communism being balanced

[marxstudent]

my us gov teach brought something up that caught my attention. he said that communism won't work because their belief is that everyone will pitch in their money and then this money will be equally distributed to the people. what happens about the lazy people and the people who don't work? they get the same as someone who works his ass off?

in capitalism, it's all about self improvement and being on the top and that creates motivation to try hard and do well. when more people have this kind of attitude, their nation will grow much stronger.

what's your take in this?

[apathy maybe]

Well your teacher has a poor opinion of humans then. In theory, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. You work as hard as you can and recieve what you need. The idea is that humans are going to not need a stimulus to work, but the society would do a fairly good job of presuring people to work. And once it is established (say 4 or 5 generations) it would be self perpetuating.
Also the concept of money would be done away with. Anyway a few people not working would not upset anything, that should be obvious.
Now your teacher is probably thinking of anarchism, this is where there is no government (an-no archy-govt) and has a similar politcial system to communism. However, economically people aren't expected to work and they still get enough to live on. luxeries and things in short supply are spread equally around the society.
And there is still no money.
Cappitalism is a system where if you get the capital (money) you get to dominate others with societies permission. If you are born into a rich family you get an unfair advantage over others. So much for capitalism being equal. I will now give a story. Appently during the Great Depression (a capitalist thing), a person found an apple. Now they polished and polished this apple until it shone. Then they sold it for 10c they then bought two apples and polished and polished and sold those for 10c each. This continued until they found a lottery ticket. Hard work will get you no where if you start on the bottom in a cappitalist society.

Another thing with capitalism is that it has no regard for the environment, it takes no account of limited resources. And with the structure of the society they get used up rather quick. Now neither communism or anarchism take regard of environment either but they don't use resources at nearly the same rate.


In my own opinion neither of these would work, I think that a mix of anarchism and communism would probably work given the chance. Once established it also would be self perpetuating.


Sooner or later some of the others will come here and give there view of things. Read and obsorb, then make up your own mind. Marx isn't everthing.

[marxstudent]

hm i see. but won't there be more than a few people who won't work and will just slack off. it's human nature to take the easiest way out of things- at least for most people. won't that affect everything in a big way?

[Red Flag]

No Its not human nature... and if you feel that way, your probably more of a subscriber to 'democractic socialism' inwhich each recieves according to their DEEDS ie, how hard they work

Also Ive heard many communists say that if you dont work or participate in a communist society you are jailed.

[Red Flag]

im not sure what marx said about that though, youd have to ask someone who studied him more.

[marxstudent]

no i think it would be nice if everyone just worked hard and received equal living and such but my main concern is that i don't think everyone would work. what would you do then? the jailing thing sounds pretty effective but maybe a lil too harsh? are there any other ways? if it's not human nature to slack off, then what is it?

[sc4r]

Under Socialism you get paid for work not for need so the problem does not arise.

Mzrx postulates that the problem will disppear (at least as a major concern) by the time proogressively greater socialism has developed into full communism because people's behavior and attititudes will have benn altered through exposure to a progressively more egalitarian society.

Id he right? Who Knows, certainly not me; though I doubt he is.

It does not matter for those who advocate following Marx's path because until behaviour does alter you retain Socialism.

But those who advocate 'striaght to Communism' (Redstar for example) have yet another bit of wishful thinking to add to their mountain of it. They have no answer other than to assert that 'it wont'. Since there is not a snowballs chance in hell their ideas will ever be adopted it hardly matter for them either in practical terms.

The only way it matters is that advocates of 'straight to communism' cause derision to descend upon the whole Socialist movement bt association.

You saw in another thread RS answering a related problem of 'choice' and answering in it what amounts to mystical fashion. 'The appearance of Choice is not choice' he asserts, as though this either answers anything or will satisfy most people as an answer. It wont of course. It's a non answer, just playing with words, and most people will see straight through it.

And it is most people that have to be convinced. 'straight to communism, which is totally wonderful just because it is' types never will convince most people; they will in fact convince most people not to bother listening to anything tarred with the same brush. That is why those people are a menace.

[RyeN]

There are many people who are unemployed and could be working. The current systerm allows for people to slack off and not work. Why dont these people have jobs? If you ask them they say that there are no jobs or they cant find one. Under communisum if you cant find a job one will be found for you. You will work becasue thats what we do. With even a slight majority of the people working together for a common goal. IE feeding the population versus making the most money off feeding the population, we would clearly have enough of a workforce. I belive that with the goods and division of labour spread, combined with increase in technologie the actual work we have to do ourselves will go from an average work week of 40 hours to 20 or something.

