Tell Me If My Thinking is Correct

[Lolumad273]

I was thinking about the standard of living once Communism takes hold of the globe. I live in Upstate New York, so I was wondering how my standard of living would be affected.

It occurred to me that, simple unionism made America into middle class, which is what I am. Unions took some from their employees, and as a result, the standard of living went up. So I think that now, if the means of production were entirely in the hands of the working class, our standard of living would go up once again. Or at least stay the same, taking into account the emancipation of the less organized working class of, say, Mexico.

I hope I'm right in that thinking, because it would be difficult for me to give up the comfort I have now. Even more difficult to convince anyone else.

Thanks for reading this

[Zulu]

it would be difficult for me to give up the comfort I have now. Even more difficult to convince anyone else.

You see, that's why a socialist revolution is unlikely to begin in the US or any other Western country.

Look up the GDP per capita in the US and in the world, divide the former number by the latter and you'll get an approximate degree of the "loss of comfort" the US citizens on average would undergo if the total wealth in the world was magically redistributed in a fair egalitarian manner.

The US and other Western imperialists have been literally buying the compliance of the masses in their countries by sharing some of the profits they've squeezed from the Third World by aggressive wars, IMF policies and good old exploitation of labor.

However, as the systemic crisis of capitalism deepens, the middle class of the West will be gradually proletarized, and then will be more prepared to join the revolution... Unless the TV renders them complete morons by that time.

[∞]

Communism isn't redistribution. Communism is the idea that production should be operated by the workers.

[Pretty Flaco]

You see, that's why a socialist revolution is unlikely to begin in the US or any other Western country.


In a communist society, wouldn't GDP and currency both be history?

[Prometeo liberado]

Your middle class existence is based on a false sense of achievement. From the relatively cheap cost of food, clothing and electronics made or harvested by cheap foreign labor. Already the middle class can see themselves slowly slipping into the ranks of the working class because of the a "advance of neo-liberalism". So to answer your question I have to say that the comfort you feel may be a false one. If it's a stable life as opposed to the western comfortable" idea" of life that you wish to keep then you have nothing to fear from socialism/communism. Quality of life will never be the way it once was for the middle class in america. Not until there is direct ownership of the means of production by the workers. Welcome to the new world.

[eric922]

Your middle class existence is based on a false sense of achievement. From the relatively cheap cost of food, clothing and electronics are made or harvested by cheap labor. Already the middle class can see themselves slowly slipping into the ranks of the working class. So to answer your question I have to say that the comfort you feel may be a false one. If it's a stable life as opposed to the western comfortable" idea" of life that you wish to keep then you have nothing to fear from socialism/communism. Quality of life will never be the way it once was for the middle class in america, welcome to the new world.
This is the truth. The only reason life was so good for the "middle-class" (a term I hate since the "middle-class" are usually just workers" was because the USSR represented an alternative to capitalism so the capitalist nations were willing to compromise with workers in order to keep them in line. The U.S. working class had another advantage because after WWII, American manufacturing was really the only option, since Europe and Japan were decimated from WWII.

[Zulu]

In a communist society, wouldn't GDP and currency both be history?

Yes, but communism can't arrive overnight. And GDP per capita is good for reference anyway.

[Prometeo liberado]

This is the truth. The only reason life was so good for the "middle-class" (a term I hate since the "middle-class" are usually just workers" was because the USSR represented an alternative to capitalism so the capitalist nations were willing to compromise with workers in order to keep them in line. The U.S. working class had another advantage because after WWII, American manufacturing was really the only option, since Europe and Japan were decimated from WWII.

I have to differ with you just a bit here. The middle class do not share the same class characteristics as the working class. One knows that they are in the quagmire of a shit existence manufactured by the 1%, the other knows that to stay out of the quagmire they must live the dream that the 1% manufactured.

