An interesting argument that my friend posed against communism [Archive]

PhoenixAsh

11th July 2011, 07:36

He is not making an argument against communism but for birth regulation. Just doesn't understand it yet.

If an equal sharing and distribution of resources will not ensure a high standard of living for everybody...how can an unequal share of resources where some amass more than they need at the expense of exponentially more people be considered a good thing?

If anything the only logical conclusion he or she must inevitably reach is that the only logical and reasonable solution which serves the highest amount of people in product scarcity is not competition but equal sharing.

And if there are not enough resources to sustain the population we have then the population itself will decrease overtime and stabilise at a sustainable level. So that is in any case not a problem which will be persistent.

Also the premisses is flawed. Because some resources are more scarce than others...and some resources are essential and some are not...and it seems to me that since science produced new products and resources which inevitable proved to create acces to innovation and newer products this is highly subjective.

Competitative accumulation also stands in the way of solutions because money and production power is amassed in the hands of the few who have very little interest to relinguish such power and wealth in order to advance the greater good. Alternatives to fossile fuel; creation of algic food supplies; etc are only interesting in as long as they help create increase wealth and power for those few...or so long as they sustain their positions.

What is also been proven is that there is an undeniable link to poverty and more offspring as a survival mechanism. The highest population growth rates are in regions of the earth which are less or least economically developed. This is not a one on one translation and there are other factors at play but the avarage is that the more developed a region the lower the growth rate of the population. Ergo...scarcity seems to have a negative effect on population stability. Yet again...another argument against non equal distribution. Unequal distribution seems to increase the problems not lessen them.

LevDavidovichBronstein

11th July 2011, 07:45

Just so my friend can see this:

@*#% you Khaled, your argument is invalid

Judicator

11th July 2011, 08:16

While communism doesn't promise to eliminate scarcity (I would hope not), I would think that if the public had more control of capital goods such as food could be more efficiently produced than it is now (just eating locally would help).

Also, you need to define a high quality of life first. You would also need to take in account that there wouldn't be anybody hoarding resources either.

I'm pretty sure though that there is enough food to go around for everyone, and is it just for the majority of the population to starve while some have an endless supply of food?

It seems to me that there are enough morbidly obese people in the world that if that food was instead given to the hungry there would be enough food for everyone.

Why not just have capitalism so you get efficient production and then reallocate some wealth to get the consumption profile you want? This way people don't starve because greedy capitalists, nor do people starve because of catastrophically bad state planning.

T-Paine

11th July 2011, 08:18

LevDavidovichBronstein

11th July 2011, 08:18

Judicator

11th July 2011, 08:25

I could be wrong, but didn't they make something like that, called Social Democracy

I think this would be more like welfare state capitalism. I thought Social Democracy would require that the state actually own or operate the factories and so on.

PhoenixAsh

11th July 2011, 08:32

Comrade Crow

11th July 2011, 08:40

Said argument is a fat load of bullshit. Next argument.

Jimmie Higgins

11th July 2011, 08:43

"There are not enough resources available to provide the necessary consumer goods in order to give a high quality of life to 6 billion people and alot more people in the future"

Currently there is enough food produced to feed everyone and the potential has not reached a limit. I read that in Texas there is enough land to fit every nuclear family on the planet in their own home.

http://www.truthtv.org/issues/population-control/enough-space/

Everyone in the world could be housed in the State of Texas with 1,300 sq feet of room per person.

So if we limited production to homes, food, and clothing then there's more than enough production potential. Considering that 6 million children die each year of hunger, just feeding everyone would increase the general "standard of living". Even if we used some of the healthcare industry's vast money in the US, we could provide healthcare for everyone and that would automatically imporve living standards.

But I think the potential goes far beyond that. As others have said, imagine if production was based on material need and want rather than profitability - rather than build military hardware or use ships and trains to move raw materials out of the 3rd world and manufactured goods back in or build McMansions that people can't afford, production could be used to make the things people actually want to consume.

What would keep "consumption" checked in a society with democratic control over production would be lack of skills or resources necessary for that production. Also people would probably be motivated to make production as efficient as possible in order to save labor and resources. So it wouldn't be like everyone gets everything they always wanted at the touch of a button, but it would still be a system that seeks to provide these things and when it is impossible to make something for everyone, some reasonable analogue might be created instead. Maybe it's not possible for every individual to have their own car, but it might be possible to provide each community with some cars that can be borrowed and returned after a long trip while creating better and free public transportation for daily use.

Throw-away phones and cameras would probably not be produced whereas nice permanent phones and cameras (or both in one) would be produced and made to last and adapt to new technological developments. Since the goal of production would be meeting needs and wants of the population there would also be an incentive to make resources last and be sustainable since it may be cheaper to move a logging operation over to the next town under capitalism, it is less efficient and more expensive for the society in general (having to relocate labor populations to new "boom towns" etc).

The problem of resource use is real, but not as dire as many suggest it is currently. The real problem is how resources are used and how production is run, specifically for profit.

Competition and the drive for profits means that less efficient, but profitable, methods win out - the automobile infrastructure of the US is a perfect example. Suburban homes dozens of miles from commercial and industrial areas makes absolutely no sense, commuting makes no sense... unless you are a housing developer looking for cheap land.

Judicator

11th July 2011, 08:48

Capitalism isn't about efficiency. Capitalism is about amassing wealth and power. The most ineffeicient way of doing things have been created in capitalism and there is massive overproduction and waste.

Capitalism can and will never be anything near efficient, nor will it bring an equal distribution of goods and wealth.

It however always has and always will bring massive poverty, unequality and disparity between quality of life.

Capitalism is about allocating resources where they produce the highest rate of return, producing as much as one can with finite resources.

What, if not capitalism, do you think has accounted for the massive growth in real world GDP since 1500 and before?

Johnny Kerosene

11th July 2011, 08:55

Jimmie Higgins

11th July 2011, 09:12

Capitalism is about allocating resources where they produce the highest rate of returnVery true.

What, if not capitalism, do you think has accounted for the massive growth in real world GDP since 1500 and before?Capitalism has allowed production to increase and created the possibility of surplus, but it has always been an incredibly unstable and wasteful and caused a great deal of misery. The boost of capital that created the possibility for the industrial revolution, for example, was created by stolen land in the Americas and India, enclosed land in Europe, and stolen labor from the Americas and Africa (i.e. slaves).

But increased production and allocating resources for the best return (profit) - especially since at least the start of the 20th century - does not mean the allocation of resources where they are most needed or could be utilized most efficiently. Indian cotton fields were destroyed by the British and replaced by Opium crops instead for example - that created a huge return but did not improve the lives of slaves on southern US cotton plantations, Indian growers who now had to rely on British traders to sell the crops, or the Chinese who were flooded by cheap opium. It was also not a useful use of resources because cash-cotton crops in the south destroyed some of the most fertile soil on the US east coast rather than allowing India and the US south to grow more diversified crops.

Euronymous

11th July 2011, 09:20

What, if not capitalism, do you think has accounted for the massive growth in real world GDP since 1500 and before?

I wish GDP was based on the percentage of happiness and stability in "real world" societies, but sadly it's just another statistic on which country is more exploited. At least in todays capitalistic cesspool.

Judicator

11th July 2011, 09:43

Very true.

Capitalism has allowed production to increase and created the possibility of surplus, but it has always been an incredibly unstable and wasteful and caused a great deal of misery. The boost of capital that created the possibility for the industrial revolution, for example, was created by stolen land in the Americas and India, enclosed land in Europe, and stolen labor from the Americas and Africa (i.e. slaves).

But increased production and allocating resources for the best return (profit) - especially since at least the start of the 20th century - does not mean the allocation of resources where they are most needed or could be utilized most efficiently. Indian cotton fields were destroyed by the British and replaced by Opium crops instead for example - that created a huge return but did not improve the lives of slaves on southern US cotton plantations, Indian growers who now had to rely on British traders to sell the crops, or the Chinese who were flooded by cheap opium. It was also not a useful use of resources because cash-cotton crops in the south destroyed some of the most fertile soil on the US east coast rather than allowing India and the US south to grow more diversified crops.

Increasing production means cheaper consumer goods, which benefits anyone who consumes them. Opium production is the most efficient use for landowners if it produces the highest return. Landowners can sell their opium and have more purchasing power than they would have had selling anything else.

If the British went and burnt down cotton fields, that's hardly capitalism. Production of cash crops, presumably grown because of their higher margins, meant resources were allocated to where they were valued most, producing higher returns for farmers. Why would a farmer voluntarily destroy his own soil?

I wish GDP was based on the percentage of happiness and stability in "real world" societies, but sadly it's just another statistic on which country is more exploited. At least in todays capitalistic cesspool.

GDP isn't happiness or stability.

PhoenixAsh

11th July 2011, 10:09

Capitalism is about allocating resources where they produce the highest rate of return, producing as much as one can with finite resources.

What, if not capitalism, do you think has accounted for the massive growth in real world GDP since 1500 and before?

I fail to see how this disproves my argument....but I am sure you will have an other go at it.

The highest rate of return does not equal efficiency in production. It means amassing greater wealth for the capitalist. The Capitalist gives fuck all about efficiency as long as he makes the greatest profit margin. So what you are arguing is that efficiency equals efficiency in wealth gathering and that is a point which I dispute.

GDP growth is nice. Its a statistic. What if not capitalism has created massive exploitation; environmental decline; regional over production and regional under production? GDP says very little about the actual wealth distribution nor does it say anything about the health of an economy. Nor does it account for the innovation of products or the quality of products. It is merely a sum of market value. As such comparing GDP through the ages is only usefull in assessing volume of production and says very little on the actual buying capacity of the population nor of inflation and monetary devaluation.

PhoenixAsh

11th July 2011, 10:20

Increasing production means cheaper consumer goods,

No...it doesn't. It means production takes place in larger quantities. Price is set by several factors...one is reducing the cost of said production.

which benefits anyone who consumes them.

No...it also doesn't. Because increased production says nothing about the quality of the product.

Opium production is the most efficient use for landowners if it produces the highest return. Landowners can sell their opium and have more purchasing power than they would have had selling anything else.

Yes...and that is not efficient use of land. Its efficient use of economic gain for the capitalist. As I said earlier.

If the British went and burnt down cotton fields, that's hardly capitalism.

No...it is exactly capitalism. Because its very directly annihilating the competition.

Production of cash crops, presumably grown because of their higher margins, meant resources were allocated to where they were valued most, producing higher returns for farmers. Why would a farmer voluntarily destroy his own soil?

No...again you conclusion is faulty. Resources were allocated where they were valued most BY THE CAPITALIST...not by society. Again that is not proof of efficiency. Farmers needed to follow the market...as they still have to...in order to make a living. So they are forced by the economic system to grow the highest income creating crops instead of the crops which are healthy or needed. They are even forced to grow crops year round; or to such an extend that soil nutrition is depleted. If they fail to follow the dictum of the market moves tehy will lose their land. And if they follow they will destroy their land.

In fact...the opposite is also true... there have also been numerous instances in the last decades where farmers destroyed their crops or products to keep prices high so they could gain higher income. Simply because the over production of crops and the fall in demand created a situation where actual prices were lower than the cost of production and the surplus they needed to make a living.

Now...is that efficient?

GDP isn't happiness or stability.

Indeed. GDP is only the accumulation of total production value. Is pretty useless as a statistic beyond that.

RGacky3

11th July 2011, 10:24

Increasing production means cheaper consumer goods, which benefits anyone who consumes them.

But under Capitalism, it also means less employment, stagnent wages, and thus less demand, it also does'nt neccessarily mean cheaper goods, there are many market manipulations that can be put in place (by market players) to stop that.

Jimmie Higgins

11th July 2011, 10:26

Increasing production means cheaper consumer goods, which benefits anyone who consumes them. No it benefits the producer in competition, it may benefit some of the people who use it secondarily or it may not.

In the case of India above, imported British cotton impoverished the country and made growers dependent on selling their cash-crop for British trade. For textiles production in India, it was devistating and so everything had to be imported.

In many ways this was cheaper and more efficient for the capitalists because production could be centralized, but it did not help the slaves in the south, Indians, or Chinese as I said before.

Today in the Caribbean, similar things have happened due to IMF regulations than mandate that imported cheaper commodities like dehydrated milk from the US must be sold rather than domestically produced milk that is smaller-scale and a little more expensive. In the long-run, within the very logic of capitalism, this makes people poorer because production of raw materials rather than small dairy farms or creating local textiles etc, pays less to the workers and creates trade imbalances where the most profitable part of production (manufacturing and development of raw materials into commodities) is done elsewhere and then sold back.