Now if these measures fail and someone decides still not to work with the system we will have a policy of honesty and integrity where we openley admit that these people are used in test. However the test are used to better the lives of everyone else so in fact that person has given more than they can know.

[sc4r]

Well I sorta agree with you Ryen. The question, however, is whether Redstar and his clique do. Really do, in a deep way; not in the sense of saying a few words that fit in this context but not others.

1. I think we can agree that neither of us believe that there is anything fundamentally lazy about people. Neither of us believes that, no matter what, there are many people who would shirk all forms of social contribution (that’s what laziness really is, merely doing something which pleases yourself but not others is play not work; no-one minds doing that, that is not the issue).

2. But I think we also agree that the nature of our society has produced, not just a few but many, people who deeply dislike the nature of their contribution (some to the extent that they would rather be unemployed than contribute, and some who will work because they have to, but given the opportunity would stop working).

3. I assume we also agree that any society will have many tasks that are carried out not for the direct immediate benefit of the individual, but for others. Social labour in other words – this doesn’t just mean cleaning drains etc. It also means producing bolts, and hinges, and car parts, and light bulbs, etc. which we wont use ourselves. In fact all of the tasks of commodity production which are done very much more effectively precisely because people are not working solely on producing complete artefacts for their own pleasure.

4. Your proposal (that people who wont work at social tasks are subjected to some form of coercion) is fine; but it does assume a society which is organised to do this. It certainly does not fit the spirit of the absolute notion of ‘to each according to his needs’ that is propounded by our extreme communist/ anarchist faction. The saying is not ‘to each according to his needs provided…..’. Because in essence adding that ‘provided’ makes it no different from what anyone else is proposing anyway.

5. Now we have to ask why we should expect a very fundamental change in peoples attitudes to occur overnight such that they go from resisting the idea of social labour to accepting it , almost joyfully, without resentment, and without cheating. Simply saying ‘they will, because they’ll be committed to socialism’ is actually a circular argument; it assumes what it sets out to prove; and as such is no argument at all.

6. Which is exactly why the more level headed and practical of us don’t assume it. We
assume that people will have the sense to realise that social labour is needed and will agree by consensus that they will bind others to carry out a fair share of the tasks and will be bound by this agreement themselves even though they know that without such an agreement, and the means to enforce it they would themselves cheat. Once you do this you have created a government whether you call it such or not.

7. Why would we not assume that the fall of Capitalism would immediately create people with such a strong integral commitment to society that they need no coercing or systematic social pressure to work? The answer lies very obviously in the sequence of events that (according to our anarchist chums) immediately precedes the fall. They assume that society will break down, they assume that discontent will reach fever pitch. How you can go from this to an assumption that these same discontented people who supposedly have just destroyed society will suddenly undergo a complete character change is beyond me.

People are just not like that, discontented people tend to direct their discontentment not only at the real cause, but also allow it (given half an opportunity) to spill over into other areas; and they don’t tend to suddenly become completely happy and well adjusted once the real cause of their grievance is removed (anyone who has ever worked in a customer service role will confirm this – Once someone finds a flaw they will find ways to see 10 others too.) And we are talking not of merely slightly malcontent people, but of people so supposedly enraged that that they will actually take up arms. It’s just not realistic to see them settling down and suddenly trusting everyone else without any mechanism to assure them that they can.

Which is why ANY intelligent socialist sees the progressive path outlined by Marx, with Communism arising only after a prolonged period of Socialism involving gradually relaxing organised constraints upon people (in other words a state withering away, not magically disappearing), as the path to follow. Believing in ‘instant communism’ is like believing in fairy stories; anything is ‘plausible’ if you simply ignore why it is not.

The progressive path of leninists, and quasi leninists such as myself, eliminates the need for blind trust. That’s what is so powerful about it. Its not as ideal a world as one in which trust simply exists as a given obviously, but it is actually practical as opposed to merely wishful.

