The BEST way to convert people to Communism

[06hurdwp]

Global Population = 6 billion

Take the total GDP and divide it by 6 billion, you then have about $12,000 per person.

Multiply $12,000 by 4 and you have $48k. $48k for every average family of 4 around the world. That's crazy.

2 billion people around the world live off of less than $1000 a year, another 2 billion on less than $10,000, and the top 1% have 40% of the world's wealth.

I know that the GDP is from capitalism, but it just shows how imbalanced things are in this world and how well off everybody would be if the wealth was spread out.

Good luck reeling in the new communists!

[Kamos]

If it was that simple to convert people to communism, capitalism would have been dead 100 years ago. Still, it's probably even more effective to put it that way than just "we have lots of money, but few people hold it", so thanks for the tip - one more argument can't hurt.

[Cork Socialist]

Thats why you bring in people that are from the Working Classes, We are not trying that hard to recruit those in the Top 1%.
I may have read your post wrong though, can't tell if your saying this is a barrier or what :D
Sorry I' wrecked atm :D

[Pretty Flaco]

convert? what are we, a religion? :rolleyes:

[Triple A]

Expect to hear life is unfair and everyone can get rich if they work hard enough after saying that.

PS: I was told that wage slaves in Chinese factories had chances had good chances of getting rich if they work hard enough.

[Kamos]

Thats why you bring in people that are from the Working Classes, We are not trying that hard to recruit those in the Top 1%.
I may have read your post wrong though, can't tell if your saying this is a barrier or what :D
Sorry I' wrecked atm :D

He's saying that you could (theoretically) live off $48,000 a year in a perfect communist system, if it had today's economy and was money-based.

[Cork Socialist]

He's saying that you could (theoretically) live off $48,000 a year in a perfect communist system, if it had today's economy and was money-based.

Well in a perfect Communist system there would be no money :D but yes I see were your coming from :D

[06hurdwp]

He's saying that you could (theoretically) live off $48,000 a year in a perfect communist system, if it had today's economy and was money-based.

I'm not really saying it like that, I'm using the fact that every family in the world would have $48k if the wealth was spread as an example to show how bad Capitalism is.

As far as I know in Communism the wealth exists in the items themselves and is spread according to what you need, so every family on Earth would theoretically have $48k of stuff every year.

[hatzel]

As far as I know in Communism the wealth exists in the items themselves and is spread according to what you need, so every family on Earth would theoretically have $48k of stuff every year.

If we are to believe that every family on Earth has identical needs. Which isn't the case.

[Leftie]

The global population almost 7 billion now but its still a good point.

[Kamos]

I'm not really saying it like that, I'm using the fact that every family in the world would have $48k if the wealth was spread as an example to show how bad Capitalism is.

In essence, we ARE saying the same, aren't we?


Well in a perfect Communist system there would be no money :D but yes I see were your coming from :D

Well, yeah, that's why I said "if it was money-based".


If we are to believe that every family on Earth has identical needs. Which isn't the case.

$48,000 a year is plenty. Over here, people who earn an equivalent amount of money (yeah, I'm taking different economies into account here) tend to belong to the "upper 10,000" and as far as I can see, none of them are missing anything. Everyone's needs can be met.

[hatzel]

$48,000 a year is plenty. Over here, people who earn an equivalent amount of money (yeah, I'm taking different economies into account here) tend to belong to the "upper 10,000" and as far as I can see, none of them are missing anything. Everyone's needs can be met.

As far as I could see, the statement wasn't whether that would or wouldn't be enough, but that we should expect every family to get exactly $48.000. That would mean it's not, as the original statement was, 'spread according to need', it's just spread totally evenly, and that this is enough to meet everybody's needs...

[Red Commissar]

This is not really all that effective. In fact the whole angle of "equalizing wealth" has been a popular angle to attack communists with because it distorts what we are about.

"Communism" isn't simply a matter of equalizing income. That's crude equality and people shouldn't be misleading others with that. We're departing from the issue of the Means of Production and what not.

The only thing that this can be connected to is to illustrate how a small elite control the vast majority of the world's "wealth" compared to the rest of the people.

[Bronco]

This is not really all that effective. In fact the whole angle of "equalizing wealth" has been a popular angle to attack communists with because it distorts what we are about.

"Communism" isn't simply a matter of equalizing income. That's crude equality and people shouldn't be misleading others with that. We're departing from the issue of the Means of Production and what not.

The only thing that this can be connected to is to illustrate how a small elite control the vast majority of the world's "wealth" compared to the rest of the people.

I agree, there seems to be a misconception among a lot of the population where Communism is reduced down to just "everyone gets paid the same", and using the argument in the OP effectively gives validity to that view

[Havet]

"convert", you say?

lolololololololololololol

[RGacky3]

The best way is just to make real arguments for economic democracy, its not that hard.

[Black Sheep]

Take the total GDP and divide it by 6 billion, you then have about $12,000 per person.
Even better:
Establish automation in all sectors applicable
ELiminate worthless jobs
Employ all in producing meaningful and needed products & services
...
Fucking abundance! :blink:

[SacRedMan]

Join the red side... we have cookies!

[Baseball]

As far as I know in Communism the wealth exists in the items themselves and is spread according to what you need, so every family on Earth would theoretically have $48k of stuff every year.

Well no. That would be $48K for ONE year. After that, back to the drawing boards and the world will see how bad communism truly is.

[ZeroNowhere]

I don't think that you mean 'communism', which is theory-based, I think that you mean 'utopian socialism'. Which makes sense, really, because utopian socialists are the only ones who should be bothered with evangelism.

[Rusty Shackleford]

http://ballsofwax.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/molotov_cocktail200.jpg




Stand in the light, it will purify you. Let the holy water of communism cleanse your soul. If you do not see the light, you will burn and perish... bourgeois scum.


so, can i write for Crimethinc now?

[hatzel]

If you do not see the light, you will burn and perish... bourgeois scum.

Oh, so it's like finding out if you like butter by putting one of these under your chin?

http://www.wildflowersofireland.net/image_uploads/flowers/Buttercup,-creeping-2.jpg

Now we just need a red flower, to find out if people like socialism...

[Delenda Carthago]

Even better:
Establish automation in all sectors applicable
ELiminate worthless jobs
Employ all in producing meaningful and needed products & services
...
Fucking abundance! :blink:

And why not automate all boring jobs, even productive ones and liberate humanity by its most brutal dynasty- work?

[Kiev Communard]

Well no. That would be $48K for ONE year. After that, back to the drawing boards and the world will see how bad communism truly is.

Do you think that 'stupid wage slaves' won't be able to figure out how to continue production after one year of communism without stern guidance of their rightful owners...e-e, employers?:rolleyes:

[Baseball]

Do you think that 'stupid wage slaves' won't be able to figure out how to continue production after one year of communism without stern guidance of their rightful owners...e-e, employers?:rolleyes:

1. The $48K is based upon the distribution of the wealth created by the capitalist system. So yeah, once its gone so is that $48K.

