What You Lefties Want

[trivas7]

You want a world marked by the prices of all goods and services falling to zero. But at that point there would be no problem of finding consumer demand, or, indeed, any economic problem at all. There would be no need to produce, to work, or to worry about accumulating capital, and we would all be in the Garden of Eden.

[Tim Cornelis]

We do not want prices falling to zero, which implies a gradual process. Also, what is your point?

Just because something is free of charge, gratis, does not mean it does not require to be produced. When you cook a meal for your family you provide it for free, yet it was still produced by your cooking.

[Tenka]

You want a world marked by the prices of all goods and services falling to zero. But at that point there would be no problem of finding consumer demand, or, indeed, any economic problem at all. There would be no need to produce, to work, or to worry about accumulating capital, and we would all be in the Garden of Eden.

I'd have called it something better than "Garden of Eden", but almost yes (what prices?...). And so long as people need to eat, be clothed, entertain themselves, etc. there will be a need to produce; we will just do it for ourselves (as a working class and species) rather than for Capital. I repeat these simplified oft repeated leftist claims only because, for all your 2,290 posts on here, they don't seem to have yet affected you.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You want a world marked by the prices of all goods and services falling to zero.

No, I want to do away with money completely. That is not the same thing.


But at that point there would be no problem of finding consumer demand, or, indeed, any economic problem at all.

What on Earth are you talking about? Of course there would be economic problems. They just wouldn't be the same ones that currently beset us under the capitalist price system.


There would be no need to produce, to work, or to worry about accumulating capital, and we would all be in the Garden of Eden.

Are you trolling? Communism, should we achieve it, is not going to be paradise. But it will sure beat living under capitalism.

[Yuppie Grinder]

You want a world marked by the prices of all goods and services falling to zero. But at that point there would be no problem of finding consumer demand, or, indeed, any economic problem at all. There would be no need to produce, to work, or to worry about accumulating capital, and we would all be in the Garden of Eden.
I think we know more about what we want than you do. Also nice job using a bunch of economics buzzwords without actually communicating anything, idiot.


that high-and-mighty looking cat from the fancy feast commercials will be the first to go

Fancy feast is a bourgeois cat food.

[Misanthrope]

You want a world marked by the prices of all goods and services falling to zero. No I want the idea of prices to be obsolete.




But at that point there would be no problem of finding consumer demand, or, indeed, any economic problem at all. There would be no need to produce, to work, or to worry about accumulating capital, and we would all be in the Garden of Eden.

Markets are not the only mode of production or exchange. Communism would create a post-scarce society but to say that there wouldn't be problems, economic or not, is quite a stretch and doesn't offer anything in the ways of intelligent discussion you troll. You honestly did just use a bunch of fucking buzzwords and didn't make a point other than you worship the market.

we're all just a bunch of bleeding heart idealists and you are a realist, is that it?

i hate you dad

[Jimmie Higgins]

You want a world marked by the prices of all goods and services falling to zero. But at that point there would be no problem of finding consumer demand, or, indeed, any economic problem at all. There would be no need to produce, to work, or to worry about accumulating capital, and we would all be in the Garden of Eden.This is why small bands of people died off and the human race never made it past small bands of people sharing thing - they all said, "Oh the hunt will happen by itself". This is why agriculture never developed because as soon as a family harvested food they stopped working and then died the following season.

This is why I generally don't do anything but drink water from the tap. It's FREE WATER! I'm water-rich! I leave my tap on all day so the peasants can see my wealth rolling past them into the street drains.

No, nothing about a garden of Eden, just reorganizing the way society is run so that there's meaningful democracy in society and the economy.

[trivas7]

[...]Markets are not the only mode of production or exchange.
Indeed, the only other mode of production is working under the coercion of a command economy (i.e., Stalinism). Communism, as a working mode of production, is impossible in theory and practice (Otherwise it would have been implemented somewhere by someone already).

[RedAtheist]

There would be no need to produce, to work, or to worry about accumulating capital, and we would all be in the Garden of Eden.

The only people who worry about accumulating capital are the bourgeoisie. The rest of us do not worry about it because we do not own capital. The need to worry about acculumating capital is already gone for the majority of humanity. I don't think abolishing it altogether would do much harm.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

So the kind of wage-slavery that we see today is not coercion? The capitalist system thrives on coercion.

The destruction of the unions, cutting of wages, disappearance of pensions and health benefits, unjustified sackings and out-sourcing of jobs to sweat shops.

Behold and bow down to the capitalist system, indeed...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Indeed, the only other mode of production is working under the coercion of a command economy (i.e., Stalinism).

False dichotomy.


Communism, as a working mode of production, is impossible in theory and practice (Otherwise it would have been implemented somewhere by someone already).

You can't prove a negative.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Indeed, the only other mode of production is working under the coercion of a command economy (i.e., Stalinism).

so the pre-capitalist modes of production never existed? cool.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

>2012
>still responding seriously to trollvias

srsly guise

Perhaps a ban for trivas7 is in order, then?

[Crux]

Perhaps a ban for trivas7 is in order, then?
I'm listening...

[MotherCossack]

We want a massacre of unforeseen proportions. The bloodiest, craziest, massacre in all of history. You think Stalin was a bad guy? Stalin is a girl scout selling cookies compared to what we're going to do. Once the revolution comes, we are even going purge bourgeois cats and kittens.
.

The more you have now.... the worse it will be for you when we take over...
So all you Fat, Fat Felines......
BE WARNED!!!! Have a chat with yourself.... start being generous.....share your stash out.....find some folk to patronise.....or prepare to be stripped bare


No, I want to do away with money completely. That is not the same thing.
What on Earth are you talking about? Of course there would be economic problems. They just wouldn't be the same ones that currently beset us under the capitalist price system
Are you trolling? Communism, should we achieve it, is not going to be paradise. But it will sure beat living under capitalism.

indeedf comrade.... but shall we organise a redistribution bash beforehand....,.so we share it so everyone has got equal....
then work towards a alternative system that does not involve shifting the highly corrosive currency from pillar to post.....
any system that retains money as its primary means of exchange will be inevitably corrupted , tainted and become as objectionable as capitalism is now.

[Dean]

Indeed, the only other mode of production is working under the coercion of a command economy (i.e., Stalinism). Communism, as a working mode of production, is impossible in theory and practice (Otherwise it would have been implemented somewhere by someone already).

This is a fantasy. Prevalent governments have always dictated norms in the market - not the other way around - which makes our "free markets" little more than stomping grounds for the state and its bourgeois followers. And in many cases markets do not exist or are inconsequential.

The Stalinist / Capitalist dichotomy is a farce, attempting to obscure the real political and economic conflicts which show the Soviet states and the Capitalist states acting as carbon copies of one another, simply with different benefactors.

Furthermore, most of the capital production and technological innovation is subsidized or directly funded by the state.

The difference that socialism will engender is to encourage innovation by direct state grants in a more transparent form - since people will be aware, and specialists actively involved in the distribution of capital by the state.

It's important to note that socialists don't even really suggest expanding state power in the market. The state has already intervened in very intimate ways in pursuit of the goals of capitalists and the bureaucratic elite. Socialists simply recommend that the same power, already in use to subdue the working class and work political intrigue between institutions, instead be used to the direct interests of the working class, the sole class which introduces value in the economy, in such a way as to actually expand consumer value and working benefits, rather than diminish both as capitalism does.

Either way - there are a ton of other economic systems, as well. This idealist nonsense about grand dichotomies is nothing more than a political face, some childish mantra screamed from the television for decades but totally lacking respect in academic circles.

[Qavvik]

.

[Yazman]

Moderator action:

It seems some of you have taken it upon yourselves to post utter crap, spam, troll posts of your own and more simply because you don't like what the guy has to say. Strictly speaking, he hasn't broken any rules here - being ignorant, stupid, or naive isn't against the rules, and we don't ban people simply because they make posts in the Opposing Ideologies forum that, you know... reflect an Opposing Ideology!

If you don't like it when supporters of capitalism post naive crap like this, then keep it to yourself! Have a look at the rules, and report somebody's post if they did actually break one! But "trolling" isn't a catchall for every time you see a pro-capitalist post some stupid shit!

Some of you have actually contributed to the thread in a meaningful way here. Thanks for not being idiots :cool:

Those of you, however, who took it upon yourselves to begin shitposting after an admittedly controversial pro-capitalist post, are getting warned. Specifically, jbeard, Amadeo Brodiga, Drosophila, GPDP, Vox Populi, Borz, and Deicide.

I'm going to make it abundantly clear: If I see one more post that doesn't contribute to the debate in a meaningful way, I'm going to infract you without question. The rest of the shitposts I am going to clean up.

[trivas7]

The difference that socialism will engender is to encourage innovation by direct state grants in a more transparent form - since people will be aware, and specialists actively involved in the distribution of capital by the state.

No, this is the fantasy. What socialist regime did not expand state power in the marketplace? Show me the socialist regime that used state power for the "interests of the working class". It is idealist nonsense to believe that a modern economy can exist and thrive without the institutions of capitalism, i.e., free markets, capital accumulation and voluntary exchange. In the real world -- besides labor -- capital formation, entrepeneurs, speculators, and legal structures that recognize private property rights are essential to how value is made.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No, this is the fantasy. What socialist regime did not expand state power in the marketplace?

All states have considerable power in the marketplace, by virtue of having deeper pockets than all but the largest corporations. They can also shape market conditions by enacting relevant policy.


Show me the socialist regime that used state power for the "interests of the working class".

Many of us are critical of supposed "socialist regimes". You've been here long enough to realise that.

Besides, Dean wasn't even claiming that such things have happened before, so you are guilty of erecting a strawman.

Another problem, you seem to be insinuating that if something hasn't happened before, it will never happen. Such reasoning is as fallacious as someone before 1969 claiming that since nobody has landed on the Moon, it is therefore impossible now and forever.


It is idealist nonsense to believe that a modern economy can exist and thrive without the institutions of capitalism, i.e., free markets, capital accumulation and voluntary exchange. In the real world -- besides labor -- capital formation, entrepeneurs, speculators, and legal structures that recognize private property rights are essential to how value is made.

Essential under capitalism. Are you really that short-sighted and unimaginative as to believe that what exists now is all there ever will be?

Of course, I expect you'll ignore me, as usual.

[Ocean Seal]

Indeed, the only other mode of production is working under the coercion of a command economy (i.e., Stalinism). Communism, as a working mode of production, is impossible in theory and practice (Otherwise it would have been implemented somewhere by someone already).
So for all of those years before capitalism was implemented it couldn't exist? Cool story bro.

[danyboy27]

The presence of some sort of coercion dosnt mean it will become full blown authoritarian stalinist state trivia.

There is coercion in the market right now and yet there is a wide variety of differents capitalist systems.

some coercive measure are necessary, for exemple not kill or abuse another human being, for obvious reason, and i cant own a pound of refined uranium, for obvious reasons.

not allowing a fews to own and control the many dosnt strike me has something unreasonable to me.

[Misanthrope]

Indeed, the only other mode of production is working under the coercion of a command economy (i.e., Stalinism). Communism, as a working mode of production, is impossible in theory

False Dichotomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma).

Capitalism necessitates a state, a coercive apparatus, and will not or cannot be maintained without it. A state, in any form, will always exist in class society thus coercion will exist. The only alternative to capitalism is communism, the only alternative to statism is communism.

How is communism impossible in theory?



and practice (Otherwise it would have been implemented somewhere by someone already).

That's a poor argument, to think that humans have reached their highest potential is pessimistic at best. Humanity has unfathomable potential which is being limited by current social and economic practices.

[MotherCossack]

Moderator action:

It seems some of you have taken it upon yourselves to post utter crap, spam, troll posts of your own and more simply because you don't like what the guy has to say. Strictly speaking, he hasn't broken any rules here - being ignorant, stupid, or naive isn't against the rules, and we don't ban people simply because they make posts in the Opposing Ideologies forum that, you know... reflect an Opposing Ideology!

If you don't like it when supporters of capitalism post naive crap like this, then keep it to yourself! Have a look at the rules, and report somebody's post if they did actually break one! But "trolling" isn't a catchall for every time you see a pro-capitalist post some stupid shit!

Some of you have actually contributed to the thread in a meaningful way here. Thanks for not being idiots :cool:

Those of you, however, who took it upon yourselves to begin shitposting after an admittedly controversial pro-capitalist post, are getting warned. Specifically, jbeard, Amadeo Brodiga, Drosophila, GPDP, Vox Populi, Borz, and Deicide.

I'm going to make it abundantly clear: If I see one more post that doesn't contribute to the debate in a meaningful way, I'm going to infract you without question. The rest of the shitposts I am going to clean up.

you know what.... i am sorry.... you are 100% right....I was being juvenile....
this sub-forum is for these guys to say stuff.... we should give them some space or we are like romans at the forum....
sorry!

[MotherCossack]

eh?
the post that i responded to with the above apology..... erm.... it's gone!
very odd!!!

[DasFapital]

You want a world marked by the prices of all goods and services falling to zero. But at that point there would be no problem of finding consumer demand, or, indeed, any economic problem at all. There would be no need to produce, to work, or to worry about accumulating capital, and we would all be in the Garden of Eden.
Didn't know my old youth pastor had a revleft account

[Dean]

No, this is the fantasy. What socialist regime did not expand state power in the marketplace? Show me the socialist regime that used state power for the "interests of the working class". It is idealist nonsense to believe that a modern economy can exist and thrive without the institutions of capitalism, i.e., free markets, capital accumulation and voluntary exchange. In the real world -- besides labor -- capital formation, entrepeneurs, speculators, and legal structures that recognize private property rights are essential to how value is made.


Indeed, show me a socialist state, that is a worker-managed regime in the first place. What you are arguing agaisnt are strawmen and you know it.

Value is not made by speculation and private property. This is obvious, since they play no role in either pole of value: the value a human being has for an object, or the introduction of labor in order to mold more aw material or commodities into desirable commodities. Speculation is a simple gamble on the value relations already set up, and private property is just a framework for the expansion of power held by capitalists. My right to private property, for instance, for land I might own with a house on it, can and will be usurped if a Wal-Mart petitions the state to use the land for another purpose. And speculation on the price of grain makes the market more volatile, which is precisely the kind of condition which dissuades capital investment. Moreover, if one can speculate without intensive capital, land, improvement and labor costs to make more money than you can expect from going through the production process, it is a diversion from production capital, and hence a net loss of value in the market.

No, my ideas are not idealist. It is, however, intensely idealist to buy this bullshit about simple socialist or capitalist markets. There are in fact good reasons, related to my point in the last paragraph, to reject the concept that capitalist markets even exist anymore (and we know free markets don't exist anyhow). Capital is largely a state-owned enterprise, with a number of shell organizations owned by the state and corporate powers, which do not themselves make profits. Occasionally a CEO comes along and fleeces these groups, but more often speculators and other banking institutions are the real ones making profit off of capitalist firms - almost a hilarious analogue to the exploitation of labor, now we have the exploitation of capitalists by bankers. But I guess its always been this way, the information age just makes it brutally obvious that the risk doesn't justify actual production when speculation and hft can be so profitable.

And this is precisely why the only valid markets are those that recognize the facts of the market - for one, that fiat currency is a government debt, and only the expansion of the money supply can foster a growing economy. Secondly, that capitalists have never footed the bill for innovation or the production of capital - the state and the working class have to do this. So privatizing these services has had an obvious consequence: to reduce production.

And if you want production to expand again, you have to take the bottlenecks out of the system - private speculators and entrepreneurs that have more of an incentive to slow production and fire workers than to "create value" as you blindly claim they do.

[trivas7]

Value is not made by speculation and private property.
More idealist claptrap. Without private property no capital accumulation occurs. Without capital accumulation no production occurs. Without speculation the market gives no signals to investors re the worth of a company. What planet do you live on, Dean?

[Zukunftsmusik]

Without private property no capital accumulation occurs.

No shit, sherlock.


Without capital accumulation no production occurs.

Bullshit. Was there no production before capital accumulation (in feudal society, slave society etc.)? Capitalism is a way of organising production, it's not the only one to have occurred, historically, and it will wither away in the end to be replaced by something new.

I also like how arrogant you are in ignoring pretty much everything that's been said in this thread, or even everything that Dean said, and just argue on two, three points he made. And how is what Dean said idealist? :confused:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

More idealist claptrap. Without private property no capital accumulation occurs. Without capital accumulation no production occurs.

Bullshit! If I can no longer own land or stocks in a company, that doesn't mean I no longer have any need or desire for shoes, clothes, food, shelter, communications, and all the other goods and services that make up a decent life.


Without speculation the market gives no signals to investors re the worth of a company. What planet do you live on, Dean?

Companies are worthless, their true value lies in the workers making them up and whatever tools they have available.

I cannot believe that you take finance capitalism seriously in this day and age, when people are suffering because a bunch of besuited financier parasites fucked around with funny money and got caught.

It is also interesting that you mention speculation. Thanks to commodity speculators I have to pay more and more money just to fucking eat! Are you happy about increasing food prices? I damn well am not.

[Revolution starts with U]

More idealist claptrap. Without private property no capital accumulation occurs. Without capital accumulation no production occurs. Without speculation the market gives no signals to investors re the worth of a company. What planet do you live on, Dean?

Get your head out of Mises' ass and read the comment.

He made a detailed argument. You just asserted stuff. It's clear you don't know what you're talking about, but think Mises does, so you just dismiss people who obviously know more than you.

[l'Enfermé]

More idealist claptrap. Without private property no capital accumulation occurs. Without capital accumulation no production occurs. Without speculation the market gives no signals to investors re the worth of a company. What planet do you live on, Dean?
What planet do you live on, trivas7? According to you, production did not occur before the advent of capital accumulation! Although, indeed, you are somewhat correct. Capitalist production does not occur without capital accumulation.

[Ravachol]

Without capital accumulation no production occurs.

Tell that to the hunter-gatherer (or subsequent agrarian sedentary) societies that have dominated human existence for ten thousands of years. Not to mention class based societies which operate without capital accumulation (slave labor to name one example).

So whatever bro nobody cares about your "hurr-durr markets 'n property are the motor of all human activity" idealism.

[Dean]

More idealist claptrap. Without private property no capital accumulation occurs. Without capital accumulation no production occurs. Without speculation the market gives no signals to investors re the worth of a company. What planet do you live on, Dean?

What is "idealist" is the notion that speculators, and price mongers in general, add some kind of value to goods at market. If anything, you might argue that they have some kind of value role in insuring the smooth workings in a market (though commodities speculators are typically seen as disrupting markets even by mainstream economists). However, that does not produce value.

If anything, the pricing system in modern capitalism has increasingly indicated that non-production and financial products are more valuable and preferred, which has led to decreased incentives for production and investment. The consumer class and working class are losers in this economy. Regardless of how great you might think this system is, the Great Beast will reject is as it drifts further and further away from the needs and interests of the people. Not for any ideological reason, of course: but for the simple reason that people want to eat and continue to work, regardless of how much currency can be accumulated by some idealized class of speculators.

[NGNM85]

You want a world marked by the prices of all goods and services falling to zero. But at that point there would be no problem of finding consumer demand, or, indeed, any economic problem at all. There would be no need to produce, to work, or to worry about accumulating capital, and we would all be in the Garden of Eden.

Yeah. That's exactly what I want. Well; that, and a pony. :D

[trivas7]

Yeah. That's exactly what I want. Well; that, and a pony. :D
You make my point exactly. :D


There is coercion in the market right now and yet there is a wide variety of differents capitalist systems.[...]

You don't know what a market is.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

You make my point exactly. :D


You don't know what a market is.
Why don't you tell us what it is, then? Simply saying what a market (or anything, for that matter) isn't rather than what it is does not advance the argument very far. But this is assuming that you're actually looking to debate, not engage in a contest to see who can deliver the snidest one-liner.