If the British went and burnt down cotton fields, that's hardly capitalism. Ah yes the ol' libertarian standby: capitalism is always good and if something isn't good then it isn't capitalism. They burned down cotton fields to reshape the economy in a way that would help them in their trade routes and control of resources. It is very much capitalism and continues to this day where independent small farmers are pushed out so that crop-land can be opened to modern industrial modes of production. Potentially these methods could be more efficient and enclosing pesant lands to make way for cash-crop production was more efficient - for capital. It produced misery and riots and so on, but it was efficient for profits. The trick for anarchists and socialists is how to apply the potential to create surplus that industrialism and so on create in a way that is actually democratic and in a way that will help people rather than produce more profit at the expense of living standards.

Production of cash crops, presumably grown because of their higher margins, meant resources were allocated to where they were valued most, producing higher returns for farmers. Why would a farmer voluntarily destroy his own soil?Because of westward expansion and the cheapness of stolen land. It's cheaper to use up the land and move to new land in Texas than to actually develop sustainable ways to produce what's needed. It's not just a matter of the plantation owners and traders being "cheapskates" - they were in competition and so short-term returns are more important than long-term viability and growth. In capitalism you need to produce that profit or someone else will and then push you out.

MarxSchmarx

11th July 2011, 10:27

Your friend's argument relies on several dubious premises. But the essential flaw is that the current approach to producing the goods required for a "high standard of living" are in any sense already optimal.

So as other posters have pointed out, the reason a "high standard of living" seems so unsustainable on a grand scale is partly b/c capitalism has a lot of built in inefficiencies mainly based on profits such as the urge to replace perfectly functional capital goods more often than is remotely necessary or built in obsolescence.

Additionally, technological development mitigates a lot of these issues. Food has been sited as an example, others are electricity generation based on renewable resources, electric vehicles and urban planning. A lot of this technology is not being deployed and developed further because it is unprofitable, not because it is unavailable.

Baseball

11th July 2011, 12:07

RGacky3

11th July 2011, 12:31

Its a bit of a flawed argument. Its more accurate to say that communism does not work as it has a rather static conception of the world. Changes and improvements need to go to all at the same time, else its a "problem."

It does'nt at all, you look at marxists today, and marxists 50 years ago, you'll hear radically different things using the same principles.

Jimmie Higgins

11th July 2011, 13:47

Its a bit of a flawed argument. Its more accurate to say that communism does not work as it has a rather static conception of the world. Changes and improvements need to go to all at the same time, else its a "problem."

Like Marx said, the state will wither away... all at once in one big wither.

Sorry friend, I can't think of a less true statement about Marxism... static? A theory that suggests that everything is in flux and change constantly... static?!

I mean if you say the deterministic "official Marxism" of the USSR viewed the world (and Marxism even) as static, then I agree. But Marxism and Marx's philosophy were all about finding the dynamics of the world we live in.

Rafiq

11th July 2011, 14:16

Why not just have capitalism so you get efficient production and then reallocate some wealth to get the consumption profile you want? This way people don't starve because greedy capitalists, nor do people starve because of catastrophically bad state planning.

What the hell is the point of that? You're basically saying we should keep the capitalist mode of production, but take all of the money and spread it evenelly?

That would be fucking awesome, but here's the problem:

Some of the contradictions in capitalism are class!

So that means the proletariat and bourgeois class would still exist, and therefore the bourgeois class would still be at class dictatorship (in class society, one class must rule). And you know the story, class warfare.

Rafiq

11th July 2011, 14:18

Capitalism isn't about efficiency. Capitalism is about amassing wealth and power. The most ineffeicient way of doing things have been created in capitalism and there is massive overproduction and waste.

Capitalism can and will never be anything near efficient, nor will it bring an equal distribution of goods and wealth.

It however always has and always will bring massive poverty, unequality and disparity between quality of life.

Bullshit. Capitalism isn't the boogyman, it's the final stage of class society.

And I garantee you, never before have human's lived better than they do now. So far, in human history (excluding the socialist countries where sometimes the living standards were better than before) has there been a system as efficient than capitalism.

Rafiq

11th July 2011, 14:23

Its a bit of a flawed argument. Its more accurate to say that communism does not work as it has a rather static conception of the world. Changes and improvements need to go to all at the same time, else its a "problem."

And the same with capitalism as well.

We know that the human nature argument is crap.

And changes and improvements don't need to go all at the same time, last time I checked when the Bourgeoisie got into power in the 18th century, that wasn't the case at all.

You realize that human civilization has been entering different types of exchange and such for their whole existence, right?

Baseball

11th July 2011, 14:54

And changes and improvements don't need to go all at the same time, last time I checked when the Bourgeoisie got into power in the 18th century, that wasn't the case at all.

True. Yet this is often the demand of the revlefters hereabouts, what they "carp" about as being a problem of capitalism.

You realize that human civilization has been entering different types of exchange and such for their whole existence, right?

Certainly. The socialists (Marxists) depend upon it.
Unfortunately for them, they conclude things automatically get better, thus conclude that socialism automatically is superior to capitalism and as a result, as you yourself has stated, often claim no need to actually prove that socialism is superior.

communard71

11th July 2011, 16:21

I assume Coraline’s cat did away with our little capitalist apologist, and very well too. As to the original question of resources, I would tell your friend that human ingenuity pooled together in true common cause can make resources last longer than competing organizations, and would be more willing to switch resources if crisis is presented instead of hanging on to antiquated technologies for the sake of profits. Also, if one were to critically examine the resource use of the top ten percent of the worlds population, i.e. the international capitalist class, one would see a grotesquely inordinate consumption on their part of all things, whether those objects or services are vital (fresh food, health care) or extraneous playthings (yachts, real-estate, clothes). Thus, simple equity between all people would yield higher resource distribution on average than under capitalism.

PhoenixAsh

11th July 2011, 16:21

Bullshit. Capitalism isn't the boogyman, it's the final stage of class society.

And I garantee you, never before have human's lived better than they do now. So far, in human history (excluding the socialist countries where sometimes the living standards were better than before) has there been a system as efficient than capitalism.

Except for about 70% of the world where living standards and conditions have sharply declined as a direct result of capitalism and mercantilism.

I dare to argue that capitalism is the most effective system fot the least amount of countries and people. And I think there is an argument to be made that any rise in living conditions are not a result of capitalism but rather of scientific progress, a process which was already initiated before capitalism/mercantilism was anywhere near predominant.

The Industrial era in which capitalism had one of its most unlimited reigns was absolutely desasterous on a human scale. The rise in living conditions sharply declined and the only reason that was reversed was because of socialist struggle.

Capitalism is indeed the Boogeyman. It may be considered a prerequisite evil but its an evil non the less. Its the direct cause and reason for the current class struggle and exploitationand can not exist without it. Its overthrow is not for not our goal. To say it is not is a profound misunderstanding of the system.

Rafiq

11th July 2011, 16:27

True. Yet this is often the demand of the revlefters hereabouts, what they "carp" about as being a problem of capitalism.

It's not about swapping economic systems or modes of production, it's about the proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie and achieving class dictatorship. History will take it's coarse from there.

Certainly. The socialists (Marxists) depend upon it.
Unfortunately for them, they conclude things automatically get better, thus conclude that socialism automatically is superior to capitalism and as a result, as you yourself has stated, often claim no need to actually prove that socialism is superior.

We don't all conclude things always get better, of course not. Ever heard the quote "Socialism or Barbarism"?

Things could ultimitally get much worse, if the proletariat does not achieve class dictatorship.

Again, you should hope that socialism is better, since the point of it being is that capitalism will inevitably collapse and it's time for us to start coming up with solutions. There is no need to prove socialism is superior to capitalism, and if you're inquiring that there is no solution to capitalism and it is the final stage of human developement, than I would gladly like to hear you prove that. Even if socialism can't work, it's important we find a solution, since we already proved that capitalism can't.

And since capitalism cannot work, it's important to find a solution.

Here is where you and I draw the line:

You claim capitalism is the final destination for humanity and there is no possible system that could be superior. I refute this by saying that such a notion is not only Idealist, it's, at the least, Utopian.

Just think about it, read the news, look around you, anything seems possible these days, yet people claim that a different economic system is impossible, or utopian, or bound for failure. You at the least have to admit this is blatant closed mindendness.

Maybe the bourgeoisie says that, because, here's a thought: They have no interest in finding a solution to capitalism, or a better economic system.

Nobody is doubting capitalism is the most efficient system humanity has organized itself in recorded history.

What I am doubting is that it is the last, and best system humanity will ever have.

For me, perhaps socialism is the doing away with the current capitalist mode of production. That is where it stops. I cannot have a view of the world as if the globe is in my two hands. History will take it's course by the will of the proletariat, if we are successful.

Rafiq

11th July 2011, 16:29

Except for about 70% of the world where living standards and conditions have sharply declined as a direct result of capitalism and mercantilism.

I dare to argue that capitalism is the most effective system fot the least amount of countries and people. And I think there is an argument to be made that any rise in living conditions are not a result of capitalism but rather of scientific progress, a process which was already initiated before capitalism/mercantilism was anywhere near predominant.

The Industrial era in which capitalism had one of its most unlimited reigns was absolutely desasterous on a human scale. The rise in living conditions sharply declined and the only reason that was reversed was because of socialist struggle.

Capitalism is indeed the Boogeyman. It may be considered a prerequisite evil but its an evil non the less. Its the direct cause and reason for the current class struggle and exploitationand can not exist without it. Its overthrow is not for not our goal. To say it is not is a profound misunderstanding of the system.

I said Capitalism is the most efficent system so far, not the most effeicent system that will ever exist.

TelevisionIncarnate

12th July 2011, 05:45

Just tell him its the same under capitalism. Tell him it doesn't change with the way your run a country, scarcity will always be there. Then tell him capitalism exploits it further by providing less to the poor and more to the rich. Done and done.

Decommissioner

12th July 2011, 05:58

Seeing as in a communist society we will have more democratic control over what is produced, if there is a demand for a certain product or consumer good we will produce it in the sufficient amounts necessary.

If so many people want x, those people can realistically take actions to produce x. A council or co-op can be formed that communicates with others councils in charge of making the raw materials that go into x to coordinate how much material is needed, and then your products can be produced.

What prevents this from happening now is working people dont have the money to own means of production. When the means of production are democratically owned, we can produce not only what society needs, but also what society wants...why would people settle for not having what they want (realistic wants...not gold plated toilet wants) when they know they can together set in motion the actions taken to produce the materials they want?

Judicator

12th July 2011, 09:16

But under Capitalism, it also means less employment, stagnent wages, and thus less demand, it also does'nt neccessarily mean cheaper goods, there are many market manipulations that can be put in place (by market players) to stop that.

If that were the case, we would observe perpetually decreasing employment and stagnant real wages since the 1700s. You'd also observe flat real prices.

In the case of India above, imported British cotton impoverished the country and made growers dependent on selling their cash-crop for British trade. For textiles production in India, it was devistating and so everything had to be imported.

Unless they added some regulation banning cotton production, what's to stop Indian farmers from switching back to cotton? If the market price of opium faced by indian farmers was lower than that of cotton, why did they switch in the first place?

Today in the Caribbean, similar things have happened due to IMF regulations than mandate that imported cheaper commodities like dehydrated milk from the US must be sold rather than domestically produced milk that is smaller-scale and a little more expensive.

Free trade organizations only require that there be free trade. Please point me to the IMF regulation that requires consumers in the Caribbean to buy from importers.

Ah yes the ol' libertarian standby: capitalism is always good and if something isn't good then it isn't capitalism. They burned down cotton fields to reshape the economy in a way that would help them in their trade routes and control of resources. It is very much capitalism and continues to this day where independent small farmers are pushed out so that crop-land can be opened to modern industrial modes of production.

So a lot of capitalist nations were also imperialist, therefore capitalism and imperialism are equivalent concepts? Capitalism relies on law and order - burning down cotton fields is no more capitalist than nationalizing factories.

It's cheaper to use up the land and move to new land in Texas than to actually develop sustainable ways to produce what's needed. It's not just a matter of the plantation owners and traders being "cheapskates" - they were in competition and so short-term returns are more important than long-term viability and growth. In capitalism you need to produce that profit or someone else will and then push you out.

This doesn't answer the point about how farmers are better off if they sell. Capitalism has been causing growth for hundreds of years - it seems the end of capitalism is always just around the corner, like the second coming of Jesus...

What the hell is the point of that? You're basically saying we should keep the capitalist mode of production, but take all of the money and spread it evenelly?

That would be fucking awesome, but here's the problem:

Some of the contradictions in capitalism are class!

So that means the proletariat and bourgeois class would still exist, and therefore the bourgeois class would still be at class dictatorship (in class society, one class must rule). And you know the story, class warfare.

Not evenly, just so there's enough that people at the bottom can have a "decent" living. You keep the capitalist mode of production because alternatives (central planning) are usually disasters.

I guess there might still be "class warfare," but the more wealth redistribution there is, the more the working class have to gain by preserving the status quo rather than risk ending up on the losing side of a class war.

Jimmie Higgins

12th July 2011, 10:26

Free trade organizations only require that there be free trade. Please point me to the IMF regulation that requires consumers in the Caribbean to buy from importers.