2. The enlightened members of revleft seem chronically unable to describe how production might continue after one year or one month of communism. And you are the folks who think about that stuff 24/7. I would suggest that "wage slaves" would be starting from a somewhat more difficult perch. Particularly since capitalism would be a choice closed to them.

[Kiev Communard]

1. The $48K is based upon the distribution of the wealth created by the capitalist system. So yeah, once its gone so is that $48K.

2. The enlightened members of revleft seem chronically unable to describe how production might continue after one year or one month of communism. And you are the folks who think about that stuff 24/7. I would suggest that "wage slaves" would be starting from a somewhat more difficult perch. Particularly since capitalism would be a choice closed to them.

1. Personally I believe that such a scheme of distribution of wealth is utterly naive, as under communism the goods and services will be supplied to individuals participating in the socially useful work or those who are temporary unable to do it, on the basis of their needs, rather than capitalist money calculation, just as modern money has little in common with Golden Standard currencies.

2. The enlightened, "common sense"-worshipping right-wing liberals seem incapable to grasp a simple thing that wage labour is not "personal choice" (unless one doing it is a masochist), but the fruit of necessity caused by the fact that your glorious capitalists have denied the majority of population their chances of self-employment via "primitive accumulation" and the continuing control of labour market. In fact, I am pretty much sure that if the means of production would be owned by those who work them, the very suggestion of working for meagre wage for the benefit of another person would seem just as primitive and cruel, as the ancient Romans' views on slavery.

Just like you, the Roman philosophers viewed slaves and peasants as intrinsically lower beings who are unable to live without proper guidance, and I think they would be just as indignant at the prospect of society without slaves and masters, as you obviously are at the prospects of communism. To a certain extent, even modern worker-owned firms are potential "seeds" of communism, and guess what? Their members feel much better than "responsible" wage slaves of your glorified private entrepreneurs and their corporations.

EDIT: If you demand to see how communist-anarchist theories envisage the day-to-day running of libertarian communist economy, I invite you to visit this site - http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI4.html - and read its contents yourself.

[RGacky3]

1. The $48K is based upon the distribution of the wealth created by the capitalist system. So yeah, once its gone so is that $48K.


Yeah, the vast majority of which is wasted on the nead for continual profits, new markets, and military spending.


2. The enlightened members of revleft seem chronically unable to describe how production might continue after one year or one month of communism. And you are the folks who think about that stuff 24/7. I would suggest that "wage slaves" would be starting from a somewhat more difficult perch. Particularly since capitalism would be a choice closed to them.

We describe it EVERYTIME you bring it up, but you ignore it. I talk about this stuff to non-political people and they get it, its as easy as pointing to things like co-determination, or cooperatives or mutual aid ... its really not that difficult, unless you purposely dont want to get it, which I believe is the case with you.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

'Convert'... The road towards Communism is not a road of Electoral Politics and gaining favor through Bourgeois methods. Instead, the Socialist Road towards Construction is promoting Experimentation in methods of achieving a Revolutionary Movement, it is supporting the Working Class to agitate the Bourgeois through methods that serve as engaging and influential to those seeking class consciousness. It is through these methods revealing the face of Bourgeois control and building alternatives to the Bourgeois that will inevitably ensure the destruction of the Bourgeois System.

'Converting' is silly, as what is required is agitation. Agitation serves as a means to enlighten Working Class Members of Society and those pushing for a Proletarian Rule of Society.

[Baseball]

We describe it EVERYTIME you bring it up, but you ignore it. I talk about this stuff to non-political people and they get it, its as easy as pointing to things like co-determination, or cooperatives or mutual aid ... its really not that difficult, unless you purposely dont want to get it, which I believe is the case with you.

i do not ignore it. I ask for details, like describing what does "mutual aid" mean in a socialist context. The standard answer seems to have been "democracy" which is of course NOT an answer or description.

That is what is lacking.

Granted, the other fellow linked to a site, which was laughable on much of its surface, and because of its length, generally impossible to respond to.

[Baseball]

The enlightened, "common sense"-worshipping right-wing liberals seem incapable to grasp a simple thing that wage labour is not "personal choice" (unless one doing it is a masochist), but the fruit of necessity caused by the fact that your glorious capitalists have denied the majority of population their chances of self-employment via "primitive accumulation" and the continuing control of labour market.

Well, no. It represents the most rational solution to economic issues which anarchial communities will also face-- and propose to resolve less rationally.



In fact, I am pretty much sure that if the means of production would be owned by those who work them,

Of course. But again, there is nothing uncapitalist about a worker owned industry.


the very suggestion of working for meagre wage for the benefit of another person would seem just as primitive and cruel, as the ancient Romans' views on slavery.

Perhaps. Or maybe the prospect of working for NO compensation (as is a possibility which cannot be overlooked) in an anarchial community would seem as no different than Roman views on slavery.


Just like you, the Roman philosophers viewed slaves and peasants as intrinsically lower beings who are unable to live without proper guidance,

Let us spare the theatrics, please. The question isn't that an anarchial community cannot make decisions. The issue is the quality and nature, the information and knowledge and the rational, for making those choices.


To a certain extent, even modern worker-owned firms are potential "seeds" of communism, and guess what? Their members feel much better than "responsible" wage slaves of your glorified private entrepreneurs and their corporations.

Except that those firms operate within the confines of a capitalist system. So to cite them in defense of anarchism, socialism, communism, whatever, is completely beside the point and totally irrelevent.


EDIT: If you demand to see how communist-anarchist theories envisage the day-to-day running of libertarian communist economy, I invite you to visit this site - http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI4.html - and read its contents yourself.

I accepted the invitation.

[Kiev Communard]

Well, no. It represents the most rational solution to economic issues which anarchial communities will also face-- and propose to resolve less rationally.

What do you think is rational about wage labour? In fact, it is much more irrational than self-employment and co-operative production, as the workers lack freedom of decision-making, which is instead entrusted to controlling hierarchies that increase operating costs.




Of course. But again, there is nothing uncapitalist about a worker owned industry.

Well, Kevin Carson (who is a mutualist, not a communist, begs to differ): http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2006/12/free-market-anti-capitalism-compendium.html




Perhaps. Or maybe the prospect of working for NO compensation (as is a possibility which cannot be overlooked) in an anarchial community would seem as no different than Roman views on slavery.

There would be free access to social goods in communist-anarchist community and remuneration by labour in collectivist and mutualist varieties of anarchism. I fail to see how is this "NO compensation".




Let us spare the theatrics, please. The question isn't that an anarchial community cannot make decisions. The issue is the quality and nature, the information and knowledge and the rational, for making those choices.

I would ask the same of yours, please. Your reference to "enlightened members of RevLeft who talk about communism but fail to describe it" was really theatrical one.




Except that those firms operate within the confines of a capitalist system. So to cite them in defense of anarchism, socialism, communism, whatever, is completely beside the point and totally irrelevent.