[Tim Cornelis]

.

This guy responds to criticism like it's a buffet: pick what you like, disregard what you don't. You are being very selective in who you respond to.

[Dean]

You make my point exactly. :D


You don't know what a market is.

This kind of petty contradiction is worthless and you know it. You made unfounded assertions about what others want, and and you try to discredit another's concept of a term like "market" without actually explaining what their concept of the term is or why its wrong.

Its absurdity which only makes you appear increasingly idealist and disassociated with real world processes.

Markets are based on coercive processes: the disproportionate power held by each member of a marketplace determine their own agendas and viable choices. This makes the free market little more than a parable of the old power structures, power structures which (unsurprisingly) worked capitalism in its own image by the dispensation of private and state-sanctioned market shares.

Anything you can complain about the state doing, so too are there private investors who demand that the state do the same. Throwing this function to the markets will only make the investment in state power more egregious, and its consequences more brutal and nakedly power-hungry than our current state.

We have lived in the market system for centuries now. I think we know quite well what it is.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Indeed, the only other mode of production is working under the coercion of a command economy (i.e., Stalinism). Communism, as a working mode of production, is impossible in theory and practice (Otherwise it would have been implemented somewhere by someone already).
Hmmmmm. So, uh, if something doesn't exist yet, it means it will never exist in the future. Sounds logical.

"Those that defend the 'free market' in the age of imperialism, are people that want a society run by corporations in the interests of a few, extremely rich, people." Milton Greedman

[Revolution starts with U]

Trivas, even the earliest "marketplaces" in human history were state sanctioned and defended affairs. This idea that "market = no government" is philosophical hogwash and historically inaccurate.

Get your head out of Mises' ass and actually try to learn something.

[Luís Henrique]

In the real world -- besides labor -- capital formation, entrepeneurs, speculators, and legal structures that recognize private property rights are essential to how value is made.

Indeed, you are right. All those things are necessary for the creation of value. Where you are wrong, of course, is in supposing that we for some reason need to create value. We don't; we have spent most of our time as a species in this planet without making commodities, and, consequently, without creating value. We can do that again, and we can do it with the benefit of all the technology we have created in the latest ten millenia.

Nobody is going to die if a loaf of bread goes back to being only a loaf of bread, instead of being an incarnation of abstract labour on top of it.

Luís Henrique

[trivas7]

Indeed, you are right. All those things are necessary for the creation of value. Where you are wrong, of course, is in supposing that we for some reason need to create value. We don't; we have spent most of our time as a species in this planet without making commodities, and, consequently, without creating value. We can do that again, and we can do it with the benefit of all the technology we have created in the latest ten millenia.

Nobody is going to die if a loaf of bread goes back to being only a loaf of bread, instead of being an incarnation of abstract labour on top of it.

Luís Henrique
Indeed, you are right; except that you are incorrect to assume loaves of bread bake themselves and that you can have the benefits free markets provide without free markets.

[cynicles]

I didn't realise someone else was going to dictate to me what I think and wan't. Now I know better!

[Revolution starts with U]

Indeed, you are right; except that you are incorrect to assume loaves of bread bake themselves and that you can have the benefits free markets provide without free markets.

Understanding train! *ding ding* ALL ABOARD!

*Trivas misses the train

[Tim Cornelis]

Indeed, you are right; except that you are incorrect to assume loaves of bread bake themselves and that you can have the benefits free markets provide without free markets.

No he's not. You are again misrepresenting the views of your opponent. That a particular consumer good is not a commodity because it's free of charge does not mean it required no labour to produce.

If I produce bread, with the resources supplied free of charge, and then give it away to the community. Then obviously the bread did not bake itself, yet it is not a commodity. This is basic communism, superficial even, and that you described yourself as a left-communist once is therefore quite confusing to me.

As for your mentioning of "free markets", that has no basis in anything you said and is therefore a non-sequitur. What do you mean by benefits that the free market provides? And why couldn't these benefits be provided without free markets?

[Luís Henrique]

Indeed, you are right; except that you are incorrect to assume loaves of bread bake themselves and that you can have the benefits free markets provide without free markets.

Indeed. Loaves of bread don't bake themselves, someone has to bake them. Usually they are the people who get the less bread in the social division of income.

You are right also that we cannot have the benefits "free" markets provide without having "free" markets. But the point is, we want the benefits a gift economy provides, and we can't have the benefits of a gift economy without a gift economy. And as we cannot have both a gift economy and a "free" market, we will have to dispense with the latter.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

that you described yourself as a left-communist once is therefore quite confusing to me.

This was before Ms. Lichtenstein enlightened him.

Luís Henrique

[black magick hustla]

holy molly you've been going at it since i was like 17 and is 2012

[Dean]

Indeed, you are right; except that you are incorrect to assume loaves of bread bake themselves and that you can have the benefits free markets provide without free markets.

The free market doesn't innovate. It exploits innovation of communities and governments which foot the bill.

[Book O'Dead]

You want a world marked by the prices of all goods and services falling to zero. But at that point there would be no problem of finding consumer demand, or, indeed, any economic problem at all. There would be no need to produce, to work, or to worry about accumulating capital, and we would all be in the Garden of Eden.

It seems to me that you're stuck in some kind of formalist economism absent in Marxian science. Your "econometrics" are as inaccurate as they are obsolete.

[Book O'Dead]

Indeed, you are right; except that you are incorrect to assume loaves of bread bake themselves and that you can have the benefits free markets provide without free markets.

And which 'benefits' are those?

[Sasha]

You want a world marked by the prices of all goods and services falling to zero. But at that point there would be no problem of finding consumer demand, or, indeed, any economic problem at all. There would be no need to produce, to work, or to worry about accumulating capital, and we would all be in the Garden of Eden.

we want to make total destroy...

[trivas7]

The free market doesn't innovate.
If this were the case we would still be living in the horse-and-buggy era.

[Tim Cornelis]

If this were the case we would still be living in the horse-and-buggy era.

No it doesn't. And when are you going to respond to all criticisms instead of just selectively choosing what you (wrongly, apparently) think you can refute?

Free markets historically have never innovated, since the free market has never existed. But even if we say markets (regulated or otherwise) do not innovate, it would still be correct. People, not markets, innovate. And those people happen to live in an economic arrangement of competitive markets. But the fact that they live in a society based on competitive markets does not mean they innovated because of those prevalence of this economic arrangement (to argue otherwise is to say that correlation implies causation--the cum hoc ergo propter hoc-fallacy)

Research at MIT has shown that the more money you throw at potential innovators, the less they innovate:

u6XAPnuFjJc

[Dean]

If this were the case we would still be living in the horse-and-buggy era.

So you believe that all economic activity since the 1800s has been free market activity? Real cute. Keep ignoring the massive government subsidization of the technologies. Its not like the medical, military and agricultural industries get subsidies that are earmarked solely for R&D right? Oh, wait...

[Bostana]

We want to make everybody poor

[trivas7]

No it doesn't. And when are you going to respond to all criticisms instead of just selectively choosing what you (wrongly, apparently) think you can refute?

Free markets historically have never innovated, since the free market has never existed. But even if we say markets (regulated or otherwise) do not innovate, it would still be correct. People, not markets, innovate. And those people happen to live in an economic arrangement of competitive markets. But the fact that they live in a society based on competitive markets does not mean they innovated because of those prevalence of this economic arrangement (to argue otherwise is to say that correlation implies causation--the cum hoc ergo propter hoc-fallacy)

If you are arguing that North Korea or the Soviet Union or any other regime that has implemented avowed anti-capitalist policies are/were bastions of innovation I am prepared to listen. Otherwise, you are merely quibbling with words, sir.

[Thirsty Crow]

If you are arguing that North Korea or the Soviet Union or any other regime that has implemented avowed anti-capitalist policies are/were bastions of innovation I am prepared to listen. Otherwise, you are merely quibbling with words, sir.
So, charging you with a very definite fallacy, that of mistaking correlation for causation, is equal to quibbling with words?

[Tim Cornelis]

If you are arguing that North Korea or the Soviet Union or any other regime that has implemented avowed anti-capitalist policies are/were bastions of innovation I am prepared to listen. Otherwise, you are merely quibbling with words, sir.

The facts speak for themselves. You simply dismiss peer-reviewed scientific research not by criticising said research, but with some vague reference to "actually existing socialism."

Now, if you had watch the clip you'd known that there are three factors that lead to motivation:
1. Mastery (internal), the desire to master a skill (you derive satisfaction from developing your knowledge on programming, engineering, economics, etc.). For example, you are interested in politics and economics that's why you research it, not to make a profit. (That's not to say salary is completely irrelevant, it's a corollary).

2. Purpose (internal), the desire to have a goal, for example cure a disease. Help people, etc.

3. Autonomy (external), the desire to be self-directed.

Neither North Korea nor the USSR were bastions of autonomy. I can also imagine that the USSR rewarded people more money for innovative work, though I couldn't find any information on this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_inventions#.C2.A0Soviet_Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_in_the_Soviet_Union

[Revolution starts with U]

Notwithstanding that the USSR WAS, in fact, a bastion of innovation...

[trivas7]

we want to make total destroy...


We want to make everybody poor

I believe you.

[TheRadicalAnarchist]

A socialist "Garden of Eden" is better than a capitalist "Lake of Fire..."

[Deicide]

I hate these buzzwords like ''innovation'' that are thrown around by dribbling free-market fundamentalists.

[Dean]

If you are arguing that North Korea or the Soviet Union or any other regime that has implemented avowed anti-capitalist policies are/were bastions of innovation I am prepared to listen. Otherwise, you are merely quibbling with words, sir.


This is absurdity. The issue is whether or not capitalist, free market structures, including corporations, encourage innovation of their own volition or deliberation. Of course they only propose one innovation as a rule, that is the innovation which allows for more accumulation of wealth. Something like 70% of technological innovation in the US is either directly or indirectly funded by government grants, subsidies and tax credits. The US has historically had a powerful state structure with a moderate level of influence from civil society. It has been the state, not "free market" propertarianism, that has primarily been responsible for innovation.

N. Korea is an obvious state failure because it is a former Russian ally in a region where the Chinese had preeminence, and the only other game in town was the US/European/Japanese trilateral (See: Trilateralism).

The Soviet Union was outpacing the US. The Bolsheviks which centralized power in the regime in 1918 had already destroyed its socialist characteristics, but they set out a basic fascist economy - the same economy ran by the US and "successful" European nations today.

This fascist economy means that capital, rent and interest-bearing assets are largely held by the national franchisers, and their use is managed by the state to benefit these same individuals. To some extent, the middle class was a beneficiary under this system, but their shares have been increasingly bought up by the bourgeois, that is those who buy, sell and in doing so earn a relevant, controlling stake in society.

I cannot argue, therefore, that the USSR is an example of socialist innovation. The US, however, only has maintained pace with Soviet investment in technology when it was necessary. The early 90s crash in the USSR under its market liberalization regime - and the subsequent "miracles on Wall St" - had an obvious eventuality: competition between states to have maximized technological investment was slowing, and the capital assets in the USSR - including fresh new markets - made capitalism's hegemony over the controlling factors of civil society only more acute.

Many business owners are rent slaves, much the same as the working class and the lumpenproletarian. Business owners, stock owners, "petty bourgeois" might appear bourgeois before you acknowledge the cold reality of accounting. The determination of which functioning class one exists within depends on the real exchanges of wealth that are occurring.

It's worth noting that corporate structures are nothing compared to the tyranny a privatized police and military will execute on the people. So if you want a free market solution, you are indeed asking for a more acute brand of fascism.

[Igor]

all i want is love though :(:(

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

War and terror.

[trivas7]

[...] But the point is, we want the benefits a gift economy provides, and we can't have the benefits of a gift economy without a gift economy. And as we cannot have both a gift economy and a "free" market, we will have to dispense with the latter.

Luís Henrique
I'm glad you've figured out that socialism in practice is no more than a barter economy. You think a modern industrial economy can run on barter? Good luck with that (You must have surmised this from the history of the Russian Revolution).

Serfdom here we come.

[Ostrinski]

I'm glad you've figured out that socialism in practice is no more than a barter economy. You think a modern industrial economy can run on barter? Good luck with that (You must have surmised this from the history of the Russian Revolution).

Serfdom here we come.Socialism in its completest stage of development by definition is not run on barter. A mode of production that destroys the systematic exchange-oriented economy will not simply recreate it.

[Revolution starts with U]

At this point it is getting clear that you're just trolling Trivas.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm glad you've figured out that socialism in practice is no more than a barter economy. You think a modern industrial economy can run on barter? Good luck with that (You must have surmised this from the history of the Russian Revolution).

Serfdom here we come.

If there's to be any serfdom, it'll be instituted by the likes of you and Mammon-Parasite Incorporated. Wanna bet? Otherwise, get fucking lost.

EDIT: Oops, looks like they've already made a start! (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/04/jubilee-pageant-unemployed?intcmp=239).

[cynicles]

I wonder how long before the cappies start funding the local fascist parties again.

[Luís Henrique]

I'm glad you've figured out that socialism in practice is no more than a barter economy.

Except, of course, a gift economy is not a barter economy.


You think a modern industrial economy can run on barter?

Of course it cannot.


Serfdom here we come.

Serfdom, here we already are...

Luís Henrique

[Thirsty Crow]

You want a world marked by the prices of all goods and services falling to zero. But at that point there would be no problem of finding consumer demand, or, indeed, any economic problem at all. There would be no need to produce, to work, or to worry about accumulating capital, and we would all be in the Garden of Eden.
No, this is highly misleading and doesn't represent the actual communist program.

First of all, it's inaccurate to claim that we want all prices falling to zero. Actually, we aim at the abolition of the very price mechanism itself which presupposes private (individual or collective) appropriation of surplus at the social level and at the level of individual economic units. In other words, there would be no purpose for the category of price to fulfill in a communist mode of production, unless the category itself were to be reinvented and given a completely different purpose (for instance, to perform the function of signalling social labour time neccessary for a production of a given product, which then can be used to compare one choice of production against another - if producing a product on a mass scale takes more labour time than a community is willing to provide, since that would mean that other options are limited, it will not be produced on a mass scale).

[trivas7]

First of all, it's inaccurate to claim that we want all prices falling to zero. Actually, we aim at the abolition of the very price mechanism itself which presupposes private (individual or collective) appropriation of surplus at the social level and at the level of individual economic units. In other words, there would be no purpose for the category of price to fulfill in a communist mode of production, unless the category itself were to be reinvented and given a completely different purpose (for instance, to perform the function of signalling social labour time neccessary for a production of a given product, which then can be used to compare one choice of production against another - if producing a product on a mass scale takes more labour time than a community is willing to provide, since that would mean that other options are limited, it will not be produced on a mass scale).
This is a kind of response that purports to say something but in fact states nothing more than socialist jargon. How does one "signal[...] social labour time" exactly? What does that even mean? Abolition of the price mechanism is tantamount to prices falling to zero and there already exists a mechanism that compares one choice of production against another. It's called the price mechanism.

[trivas7]

Socialism in its completest stage of development by definition is not run on barter. A mode of production that destroys the systematic exchange-oriented economy will not simply recreate it.
What does a socialist economy run on? What is this vaunted socialist "mode of production" you keep spouting about and how does it work? If you can't tell me you're merely blowing smoke and literally don't know what you're talking about.

[Ele'ill]

It will run on fun.

[Deicide]

What does a socialist economy run on?

We will sacrifice people to Lord Moloch. His demonic energy will make it work.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Indeed, the only other mode of production is working under the coercion of a command economy (i.e., Stalinism). Communism, as a working mode of production, is impossible in theory and practice (Otherwise it would have been implemented somewhere by someone already).

Since we already have an existing, flourishing, successful socialist mode of production, you think communism (merely advanced global socialism) is impossible? Socialism basically means that capital is controlled democratically, workers control over production. There are 12 Million American workers working in coops where they own stock in the company that they work in, i.e. control the own surplus/capital that they produce. Mondragon, the 6th largest Corporation of Spain with over 50 Billion Euros a year and over 100,000 workers, is controlled democratically where the workers vote for the corporations CEO and run their own enterprises in which the other production sectors within the planned economy of the Corporation, serve as a collectivist profit-sharing union.

You see, in your mind, only the capitalist relation of production can exist; to you there is only market capitalism or state capitalism. The thought that workers could control the wealth they themselves produce, control the production and profits they themselves create, and through this self-determination of labor become entrepreneurs and workers in one (the "New Man" as Lenin called it), does not seem to fit in your head. I recommend you fit the nearest fire and torch those "freedom (to exploit) loving" Capital-ist propaganda books and instead read about Reality.

[trivas7]

[S]ince we already have an existing, flourishing, successful socialist mode of production[...]
LOL. :lol:

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

You want a world marked by the prices of all goods and services falling to zero. But at that point there would be no problem of finding consumer demand, or, indeed, any economic problem at all. There would be no need to produce, to work, or to worry about accumulating capital, and we would all be in the Garden of Eden.

First of All: No. We don't want to create a "World Market" moron, we want to get RID of Money, RID of Markets.

Do you live in a Family? If yes, you have most likely experienced communism first hand; When you eat dinner with your parents, your father made the Turkey, your mother serves the food, your sister set the table, and were you asked to perform the magic of the "free market", did your parents ask you for money? No, if your father asks you to take the trash out and you say "Ok... % Dollars!" He would probably say something like this "What?! This is a Family, we LOVE each other, we care for each other!". Also, the regulation of markets has always existed, the US forbids the "magic of the the free market" by illegalising prostitution and drugs, as they are harmful to society; see the "market" that you probably have wet dreams about, isn't always a cool thing...

We want to create one world family, "From each According to his ability to each According to his Needs" (Communism) after having gone through Socialism "From each according to his ability to each according to his contribution", but instead of using free transferring money in socialism, we communists see forth to use a VALUE based system of exchange in socialism, a labor voucher curency for example, to ensure that capital is accumulated and invested in necessary sectors until post-scarcity is reached and currency/markets can be abolished.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

LOL. :lol:

Did you read on, you fucking imbicile?

[trivas7]

Did you read on, you fucking imbicile?
Fuck you, imbecile.

[Dean]

Did you read on, you fucking imbicile?

Warning for flaming.


LOL. :lol:

Warning for spam (and you're already on thin ice for this one - please stop making this a Monty Python skit and post more than contradictions for a change).

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Warning for flaming.



Warning for spam (and you're already on thin ice for this one - please stop making this a Monty Python skit and post more than contradictions for a change).

I explicitly explained to this &%&%&*# WHAT and WHERE the Socialist Mode of Production has been Implemented, and the ranking of Mondragon (there are many other cooperative corporations btw) proves the superiority of socialism.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Warning for flaming.



Warning for spam (and you're already on thin ice for this one - please stop making this a Monty Python skit and post more than contradictions for a change).

This guy is a brainwashed anti-human danger to the well being of humanity. I vote for kicking all capital-fascists 0/

[Luís Henrique]

What does a socialist economy run on? What is this vaunted socialist "mode of production" you keep spouting about and how does it work? If you can't tell me you're merely blowing smoke and literally don't know what you're talking about.

You were a socialist once; when so, what did you think about that? Were you blowing smoke and talking about something you didn't know about?

Luís Henrique

[Baseball]

I wonder how long before the cappies start funding the local fascist parties again.

Probably after the workers start to abandon the socialist parties and start flocking to the browns again.

[Baseball]

Since we already have an existing, flourishing, successful socialist mode of production, you think communism (merely advanced global socialism) is impossible? Socialism basically means that capital is controlled democratically, workers control over production. There are 12 Million American workers working in coops where they own stock in the company that they work in, i.e. control the own surplus/capital that they produce. Mondragon, the 6th largest Corporation of Spain with over 50 Billion Euros a year and over 100,000 workers, is controlled democratically where the workers vote for the corporations CEO and run their own enterprises in which the other production sectors within the planned economy of the Corporation, serve as a collectivist profit-sharing union.

