Communism is exploitative?

[LeftAtheist]

I wasn't sure where to post this, so feel free to move it if it needs to be moved.

I'm debating with a capitalist friend who claims that a communist society would be exploitative because one might produce more than one takes. Since everyone is given all that they need, he says that it's unfair for one person to do more work than another but still get the same. How should I respond?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Under communism all would work to produce and better society, there would be no such thing as exploitation, especially in such vague reactionary forms as "that guy got more than he produced" which really means nothing at all.

[LeftAtheist]

I don't really see it as an issue either, of course. I think he's still using an capitalist, "every man for themselves" attitude and not considering the cameraderie and idea of community that would exist in a communist society.

He does acknowledge that capitalism is exploitative, but says that's an accepted fact of the system, and states that communism's exploitative while claiming not to be.

[ForgedConscience]

Under communism all would work to produce and better society, there would be no such thing as exploitation, especially in such vague reactionary forms as "that guy got more than he produced" which really means nothing at all.

Although I agree, I don't think that argument will cut it for a non-communist, it's a bit vague. You could argue that it is pedantic to worry about how much individuals actually contribute because it is impossible to quantify effort, similar to the argument against meritocracy (impossible to measure merit).

[MotherCossack]

doesn't it make you wanna pull your hair out?....
shows how small-minded people have got and so sadly out of kilter with the notion of community.... to be unable to see past getting all your fair share....worrying that he might take a bit of yours and she might not work as hard as you and.....
it wont be fair...... honestly.... puleaze!!!!
ask the person how they think the deformed kids around bhopal feel about their share or how keen their cousins are on forced marriage and early motherhood ... but not school ... they have probably never heard of it.
communism is about everyone reaching their potential together... for each other and for ourselves... not in constant opposition and competition with everyone!

[NewLeft]

Under communism, there is no surplus being appropriated. There cannot be exploitation.

[Caj]

A system in which production and distribution takes place in accordance with the maxim "from each according to his or her abilities, to each according to his or her needs," what Marx termed the "higher phase of communism," won't be instituted until the productive forces develop to a degree adequate to ensure a continuous state of post-scarcity, at which point, it won't matter whether or not one takes more than he or she contributes. Besides, needs naturally reflect the amount and degree of labor expended, so the idea of one taking more than one contributes is kind of a false concept anyway.

[LeftAtheist]

it won't matter whether or not one takes more than he or she contributes. Besides, needs naturally reflect the amount and degree of labor expended, so the idea of one taking more than one contributes is kind of a false concept anyway.

I said this to him, but I think he objects to someone taking more than him despite working less on principle alone. I even asked him what he'd do with the extra if he had it, and he answered "nothing".

Another friend is now using the "human nature won't allow communism" argument on me. My bingo card is filling up fast.

[NewLeft]

I don't think it's a matter of quantity either. I could produce a computer, which has a high use-value and take 100 apples, which is much more easier to reproduce.

[Loony]

A system in which production and distribution takes place in accordance with the maxim "from each according to his or her abilities, to each according to his or her needs," what Marx termed the "higher phase of communism," won't be instituted until the productive forces develop to a degree adequate to ensure a continuous state of post-scarcity, at which point, it won't matter whether or not one takes more than he or she contributes. Besides, needs naturally reflect the amount and degree of labor expended, so the idea of one taking more than one contributes is kind of a false concept anyway.

I've wondered about this too. But is it not human nature to always want to make a bargain? Put in as little as you can and get out as much as you can? I would say that holds true for a large part of the population.

I am an honest person and I know that I would not take more than I needed, but do others see the world the same way?

What do you think about this? :confused:

[LeftAtheist]

I don't think it's a matter of quantity either. I could produce a computer, which has a high use-value and take 100 apples, which is much more easier to reproduce.

The example we were using was a fairly crude one:

Workers A and B produce chickens, but worker A is more hard working so makes two, despite only needing one for himself. Worker B needs two, but only produces one.

My friend viewed this as exploitation of A by B. Obviously, I don't agree, and even tried to tell him that in a post-sacrcity society, it doesn't matter. He objected on principle.

[LeftAtheist]

I've wondered about this too. But is it not human nature to always want to make a bargain? Put in as little as you can and get out as much as you can? I would say that holds true for a large part of the population.

I am an honest person and I know that I would not take more than I needed, but do others see the world the same way?

What do you think about this? :confused:

I've always thought that thought that is something much more likely to be the case under capitalism, in which you are alienated from not only what you produce, but society in general. You have less of a stake in it, because you're working for a capitalist. In communism, you'd be working for yourself and your community, which you'd have a greater commitment to and so are less likely to take advantage of them.