Still, they constitute the partial and incomplete negation of the wage labour principle which (rather than a mere "market") is the crux of social relations under capitalism.

[RGacky3]

The standard answer seems to have been "democracy" which is of course NOT an answer or description.

That is what is lacking.

Granted, the other fellow linked to a site, which was laughable on much of its surface, and because of its length, generally impossible to respond to.

It IS as much of an answer as the market is, if I ask you to detail exactly waht the market will and will not do you won't know either because its a mechanism, as is democracy.

[piet11111]

Global Population = 6 billion

Take the total GDP and divide it by 6 billion, you then have about $12,000 per person.

Multiply $12,000 by 4 and you have $48k. $48k for every average family of 4 around the world. That's crazy.

2 billion people around the world live off of less than $1000 a year, another 2 billion on less than $10,000, and the top 1% have 40% of the world's wealth.

I know that the GDP is from capitalism, but it just shows how imbalanced things are in this world and how well off everybody would be if the wealth was spread out.

Good luck reeling in the new communists!

This could even be expanded upon by calculating how many people are actually employed to find out how much 1 working person actually creates.

[Kiev Communard]

i do not ignore it. I ask for details, like describing what does "mutual aid" mean in a socialist context. The standard answer seems to have been "democracy" which is of course NOT an answer or description.

That is what is lacking.

Granted, the other fellow linked to a site, which was laughable on much of its surface, and because of its length, generally impossible to respond to.


I do not think that one's personal dislike for the outward appearance of the "surface" of the information source is a sufficient reason to reject it outright. Moreover, if you do not like lengthy expositions of some pretty much complicated ideas, how do you even expect to get informed about them at all? The pro-capitalist economic arguments (such as those of von Hayek) are also rather complicated and written in obscure ("laughable") language, yet you presumably do not reject it. Anyway, here is some answers to your questions from the site you have found so "laughable":




I.4.4 What economic decision making criteria could be used in anarchy?



Firstly, it should be noted that anarchists do not have any set idea about the answer to this question. Most anarchists are communists, desiring to see the end of money, but that does not mean they want to impose communism onto people. Far from it, communism can only be truly libertarian if it is organised from the bottom up. So, anarchists would agree with Kropotkin that it is a case of not "determining in advance what form of distribution the producers should accept in their different groups -- whether the communist solution, or labour checks, or equal salaries, or any other method" while considering a given solution best in their opinion. [Anarchism, p. 166] Free experimentation is a key aspect of anarchism.

..Communist anarchism would be similar to collectivism, i.e. a system of confederations of collectives, communes and distribution centres (Communal
stores). However, in an anarcho-communist system, prices are not used. How will economic decision making be done? One possible solution is as follows:


"As to decisions involving choices of a general nature, such as what forms of energy to use, which of two or more materials to employ to produce a particular good, whether to build a new factory, there is a . . . technique . . . that could be [used] . . . 'cost-benefit analysis' . . . [I]n socialism a points scheme for attributing relative importance to the various relevant considerations could be used . . .The points attributed to these considerations would be subjective, in the sense that this would depend on a deliberate social decision rather than some objective standard, but this is the case even under capitalism when a monetary value has to be attributed to some such 'cost' or 'benefit' . . . In the sense that one of the aims of socialism is precisely to rescue humankind from the capitalist fixation with production time/money, cost-benefit analyses, as a means of taking into account other factors, could therefore be said to be more appropriate for use in socialism than under capitalism. Using points systems to attribute relative importance in this way . . . [is] simply to employ a technique to facilitate decision-making in particular concrete cases." [Adam Buick and John Crump, State Capitalism: The Wages System Under New Management, pp. 138-139]

This points system would be the means by which producers and consumers would be able to determine whether the use of a particular good is efficient or not. Unlike prices, this cost-benefit analysis system would ensure that production and consumption reflects social and ecological costs, awareness and priorities. Moreover, this analysis would be a guide to decision making and not a replacement of human decision making and evaluation. As Lewis Mumford argued:

"it is plain that in the decision as to whether to build a bridge or a tunnel there is a human question that should outweigh the question of cheapness or mechanical feasibility: namely the number of lives that will be lost in the actual building or the advisability of condemning a certain number of men [and women] to spend their entire working days underground supervising tunnel traffic . . .Similarly the social choice between silk and rayon is not one that can be made simply on the different costs of production, or the difference in quality between the fibres themselves: there also remains, to be integrated in the decision, the question as to difference in working-pleasure between tending silkworms and assisting in rayon production. What the product contributes to the labourer is just as important as what the worker contributes to the product. A well-managed society might alter the process of motor car assemblage, at some loss of speed and cheapness, in order to produce a more interesting routine for the worker: similarly, it would either go to the expense of equipping dry-process cement making plants with dust removers -- or replace the product itself with a less noxious substitute. When none of these alternatives was available, it would drastically reduce the demand itself to the lowest possible level." [The Future of Technics and Civilisation, pp. 160-1]

...Therefore, a communist-anarchist society would be based around a network of syndicates who communicate information between each other. Instead of the price being communicated between workplaces as in capitalism, actual physical data will be sent (the cost). This data is a summary of these (negative) use values of the good (for example resources, labour time and energy used to produce it, pollution details) as well as relative scarcity. With this information a cost-benefit analysis will be conducted to determine which good will be best to use in a given situation based upon mutually agreed common values. These will be used to inform the decision on which goods to use, with how well goods meet the requirements of production (the positive use-value) being compared to their impact in terms of labour, resource use, pollution and so forth (the negative use-values) along with their relative availability.

The data for a given workplace could be compared to the industry as a whole (as confederations of syndicates would gather and produce such information -- see section I.3.5) in order to determine whether a specific workplace will efficiently produce the required goods (this system has the additional advantage of indicating which workplaces require investment to bring them in line, or improve upon, the industrial average in terms of working conditions, hours worked and so on). In addition, common rules of thumb would possibly be agreed, such as agreements not to use scarce materials unless there is no alternative (either ones that use a lot of labour,energy and time to produce or those whose demand is currently exceeding supply capacity).

Moreover, production units, by their association within confederations ensure that there is effective communication between them. This results in a process of negotiated co-ordination between equals (i.e. horizontal links and agreements) for major investment decisions, thus bringing together supply and demand and allowing the plans of the various units to be co-ordinated. By this process of co-operation, production units can reduce duplicating effort and so reduce the waste associated with over-investment (and so the irrationalities of booms and slumps associated with the price mechanism, which does not provide sufficient information to allow workplaces to efficiently co-ordinate their plans).

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI4.html#seci44



If you are really interested in understanding communism, I would like to see your informed response to the model of economic coordination described above. If not, I will take that you are simply too biased to understand the other side's arguments.

[Desperado]

Yeah, I sometimes use a rough math that 2% own 50% of the world (and we're not in that 2%), so if we redistributed that we'd all be roughly (on average) twice as "rich" (before going on to emphasise that wouldn't really be wealth as in it's present form etc.).