Naturally, you must understand that these examples are meaningless. Those co-ops function and operate within the structures of a capitalist community. Their objectives, as you admit, are to turn a profit.

In the socialist community of your visions, such co-ops would of course have to be structured differently, unless your socialist community structures its production for purposes of profit making.


You see, in your mind, only the capitalist relation of production can exist; to you there is only market capitalism or state capitalism. The thought that workers could control the wealth they themselves produce, control the production and profits they themselves create, and through this self-determination of labor become entrepreneurs and workers in one (the "New Man" as Lenin called it), does not seem to fit in your head.

What the objection is (at least mine) is that it is not sufficient to simply say the "workers...control the wealth they themselves produce, control the production..." One sort of has to explain what it is that these workers will be doing. As you cite, the workers at Mondragon et. al. presently seek production that turns a profit to themselves. Thus such workers need to take actions to assure this happy state of affairs continues, as they no doubt face rivals of more "traditional" capitalists who too are seeking profit. Would those actions be available to them in a more "traditional" socialist community? It is difficult to see how.
That is what is being asked of the socialist.

[Baseball]

Nobody is going to die if a loaf of bread goes back to being only a loaf of bread, instead of being an incarnation of abstract labour on top of it.

Luís Henrique

How so? The labor made the bread could have been doing something else. How does the community determine the value of labor working in one place rather than another?

[Lucretia]

How so? The labor made the bread could have been doing something else. How does the community determine the value of labor working in one place rather than another?

There are different senses in which labor can be considered "abstractly." There is socially or physiologically equalized labor. Then there is "abstract labor" of the type Marx wrote about in the first chapter of Capital Vol. 1, which is where autonomously undertaken but mutually interdependent labors are performed and repeated on the basis of socially necessary labor time in the market. On this distinction see chapter 14 of II Rubin's Essays on Marx's Theory of Value (http://www.marxists.org/archive/rubin/value/ch14.htm).

The difference between a capitalist and a socialist economy isn't that labor times are unknown or suddenly disappear. It's that in a socialist economy, the people plan production with the knowledge of socially equalized labor in mind, whereas in capitalism blind exchanges and the anarchy of competitive accumulation govern what is produced. This is why value as such disappears in a socialist society, even though socially equalized labor times will obviously remain.

[Baseball]

It's that in a socialist economy, the people plan production with the knowledge of socially equalized labor in mind,

But why does this matter? The bread is produced because a baker figures somebody wants it. Does a potential consumer of that bread really base his or consumption decision upon how the baker organized the production of that bread?

[Lucretia]

But why does this matter? The bread is produced because a baker figures somebody wants it. Does a potential consumer of that bread really base his or consumption decision upon how the baker organized the production of that bread?

The general idea is that social production must be brought into some kind of equilibrium, so that you don't have the manufacture of millions of bricks that go unused. Remember that under capitalism, this process of punishing overproduction and reassigning labor to other industries is done through the market in value, which won't exist under socialism.

[Per Levy]

please stop making this a Monty Python skit and post more than contradictions for a change).

oi, did you you just compare monty python with trivas7? come on, monty python is funny, really funny. trivas is just plain boring and obvious trolling (not even good trolling mind you).

[Dean]

oi, did you you just compare monty python with trivas7? come on, monty python is funny, really funny. trivas is just plain boring and obvious trolling (not even good trolling mind you).

Yes, but I'm referring to a specific skit. ;)

[Baseball]

The general idea is that social production must be brought into some kind of equilibrium, so that you don't have the manufacture of millions of bricks that go unused. Remember that under capitalism, this process of punishing overproduction and reassigning labor to other industries is done through the market in value, which won't exist under socialism.

But this doesn't answer the question. How and why is it the concern or problem of the consumers of bricks, if the producers of bricks overproduced their product? The brick consumers have their own problems and issues.

[Prinskaj]

How and why is it the concern or problem of the consumers of bricks, if the producers of bricks overproduced their product? The brick consumers have their own problems and issues.
If the people, facilities and resources, that are needed to produce those unused bricks, could be assign somewhere more useful, like creating agricultural equipment to help in defeating starvation. Then this overproduction would be a massive, something with markets are supposed to eliminate. But since this does not affect the transaction between the two parties of trade directly, then it is an externality and therefore irrelevant.
Secondly the pollution from this sort of overproduction is also problem.

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

There would be no need to produce, to work, or to worry about accumulating capital, and we would all be in the Garden of Eden.


If no one produced or worked it would hardly be a 'Garden of Eden'. I would guess that everyone on these boards realise that stuff would still need to get like, yknow.... done.

People would work for the advancement, or at the very least the maintenance, of the human race.

[Baseball]

But since this does not affect the transaction between the two parties of trade directly, then it is an externality and therefore irrelevant.


Except that Lucretia is claiming that it is relevent.

[Lucretia]

But this doesn't answer the question. How and why is it the concern or problem of the consumers of bricks, if the producers of bricks overproduced their product? The brick consumers have their own problems and issues.

I guess I'm not fully understanding the question, maybe because you seem to be posing it from the perspective of capitalism (with your talk of "transactions" and "trade"), where some brick-making company is an autonomous, profit-making entity. The main reason I don't think I get your question is that the answer to it is so obvious, that I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you could not possibly be asking the question I think you're asking.

As somebody noted above, wasting time, natural resources, and labor on making unnecessary bricks is a problem because the time, resources, and labor, could be used to construct things and perform services that are actually necessary and useful to society. Why would the brickmakers care? Because presumably they could be doing something else with their time besides making useless bricks? Like, I don't know, shoveling snow off the sidewalks in front of old ladies' houses -- perhaps the houses of their parents or grandparents.

Calculating the various labor times and use of resources in advance, through planning, will eliminate exactly the kind of waste that under capitalism is only "corrected" post-facto through the anarchy of the market, after the resources, labor and time have already been expended in production and unable to be validated as abstract value through market exchange.

[Baseball]

As somebody noted above, wasting time, natural resources, and labor on making unnecessary bricks is a problem because the time, resources, and labor, could be used to construct things and perform services that are actually necessary and useful to society. Why would the brickmakers care? Because presumably they could be doing something else with their time besides making useless bricks?

Yes, of course. In the capitalist community, the brickmaker would go bankrupt and the wasteful production would cease.




Calculating the various labor times and use of resources in advance, through planning, will eliminate exactly the kind of waste that under capitalism

Well, yes. This is the claim the socialist make. So what I asked why is it relevent, in a socialist community, for the consumer of bricks, or bread, to be concerned about the problems the brickmaker or baker, has in producing his goods? Why is the "equilibrium" the problem of the consumer of those goods?

[#FF0000]

Yes, of course. In the capitalist community, the brickmaker would go bankrupt and the wasteful production would cease.

The real world doesn't work like it does in hypotheticals, dogg.

[Ocean Seal]

You make my point exactly. :D
I actually want a fuckton of gulags, gray clothing, propaganda posters to broadcast the building of socialism, and a pony who will grow into a horse of the apocalypse.



You don't know what a market is.
Pretty sure that everyone and their mum on this forum knows what a market is.

[Lucretia]

Yes, of course. In the capitalist community, the brickmaker would go bankrupt and the wasteful production would cease.

Yes, after the fact, after the waste has already been generated, and people are thrown onto the dole.


Well, yes. This is the claim the socialist make. So what I asked why is it relevent, in a socialist community, for the consumer of bricks, or bread, to be concerned about the problems the brickmaker or baker, has in producing his goods? Why is the "equilibrium" the problem of the consumer of those goods?I never said it's a problem for the "consumer of those goods." The problem is that those "goods" (the bricks) have no "consumer" -- they were overproduced and serve no purpose. They are waste product. The labor and natural resources that went into producing them were wasted.

But to answer the question I think you were intending to ask, even people who were in no way directly involved in the brick production would care because they or their loved ones could have benefited from what could have been produced had production actually not been wasted on unnecessary and worthless bricks. Also everybody is affected by the waste of natural resources, of which there will always be a finite amount, and the pollution caused by industrial production. This is a big problem when that pollution is not offset by a greater good by the usefulness of what is produced.

[Baseball]

Yes, after the fact, after the waste has already been generated, and people are thrown onto the dole.

The "planners" themselves are not omnipotent.


I never said it's a problem for the "consumer of those goods."

"Socially equalized labor" was, I believe, your quote- to create an "equilibrium" between producer and consumer, is an objective.


The problem is that those "goods" (the bricks) have no "consumer" -- they were overproduced and serve no purpose. They are waste product. The labor and natural resources that went into producing them were wasted.

Yes.


But to answer the question I think you were intending to ask, even people who were in no way directly involved in the brick production would care because they or their loved ones could have benefited from what could have been produced

Certainly. So how does the community know what should have been produced other than bricks, and compared to other needed items?

[Lucretia]

The "planners" themselves are not omnipotent.

Nobody said they were. You seem to think I'm talking about a Stalinist type economy where some elite cadre is making all the decisions, and are making the correct ones because they are brilliant people, while the people are just left out in the cold in terms of decision-making power. I'm not. So it would be best if you struck that image from your mind altogether if you want to talk about a Marxian (rather than Stalinist) vision of communist society.


"Socially equalized labor" was, I believe, your quote- to create an "equilibrium" between producer and consumer, is an objective.Between production and consumption, yes. Your question was "why should the consumers of bricks care?" and I answered by basically saying that labor was a social good, socially planned, and that therefore all of society has a stake in labor that is wasted (and therefore doesn't really have any "consumer" since it won't be consumed).


Certainly. So how does the community know what should have been produced other than bricks, and compared to other needed items?Your question is assuming that there is a right answer about what else should have been produced in place of the bricks. Who knows what else should have been produced. Marx critiqued utopian socialists for this very undemocratic and bizarre method of presuming to know exactly of how much of everything would have to be produced in a socialist society before it is even established. There is no way to know in advance because the answer would be for the community to decide, not me by myself posting on revleft or you by yourself. The point is that if the bricks aren't needed, the community certainly wouldn't decide to produce them instead of producing other needed goods or services. How is need determined? It's determined by the community democratically, not by some elite cadre sitting in air conditioned room far removed from the people whose lives their decisions affect.

[Luís Henrique]

But why does this matter? The bread is produced because a baker figures somebody wants it.

The bread is baked because a baker wants to make money, and hopes that someone wants to exchange their money for his bread. If a person wants bread - even very badly - but does not have the money to buy it, then the baker hasn't made the bread for him/her. The want for bread, as such, is irrelevant unless backed by money.


Does a potential consumer of that bread really base his or consumption decision upon how the baker organized the production of that bread?

Not directly, no. But evidently if baker A can organise production of bread in a more efficient way than baker B, resulting in less labour time being necessary for the production of an equivalent amount of bread, then the consumer will prefer the bread of baker A.

Which means, of course, that consumers will prefer free bread over bread that has to be paid for.

Luís Henrique

[Baseball]

Your question is assuming that there is a right answer about what else should have been produced in place of the bricks. Who knows what else should have been produced.

One would think items in greater need than bricks.


Marx critiqued utopian socialists for this very undemocratic and bizarre method of presuming to know exactly of how much of everything would have to be produced in a socialist society before it is even established.

I am speaking of a functioning socialist community; how it would make such decisions.


How is need determined? It's determined by the community democratically,

That would seem to be an insufficient answer. One sort of has to explain what sort of information the community will use in making their decision. That was origin of my response to LH, and my question to you about equilibriums, ect.

[Baseball]

The bread is baked because a baker wants to make money, and hopes that someone wants to exchange their money for his bread. If a person wants bread - even very badly - bad does not have the money to buy it, then the baker hasn't made the bread for him/her. The want for bread, as such, is irrelevant unless backed by money.


Its not simply a question of choosing or not choosing "A." Its also an issue of people making decisions to them of what is more valuable to them at that place and time. That the consumer does not have sufficient resources to purchase bread is no real different than the baker not having resources to produce 100 loaves and having to settle for 75, at that place and time. Its not so much a problem of capitalism as it is a reality of life, a state of affairs which the socialist community must also face.

[trivas7]

The difference between a capitalist and a socialist economy isn't that labor times are unknown or suddenly disappear. It's that in a socialist economy, the people plan production with the knowledge of socially equalized labor in mind[...]
How is this done? If I am in a widget factory is not my concern on making widgets? What if no one wants the widgets I make? The point is no one person or collective has all the information necessary on a societal level and thus a socialist economy is impossible (consider the Soviet economy, e.g.). One cannot democratize resource allocation (but someone has to). To do so results in chaos because without price mechanisms there is no way to rationally allocate resources for the benefit of anyone.

[trivas7]

The difference between a capitalist and a socialist economy isn't that labor times are unknown or suddenly disappear. It's that in a socialist economy, the people plan production with the knowledge of socially equalized labor in mind[...]
How is this done? What is "the knowledge of socially equalized labor" specifically? If I am in a widget factory is not my concern to make widgets? What if no one wants the widgets I make? The point is that one cannot democratize resource allocation (but someone has to). No one person or collective has the information to make decisions concerning society as a whole and thus a socialist economy is impossible (consider the Soviet economy, e.g.). The result is chaos because without price mechanisms there is no way to rationally allocate resources for the benefit of anyone.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

How is this done? If I am in a widget factory is not my concern on making widgets? What if no one wants the widgets I make? The point is no one person or collective has all the information necessary on a societal level and thus a socialist economy is impossible (consider the Soviet economy, e.g.).

With current-day technology we can get pretty close to real-time knowledge of what people are picking up from stores - you don't think bar-codes can only be used to mark prices, do you?

[cynicles]

Probably after the workers start to abandon the socialist parties and start flocking to the browns again.

So you admit capitalists have no problem tearing democracy to protect their property and wealth.

[trivas7]

With current-day technology we can get pretty close to real-time knowledge of what people are picking up from stores - you don't think bar-codes can only be used to mark prices, do you?
Nonsense. No current technology can track real-time knowledge of what everyone is buying and selling on a societal level.

[Prinskaj]

Nonsense. No current technology can track real-time knowledge of what everyone is buying and selling on a societal level.Why not? Business can easily place all purchases on a computer, which would directly send this to a central hub. Designing such a system would not be so hard, especially with a designated workforce to create and maintain it.

[Baseball]

With current-day technology we can get pretty close to real-time knowledge of what people are picking up from stores - you don't think bar-codes can only be used to mark prices, do you?

Ok. So socialism bases its production on what people want today.

Meanwhile, when governments which CLAIM(ED) to have been socialist fall behind technologically ect. this is cited as nothing to do with socialism. But of course is (was) since such governments were structuring their societies EXACTLY in such ways as you for call above.

[Vorchev]

You want a world marked by the prices of all goods and services falling to zero. But at that point there would be no problem of finding consumer demand, or, indeed, any economic problem at all. There would be no need to produce, to work, or to worry about accumulating capital, and we would all be in the Garden of Eden.

I don't know if that's accurate.

Socialists don't like exchange-value, but that doesn't mean they want the price of goods to equal zero. A better way of explaining it is they want to erase "price" altogether while directly substituting commodities' use-value.

As for finding consumer demand, there's a reason Marx calls it "commodity fetishism."

[Baseball]

So you admit capitalists have no problem tearing democracy to protect their property and wealth.

I reject the claim. The "capitalists" began flocking toward the browns AFTER the browns became a major political player, and AFTER it was clear they or the reds were the only game in town. "democracy" was already speaking.

[cynicles]

I reject the claim. The "capitalists" began flocking toward the browns AFTER the browns became a major political player, and AFTER it was clear they or the reds were the only game in town. "democracy" was already speaking.
Do you have any facts to back this up or is that just the reality that you want to impose to fit your vision of the world?

[Lucretia]

To both baseball and triv:

I don't have the space to spell out in the kind of detail you desire how a planned economy would function. In fact, entire books have been written about this. (I would recommend Michael Albert's Parecon.) Your claim that only the market can "rationally" allocate goods and services is just that: a claim. You do a good job parroting the talking points of bourgeois economics. My advice is you read up a bit more on these issues before having such a self assured attitude. You know very little about Marx's value theory (for instance, you are clueless about what he means by abstract value, which is embarrassing for a person presuming to lecture others about Marxian economics), and seem to know even less about various existing proposals for how a democratic planned economy would be carried out.

[Tim Cornelis]

How is this done? What is "the knowledge of socially equalized labor" specifically? If I am in a widget factory is not my concern to make widgets? What if no one wants the widgets I make? The point is that one cannot democratize resource allocation (but someone has to). No one person or collective has the information to make decisions concerning society as a whole and thus a socialist economy is impossible (consider the Soviet economy, e.g.). The result is chaos because without price mechanisms there is no way to rationally allocate resources for the benefit of anyone.

The market doesn't allocate rationally, as its only basis for allocation is profits. Hence, it is "rational" to destroy food rather than feed it to the hungry because destroying it is cheaper. As Amartya Sen argued:


Take a theory of entitlements based on a set of rights of 'ownership, transfer and rectification.' In this system a set of holdings of different people are judged to be just (or unjust) by looking at past history, and not by checking the consequences of that set of holdings. But what if the consequences are recognisably terrible? … Refer to some empirical findings in a work on famines … evidence [is presented] to indicate that in many large famines in the recent past, in which millions of people have died, there was no over-all decline in food availability at all, and the famines occurred precisely because of shifts in entitlement resulting from exercises of rights that are perfectly legitimate. … [Can] famines … occur with a system of rights of the kind morally defended in various ethical theories, including Nozick's[?] I believe the answer is straightforwardly yes, since for many people the only resource that they legitimately possess, viz. their labour-power, may well turn out to be unsaleable in the market, giving the person no command over food … [i]f results such as starvations and famines were to occur, would the distribution of holdings still be morally acceptable despite their disastrous consequences? There is something deeply implausible in the affirmative answer.

Moreover, since prices are always at disequilibrium they are always flawed, and yet the only basis for decision making in a market economy. Hardly rational.

We have to points here:

Capitalism uses prices as the [I]only means for decision-making (for the sake of accumulating profits). Since prices are flawed, and profits are the product of purchasing power rather than human need, this decision-making in terms of allocation is deeply and inherently flawed
In socialism allocation decisions are not confined to one decision criterion, like profits. This is its vice and virtue at the same time. On the one hand this means we can take into consideration human needs and ecological sustainability over profits. On the other, we have no common, universal decision-making criterion to use to allocate resources either. Instead we can use consumer demand (both estimated analysing consumption patterns, and by consumers communicating it), labour-time, and natural resources used.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Nonsense. No current technology can track real-time knowledge of what everyone is buying and selling on a societal level.

Why, because you say so? By the way, I said "pretty close to real-time knowledge". Obviously there is a light-speed delay associated with sending signals down a wire or through the airwaves, but otherwise I don't see the problem.


Ok. So socialism bases its production on what people want today.

Meanwhile, when governments which CLAIM(ED) to have been socialist fall behind technologically ect. this is cited as nothing to do with socialism. But of course is (was) since such governments were structuring their societies EXACTLY in such ways as you for call above.

Do you think you are talking to some kind of Marxist-Leninist? Because that's the only reason I know of why you would accuse me of wanting a re-run of Soviet Russia. I want to get rid of capitalism, not put it under greater state control.

Bar-codes and scanners are a technology that was developed under capitalism for the purposes of capitalism, but that does mean it will not have any utility under whatever comes after capitalism.

We've got the hardware already. If the amount of skill and effort currently diverted into writing electronic trading programs (amongst other things) is any indication, then we already have the skills, knowledge and experience needed to write programs capable of dealing with a rapidly changing and complex environments, such as the global economy or subsections thereof.

[Baseball]

Do you think you are talking to some kind of Marxist-Leninist? Because that's the only reason I know of why you would accuse me of wanting a re-run of Soviet Russia.

