Are material conditions relevant?

[not a leftist]

That is, is the structure of the "power relationship" or "hierarchy" the only relevant parts of a revleft discourse? Do the material conditions of people, including the working class, matter?

That is, is hypothetical communism where everyone has a lower quality of life BETTER than hypothetical capitalism where the worst off "class" is better off than everyone in the hypothetical communism?

[JustMovement]

This is such a vague question that it becomes almost impossible to answer. The term "material conditions" is central to marxist discourse. Ideas do not exist in a vacumn, and history shaped by the physical conditions in which people live their lives. Marxists reject the liberal rhetoric of abstract rights, in favour of looking at the class composition and antagonisms inherent in a society. I am sure comrades that have better grasp of theory can better answer this question.
As for your second question, it depends on how you define quality of life. Personally I value a democratic economy, the ability to avert environmental disaster for me and my children, equality of opportunity, access to housing and healthcare, over the possibilty of aquiring an endless amount of shit that is foisted onto me by advertising agencies. But I guess that is completly subjective.

[the Left™]

That is, is hypothetical communism where everyone has a lower quality of life BETTER than hypothetical capitalism where the worst off "class" is better off than everyone in the hypothetical communism?


Hypothetical communism would have eliminated poverty, something capitalism by design cannot. Quality of life as opposed to what? Ideally in a communist society quality of life is predicated on the autonomy and ability to realize whatever life goals you want to as the economic structure of society does not restrict you to class roles. I think to a large extent comparing economic life between capitalism and communism is flawed because no one, not even Marx would argue that capitalism is inefficient or doesnt generate a quality of life, the argument is over what capitalism is not does, and what this means for the vast majority of people from a class perspective.

I would consider exploitation, wage slavery, poverty, alienation etc to be pretty damn bad, and these are things the "worst off class" experiences only in a capitalist society.

Also: "hypothetically" you are comparing a utopia and Ayn Rand style fantasy where markets give people orgasms and solve world issues.

[#FF0000]

That is, is hypothetical communism where everyone has a lower quality of life BETTER than hypothetical capitalism where the worst off "class" is better off than everyone in the hypothetical communism?

Nope.

[not a leftist]

thread rules: no emotionalization before rationalization
no naive views of free markets and free transaction as some from of voodoo magic, rather than people pursuing what they value, just in the macro

Just answer this straight: ceteris paribus, if the worst people were better off in a free society than everyone in a communist one, would it be preferable?



Nope.
Thank you, this guy is doing it right.

[#FF0000]

Thank you, this guy is doing it right.

I'm trying to dig up a Marx quote on this. He basically says you need the means to build communism (industry, an actual urban proletariat) to have communism. Otherwise, he says, you have "common poverty" or misery or something.

Still looking for the quote.

[JustMovement]

OK, fine. But you do need specify your terms a bit. Would I prefer to live in a communistic hunter-gatherer tribe vs. modern capitalism? Of course not.

[not a leftist]

I'm trying to dig up a Marx quote on this. He basically says you need the means to build communism (industry, an actual urban proletariat) to have communism. Otherwise, he says, you have "common poverty" or misery or something.

Still looking for the quote.

Fair enough, but let's assume that industry and urban proletariat are built as he says. But then across XYZ ocean is a free society of people where a free market exists, and they have a place that is centuries ahead in terms of standard of living, for the "working class" too. Just grant me this hypothetical, no "HURP DURP CAPITALISM IS TEH MAGIC DERP AYN RAND BLURF"

[Manic Impressive]

Just answer this straight: ceteris paribus, if the worst people were better off in a free society than everyone in a communist one, would it be preferable?
a communist society is a free society :rolleyes:

What is your definition of a free society? Are we living in a free society now? If resources are allocated according to the individuals needs then how can anyone be worse off than they are now?

[JustMovement]

Well a communist would say that we are obligated to help emancipate the proleteriat in that country as well, you know internationalism and all that.

[not a leftist]

a communist society is a free society :rolleyes:

What is your definition of a free society? Are we living in a free society now? If resources are allocated according to the individuals needs then how can anyone be worse off than they are now?

What are "needs"? Your fallacious view is based on the labor theory of value, which has been discredited since modern economics has existed, basically the supply an demand chart, lol.

Anyway, a free society is one where the individual and his rights are not enslaved and forced to submit to the collective/fascist state/government/mob rule. Communism can't possibly be free unless it is a voluntary commune.

[#FF0000]

Fair enough, but let's assume that industry and urban proletariat are built as he says. But then across XYZ ocean is a free society of people where a free market exists, and they have a place that is centuries ahead in terms of standard of living, for the "working class" too. Just grant me this hypothetical, no "HURP DURP CAPITALISM IS TEH MAGIC DERP AYN RAND BLURF"

If they're bother advanced when it comes to technology and industry than I would of course assume that the Communist society would provide the better quality of life.

I mean we can take a real world example even -- The USSR and the USA. I would say that in a lot of ways, life in the USA was a lot more comfortable than for workers in the USSR.

However, I would say that socialism (if you'd even want to call what the USSR had that) provided a better quality of life than capitalism would have in Russia at that point in history.