[Ostrinski]

Middle class is a bankrupt, useless term that anyone who employs a Marxian analysis should find no worth in.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I was thinking about the standard of living once Communism takes hold of the globe. I live in Upstate New York, so I was wondering how my standard of living would be affected.
Your quality of life (isn't that more important than "standard of living" as defined by an exploitative, consumerist, class society?) would increase under communism.

[eric922]

I have to differ with you just a bit here. The middle class do not share the same class characteristics as the working class. One knows that they are in the quagmire of a shit existence manufactured by the 1%, the other knows that to stay out of the quagmire they must live the dream that the 1% manufactured.
I think we may be differing over the use of the term middle class. You seem to be using the more accurate Marxist meaning to refer to members of the petty-bourgeois. I was using in in the American sense of the word where middle class is more about income than relations to means of productions. This is why I said I hate the term middle class, because in America it seems to be used to describe everyone and is a pretty much useless term, I just used it because we are discussing America.

[Prometeo liberado]

I think we may be differing over the use of the term middle class. You seem to be using the more accurate Marxist meaning to refer to members of the petty-bourgeois. I was using in in the American sense of the word where middle class is more about income than relations to means of productions. This is why I said I hate the term middle class, because in America it seems to be used to describe everyone and is a pretty much useless term, I just used it because we are discussing America.
I see where youre going with this as I also hate writing bourgeois.
for the sake of this thread I will assume middle class means western middle class and bourgeois will stay as the marxist term. No more interchanging.

[eric922]

I see where youre going with this as I also hate writing bourgeois.
for the sake of this thread I will assume middle class means western middle class and bourgeois will stay as the marxist term. No more interchanging.
Sounds good to me. Bourgeois is such an inefficient language to communicate in, I'll be glad when the only time it will have to be used is in history classrooms.

[daft punk]

Socialism would have to offer everyone the standard of living of the American middle class, otherwise people wont buy it. Some things would have to be different, as the planet couldnt handle 7 billion people living like middle class Americans do under capitalism, you would need 5 planets. But mostly this would be overcome by green planning and waste efficiency. However you would not get a big new car every year and the latest fashions every few months. That is unnecessary and wasteful.

Socialism could easily improve the living standards for virtually everyone. You might not get a new car but you would have free healthcare and education, a proper job, a decent pension, a home, no need to worry about the bills, and good public transport.

[Rooster]

You see, that's why a socialist revolution is unlikely to begin in the US or any other Western country.

Oh give me a break. Behold the great soothsayers of marxism-leninism and some sort of third worldism! There's no material reason as to why revolution is the least likely to happen in a western country. Point in fact, revolution is the most likely to happen considering you know, that socialism erupts from the breaking of capitalist development. Have you ever even read any Marxist material? Fuck sake, man.


Look up the GDP per capita in the US and in the world, divide the former number by the latter and you'll get an approximate degree of the "loss of comfort" the US citizens on average would undergo if the total wealth in the world was magically redistributed in a fair egalitarian manner.

Communism isn't anything to do with equal distribution. The point of communism is to expand labour productivity and human advancement over and above what capitalism is able or unable to do. That means that all of these places that have no water or electricity or goods will get all of the water and electricity and goods that can be managed, eventually going up to and exceeding that of the highest standards of living in the world right now. The reason they are not right now is because that capitalism doesn't allow it. The point is also not to reduce the standard of living or wealth or whatever just so you can send it somewhere else. We're already living in a world of excess, both materially and in productive power, but that excess isn't going to the right places.


The US and other Western imperialists have been literally buying the compliance of the masses in their countries by sharing some of the profits they've squeezed from the Third World by aggressive wars, IMF policies and good old exploitation of labor.

That's such a cop out answer and totally ignores the struggles of the proletariat within the western countries. The proletariat has existed in these countries the longest and you can't just lump the whole of the western proletariat in with the international capitalist.


However, as the systemic crisis of capitalism deepens, the middle class of the West will be gradually proletarized, and then will be more prepared to join the revolution... Unless the TV renders them complete morons by that time.