[Baseball]

If you are really interested in understanding communism, I would like to see your informed response to the model of economic coordination described above. If not, I will take that you are simply too biased to understand the other side's arguments.


Fair enough:

1. Point System-- Despite the claims, this is nothing but a "price." But as the the cite notes, it is entirely subjective. Since the value to the points can and will vary between different anarchial communities, and also within the community from time to time (as a consequence of an election), as a source of information to guide and direct production, it is meaningless. It imparts no useful information. It would not even be able to measure its own tradeoff mentioned (speed or cheapness in an automobile in exchange for a more interesting routine as those costs are the result of someone's else's production which also must be be measured subjectively).

2. Syndicates--- The essay sets up "points" as the information to be used in guiding production. Then when it comes time to put it all into operation, it chucks "points" out the window. Instead, we are treated to suggestions of "rules of thumb" or "mutually agreed common values" (forgetting that such suggestions are supposedly subject to Election Day).

[Hebrew Hammer]

Global Population = 6 billion

Take the total GDP and divide it by 6 billion, you then have about $12,000 per person.

Multiply $12,000 by 4 and you have $48k. $48k for every average family of 4 around the world. That's crazy.

2 billion people around the world live off of less than $1000 a year, another 2 billion on less than $10,000, and the top 1% have 40% of the world's wealth.

I know that the GDP is from capitalism, but it just shows how imbalanced things are in this world and how well off everybody would be if the wealth was spread out.

Good luck reeling in the new communists!

I was going to suggest dressing up in neckties, white button upshirts, going door to door and asking people if they heard the good news of Karl Marx but I suppose this works too.

[RGacky3]

It IS as much of an answer as the market is, if I ask you to detail exactly waht the market will and will not do you won't know either because its a mechanism, as is democracy.

Btw, there are thousands of examples of non-profit industries (nationalized, or Charity, or Church) that figure out exactly how what to produce how much to produce and how to distribute it without a profit motive, so its not even a question.


2. Syndicates--- The essay sets up "points" as the information to be used in guiding production. Then when it comes time to put it all into operation, it chucks "points" out the window. Instead, we are treated to suggestions of "rules of thumb" or "mutually agreed common values" (forgetting that such suggestions are supposedly subject to Election Day).

Whats wrong with those mutually agreed apon commons being subject to election day? the American constitution is subject to election day and it stands (dispiting being subject to one of the most corrupt democratic systems around).

[Kiev Communard]

Fair enough:

1. Point System-- Despite the claims, this is nothing but a "price." But as the the cite notes, it is entirely subjective. Since the value to the points can and will vary between different anarchial communities, and also within the community from time to time (as a consequence of an election), as a source of information to guide and direct production, it is meaningless. It imparts no useful information. It would not even be able to measure its own tradeoff mentioned (speed or cheapness in an automobile in exchange for a more interesting routine as those costs are the result of someone's else's production which also must be be measured subjectively).

1. The point system is intended as a functional substitute for the price system, and, unlike the latter, it incorporates social costs of production (including those of pollution). Moreover, while the price system basically rests upon the effective (i.e. monetary) demand principle, the point system represents a method of direct communication between consumers and producers, which is absent in capitalism. Such a communication might be conducted through the system of electronic data transferral - after all, if modern Facebook users could "like" certain Web pages, what might deter the communist consumers of future from using a similar system to indicate what products they "like"? Finally, the point system would allow the exact determination of the product's marginal utility to the consumer, which is done indirectly at best under capitalist system of prices.


2. Syndicates--- The essay sets up "points" as the information to be used in guiding production. Then when it comes time to put it all into operation, it chucks "points" out the window. Instead, we are treated to suggestions of "rules of thumb" or "mutually agreed common values" (forgetting that such suggestions are supposedly subject to Election Day).

2. No, the negotiated coordination system is complementary to points system, as it provides the producers' part of the equation. Just as consumers determine what products they would like to obtain through the point system, so will producers' syndicates/communes define the measure of labour and resources needed to produce the goods requested by their consumers. Far from contradicting each other, these methods mutually reinforce themselves.

[Tablo]

This thread fits nicely with the Revleft catholic church analogy in the Say What You Want thread.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2142858]Btw, there are thousands of examples of non-profit industries (nationalized, or Charity, or Church) that figure out exactly how what to produce how much to produce and how to distribute it without a profit motive, so its not even a question.

Yep. And they rely heavily upon businesses which turn profit to float support.




Whats wrong with those mutually agreed apon commons being subject to election day? the American constitution is subject to election day and it stands (dispiting being subject to one of the most corrupt democratic systems around).

It means there is no consistency for producers and consumers. This is especially a problem if the conception of socialism is of a decentralized, local small scale operation.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Kiev Communard;2142953]1. The point system is intended as a functional substitute for the price system, and, unlike the latter, it incorporates social costs of production (including those of pollution).

Whicj is subjective.



Moreover, while the price system basically rests upon the effective (i.e. monetary) demand principle, the point system represents a method of direct communication between consumers and producers, which is absent in capitalism. Such a communication might be conducted through the system of electronic data transferral - after all, if modern Facebook users could "like" certain Web pages, what might deter the communist consumers of future from using a similar system to indicate what products they "like"?

So rather than "communication" being demonstrated by what people purchase or not purchase, the additional hurdle is added of having to go online to register likes and dislikes. And what value does that add to the process?
What might deer people from doing this? maybe because they dont want to, that they find it ridiculous to to vote "Like" or "Dislike" for a brush or a nail clipper.


Finally, the point system would allow the exact determination of the product's marginal utility to the consumer, which is done indirectly at best under capitalist system of prices.

No it wouldn't. Because it is arbitrarily arrived at.




2. No, the negotiated coordination system is complementary to points system, as it provides the producers' part of the equation. Just as consumers determine what products they would like to obtain through the point system, so will producers' syndicates/communes define the measure of labour and resources needed to produce the goods requested by their consumers. Far from contradicting each other, these methods mutually reinforce themselves.

I don't see how. Since the points are arbitrarily arrived at. Add to this that the producers are also consumers of somebody'e else's production.

[Kiev Communard]

Whicj is subjective.

Do you think that value calculation under capitalism is somehow objective? I thought capitalist economists usually pride themselves on their subjective utility theories of value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value), opposing them to Marxian labour theory of value. Am I mistaken?


So rather than "communication" being demonstrated by what people purchase or not purchase, the additional hurdle is added of having to go online to register likes and dislikes. And what value does that add to the process?
What might deer people from doing this? maybe because they dont want to, that they find it ridiculous to to vote "Like" or "Dislike" for a brush or a nail clipper.

This method is just my personal suggestion, not the absolute prescription to be followed. Maybe more conventional consumer surveys currently done by marketing specialists for capitalist companies might be better adjusted to the needs of communist society, depending on the circumstances. And those goods about the quality and quantity of which there will be no complaints will be produced and supplied without additional clarifications.