"Free trade" in terms of recent trade agreements and IMF and Bank Structural Adjustment Policies generally means, poor countries are free to trade resources at conditions dictated by the big economic powers. These policies have mandated that countries get rid of protectionism and tariffs and so on for the products they sell to, say, the US or UK, while the imports brought into the country (such as US milk or cotton or corn) are heavily subsidized and so on. IMF policies in Jamaica mandated wage freezes on the population; policies in Brazil required that in order to purchase rainforest land you must "develop" it. Seriously, there is tons of documentation on all this and you can read abut their requirements from their own speeches and documents. It's not talked about much and the details aren't made widely available, but it's hardly a secret for anyone who knows anything about the international economy (regardless of their ideology).

Look up Structural Adjustment Programs and watch the movie "Life in Debt" for examples. Here's an interview with the documentary's director:

BuzzFlash: Can you explain the term "structural adjustment" as it relates to the IMF?
Stephanie Black: Structural adjustment and the foreign programs are when the IMF lends a country money, they come up with a contractual agreement where the IMF specifies certain policies that the borrowing nation has to enforce. The country itself has to present the policies to the IMF to get the loan. But in actuality, the IMF dictates what these policies will be. Typically, any country that borrows from the IMF will have to devalue their currency, because the IMF feels that the flow helps to discourage importing. But it doesn’t necessarily, and it hasn’t in any of the countries where they’ve imposed this. They encourage privatization, which they consider "reducing the burden of the state."
So a country which finds itself in need, a country like Jamaica that actually gained its independence, needs foreign capital to borrow so that it can begin to build its infrastructure to serve its people, build its roads, build its school systems, encourage irrigation in farming lands and such, to build the nation for its people. The country finds itself in a situation where there’s no alternative, there’s nowhere else to go except to the IMF, because commercial banks, like Citibank, Barclay’s or such – won’t lend money to a country unless they have the seal of approval from the IMF. So the country is forced to go to the IMF. Once they’re forced to go to the IMF, the capital that they’re getting has these policies which are called structural adjustments, which are generally quite restrictive.
BuzzFlash: What is the difference between the International Monetary Fund – the IMF – and the World Bank? What is the World Bank in relation to the IMF?
Stephanie Black: The World Bank's relationship to the IMF is that they assist it. And they do more long-term projects. Whereas the IMF would lend capital, more in the short term, the World Bank lends money to do more long-term projects, like free zones.
BuzzFlash: As a viewer, I would say I came away from your film with an understanding of two key negative impacts of the IMF on Jamaica. One, the tradeoff for getting loans was that Jamaica became a nation that imported lower-priced goods, primarily from the U.S. -- a policy that ended up ruinous to indigenous subsistence industries and agriculture. Jamaicans who were in these businesses ended up worse off as a result of the loans. There was a very respected Jamaican chicken processor that was basically decimated because U.S. imports of inferior chicken products flooded in, chicken products that had been sitting for several years and frozen and so forth. Basically the IMF forced Jamaica to import cheaper U.S. products that put Jamaicans out of work. They were able to buy things cheaper in theory, but they had no jobs as a result. And you brought up the destruction of the dairy industry in Jamaica because, as a result of an IMF agreement, Jamaica started importing powdered milk from the United States. Jamaica ended up with what one might call a post-colonial economic dependency on a colonial power.

So a lot of capitalist nations were also imperialist, therefore capitalism and imperialism are equivalent concepts? Capitalism relies on law and order - burning down cotton fields is no more capitalist than nationalizing factories.Imperialism is part of capitalism, it is the way that capitalists enforce their law and order onto other regions: either through direct force and colonization or through trade agreements.

Capitalism does rely on law and order and sometimes that order is austerity and the law is wage freezes such as in the "free trade" Structural Adjustment Programs in Jamaica.

This doesn't answer the point about how farmers are better off if they sell. Capitalism has been causing growth for hundreds of years - it seems the end of capitalism is always just around the corner, like the second coming of Jesus...It isn't always around the corner - not in the last 20 years or so, but before that what is the history of capitalism (going backwards): competition of the cold war possibly resulting in nuclear war and massive destruction; a wave of colonial revolts and wars including Vietnam, Afghanistan, Algeria, Cambodia, etc; a world war brough on because of competition between capitalist powers and in which all of capitalism was turned upside down; a depression that caused uprisings, wars, and the rise of fascism; a wave of revolutions in Europe; a world war brought on because of competition between capitalist powers and in which all of capitalism was turned upside down.

Yes, I'd say taking as a whole, capitalism is very unstable. The same dynamism that allowed it's rapid growth early on now is mostly devoted to competition and destruction and is highly unstable.

Not evenly, just so there's enough that people at the bottom can have a "decent" living. You keep the capitalist mode of production because alternatives (central planning) are usually disasters.Central planning is not inherently a disaster but is quite problematic when run in the interests of a minority class or unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats. Capitalism, however, is inherently disaster-prone... ever hear of the boom-bust cycle? Capitalism's own drive for growth is blind and chaotic and causes the destruction of capitalism's own market. Everyone investing in bubbles knows it will pop and cause ruin, but for major investors not to invest in bubbles, they will be left behind and pushed out of the market anyway, so it's just an insane suicidal system.

I guess there might still be "class warfare," but the more wealth redistribution there is, the more the working class have to gain by preserving the status quo rather than risk ending up on the losing side of a class war.The working class doesn't have to do anything to end up on the loosing side of the class war - what do you think austerity is, what do you think 30 years of declining living standards and stagnating wages are, what do you think unfordable healthcare and private debt are?

In boom periods, the ruling class might think it's worth it to offer reforms in exchange for social peace, but a slave master might also treat you nice and give you a nice meal on Christmas. But what master gives he can take away and the history of neoliberalism should show anyone that reforms and a decent standard of living will be taken away unprovoked.

RGacky3

12th July 2011, 23:24

If that were the case, we would observe perpetually decreasing employment and stagnant real wages since the 1700s. You'd also observe flat real prices.

Which you did see after FRDs reforms were undone mostly by reagen and unions were destroyed.

Also during the 1700s and 1800s you had naturally expanding markets (which meant no need for bubbles and that industries contracting were ok because other industries were opening up), you don't have that any more.

This is what happens under market circumstances and what you see the more an economy become market orientated and less socially orientated, you can pretty much track that trend to the point.

Dr Mindbender

13th July 2011, 00:31

Rafiq

13th July 2011, 06:19

Not evenly, just so there's enough that people at the bottom can have a "decent" living. You keep the capitalist mode of production because alternatives (central planning) are usually disasters.

I guess there might still be "class warfare," but the more wealth redistribution there is, the more the working class have to gain by preserving the status quo rather than risk ending up on the losing side of a class war.

What were the alternatives? Because last time I fucking checked, the socialist nations ended up in huge disasters because of the capitalist mode of production and it's contradictions

And it doesn't work that way, regarding wealth distributation. The bourgeoisie are not going to give up their wealth unless we take it from them.

RGacky3

13th July 2011, 09:03

What were the alternatives? Because last time I fucking checked, the socialist nations ended up in huge disasters because of the capitalist mode of production and it's contradictions

Centralized planning was the problem in most of those places, the capitalist made of production was'nt the main downfall (although it had a lot to do with it, when you pretend to impliment socialism, but keep wage labor and the class system, of one controlling class the other working class, your gonna have major problems).

When you mix the 2 together, where its basically a non-market, non-profit centralized capitalist economy, you have this outcome.

And it doesn't work that way, regarding wealth distributation. The bourgeoisie are not going to give up their wealth unless we take it from them.

Exactly, and it has to be perminant, imo this starts with syndicalism.

Rafiq

13th July 2011, 16:38

Centralized planning was the problem in most of those places, the capitalist made of production was'nt the main downfall (although it had a lot to do with it, when you pretend to impliment socialism, but keep wage labor and the class system, of one controlling class the other working class, your gonna have major problems).

I think you're forgetting the fact that all of those socialist countries had no choice.

Lenin and Stalin weren't assholes for no reason. And the same goes for the rest of the countries. It's actually impossible to implement socialism, or any alternative to capitalism, in a single country, you have problems like imperialism, etc. Russia was invaded by over 17 countries, for example.

Exactly, and it has to be perminant, imo this starts with syndicalism.

I don't think so. If you want to hit the bourgeoisie hard, then I believe sort of an organized insurrectionism (R.I.A.U.), where there is strong, Iron fisted organization, however, insurrectionism still is existing and systematic.

RGacky3

13th July 2011, 21:00

I think you're forgetting the fact that all of those socialist countries had no choice.

Lenin and Stalin weren't assholes for no reason. And the same goes for the rest of the countries. It's actually impossible to implement socialism, or any alternative to capitalism, in a single country, you have problems like imperialism, etc. Russia was invaded by over 17 countries, for example.

Your not gonna convince me that having a functioning democracy in a country is "Impossible," Norway and Germany are more socialistic than the USSR was.

ComradeMan

13th July 2011, 21:14

Your not gonna convince me that having a functioning democracy in a country is "Impossible," Norway and Germany are more socialistic than the USSR was.

Because you can really compare Norway, Germany and the USSR?

Judicator

14th July 2011, 02:37

What were the alternatives? Because last time I fucking checked, the socialist nations ended up in huge disasters because of the capitalist mode of production and it's contradictions

And it doesn't work that way, regarding wealth distributation. The bourgeoisie are not going to give up their wealth unless we take it from them.

The main alternatives are collectivization and government producing everything. Both have disastrous track records on large scales. Capitalism makes some people poor, while the alternatives seem to make nearly everyone poor.

Rates of charitable giving aren't 0, so your second point is factually incorrect.

Baseball

14th July 2011, 03:31

It's actually impossible to implement socialism, or any alternative to capitalism, in a single country

Then the only option is to support, and hope, for a worldwide communist revolt, coordinated at the same time. I would think that serious socialists would scoff at such a pipedream.

So then the only alternative: There must be an acceptance on socialist regimes in single countries, co-existing alongside capitalist regimes, for an indeterminate period of time, throughout various parts of the world So if there is NO way for such a socialist community to be created in such an environment, then the socialists might as well close up shop and raise the white flag.

RGacky3

14th July 2011, 08:01

Because you can really compare Norway, Germany and the USSR?

Yes, Norway was one of the poorest countries in the western world, before the socialist reforms, and think of Germany after WW2.

Thirsty Crow

14th July 2011, 08:15

My friend and I frequently have debates about communism, I am not an experienced communist but I know a thing or two about the way it works and its history; he came up with a point that I wasn't sure how to answer (I'm sure you guys can rip it apart)

I'm going to link him to this thread so leave him a personal message if you want xD

!The argument!
------------------------

"There are not enough resources available to provide the necessary consumer goods in order to give a high quality of life to 6 billion people and alot more people in the future"

I might be missing something here, and I don't know much about world resources, but this stumped me and I gave a few stupid responses that didn't really work.

HELP ME HERE!!You don't have to know jack shit about this since he/she is the one putting forward the argument. Therefore, it is up to him/her to provide evidence. Any kind of evidence. Which were never presented. So ask for it, and be sure to include a sarcastic tone (you can also mention that spouting crap like this, unsupported by anything, is not an argument in fact).

Yes, Norway was one of the poorest countries in the western world, before the socialist reforms, and think of Germany after WW2.
No such thing as "socialist reforms".

RGacky3

14th July 2011, 13:03

No such thing as "socialist reforms".

Yes there are, unless your just playing silly hardline semantics.

Ocean Seal

14th July 2011, 13:38

My friend and I frequently have debates about communism, I am not an experienced communist but I know a thing or two about the way it works and its history; he came up with a point that I wasn't sure how to answer (I'm sure you guys can rip it apart)

I'm going to link him to this thread so leave him a personal message if you want xD

!The argument!
------------------------

"There are not enough resources available to provide the necessary consumer goods in order to give a high quality of life to 6 billion people and alot more people in the future"

I might be missing something here, and I don't know much about world resources, but this stumped me and I gave a few stupid responses that didn't really work.

HELP ME HERE!!
How do we know what resources will exist in the future. Remember that a couple of hundred years ago, the idea of an automobile would have sounded ridiculous. The idea of things being propelled by steam, or oil, or the sun's energy is far too much. We need to look into renewable resources for this type of thing, and we need to realize that abundance is already here for some resources, its just the bourgeoisie which are preventing it. Food is abundant, all the resources that are found on the internet are abundant, but the landowners destroy their crops, and the bourgeoisie implement intellectual property laws which prevent the socialization of digital content.

Baseball

14th July 2011, 19:05

Here is where you and I draw the line:

You claim capitalism is the final destination for humanity and there is no possible system that could be superior. I refute this by saying that such a notion is not only Idealist, it's, at the least, Utopian.