For example, you might not think much of stealing from a large business, but you probably wouldn't steal from a friend, or from your family.

[the zizekian]

I've always thought that thought that is something much more likely to be the case under capitalism, in which you are alienated from not only what you produce, but society in general. You have less of a stake in it, because you're working for a capitalist. In communism, you'd be working for yourself and your community, which you'd have a greater commitment to and so are less likely to take advantage of them.

For example, you might not think much of stealing from a large business, but you probably wouldn't steal from a friend, or from your family.

Friends and family: that’s communitarianism, not communism.

[LeftAtheist]

Friends and family: that’s communitarianism, not communism.

Well, it was just an example; I wasn't sure what analogy to use. The point I was trying to make was that since you have more of a stake in the goods and their production, you'd be less likely to take advantage.

[the zizekian]

Well, it was just an example; I wasn't sure what analogy to use. The point I was trying to make was that since you have more of a stake in the goods and their production, you'd be less likely to take advantage.

You cannot have more at stake because communism destroys incentives based on selfishness.

[Caj]

I've wondered about this too. But is it not human nature to always want to make a bargain? Put in as little as you can and get out as much as you can? I would say that holds true for a large part of the population.

For the most part, yeah, but how does that change the fact that needs naturally reflect the amount and degree of labor expended?

[the zizekian]

For the most part, yeah, but how does that change the fact that needs naturally reflect the amount and degree of labor expended?

That is not the case, since you find easily people with few abilities who have very expensive tastes.

[LeftAtheist]

You cannot have more at stake because communism destroys incentives based on selfishness.

That's my point, though I might have phrased it badly. Doing what you can to "screw the system" under capitalism (by taking more than you've 'earned') has no direct victim, but under communism, you'd be taking advantage of other workers. The reasons for not doing this are unselfish; it wouldn't feel right. I hope you understand my point, even though I might not be putting it the best way.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

The more you produce the more you need to consume restore your labor power. The less you produce the less you need to consume to restore your labor power.

[the zizekian]

That's my point, though I might have phrased it badly. Doing what you can to "screw the system" under capitalism (by taking more than you've 'earned') has no direct victim, but under communism, you'd be taking advantage of other workers. The reasons for not doing this are unselfish; it wouldn't feel right. I hope you understand my point, even though I might not be putting it the best way.

Exploitation in capitalism makes a lot of victims.

[Caj]

That is not the case, since you find easily people with few abilities who have very expensive tastes.

It's pretty self-evident that those who expend more labor will tend to have higher needs than those who expend no labor. . . .

[LeftAtheist]

Exploitation in capitalism makes a lot of victims.


If you're refering to exploitation of the proleteriat by the bourgeoisie, then that goes without saying. That's not what I was refering to. In any case, what would be your answer to Loony's question?

[Leonid Brozhnev]

Another friend is now using the "human nature won't allow communism" argument on me. My bingo card is filling up fast.

Tell him to shove his human nature arguments up his ass. It's an arbitrary concept, there's nothing more to humans than finding sustenance, surviving and fucking, like any other animal.

[the zizekian]

It's pretty self-evident that those who expend more labor will tend to have higher needs than those who expend no labor. . . .

It all depends on abilities to work.

[Loony]

That's my point, though I might have phrased it badly. Doing what you can to "screw the system" under capitalism (by taking more than you've 'earned') has no direct victim, but under communism, you'd be taking advantage of other workers. The reasons for not doing this are unselfish; it wouldn't feel right. I hope you understand my point, even though I might not be putting it the best way.

I think for many people it wouldn't feel right.

But others just don't give a damn about anyone else. Some people don't have a conscience regardless of whether Capitalism is in the picture. They would be equally nasty in a Communist world.

What is the solution to this?

[Caj]

It all depends on abilities to work.

Can you elaborate?

[the zizekian]

Can you elaborate?

By definition, abilities or productivity (output per input) and needs (input) are inversely related.

[LeftAtheist]

I think for many people it wouldn't feel right.

But others just don't give a damn about anyone else. Some people don't have a conscience regardless of whether Capitalism is in the picture. They would be equally nasty in a Communist world.

What is the solution to this?

That would probably depend on why. If there was some particular reason they were that way, there might be help for them. If not, and they were just truly without conscience, then a society might be able to take action to make sure that they aren't harming the rest of the people. Denying them access to anything at all might be one way of doing it, though I'm not sure how I'd feel about that personally. It would be for each community to decide.