No it wouldn't. Because it is arbitrarily arrived at.

I fail to see how is that more "arbitrary" than supposedly efficient capitalist price formation.


I don't see how. Since the points are arbitrarily arrived at. Add to this that the producers are also consumers of somebody'e else's production.

The points are not arrived at more "arbitrarily" than the usual consumer preferences under capitalist advertisement. As for the second point, this is precisely why we need the system of overall coordination between producers and consumers, and this system has been preliminarily outlined in the excerpt from Anarchist FAQ I have previously posted.

[RGacky3]

Yep. And they rely heavily upon businesses which turn profit to float support.


Really? Like the roads? Like state oil comanpies? Like state healthcare companies? Like state sponsered research? Same with charities, if your saying that the take part in the market, yeah, no shit, but that does'nt take away from the point that they still can figure out what to produce, how much to produce and how to distribute.

When you make an argument, and I post something against that argument, don't just try and change the argument, either defend it or give it up.


It means there is no consistency for producers and consumers. This is especially a problem if the conception of socialism is of a decentralized, local small scale operation.

Why can't there be consistancy? Of coarse there can be, there is flexibility of coarse, but there can also be consistancy if needed, thats a non argument.

[Rafiq]

2. The enlightened members of revleft seem chronically unable to describe how production might continue after one year or one month of communism. And you are the folks who think about that stuff 24/7. I would suggest that "wage slaves" would be starting from a somewhat more difficult perch. Particularly since capitalism would be a choice closed to them.

Marxists don't fantasize about what the future will look like.

After one year or one month? They'd be mobilizing to fight off the reactionary elements I suppose.

And of course the workers will be organized after the revolution, through councils (soviets) and the like.


Your argument fails. Go f*** yourself.

[ZeroNowhere]

Marxists don't fantasize about what the future will look like.

After one year or one month? They'd be mobilizing to fight off the reactionary elements I suppose.

And of course the workers will be organized after the revolution, through councils (soviets) and the like.


Your argument fails. Go f*** yourself.
You're only encouraging them. Generally, if you're going to respond to a debater, it's best to either keep things too brief to enter the debate oneself, or to just not respond. While the latter is probably more sensible, it's also true that debaters really deserve to be made fun of as much as possible.

If we can leave the fermenting of revolution to the inevitable action of capitalist laws of motion, we can certainly leave the shutting up of debaters to the passage of time.

[Dr Mindbender]

Global Population = 6 billion

Take the total GDP and divide it by 6 billion, you then have about $12,000 per person.

Multiply $12,000 by 4 and you have $48k. $48k for every average family of 4 around the world. That's crazy.

2 billion people around the world live off of less than $1000 a year, another 2 billion on less than $10,000, and the top 1% have 40% of the world's wealth.

I know that the GDP is from capitalism, but it just shows how imbalanced things are in this world and how well off everybody would be if the wealth was spread out.

Good luck reeling in the new communists!

GDP or wealth is an abstraction.

We are interested in re-distributing goods, resources and services. Not cash.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2143976]Really? Like the roads? Like state oil comanpies? Like state healthcare companies? Like state sponsered research? Same with charities, if your saying that the take part in the market, yeah, no shit, but that does'nt take away from the point that they still can figure out what to produce, how much to produce and how to distribute.

When you make an argument, and I post something against that argument, don't just try and change the argument, either defend it or give it up.

A "state oil company" still functions within the realm of a capitalist community. A "state healthcare company" relies upon the wealth generated by a for-profit industry.

Nobody measures its success upon profit.




Why can't there be consistancy? Of coarse there can be, there is flexibility of coarse, but there can also be consistancy if needed,

No. If voted upon.

[Baseball]

This method is just my personal suggestion, not the absolute prescription to be followed. Maybe more conventional consumer surveys currently done by marketing specialists for capitalist companies might be better adjusted to the needs of communist society, depending on the circumstances. And those goods about the quality and quantity of which there will be no complaints will be produced and supplied without additional clarifications.

People 30 years ago were not complaining about their typewriters.

[hatzel]

People 30 years ago were not complaining about their typewriters.

...what are you even trying to say with this? :confused:

Are you perhaps trying to say that there was once something, people thought it was okay, but then people decided to improve upon it, and develop computers, and now typewriters seem a bit shit? Well done, you clearly understand the entire point of socialism :)

[Kiev Communard]

People 30 years ago were not complaining about their typewriters.

And the level of depletion of natural resources was much less 30 years ago than now, when the consumerist advertisements advise everyone to buy a SUV and change his/her computer gear every year, because it is "cool" (notwithstading the sufferings of slave-labourers of the Congolese mines who extract minerals necessary for notebooks' production without even being paid for it). Do you think such a policy is even sustainable in the decades-long perspective?

EDIT: By the way, far from being a fruit of efforts of top geniuses of capitalist corporations, modern computers and Internet systems were invented by the U.S. military specialists and were at first completely unmarketable. So much for "market innovations"...

[Baseball]

...what are you even trying to say with this? :confused:

Are you perhaps trying to say that there was once something, people thought it was okay, but then people decided to improve upon it, and develop computers, and now typewriters seem a bit shit? Well done, you clearly understand the entire point of socialism :)


Actually, the quote I responded to suggested that products would continue to be produced if nobody complained; indeed that was a solution offered to production question.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Kiev Communard;2148936]And the level of depletion of natural resources was much less 30 years ago than now,

I am skeptical of that claim.


when the consumerist advertisements advise everyone to buy a SUV and change his/her computer gear every year, because it is "cool" (notwithstading the sufferings of slave-labourers of the Congolese mines who extract minerals necessary for notebooks' production without even being paid for it). Do you think such a policy is even sustainable in the decades-long perspective?


Ok, then. Long live typewriters...

Don't you think it is somewhat hypocritical on your end to celebrate, indeed depend upon in to further the socialist project, technological advancements which a few decades ago would have led to fretting about the future exploitation of Congolese miners?


EDIT: By the way, far from being a fruit of efforts of top geniuses of capitalist corporations, modern computers and Internet systems were invented by the U.S. military specialists and were at first completely unmarketable. So much for "market innovations"...


What are you talking about? The market 'twas built the internet.

[Kiev Communard]

I am skeptical of that claim.

http://www.environmedia.com/depletion-and-destruction-of-natural-resources-i.htm
(http://www.environmedia.com/depletion-and-destruction-of-natural-resources-i.htm)

Also note that the introduction of more sustainable strategy of natural resources utilization would undermine short-term profit rate of the glorious energy corporations, so it is unlikely to happen under modern capitalism. This means that the unbridled consumerism you apparently celebrate is self-destructing, all grumblings about "puritanical socialism" notwithstanding.


Ok, then. Long live typewriters...Don't you think it is somewhat hypocritical on your end to celebrate, indeed depend upon in to further the socialist project, technological advancements which a few decades ago would have led to fretting about the future exploitation of Congolese miners?