I never made such a claim. I simply said you are proposing the same errors they made. The results will be no different.


Bar-codes and scanners are a technology that was developed under capitalism for the purposes of capitalism, but that does mean it will not have any utility under whatever comes after capitalism.

They are being utilized in a capitalist manner. It doesn't matter the technology, its how it is applied. And if you structured the socialist community to simply react to what was purchased today and yesterday, you will find yourself frustrated and puzzled as to why the results do not seem quite as good as when it was used under capitalism.


We've got the hardware already. If the amount of skill and effort currently diverted into writing electronic trading programs (amongst other things) is any indication, then we already have the skills, knowledge and experience needed to write programs capable of dealing with a rapidly changing and complex environments, such as the global economy or subsections thereof.

Writing socialist programs onto the "electronic trading programs" will change nothing. Its the socialism which is the problem, not the use, or lack thereof, of technology in its service.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I never made such a claim. I simply said you are proposing the same errors they made. The results will be no different.

What errors, specifically? They made all kinds, for differing reasons.


They are being utilized in a capitalist manner. It doesn't matter the technology, its how it is applied. And if you structured the socialist community to simply react to what was purchased today and yesterday, you will find yourself frustrated and puzzled as to why the results do not seem quite as good as when it was used under capitalism.

Capitalism can't tell what people want before people pick shit up from the stores, either. What is this magical mechanism that allows capitalist economies to predict the future, but which other types of economy cannot use?


Writing socialist programs onto the "electronic trading programs" will change nothing. Its the socialism which is the problem, not the use, or lack thereof, of technology in its service.

I'm talking about re-appropriating the skills and knowledge currently used to write and develop such programs, not just simply re-writing the programs themselves, pasting "socialism" over the parts marked "capitalism". Try to keep up.

[trivas7]

Why not? Business can easily place all purchases on a computer, which would directly send this to a central hub. Designing such a system would not be so hard, especially with a designated workforce to create and maintain it.
Why not? In word scale. It's one thing for WalMart to track its orders; it's a whole other degree of magnitude when done on a societal level. Mises already proved (http://mises.org/document/448/Economic-Calculation-in-the-Socialist-Commonwealth)that a socialist economy is impossible back in 1920.

[Tim Cornelis]

Why not? In word scale. It's one thing for WalMart to track its orders; it's a whole other degree of magnitude when done on a societal level.

I don't see how this is applicable.


Mises already proved (http://mises.org/document/448/Economic-Calculation-in-the-Socialist-Commonwealth)that a socialist economy is impossible back in 1920.

No he didn't. He formulated a strawman and attacked it. Mises argued that Marxists argue that socialism will advance the productive forces so extensively that it would usher in communism (a straw man). He then proceeded to attack the claim that socialism could advance the productive forces, and therefore declared that the task of socialism (advancing the productive forces), and thus socialism itself, was impossible.

When we withdraw that aspect of the claim, what remains is not that socialism is impossible, but that it's merely inefficient.

Mises attacked any system without a market economy (thus including the USSR), yet the USSR existed for almost 70 years. This itself invalidates the thesis that socialism (by which he meant, absence of market prices) is impossible (as opposed to "inefficient"). Moreover, the idea that socialism (again, by which he meant absence of market prices) cannot advance the productive forces has been invalidated by the rapid industrialisation of the USSR.

So the entire claim that socialism is impossible is both theoretically and empricially absolute and utter nonsense.

As for the thesis that socialism is inefficient because of the economic calculation problem, I already answered:

The market doesn't allocate rationally, as its only basis for allocation is profits. Hence, it is "rational" to destroy food rather than feed it to the hungry because destroying it is cheaper. As Amartya Sen argued:


Take a theory of entitlements based on a set of rights of 'ownership, transfer and rectification.' In this system a set of holdings of different people are judged to be just (or unjust) by looking at past history, and not by checking the consequences of that set of holdings. But what if the consequences are recognisably terrible? … Refer to some empirical findings in a work on famines … evidence [is presented] to indicate that in many large famines in the recent past, in which millions of people have died, there was no over-all decline in food availability at all, and the famines occurred precisely because of shifts in entitlement resulting from exercises of rights that are perfectly legitimate. … [Can] famines … occur with a system of rights of the kind morally defended in various ethical theories, including Nozick's[?] I believe the answer is straightforwardly yes, since for many people the only resource that they legitimately possess, viz. their labour-power, may well turn out to be unsaleable in the market, giving the person no command over food … [i]f results such as starvations and famines were to occur, would the distribution of holdings still be morally acceptable despite their disastrous consequences? There is something deeply implausible in the affirmative answer.

Moreover, since prices are always at disequilibrium they are always flawed, and yet the only basis for decision making in a market economy. Hardly rational.

We have to points here:

Capitalism uses prices as the [I]only means for decision-making (for the sake of accumulating profits). Since prices are flawed, and profits are the product of purchasing power rather than human need, this decision-making in terms of allocation is deeply and inherently flawed
In socialism allocation decisions are not confined to one decision criterion, like profits. This is its vice and virtue at the same time. On the one hand this means we can take into consideration human needs and ecological sustainability over profits. On the other, we have no common, universal decision-making criterion to use to allocate resources either. Instead we can use consumer demand (both estimated analysing consumption patterns, and by consumers communicating it), labour-time, and natural resources used.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Why not? In word scale. It's one thing for WalMart to track its orders; it's a whole other degree of magnitude when done on a societal level. Mises already proved (http://mises.org/document/448/Economic-Calculation-in-the-Socialist-Commonwealth)that a socialist economy is impossible back in 1920.

If it can be done at the scale of WalMart, then the solution is obvious - just break the problem down into WalMart-sized chunks.

You Miseans are so fucking unimaginative.

[Dean]

Why, because you say so? By the way, I said "pretty close to real-time knowledge". Obviously there is a light-speed delay associated with sending signals down a wire or through the airwaves, but otherwise I don't see the problem.



Do you think you are talking to some kind of Marxist-Leninist? Because that's the only reason I know of why you would accuse me of wanting a re-run of Soviet Russia. I want to get rid of capitalism, not put it under greater state control.

Bar-codes and scanners are a technology that was developed under capitalism for the purposes of capitalism, but that does mean it will not have any utility under whatever comes after capitalism.

We've got the hardware already. If the amount of skill and effort currently diverted into writing electronic trading programs (amongst other things) is any indication, then we already have the skills, knowledge and experience needed to write programs capable of dealing with a rapidly changing and complex environments, such as the global economy or subsections thereof.


High Frequency Trading comes to mind. This is the subsector of finance which deals with trades that must be precise to a fraction of a second - sometimes the assets are sold within that same timeframe. These fractions are so important that the NYSE agreed to build a floor specifically to house HF Traders. The technology necessary to rationalize economic activity is already there, exploiting market curves and adding instability to our system when it could be used to the opposite end - that is, if it was being used for the good of mankind rather than a minority of capitalists.

[Dean]

Why not? In word scale. It's one thing for WalMart to track its orders; it's a whole other degree of magnitude when done on a societal level. Mises already proved (http://mises.org/document/448/Economic-Calculation-in-the-Socialist-Commonwealth)that a socialist economy is impossible back in 1920.

Another shit paper that has already been disproved, by fellow capitalists no less. Linking to some of the weakest arguments for your cause is no substitue for actually, you know, producing your own ideas.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

High Frequency Trading comes to mind. This is the subsector of finance which deals with trades that must be precise to a fraction of a second - sometimes the assets are sold within that same timeframe. These fractions are so important that the NYSE agreed to build a floor specifically to house HF Traders. The technology necessary to rationalize economic activity is already there, exploiting market curves and adding instability to our system when it could be used to the opposite end - that is, if it was being used for the good of mankind rather than a minority of capitalists.

High Frequency Trading was exactly what I was thinking of, couldn't remember the exact name.

Isn't the demand for most essential commodities either static or slow-changing, anyway? Most people aren't able to eat more than 3000 calories per day, and they don't shit more than they eat so it's not as if toiletries are going to experience significant fluctuations in demand either.

[trivas7]

[...] The technology necessary to rationalize economic activity is already there, exploiting market curves and adding instability to our system when it could be used to the opposite end - that is, if it was being used for the good of mankind rather than a minority of capitalists.
Prove it. What technology are you speaking of? How can it "rationalize economic activity"? What does that even mean? Your naive utopianism is showing again, Dean.

[Revolution starts with U]

Trivas expresses absolutely no original idea, or even original interpretation of old ideas, parrots the ideas of people who want to establish a society on non-empirical "aximos," then calls someone a "naive utopian." :lol:

[trivas7]

Trivas expresses absolutely no original idea, or even original interpretation of old ideas, parrots the ideas of people who want to establish a society on non-empirical "aximos," then calls someone a "naive utopian." :lol:
Do you believe that the fundamental logical relations and the categories of thought and action are the ultimate source of all human knowledge? Are they adequate to the structure of reality? Do they reveal this structure to the human mind and, in this sense, are for man basic ontological facts? If so, you are more likely to be a Misean, not a Marxist.

[Dean]

Prove it. What technology are you speaking of?
Thermal label printers and scanners, coupled with data management services such as those used in HFT.


How can it "rationalize economic activity"? What does that even mean? Your naive utopianism is showing again, Dean.

Economic rationalization is a rather mainstream concept, typically used to prove how "freedom of choice" in centralized economic models such as capitalism will somehow make consumers the preeminent economic actors in society. I'm referring to a more deliberate model wherein workers and consumers are in control of their constituent market shares in the economy.

I'm not sure where naivete or utopianism comes into play here. But I'm not sure why I should prove my ideas when you wont even condescend to offer yours.


High Frequency Trading was exactly what I was thinking of, couldn't remember the exact name.

Isn't the demand for most essential commodities either static or slow-changing, anyway? Most people aren't able to eat more than 3000 calories per day, and they don't shit more than they eat so it's not as if toiletries are going to experience significant fluctuations in demand either.

I've seen some data about that a while ago, and iirc the biggest factors that change this kind of demand are population demographic changes and supply problems / improvements. I've always considered luxury, style and media choices to be the biggest problem for a socialist economy to overcome, but I think that by their nature these kinds of goods require less international synergy to maintain a stable economic model - social exchanges such as facebook, your local bar, or whatever, probably regulate those goods better than any accounting system could.

[Dean]

Do you believe that the fundamental logical relations and the categories of thought and action are the ultimate source of all human knowledge? Are they adequate to the structure of reality? Do they reveal this structure to the human mind and, in this sense, are for man basic ontological facts? If so, you are more likely to be a Misean, not a Marxist.


I tend to believe that most of our knowledge comes from our nervous system, and most of the classification (such as knowledge and praxis) are ways of interpreting and separating functions of the brain which are not necessarily accurate.

But Marx acknowledges the (very common) distinction between praxis and ideas: "the philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point is to change it."

It didn't take some monarch's lapdog to teach him this either; its been known since at least the time of Aristotle.

[Revolution starts with U]

Do you believe that the fundamental logical relations and the categories of thought and action are the ultimate source of all human knowledge?
No I actually think observation is the source and foundation of knowledge. Most people act illogical some of the time, moreso if they haven't learned formal logic. Ergo, logic must be, at least to a large extent, learned. You don't have to learn how to observe, you just do it, always.
I've said this many times; if the real world as it is contradicts logic, it will be the logic that is wrong, not the real world. Material reality > formal logic, no matter how necessary logic is for correct thought.

Are they adequate to the structure of reality?
What does this mean really?


Do they reveal this structure to the human mind and, in this sense, are for man basic ontological facts? If so, you are more likely to be a Misean, not a Marxist.
1) You know as well as I that Mises is know far more for his economics than his ontology. Even if I agreed with Mises here, I could still wildly differ on what he is most known for, economics.
2) No. As said, most people act illogical some of the time. They are not the core of being. The core of being is observation/awareness, the place in which all thought/logic lies, without which no thought/logic can happen.

Ie, science.

[trivas7]

No he didn't. He formulated a strawman and attacked it. Mises argued that Marxists argue that socialism will advance the productive forces so extensively that it would usher in communism (a straw man). He then proceeded to attack the claim that socialism could advance the productive forces, and therefore declared that the task of socialism (advancing the productive forces), and thus socialism itself, was impossible.

No, Mises argues that without price controls economic calculation is not possible.



We have to points here:


Capitalism uses prices as the only means for decision-making (for the sake of accumulating profits). Since prices are flawed, and profits are the product of purchasing power rather than human need, this decision-making in terms of allocation is deeply and inherently flawed
In socialism allocation decisions are not confined to one decision criterion, like profits. This is its vice and virtue at the same time. On the one hand this means we can take into consideration human needs and ecological sustainability over profits. On the other, we have no common, universal decision-making criterion to use to allocate resources either. Instead we can use consumer demand (both estimated analysing consumption patterns, and by consumers communicating it), labour-time, and natural resources used

Except that their is no such economic system as socialism and capitalism has no viable rivals.

[Revolution starts with U]

Except that their is no such economic system as socialism and capitalism has no viable rivals.

Except there is no such things as the Capitalism you profess, and modern corporate Capitalism has two rivals; social democratic capitalism, and state bureaucratic capitalism (ie China).

[trivas7]

I tend to believe that most of our knowledge comes from our nervous system, and most of the classification (such as knowledge and praxis) are ways of interpreting and separating functions of the brain which are not necessarily accurate.

But Marx acknowledges the (very common) distinction between praxis and ideas: "the philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point is to change it."

Indeed, knowledge is rooted in biology. Where Marx goes wrong is to assume that the sources of historical information accessible to us contains anything that could shake the assumption of the immutability of reason. There has never been an attempt made to state concretely in what respects the logical structure of reason could have changed in the course of the ages. Champions of historicism would be greatly embarrassed if one were to require of them that they illustrate their thesis by pointing out an example in what way the logic of primitive peoples is structurally different from classic Aristotelian logic.

[Revolution starts with U]

Ya

Logic arose (see below) from a concern with correctness of argumentation. Modern logicians usually wish to ensure that logic studies just those arguments that arise from appropriately general forms of inference. For example, Thomas Hofweber writes in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that logic "does not, however, cover good reasoning as a whole. That is the job of the theory of rationality. Rather it deals with inferences whose validity can be traced back to the formal features of the representations that are involved in that inference, be they linguistic, mental, or other representations".[3]
And

Today, some academics claim that Aristotle's system is generally seen as having little more than historical value (though there is some current interest in extending term logics), regarded as made obsolete by the advent of propositional logic and the predicate calculus. Others use Aristotle in argumentation theory to help develop and critically question argumentation schemes that are used in artificial intelligence and legal arguments.
It boggles my mind that faux libertarians are at the same time stuck in the past and totally oblivious to history :rolleyes:

what physicists have learned about quantum mechanics provides a compelling case for abandoning certain familiar principles of classical logic: if we want to be realists about the physical phenomena described by quantum theory, then we should abandon the principle of distributivity, substituting for classical logic the quantum logic proposed by Garrett Birkhoff and John von Neumann.[35]
Another paper by the same name by Sir Michael Dummett argues that Putnam's desire for realism mandates the law of distributivity.[36] Distributivity of logic is essential for the realist's understanding of how propositions are true of the world in just the same way as he has argued the principle of bivalence is

[trivas7]

Except there is no such things as the Capitalism you profess, and modern corporate Capitalism has two rivals; social democratic capitalism, and state bureaucratic capitalism (ie China).
Except that the vast majority of humankind pursue profits by providing consumers with goods and services, uphold the rule of law and a code of morality that protects the rights of property, contract and association while very few deign to militantly aggress against these.

[Per Levy]

is this thread still going? cant we just ban trivas7 and get "revleft by birth" back? the latter was a highquality troll and funny at that, trivas7 is just boring, and i hope for him he isnt as boring in rl as he is on here.

[Revolution starts with U]

Except that the vast majority of humankind pursue profits by providing consumers with goods and services, uphold the rule of law and a code of morality that protects the rights of property, contract and association while very few deign to militantly aggress against these.

Oh I see, ours is a system, but yours is a process.

This is what I mean about nonarchy being nothing more than ideology. It just straight up (very capitalist like) steals the terminology of the radical left in support of the most brutal tyrants that live today.

Note that it is Marxists. that assert socialism as a process, the process of the working class attempting to free itself of the alienation of wage labor.



You know Trivas. I can't remember the last time one of my friends tried to profit off me. You must have shit friends. Decent humans often do things free of charge when they can.
I can tell you that (at least when I had a waged job) the government aggressed against me everyday, my boss did so. I can tell you the last time a normal person aggressed against me; they broke into my car and stole my Rubicks Cube! The nerve!

So what again is this horseshit you're trying to peddle?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Except that the vast majority of humankind serves under a king, upholds the rule of law and a code of morality that protects the feudal system, monarchy and priesthood while very few deign to militantly aggress against these.

trivas7, speaking in 1512.

[Dean]

No, Mises argues that without price controls economic calculation is not possible.
Expressing your own limited knowledge doesn't mean that other's knowledge is wrong. Just because that is the central theme of his work (a theme which is rejected by other right-wing economists because it fails to explain to what measure this would hinder socialism) does not mean Tim is wrong in his assessment.


Except that their is no such economic system as socialism and capitalism has no viable rivals.

Does this type of shit work in the schoolyard where you live? Sorry, but the same argument could be used against capitalism in the 1600s and Agrarian society 7,000-10,000 years ago. Not only does socialism exist; it exists in economic forms which have been competitive with capitalist forms. Furthermore, the fact that we have live our lives in serfdom for thousands of years doesn't serve as a good argument for why we should continue to do so - indeed, the same was true regarding feudal relations and hunter-gatherer social models previously. You argument is nothing more than a base appeal to tradition - how common and cheap.

[Dean]

Except that the vast majority of humankind pursue profits by providing consumers with goods and services,

No the vast majority of people are not in the ownership of retail capital, what the fuck are you even thinking? It might be true that people pursue wages primarily in the retail/service sectors, but I find that unlikely. So much of the world is disassociated from your computer screen, Trivas7. You would do well to see just how much more gift economy exists in the parts of the world which were not so close to the epicenter of the Western Capitalist Revolution.


uphold the rule of law and a code of morality that protects the rights of property, contract and association while very few deign to militantly aggress against these.
This is absolutely incorrect. The history and present structure of US intervention in the Middle East, East Asia, Africa and South America make it very clear that Western and Eastern societies are uniform in their disregard for the property rights of the lower classes, and the property rights that are respected are those of an increasing minority of people.


There has never been an attempt made to state concretely in what respects the logical structure of reason could have changed in the course of the ages. Champions of historicism would be greatly embarrassed if one were to require of them that they illustrate their thesis by pointing out an example in what way the logic of primitive peoples is structurally different from classic Aristotelian logic.

Marx has not claimed that the logic of humankind is different. That is where you people get this wrong. Marx argues that pricing in markets is accurate to its time and place, by definition. Marx applied Bentham's self-interest concept to the markets himself, early in Capital Vol 1 at that. The capitalists also called for a new man - and they got a man in new conditions, which responded to those conditions in kind. Since the conditions changed, their response did too - this is the record, and it proves that society is bound to change when it is in increasing conflict.


Indeed, knowledge is rooted in biology. Where Marx goes wrong is to assume that the sources of historical information accessible to us contains anything that could shake the assumption of the immutability of reason.
A true Misean! "History cannot prove anything" - and true to this dogma, you ignore history by making an appeal to tradition when revolutions have shown us that traditions dating back millions of years can be uprooted.

But if you reject history, as you have quite directly now, you have no reason to trust biology, as you do here, or the distinction between ideas and praxis. The distinction is rooted in experience, and by this very nature, it draws on a history of ideas - even if in one person, but usually it is in many - to even start to become feasible. Your argument that "there are no socialist alternatives presently" relies on a history (false as it is) since arguing that something does or does not exist relies on a history of facts - that you have seen, experienced, or researched information that indicates this.