Just think about it, read the news, look around you, anything seems possible these days, yet people claim that a different economic system is impossible, or utopian, or bound for failure. You at the least have to admit this is blatant closed mindendness.

Maybe the bourgeoisie says that, because, here's a thought: They have no interest in finding a solution to capitalism, or a better economic system.

Nobody is doubting capitalism is the most efficient system humanity has organized itself in recorded history.

What I am doubting is that it is the last, and best system humanity will ever have.

For me, perhaps socialism is the doing away with the current capitalist mode of production. That is where it stops. I cannot have a view of the world as if the globe is in my two hands. History will take it's course by the will of the proletariat, if we are successful.

Where we differ, on the subject in hand, is that you wish to deny capitalism is superior to socialism for no other reason that you are skeptical that there is nothing superior to capitalism for all of eternity. I won't dispute you there, but saying therefore socialism must be it and no need to prove it is a bit much.

ColonelCossack

14th July 2011, 19:11

... yes there is...
the trillions of dollars and the resources put into advertising alone would be enough to feeeeeeeed theeeeeee wooooooo-ooooorrld, let them know its christmas time.

edit: shit, got a bit carried away there :blushing: :blink: :confused: :p

Seriously though, capitalism wastes HUGES amounts of resources on shit like eyeliner that could be used for much more useful things. But that's the nature of capitalism- if a capitalist wants his workers to produce ping pong balls instead of food for kids because he/she thinks it will rake in the most profit, then of course the ping pong balls will take precedence. In this way, capitalism is in fact much more inefficient than communist or anarchist society would be, which is being shown by the current rapid depletion of the earth's resources by the Bourgeoisie. So, if your friend's argument was right, capitalism would have already collapsed by now.

Thirsty Crow

14th July 2011, 19:15

Yes there are, unless your just playing silly hardline semantics.
Hardline semantics? Well, in my opinion such expressions sometimes imply a grave lack of understanding of the communist programme itself, so no, this is not just playing silly hardline semantics and there most definitely are no "socialist reforms".

RGacky3

15th July 2011, 09:27

Hardline semantics in the sense that you are extremely strict and rigid with definitions to the point to where they serve no purpose.

Socialist reforms basically mean anything that give workers more control of the means of production and gives the public more control over the economy.

Now we can have an arugment about whether or not that is beneficial to the communist progremme or whatevre, but thats what socialist reforms are, and it makes absolute sense that it is called that.

ComradeMan

15th July 2011, 09:34

Yes, Norway was one of the poorest countries in the western world, before the socialist reforms, and think of Germany after WW2.

West Germany was rebuilt by the Allies and the Marshall Plan.

Norway received $372 million cumulatively between 1948 & 1951. West Germany received $1448 million. Post World War II Norway also followed a policty of Keynesian economics and had the fortune to discover massive oil/gas/petrol reserves in the North Sea. The Norwegian Labour party kept well away from the communists and of course Norway joined NATO.

RGacky3

15th July 2011, 09:46

You can't put it all on the Marshall plan, at best it kept them up, and other countries also got Aid as well. Norway struck oil yeah, but then again so did the USSR, so did tons and tons of countries, but they did'nt handle it as well as Norway did, Norwegian economic policy was'nt just Keynesian, the Labor party for a long time was a proper Socialist party, as far as Nato, foreign policy has nothing to do with internal economic policy.

But my point stands, Norway and Germany had many socialist reforms, and were in nature more socialistic than the USSR I would say, and were also functioning democracies, infact the 2 proped each other up. As far as economic development, sure, you can say other factors helped, but that does'nt change the fact that socialistic policies helped a lot as did democratic traditions.

Thirsty Crow

15th July 2011, 12:08

d

Socialist reforms basically mean anything that give workers more control of the means of production and gives the public more control over the economy.

Now we can have an arugment about whether or not that is beneficial to the communist progremme or whatevre, but thats what socialist reforms are, and it makes absolute sense that it is called that.
No, it doesn't, since the measures you're probably referring to did not in any way institute even meager measures aimed at workers' control (more often than not, the corporatist practices in Germany were aimed at creating workers' bodies at the point of production totally subordinate to the bosses; the wefare state and all its nationalization didn't bring about not an ounce of workers' control). That is one point.
The other is that any notion of workers' control within capitalism is totally moot when it comes to a possible intensification in class struggle. Workers' co-ops are not revolutionary organizations, and they do not even function as sort of catalysts for the development of social and political counsciousness of the working class and for the working class.

Again, it is not meaningful to call capitalist reforms "socialist". Don't be the one that muddles the water, intentionally or not, like those folks who cry about Obama being socialist. That's what you've been doing here, in fact.

Oh, and one other point about your idiotic "measuring principle". When you say that Norway was more "socialistic" than USSR, and do consider the existence of private property in Norway, than it's cear to me that you know jack shit about socialism and also that your comparative, quasi-quantifying approach is beyond bankrupt.
We can talk about beneficient reforms wor workers' living standards, we can talk about the superiority of a kind of a welfare state in comparison with the slashing of these measures that's been going on for about 30 years, but don't make the mistake of thinking that Labour policies were in any way connected with the, conscious or not, goal of establishing a global classless and stateless society. They're not.

...Norwegian economic policy was'nt just Keynesian, the Labor party for a long time was a proper Socialist party, as far as Nato, foreign policy has nothing to do with internal economic policy.

Foreign policy has nothing to do with "internal" economic policy?
It seems that you're rejecting the notion of imperialism in its entirety. I bet that you wouldn't spout this unbelieveable bullshit if USA were the topic of conversation. Would you say that American foreign policy has nothing to do with "internal" econmic policy?
But yeah, go figure, when it comes to mindless fethishization of a model of a capitalist state, I'm not surprised that you sing praise to welfare states of Europe (who had have been crumbling for a long time now).

RGacky3

15th July 2011, 13:03

Foreign policy has nothing to do with "internal" economic policy?
It seems that you're rejecting the notion of imperialism in its entirety. I bet that you wouldn't spout this unbelieveable bullshit if USA were the topic of conversation. Would you say that American foreign policy has nothing to do with "internal" econmic policy?
But yeah, go figure, when it comes to mindless fethishization of a model of a capitalist state, I'm not surprised that you sing praise to welfare states of Europe (who had have been crumbling for a long time now).

Your right, foreign policy does have a lot of to with internal economic policy when it comes to imperialism.

Norway joining NATO can hardly be seen as imperialism or effecting to a large extend internal economics, nor the definition of whether or not something can be termed socialistic.

Its been crumbling for a long time now because basically welfare states are unsustainable without nationalizations, also because in the 70s and 80s with the neo-liberal agenda the most important aspects, the social-dmeocratic part that held up the welfare part was stripped away in many countries.

No, it doesn't, since the measures you're probably referring to did not in any way institute even meager measures aimed at workers' control (more often than not, the corporatist practices in Germany were aimed at creating workers' bodies at the point of production totally subordinate to the bosses; the wefare state and all its nationalization didn't bring about not an ounce of workers' control). That is one point.

Your telling me that co-determination in Germany does'nt give workers more control in industry as opposed to countries without co-determination?

Is that the argument you are trying to make?

Again, it is not meaningful to call capitalist reforms "socialist". Don't be the one that muddles the water, intentionally or not, like those folks who cry about Obama being socialist. That's what you've been doing here, in fact.

Thats not what I'm doing here, because Obama has'nt done ANYTHING, not ONE THING to democratize the economy OR increase workers say in industry, infact he's done the opposite.

Its meaningful because we have examples of socialist ideas in action within capitalism and we can track their effects (which are almost always positive).

When you say that Norway was more "socialistic" than USSR, and do consider the existence of private property in Norway, than it's cear to me that you know jack shit about socialism and also that your comparative, quasi-quantifying approach is beyond bankrupt.

The lack of private property does'nt make anything socialistic, if thats the case then HongKong is socialistic because it does'nt have land property, and so are absolute monarchies, thats a stupid argument.

In Norway today, workers, overall, have more say in their workplace and over the overall economy than they had in the USSR.

We can talk about beneficient reforms wor workers' living standards, we can talk about the superiority of a kind of a welfare state in comparison with the slashing of these measures that's been going on for about 30 years, but don't make the mistake of thinking that Labour policies were in any way connected with the, conscious or not, goal of establishing a global classless and stateless society. They're not.

BTW, I'm not talking about the welfare state, taxing the rich and having welfare is'nt socialistic, nationalizations, co-determination, cooperative industry and so on is socialistic.

Their goals ARE NOT establishing a global classless and stateless society, but ther GOALS are not the defining factor, I'm not saying the people in labor parties are communists, or even actual socialists, I'm saying that the policies put in place in the past by those parties (always under immense public and worker pressure) WERE socialist policies.

Nothing Human Is Alien

15th July 2011, 13:20

Overpopulation is absolutely a myth. There have been many threads on this, even in the last few months. Do a search.

Billionaire Ted Turner: 'adopt global one-child policy' (http://www.revleft.com/vb/billionaire-ted-turner-t146568/index.html?t=146568)

We all complain about capitalism, but what about overpopulation (http://www.revleft.com/vb/we-all-complain-t154407/index.html)

How many people can the earth support? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/many-people-can-t148400/index.html)

Where does it come from? The inability of the system to meet human need, the need for it to attack the living standards of the working class to keep its system going, the need for more profit, the need to curtail development / competition, paternalism, etc., etc., etc.

My posts from recent threads:

Tertullian made the argument in the year 200. Malthus made it in the 1800s. Neither were correct.

Resources are fluid.

Examples: Many years ago, iron was used to basic tools by humans who couldn't fathom that the same material would one day be used to build skyscrapers and bridges that span huge distances. Coal was once used for jewelery by people who never thought it would later power the industrial revolution, and once the industrial revolution came it was used to produce steam power by people who had no idea that power would one day come from uranium. That's because uranium was used to color glass, not as an energy source.

Get it?

The human species is truly brilliant. We continue to find ways to move forward with the things available, and create them where they don't exist.

The problem is not and has never been that there are “too many people,” or “not enough resources.” The problem is social: the capitalist minority controls the tools and technology used to produce the things we want and need.

In a modern society, the labor of 1 person can feed and house more than 1 person. Because of that, and because resources are fluid, there's no excuse for the wants and needs of all to go unsatisfied. There are simply obstacles (i.e. capitalism) in the way.

The Malthusian doomsday prophecies have been around since ... the days of Malthus, and in fact much earlier than that. They always fall flat.

Of course they're useful for powerful people -- who want to maintain their positions of power by restricting the development of everyone else -- and religious hucksters.

* * *

Carbon fuel is controlled by massive corporations that have done everything from limit research to initiate wars to scrap plans for public transportation. Anything that gets in the way is attacked, including the very environment we live in. Profit is their concern, so that's what they pursue.

Do you honestly think a human community wouldn't focus the necessary time and resources on developing the best sources of energy? On maintaining the environment necessary to preserve our species?

* * *

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_fOORhFmbA6s/TJjSQcnKMvI/AAAAAAAAB7Y/dPU9eoHCcVY/s1600/Overpopulation+and+Texas.png

Jimmie Higgins

17th July 2011, 09:54

The main alternatives are collectivization and government producing everything.These terms mean nothing in the absence of a class understanding of who produces what and for what reasons. Capitalism frequently employs state power to aid in either profit-driven production or bureaucratic run production (in the USSR or whatnot). Japan and Germany both used state power to create industrialization and "catch up" to the industrial powers. For Germany in particular, the use of a military-style (Prussian) organization by the state was very important in setting up a unified education system, standardizing trade laws between different German states and so on. Both examples used the state to "leapfrog" over an independent development of large-scale capitalism and so they were able to catch up with France and other powers in a matter of decades. China and Russia also used state power to move from feudal style production to modern industrial (though state-run) production. Hell the US went from being an up and coming power to the big power from the 1940s to the 1950s through massive state-run initiatives that brought electrical power, modern transportation, and factory jobs to the South and Southwest which then went from cash crop production before the war to becoming the new center of new manufacturing in the US after the war. Government spending went up 400% during the war and literally paved the way (creating of highway system) for US economic dominance.

But even leaving the state out of it, what is it ultimately when capitalism centralizes crop production or steel manufacturing... it's "collectivization" but without any collective popular control - large farms today are the same as some "state-capitalist" (i.e. Russia or China) scheme for farming collectivization. And just as "socialist" bureaucrats turned the lives of small farmers upside-down in this process, banks do the same here... and both state-bureaucrats or private banks are ultimately backed up through the potential use of repressive (i.e. cops and prisons) force to enact their "collectivization". So again, even in "free-market" capitalism there is the centralization of the means of production as well as state-power to ensure the status-quo is maintained.