Nope. To paraphrase your claim, "long live the rational utilization of scarce mineral resources and a just remuneration of the labour of those who extract them".


What are you talking about? The market 'twas built the internet.

ARPANET (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET), anyone?

[Kiev Communard]

Actually, the quote I responded to suggested that products would continue to be produced if nobody complained; indeed that was a solution offered to production question.

And how do you think the majority of first-necessity goods (i.e. bread, butter, nails, etc.) are produced anyway:D?

[Baseball]

http://www.environmedia.com/depletion-and-destruction-of-natural-resources-i.htm
(http://www.environmedia.com/depletion-and-destruction-of-natural-resources-i.htm)


And yet, due to technological progress, the available supply of natural resources always seem to grow (ie see natural gas in the USA oil in Canada).


Also note that the introduction of more sustainable strategy of natural resources utilization would undermine short-term profit rate of the glorious energy corporations,

It would also tend to undermine economic development.




ARPANET (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET), anyone?[/QUOTE]

The USA Defense Dept runs the internet? Set it on its present trajectory? And yet... I look at an ADVERTISEMENT on this board as I type these words.

[Baseball]

And how do you think the majority of first-necessity goods (i.e. bread, butter, nails, etc.) are produced anyway:D?


It doesn't matter how they are produced in a capitalist community; what matters is how they are produced in a socialist one.
Change the system & the results are changed.

[Kiev Communard]

And yet, due to technological progress, the available supply of natural resources always seem to grow (ie see natural gas in the USA oil in Canada).

Given the evidence of massive oil depletion and the escalating rise in energy prices, I am skeptical about it.


It would also tend to undermine economic development.

It would make it more balanced and less crisis-ridden, without a truly "cancerous" growth rates punctuated with cataclysmic slumps, as is the case now.


The USA Defense Dept runs the internet? Set it on its present trajectory? And yet... I look at an ADVERTISEMENT on this board as I type these words.

That was not my point. My point was that they DESIGNED it. No private company could.

[Kiev Communard]

It doesn't matter how they are produced in a capitalist community; what matters is how they are produced in a socialist one.
Change the system & the results are changed.

You know, it seems that you believe that all economic history of the humankind up to the point was somehow "naturally" capitalist. There was a production of goods and services long before capitalism. Even in the Stagnation-years USSR there was no shortage of bread and the like, so your point is irrelevant.

[Baseball]

You know, it seems that you believe that all economic history of the humankind up to the point was somehow "naturally" capitalist. There was a production of goods and services long before capitalism. Even in the Stagnation-years USSR there was no shortage of bread and the like, so your point is irrelevant.


By all means- let us all have a standing of living as people enjoyed back in 1750.

The question is as you indicated elsewhere-- the best and most efficient way of production.

[Baseball]

[
QUOTE=Kiev Communard;2149363]Given the evidence of massive oil depletion and the escalating rise in energy prices, I am skeptical about it.

what oil depletion? New discoveries are made all the time (see the USA Dakotas) , and technology improvements allows previously known, but difficult to reach, deposits to be tapped (see USA Texas).

The USA has more energy potential in its natural gas reserves than does Saudi Arabia via oil.



It would make it more balanced and less crisis-ridden, without a truly "cancerous" growth rates punctuated with cataclysmic slumps, as is the case now.

Doubtful. It would be more a case of generalized poverty.




That was not my point. My point was that they DESIGNED it. No private company could.

And the counter-point is so what? It went nowhere without the market.

[Kiev Communard]

what oil depletion? New discoveries are made all the time (see the USA Dakotas) , and technology improvements allows previously known, but difficult to reach, deposits to be tapped (see USA Texas).

The USA has more energy potential in its natural gas reserves than does Saudi Arabia via oil.

Hmm... do you honestly believe that oil resources are somehow limitless? You seem to be a really optimistic person... just like the Soviet planners of the 1960s. Anyway, the problem of scarce metals (as in the case of Conglolese mines) is even more sharp. According to 2006 U.S. Geographical Survey, at the current level of production recoverable resources for 14 out of 32 minerals (including copper and nickel) are scheduled to be depleted in less than 100 years. And what then? It seems doubtful that your celebrated "endless" growth would continue without the cheap supply of such resources. And what about the growing lack of drinkable water and deforestation (especially in the glorious "development" areas in India and Amazon Basin)? Are these resources somehow restored by technical improvements? I think not.


Doubtful. It would be more a case of generalized poverty.

And now the total global population is supposedly rich and happy due to the uncontrollable growth of financial capital and generalized pollution and land aridisation, isn't it? Besides, even if the uncontrollable growth was necessary in the past, it seems more and more problematic nowadays, as the potential for extensive growth is steadily diminishing


And the counter-point is so what? It went nowhere without the market.

Capitalism is not a "market", it is a relationship of separation between the labourers and means of production, so that state companies are also perfectly capitalist. Besides, all those "market" companies that eventually distributed Internet services across the U.S. and the globe were dependent on the information and innovations supplied by ARPANET network, so that they were privileged by the government, not by some supposedly "free" market forces. They could not even develop Internet infrastructure without this (oh, and without "healthy" government subsidies).

[Kiev Communard]

By all means- let us all have a standing of living as people enjoyed back in 1750.

The question is as you indicated elsewhere-- the best and most efficient way of production.

Trust me, if the current system continues for another 100 years, the majority of human population will beg for "a standing of living as people enjoyed back in 1750", because at that time there was at least the abundance of drinkable water and fresh air, which seems doubtful every year now. Besides, once again you missed my point - I am not advocating return back to late Medieval economy, I am merely pointing out that in order to be sustainable in the long run an economic growth and technological development need to be balanced with the needs of environment reproduction, and this is impossible under short-term profit imperatives typical under capitalism (including the Soviet system with its 5-year plans aimed at fastest possible capital accumulation).

As for the second question, I would say that the results of economic activities of the Aragonese collectives of 1936-1937, which were the closest up to the date to the thing you may label as communism, indicate that in the absence of monetary circulation they managed to increase agricultural produce by 20%, while the production in other parts of Spain stagnated. Similar things may be noted about the efficiency of Catalan workers' collectives, even if the latter were not completely communised. So in that case even in quantitative measure the communist social transformation proved beneficial.

[Jose Gracchus]

I don't know whether I want someone to ban this no-content broken-record imbecile, or let him slide because Kiev's ass kicking is so epic and full of extremely important content for the left to take in.

[Kiev Communard]

I don't know whether I want someone to ban this no-content broken-record imbecile, or let him slide because Kiev's ass kicking is so epic and full of extremely important content for the left to take in.

Well, I am not putting too much effort in this "ass kicking", as you put it, so if Mr. Baseball wants to come up with some more platitudes to debunk, I will be glad to continue it:D.