History is inescapable, most of all your own. And when you deliberately argue against ideas for the sake of tradition in particular, you are making your history a dead force to control you. But if you acknowledge the human history, despite the uproar of capitalists and Napolean's "winners who write the history books" who seek to obfuscate it, you can actually build upon previous knowledge - perhaps the only way to get out of these systems which can and do get uprooted.

[Klaatu]

You want a world marked by the prices of all goods and services falling to zero. But at that point there would be no problem of finding consumer demand, or, indeed, any economic problem at all. There would be no need to produce, to work, or to worry about accumulating capital, and we would all be in the Garden of Eden.

Your idea is an absolute insult to all of the selfless volunteers of this world. Why does everything under the sun need to have a profit motive?
And especially, why should I be "accumulating things" (capital) that I have not worked for (as do Capitalists) :confused:

[Luís Henrique]

Do you believe that the fundamental logical relations and the categories of thought and action are the ultimate source of all human knowledge?

No, they aren't. They are merely instruments for acquiring knowledge, not the "source" of knowledge.


Are they adequate to the structure of reality?

Loosely, yes. But the relation is far from perfect.


Do they reveal this structure to the human mind

They don't; they have a historical evolution.


and, in this sense, are for man basic ontological facts?

Of course not.


If so, you are more likely to be a Misean, not a Marxist.

Middles excluded, perhaps?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

You don't have to learn how to observe

Ah, but you have to, yes.


you just do it, always.

Nope. You always look, but you seldom see.

There is no single "ultimate" source of knowledge; the acquisition of knowledge is a complex process that cannot be mechanistically reduced like that. Starting with the fact that it is historically determined - science is 6 centuries old, and yet a lot of knowledge was indeed amassed before it came into being.

Luís Henrique

[trivas7]

A true Misean! "History cannot prove anything" - and true to this dogma, you ignore history by making an appeal to tradition when revolutions have shown us that traditions dating back millions of years can be uprooted.

But if you reject history, as you have quite directly now, you have no reason to trust biology, as you do here, or the distinction between ideas and praxis. The distinction is rooted in experience, and by this very nature, it draws on a history of ideas - even if in one person, but usually it is in many - to even start to become feasible. Your argument that "there are no socialist alternatives presently" relies on a history (false as it is) since arguing that something does or does not exist relies on a history of facts - that you have seen, experienced, or researched information that indicates this.

Nonsense, I do trust biology because it is a science. History OTOH by its very narrative nature -- a story told by someone -- can tell us nothing about the objective material world. The distinction between man thinking and man acting is irrelevant in this regard.

[Revolution starts with U]

Ah, but you have to, yes.



Nope. You always look, but you seldom see.

There is no single "ultimate" source of knowledge; the acquisition of knowledge is a complex process that cannot be mechanistically reduced like that. Starting with the fact that it is historically determined - science is 6 centuries old, and yet a lot of knowledge was indeed amassed before it came into being.

Luís Henrique

What you're implying in the bolded is having a correct view of what you see, which implies thinking, logic, etc. Which you do have to learn.
Basic, pre-judgement, observation is the foundation of mental process. Of course this only happens in brains and brain like structures. But if you cannot observe, none of the other stuff happens.
Saying observation is the fundament doesn't say that thinking can be simply understood, that thinking is not complex. It merely says we have a base which the rest of our thought draws from; our awareness. For example; you have to be aware of Capitalism (even if not correctly aware) to be an anti-capitalist. The likelihood of the Buddha being a socialist as we understand it is nil, because Sidharta wasn't surrounded or in any place to view a system of global Capitalism.

The world as it is comes first; that which exists regardless of the persona. Then we observe it. Only after this step do we analyze the world and take action. This view establishes for us, as individuals, a means to pursue analyzation of the material relations surrounding us. It doesn't tell us what to think or how to think, it tells us where our thinking happens; in our awareness.

[Dean]

Nonsense, I do trust biology because it is a science. History OTOH by its very narrative nature -- a story told by someone -- can tell us nothing about the objective material world. The distinction between man thinking and man acting is irrelevant in this regard.

A narrative is no different than a process in terms of its malleability to human error - for that matter, biology and all the sciences can be misrepresented, skewed and lied about just as much as any narrative. Its not clear what the difference is between a "process" and a "narrative" which makes one easier to trust - but I think this is just a crude, false distinction you are making so that you can pretend that your irrational prejudice against history is anything but a desperate maneuver to justify your own authoritarian economic attitudes.

[trivas7]

A narrative is no different than a process in terms of its malleability to human error - for that matter, biology and all the sciences can be misrepresented, skewed and lied about just as much as any narrative.
More nonsense. A narrative is not science and physics fixes the facts regarding human biology and evolution. The study of the past hasn’t told us much about the future; historians, generals, and especially politicians have much more frequently drawn the wrong lessons from history than the right one (that there are no lessons). Unfortunately for historians the actual events of the human past shows no pattern, cycle, or regularity that can provide predictive knowledge about the human future. Science excludes both God's designs and meaning of any kind, including meaning in history.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

More nonsense. A narrative is not science and physics fixes the facts regarding human biology and evolution. The study of the past hasn’t told us much about the future; historians, generals, and especially politicians have much more frequently drawn the wrong lessons from history than the right one (that there are no lessons). Unfortunately for historians the actual events of the human past shows no pattern, cycle, or regularity that can provide predictive knowledge about the human future. Science excludes both God's designs and meaning of any kind, including meaning in history.

I study Economic History and this statement of your is an utter rape of human thought! You say we have no way of identifying historical patterns? Incorrect. There are in fact many social political economic examples of history that always end up in a similar fashion: revolt. That happens to mainly be economic monopolisation throughout history where this has been seen, and we now have as wide inequality as in the history of mankind.

There a lot of things to learn from history, processes one can see in class demographic changes for instance and their inevitable social effects. You are astoundingly stupid and seem to have no grasp of any sort of reality, i suggest you get a job.

[Baseball]

What errors, specifically? They made all kinds, for differing reasons.

The one which you specifically referenced- basing future production upon present consumption.




Capitalism can't tell what people want before people pick shit up from the stores, either. What is this magical mechanism that allows capitalist economies to predict the future, but which other types of economy cannot use?

Profits and prices.




I'm talking about re-appropriating the skills and knowledge currently used to write and develop such programs, not just simply re-writing the programs themselves, pasting "socialism" over the parts marked "capitalism". Try to keep up.

Those programs are based upon supporting capitalism. They are invalid in a socialist community.

[Dean]

More nonsense. A narrative is not science and physics fixes the facts regarding human biology and evolution.
Physics doesn't "fix" anything. It is a study, comprised of a body of works that are interpretations of data accumulated by humans over centuries. I can't think of a model of study more deeply beholden to history - it is not, after all, a field of study of "pure ideas" outside of the realm of language and past works. Indeed, all sciences as they are in practice are social works, whose character is determined by the extent of past study - their history. Newton was a good influence, but his ideas can be seen as infantile compared to those of later thinkers, who had a larger history to work with.



The study of the past hasn’t told us much about the future; historians, generals, and especially politicians have much more frequently drawn the wrong lessons from history than the right one (that there are no lessons).
And what do you have to draw this spurious claim from? What makes humans something untestable, while physics can be?


Unfortunately for historians the actual events of the human past shows no pattern, cycle, or regularity that can provide predictive knowledge about the human future. Science excludes both God's designs and meaning of any kind, including meaning in history.
History has shown that most conflicts are related to resource scarcity and the competition between social systems for those resources. History has shown that accumulated knowledge, especially the written word, leads to all kinds of technological innovation - from mechanics to social reorganization. History shows that human beings have a tendency to engage in war, and to share resources within the framework of established civil societies.

In its least controversial form, history has shown that human beings, indeed most organisms respirate. Human beings consume material and produce waste. These are facts gleened from a history of knowledge; One could not know that this occurs without observation and the accumulation of these observations.

Your attempt to draw doubt on what amounts to basic inductive logic is little more than a chidlish rejection of the most fundamental logical process of ideas. Deductive logic is only useful if the relations, which seem "axiomatic" are in fact observable by those who produce the logic. You couldn't be having this conversation without a history of knowledge of the English language; a history that is much more malleable than even the textbooks and historical documents you discount. The fact that you think you can draw some kind of prejudiced distinction between legitimate logical processes shows just how lost you really are.

There were times when I felt obliged to take on some positions I didn't agree with, because that was the argument for some leftist position. I resisted it, and went on for a long time true to my feelings about why people deserve equal rights in human society. Eventually, the logic was accumulated for me, mostly by my own volition, but in general from everything from Larry David sketches to libertarian forums to RevLeft itself. I never stooped to reject things like Aristotelian logic or "non-dialectical" logic. It makes you weak to allow these kinds of prejudices into your worldview, and to think that it is somehow a legitimate rebuttal to the leftist paradigm shows just how obtuse you really are.

It's worthless, Trivas7. You are doing nothing but appealing to some vague concept of David Hume, and what's worse is that you are following a charlatan like Mises, of all the Austrian thinkers. Why? Is it because he is easy?

The fact is that you are making arguments explicitly defining the bearing of history, while actively rejecting the influence of history itself. It is pedantic and obfuscatory, but worst of all, its a trap for you. Now you're stuck: you have to play mental acrobactics by using your own history of ideas to produce your current ideas, and yet shield yourself from any new knowledge of society. Its self-serving, ignorant and pitiful.

Just don't pretend that rejecting your knowledge of history will give you some insight into the same. It wont.

[trivas7]

Physics doesn't "fix" anything.

Notwithstanding your abandonment of science as a means of knowledge, the truth is that only the ahistoric physical facts constitute or determine all the rest of the facts concerning the human condition (including its history and evolution), not the pseudo-scientific pretense of knowledge born from anyone's particular interpretation of history. And it is you who are the perpetuator of a defunct tradition, Dean, not me.

[Dean]

Notwithstanding your abandonment of science as a means of knowledge, the truth is that only the ahistoric physical facts constitute or determine all the rest of the facts concerning the human condition (including its history and evolution), not the pseudo-scientific pretense of knowledge born from anyone's particular interpretation of history. And it is you who are the perpetuator of a defunct tradition, Dean, not me.


Science is the only method of inquiry I like. I don't believe in the false distinction of validity between deductive and inductive logic. They are both valid.


Human beings didn't start to study the stars because they didn't believe that inductive logic had meaning. Inductive logic is not only the foundation of science, it is the model which we use to study the sciences. Deductive logic only applies to knowledge which is achievable via inductive reason.

Inductive logic is the only model of logic that gives weight to repeated situations, while tending to dismiss situations which fail to occur consistently.

Without inductive logic, deductive logic does not describe discrete facts outside of its own implicit origins. More dangerously, when applied as an exclusive model of study to the social science, deductive logic only refers to ideas. By definition, the material fact of the human being is denied as a starting point since its study is deemed as fallible from the offset. This absurd model of study is the underlying distinction between the Austrian and Marxist models - indeed, I have discussed this previously: the Misean model of inquiry is allied with the Popperian rejection of inductive logic as a valid way to study the social sciences. (http://thethinred.blogspot.com/2011/03/falsifiability-popper-marx-and-mises.html) Nevertheless, popper himself described his own proposition for a study of the social sciences as failing to escape the problems with inductive logic.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The one which you specifically referenced- basing future production upon present consumption.

But as I asked and Dean confirmed, the demand for day-to-day stuff doesn't actually vary all that much, not to mention that a communist economy would certainly be lacking the faddishness that pervades a capitalist economy, which adds significant "dead weight" in terms of actually providing shit people need.


Profits and prices.

Neither of which reflect the actual abundance or availability of goods. Everyone is encouraged to fiddle things in favour of profiting themselves, and surprise surprise they do that.


Those programs are based upon supporting capitalism. They are invalid in a socialist community.

Fucking cretin. Do you not know the difference between a computer program and the programming knowledge used to create it?

[Leroy Brown]

Fucking cretin.

Is this what passes for argument on this forum?

[Comrade Trollface]

Those programs are based upon supporting capitalism. They are invalid in a socialist community.Even when you upgrade from a horse and buggy to an automobile, you don't need to reinvent the wheel:rolleyes:

[Baseball]

But as I asked and Dean confirmed, the demand for day-to-day stuff doesn't actually vary all that much,

Sure it does. Its just that you are looking at it from say a Tuesday to a Friday, as opposed to from say 1990 to 2012.


not to mention that a communist economy would certainly be lacking the faddishness that pervades a capitalist economy,

Why? if the people want to produce such "faddishness" why would a communist economy thwart their desires?



Fucking cretin. Do you not know the difference between a computer program and the programming knowledge used to create it?

It doesn't matter. A computer program designed to support the aims and goals of a capitalist community cannot be readily transferred to a socialist community whose aims and goals are to be different. Having the "knowledge" to program "socialistically" doesn't change objections to socialism, or make a socialist community a more viable and rational community.

[Baseball]

Even when you upgrade from a horse and buggy to an automobile, you don't need to reinvent the wheel:rolleyes:


Apples and oranges

[Dean]

Sure it does. Its just that you are looking at it from say a Tuesday to a Friday, as opposed to from say 1990 to 2012.
AS has been repeated ad nauseum, consumer choice is not hard to track and fill at its rate of change. Are you so naive as to think that a communist economy would have the same production figures for 22 years?


Why? if the people want to produce such "faddishness" why would a communist economy thwart their desires?

It wouldn't thwart them. It just wouldn't manipulate consumers to follow fads in the furtherance of profit.


It doesn't matter. A computer program designed to support the aims and goals of a capitalist community cannot be readily transferred to a socialist community whose aims and goals are to be different. Having the "knowledge" to program "socialistically" doesn't change objections to socialism, or make a socialist community a more viable and rational community.
Actually, inventory control programs are all that is needed to track consumer choices and changes to consumer choices over time, and these are readily available and usually have no function to produce profits via their use. I deal in the bar-coding industry myself, and most of the labels and scanners are used for tracking inventory and shipping packages.

Your "22 year" example shows just how absurd your strawmen have come to be. Its the level of discourse we could expect from a pedantic child who can't see beyond his own narrow universe of hyperbole. But if you want to make legitimate criticisms, you have to confront concepts that are far more advanced than your crude caricatures of socialism.

[Baseball]

AS has been repeated ad nauseum, consumer choice is not hard to track and fill at its rate of change. Are you so naive as to think that a communist economy would have the same production figures for 22 years?

Yes. The community consumes 100 gallons of paint, the community then produces 100 gallons of paint. Future production is based upon past consumption. It is not a caricature of socialism to wonder about what such a production will wrought.



It wouldn't thwart them. It just wouldn't manipulate consumers to follow fads in the furtherance of profit.

I'm sorry. I have been repeatedly told that the worker and consumer is the same person. You have clarified that the producers of pet rocks are not neccessarily the consumer of pet rocks.



Actually, inventory control programs are all that is needed to track consumer choices and changes to consumer choices over time,

Not if your production is based upon previous purchases.

[Dean]

Yes. The community consumes 100 gallons of paint, the community then produces 100 gallons of paint. Future production is based upon past consumption. It is not a caricature of socialism to wonder about what such a production will wrought.

That wasn't said. Responses to rates-of-change are by definition non-static models.


I'm sorry. I have been repeatedly told that the worker and consumer is the same person. You have clarified that the producers of pet rocks are not neccessarily the consumer of pet rocks.
Um, ok. Another non sequitor.



Not if your production is based upon previous purchases.
I'm not sure what makes you think that is the only variable involved.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Dean;2474703]That wasn't said. Responses to rates-of-change are by definition non-static models.

Then the use of bar-codes to track consumption so as to determine production is not all that is needed, as you have said in this thread.



Um, ok. Another non sequitor.


More of a tangent based upon what some others have said to me over the past several months. It was off topic.




I'm not sure what makes you think that is the only variable involved.

It isn't. Hence my skepticism of the claims by socialists (including by yourself) that technology will solve some of the problems of socialism, or more exactly as I would say, any economic system.

In any event, Happy Independence Day.

[Dean]

Then the use of bar-codes to track consumption so as to determine production is not all that is needed, as you have said in this thread.

I don't have to spell out an entire system, kid. Databases allow us to track rates of change.


More of a tangent based upon what some others have said to me over the past several months. It was off topic.

And we'll leave it there, like most of your bizarre irrelevancies.


It isn't. Hence my skepticism of the claims by socialists (including by yourself) that technology will solve some of the problems of socialism, or more exactly as I would say, any economic system.
Your problem is in thinking that some of the basic ideas on the RevLeft message board represent a comprehensive model for socialism.

It doesn't, and serious socialists here acknowledge that. If that is the point you're trying to get at, it is nothing more than plaground jeering at those who don't have power. Really deep, huh.


In any event, Happy Independence Day.
We're celebrating by feasting on the charred corpses of Pakistani children. Mmm, the spread of democracy has a smoky bite to it!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Is this what passes for argument on this forum?

Do you often pluck rhetorical barbs (that wasn't an argument you quoted) out of their context, and thus attempt to characterise the other ~90% of the original post as being of the same nature?

How dishonest are you?

[Tim Cornelis]

I haven't really read the second part of this debate, so correct me if I'm wrong. But are you (Baseball) saying that we cannot ascertain how much is consumed?

That is, when we produce 100 breads per week, and at the end of this week there are 10 left, we will be unable to subtract those? I don't understand your criticism.

[Comrade Trollface]

Apples and oranges
...did not become obsolete with the transition to a different mode of production either.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I haven't really read the second part of this debate, so correct me if I'm wrong. But are you (Baseball) saying that we cannot ascertain how much is consumed?

That is, when we produce 100 breads per week, and at the end of this week there are 10 left, we will be unable to subtract those? I don't understand your criticism.

It's worse than that. A baker's dozen (13) comes from the practice of making an extra loaf in case the baker ends up cack-handedly dropping one. Which means that those actually doing the work have already long had practices honed by experience, that the likes of Austrian economists will apparently never consider.

[Baseball]

I haven't really read the second part of this debate, so correct me if I'm wrong. But are you (Baseball) saying that we cannot ascertain how much is consumed?

That is, when we produce 100 breads per week, and at the end of this week there are 10 left, we will be unable to subtract those? I don't understand your criticism.

No. I said determining rates of consumption is not enough when determining production.

[Baseball]

It's worse than that. A baker's dozen (13) comes from the practice of making an extra loaf in case the baker ends up cack-handedly dropping one. Which means that those actually doing the work have already long had practices honed by experience, that the likes of Austrian economists will apparently never consider.

But as usual, socialists apparently never consider that changing modes of productions means production occurs differently. That baker is no longer producing for "profit", he is producing for need.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But as usual, socialists apparently never consider that changing modes of productions means production occurs differently. That baker is no longer producing for "profit", he is producing for need.

And if 12 loaves are needed, then the baker will still make 13 loaves because accidents happen no matter the economic system. If the extra loaf turns out to be unnecessary then it can still be eaten by someone else.

Good grief!


No. I said determining rates of consumption is not enough when determining production.

What else is needed?

[Baseball]

I don't have to spell out an entire system, kid. Databases allow us to track rates of change.

How so? 100 loaves of bread produced; 90 are consumed 10 left over. So 90 are produced next time. But if the demand is 110... your community is now short. But if the the demand is 80, you have wasted resources upon 10 unneeded loaves.



Your problem is in thinking that some of the basic ideas on the RevLeft message board represent a comprehensive model for socialism.

no, I understand socialists quarrel all the time as to what is proper and true socialism. If you wish to say there is plenty of which is not represented on this board, I have no reason to question or challenge it.
But there is not much I can do about it. I can only respond to what is posted here, not what exists elsewhere.