Both have disastrous track records on large scales. Capitalism makes some people poor, while the alternatives seem to make nearly everyone poor.Capitalism is a historically progressive step up from feudalism where exploitation is direct and there is no social mobility possible. But the problem with capitalism isn't just that there is poverty, but that it actually creates needless poverty. If people starve in feudalism it's either because crops failed or exploitation got so high that the landloards took too much tribute for the feudal producers to survive. In capitalism however, the system destroys potential crops, keeps empty homes vacant if they can't be sold at a profit, and so on BECAUSE there is a surplus. So it has increased the potential to produce while also forcing workers into poverty for the sole reason of keeping profitability and preventing overproduction.

Socialism is "better" not because socialists have some magic theory about totally new ways to produce, but because it wants to reorganize the potential productive capabilities that already exist so that decisions are made democratically and so that increased in production and productivity lead to better lives for the people who labor in production rather than just causing people to loose their jobs as productivity and technology increases.

black magick hustla

17th July 2011, 10:37

whoc ares about ps3s i imagine communism as the social and historical equivalent of a massive orgy why do would i careabout plasma tvs if i would be in mental and physical exctasy 24/7 days a week god im drunk as hell destroy it all

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

17th July 2011, 15:41

The idea that just because we won't be able to give everyone a gold-plated jacuzzi and a private jet means communism is impossible is ludicrous, because ownership is not the same as access.

Consider sportscars. Now it would be impossible to give everyone a Bugatti Veyron, but it would be entirely within the realm of possibility to establish a network of clubs for sportscar enthusiasts. These clubs would hold their cars in common, swapping them with the cars of other clubs once everyone in a particular club has driven or gets bored of their current selection. Thus plenty of people would get the chance to drive things like a Bugatti Veyron, without having to produce ludicrous amounts of them that would then spend most of their time sitting in a garage anyway.

As for electronics, their extreme flexibility means that we will be able to reduce consumption of materials by increasing the amount of functions. Why have a seperate phone, fax, or printing machine when you can combine those functions into a single item which uses less material than all three seperate?

Baseball

18th July 2011, 00:16

Why have a seperate phone, fax, or printing machine when you can combine those functions into a single item which uses less material than all three seperate?

A fair question.

In a capitalist community such a machine would definitely lower costs, increase profit and thus would be highly desirable (they already exist, btw. But its an academic exercise here).

But in the socialist community? There seems no particular upside for such a machine from the WORKERS end of things. New machinery means new trainings, and upheaval on production lines, it means less need for material from their buddies in those lines of work, ect.

RGacky3

18th July 2011, 08:23

But in the socialist community? There seems no particular upside for such a machine from the WORKERS end of things. New machinery means new trainings, and upheaval on production lines, it means less need for material from their buddies in those lines of work, ect.

It would mean ultimately less work for more stuff, meaning less work for everyone and more leasure time.

ComradeMan

18th July 2011, 09:50

Consider sportscars. Now it would be impossible to give everyone a Bugatti Veyron, but it would be entirely within the realm of possibility to establish a network of clubs for sportscar enthusiasts. These clubs would hold their cars in common, swapping them with the cars of other clubs once everyone in a particular club has driven or gets bored of their current selection. Thus plenty of people would get the chance to drive things like a Bugatti Veyron, without having to produce ludicrous amounts of them that would then spend most of their time sitting in a garage anyway.

I think that's a very idealistic and/or utopian view. The problem is, would they still produce the Bugatti Veyron and other such luxury cars when there is no intrinsic necessity for them and there would be no profits to be made from their production and sale? Consider also that the normal price for one these beasts is up to €1 million, despite the apparent loss due to the far higher production costs- I read estimated at over €5.74 million (approx £5million at current exchange rate)!

RGacky3

18th July 2011, 10:37

The problem is, would they still produce the Bugatti Veyron and other such luxury cars when there is no intrinsic necessity for them and there would be no profits to be made from their production and sale?

If people wanted them then why not?

Baseball

18th July 2011, 11:54

If people wanted them then why not?

Perhaps because you are busy explaining elsewhere that the workers receive compensation, and increased(ing) compensation, from the "increased revenues" which flow to them. If there is no "increased revenue" from where do they justify their continued decision to produce that product?

Baseball

18th July 2011, 12:00

It would mean ultimately less work for more stuff, meaning less work for everyone and more leasure time.

No it doesn't (or perhaps I ought say, "shouldn't). It would (should) simply means more labor is available for work in other lines and areas of production where it is needed more.

RGacky3

18th July 2011, 12:00

Because people want them, which means that the community would organize production. The "inreased revenue" comes from the fact that there is a demand for it.

BTW, what I mean by compensation is not wages perse, its the needs and wants being fulfilled, you can work less for the same or more, as opposed to Capitalism that does'nt provide that ability.

RGacky3

18th July 2011, 12:01

No it doesn't (or perhaps, SHOULN'T). It would (should) simply means more labor is available for work in other lines and areas of production.

IF THERE IS A NEED for more labor in other lines and areas of procution, if there is then fine, if there is not then it does mean less work for more stuff.

Baseball

18th July 2011, 12:07

[
QUOTE=RGacky3;2176970]Because people want them, which means that the community would organize production. The "inreased revenue" comes from the fact that there is a demand for it.

Yes, "increased revenue" ie profit is what the workers use to determine whether their production is worthwhile. No increased revenue equals no compensation equals no profit equals no more production

B
TW, what I mean by compensation is not wages perse, its the needs and wants being fulfilled, you can work less for the same or more,

There are only so many automobiles which the car workers can reasonably use. Obviously, "increased revenue" can't really translate into they receiving a new car each month as opposed to quarterly or some schedule which might be devised.

Baseball

18th July 2011, 12:11

IF THERE IS A NEED for more labor in other lines and areas of procution.

Determined how? If a particular factory has new machinery which allow 7 workers to do the job that 10 had previously performed, why would those three workers go elsewhere to work? Those three workers would be living the socialist dream, less work more compensation.

RGacky3

18th July 2011, 12:19

Yes, "increased revenue" ie profit is what the workers use to determine whether their production is worthwhile. No increased revenue equals no compensation equals no profit equals no more production

i.e. "profit?" No baseball, we are using actualy economic terms here, increased revenue is not necessarily profit, and is definately not in a socialist society because there is no overhead.

No increased revenue means no INCREASED compensation, unless they can cut non-variable cost, which might mean increased compensation.

Right now your just playing stupid semantics.

There are only so many automobiles which the car workers can reasonably use. Obviously, "increased revenue" can't really translate into they receiving a new car each month as opposed to quarterly or some schedule which might be devised.

No, the cars are not for the car workers, they are for the community. If people suddenly need more cars and they have to increase production, you have to look at this as a community, if the community as a whole produces more but they don't need/want it, and/or can't trade it, they can all work less.

Determined how? If a particular factory has new machinery which allow 7 workers to do the job that 10 had previously performed, why would those three workers go elsewhere to work? Those three workers would be living the socialist dream, less work more compensation.

Because they would be needed somewhere else this is a communal effort, its not just one industry, maybe there would be MORE compensation where there is MORE of a need for workers. Why would'nt a community do that?

Baseball

18th July 2011, 14:16

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2176976]i.e. "profit?" No baseball, we are using actualy economic terms here, increased revenue is not necessarily profit,

I know. I said this in Note 75 on the "Right wing libertarian" thread.

and is definately not in a socialist society because there is no overhead.

Of course there is. "cost"

No increased revenue means no INCREASED compensation, unless they can cut non-variable cost, which might mean increased compensation.

Ahh cost-cutting as a means in socialist production. So why condemn capitalism for the same?

Right now your just playing stupid semantics.

It is true they are semantics, but concepts, man, concepts. You are still arguing for capitalist concepts in socialist production, while condemning those same concepts when it occurs in capitalist production.

No, the cars are not for the car workers, they are for the community.

Yes. The community (ie car consumers) determine levels of production. Not the actual car workers. The purpose of the labor of the auto workers is to provide automobiles to those people who want and need them, not as an exercise of self-gratification for the auto workers.

If people suddenly need more cars and they have to increase production, you have to look at this as a community,

Yes. But what does the community give back to the auto workers in exchange for their increased labor?

Because they would be needed somewhere else this is a communal effort, its not just one industry, maybe there would be MORE compensation where there is MORE of a need for workers.

Yes. Industries where there is a greater need for labor as compared to other industries where there is a lesser need, would RAISE their compensation levels so as to attract presently working labor in those lesser needed industries.

But that labor can REFUSE to work in this more needed line of production until the compensation offered satisfies their needs. That would stand to reason to be true in a free community. But if labor has the right to refuse to work until they are satisfied with their rate of compensation, it stands to reason that the present workers of that factory can freely refuse to (employ? admit to work? whatever the terminology you wish to use) such workers at their demand of compensation. Those latter workers would have to decide whether the costs of bringing on new labor is worth the benefits to their line of production the new labor would bring.

So what we have in practice is the line of production seeking labor at its lowest rate of cost to itself as possible, whereas labor is seeking out work at the highest rate of compensation to itself.

Why would'nt a community do that?

A socialist community would not do that, for obvious reasons.
However, it still means they haven't solved the problem which socialism claims is a problem and which it has pledged itself to solve.

RGacky3

18th July 2011, 14:31

Of course there is. "cost"

Thats not overhead, look it up.

Ahh cost-cutting as a means in socialist production. So why condemn capitalism for the same?

No socialist has ever condemned all cost cutting, for example no one condemned the invention of the computer.

What we condemn is the system that requires purpetual profit, which require cost cutting when not needed and especially when that cost cutting hurts labor just for the sake of excess profits.

It is true they are semantics, but concepts, man, concepts. You are still arguing or capitalist concepts in socialist production, while condemning those same concepts when it occurs in capitalist production.

We are not condeming the same things, your juts refusing to understand (or more specifically, juts playing semantics).

Yes. The community (ie car consumers) determine levels of production. Not the actual car workers. The purpose of the labor of the auto workers is to provide automobiles to those people who want and need them, not as an exercise of self-gratification for the auto workers.

Yes.

Yes. But what does the community give back to the auto workers in exchange for their increased labor?

THe community is also laboring and producing other stuff, the auto workers are part of the community.

Yes. Very good. Industries where there is a greater need for labor as compared to other industries where there is a lesser need, would RAISE their compensation levels so as to attract presently working labor in those lesser needed industries.

Thats one option.

But that labor can REFUSE to work in this more needed line of production until the compensation offered satisfies their needs. That would stand to reason to be true in a free community. But if labor has the right to refuse to work until they are satisfied with their rate of compensation, it stands to reason that the present workers of that factory can freely refuse to (employ? admit to work? whatever the terminology you wish to use) such workers at their demand of compensation. Those latter workers would have to decide whether the costs of bringing on new labor is worth the benefits to their line of production the new labor would bring.

Sure, of coarse they can refuse to work, but its MUCH less likely to happen when they are already making good enough money (which will definately be the case since the money that usually goes to profitsa and executive pay will go to them), and its much less likely considering that they also have a say in the economy and everything else.

Its the same reason a violent revolution is much less likely in a functioning democracy than it is in a monarchy.

So what we have in practice is the line of production seeking labor at its lowest rate of cost to itself as possible, whereas labor is seeking out work at the highest rate of compensation to itself.

Thats what happens under capitalism, and might it happen under socialism? maybe, but its much less likely considering everyone has a say, and everyone is working together as equals, when you have mutual aid as opposed to exploitation its much more likely that people will act in a way that benefits the community (because they are a real part of it and have a say in it).

A socialist community would not do that, for obvious reasons.
However, it still means they haven't solved the problem which socialism claims is a problem and which is pledged to solve.

No those reasons are obvious.

BTW, these "problems" Have already been solved, in EVERY SINGLE SOCIALIST COMMUNITY (i.e. real socialist community where people had actual economic democracy and actual workers contorl of industry).

Baseball

18th July 2011, 15:10

[
QUOTE=RGacky3;2177023]Thats not overhead, look it up.

Overhead is cost.

No socialist has ever condemned all cost cutting, for example no one condemned the invention of the computer.

What we condemn is the system that requires purpetual profit, which require cost cutting when not needed and especially when that cost cutting hurts labor just for the sake of excess profits.

Socialists do not condemn the cost-cutting of invention of the computer because, after a couple of decades, its cost cutting is obvious.
But that was not so obvious a couple decades ago.

THe community is also laboring and producing other stuff, the auto workers are part of the community.

That is correct. How many teapots from the teapot makers do the car workers need on a regular basis?

Thats one option.

That was the option you posed for socialism.

Sure, of coarse they can refuse to work, but its MUCH less likely to happen when they are already making good enough money

The question that was asked was about shifting labor from lesser needed lines of production to greater needed lines of production. An "option" to solve this problem which you suggested was increasing compensation in those more needed lines of production. The response above simply offers a reason why workers would NOT leave their present employment in lesser needed line of production, because they are already being paid enough (which can be perfectly true. Not everyone will upend their lives for increased compensation. But it doesn't solve the problem of insufficient labor labor which exists for the more needed line of production, nor for that matter the problem which exists for the lesser needed line of production of excess labor).