Marx got it right. The pied piper has it wrong. It’s that simple really.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 09:18 PM
my us gov teach brought something up that caught my attention. he said that communism won't work because their belief is that everyone will pitch in their money and then this money will be equally distributed to the people. what happens about the lazy people and the people who don't work? they get the same as someone who works his ass off?

in capitalism, it's all about self improvement and being on the top and that creates motivation to try hard and do well. when more people have this kind of attitude, their nation will grow much stronger.

what's your take in this?
Have you ever noticed that when capitalists/pro-capitalists talk about "self-improvement", they always mean getting more money?

How does it "improve" a human being to "get more money"? Is Rupert Murdoch or Bill Gates a "better" human than you or me or even your rather ignorant "teacher"?

Be that as it may, let's talk about the folks "who work their ass off" and the "lazy parasites" who sit around with their thumbs up their ass. Is this really a meaningful distinction?

I do not think it is...I think it's yet another one of those "fake dichotomies" that bourgeois ideology generates to justify the existence of class society.

In capitalism, most people who "work their ass off" actually do so not from a motive of "self-improvement" but out of a fear of degradation...of being shoved down into the ranks of the desperately poor. No matter how much they accumulate--indeed even when they have wealth that they could not spend in a lifetime--they feel the "mental lash" of insecurity. They work as hard as they can until they drop dead.

Now, let's look at those "lazy parasites". The reason they "don't want to work" is obvious and rational under capitalism: no amount of hard work will suffice to ever lift them out of the ranks of the desperately poor.

Did you know that most of the people who buy lottery tickets are poor? Why? Because a small chance of escaping the shit zone is better than no chance.

What about those people, however small their numbers really are, who "work their way up out of the shit"?

I think you will find upon examination that there are two explanations: 1. they used the unpaid labor of their own family members to accumulate capital...the little ethnic grocery store on the corner is a fairly common phenomenon under capitalism; or 2. they "won" the approval of someone substantially higher-up in the class system who proceeded to take this "deserving poor person" "under their wing", providing necessary financial support and an introduction into the personal networks of at least the lower levels of the ruling class. One such individual is currently a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court...a world class suck-cess.

Category 2, by the way, definitely includes people of genuine talent and ability...not everyone who escapes from the shit is a simple-minded sycophant. But talent and ability are secondary; even a total mediocrity "can make it" provided they have carefully selected their "sponsor" and are really skilled at the arts of flattery. And provided they are lucky...for every one who suck-ceeds, many fail and end up back in the shit.

The ruling class has a very limited number of apprenticeships available.

Now consider the situation in the era of proletarian revolution in the advanced capitalist countries. Most people will be in the shit...and with no practical means of escape. Class struggle will be constant; the old order will be visibly collapsing.

When the revolution occurs, there will be a tremendous incentive for everyone to work...just to restore the norms of a technological society. People will want the electricity back on, the water back on, public transportation restored, food gathered and distributed...and those things won't happen unless people take the initiative to make them happen. So, at first, there will be no "lazy parasites" (except some predatory criminals...who will be summarily shot) because there is no "surplus" to support them.

If, as I expect, people proceed more or less at once to the establishment of a classless society (perhaps over five years or so), those who "want" to be "lazy" will have the chance to do so...and the only people who will "work their ass off" will be those who enjoy what they do so much that it's not really "work" to them at all.

I've seen suggestions to the effect that with the present long-term growth in the means of production, it will be possible by 2020 to introduce the 8-hour week. Yes, a "work-week" of 8 hours!

I won't go into the assumptions behind this number or the additional assumptions that would be required to make it practical. The point is that what we consider "hard-working" and "lazy" now will be very different by the time proletarian revolution and communist society is "on history's immediate agenda".

This is the kind of "phase-change" that is quite beyond the imagination of Leninists and bourgeois socialists alike. They see the future as a simple linear extension of the present; the word "revolution" may or may not be in their vocabulary, the concept literally "makes no sense" to them.

Like the capitalists, they see "self-improvement" as accumulation and regard the common folk as worthless without an occasional or even frequent taste of the whip or chain.

Will people be "lazy" under communism? The answer is almost certainly yes!

With high technology at their service, with no ruling class to support, with no need to produce enormous amounts of junk or supply "personal services" to their "betters", people will "work" at what they most enjoy...and much of that enjoyment will actually come from the knowledge that they are doing something genuinely useful and worthwhile, and doing it well.

As an aside, may I offer the capitalist definition of "a lazy sod"? "That's a guy who doesn't work hard at what I want him to do."

That's me!

