Question about communism

[Philosophos]

We all know that communism wants the DotP to have all the means of productions and because of that people will work for their own pleasure and not just for money, which will be abolished.

Now I have a question: When Marx was writing his Manifesto was he aware that the some resources are not endless (e.g. petrol)? If he wasn't does this by any way change his theory of socialism or communism?

At the same time if it affects can we really just relly on the enviromental sources of power? I'm asking this because I haven't really researched of the effectivness of enviromental resources.

[Peoples' War]

We all know that communism wants the DotP to have all the means of productions and because of that people will work for their own pleasure and not just for money, which will be abolished. This is not quite right. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the political power of the proletariat, before socialism. It is the proletariat, or workers', state. People will continue to work for money at this stage, conditions however, will have drastically changed, and they will be in charge via workers' councils.


Now I have a question: When Marx was writing his Manifesto was he aware that the some resources are not endless (e.g. petrol)? If he wasn't does this by any way change his theory of socialism or communism? Limited resources have no affect on Marx's theories. I don't recall where he talks about them, if at all, perhaps a more well-versed comrade would know.


At the same time if it affects can we really just relly on the enviromental sources of power? I'm asking this because I haven't really researched of the effectivness of enviromental resources.Well, under a workers state, then socialism and finally communism, there is no reason why we can't phase out the inefficient and environmentally damaging energy sources for things such as solar, hydro and wind.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't know where he talked specifically about materially scarce materials in a post-capitalist society, in fact he rarely talked in specifics about speculations on future hypothetical worker-ruled societies.

He does talk about material scarcity under capitalism and how this is a factor in value and also impacts prices, but does not negate the labor theory of value.

But in general, I think we can assume there will be some things that people just can't have in the abundance they would like them. In the immediate post-capitalist period where society is still largely going from a capitalist organization of production to a democratic and collective process there will probably be shortages just due to existing inequalities. At that time I think workers will have to democratically decide on priorities: emphasize hosing in some places, the building of new schools or hospitals or infrastructure in others before getting to more social "wants" like more access to entertainment and art-making facilities (not that people won't be doing this right off the bat too, just that I think people would have to decide and prioritize what to focus on at first).

IMO none of this negates socialism because for me the fundamental thing is workers achieving power and being the ones who then decide what to do with the social surplus created through their/our own labor. While there are still shortages due to capitalist inequality and production methods, workers will have to figure out how to "fix" this. If, say, the revolution doesn't happen for another 80 years and the environment is wreaked (if not to the point of making socialism materially impossible) then in that case too, people would have to decide what would be the best way to ration materially scarce resources and/or find analogues that aren't irreplaceable or as harmful.

Energy is a good concrete example because most scientists agree that this will increasingly become an issue on several fronts, they also agree that many alternative are currently available. However, they rarely challenge neo-liberal logic because they either share bourgois assumptions about the world (as do most people) or they just don't think there are any "realistic" alternatives or ways to make the drastic changes needed. But this is because they are looking at these issues "inside the box" and can't see any force (beyond factual research) which could change things. As a marxist, I know that these issues aren't due to "government beurocracy" or "fear of alienating right-wing voters" but because our entire capitalist system is set up around fossil fuel use and so it would first take all the major companies coming together and agreeing to sacrifice some short-term profitability to convert (probably to a more expensive, initially) fuel source and it would also take tons of capital invested into infrastructure to change the ways cities are set up, transportation, and other infrastructure which has developed under conditions of relatively cheap fuel.

So in short, the people who control the surplus, control economic decisions have a class disincentive to make these necessary changes. They will turn Afghanistan or Iraq upside down and mobilize in weeks for that, but for something that isn't going to ensure their dominance for the next 50 years, they can wait until oil is more expensive than the sustainable alternatives and put stilts under their beach-homes as the sea rises. Hell, in the US, their initial response is to try and re-legitimize coal as fuel!

But workers who would produce to meet their needs and wants rather than compete for profits, a more cooperative way of producing what we need is possible as is long-term planning since they wouldn't be concerned over what will be profitable in the next quarter irregardless to how useful it is or if it's just an economic bubble. So I think workers would have a material incentive to find sustainable solutions that are both low on labor and high on usefulness and less detrimental to the environment in the long-term.

[theblackmask]

We all know that communism wants the DotP to have all the means of productions and because of that people will work for their own pleasure and not just for money, which will be abolished.

Now I have a question: When Marx was writing his Manifesto was he aware that the some resources are not endless (e.g. petrol)? If he wasn't does this by any way change his theory of socialism or communism?

At the same time if it affects can we really just relly on the enviromental sources of power? I'm asking this because I haven't really researched of the effectivness of enviromental resources.

Marx's inability to move beyond production is probably his greatest flaw. Not only are many natural resources nonrenewable, those that can be replenished are being consumed faster. Any sort of worker management or DotP will be beholden to the needs of production, not what the workers want. The harsh truth is that even "green" energy sources like wind and solar are built using nonrenewable metals.

Short story, people will still be forced to work in order to keep production going. The last of our world's resources will be used to make solar panels and electric cars, all in the name of saving the planet. Alot of the Left still fails to see production as part of the problem, just as Marx did.

The answer is not worker control of production, or green technology...the answer is abolishing production.

[Catma]

Never heard that before. Sounds like primitivism...

[Positivist]

Never heard that before. Sounds like primitivism...

What?

[Raskolnikov]

We all know that communism wants the DotP to have all the means of productions and because of that people will work for their own pleasure and not just for money, which will be abolished.

Now I have a question: When Marx was writing his Manifesto was he aware that the some resources are not endless (e.g. petrol)? If he wasn't does this by any way change his theory of socialism or communism?

At the same time if it affects can we really just relly on the enviromental sources of power? I'm asking this because I haven't really researched of the effectivness of enviromental resources.


A question for far in the future..But to give you an answer, I propose a different question.

Should we, as communists who dwell in the scientific and materialistic, rely on Science as a way to bring about better standards or should we have Science working for the Proletariat?

Ultimately the dependence on a resource that can end will be the part-way death of Capitalism as there is /no/ replacement for it until it's far too late. Hell only state that is investing in Green tech is China, America hasn't invested in any type of industry for 'green' in years if not decades.