We're celebrating by feasting on the charred corpses of Pakistani children. Mmm, the spread of democracy has a smoky bite to it!

Ok, I'll take you up on this. Socialists here (can't speak to what may be said elsewhere) often claim socialism is true democracy. Fine. Socialists here (can't speak to what may be said elsewhere) like to say they need to support the spread of socialism throughout the world and in regions of the world. Fine. So, ipso facto, isn't supporting the spread of socialism also supporting the spread of democracy? Why wouldn't that "smoky bite" therefore also accompany socialism as a natural part of ITS spread?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

How so? 100 loaves of bread produced; 90 are consumed 10 left over. So 90 are produced next time. But if the demand is 110... your community is now short. But if the the demand is 80, you have wasted resources upon 10 unneeded loaves.

Why are people's consumption habits changing at the magnitudes you assume?

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=ÑóẊîöʼn;2475747]And if 12 loaves are needed, then the baker will still make 13 loaves because accidents happen no matter the economic system. If the extra loaf turns out to be unnecessary then it can still be eaten by someone else.

If its eaten, then it is by definition not unnecessary. Unless that consumption is nothing more than "conspicuous consumption," but which socialists hereabouts often say will be curbed in the socialist community anyhow.



What else is needed?

How is that typewriter functioning these days?

[Baseball]

Why are people's consumption habits changing at the magnitudes you assume?

I am not. I am saying that the method you suggest as acceptable for determining production levels does not account for changes in consumption, it simply reacts to what was previously consumed. Such circumstances lead to undersupply, or oversupply, of goods while slowing down rates of change and progress. Hence the relative backwardness of the socialist world.
Production is about the future, which is always unknown. Its not about the past.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If its eaten, then it is by definition not unnecessary. Unless that consumption is nothing more than "conspicuous consumption," but which socialists hereabouts often say will be curbed in the socialist community anyhow.

A few spare loaves being eaten is hardly "conspicuous consumption".


How is that typewriter functioning these days?

Necessity is the mother of invention.


I am not. I am saying that the method you suggest as acceptable for determining production levels does not account for changes in consumption, it simply reacts to what was previously consumed. Such circumstances lead to undersupply, or oversupply, of goods while slowing down rates of change and progress. Hence the relative backwardness of the socialist world.

What socialist world? You mean countries that have come off worse from inter-imperialist rivalry?


Production is about the future, which is always unknown. Its not about the past.

If the future is "always unknown" then capitalism can no more predict future consumption than you claim non-capitalist economic systems can.

In fact, since capitalists can create and manipulate demands through various methods, any claims as to capitalism's ability to meet future demands are automatically suspect.

[Dean]

Production is about the future, which is always unknown. Its not about the past.

What makes you think capitalist economies are able to predict the future? If they can't, how is this discussion possibly an argument against socialism?


I am not. I am saying that the method you suggest as acceptable for determining production levels does not account for changes in consumption, it simply reacts to what was previously consumed. Such circumstances lead to undersupply, or oversupply, of goods while slowing down rates of change and progress. Hence the relative backwardness of the socialist world.
The socialist world mostly floundered in its production models when it layed off the folk that were determining rates of change in consumption (famously under Khruschev) and started to emphasize western (largely US/European managed) pricing models.

Its worth noting that later Nixon did the opposite for the US - he totally removed the US from the gold standard - for opposite reasoning. Khruschev wanted a normalization of relations with the West, so he bowed to western economic standards. Nixon wanted to disempower foreign speculators which were using the lag between the price of gold and US treasuries to profit off of US currency trades, which made the US dollar unstable.

Nixon did the right thing, and it got him out of office since it pissed off so many corporations that relied on the gold standard-US dollar equivalency to make money. By emphasizing US consumer and government interests, Nixon was emphasizing a closer model to consumption standards than the currency permitted. In much the same way, socialist economies following rates of change and stated consumer interests will more closely approximate consumption than currency and value disparities which tend to make markets unstable, as they provide a medium for speculation (which distances demand curves from their basis, that is the real use-value-interested consumers) and a model of exclusion whereby pricing impedes customers from acquiring certain commodities that others may get. Minor changes in supply and demand impacting pricing can open the floodgates of consumption or trap consumers from the product which causes more disparity between capitalist production and the interests of consumers.

[Tim Cornelis]

No. I said determining rates of consumption is not enough when determining production.

Consumers can communicate what they anticipate they need in the coming week, month, or other frequency, in a decentralised planned arrangement in addition to inventory/stock method of ascertaining demand.

As Dean said:


What makes you think capitalist economies are able to predict the future? If they can't, how is this discussion possibly an argument against socialism?

Studies into demand forecasting have shown they are highly inaccurate.

[Baseball]

Consumers can communicate what they anticipate they need in the coming week, month, or other frequency, in a decentralised planned arrangement in addition to inventory/stock method of ascertaining demand.

Yup. Someone could probably say "I will need a couple gallons of paint in six weeks, and a nail clipper in two." It isn't enough to say such things. One also has to say what one wants when compared against other items. Does the person value the paint or the nail clipper more? Even a socialist community cannot produce enough to give somebody everything they want when they want it.

[Baseball]

A few spare loaves being eaten is hardly "conspicuous consumption".


No, but that vacation house is, or the Porsche. Bread, paint, Porsche's... Its all the same.


Necessity is the mother of invention.

Typewriters do a wonderful job...




What socialist world? You mean countries that have come off worse from inter-imperialist rivalry?

The ones that have come off worse due to practicing socialist ideas ie. basing production on comsumption.




If the future is "always unknown" then capitalism can no more predict future consumption than you claim non-capitalist economic systems can.

They can, and do, a better job. Unlike the socialist, they do not say "80 cans of paint consumed yesterday, 80 cans of paint produced tomorrow."


In fact, since capitalists can create and manipulate demands through various methods, any claims as to capitalism's ability to meet future demands are automatically suspect.

Why do socialists, who basically demand the "people" to run things, have such a dim view of people? Isn't there a bit of an incongruity here?

[Tim Cornelis]

Yup. Someone could probably say "I will need a couple gallons of paint in six weeks, and a nail clipper in two." It isn't enough to say such things. One also has to say what one wants when compared against other items. Does the person value the paint or the nail clipper more? Even a socialist community cannot produce enough to give somebody everything they want when they want it.

After consumers have communicated heir needs, you calculate the amount of resources necessary, if there are enough resources they can be produced accordingly. If a socialist society uses labour credits, then this would be the means by which to ascertain whether a person values product X over Y. If a socialist society distributes according to needs, then basic goods would take precedence over the more luxurious goods (who would consequently be scarce). These scarce goods would then be rationed.

But then two questions arise (one of which you have so far failed to answer),

Is capitalism capable of attaining general equilibrium?

How do entrepreneurs predict the future?

If the answer to these questions is "no" and "they can't" then you merely the pot calling the kettle black.

[Dean]

They can, and do, a better job. Unlike the socialist, they do not say "80 cans of paint consumed yesterday, 80 cans of paint produced tomorrow."

And now we're back to strawmen and your appeal to authority. What a worthless set of arguments you have.

[Baseball]

After consumers have communicated heir needs, you calculate the amount of resources necessary, if there are enough resources they can be produced accordingly.

There are enough resources to drown the world in nailclippers and paint.


If a socialist society uses labour credits, then this would be the means by which to ascertain whether a person values product X over Y.

Yes. If a person spends his limited labor credits on paint rather than nail clippers, production would be geared toward the former and not the latter, as that is where the labor credits go.
The problem I see with this is:
1. It means the workers are not in control of production. They have to produce to satisfy the needs and wants of the wealthier workers.
2. The production technique is not terribly unique when compared against the capitalism it is supposed to replace.



If a socialist society distributes according to needs, then basic goods would take precedence over the more luxurious goods (who would consequently be scarce). These scarce goods would then be rationed.

This of means that some organization, somewhere, will be deciding what is and what is not a basic need. Then of course this organization would have to set up rules and regulations governing replacements, how much to be use in what period of time. In response to to Dean's note to me, this is nothing more than an appeal to authority.




Is capitalism capable of attaining general equilibrium?

More or less.


How do entrepreneurs predict the future?

The same way a socialist community might which uses those labor credits: determining the value of goods and services and gearing production accordingly.

[Tim Cornelis]

There are enough resources to drown the world in nailclippers and paint.



Yes. If a person spends his limited labor credits on paint rather than nail clippers, production would be geared toward the former and not the latter, as that is where the labor credits go.

This tells us nothing about the future though. We only know how consumers spent their labour credits after they spent it. The same with money. Hence, the 'problem' still persists.


The problem I see with this is:
1. It means the workers are not in control of production. They have to produce to satisfy the needs and wants of the wealthier workers.
2. The production technique is not terribly unique when compared against the capitalism it is supposed to replace.

The workers are in control of production because decisions on how to meet production targets are made via their workers council. The distribution would be different as it would not rely on circulating capital.


This of means that some organization, somewhere, will be deciding what is and what is not a basic need.

If there is distribution according to needs, then communes would--via participatory democracy--need to decide how to prioritise production in different levels of priority. With the most basic needs having the highest priority (obviously). While there is no objective means to decide what are basic needs and what are not, I think there is a general agreement that medicine, social services, goods for handicapped people, sewerage, food and beverages, etc. are the most essential basic goods, followed by things like furniture. Conversely, there will be a general agreement that things like yachts are luxurious goods. Therefore this wouldn't be a major problem.

Certainly, communism would have problems like this one, but the benefits of communism far outweigh its flaws.


Then of course this organization would have to set up rules and regulations governing replacements, how much to be use in what period of time.

How much is consumer is determined through consumers communicating what they need. From this, the producers know how much they can produce. In this, you have it backwards.


In response to to Dean's note to me, this is nothing more than an appeal to authority.

No it's not, I'm not saying "X thinks the above system is a good idea."


The same way a socialist community might which uses those labor credits: determining the value of goods and services and gearing production accordingly.

This tells us nothing about the future, it tells about past consumption patterns.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No, but that vacation house is, or the Porsche. Bread, paint, Porsche's... Its all the same.

No they're not. They require different resources and processes in order to be made.


Typewriters do a wonderful job...

Computers are more powerful, more flexible and I don't have to faff about with paper and ink. Once a document has been typed out on a typewriter, any errors have to be corrected by hand (or you could waste your time and re-type it). I'd also need more physical space if I want to store any amount of typed documents for a length of time without having them become lost or damaged, whereas on the other hand if I want more data storage on my computer I have a wide range of options depending on my exact needs.

This is the kind of shit that would be relevant under any economic system, not just capitalism. So your insinuation of that pathetic "only capitalism promotes innovation" canard is plainly false to anyone who gives it a moment's sensible thought.


The ones that have come off worse due to practicing socialist ideas ie. basing production on comsumption.

You mean the ones that were all operating in, and to varying degrees dependent on, a globally capitalist economy?


They can, and do, a better job. Unlike the socialist, they do not say "80 cans of paint consumed yesterday, 80 cans of paint produced tomorrow."

You say that as if painters have no fucking clue what they are doing tomorrow, as if they never plan their work schedules ahead of time.


Why do socialists, who basically demand the "people" to run things, have such a dim view of people? Isn't there a bit of an incongruity here?

It's not a "dim view" of people that I have, it's a recognition that under a socioeconomic system that values and promotes profit-making over social utility, it is no wonder that amorally acquisitive people will be the ones to rise to the top in such a situation.

[Smith1980]

Thats the problem with lefty groups. They take over people power and talk talk talk. All fucking talk TALK TALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTA LKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALK
TALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTA LKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALK
TALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTA LKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALK

RevLeft RSS feed deleted

TALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTA LKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALK
TALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTA LKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALK
TALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTA LKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALK TALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALK
TALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTA LKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALK
TALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTA LKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALK TALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALK
TALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTA LKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALK
TALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALKTA LKTALKTALKTALKTALKTALK:tt2:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Thats the problem with lefty groups. They take over people power and talk talk talk. All fucking talk ...

It's a message board. What else do you expect to bloody happen?

[Baseball]

This tells us nothing about the future though. We only know how consumers spent their labour credits after they spent it. The same with money. Hence, the 'problem' still persists.

The "problem" though remains a socialist one- they are pledged to eliminate such things.

The reality is that when people spend on certain items, that s where production gets geared to, under the theory that this is what people wish.




The workers are in control of production because decisions on how to meet production targets are made via their workers council. The distribution would be different as it would not rely on circulating capital.

Ah, yes... 80 cans of paint consumed; the production target because to produce 80 cans to replace- the local worker council fills in the details.




With the most basic needs having the highest priority (obviously). While there is no objective means to decide what are basic needs and what are not,

True.



I think there is a general agreement that medicine, social services, goods for handicapped people, sewerage, food and beverages, etc. are the most essential basic goods, followed by things like furniture. Conversely, there will be a general agreement that things like yachts are luxurious goods. Therefore this wouldn't be a major problem.

The problem here is that all these above finished items in turn require goods, which are somebody else's finished good. Should metal be used to build wheelchairs or sewer pipe? Should labor be deployed to grow/ship food, or to perform/analyze CAT scans?
Sorry, it is a major problem.




How much is consumer is determined through consumers communicating what they need. From this, the producers know how much they can produce. In this, you have it backwards.

I agree. Consumers controls production- not production targets or worker councils.
So why muddy up the waters with unnecessary beauracracies?




No it's not, I'm not saying "X thinks the above system is a good idea."

Authority is what it is- a production target which says to the worker councils "Produce 80 gallons of paint" or these worker councils telling everyone how many hours they will work, and how they will work, to achieve the quota as dictated to them. Its all an exercise of authority.




This tells us nothing about the future, it tells about past consumption patterns.

Sure it does- it tells the capitalists where profits can be found.

[Baseball]

No they're not. They require different resources and processes in order to be made.

The "conspicuous consumption" comment of mine was in response to the claims to simply consume goods that were erroneously produced due to the flaws in the static thinking of socialists.




Computers are more powerful, more flexible and I don't have to faff about with paper and ink. Once a document has been typed out on a typewriter, any errors have to be corrected by hand (or you could waste your time and re-type it). I'd also need more physical space if I want to store any amount of typed documents for a length of time without having them become lost or damaged, whereas on the other hand if I want more data storage on my computer I have a wide range of options depending on my exact needs.

Yes... And?? You are simply celebrating how things are RIGHT NOW. Unfortunately, "we made 'em this way yesterday and we will make 'em this way tomorrow" thinking of socialism does little to actually change things over time.


This is the kind of shit that would be relevant under any economic system, not just capitalism.

Yes. These are problems ANY economy would face.
They are not CAUSED by capitalism.

But again, how does an economy which basis its production upon what was consumed yesterday a stronger economy, a more rational economy, than one that seeks to build production upon what people might want tomorrow?



You say that as if painters have no fucking clue what they are doing tomorrow, as if they never plan their work schedules ahead of time.

A painter himself is providing a service- somebody else wants him to do that job. The same issues- I painted 10 houses last month, I'll paint 10 next month.
But thank you for at least conceding the absurdity of basing future production on past consumption.



It's not a "dim view" of people that I have, it's a recognition that under a socioeconomic system that values and promotes profit-making over social utility,

So what is the social utility of producing 80 gallons of paint next month because 80 gallons of paint was consumed last month?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The "conspicuous consumption" comment of mine was in response to the claims to simply consume goods that were erroneously produced due to the flaws in the static thinking of socialists.

Yes I know. And I pointed out that a bit more bread being eaten is hardly a gross example of it. You then decided to compare apples to oranges and dragged in holidays and Porches, as if such things are directly comparable.

As if people never express their desire to go on holiday or possess a new motor vehicle ahead of time.



Yes... And?? You are simply celebrating how things are RIGHT NOW. Unfortunately, "we made 'em this way yesterday and we will make 'em this way tomorrow" thinking of socialism does little to actually change things over time.

I'm talking about the current state of computing technology because I do not have a crystal ball and therefore cannot predict the state of computing technology between now and the end of capitalism.

There are lot of issues within computing technology that a communist society would have an impetus to address. Moving towards greater interoperability and universal standards will require new technology as well as new organisation.


Yes. These are problems ANY economy would face.
They are not CAUSED by capitalism.

Capitalism certainly doesn't help matters.


But again, how does an economy which basis its production upon what was consumed yesterday a stronger economy, a more rational economy, than one that seeks to build production upon what people might want tomorrow?

Because the best judges of what people want are the people themselves, not advertising agencies.


A painter himself is providing a service- somebody else wants him to do that job. The same issues- I painted 10 houses last month, I'll paint 10 next month.

No, you fuckwit. Next month's painting work is based on how many times their services are reserved this month. The actual amount of paint required is based on what the jobs actually entail, kitchen vs whole house for example. Painters know this (unlike you) and can therefore plan their work, including how much paint they will need.


So what is the social utility of producing 80 gallons of paint next month because 80 gallons of paint was consumed last month?

You get paint, which is useful. Duh. Any excess can be put into storage to cover any future shortfalls, and such reserves are to be taken into consideration when planning production.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=ÑóẊîöʼn;2478048]Yes I know. And I pointed out that a bit more bread being eaten is hardly a gross example of it. You then decided to compare apples to oranges and dragged in holidays and Porches, as if such things are directly comparable.

As if people never express their desire to go on holiday or possess a new motor vehicle ahead of time.

You forget that Porshe's, bread ect. are made of products which are somebody else's finished items.




I'
m talking about the current state of computing technology

Yes, I know...




Because the best judges of what people want are the people themselves, not advertising agencies.

OK. So now we are back celebrating tomorrow's production being based upon yesterday's consumption.




No, you fuckwit. Next month's painting work is based on how many times their services are reserved this month. The actual amount of paint required is based on what the jobs actually entail, kitchen vs whole house for example. Painters know this (unlike you) and can therefore plan their work, including how much paint they will need.

Yeah- based upon what the customer wants in the FUTURE. It means a change in his or her consumption. What that person consumed yesterday is NOT what he is consuming tomorrow.



You get paint, which is useful. Duh. Any excess can be put into storage to cover any future shortfalls, and such reserves are to be taken into consideration when planning production.

Well, yes; there can be a glut of paint- socialists usually condemn such outcomes as a flaw of capitalism, but it is what it is.

Of course, from the practical matter, it means that as a result of excess and unneeded paint being produced today, something else which may have greater need and utility for the community is NOT being produced.
How is that beneficial?

[#FF0000]

Yeah- based upon what the customer wants in the FUTURE. It means a change in his or her consumption. What that person consumed yesterday is NOT what he is consuming tomorrow.

It's a good thing we want to put the means of production into the hands of the worker/consumer so that they can produce what they'll want tomorrow!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You forget that Porshe's, bread ect. are made of products which are somebody else's finished items.

Your point being?


Yes, I know...

If you want me to talk about potential future technologies I would like to see developed then I would be more than happy to. Just don't then turn around and whinge if I do so because I'm being speculative rather than sticking to current technological facts.


OK. So now we are back celebrating tomorrow's production being based upon yesterday's consumption.

No, we're on to a system where people know what they want made tomorrow and have control of the means of production to make sure that happens.


Yeah- based upon what the customer wants in the FUTURE. It means a change in his or her consumption. What that person consumed yesterday is NOT what he is consuming tomorrow.

You know about the change in consumption because the consumers let you know ahead of time. This isn't fucking rocket surgery.


Well, yes; there can be a glut of paint- socialists usually condemn such outcomes as a flaw of capitalism, but it is what it is.

There won't be a glut of paint if you draw partially or wholly on the aforementioned reserves instead of producing more of it de novo.


Of course, from the practical matter, it means that as a result of excess and unneeded paint being produced today, something else which may have greater need and utility for the community is NOT being produced.