On a more serious notes, I think that we ('we' meaning communist-anarchists, council communists, autonomous Marxists, Bordigists, De Leonists, etc.) seem to be recently concentrating too much attention to debating with some obscure Brezhnevite trolls, who despite their 'mainstream' arrogance are just as politically marginal as, regrettably, us. Instead, the 'mainstream' opinion of socialism is mostly predicated upon the perception of social democratic/Kautskyite/Leninist concepts of state capitalism as 'socialism', and therefore it would be nice to make some effort at spreading the message of non-market, non-statist, non-Leninist socialists/communists across the more mainstream sources and media fora, if we do not wish to remain enmeshed in some futile 'inter-scene' polemics for eternity. That is why a debate with a full-fledged (rather than crypto, as in the case of Brezhnevites) capitalism's supporter has been a welcoming diversion for me.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Kiev Communard;2149925]Trust me, if the current system continues for another 100 years, the majority of human population will beg for "a standing of living as people enjoyed back in 1750", because at that time there was at least the abundance of drinkable water

No, there wasn't. That's what beer was all about.


and fresh air,

False. And air quality is better now than it was 50 years ago.


which seems doubtful every year now. Besides, once again you missed my point - I am not advocating return back to late Medieval economy, I am merely pointing out that in order to be sustainable in the long run an economic growth and technological development need to be balanced with the needs of environment reproduction,

But what I am saying is that the reserves are there. As technology progresses to where the market determines it is feasable to be used, it is then used. You seem to suggest that it is better to limit the technological progress based upon some arbitrary standard.




As for the second question, I would say that the results of economic activities of the Aragonese collectives of 1936-1937, which were the closest up to the date to the thing you may label as communism, indicate that in the absence of monetary circulation they managed to increase agricultural produce by 20%, while the production in other parts of Spain stagnated.

So which is it? 20% economic growth is good or bad? Economic stagnation is good or bad?

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Kiev Communard;2149923]Hmm... do you honestly believe that oil resources are somehow limitless?

Right now we have several hundred years worth of proven reserves, at current production ability. This says nothing about changes in technology in use of oil, or the ability to tap reserves that are presently not feasable, or in discovering new reserves.


Anyway, the problem of scarce metals (as in the case of Conglolese mines) is even more sharp.

What about all those gold mines across France and Germany which were depleted a few thousand years ago. Its been nothing but downhill for the French and Germans since then, eh?

A
ccording to 2006 U.S. Geographical Survey, at the current level of production recoverable resources

Yes. That is the key phrase "current level of production recoverable resources..."


It seems doubtful that your celebrated "endless" growth would
continue without the cheap supply of such resources.

Yep. It would pose a problem, assuming all things being equal.

But then again, it would also cause problems for a socialist community as well.


And what about the growing lack of drinkable water and deforestation (especially in the glorious "development" areas in India and Amazon Basin)?

Ahh the let them to continue to live in poverty argument.






And now the total global population is supposedly rich and happy due to the uncontrollable growth of financial capital and generalized pollution and land aridisation, isn't it? Besides, even if the uncontrollable growth was necessary in the past, it seems more and more problematic nowadays,

So why praise a couple of years amongst the Catalans of Spain?



Capitalism is not a "market", it is a relationship of separation between the labourers and means of production, so that state companies are also perfectly capitalist. Besides, all those "market" companies that eventually distributed Internet services across the U.S. and the globe were dependent on the information and innovations supplied by ARPANET network, so that they were privileged by the government, not by some supposedly "free" market forces. They could not even develop Internet infrastructure without this (oh, and without "healthy" government subsidies).

The internet did not develop because of government. There is an ad on this site, right now even as I type, for Excalibur Casino.
That is what developed the internet.

[Jose Gracchus]

Yes, and how will we keep below 550 ppm CO2 if we burn all the oil reserves "for the next hundred years" (which I see no reason to imagine will last that long if past trend of consumption growth maintain; discoveries have been peaked for decades, and we get a significant percentage of production from a single field in Saudi Arabia, Ghawar; a field which has been producing for a half century already).

[Kiev Communard]

No, there wasn't. That's what beer was all about.

Prooflink, please, or stop trolling:rolleyes:.


False. And air quality is better now than it was 50 years ago.

I suggest you read these Wikipedia articles for starters and the files annexed to them in the notes before making such doubtful claims:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Neither was a mass phenomenon 50 years ago.


But what I am saying is that the reserves are there. As technology progresses to where the market determines it is feasable to be used, it is then used. You seem to suggest that it is better to limit the technological progress based upon some arbitrary standard.

And why do you think the "market" (assuming it even exists as a coherent structure) will always reach the right decisions as to the technological development? The majority of great inventions of the past time were basically made by state/defense services and only later appropriated by private companies, with the new markets virtually artificially created for them. And once again, I do not favour abandoning technological progress as you seem to believe. I am merely skeptical about the claims of "endless growth" advocates about technological innovations as some "magical key" to everything that you seem to share, as this very ideology was widespread in the former USSR, and it basically failed there.


So which is it? 20% economic growth is good or bad? Economic stagnation is good or bad?

For starters, you cannot have a perpetual 20% economic growth rate for more than a decade, or the overaccumulation crisis would kill your economy. Look no further than at Japan, former USSR, former "East Tigers" of Thailand, Hong Kong, South Korea, etc. All of them used to have more than 10% annual growth rates at some time, and look where it eventually got them. The stagnation is not good either. I believe that an annual, balanced growth of 2-3% seems to be sufficient for a balanced reproduction of modern technological civilization and a sufficiently high development, while economizing the waste of precious natural resources that you seem to disregard so much.

[Kiev Communard]

Right now we have several hundred years worth of proven reserves, at current production ability. This says nothing about changes in technology in use of oil, or the ability to tap reserves that are presently not feasable, or in discovering new reserves.

Oh, yes. The magic of the market. Somehow, I do not believe in magical robots creating oil out of nothing, and even if this are invented, I doubt that their high production cost would make them anything but uncommon. After all, look at any 1970s retrofuturistic prognoses of "our cosmic future" in 2000, and look in the window. I hope you will see the difference. Besides: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/peak-oil-international-energy-agency

Note that the characters quoted in the article are not some cranks. They are respectable professionals in their field, and they seem to be skeptical about "several hundred years" argument.


What about all those gold mines across France and Germany which were depleted a few thousand years ago. Its been nothing but downhill for the French and Germans since then, eh?

Well, there is a big difference between gold, which is rather common and frankly inessential for modern technological production, and such minerals as vanadium or titanium, which I was actually talking about. Besides, the mines you referred to were exploited for centuries, while with current extraction rate, a single mine might be depleted in a course of a decade, which is a big difference.


Ahh the let them to continue to live in poverty argument.

Nope. Let us educate them and help them to begin their own independent development.


So why praise a couple of years amongst the Catalans of Spain?

And why praise a pure and simple "free market", which did not exist for even a couple of years?