[the zizekian]

That would probably depend on why. If there was some particular reason they were that way, there might be help for them. If not, and they were just truly without conscience, then a society might be able to take action to make sure that they aren't harming the rest of the people. Denying them access to anything at all might be one way of doing it, though I'm not sure how I'd feel about that personally. It would be for each community to decide.

It seems that we are back to the forced labor camps of past communist regimes.

[LeftAtheist]

It seems that we are back to the forced labor camps of past communist regimes.

That's not what I meant at all. As I said, I'm not sure how I'd feel about doing that myself; I'm not really comfortable with the idea of condemning people to starvation. Perhaps the number of people who'd take advantage in such a way would be small enough for it not to be much of a problem?

[Althusser]

The example we were using was a fairly crude one:

Workers A and B produce chickens, but worker A is more hard working so makes two, despite only needing one for himself. Worker B needs two, but only produces one.

My friend viewed this as exploitation of A by B. Obviously, I don't agree, and even tried to tell him that in a post-sacrcity society, it doesn't matter. He objected on principle.

Not to mention how exploitative the capitalist counterpart to this is.

[the zizekian]

That's not what I meant at all. As I said, I'm not sure how I'd feel about doing that myself; I'm not really comfortable with the idea of condemning people to starvation. Perhaps the number of people who'd take advantage in such a way would be small enough for it not to be much of a problem?

But this sounds to me to be simply wishful thinking.

[LeftAtheist]

But this sounds to me to be simply wishful thinking.

What do you suggest, in that case?

[the zizekian]

What do you suggest, in that case?

Simply answer to your friend that capitalists are not in a position to speak about labor exploitation.

[o well this is ok I guess]

It is literally impossible for a lone society to take more than it produces, except by taking from another society. Therefore, should such not hold for individuals?

[the zizekian]

I wasn't sure where to post this, so feel free to move it if it needs to be moved.

I'm debating with a capitalist friend who claims that a communist society would be exploitative because one might produce more than one takes. Since everyone is given all that they need, he says that it's unfair for one person to do more work than another but still get the same. How should I respond?

In capitalism, workers produce more than they can take.

[LeftAtheist]

Simply answer to your friend that capitalists are not in a position to speak about labor exploitation.

He admitted that, but said it's generally accepted that exploitation is part of capitalism (and so is presumably irrelevent for the purposes of the discussion we were having). His point was that he considered there to be exploitation within communism, as per the example I gave, in spite of the fact that communism is supposedly without exploitation.

[the zizekian]

I wasn't sure where to post this, so feel free to move it if it needs to be moved.

I'm debating with a capitalist friend who claims that a communist society would be exploitative because one might produce more than one takes. Since everyone is given all that they need, he says that it's unfair for one person to do more work than another but still get the same. How should I respond?

Everyone can be said to have different needs and different abilities to work.

[Loony]

It is literally impossible for a lone society to take more than it produces, except by taking from another society. Therefore, should such not hold for individuals?

I think its just that we have been part of a consumerist society for so long that we no longer can tell apart necessities from luxuries. And that type of thinking is not just going to go away. Not in at least 1-2 generations.

Even if the Proletariat does overthrow the Capitalist be it by violence or numbers, it is not going to change the minds of the masses who have been living with Capitalism all their lives. You can't just deprogram someone from one way of thinking to the other.

[the zizekian]

I wasn't sure where to post this, so feel free to move it if it needs to be moved.

I'm debating with a capitalist friend who claims that a communist society would be exploitative because one might produce more than one takes. Since everyone is given all that they need, he says that it's unfair for one person to do more work than another but still get the same. How should I respond?

Crying to unfairness will not be taken lightly in communism; your friend would have to think twice before lamenting.

[Revolution starts with U]

I wasn't sure where to post this, so feel free to move it if it needs to be moved.

I'm debating with a capitalist friend who claims that a communist society would be exploitative because one might produce more than one takes. Since everyone is given all that they need, he says that it's unfair for one person to do more work than another but still get the same. How should I respond?

Why did he work more than he needed to, or more than anyone else, in the first place? He had the option to not. It would be unfair if this specific worker had not freely chosen (and I mean that in a real sense, not in a right libertarian ghostly sense. He was to be given full access to consumption, not starved out of it by property rights) to work more.

[o well this is ok I guess]

I think its just that we have been part of a consumerist society for so long that we no longer can tell apart necessities from luxuries. And that type of thinking is not just going to go away. Not in at least 1-2 generations.

Even if the Proletariat does overthrow the Capitalist be it by violence or numbers, it is not going to change the minds of the masses who have been living with Capitalism all their lives. You can't just deprogram someone from one way of thinking to the other. I dunno how this is at all a response to what I have said

[Loony]

I dunno how this is at all a response to what I have said

Please forgive. It's late and my brain isn't thinking straight. :blushing:

[Thirsty Crow]

I wasn't sure where to post this, so feel free to move it if it needs to be moved.