Because the processes and materials used for making paint, clothing and food are all exactly the same and are perfectly interchangeable, right? No. That is a fallacy fostered by thinking in terms of money instead of materials and energy.

[Baseball]

If you want me to talk about potential future technologies I would like to see developed then I would be more than happy to. Just don't then turn around and whinge if I do so because I'm being speculative rather than sticking to current technological facts.

Sorry; you're not getting it.




You know about the change in consumption because the consumers let you know ahead of time. This isn't fucking rocket surgery.

And round and round we go... OK- Its not just a question of what you want tomorrow, its also a question what you want tomorrow in relationship with other items you also might want tomorrow.
Does socialism claim it can give everything to everyone when its asked for? i don't think it does, but you tell me.





Because the processes and materials used for making paint, clothing and food are all exactly the same and are perfectly interchangeable, right? No. That is a fallacy fostered by thinking in terms of money instead of materials and energy.

hey look- using energy to produce paint that the community does not need means that energy isn't available to producing something the community does need. using materials for something the community does not need means they are not available for something the community does need. It is't rocket science. So that glut of paint, if you extrapolate it out, is not just some inconvenieince. Its a reflection of a community NOT producing and providing things for which the community needs right then and there.

[Dean]

And round and round we go... OK- Its not just a question of what you want tomorrow, its also a question what you want tomorrow in relationship with other items you also might want tomorrow.
Does socialism claim it can give everything to everyone when its asked for? i don't think it does, but you tell me.

And yet, capitalism relies on this kind on inequality and deprivation. If anything, this is a standard problem for any social model - and not in the least a criticism of socialism.


hey look- using energy to produce paint that the community does not need means that energy isn't available to producing something the community does need. using materials for something the community does not need means they are not available for something the community does need. It is't rocket science. So that glut of paint, if you extrapolate it out, is not just some inconvenieince. Its a reflection of a community NOT producing and providing things for which the community needs right then and there.

As if the last 200 years of innovation hadn't occurred! Scarcity is not a problem of production models anymore, kid. It's a systemic problem within a system that relies on deprivation and unequal consumer power to accrue value at the top.

What is hilarious about all your petty little attempts to critique this vague socialist ideal you are chiding is that all of your critiques are more applicable to the capitalist system; in many cases, its actually deliberate in the latter. Really, the height of doublespeak.

And if you think people "aren't getting it" its because of your incredible failure to spell out ideas in the first place. It's like arguing with a 15 year old; it would be excusable if you were in a heated debate without time to think. But here you have the benefit of typing out your ideas and going back to proof them. And we still get the vaguest, most petty criticisms, typically backed by pseudoscience and popular solipsisms. Your analysis is really worthless from any vantage point.

[Baseball]

And yet, capitalism relies on this kind on inequality and deprivation. If anything, this is a standard problem for any social model
- and not in the least a criticism of socialism.

Yes, it is a standard problem for any system- including socialism. Pointing this out is somewhat a critique of socialism, in the sense socialism is not "solving" the problem, and in the sense the "problem" is not somehow being caused by capitalism.
However, it is a criticism of socialism to question how they prefer to wrestle with it.




As if the last 200 years of innovation hadn't occurred!

Yeah- But we are not talking about 200 years of innovation within a socialist system, are we? Change the system-change the results.


Scarcity is not a problem of production models anymore, kid.

It is always a problem. The question becomes to what extent. Noxion wishes to argue that a glut of paint is no big deal. Maybe it isn't. But that glut is the result of unneeded production, which means something else was not produced at that time when this unneeded paint was. Maybe it is indeed no big deal to have a pile of paint sitting in a warehouse. But if your production "model" suggests it is not that important what is produced at any given time, one would think scarcity becomes a problem.


It's a systemic problem within a system that relies on deprivation

But as I wondered before, socialism cannot promise everything to everyone when requested. There was no real disagreement offered. Somebody is going to be deprived of what they need and want when they want it- like maybe people who want metal cans which are otherwise being used for unneeded paint. It is a systemic problem for socialism and capitalism.



What is hilarious about all your petty little attempts to critique this vague socialist ideal

The vagueness of my critiques is sort of dependent upon the vagueness of the defenses of socialism. I am not here offering up defenses of capitalism- go read my previous notes- but simply responding to claims made in defense of socialism.


And if you think people "aren't getting it" its because of your incredible failure to spell out ideas in the first place

That is fair enough.

[Dean]

Nothing of your post acknowledges what we already pointed out, that there is technology in place to manage inventories, orders and the rest of the production process. It's not clear to me why you think greater access to education and tools would lead to less innovation, but either way, your response to my point about the last 200 years of innovation implies that the technology will all go away. It wont.

You are continuing to rely on vague solipsisms. I can't explain 100% of what a future socialist society would look like, so you think its fair to say it will never work.

I'll repeat: its a worthless criticism that only makes it clear how very limited is your understanding of economics.

[Baseball]

Nothing of your post acknowledges what we already pointed out, that there is technology in place to manage inventories, orders and the rest of the production process. It's not clear to me why you think greater access to education and tools would lead to less innovation, but either way, your response to my point about the last 200 years of innovation implies that the technology will all go away. It wont.

You are continuing to rely on vague solipsisms. I can't explain 100% of what a future socialist society would look like, so you think its fair to say it will never work.

I'll repeat: its a worthless criticism that only makes it clear how very limited is your understanding of economics.

What I have asked is for socialists to explain how a socialist community might function- in terms of socialism. It does no good to point out, say, the innovation which has occurred as a result of capitalism over the past two centuries and say 'it will continue." Why should it? Such developed as a result of capitalist processes or to service the objectives of capitalism. As those objectives are changed, you can't just airily say things will continue as before.

[Conscript]

Why should it?

Because it means less work being done overall?

I mean the problem with capitalist technological advancement is that as soon as its adopted by all capitalists, the difference in rate of profit is unrecognizable. Workers never notice the difference or do negatively, they still work the same hours or worse, lose their jobs because the investment didn't pay for itself due to widespread adoption and the falling rate of profit.

Communist technological advancement is about moving closer to either abundance of product or less work hours, or a combination of both. It won't be restricted by patents which is a bourgeois practice performed for reasons of capital accumulation, rather than for the immediate benefit of all.

[Baseball]

Because it means less work being done overall?

I mean the problem with capitalist technological advancement is that as soon as its adopted by all capitalists, the difference in rate of profit is unrecognizable. Workers never notice the difference or do negatively, they still work the same hours or worse, lose their jobs because the investment didn't pay for itself due to widespread adoption and the falling rate of profit.

Communist technological advancement is about moving closer to either abundance of product or less work hours, or a combination of both. It won't be restricted by patents which is a bourgeois practice performed for reasons of capital accumulation, rather than for the immediate benefit of all.

OK- so what you are saying here is this:

The factory employs 20 people and produces what it produces in whatever its amount in the course of the day. But there is technological advancement that could do the same using 15 people.
1. In the capitalist community, 5 people will be laid off and the work day, requirements ect. of the remaining 15 will remain largely unchanged (but why would they lose their jobs only if the investment did not pan out. Wouldn't the job reduction be considered part of the objective of that investment, which could be otherwise be successful?).

2. In the communist community, those 20 people will remain at the same worksite. They either produce more of their product in that same period of time, or they decide to work less per day while maintaining that same level of output, or some combination thereof.

[Dean]

What I have asked is for socialists to explain how a socialist community might function- in terms of socialism. It does no good to point out, say, the innovation which has occurred as a result of capitalism over the past two centuries and say 'it will continue." Why should it? Such developed as a result of capitalist processes or to service the objectives of capitalism. As those objectives are changed, you can't just airily say things will continue as before.

And it would be just as vapid for me to claim that socialist society will look like this or that roadmap. There are plenty of visions and structures that have been laid out over the years, none of which are convincing to me either. Why? I know the world doesn't work in that clean fashion. SHit's messy, especially if you have a violent revolution or a peaceable transfer of power. In both cases, there are individuals with disproportionate power that will probably end up corrupted from it, be those capitalists who found a way to perpetuate their system, or revolutionaries who lead because of their charm, not their ideas.

What has been proposed are concrete structures to democratize economic forces. These include labor unions, but a less often cited one is consumer unions. There are plenty of community forums and various civil society structures (ignore the lobbyist and imperialist organizations for now) that are not only more democratic than Western republican democracy, but have far more confidence from their members than state democracy.

I've felt for a long time that socialism will grow out of civil society, especially if it has any hope to succeed. A revolution can only be the catalyst to open up more markets or industries to socialism. This is how capitalism spread: it was more viable than feudalism.

And the capitalist / western democracy union has been increasingly undemocratic and incapable of providing for its constituency. It seems inevitable that it will fall unceremoniously. When the socialists rise to power, you probably won't know its socialism, and most people will be relieved to have their capital open for workers to continue to provide for society. Indeed, I doubt that the kings and queens of Europe knew they were signing their own kingdoms away when they endorsed mercantilism, but without it, there would have been no framework for capitalism to follow.

[Baseball]

I've felt for a long time that socialism will grow out of civil society, especially if it has any hope to succeed. A revolution can only be the catalyst to open up more markets or industries to socialism. This is how capitalism spread: it was more viable than feudalism.

OK. So personally, you are not a revolutionary socialist.

Capitalism was indeed more viable than feudalism, which is why it spread.
But is not incumbent upon socialists to attempt to demonstrate that socialism is more viable than capitalism?


And the capitalist / western democracy union has been increasingly undemocratic and incapable of providing for its constituency.

But even if this is true, why is it assumed that socialism will be any better?


When the socialists rise to power, you probably won't know its socialism,
and most people will be relieved to have their capital open for workers to continue to provide for society.

Assuming, of course, that socialism is more viable than capitalism.

[cynicles]

Whatever it looks like will change probably quite rapidly within a short period of time, no plan works out initially and whatever structure or organization will have to be reshaped organically and internally by those participating in the structure to better suit their whims like any other system. Capitalism limits that participation to the capitalist, the point of socialism is to make the workers the centre focus and main(only really) participants. It could very well constantly shift depending on technology and other factors, no merchant could have told you what capitalism was going to look like during the feudalist period, it would be silly to know what socialism is going to look like now, the only thing we can know is the fundamentals, which is certainly important to outline.

[Baseball]

Whatever it looks like will change probably quite rapidly within a short period of time, no plan works out initially and whatever structure or organization will have to be reshaped organically and internally by those participating in the structure to better suit their whims like any other system. Capitalism limits that participation to the capitalist, the point of socialism is to make the workers the centre focus and main(only really) participants. It could very well constantly shift depending on technology and other factors, no merchant could have told you what capitalism was going to look like during the feudalist period, it would be silly to know what socialism is going to look like now, the only thing we can know is the fundamentals, which is certainly important to outline.

Clearly the outline of socialism is more important than the voters making those decisions; the workers can scarcely vote to dismantle socialism while otherwise claiming to be residing within a socialist community (unless the final and only relevent definition of socialism is worker ownership, in which case the debate is over. There is, after all, absolutely nothing "uncapitalist" about a worker owned job site in a capitalist community).

You did offer up some outlines on how a communist ie socialist community might function. There would seem to be some problems with it. How might it be adjusted while maintaining its claim to be an example of socialism?

[cynicles]

Clearly the outline of socialism is more important than the voters making those decisions; the workers can scarcely vote to dismantle socialism while otherwise claiming to be residing within a socialist community (unless the final and only relevent definition of socialism is worker ownership, in which case the debate is over. There is, after all, absolutely nothing "uncapitalist" about a worker owned job site in a capitalist community).

You did offer up some outlines on how a communist ie socialist community might function. There would seem to be some problems with it. How might it be adjusted while maintaining its claim to be an example of socialism?
I think the more fundamentally defining aspect of Socialism goes beyond workers control in the strict sense of how we understand cooperatives to something a bit deeper. Cooperatives make a good start but markets and the preassure they place on labour and commodities is another factor. The enfranchisement factor also has to be central, representative democracy isn't adequate and poses many challenges. Social experiences have to be fundamentally altered as well, the traditional hiearchical relations present within society pose issues and reinforce class while obstructing full socialization. The opening up of free public space beyond just parks and beaches, something more encompassing and total including free access within reseaonable boundaries. But I think the most important part is responsibility, not in some vague sense of "take responsibility for yourself", but in much broader terms to people being responsible for society. Most people have no power over much of what's going on and don't feel responsible for it so they withdraw, thus the low voter turnout, they stop caring, stop engaging the bigger questions in society and engaging in critical thinking. If you're the person deciding on what economic program to impliment you have both and obligation and strong incentive to be intellectually engaged and are responsible for what you do. You can't blame it on a politicion anymore.

[Baseball]

markets and the preassure they place on labour and commodities is another factor.

OK. But a socialist community also has to produce goods and services which people want. They have to have people working to do this. Why doesn't a socialist system also face these type of pressures?


The enfranchisement factor also has to be central, representative democracy isn't adequate and poses many challenges.

Such as?


Social experiences have to be fundamentally altered as well, the traditional hiearchical relations present within society pose issues and reinforce class while obstructing full socialization

Which are?

[cynicles]

OK. But a socialist community also has to produce goods and services which people want. They have to have people working to do this. Why doesn't a socialist system also face these type of pressures?



Such as?



Which are?

A socialist economy does have pressures it just doesn't have the same type instead of producing what is profitable you produce what is needed.

The fact that there is a big disconnect between those being elected in representative democracy and those voting creating instances where conflicts of interest arise. If all you need are the votes then you can just say fuck it after the election and do whatever is in your interests which could be whatever is in your campaign financiers interests.

I don't understand your last point at all, please clarify.

[Baseball]

A socialist economy does have pressures it just doesn't have the same type instead of producing what is profitable you produce what is needed.

Turning profits occur when needed items are produced. Its probably true the pressures would be somewhat different, but pressure is pressure.


The fact that there is a big disconnect between those being elected in representative democracy and those voting creating instances where conflicts of interest arise. If all you need are the votes then you can just say fuck it after the election and do whatever is in your interests which could be whatever is in your campaign financiers interests.

But why would there be no disconnects between "interests" in a socialist community?

[l'Enfermé]

Turning profits occur when needed items are produced. Its probably true the pressures would be somewhat different, but pressure is pressure.



But why would there be no disconnects between "interests" in a socialist community?
There are going to be "interests" in a classless, stateless, post-capitalist community?

[cynicles]

Turning profits occur when needed items are produced. Its probably true the pressures would be somewhat different, but pressure is pressure.



But why would there be no disconnects between "interests" in a socialist community?

Based on what?

Because representative democracy elects someone to make decisions for you and implement them and other forms of democracy work differently like direct require the collective to both make and implement decisions.

[Dean]

OK. So personally, you are not a revolutionary socialist.

Capitalism was indeed more viable than feudalism, which is why it spread.
But is not incumbent upon socialists to attempt to demonstrate that socialism is more viable than capitalism?



But even if this is true, why is it assumed that socialism will be any better?



Assuming, of course, that socialism is more viable than capitalism.

I remember a cartoon when I was young of some girl who just kept asking "why?". Trolling, indeed.

[Rafiq]

I'm not going to join in this thread for obvious reasons ( Never will I try and argue for socialisms functionality, i.e. Because this misses the point), but I will say this:

A good Marxist is not someone who offers a good solution. A good Marxist is someone who strictly analyzes all of the existing psuedo-solutions to the current crises of capitalism and crushes them accordingly.


Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things

[Rafiq]

But why would there be no disconnects between "interests" in a socialist community?

Well, that isn't true. There did exist class antagonisms between the Bourgeois class and members of the old Feudal classes in the midst of capitalism. That isn't the point, though. The point is, in developed countries, that non proletarian classes will be suppressed, and if necessary, liquidated. Proletarian dictatorship doesn't only exist because we want a "strong democracy", it exists as a means of exerting the authority of the proletarian class, the crushing of any classes which seek to get in the way of the only goal of a proletarian: To abolish himself.

[Baseball]

Well, that isn't true. There did exist class antagonisms between the Bourgeois class and members of the old Feudal classes in the midst of capitalism. That isn't the point, though. The point is, in developed countries, that non proletarian classes will be suppressed, and if necessary, liquidated. Proletarian dictatorship doesn't only exist because we want a "strong democracy", it exists as a means of exerting the authority of the proletarian class, the crushing of any classes which seek to get in the way of the only goal of a proletarian: To abolish himself.

It would probably be more accurate to say that the goal is crushing all those (including other "proletarians") who do not agree with whatever "interest" a particular defender of "proletarian dictatorship" represents.

[Baseball]

There are going to be "interests" in a classless, stateless, post-capitalist community?

In any free community, yes.

[RedMaterialist]

So that glut of paint, if you extrapolate it out, is not just some inconvenieince. Its a reflection of a community NOT producing and providing things for which the community needs right then and there.

You are actually saying more than you know. The glut of paint is an example of the means of production outpacing the relations of production. Gigantic paint, chemical, etc. companies can produce enough paint to cover the entire world's houses twice over. However, if they were to produce (means of production) this much paint the price of a gallon of paint would drop to a few pennies (the relations, price, of production.) The companies would go out of business; therefore, they shut down production, layoff workers, create a depression.

We saw this happen with GM and Chrysler. They did not suddenly forget how to make cars; they would have been able to produce ten times as many cars as before the recession. But then the market would have been glutted with cars and thus, no profit.

Under communism, the "community" (your word) will determine what is needed and will produce the goods and services based on a rational analysis of that need. Production will be based not on profit but on the needs of the community. Which includes what is best for the earth's environment, not what is best for Romney's pockets.

[Baseball]

You are actually saying more than you know. The glut of paint is an example of the means of production outpacing the relations of production. Gigantic paint, chemical, etc. companies can produce enough paint to cover the entire world's houses twice over. However, if they were to produce (means of production) this much paint the price of a gallon of paint would drop to a few pennies (the relations, price, of production.) The companies would go out of business; therefore, they shut down production, layoff workers, create a depression.

We saw this happen with GM and Chrysler. They did not suddenly forget how to make cars; they would have been able to produce ten times as many cars as before the recession. But then the market would have been glutted with cars and thus, no profit.

Under communism, the "community" (your word) will determine what is needed and will produce the goods and services based on a rational analysis of that need. Production will be based not on profit but on the needs of the community. Which includes what is best for the earth's environment, not what is best for Romney's pockets.

It would not seem to be particularly rational for any community to produce enough paint to paint over the world's houses twice, or to create a vehicle glut. Because this simply means something else, that was needed, was not produced, at the same time. It is not clear why this would NOT be considered a problem for a socialist community. If it is indeed also considered a problem, the next question would why are the motives in limiting paint or vehicle production in a socialist community somehow more "pure" (for wont of a better word) than doing the same in a capitalist community?

[Jimmie Higgins]

It is not clear why this would NOT be considered a problem for a socialist community. If it is indeed also considered a problem, the next question would why are the motives in limiting paint or vehicle production in a socialist community somehow more "pure" (for wont of a better word) than doing the same in a capitalist community?What's the difference? It's use-value vs. exchange value. It's also a democratic/cooperative decision vs. a decision based on market and profit considerations. A worker's community would want to cut-back on that production because it is unnecessary and wastes resources as well as our labor and time. In capitalist production however, surplus or even "glut" doesn't mean that something's use value has been met: there are subsidies to not grow food or to grow non-edible crops or crops are destroyed not because everyone has enough food, but because there is a market glut which has reduced profits and therefore investment and so on.

In a socialist society, such a glut would be an oversight and just mean either shifting efforts to other things or just reducing the amount of labor we have to do. In capitalism however, even when people know there is looming overporduction they will keep producing and investing as long as the bubble lasts and so market gluts aren't just an oversight they are part of the boom-bust cycle and part of the system.

[Rafiq]

It would probably be more accurate to say that the goal is crushing all those (including other "proletarians") who do not agree with whatever "interest" a particular defender of "proletarian dictatorship" represents.