Thats what happens under capitalism, and might it happen under socialism? maybe, but its much less likely considering

everyone has a say,

Labor: Compensate me at this rate
Line of production: No, I will compensate you at this other rate.

There- everyone had a say.
What is the basis for the socialist community to overrule the "say" of one compared to the other?

and everyone is working together as equals,

Line of Production: With this laborer's skill and experience, this worker will bring in much greater increased revenue to our factory. This other worker lesser skill and experience will bring in less increased compensation. But all will compensated the same.

I know you have stated in the past that socialism does not require equal compensation amongst all workers. So what is the basis of this needed inequality as compared to the goal of all workers "working together as equals?' And what about administration, direction ect.? Are they equal too?

mutual aid as opposed to exploitation

You would need to explain why workers refusing to work in more needed lines of production without increased rates of compensation is NOT mutual aid. Or why more needed lines of production refusing to employ labor at the former's demand, and instead insisting upon its own, is not guilty of "exploitation" (as understood in socialist critiques of capitalism).

its much more likely that people will act in a way that benefits the community

Except that as you have already explained, the community benefits when people are working less, because there are more people working in a particular line of production. So people not working in more needed lines of production is as beneficial to the community as working in more needed lines of production.

RGacky3

18th July 2011, 15:25

Overhead is cost.

NO IT IS NOT, overhead is a specific type of cost, advertising and bonuses are overhead. Wages, raw materials and machine operating costs are not. There is also no profit, you don't have money going to people who have nothing to do with the actual production.

Socialists do not condemn the cost-cutting of invention of the computer because, after a couple of decades, its cost cutting is obvious.
But that was not so obvious a couple decades ago.

Yeah, and no socialist condemened it back then either.

That is correct. How many teapots from the teapot makers do the car workers need on a regular basis?

Dunno, depends on what they need.

The question that was asked was about shifting labor from lesser needed lines of production to greater needed lines of production. An "option" to solve this problem which you suggested was increasing compensation in those more needed lines of production. The response above simply offers a reason why workers would NOT leave their present employment in lesser needed line of production (which can be perfectly true. Not everyone will upend their lives for increased compensation. But it doesn't solve the problem which exists for the more needed line of production, nor for that matter the problem which exists for the lesser needed line of production of excess labor).

No maybe they won't, but remember there are always people comming into working age and people going out of them. Its not static at all.

Labor: Compensate me at this rate
Line of production: No, I will compensate you at this other rate.

There- everyone had a say.
What is the basis for the socialist community to overrule the "say" of one compared to the other?

Labor: compensate me at this rate
Line of production: It is impossible (this is assuming that the asking rate cannot be done)
Labor: Then what IS possible, lets make a deal

Thats way more likely to happen. What is the basis? Democracy, you have democratic structures and a democratic process.

I know you have stated in the past that socialism does not require equal compensation amongst all workers. So what is the basis of this needed inequality as compared to the goal of all workers "working together as equals?' And what about administration, direction ect.? Are they equal too?

It depends on what the community decides democratically.

You would need to explain why workers refusing to work in more needed lines of production without increased rates of compensation is NOT mutual aid. Or why more needed lines of production refusing to employ labor at the former's demand, and instead insisting upon its own, is not guilty of "exploitation" (as understood in socialist critiques of capitalism).

Its not exploitation because they are not taking the surplus of labor from someone else by threat of force, its mutual aid because its mutally agreed upon.

BUT here is the big problem with all your arguments, what ALL of your arguments are are basically that SOME of the problems of capitalism MAY exist (to a much lesser degree) in Socialism, which is'nt an argument at all, how would these problems be BIGGER in socialism?

Except that as you have already explained, the community benefits when people are working less, because there are more people working in a particular line of production. So people not working in more needed lines of production is as beneficial to the community as working in more needed lines of production.

No workers benefit more when workers work less and the community is made up for workers, but in some instances they MAY have to work more to fulfill needs and wants.

Your assuming everything is static.

RGacky3

18th July 2011, 15:27

Important to point out:

NEVER, in history have socialist policies or socialist communities had these problems Baseball talks about.

Baseball

18th July 2011, 16:38

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2177045]NO IT IS NOT, overhead is a specific type of cost, advertising and bonuses are overhead. Wages, raw materials and machine operating costs are not.

I wasn't distinguishing between cost; I was simply calling cost, cost.

Dunno, depends on what they need.

You should hope they need a lot, maybe one pot for each day of the week and special ones for holidays and such. Because that is why you are claiming that auto worker labors.

No maybe they won't, but remember there are always people comming into working age and people going out of them. Its not static at all.

Well if the best solution to the problem rests upon population growth, would it stand to reason that a socialist community would support and endorse policies which would result (as per their beliefs), population increases?

L
abor: compensate me at this rate
Line of production: It is impossible (this is assuming that the asking rate cannot be done)
Labor: Then what IS possible, lets make a deal

OK. So now it is agreed that the line of production in the socialist community will seek out labor at the lowest possible cost to itself, whereas labor in the socialist community will seek out compensation at the highest rate for itself. At this point, the problem for socialism here should be obvious...

Thats way more likely to happen. What is the basis? Democracy, you have democratic structures and a democratic process.

Such a solution would seem a much worse deal for the prospective new worker to a line of production, since the current workers will always be able to outvote the new guy and his compensation demands. At least the capitalist could very well cave considering the additional labor would increase his profit, and the opinions of the workers are of secondary consideration. Not so for the socialist line of production whose interests are of course somewhat different.
The only way out for the socialist community that I can see is for it to establish institutions which would (democratically, of course) control compensation rates offered by lines of production, but also rates as demanded by labor. But such institutions bring with them their own set of problems.

I
t depends on what the community decides democratically.

Which, Gacky, is a cop-out answer, and you know it.

Its not exploitation because they are not taking the surplus of labor from someone else by threat of force, its mutual aid because its mutally agreed upon.

Truly? Whatever happened to the old "work or starve" critique of capitalism? How come a socialist line of production can tell labor that, at some point, they have to accept the the compensation it is willing to give, and call this "mutual aid" but when the capitalist does so it is the height of indignity and exploiting?

BUT here is the big problem with all your arguments, what ALL of your arguments are are basically that SOME of the problems of capitalism MAY exist (to a much lesser degree) in Socialism, which is'nt an argument at all, how would these problems be BIGGER in socialism?

No gacky. My argument is that the problems that you identify as being caused by capitalism are instead problems of production which socialist communities face as well. The question becomes which does a better job dealing with these problems.

ComradeMan

18th July 2011, 17:04

If people wanted them then why not?

Because it actually costs more to make them than it's worth and the whole Veyron project seems to rely on a "possible" future revenue of the technology in the new machines. :confused:

Now, go and convince your Local Soviet of Machinery Production to produce a mega-sports car at a loss because everyone wants one and they look cool....

:laugh:

RGacky3

19th July 2011, 07:48

Now, go and convince your Local Soviet of Machinery Production to produce a mega-sports car at a loss because everyone wants one and they look cool....

Sure why not, if people want it, and there are enough resrouces to do so.

I wasn't distinguishing between cost; I was simply calling cost, cost.

No you were calling overhead cost, they are not the same thing.

You should hope they need a lot, maybe one pot for each day of the week and special ones for holidays and such. Because that is why you are claiming that auto worker labors.

No thats not why I'm claiming they labor, they labor because cars are needed by the community and someone needs to do it, and because they are part of that community.

Well if the best solution to the problem rests upon population growth, would it stand to reason that a socialist community would support and endorse policies which would result (as per their beliefs), population increases?

No I did'nt say anything about population growth, I said people are leaving and entering the work force all the time, thats not growth perse, and juts like capitalism, people move into industries that are needed (the difference is what dictates what is needed, its profits under capitalism, its human need/democracy under socialism).

OK. So now it is agreed that the line of production in the socialist community will seek out labor at the lowest possible cost to itself, whereas labor in the socialist community will seek out compensation at the highest rate for itself. At this point, the problem for socialism here should be obvious...

No, that is not agreed upon, why would they want to contune to cut wages if there was no private property and cutting wages did'nt help anyone.

What I said was that if a community COULD NOT physically give auto workers what they demand (say they demanded chocolate houses), they'd have to work something else out.

Such a solution would seem a much worse deal for the prospective new worker to a line of production, since the current workers will always be able to outvote the new guy and his compensation demands. At least the capitalist could very well cave considering the additional labor would increase his profit, and the opinions of the workers are of secondary consideration. Not so for the socialist line of production whose interests are of course somewhat different.
The only way out for the socialist community that I can see is for it to establish institutions which would (democratically, of course) control compensation rates offered by lines of production, but also rates as demanded by labor. But such institutions bring with them their own set of problems.

Well if they did'nt need him in that industry, not at all, then he'd move to an industry he was needed in, or everyone gets to work less.

BTW, communists, generally want to move toward a non compensation system, (each according to his ability, each according to his need).

If someone is'nt working chances are he'll be provited for anyway, so its in the communities benefit to find him a job.

Which, Gacky, is a cop-out answer, and you know it.

Your asking me what is the basis people will decide on who gets what, thats something they decide, thats not a cop out.

Truly? Whatever happened to the old "work or starve" critique of capitalism? How come a socialist line of production can tell labor that, at some point, they have to accept the the compensation it is willing to give, and call this "mutual aid" but when the capitalist does so it is the height of indignity and exploiting?

Because under capitalism they are not working on equal terms, you have private property, it actually is work or starve.

Under socialism its not work or starve, I was talking about the extremely unlikely event that workers would demand something that absolutely is impossible, its mutual aid because they are dealing as equals.

No gacky. My argument is that the problems that you identify as being caused by capitalism are instead problems of production which socialist communities face as well. The question becomes which does a better job dealing with these problems.

Well, obviously socialism, but most of those problems are non-existant and extremely unlikely.

Mainly by these problems NEVER happened due to any genuine socialist policy or in any genuine socialist community.

ComradeMan

19th July 2011, 09:08

Sure why not, if people want it, and there are enough resrouces to do so.

Have you any idea what is involved in the production of machine like a Bugatti Veyron?

Remember- to each according to their needs- now, how can you convincingly argue that anyone needs a car like this despite the fact that it is probably one of the coolest cars on the planet.;)

RGacky3

19th July 2011, 09:56

If the community decides that it would be nice to waste resources on a couple nice cars that people have access to if they want a nice fast eavening out.

After everyones "needs" are fulfilled, you basically have all the surplus that the community can decide to use on whatever.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

19th July 2011, 14:19

I think that's a very idealistic and/or utopian view.

I imagine a medieval peasant would say similar things if you described the kind of lifestyles that millions to billions now enjoy.

The problem is, would they still produce the Bugatti Veyron and other such luxury cars when there is no intrinsic necessity for them and there would be no profits to be made from their production and sale?

You don't decide build machines like the Bugatti Veyron with such mundane considerations in mind. You decide to build machines like the Bugatti Veyron to fulfil the dream of comfortably driving at ludicrous speeds.

Or at least that's why such things should be built.

Consider also that the normal price for one these beasts is up to €1 million, despite the apparent loss due to the far higher production costs- I read estimated at over €5.74 million (approx £5million at current exchange rate)!

Come on now, surely you should know well enough by now that the price of an object is not necessarily indicative of its intrinsic value or scarcity.

Besides, £5 million is chump change these days. Scrape together £1 billion (something even my country can do, even though these days they only throw around that kind of cash if you're a banker about to fail) and that would get you roughly 200 Veyrons, more than enough I would think to send them on a grand tour around the world, gladdening the hearts of motoring enthusiasts everywhere.

With things like the Bugatti Veyron, while a lot of rational thought might have gone into the planning, design and construction of a such a marvellous machine, I don't think rational thought had an awful lot to do with the instigation of the project.

Ingraham Effingham

19th July 2011, 15:23

My friend and I frequently have debates about communism, I am not an experienced communist but I know a thing or two about the way it works and its history; he came up with a point that I wasn't sure how to answer (I'm sure you guys can rip it apart)

I'm going to link him to this thread so leave him a personal message if you want xD

!The argument!
------------------------

"There are not enough resources available to provide the necessary consumer goods in order to give a high quality of life to 6 billion people and alot more people in the future"

I might be missing something here, and I don't know much about world resources, but this stumped me and I gave a few stupid responses that didn't really work.

HELP ME HERE!!

I forget who said it, but:

"The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed yet."

The problem isn't a production issue, its a logistical issue, thanks to the hoarding and artificial markets created by capitialism.

Check this out, high-yield food production using tech available since like the 70's:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV9CCxdkOng

You could feed the world with 3.6 million acres. Sounds like a lot, but its 5200 square miles, about half the size of Massachusetts.

miltonwasfried...man

19th July 2011, 15:57

Capitalism means planned obsolescence, or in otherwords planned failure of everything we buy in order to keep demand constant. Thusly if we destroyed the profit motive, products would no longer need to be built to fail and we could eliminate huge amounts of waste. Also if there was no hoarding of wealth, there would be plenty for everyone. When the top 1% own the the same amount of wealth as the bottom 49%, I see room for improvment.