I'm debating with a capitalist friend who claims that a communist society would be exploitative because one might produce more than one takes. Since everyone is given all that they need, he says that it's unfair for one person to do more work than another but still get the same. How should I respond?
It's called personal choice.
The crux of the issue is that individuals would not be forced (by sheer material necessity) to work longer than necessary for their own reproduction, and that there wouldn't exist a whole class of people wielding power over labour of others and apprpriating the surplus as a class (which means privately).

[Blake's Baby]

I said this to him, but I think he objects to someone taking more than him despite working less on principle alone. I even asked him what he'd do with the extra if he had it, and he answered "nothing"...

Sounds like a horrible human being. He believes that children should die, old people should be left to starve and the sick should just rot by the side of the road, does he?

The fact of the matter is that in any civilised society more people will consume than will produce, because some people cannot produce but still need to consume.

In capitalism, and great many fewer people produce than can produce (capitalists on the one hand, the unemployed on the other).

In socialism, all those that can produce will, and that makes it a buggering site fairer for all (except capitalists - even the unemployed get a better deal, because now society is sensibly organised they can consume at a higher level). Those who currently produce will produce less, because of the large numbers of people now freed up for socially-productive labour. So socialism means less work for the workers, and a better standard of living for the unemployed. Only capitalists (who do not work but have the highest living standards of all) will be 'worse off'.




Another friend is now using the "human nature won't allow communism" argument on me. My bingo card is filling up fast.

You could laugh and tell him that at one time people thought that capitalism was against human nature. The Romans thought it was very strange behaviour, for instance.

You could also tell him that class soceties are only 8,000 years old and for the first 242,000 years all homo sapiens lived in communist societies. Good job homo sapiens what realised what our nature was after 96.8% of our existence! Good old class societies!

[Manic Impressive]

A system in which production and distribution takes place in accordance with the maxim "from each according to his or her abilities, to each according to his or her needs," what Marx termed the "higher phase of communism," won't be instituted until the productive forces develop to a degree adequate to ensure a continuous state of post-scarcity, at which point, it won't matter whether or not one takes more than he or she contributes. Besides, needs naturally reflect the amount and degree of labor expended, so the idea of one taking more than one contributes is kind of a false concept anyway.
You don't think that productive forces are already at a level to provide enough for everyone?

[Revolution starts with U]

[QUOTE=Blake's Baby;2431874]

You could laugh and tell him that at one time people thought that capitalism was against human nature. The Romans thought it was very strange behaviour, for instance.

[QUOTE]

I would love to read more about that, if you please :cool:

[the zizekian]

I wasn't sure where to post this, so feel free to move it if it needs to be moved.

I'm debating with a capitalist friend who claims that a communist society would be exploitative because one might produce more than one takes. Since everyone is given all that they need, he says that it's unfair for one person to do more work than another but still get the same. How should I respond?

The most precious social benefits come by sharing not by working.

[MotherCossack]

i'd like to think that ... come the long-awaited transformation of society.. into a more cohesive, caring, , inclusive, sustainable, considerate and socialist/communist arrangement...... these kind of negative comments, which demonstrate all the worst sentiments possible, will start to decline.... as the obvious improvements in our general quality of life start to take effect.
i want to believe that all that nasty venom and greedy self-promotion which thrives under capitalism, will evaporate, in time, or wither and disappear when its life source is removed.
maybe this is somewhat optimistic.... i'm not sure..... anyway .... it'll be a while in coming anyway... worst luck...

[Blake's Baby]

You could laugh and tell him that at one time people thought that capitalism was against human nature. The Romans thought it was very strange behaviour, for instance.



I would love to read more about that, if you please :cool:

OK; I'll do what I can.

The facts as I remember them are that a particular Freedman bought a dilapidated farm, invested a lot in getting it working, beautifying it and generally improving it in a very 'capitalist' way, before selling it at a large profit. This obviously is perfectly normal behaviour in capitalism, it's the way human beings are wired we're told - it's 'human nature'.

However (and this is where it starts to get screwey unfortunately from a research perspective) Pliny the Elder (problem is I can't actually remember whether it is Pliny the Elder, or maybe Cicero or someone else) mentions this not as a perfectly normal excercise of human behaviour, but a very strange event.