A proletarian dictatorship is composed of a mass party movement, led by the proletariat itself. Communism wasn't formulated by an intellectual, it was something that formed directly as an embodiment of the interests of the proletarian classes of the 1800s. Communism is not the utilization of proletarians to actualize itself, on the contrary, Communism is a weapon utilized by the revolutionary proletariat to emancipate and seek out their own ends.

[RedMaterialist]

It would not seem to be particularly rational for any community to produce enough paint to paint over the world's houses twice, or to create a vehicle glut. Because this simply means something else, that was needed, was not produced, at the same time. It is not clear why this would NOT be considered a problem for a socialist community. If it is indeed also considered a problem, the next question would why are the motives in limiting paint or vehicle production in a socialist community somehow more "pure" (for wont of a better word) than doing the same in a capitalist community?

There are hundreds of millions of homeless people who need houses which need to be painted. There are millions of people, look around, who are driving old, beat up cars. Apart from the environmental issue people who live miles from work need cars. It is not a problem for a socialist community because people would determine how much paint is needed, when and where it is needed; the same for cars, except there would be an immediate changeover to public transportation. Rational management of production is what occurs in socialism. In capitalism, irrational accumulation of profit is the basis of production. Which is why every few yrs (7-10) the capitalist system comes close to collapsing and millions are thrown out of work, millions of businesses go bankrupt.

It is possible using existing production techniques to produce 10 times what we produce now and at cheaper prices. Capitalism can no longer produce what is needed. Capitalism must be replaced by socialism, the sooner the better. Otherwise we are looking at WW III. Socialism or barbarity, that is the choice.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

It is possible using existing production techniques to produce 10 times what we produce now and at cheaper prices. Capitalism can no longer produce what is needed. Capitalism must be replaced by socialism, the sooner the better. Otherwise we are looking at WW III. Socialism or barbarity, that is the choice.

Socialists have been saying this for 100 years. It really comes off as a cliché. Either there is something wrong with the analysis those predictions are based on, or it´s just empty rhetoric.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Socialists have been saying this for 100 years. It really comes off as a cliché. Either there is something wrong with the analysis those predictions are based on, or it´s just empty rhetoric.

I don't recall anyone setting a timetable. How long did it take for feudalism to loosen its grip on the world?

[Chartist]

A good Marxist is not someone who offers a good solution. A good Marxist is someone who strictly analyzes all of the existing psuedo-solutions to the current crises of capitalism and crushes them accordingly.

How can anyone say that?

If I wanted to prove that A > B, I couldn't do so by only defining the value of B and not A. Even if the value of B (capitalism) was -1000000000, the value of A (communism) could always be -1000000001.

[Rafiq]

How can anyone say that?

If I wanted to prove that A > B, I couldn't do so by only defining the value of B and not A. Even if the value of B (capitalism) was -1000000000, the value of A (communism) could always be -1000000001.

Well, for one, you don't know what Communism is. Communism is not a system, or a real existing mode of production. And if it was, no, we could not at all prove that it is superior or more efficient than capitalism. However, we don't exist to "establish" something better than capitalism, we exist to exert the interests of the proletarian class within capitalism, since, you know, no matter how much you 'like' capitalism, it's destroying itself. There is no such of a thing as a better mode of production, there is, however, modes of productions which are superior for certain classes, in the for filling of their interests. Capitalism works, and it's really efficient. But for who?

Communism is not the ideology of intellectuals. Communism is the embodiment of the interests of the proletariat, not a blueprint for a future society, outlining the details of how it would function, etc.

Sorry, but I've been over this thousands of times. You don't have to start formulating a bunch of obscure calculations, I've encountered the thought before (That, hur dur, how can uz say communis iz better dan capitalizm if u dont provez it with words).

The problem with your argument is that it pressuposes that I would even think, or waste any effort in trying to prove communism is better than capitalism. Why did you assume that? Because you don't know what communism is. Communism is an ideology, a reflection of the material interests of hte proletariat. Their interest is state dictatorship, from which, they can formally abolish themselves. I apologize, but no one on this site, no matter how hard they try to make it seem, knows anything about the contents or the result of such an emancipation, of what mode of production can come about. Most likely, we can assume a sort of command economy devoid of markets, etc. We know what it cannot contain, since we can root out the systemic contradictions within the capitalist mode of production. But even then, this pressuposes that it is going to be designed.

So why take the risk? Capitalism is destroying itself, and the only way out is through the only revolutionary class. It's very, very simple.

[Ostrinski]

Not to mention that the only way to prove that one mode of production is in any way superior to another, the established mode of production must be crushed in its entirety so that the new can prosper.

In a word, in order for us to prove that socialism "works," we must not only establish it but sustain it first. To do this, one condition absolutely must be met: the global capitalist class must be stripped of all its power.

That's why the question is always phrased so dishonestly, i.e. "go prove that it works within some country, point to anywhere in history where it's worked, vote socialists into government, etc. It neglects an understanding of the conditions necessary for a mode of production to flourish in the first place.

[Dean]

If it is indeed also considered a problem, the next question would why are the motives in limiting paint or vehicle production in a socialist community somehow more "pure" (for wont of a better word) than doing the same in a capitalist community?

The is the only legitimate concern in your post. It is not an issue of purity. It is an issue of the representation of interests in the dominant market forces of the social organization. In a socialist economy, the interests represented are those of workers and consumers in a collective or democratic model. In a capitalist economy, the interests represented are those of a minority who have disproportionate power over market forces.

Its not hard to see what the problem with the latter is. Moreover, capitalist economies are almost exclusively defended from vantage points that attempt to argue that they, in fact, represent the interests socialists are calling to become hegemonic, namely, the interests of consumers and (more anachronistically) laborers. This is true to such an extent that Adam Smith, widely known as the father of capitalist market policy, acknowledged precisely the model of surplus value created by labor, and controlled by capitalists, that Marx used in his criticism of capitalism. In a time when labor value was rapidly expanding, this was viewed as a necessary evil that would contain itself by labor "going on strike" (formally or not) if wages went too low. The market has historically been known as a conduit of consumer and labor interests asserting themselves, a narrative that is absurd beside the incredibly centralized financial regime of modern western capitalism.

But in much the same way that Marx's analyses are seen as irrelevant to today's market, so too is Smith's quaint idealism simply inapplicable to a world where the hegemony of well-connected, well-moneyed elites have garnered much more power than "labor malcontent" can stand up to.

Indeed, your own mindless cynicism about socialism is decreasingly relevant, when capitalist models of production are floundering the world over. It's fine and well to talk about how "nothing else" but capitalism can work in today's world, but it ignores the very fundamental problem that caused capitalist economies to grow out of the carcasses of feudal regimes: the failure of the latter to effectively produce consumer goods and services. As capitalists demand that their power be ever-expanding, and "go galt" when it doesn't, so too do laborers (and a few nation states that have some democratic flourishes) realize just how little value the capitalists have in the equation of production. As capitalism ceases to incentivize production, as the real value in global economy is de-emphasized by profit models demanding greater returns, humans will find a way to continue production for the interests of the working class -as we always have. The capitalists have their heads in the clouds, but their feet on the ground are still quite vulnerable.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Dean;2486641]As capitalism ceases to incentivize production, as the real value in global economy is de-emphasized by profit models demanding greater returns, humans will find a way to continue production for the interests of the working class -as we always have.

Thus what it all boils down to: we will figure it out- somehow.

[Baseball]

iI apologize, but no one on this site, no matter how hard they try to make it seem, knows anything about the contents or the result of such an emancipation, of what mode of production can come about. Most likely, we can assume a sort of command economy devoid of markets, etc. We know what it cannot contain, since we can root out the systemic contradictions within the capitalist mode of production. But even then, this pressuposes that it is going to be designed.

So why take the risk? Capitalism is destroying itself, and the only way out is through the only revolutionary class. It's very, very simple.

This is true, socialism has to "root out" all vestiges of capitalism from the system. Thus one can certainly examine what then stands and what might reasonably follow. It is certainly understandable why socialists would not wish to take the risk. Because if one can't prove in fact that the workers benefit from socialism, then socialism is certainly not proven. It also goes a long way to disproving the socialist theories of capitalism.

[Baseball]

That's why the question is always phrased so dishonestly, i.e. "go prove that it works within some country, point to anywhere in history where it's worked, vote socialists into government, etc. It neglects an understanding of the conditions necessary for a mode of production to flourish in the first place.


That isn't the argument being made. Noxion, for example, has said, in this very thread, that it does not matter if the workers in a socialist community overproduce paint (it can just be stored for later use). That statement can certainly be questioned and evaluated to how valid such a claim is. Dean said it was a valid concern, but then suggested it was not relevent because producing and storing unneeded paint has different impacts in a capitalist and socialist community. But that itself requires explanations and proofs which a fellow such as Rafiq has said is not important.

[RedMaterialist]

Socialists have been saying this for 100 years. It really comes off as a cliché. Either there is something wrong with the analysis those predictions are based on, or it´s just empty rhetoric.

Marx said it more than 200 yrs ago, and the truth of his analysis is becoming clearer with every crisis capitalism puts humanity through. Capitalism cannot provide for full employment; capitalism cannot provide for effective demand without massive government spending; capitalism cannot guarantee a healthy and dignified old age, etc. etc.

In fact, the only thing capitalism can guarantee is poverty.

Socialism not a success? Look at Sweden. Free health care, quality education for everybody, 80% unionization, workers on boards of directors of major companies, month paid vacation, etc. Complete socialism? No. Are the Swedes, Germans, Danes, going back to 19th or even 20th century capitalism. Don't hold your breath.

Capitalists and fascists tried several times in the 20th century to murder entire socialist societies: the two best known in the U.S. are WWII and Vietnam. Hitler was the biggest anti-communist in history, so far. He killed 70-100 million people trying to destroy communism and the Soviet Union. The socialist, Stalin, defeated Hitler, practically single-handedly.

In Vietnam the American capitalists decided they would draw the line against world communism by murdering millions of Vietnamese. The capitalists lost. The people in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala weren't as lucky fighting the death squads. A less well known example of a victory of socialism over capitalism is Angola. The Soviet Union and Cuba both supported, with troops, the Angolan revolution. The socialists won. Reagan never even showed up for that one.

In every major war in the 20th century, where real people died, not in a fictional "cold" war, socialism defeated capitalism. Is the war of socialism v. capitalism over? Not by a long shot.

The question still is barbarism or socialism.

[RedMaterialist]

That isn't the argument being made. Noxion, for example, has said, in this very thread, that it does not matter if the workers in a socialist community overproduce paint (it can just be stored for later use). That statement can certainly be questioned and evaluated to how valid such a claim is. Dean said it was a valid concern, but then suggested it was not relevent because producing and storing unneeded paint has different impacts in a capitalist and socialist community. But that itself requires explanations and proofs which a fellow such as Rafiq has said is not important.

The point is that production of 10X more paint, or any kind of good or service, is possible now; but capitalism cannot produce what is needed for society because the means of production (factories) have outgrown the relations of production (the profit motive). This is one of the fundamental discoveries of Marx (imo).

As far as paint goes, the capitalist produces paint for profit; the socialist produces paint so that society can afford to paint everybody's house. Society can now produce far more paint than the capitalist.

A better example would be health care. We have enough universities to graduate twice as many doctors, we could probably double the number of hospitals in five yrs, prescription prices could drop to a fraction of what they are now. However, profit is what drives U.S. health care, not the rational need of society. Can the U.S. system last? Of course not. I am looking at the London Olympics. What is their lead-off show about? The National Health System.

[Rafiq]

This is true, socialism has to "root out" all vestiges of capitalism from the system. Thus one can certainly examine what then stands and what might reasonably follow. It is certainly understandable why socialists would not wish to take the risk. Because if one can't prove in fact that the workers benefit from socialism, then socialism is certainly not proven. It also goes a long way to disproving the socialist theories of capitalism.

Again, this, if anything, pressuposes that socialism in itself is simply an ideology of intellectuals, of which utilizes the proletariat to actualize itself. This really, quite simply poses itself as a bastardized version of Idealism. When we talk of socialism, we talk of the embodiment of their interests. We intellectuals, did not propose socialism to the proletariat. Socialism and Communism both ideologically have roots that stemmed organically from the proletariat as a whole. As we are constrained by capitalism, we cannot articulate what might follow it. Yes, we know what it may not be, but, knowing the abscence of something in no way signifies the existence of something to replace it, especially in this case. There isn't a need to tell workers that they benefit from socialism, as socialism is the ideological embodiment of their interests, a manifestation of a form of class consciousness. Whether the proletariat believes that "socialism" will present itself superior to the capitalist mode of production is irrelevant to the existence of their conquest for state dictatorship, and inevitably following, their ambition to abolish themselves. I mean, you make it as if there is even time to think. The real risk is believing that the capitalist mode of production is going ot exist indefinitely, the real risk is, waiting, like sitting ducks, for the impending catastrophe that is to come.

[Baseball]

The point is that production of 10X more paint, or any kind of good or service, is possible now; but capitalism cannot produce what is needed for society

But who says the community needs more paint?



As far as paint goes, the capitalist produces paint for profit; the socialist produces paint so that society can afford to paint everybody's house. Society can now produce far more paint than the capitalist.

At what cost? Producing paint to to paint every house on earth means something else which also was needed was not produced. Or do you conceive that in a socialist community everyone will have the same desires and value the same things at the same times?

[Tim Cornelis]

I can't imagine a system more wasteful than capitalism, as, for example, India produces enough food to feed every mouth within its borders, yet it has the largest number of hungry children in the world and 7,500,000 people die each year of malnourishment. If socialism means that we will not be able to attain general equilibrium but we can feed those mouths, so be it.

[Baseball]

As we are constrained by capitalism, we cannot articulate what might follow it. Yes, we know what it may not be, but, knowing the abscence of something in no way signifies the existence of something to replace it, especially in this case. There isn't a need to tell workers that they benefit from socialism, as socialism is the ideological embodiment of their interests, a manifestation of a form of class consciousness. Whether the proletariat believes that "socialism" will present itself superior to the capitalist mode of production is irrelevant to the existence of their conquest for state dictatorship, and inevitably following, their ambition to abolish themselves.

That's all a nice theory of socialism, and to a lesser extent, capitalism.
However, the absence of "something that follows" is a bit of a blow against the theory. Knowing that the workers cannot create for themselves certain structures (and still be considered socialist) is not enough. Because maybe the problem is that the theory is flawed.

[RedMaterialist]

But who says the community needs more paint?

The people living in the community, who decide how much and where it is needed.



At what cost? Producing paint to to paint every house on earth means something else which also was needed was not produced. Or do you conceive that in a socialist community everyone will have the same desires and value the same things at the same times?

No. It means that something which was not needed, such as fleets of aircraft carriers, was not produced. No. Everybody has different desires. What socialism says is that you can't satisfy your desire by taking somebody else's labor.

[Baseball]

The people living in the community, who decide how much and where it is needed.




No. It means that something which was not needed, such as fleets of aircraft carriers, was not produced. No. Everybody has different desires. What socialism says is that you can't satisfy your desire by taking somebody else's labor.


It isn't enough to decide how much is needed of a particular good. It also has to be determined how much is needed versus other needed goods. Everyone in the community may want their house painted, but for everyone is that their first and most important need? I doubt it.

[Tim Cornelis]

It isn't enough to decide how much is needed of a particular good. It also has to be determined how much is needed versus other needed goods. Everyone in the community may want their house painted, but for everyone is that their first and most important need? I doubt it.

And what is the last time capitalism has achieved general equilibrium? Right, never. And even if it could, then the income disparity would still prevent a "general equilibrium of needs" so to speak.

[Baseball]

And what is the last time capitalism has achieved general equilibrium? Right, never. And even if it could, then the income disparity would still prevent a "general equilibrium of needs" so to speak.

Not sure what this has to do with it. If the community chooses to place all (or the vast bulk) of its productive energies in producing paint, it means it not producing (or producing much less) of something else. This is true for capitalism and socialism.

[Tim Cornelis]

Not sure what this has to do with it. If the community chooses to place all (or the vast bulk) of its productive energies in producing paint, it means it not producing (or producing much less) of something else. This is true for capitalism and socialism.

And it's problematic in both, so you have no argument. In capitalism we produce luxurious goods at the expense of essential goods that millions lack, because it's more profitable. In communism we produce too much paint at the expense of other goods while another ratio would have been more optimal in terms of consumer preferences.

At least in communism it will be a minor inconvenience in comparison to capitalism.

Participatory economics says to hold the answer to this:


We are churning out pencils, as another example. When do we stop churning? Pencils are useful, but the more pencils we have, the less is the value of each new one added to the pile, at least after a point. Moreover, we certainly do not want to use up so much of our labor and resources churning out pencils that we start having to forego things more desirable to us than our growing pile of pencils—say, milk. Ideally the economy will churn out each output to a point where the benefit of the last item produced was equal to the opportunity cost of producing it. To produce another of the item would occur at the same or at a bit higher opportunity cost and would have the same or a bit less social value … so that, by not producing that item we can use our productive capability to produce something else that benefits us more.

It is complicated, to be sure, but not incomprehensible. The hardest part is the interactivity—the fact that the decisions have to be made globally for a whole economy with each decision affecting the basis upon which all others should be made. Economists call it a general equilibrium problem.

Let’s return to discussing what is needed for a good allocation system. Producers and consumers use prices as a shorthand way of discerning the relative value and cost of various choices. Prices should therefore embody accurate estimates of the full social costs and benefits of inputs and outputs—they should equal their true social opportunity cost. In a parecon, prices, or relative valuations, arise in the process of participatory planning and serve as guides to proposals and evaluations. The social character of prices—their emergence from the preferences, circumstances, wills, power, and social interactions of economic actors not only in parecon, but in all economic systems—is important to understand.

From: Life After Capitalism

But then again, participatory economics has many drawbacks that communism does not have. Ultimately, communism is the most desirable system, while certainly not perfect.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Tim Cornelis;2487146]And it's problematic in both, so you have no argument.

The thread, as it evolved, was claiming it was NOT a problem for the socialist community. It is that to which I dissented. Thank you for your support.

Also, thank you for the blurb which stated that pencils would stop being produced when it was no longer profitable to do so. The subsequent complaint made about production for profit is thus null and void.

[RedMaterialist]

Not sure what this has to do with it. If the community chooses to place all (or the vast bulk) of its productive energies in producing paint, it means it not producing (or producing much less) of something else. This is true for capitalism and socialism.

Any society which chose to place all its energies into producing paint, profit or fleets of aircraft carriers would be insane.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

We want your turd,your skin and maybe your tongue, is that much?
Oh and your pubic hair to make a duster.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The thread, as it evolved, was claiming it was NOT a problem for the socialist community. It is that to which I dissented. Thank you for your support.

"the thread"? Electronic abstractions don't have opinions, idiot. Either provide linked quotes or retract your statement.


Also, thank you for the blurb which stated that pencils would stop being produced when it was no longer profitable to do so. The subsequent complaint made about production for profit is thus null and void.

He didn't mention profit at all. Stop being a twunt.

[Yazman]

Moderator action:


"the thread"? Electronic abstractions don't have opinions, idiot. Either provide linked quotes or retract your statement.



He didn't mention profit at all. Stop being a twunt.

This thread has grown significantly since my initial warning so I'm letting you off with a warning here Noxion, but if I see you calling another user an idiot again I'm going to have to infract you. Please don't do it again in future!

This post constitutes a warning to Noxion.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Moderator action:



This thread has grown significantly since my initial warning so I'm letting you off with a warning here Noxion, but if I see you calling another user an idiot again I'm going to have to infract you. Please don't do it again in future!

This post constitutes a warning to Noxion.

Has trivas7 been penalised yet for starting this thread? Or will he be allowed to fade into the background once more, only to start yet another trollbait thread later?