Oh no! TV! So what is it? I thought you said that revolution was unlikely in the western countries? I have no idea what you're talking about with middle class. Do you mean the petite-bourgeoisie? Or just the middling classes? Actually, reading this into context with the rest of your post gives the impression of the latter. The proletariat are bought off and too wealthy, they are the middle class of the world, therefore they need to be made into the proletariat of the third world ie by a reduction in wealth caused by..... capitalist crisis? :confused: But only if TV doesn't get in the way and make them morons? :confused: Jeez, I really didn't know that revolution rested so much on television.

[Blake's Baby]

...

Communism isn't anything to do with equal distribution. The point of communism is to expand labour productivity and human advancement over and above what capitalism is able or unable to do....

Obviously, you're right (as is so often the case :cool: ) but I think, given that the post is about relative levels of affluence, and indeed perceptions of relative levels of affluence, that we can indulge in a little 'what if communism did mean that', or perhaps 'what if capitalism were organised in an egalitarian and peaceful and non-competing fashion' (obviously, it can't, but...).

IF for the sake of the argument, all capitalist property were just shared out, every single person on the planet would get approximately $9,000US. That's how much capitalism is worth - 9,000 x 7 billion people = about 60 trillion US dollars.

That's not every adult, that's every person. Every baby, every child. A standard nuclear 'two parents two kids' family in the west would get $36,000. Now for my family that would be about the same as what we currently get; for other families it might be a lot less. For some individuals it would certainly be less. In non-western countries however, for instance in Kenya with a much higher birth-rate, the family income for a family with one adult and five kids would be (for example) $54,000. This would be a massive increase on the average income for the majority of Kenyan families.

So for maybe 3/5 of the planet this entirely theoretical $9,000US would be a large improvement, for maybe another 1/5 it would be slight improvement, and for another 1/5 (including a fairly large percentage of the population of the US) it would be a theoretical cut in income. However, the population of the US is about 5% of the world's population. That doesn't mean 'so fuck'em' but it does mean that the US population is hardly a significant weight in the scheme of things. And, there are still people, families, communities in the US to whom the $9,000 per person would represent an improvement.

However; this merely assumes that we divide everything up and continue as before. If capitalism continues, we can assume that there will be certain things that also continue - wars, states, borders, corporations, the police force, environmental pollution, all sorts of shit that we're trying to elimninate. So the 'theoretical worth' of that $9,000 dollars under the same social conditions as we have now includes arms budgets, training cops, taxes to pay politicians' junkets, advertising, banking, unecessary price-hikes due to the inefficiencies of capitalism... the trick, of course, is to work out (or come up with a figure) for how much of what we do is actually unecessary. I think it could easily be as high as 80%.

In other words, to keep things as they are, we'd all get $1,800 under capitalism - that after the military budget and taxes for politicians and corporate bailouts and all the rest of the shit, is what capitalism on average generates for the world population.

Or, the other way up, the $9,000 we'd get under straight redistribution would be 'worth' $36,000 for each and every person on the planet if we could eliminate war, poverty, politicians, states, banking, advertising ... and all that other shit that sucks in socially-created wealth.

Now in the UK at the moment the average (median) wage is around that $36,000 mark - no idea about the US. Of course, for most people, that would be an improvement as there are a damn sight more people under the average than above it. Both because more people are low paid, and because the number of people not even counted for the average (12 million pensioners, 10 million kids, 2.5 million officially unemployed, 5.5 million more economically dependant and not officially unemployed) means that half the population is not even counted in the average. So for the 55 million people or so (92% of the population) who get less than the average wage, $36,000 is an improvement. I think the figures in the US will be somewhat similar, in outline if not in detail (as 1/3 of US households now get food stamps, for instance).

Now if we were actually to think about re-integration of wasted labour into production, it would mean that, not only would we be able to get the equivalent 'social value' of $36,000 a year, but we'd only 'work' 24 hours a week, if that, once all the soldiers, bankers, unemployed, and the rest were re-integrated into socially-useful work, and all the other pointless stuff that capitalism gets us to do was eliminated.