1-it's strange because it's unlike other events; the idea of investing in property to make a profit didn't inspire imitators or follow a pattern of similar investments in Roman economics, there seems to have been no established principle of economic decision making that saw this as reasonable activity;
2-the reason it's strange to contemporary Romans is because the purpose of buying a farm and improving it (which often happened) is to enjoy it - either as a retirement home/country house if you plan to reside there, or to live off the revenues if you weren't necessarily going to live there; either way, you invest in it for you, not for someone else; the notion of buying land as a commodity to be 'processed' and sold at a profit was therefore considered very peculiar (and as I say didn't inspire imitators, it didn't kick of 'capitalism' as a general system in Ancient Rome).

As I say, if I could remember that it actually was Pliny who reported this story, it would help a great deal in tying down the specifics. But honestly I can't remember, sorry.

[the zizekian]

i'd like to think that ... come the long-awaited transformation of society.. into a more cohesive, caring, , inclusive, sustainable, considerate and socialist/communist arrangement...... these kind of negative comments, which demonstrate all the worst sentiments possible, will start to decline.... as the obvious improvements in our general quality of life start to take effect.
i want to believe that all that nasty venom and greedy self-promotion which thrives under capitalism, will evaporate, in time, or wither and disappear when its life source is removed.
maybe this is somewhat optimistic.... i'm not sure..... anyway .... it'll be a while in coming anyway... worst luck...

Radical changes don't fall from the sky just like this.

[MotherCossack]

Radical changes don't fall from the sky just like this.

and that my friend is exactly what i say to the kernal every day...and it is why i have misgivings about rev-left.....
it aint getting us any where closer to change....
there is work to be done.... and capitalism isnt about to take early retirement..... someone .... or rather, lots of people need to organise, demonstrate, agitate whip up enough something or other to get the ball rolling.....
then we will begin....
and clearly.even the begining is a good way off at the moment.
and doing this ... chatting cosily amongst ourselves ... might be fun... but doesnt contribute a thing ....in terms of achieving our objectives.
i have a troubling little niggling worry that it might be counter productive in fact... the energy spent discussing politics [or masturbation, depending on your choice of thread] should be channeled outwards ...where it is more likely to collide with obstacles... and then confrontations can ensue....
well it would be a start...

[the zizekian]

and that my friend is exactly what i say to the kernal every day...and it is why i have misgivings about rev-left.....
it aint getting us any where closer to change....
there is work to be done.... and capitalism isnt about to take early retirement..... someone .... or rather, lots of people need to organise, demonstrate, agitate whip up enough something or other to get the ball rolling.....
then we will begin....
and clearly.even the begining is a good way off at the moment.
and doing this ... chatting cosily amongst ourselves ... might be fun... but doesnt contribute a thing ....in terms of achieving our objectives.
i have a troubling little niggling worry that it might be counter productive in fact... the energy spent discussing politics [or masturbation, depending on your choice of thread] should be channeled outwards ...where it is more likely to collide with obstacles... and then confrontations can ensue....
well it would be a start...

I think this is why a lot of posters open threads and never come back to them.

[Caj]

You don't think that productive forces are already at a level to provide enough for everyone?

Perhaps. If they aren't, though, a transitional period of remuneration for labor will be necessary after the revolution.

[the zizekian]

I wasn't sure where to post this, so feel free to move it if it needs to be moved.

I'm debating with a capitalist friend who claims that a communist society would be exploitative because one might produce more than one takes.

Fairness is found by confronting how ridiculous it is for each person to consume exactly what he can produce.

[MotherCossack]

how is it exploitation to make a pre-arranged and perfectly reasonable contribution to the smooth running of a community in which you live.
supposing that the workload has been organised in a fair and sensitive way ... with tha agreement and support of all members of the community who are fit and able to work.
part of the agreement would involve including the care and support of those who need it...and in that way the fit and healthy will perhaps take on more work than if they were on their own.
they would however... gain the reassurance of knowing that they would never be left out in the cold or abandoned in an hour of need

[the zizekian]

I wasn't sure where to post this, so feel free to move it if it needs to be moved.

I'm debating with a capitalist friend who claims that a communist society would be exploitative because one might produce more than one takes. Since everyone is given all that they need, he says that it's unfair for one person to do more work than another but still get the same. How should I respond?

What is unfair is playing the interpassive game. In interpassivity, I am passive through the other, i.e. I accede to the other the passive aspect (of enjoying), while I can remain actively engaged (I can continue to work in the evening, while the VCR passively enjoys for me; I can make financial arrangements for the deceased's fortune while the weepers mourn for me).

http://www.egs.edu/faculty/slavoj-zizek/articles/the-interpassive-subject/ (http://www.egs.edu/faculty/slavoj-zizek/articles/the-interpassive-subject/)