or without children, etc.
I don't want to say this is what WILL happen, but that this is one way it could work.

Lanky Wanker

4th May 2011, 22:57

Ask him to describe just what was so bad about the Soviet Union. I bet he has no idea. Introduce him to some Perenti, or read Perenti yourself and introduce it to him that way.
Does he realize much of the left is just as critical of the SU as anyone else?
The SU had tons of problems... but I bet he has no idea what those problems are, other than what the propagandists have shoved down his throat. I'm sure he knows absolutely dick about what life was like for the average person in the SU.

He says he's spoken to people who've lived under Soviet control (though that branched off of him saying he's spoken to people who've lived in communist countries so he might be exaggerating to get his point across) and they said it was terrible, that they couldn't leave their own countries, they had no freedom etc. and I did tell him that the Soviet Union's actions don't represent communism as a whole.

Does he realize much of the left is just as critical of the SU as anyone else?

I actually told him that I'm not a Soviet fan boy like he obviously thinks I am, and that not every communist has a framed picture of Khrushchev hanging on their bedroom wall with love hearts around it. He still doesn't understand the simple English words that come out of my mouth when I tell him that the Soviet Union is not THE definition of communism, and continues to talk about it. It's hard to have a logical conversation with someone who keeps bringing up such an invalid point about something they saw in a WW2/Cold War documentary.

Thirsty Crow

4th May 2011, 23:44

I actually told him that I'm not a Soviet fan boy like he obviously thinks I am, and that not every communist has a framed picture of Khrushchev hanging on their bedroom wall with love hearts around it. He still doesn't understand the simple English words that come out of my mouth when I tell him that the Soviet Union is not THE definition of communism, and continues to talk about it. It's hard to have a logical conversation with someone who keeps bringing up such an invalid point about something they saw in a WW2/Cold War documentary.
The thing is, he's right in bringing up the issue of USSR and the Bloc since what is expressed by such insistence is a, more or less crude, understanding of a fundamental assumption that theory is validated by practice. I'd say that there are a lot of people who are unable or unwilling to consructively confront the consequences of the whole series of disasters of the labour/socialist movement which culminated, in my opinion, with the fall of USSR and the enfolding of capitalist restructuring on a global scale since early to mid 70s (starting with the crushing defeat of the revolutionary wave of 1917-1923). That is highly problematic.

Maybe you should prepare in advance, especially when it comes to the historical conditions which enabled the formation of a Soviet state capitalism/degenerated workers' state. It would be best not to fall for the terminological trap, but to explain that USSR represents maybe a wholly different class society in human history (although some of the social-economic mechanisms characteristic of capitalism have remained).

Revolution starts with U

4th May 2011, 23:52

He says he's spoken to people who've lived under Soviet control (though that branched off of him saying he's spoken to people who've lived in communist countries so he might be exaggerating to get his point across) and they said it was terrible, that they couldn't leave their own countries, they had no freedom etc. and I did tell him that the Soviet Union's actions don't represent communism as a whole.
I've spoken to people in america who can't leave their city, let alone their state, or country. What's his point?
First off, socialism is based off the free movement of labor so... really "socialism in one country" (at least in the SU sense) is about as far from socialism as you can get. The world proletariat recognizes no artificial borders.

I actually told him that I'm not a Soviet fan boy like he obviously thinks I am, and that not every communist has a framed picture of Khrushchev hanging on their bedroom wall with love hearts around it.
Why would you have Kruschev anyway :lol:

He still doesn't understand the simple English words that come out of my mouth when I tell him that the Soviet Union is not THE definition of communism, and continues to talk about it. It's hard to have a logical conversation with someone who keeps bringing up such an invalid point about something they saw in a WW2/Cold War documentary.
Again, I'm sure he has no idea what it was like in the SU. I'm pretty critical of it, but the US propaganda spitted out about it is largely overrated.

Lanky Wanker

5th May 2011, 00:07

Why would you have Kruschev anyway :lol:

Well it's only a matter of time before he brings out a stupid name like that to wrongly define communism again lol. As for him not knowing anything about the Soviet Union, I think he gets most of his information from documentaries on the history channel which says a lot about his wide variety of sources.