Baseball

20th July 2011, 01:10

No I did'nt say anything about population growth, I said people are leaving and entering the work force all the time, thats not growth perse, and juts like capitalism, people move into industries that are needed (the difference is what dictates what is needed, its profits under capitalism, its human need/democracy under socialism).

Now you are backpedaling and falling into slogans.
I asked you about population in response to your claim that a solution of allocating labor to needed can be solved by people entering, and also leaving the workforce.

No, that is not agreed upon, why would they want to contune to cut wages if there was no private property and cutting wages did'nt help anyone.

What I said was that if a community COULD NOT physically give auto workers what they demand (say they demanded chocolate houses), they'd have to work something else out.

Yes. If the community could not give prospective the wages they wanted... what, now barter?

Well if they did'nt need him in that industry, not at all, then he'd move to an industry he was needed in, or everyone gets to work less.

Or if they didn't need him at the compensation he demanded. So we are still stuck with the problem that the socialist community will seek to compensate labor at the lowest cost possible.

BTW, communists, generally want to move toward a non compensation system, (each according to his ability, each according to his need).

Yes. But since the socialists seem unable to figure out to get beyond the dreaded "race to the bottom" their ability to figure out how to move toward a non-compensating system can certainly be questioned and challenged.

I
f someone is'nt working chances are he'll be provited for anyway, so its in the communities benefit to find him a job.

Not if his labor is in an area in which the community does not need.

Your asking me what is the basis people will decide on who gets what, thats something they decide, thats not a cop out.

It is when the question is regarding the substance and content of what is being decided.

Because under capitalism they are not working on equal terms, you have private property, it actually is work or starve.

Under socialism its not work or starve, I was talking about the extremely unlikely event that workers would demand something that absolutely is impossible, its mutual aid because they are dealing as equals.

Lone Prospective Worker: I want compensation "X" for my work if I choose to work in factory.
100 worker socialist line of production: Us 100 people vote to offer you compensation "Y."
Where are the equal terms?

BTW, impossible as defined by whom? You? It should be expected that different lines of production would have different understandings as to what is, and what is not, possible, in their factory.

Baseball

20th July 2011, 01:14

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2177805]If the community decides that it would be nice to waste resources on a couple nice cars that people have access to if they want a nice fast eavening out.

Curious. You are declaring the vote of the vote of the democratic community to build such a cars a "waste of resources."
How do draw the conclusion that such use of resources for such a vehicle is a waste? What is the basis for making this claim? By what argument would you use to convince the majority their decision is incorrect?

Judicator

20th July 2011, 03:58

But even leaving the state out of it, what is it ultimately when capitalism centralizes crop production or steel manufacturing... it's "collectivization" but without any collective popular control - large farms today are the same as some "state-capitalist" (i.e. Russia or China) scheme for farming collectivization. And just as "socialist" bureaucrats turned the lives of small farmers upside-down in this process, banks do the same here... and both state-bureaucrats or private banks are ultimately backed up through the potential use of repressive (i.e. cops and prisons) force to enact their "collectivization". So again, even in "free-market" capitalism there is the centralization of the means of production as well as state-power to ensure the status-quo is maintained.

They are the same simply because they are large? Large farms can go bankrupt and have to compete with other large farms, China didn't. Your argument is basically that both collectivization and free market economies of scale hurt the little guy and are backed by rule of law, therefore they are the same.

But the problem with capitalism isn't just that there is poverty, but that it actually creates needless poverty. If people starve in feudalism it's either because crops failed or exploitation got so high that the landloards took too much tribute for the feudal producers to survive. In capitalism however, the system destroys potential crops, keeps empty homes vacant if they can't be sold at a profit, and so on BECAUSE there is a surplus. So it has increased the potential to produce while also forcing workers into poverty for the sole reason of keeping profitability and preventing overproduction.

The "forcing workers into poverty" claim doesn't seem to be empirically borne out. Capitalism has been around for a long time, and there is a lot less poverty than there was at the dawn of capitalism. It might seem "needless" in the sense that you say "look at those rich people let's take their wealth" but in ultimately in capitalism people are poor because their skills aren't valuable. Their skills lacking value isn't the fault of capitalism. Even under socialism, their skills would produce the same low returns, relative to all other workers.

You must be using the term "surplus" in a different sense - usually under capitalism prices move towards the market clearing price, which will clear surplus off the market. If there are excess homes prices fall, etc.

RGacky3

20th July 2011, 07:45

Now you are backpedaling and falling into slogans.
I asked you about population in response to your claim that a solution of allocating labor to needed can be solved by people entering, and also leaving the workforce.

The allocation of labor is solved by people entering and leaving the work force RIGHT NOW, I don't know what your arguing here.

Yes. If the community could not give prospective the wages they wanted... what, now barter?

... yes.

Or if they didn't need him at the compensation he demanded. So we are still stuck with the problem that the socialist community will seek to compensate labor at the lowest cost possible.

No, we don't have that problem, and I've already explained why, there is no reason a community would'nt compensate the most that is possible/reasonable.

Yes. But since the socialists seem unable to figure out to get beyond the dreaded "race to the bottom" their ability to figure out how to move toward a non-compensating system can certainly be questioned and challenged.

What dreaded "race to the bottom" your making a strawman, our ability can be questioned, but WE HAVE DONE IT.

Not if his labor is in an area in which the community does not need.

Then he's gotta do something else ... If everything is already being done, people can work less and and can work, there is always stuff to do.

It is when the question is regarding the substance and content of what is being decided.

No it is not, its like asking me about democracy, and then asking me "what would driving regulations be under a democratic government?" I DON'T KNOW.

Lone Prospective Worker: I want compensation "X" for my work if I choose to work in factory.
100 worker socialist line of production: Us 100 people vote to offer you compensation "Y."
Where are the equal terms?

BTW, impossible as defined by whom? You? It should be expected that different lines of production would have different understandings as to what is, and what is not, possible, in their factory.

Well, the equal terms is everyone has equal say, they are also all part of a community and all have a say in the community.

But let me ask you, how would argue that Capitalism is better? Or that the worker would be better off under Capitalism?

impossible as defined by reality.

The fact is , you are arguing that things MIGHT be a problem under socialism, but what you CANNOT argue is that people will not be better off under socialism.

Curious. You are declaring the vote of the vote of the democratic community to build such a cars a "waste of resources."
How do draw the conclusion that such use of resources for such a vehicle is a waste? What is the basis for making this claim? By what argument would you use to convince the majority their decision is incorrect?

I don't know, I'm calling it a waste, whether or not its a waste is up to the community .... You really have no idea how democracy works do you.

PS: Again, NONE of these problems came up due to socialist policies or in socialist communities.

Jimmie Higgins

20th July 2011, 08:55

The "forcing workers into poverty" claim doesn't seem to be empirically borne out. Capitalism has been around for a long time, and there is a lot less poverty than there was at the dawn of capitalism.Capitalism has created wealth and surplus and the potential to feed and house the world - the problem is that wealth is that it is concentrated and controlled. Collective labor effort is needed to create this wealth, but that labor is removed from the organizing and control of the wealth.

So while overall there is more wealth, the living standards of regular people are not mechanically tied to the objective amount of wealth. In other words, while profits and CEO compensation have soared more in the last generation, inequality has also increased and so that wealth did not translate to improvements for the labor that is necessary for that boom to happen. What impacts our living standards more than wealth in the abstract is the subjective balances of forces in the class struggle. If China can depress wages even while it is growing, it will do so - if workers push back and threaten the ability of capitalists to produce, then the capitalists (in this case represented by Party members) would be more willing to give concessions and living standards or rights could improve.

This can be shown in history too - the enclosure of land created wealth by commodifying peasant lands so the landloards could now sell that for money. For the peasants this meant that they became homeless day-laborers and vagrants... this effect is demonstrated by all the vagrancy and anti-vagabond laws passed in England after the enclosures.

Then with industrialization, artisan workers were replaced by industrial workers, so an economy where small shops dominated and workers were skilled was replaced by industrial methods BECAUSE it could produce more while paying unskilled labor lower than it would have paid skilled artisans. In one sense this industrialization is more efficient and produces more wealth, but at the same time because this is carried out in an undemocratic manner and because of market pressures, living standards are depressed as wages go down or workloads go up.

Just look at the US "guilded age" or Victorian England - the popular concerns of the day were the increased concentration and numbers of the poor, destitute, immoral lifestyles of industrial workers, etc. All of this while massive wealth was being concentrated into large centralized companies like US Steel and so on.

It might seem "needless" in the sense that you say "look at those rich people let's take their wealth" but in ultimately in capitalism people are poor because their skills aren't valuable.Well people's skills are not valuable because there is a constant drive towards de-skilling jobs and therefore driving down labor costs. What's the point of an assembly line either in a factory or in the McDonalds in your town? You don't have to pay engineer or mechanic wages when production is reduced to a few repetitive tasks - you don't have to pay someone heating prefab burgers what you'd pay a skilled cook at diner.

In otherwords, if people are poor because their skills are not valuable and capitalism strives to save costs by making people's skills no longer valuable, then capitalism causes poverty. There, now we agree.:D

You must be using the term "surplus" in a different sense - usually under capitalism prices move towards the market clearing price, which will clear surplus off the market. If there are excess homes prices fall, etc.It's surplus verses scarcity - food is dumped in capitalism or subsidies paid to farmers to not produce in order to keep the prices at profitable levels. In feudalism or slave societies, if people were starving it was because there was a crop failure or something, but in capitalism people starve not because of an objective shortage, but because things can't be sold profitably.

It's crisis of overproduction - doing something well and efficiently is needed to make profit, but the same push also causes the system to break-down... some system huh.

Baseball

20th July 2011, 13:23

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2178571]The allocation of labor is solved by people entering and leaving the work force RIGHT NOW, I don't know what your arguing here.

I had asked about how the socialist community deals with needing labor shifting from lesser needed lines of production to greater needed lines of production, and how that might occur. You suggested it might offer increased compensation so as to attract labor. I said fine (because it is a reasonable and obvious solution). BUT- I pointed out that this is not so obvious or reasonable solution for a socialist community, inasmuch what this means is that that socialist community is going to offer the minimum compensation possible to prospective labor. While prospective labor will ask for the greatest compensation possible. You said they would strike a deal. But that solution is not so reasonable to the socialist community because nothing really has changed from what occurred under capitalism. In response to your solution of just waiting for the right demographics, if it is reasonable for the socialist community to then try to figure out ways to create the correct demographics.

No, we don't have that problem, and I've already explained why, there is no reason a community would'nt compensate the most that is possible/reasonable.

Yes. But since one of the objectives, as you stated earlier, was to keep costs low, it stands to reason the definition of what is "possible/reasonable" will be as low as possible. But since the prospective worker is interested in getting as much compensation as possible... Hence the conflict.

What dreaded "race to the bottom" your making a strawman,

You know, capitalism driving down wages, going to third world countries ect ect.

No it is not, its like asking me about democracy, and then asking me "what would driving regulations be under a democratic government?" I DON'T KNOW.

I have not asked about how many vacation days workers get in a socialist community, because as you commented.
But in order to make "democratic decisions" there needs to be information, ideas, ect. for people to make decisions upon. That's why I am saying your fallback slogan "democracy" is a cop-out. It doesn't answer anything.

Well, the equal terms is everyone has equal say, they are also all part of a community and all have a say in the community.

That one person did not have an equal say as the 100 others.

The fact is , you are arguing that things MIGHT be a problem under socialism,

To repeat: I am saying the production issues which face the socialist community is no different than those faced by the capitalist one.

but what you CANNOT argue is that people will not be better off under socialism.

Of course I can.

I don't know, I'm calling it a waste, whether or not its a waste is up to the community .... You really have no idea how democracy works do you.

Two separate issues- whether building that car is a waste of resources requires an ability to define what is, and what is not productive production, ability to measure ect. The community is free to decide whether that car fits those criteria. But the community is not free to declare that such a car is not a waste simply because they say so. 1+1=2 regardless as to whether the community democratically votes otherwise.

RGacky3

20th July 2011, 14:57

I had asked about how the socialist community deals with needing labor shifting from lesser needed lines of production to greater needed lines of production, and how that might occur. You suggested it might offer increased compensation so as to attract labor. I said fine (because it is a reasonable and obvious solution). BUT- I pointed out that this is not so obvious or reasonable solution for a socialist community, inasmuch what this means is that that socialist community is going to offer the minimum compensation possible to prospective labor. While prospective labor will ask for the greatest compensation possible. You said they would strike a deal. But that solution is not so reasonable to the socialist community because nothing really has changed from what occurred under capitalism. In response to your solution of just waiting for the right demographics, if it is reasonable for the socialist community to then try to figure out ways to create the correct demographics.