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[marxstudent]

you've cleared up a lot of stuff, redstar. one thing though... how come throughout china's history, china hasn't done so well, while taiwan has become so much better. at my school, there are quite a lot of international students and i talk to some who are from china. from their opinions, they say communism doesn't work because taiwan has gotten so much better from "splitting" from china.

i know china's huge but what other factors are there?

i'd like to add that i'm not trying to offend anyone IF anyone has thought that. again, i'm not as knowledgeable as a lot of you guys are in regards to socialism/communism- you guys are teaching me. ;)

[redstar2000]

...At my school, there are quite a lot of international students and I talk to some who are from China. From their opinions, they say communism doesn't work because Taiwan has gotten so much better from "splitting" from China.

Well, the short answer is that China never "had" communism...it was a socialist country, run by a Leninist party that called itself "communist".

In politics, labels are one thing...reality is often quite different.

Taiwan was a quasi-fascist military dictatorship that crushed the native Taiwanese working class and peasantry in the name of rapid economic development.

The Leninist-Maoists were actually not nearly as ruthless...and their economic development was accordingly slower.

That sounds "funny", doesn't it? We're so used to thinking of the Maoists as "totalitarian bastards" that we overlook the fact that capitalist economic development is totalitarian and generally far more explicitly ruthless than the Leninists.

If you look at the early history of capitalism in England, the United States, France, Germany, etc. you will find human misery and rapid economic development are literally "blood brothers".

So it was also in Russia and China...but probably less so. Since capitalism has been restored in those countries, things are actually getting worse for the working classes.

Taiwan, in the period 1949-1989 was a pretty horrible place. So was South Korea. For people alive now, it doesn't seem so bad...but for the generations that lived through it, well, they have other opinions.

Not that anyone cares what they think.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[apathy maybe]

That is one thing we need to drum into everyones head. What was in the USSR and Eastern European countries was not communism. What is in Cuba, China and North Korea are not communism.

Communism is a great idea and if established would no doubt be self-perpetuating. That is one great thing about it. It wouldn't collapse when it ran out of resources like cappitalism will.

And af course for those who think that the US is wonderful and democratic, how do you explain
South Korea, South Vietnam(-1975), Cuba (before Castro), Chile (1973-1989) etc? Jimmy Carter did a little bit to get rid of them but he was a cappitalist too.

[marxstudent]

we overlook the fact that capitalist economic development is totalitarian and generally far more explicitly ruthless than the Leninists.


k maybe not the last question, redstar. can you explain this in further detail because from what i see, capitalist development isn't totalitarian. the political leaders in the U.S. don't stick guns at our heads or anything so i'm not catching something.

[redstar2000]

Can you explain this in further detail because from what I see, capitalist development isn't totalitarian. The political leaders in the U.S. don't stick guns at our heads or anything so I'm not catching something.

They don't now (usually), but in the past they did so...with relish. Between 1865 and 1938, there were hundreds of pitched battles between a capitalist state determined to ruthlessly suppress working class organization and a working class that refused to submit. Substantial numbers of workers and their families were massacred in cold blood.

Of course, this kind of history is not taught in American schools...but it happened (and it happened in France and England and Germany as well). It happens right now in places like Brazil and Mexico and Colombia, etc.

The 19th century "democracy" that you read of in American history textbooks did not exist for the working class. Not in America or anyplace else.

If the demands on your time and energy permit, a study of the history of the American working class is very instructive...try a Google search on the General Strike of 1877, the Pullman Strike of 1892, or the Ludlow Massacre of 1915, or...well, there are hundreds that could be named.

Believe it: early capitalism was just as totalitarian in practice as anything that Stalin or Mao did.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[marxstudent]

Hmm... I see. Thanks- I'll do that. Thanks again, Red.

[Iepilei]

well the greatest obstacle we have is trying to get people to understand communism as being the attained goal, ultimately, of a marxist socialism. any state labeled 'communist' is merely a designator for those nations who have, in some form or fashion, a concept of reaching Marxist society.

Not all 'communist' nations have had the same matter of working things. History has shown us that. ;)

The situation in America is not quite as harsh as it was several years ago. Minimum wage, workers rights, and labour laws have helped the situation here. However, American capitalists have found a way around this by moving jobs to the 3rd world - locations where such laws are meaningless. The result is the same suffering as in the 1850s... just somewhere else.

Out of sight, out of mind, right?