But that's kind of speculation. It's impossible to say for sure, but I am pretty confident in saying this.

[Manic Impressive]

What are "needs"? Your fallacious view is based on the labor theory of value, which has been discredited since modern economics has existed, basically the supply an demand chart, lol. They've tried and failed :)


Anyway, a free society is one where the individual and his rights are not enslaved and forced to submit to the collective/fascist state/government/mob rule.
You know by the time we actually get to communism the only government will be done by groups of workers councils right? I mean we're not aiming for USSR 2.0 (well most of us).

Communism can't possibly be free unless it is a voluntary commune.
I agree and if someone wants to leave society and go off and live in the woods that's their business. But try exploiting workers labour when they already get the full value of it. Good luck with that.

[#FF0000]

Anyway, a free society is one where the individual and his rights are not enslaved and forced to submit to the collective/fascist state/government/mob rule.

I agree with you, but I don't believe that capitalism, despite the rhetoric, provides the individual any rights. Unless, of course, they own property. Otherwise, they are enslaved and forced to submit to their boss, to the managers, to the company. I'm not an anarchist and I hate doing the whole dead quote olympics thing, but I really think Mikhail Bakunin stated it eloquently when he said: Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice.

To me, that's what the individual rights people talk about sounds like: the right of some people to exercise privilege over others because of their economic situation. One can't have a society that is made up of "haves" and "have nots" or those with power and those without, while claiming to hold individual rights dear -- because this kind of system doesn't lend itself to valuing an individual as an individual. It stamps people "worker" and "boss".


Communism can't possibly be free unless it is a voluntary communeIn which case, nothing is free. One can't opt out of Feudalism. One can't opt out of Capitalism. These are global systems.

[La Comédie Noire]

basically the supply an demand chart, lol.

You mean the one that doesn't correspond to reality in any meaningful sense?

[Dunk]

That is, is hypothetical communism where everyone has a lower quality of life BETTER than hypothetical capitalism where the worst off "class" is better off than everyone in the hypothetical communism?

The only people who would experience a decline in the quality of their lives in a transition from the capitalist to the socialist mode of production are perhaps the bourgeoisie, and they're a minority.

For the vast majority, sustainable work, roof over your head, food, medical care, an end to all forms of oppression including racism, homophobia, exploitation, imperialist wars and domination, and the equal democratic control over society would represent a drastic increase in the quality of life.

[Blake's Baby]

Is meaningless proposition A better than meaningless proposition B? Hmm, would I rather be killed by a fairy or a unicorn? Let me go away for a long time and think about that.

[ZeroNowhere]

So are we debating about eternal principles of justice again? Oh bother.

[RGacky3]

Anyway, a free society is one where the individual and his rights are not enslaved and forced to submit to the collective/fascist state/government/mob rule. Communism can't possibly be free unless it is a voluntary commune.

In your definition a free society is one ruled by monied interest, i.e. plutocracy, where collective decisions are made by monied dictators rather than a democratic process, and where even individual decisions can be ruled by monied interest.

Capitalism CANNOT be free unless property rights are simply done by consensus, which is impossible, a market cannot exist that way, so communism is the natural next step, thats what communism means, personal property is personal and collective interests and property are collective, and that is decided by consensus.


What are "needs"?

Needs are basically what society deams as needs.

[Kiev Communard]

But then across XYZ ocean is a free society of people where a free market exists, and they have a place that is centuries ahead in terms of standard of living, for the "working class" too. Just grant me this hypothetical, no "HURP DURP CAPITALISM IS TEH MAGIC DERP AYN RAND BLURF"

Except that capitalism is not "free market" even from orthodox Marxist perspective. Marx explicitly refers to polarization of the market between two groups, one of them (the capitalists) advantaged through the use of means of extra-economic (primitive accumulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_accumulation_of_capital#Marx.27s_case_hi story)) and economic coercion, and the other (the working class) disadvantaged and forced to sell its labour force to the capitalists who monopolised means of sustenance and production WITH THE HELP OF THE STATE (http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2006/03/written-in-footnotes-of-fire-and-blood.html). In that way, capitalism is not "free market", because the two categories of economic agents are in hierarchical relationship, and the working class is generally subordinated to capitalists. Mutualist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory))society would theoretically be a "free market", but I think it would rather swiftly progress to full-scale communism, if given time, so that in this sense "free-market" is hardly sustainable.

[Dean]

That is, is the structure of the "power relationship" or "hierarchy" the only relevant parts of a revleft discourse? Do the material conditions of people, including the working class, matter?

Conditions matter, and also factor in power relations. Historical materialism is defined by a rigorous understanding of material conditions - what on Earth makes you think its not relevant to Revolutionary Leftists?


That is, is hypothetical communism where everyone has a lower quality of life BETTER than hypothetical capitalism where the worst off "class" is better off than everyone in the hypothetical communism?

No. But that is not a likely society to exist. If the lowest quality of life for a capitalist society is better than a completely shared resource system of Communism, than you are already well on your way to socialism because so many systems of need will have been met. But capitalism cannot really exist this way. The minority ownership of any means of production creates an incentive to dispossess labor, and expand unemployment. Your society with great "basic standards of living" wouldn't at a month.