All of this is totally theroretical and merely demonstrates what egalitarian distribution of capitalism could theoretically do. In other words, it's based on the population of the world, the wealth created by the working class for capitalism, and sharing the one into the other; then, as a thought-experiment, taking out the waste, inefficiency and competition from the system - which is of course impossible. But it's still based on capitalist production and only an economic argument. In strict terms of 'economic equivalence', socialism would be worth $36,000 to every person on earth, and we'd only have a 24 hour (or maybe less) working week to deal with.

Now; Rooster is right that socialism isn't about re-distribution, it's about changing human relations. Not only would we work less and (for the vast majority of the planet, including a majority of people in the USA) have a higher standard of living, we'd also have a hugely improved quality of life - a life almost completely free of crime, threat of war, environmental destruction; a life in which we are free to pursue our own endevours to a massively greater extent than we are at present; a life in which we are not concerned about the rat-race; a life in which the commute to work has almost vanished, worries about the mortgage are no more, the quest to find work or to keep it when we've got it doesn't exist; a life in which our productive actiivity becomes, if not a joy exactly, at least a meaningful contribution to society, in which our (much-reduced) work-time is integrated back into our lives instead of being stolen from them.

And that's gotta be worth more than $36,000 hasn't it?

[Ocean Seal]

In a communist society, wouldn't GDP and currency both be history?
Yes they would, but that does not make them history now. It is important to remember that world revolution is not instant revolution. Capitalism breaks where the chains are most rusted first.

[Zulu]

Jeez, I really didn't know that revolution rested so much on television.

It's not revolution, it's counter-revolution which is what the TV business squeezes its profits from. The rest of your post is soundly addressed by Blake's Baby, and don't be so smug, especially when talking to the MLs.

[Blake's Baby]

Zulu, thanks for agreeing with me, but then, I agree with Rooster.

I think you're missing the point about TV. Rooster is making the perfectly reasonable point that if class-consciousness can be so severely retarded by television we may as well give up on materialist analysis and petition to have 'Metropolis' and the films of Eisenstein on telly the whole time. If propaganda - ideas - is the only determining factor (not, you know, economic crisis, the international situation, alienation, the class struggle) then it's all just a shadow-play on the face of the abyss. The dumb proles will consume their fodder with vacuous grins until the glorious day when someone changes their channel for them.

That is a shit view of the proletariat and and a shit view of class consciousness. Communism is the real movement for the emancipation of the proletariat. It's not some sacred truth to be brought from Mt Olympus by shining faced Disciples of Marx. If you want to complain 'oh, we've got the wrong sort of proles'... then I say you're not a communist. You haven't got the wrong sort of proles, you've got the wrong sort of theory.

[Zulu]

If you want to complain 'oh, we've got the wrong sort of proles'... then I say you're not a communist. You haven't got the wrong sort of proles, you've got the wrong sort of theory.
I don't say that the "proles" are of a "wrong sort". But the capitalists have been reading on Marx too, you know. So if they use (and they do, deliberately or otherwise) such things as TV to successfully distract the masses from their real troubles, that's how it is. That's got to be somehow accounted for by wannabe revolutionaries, since, for the obvious reasons, the Marxist classics could not do that.

[Firebrand]

I think it's important to point out that there is massive wastage under capitalism. So much so that if everything were organised efficiently everyone would have a pretty high standard of living. Now I doubt everyone would get a lear jet and a solid gold toilet seat, but certainly no-one would go without anything they needed and i'm pretty sure that there would be no problem with luxuries within reason.

Lets take food as an example. How is it sane for billions of people to be starving while billions more people are obese. This is the insanity of unequal distribution. Kill half the poor by starving them and kill the other half by feeding them to death. the only people who wouldn't benefit from an equal distribution are the ones making a profit out of it. And thats even before we get onto the subject of food left to rot in fields to push prices up, and the billions of tonnes that is thrown away in western society because it can't be eaten before it goes off.