About the bold portion, you NEVER showed that at all, you never showed how that would be a problem without the profit motive or private property (i.e. the ability to accumulate and hoard wealth).

THe demographics answer was to a different question, which was more aobut (how can you expect someone who work his whole life as a plumber to become something else), my answer was its the same way it works under capitalism.

You never addressed why a community would want the lowest possible compensation.

Yes. But since one of the objectives, as you stated earlier, was to keep costs low, it stands to reason the definition of what is "possible/reasonable" will be as low as possible. But since the prospective worker is interested in getting as much compensation as possible... Hence the conflict.

I idd'nt say one of the objectives was to keep costs low, what i said was that when NON VARIABLE costs go down everyone benefits as opposed to right now where only the rich benefit and workers might even suffer because they get replaced.

Variable cost i.e. compensation (under socialism, not capitalism) are not costs perse, its like owning your own ice cream truck and calling hte money you take home "cost," its kind of hte point of having an ice cream truck.

You know, capitalism driving down wages, going to third world countries ect ect.

yeah yeah, my bad, I thought you were refering to something else, but we HAVE gotten beyond that, you just keep ignoring it.

I have not asked about how many vacation days workers get in a socialist community, because as you commented.
But in order to make "democratic decisions" there needs to be information, ideas, ect. for people to make decisions upon. That's why I am saying your fallback slogan "democracy" is a cop-out. It doesn't answer anything.

they get information based on analysing what gets done, what needs to get done and so on.

That one person did not have an equal say as the 100 others.

Yes he did, he had an equal say as each one of those 100 people.

To repeat: I am saying the production issues which face the socialist community is no different than those faced by the capitalist one.

And I am saying, a lot of those problems are solved, and the ones that remain are much less demaging and at a much less degree.

Of course I can.

Then make the argument.

Two separate issues- whether building that car is a waste of resources requires an ability to define what is, and what is not productive production, ability to measure ect. The community is free to decide whether that car fits those criteria. But the community is not free to declare that such a car is not a waste simply because they say so. 1+1=2 regardless as to whether the community democratically votes otherwise.

Let me ask you, when you plant a garden in your backyard, your not gaining any income from it, is it a waste? Same principle.

I'd still like to point out again, that NONE of these issues have come up due to socialist policies nor have the come up in communist (or very much socialist for those anal about the word communist) communities.

Baseball

24th July 2011, 03:40

[QUOTE]About the bold portion, you NEVER showed that at all, you never showed how that would be a problem without the profit motive or private property (i.e. the ability to accumulate and hoard wealth).

Its a problem because the socialist system supposedly ends it.

THe demographics answer was to a different question, which was more aobut (how can you expect someone who work his whole life as a plumber to become something else), my answer was its the same way it works under capitalism.

It was a question raised to a solution offered to the above problem.

It would seem that capitalism solves the problem by increasing compensation in more needed industries, and lowering them in less needed ones. But they can only raise or lower them so much before the value the employees could bring to the firm is less than the compensation, or employees cannot be found to perform the labor.

If that is the socialist solution to the problem, well then...

You never addressed why a community would want the lowest possible compensation.

Clearly, such a question cannot be asked if socialism solves such issues in the same manner as a capitalist one. In fact, the only way such an answer works is if the community dictates compensation to workers across the board. Which would tend to work against the decentralised nature you often insisted socialism is, and is certainly not the way capitalism solves trhe problem.

Variable cost i.e. compensation (under socialism, not capitalism) are not costs perse, its like owning your own ice cream truck and calling hte money you take home "cost," its kind of hte point of having an ice cream truck.

Of course its a cost. More money going home means less money for purchasing ice cream, getting the truck maintained ect.

Yes he did, he had an equal say as each one of those 100 people.

And the result is no different than if a single capitalist dictated to him the compensation he would receive for working at the worksite.

Let me ask you, when you plant a garden in your backyard, your not gaining any income from it, is it a waste? Same principle.

Yes. But if the costs are low are enough, then it doesn't really matter.
If the socialist community can absorb the loss of building such cars, so be it. But at least understand that the production of such autos are being subsidised by the profitable industries. It is essentially consuming wealth. A democratic vote in favor of such auto production doesn't change this fact.

RGacky3

24th July 2011, 08:19

Its a problem because the socialist system supposedly ends it.

And it does, you never showed otherwise.

It would seem that capitalism solves the problem by increasing compensation in more needed industries, and lowering them in less needed ones. But they can only raise or lower them so much before the value the employees could bring to the firm is less than the compensation, or employees cannot be found to perform the labor.

Thats not how capitalism solves it anyway, infact it does'nt sove it, because needed industries are totally neglected, low income housing is needed for example.

Also you hav'nt shown why people would'nt want to be useful in a socialist society? Of coarse why would'nt they want to go into what is needed? There have been studies on this, people, when they are part of the decision making, when they have real autonomy, want to, in general work and contribute.

Clearly, such a question cannot be asked if socialism solves such issues in the same manner as a capitalist one. In fact, the only way such an answer works is if the community dictates compensation to workers across the board. Which would tend to work against the decentralised nature you often insisted socialism is, and is certainly not the way capitalism solves trhe problem.

Again, WHY WOULD THE COMMUNITY SEEK LOWEST COMPENSATION for the workers in the comunity? I.e. why would the community wish to pay itself the lowest possible wage? Your not answering.

Of course its a cost. More money going home means less money for purchasing ice cream, getting the truck maintained ect.

Yeah, but if your meeting the ice cream needs then everything left over all the surplus will go to the workers.

And the result is no different than if a single capitalist dictated to him the compensation he would receive for working at the worksite.

Thats idiotic, so there is no difference between democracy and monarchy?

Yes. But if the costs are low are enough, then it doesn't really matter.
If the socialist community can absorb the loss of building such cars, so be it. But at least understand that the production of such autos are being subsidised by the profitable industries. It is essentially consuming wealth. A democratic vote in favor of such auto production doesn't change this fact.

The costs are not that low, you need to buy tools, land, seed, spend a lot of time (labor time has a price, but your doing it for free).

But your wrong, its NOT a waste, because you get a nice garden out of it, thats the whole point of socialism, thats the sort of society we are trying to build, and the fact that you consider making a garden a waste, since your not getting paid, just shows you can't comprehend where I'm coming from.

Libertador

24th July 2011, 08:24

His argument defeats itself. If under Communism the world would not have enough resources to go around the same must be true for Capitalism, thus making Capitalism as much of a failure as Communism except even more exploitative. The logic being "Oh well, everyone shouldn't equally starve so it is justifiable for a special group of people to be well fed and enjoy the Earth's pleasure."

Baseball

24th July 2011, 22:17

[QUOTE]Thats not how capitalism solves it anyway,

Of course it is; one way anyhow.

Also you hav'nt shown why people would'nt want to be useful in a socialist society? Of coarse why would'nt they want to go into what is needed?

Needed by whom? the worker, or the rest of the community?
I would suggest since socialism likes to claim that socialism will mean the worker will control his labor, the claim that that labor will automatically go to an area which is needed by somebody else (that is to say, controlled by somebody else) to be rather dubious.

Again, WHY WOULD THE COMMUNITY SEEK LOWEST COMPENSATION for the workers in the comunity? I.e. why would the community wish to pay itself the lowest possible wage? Your not answering.

I did answer. If the COMMUNITY makes the decision for all its labor. That is, it dictates how much labor will be compensated ect. But if if it does this, it requires bureacracies to enforce and control it.
Which defeats the claim of a decentralised socialist community as well as the workers controlling the means of production.

Yeah, but if your meeting the ice cream needs then everything left over all the surplus will go to the workers.

And if you are not, bubkis.

Thats idiotic, so there is no difference between democracy and monarchy?

If the community dictates what the compensation levels are, then its a meaningless comment on my end. But on your end, it means a person has no choice in the amount of compensation he receives, or the individual factory has no right to democratically determine the value of the labor that worker might bring to the factory.

The costs are not that low, you need to buy tools, land, seed, spend a lot of time (labor time has a price, but your doing it for free).

But your wrong, its NOT a waste, because you get a nice garden out of it, thats the whole point of socialism, thats the sort of society we are trying to build, and the fact that you consider making a garden a waste, since your not getting paid, just shows you can't comprehend where I'm coming from.

That's fine Gacky. All I have said is that that garden, that automobile, is produced using wealth created elsewhere. Just understand that.

CommunityBeliever

24th July 2011, 23:33

There are not enough resources available to provide the necessary consumer goods in order to give a high quality of life to 6 billion people and alot more people in the future

There are not enough resources available to the exploiters to prevent 6 billion people from overthrowing and killing them.

Delenda Carthago

24th July 2011, 23:50

Your friend said consumer goods. Does that include things that aren't necessary for survival or even a decent life? I don't think any revolutionaries are promising a PS3 in every home. Assuming that he was only referring to things required for survival, then ignore my post.
If there is not a PS3, there is no revolution. And no, I m not kidding.

The accusations that the resources cannot provide for people without researching it, is just as stupid as answering to it.

Who says there is not enough resouces?
How are these resources being used today?
What will change in communism?
How is capitalism going to sustain in an environtment were the production of the wealth becomes more and more automated?
How is the capitalist way of production using LESS resources than the communist one?
Not a fan of Zeitgeist, but there is a chapter on the third one that shows how corporations make the products built not to last so that profit is constantly made though buying new stuff.

So the problem of the world poverty is not the lack of recources but the contradiction between the social nature of the means of production and private ownership. Plus, the nessesary for the system unequality in growth. Communism is not a matter of ideologies and choices. It is a matter of need.

RGacky3

25th July 2011, 08:07

Of course it is; one way anyhow.

It does'nt solve it that way, if it did why are Wallstreet guys the richest in the world, yet doctors in areas where they NEED doctors have to work for free.

Needed by whom? the worker, or the rest of the community?
I would suggest since socialism likes to claim that socialism will mean the worker will control his labor, the claim that that labor will automatically go to an area which is needed by somebody else (that is to say, controlled by somebody else) to be rather dubious.

The worker is part of the community. Of coarse the worker will control his labor, but if he wants to be part of a community he'd cooperate with them, its not that hard of a concept.

I did answer. If the COMMUNITY makes the decision for all its labor. That is, it dictates how much labor will be compensated ect. But if if it does this, it requires bureacracies to enforce and control it.
Which defeats the claim of a decentralised socialist community as well as the workers controlling the means of production.

No it does'nt (considering all of whatever beureacracies would be needed are under democratic control as opposed to how things are how), and again, that does now show why they would want the lowest possible compensation, that does'nt show that at all.

And if you are not, bubkis.

If your are not, maybe they need another ice cream truck, this is'nt that hard.

If the community dictates what the compensation levels are, then its a meaningless comment on my end. But on your end, it means a person has no choice in the amount of compensation he receives, or the individual factory has no right to democratically determine the value of the labor that worker might bring to the factory.

the community would'nt dictate what every single worker gets, they'd dictate what needs to be produced, and thus what a factory or whatever gets, then the factory determines the compensation, these sort of systems already do exist.

I think your purposefully not understanding any of this or purposefully misunderstanding just to argue.

That's fine Gacky. All I have said is that that garden, that automobile, is produced using wealth created elsewhere. Just understand that.

If my buddy makes me garden tools, and another guy gives me seeds, in exchange I make the garden and we all enjoy it, technically none of use got anything out of the deal and no one was compensated, but we all got a garden, thats communism.

BTW, I'll say it againt, NONE of these imaginary problems came up in any communist society or due to any socialist policy.

Baseball

25th July 2011, 13:51

The worker is part of the community. Of coarse the worker will control his labor, but if he wants to be part of a community he'd cooperate with them, its not that hard of a concept.

Yes Gacky we have been through this before (The worker wants Compensation "A" the factory Proposes Compensation "C" and they both compromise on Compensation "B." )
The practical result is that there is no "Community" determining or negotiating compensation levels- its the individual factory and the individual worker.

No it does'nt (considering all of whatever beureacracies would be needed are under democratic control as opposed to how things are how), and again, that does now show why they would want the lowest possible compensation, that does'nt show that at all.

Because that factory has to keep its costs as low as possible. If it is not with labor, then with production and with elements of production.

the community would'nt dictate what every single worker gets, they'd dictate what needs to be produced, and thus what a factory or whatever gets, then the factory determines the compensation, these sort of systems already do exist.

Yes. Capitalist systems.

If my buddy makes me garden tools, and another guy gives me seeds, in exchange I make the garden and we all enjoy it, technically none of use got anything out of the deal and no one was compensated, but we all got a garden, thats communism.

You did get something out of it. What did the tool people get out of your garden? How about the seed people? Going to invite them over to look at the broccoli? Send them photographs of the tomatoes? Maybe those folks did what they did for their own reason (like high compensation levels from the factories where they work). Certainly you and your buddies did build the garden for your own purposes.