The internet did not develop because of government. There is an ad on this site, right now even as I type, for Excalibur Casino.
That is what developed the internet.

Do you seriously suggest that some start-up companies that merely capitalize on the structure already developed by governments and enormous government-aligned corporations really developed Internet:rolleyes:? I suggest that you read some history of ARPANET network and National Science Foundation Network (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSFNET), as well as some data on the CERN integovernmental organization's involvement in TCP/IP introduction in Europe for a real history of the public bodies' role in the development of Internet.

[Baseball]

Yes, and how will we keep below 550 ppm CO2 if we burn all the oil reserves "for the next hundred years" (which I see no reason to imagine will last that long if past trend of consumption growth maintain; discoveries have been peaked for decades, and we get a significant percentage of production from a single field in Saudi Arabia, Ghawar; a field which has been producing for a half century already).


The bulk of USA oil imports comes from Canada, Mexico and Venezuala, not Saudi Arabia.

[Baseball]

[
QUOTE=Kiev Communard;2150433]Prooflink, please, or stop trolling:rolleyes:.

Where do you think people got water until about a century ago? wellwater, or a river, or lake or pond. It wasn't clean. Beer was brewed, along with wines ect. with the objective of cleaning and purifying water



I suggest you read these Wikipedia articles for starters and the files annexed to them in the notes before making such doubtful claims:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Neither was a mass phenomenon 50 years ago.

Life expectancy has improved, not declined. Oh please! People live next to smokestacks and used outhouses.
But this is way off topic.




And why do you think the "market" (assuming it even exists as a coherent structure) will always reach the right decisions as to the technological development?

I never said it will. But it will reach the right decision more often than not, and more so than that anarchist scheme you linked to a few days back.


The majority of great inventions of the past time were basically made by state/defense services and only later appropriated by private companies, with the new markets virtually artificially created for them.

Nobody said "Oh look, the Defense dept. created ARPANET, so lets place REVLEFT on it."


And once again, I do not favour abandoning technological progress as you seem to believe. I am merely skeptical about the claims of "endless growth" advocates about technological innovations as some "magical key" to everything

As you indicated elsewhere, the economy either grows or stagnates.
Technological growth creates its own problems, certainly. But what is the nature of the problem. Does the internet et. al. make like easier in many ways? Yep. Does it also drive up electricity consumption? Absolutely. Is the trade-off worth it? Yes it is.



I believe that an annual, balanced growth of 2-3% seems to be sufficient for a balanced reproduction of modern technological civilization and a sufficiently high development, while economizing the waste of precious natural resources that you seem to disregard so much.[/QUOTE]

A 2 or 3 persent growth rate is not what preserves resources. Its how the resources are used in production which is key.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Kiev Communard;2150465]Oh, yes. The magic of the market. Somehow, I do not believe in magical robots creating oil out of nothing, and even if this are invented, I doubt that their high production cost would make them anything but uncommon.

No, no robots. Let the technocrats fantasize about that.

But extracting oil from places that are presently unfeasable? Absolutely.




Nope. Let us educate them and help them to begin their own independent development.

Oh. As long as the jungles of the Amazon are cut down by Brazilians, then its ok...

[Kiev Communard]

No, no robots. Let the technocrats fantasize about that.

But extracting oil from places that are presently unfeasable? Absolutely.

You are overlooking the fact that the problem with so-called "peak oil" scenario lies not even in the resource's absolute depletion, but with rising expenditures on new equipment and infrastructure, as it becomes progressively harder to find new fields. As capitalism maximizes short-term profit over strategic necessities, it is clear that soon this will prove a major problem that cannot be ignored.


Oh. As long as the jungles of the Amazon are cut down by Brazilians, then its ok...

Somehow I doubt that Brazilians would exploit and deforest them with such a ferocity as transnational companies are currently doing.

[Tim Cornelis]

This documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pktOXJr1vOQ&feature=watch-now-button&wide=1

will make one guaranteed anti-capitalist--if you put it in anti-capitalist context beforehand. Explain the production for profit vs. production for use, private property vs. common property, etc. etc. and then let whomever you're talking to watch this documentary.

This documentary made me so enraged and I burst into tears at certain points because of this colonialism that still exists, just in a different coat.

[Kiev Communard]

Where do you think people got water until about a century ago? wellwater, or a river, or lake or pond. It wasn't clean. Beer was brewed, along with wines ect. with the objective of cleaning and purifying water

Yet there was no lethal chemicals in these wells that is currently the case in many nations, especially in the Third World, while the relative fall of water pollution in the so-called "developed" nations in recent times occurred PRECISELY because of relative industry downsizing.


Life expectancy has improved, not declined. Oh please! People live next to smokestacks and used outhouses.
But this is way off topic.

I was not idealizing pre-industrial lifestyle, but neither are the extensive and wasteful growth models healthy. Just look at the numbers of cancer casualties due to air pollution.


I never said it will. But it will reach the right decision more often than not, and more so than that anarchist scheme you linked to a few days back.

Once again, you conflate the "market" and capitalism. You might be curious to note that there are two tendencies in social anarchism, i.e. mutualist and collectivist anarchism, that do not advocate immediate abolition of the commodity exchange (what you referred to as "the market"), but are firmly against labour's domination by capital and capitalist private property (whatever the form, including the state one, it may take). You might read the following article on them and their relationship with communist-anarchism, to which I subscribe: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/the-economics-of-anarchy.

Personally I believe that the commodity exchange won't be abolished the next day after the socialist revolution, and some preparatory phases ("mutualist" and "collectivist" ones) are necessary to reach this goal so that we may have a more developed plan of transition to communism, but that the separation of capital and labour, with the latter subordinated to the former, should be abolished immediately. Nevertheless, it is clear that even under these first phases (with the "mutualist" one technically not being "socialist" per se) the gradual substitution of the commodity exchange between firms with the direct product and information exchange between syndicats and communities will take place.


Nobody said "Oh look, the Defense dept. created ARPANET, so lets place REVLEFT on it."

More precisely, the large corporations see the potential in the government's creation and made use of it, while non-profit sites (such as RevLeft) were created significantly later and OUTSIDE of logic of the capitalist "market".


As you indicated elsewhere, the economy either grows or stagnates.
Technological growth creates its own problems, certainly. But what is the nature of the problem. Does the internet et. al. make like easier in many ways? Yep. Does it also drive up electricity consumption? Absolutely. Is the trade-off worth it? Yes it is.

For starters, Internet consumes a relatively small part of the world's energy resources, so I don't think there is a burning problem with it. The real problem lies in the waste produced by modern industry, which may be made more environment-friendly, yet because this would "lower competitive advantage" no capitalist state or corporation cares about it, unless confronted with public pressure.


A 2 or 3 persent growth rate is not what preserves resources. Its how the resources are used in production which is key.

However, as the evidence shows, under insane growth rates (20%) you have praised, the resources are always used very inefficiently. Look at modern China/India/Brazil, or at Victorian England, and you will see it.