To say that the western working classes are benefiting from unequal distribution of wealth (and yes that includes the so called middle classes), is simplistic and inaccurate. You can say that the western proletariat benefit from having vast amounts of cheap consumer goods, but they pay for it with their jobs.
A poor factory worker in china makes TV's for shit pay in shit conditions. You could say that the slightly better off worker in britain benefits from this because he can now have a cheap tv, but it has also led to to him losing his job because the company can pay chinese workers less, so while he has a telly he may now lose his house because he can't pay the mortgage. Swings and roundabouts everyone suffers differently and some suffer more than others, but inequality hurts everyone except the bourgeoisie.

Anyone who isn't a fully paid up member of the ruling class will have their lives massively improved by a society that rations things out according to need rather than random fluctuations in the stock market.

[Blake's Baby]

I don't say that the "proles" are of a "wrong sort". But the capitalists have been reading on Marx too, you know. So if they use (and they do, deliberately or otherwise) such things as TV to successfully distract the masses from their real troubles, that's how it is. That's got to be somehow accounted for by wannabe revolutionaries, since, for the obvious reasons, the Marxist classics could not do that.

No they don't 'successfully distract the masses'. They successfully distract some people. They make other people more critical. Just like everything else does in the realm of ideas.

'The ruling ideas in any epoch are the ideas of the ruling class'.

Guess what? If ideas were enough all we'd have to do would be find the perfect slogan, print 3 billion copies of it and watch everybody's heads explode with the perfect socialist knowledge.

We are materialists. People's consciousness is derived from their material reality. This includes their social environment but it it's not limited to what media they do or don't consume. It's also conditioned by their face-to-face interactions with other human beings, their work and family situations, their entire social being.

Some people never watch the news or read a newspaper. They have little idea about the world beyond their immediate lives. But social reality will ultimately cause even some of these people to take notice. The plant down the road closes, 3,000 people lose their jobs, and all of a sudden the guy who retired 5 years ago after 40 years there, and thinks that anyone on welfare is a lazy sponger, realises that a lot of these people, his former colleagues, just cannot find jobs. Why are there no jobs in his town any more?

Hey, maybe the plant closing is going to mean those shops in the centre of town that relied on the people from the plant and their paycheques are ging to close too. That's more people out of work and fewer opportunities. People leave town, and move somewhere else looking for work, and that means that there are even fewer people keeping the remaining businesses open. The company's gone bust, and he realises that the company pension he paid into is worthless. Can't afford to move, he's got no money to get a better life. Soon the town is a shadow of itself, and our blinkered know-it-all is now thinking that maybe the rosy future he was promised isn't all that rosy.

Now replicate that story or variations on it for 40 million people in the USA. I'm kinda assuming that there's already 160 million who know it.

[Zulu]

We are materialists. People's consciousness is derived from their material reality. This includes their social environment but it it's not limited to what media they do or don't consume. It's also conditioned by their face-to-face interactions with other human beings, their work and family situations, their entire social being.

I agree with all this, and just want to point out that the media plays a lot larger role in today's society than it did a hundred years ago. It's not only about the news about the situation in the world and in the neighborhood, it's about reality shows, sports channels, popular music, etc. Down to something as crude as pornography. Entertainment in general is much more available now, even for the unemployed. It's one thing when people are oppressed but can relax once in a while, and another when they have literally no escape from their lamentable being. Therefore it'll be probably harder to grow that mass consciousness and keep it focused outside of traditional bourgeois discourse. I don't say it's impossible, but it will surely take a lot of worsening of the situation until it holds.

[Lolumad273]

It's been a real treat reading this, thanks everyone.

I can at the very least, not worry about my standard of living. To add to that satisfaction, the billion people who are undernourished, or without proper sanitation, will have all those necessities. That counts for a lot in my book.