Questions for socialists? [Archive]

Future

17th January 2014, 00:49

3.Are there any examples of successful socialism and communism(Besides the hunter-gatherers)?

The Spanish Revolution of 1936.

In Spain during almost three years, despite a civil war that took a million lives, despite the opposition of the political parties (republicans, left and right Catalan separatists, socialists, Communists, Basque and Valencian regionalists, petty bourgeoisie, etc.), this idea of libertarian communism was put into effect. Very quickly more than 60% of the land was collectively cultivated by the peasants themselves, without landlords, without bosses, and without instituting capitalist competition to spur production. In almost all the industries, factories, mills, workshops, transportation services, public services, and utilities, the rank and file workers, their revolutionary committees, and their syndicates reorganized and administered production, distribution, and public services without capitalists, high salaried managers, or the authority of the state.

Even more: the various agrarian and industrial collectives immediately instituted economic equality in accordance with the essential principle of communism, 'From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs.' They coordinated their efforts through free association in whole regions, created new wealth, increased production (especially in agriculture), built more schools, and bettered public services. They instituted not bourgeois formal democracy but genuine grass roots functional libertarian democracy, where each individual participated directly in the revolutionary reorganization of social life. They replaced the war between men, 'survival of the fittest,' by the universal practice of mutual aid, and replaced rivalry by the principle of solidarity....

This experience, in which about eight million people directly or indirectly participated, opened a new way of life to those who sought an alternative to anti-social capitalism on the one hand, and totalitarian state bogus socialism on the other.

I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life—snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.—had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master.

This was in late December 1936, less than seven months ago as I write, and yet it is a period that has already receded into enormous distance. Later events have obliterated it much more completely than they have obliterated 1935, or 1905, for that matter. I had come to Spain with some notion of writing newspaper articles, but I had joined the militia almost immediately, because at that time and in that atmosphere it seemed the only conceivable thing to do. The Anarchists were still in virtual control of Catalonia and the revolution was still in full swing. To anyone who had been there since the beginning it probably seemed even in December or January that the revolutionary period was ending; but when one came straight from England the aspect of Barcelona was something startling and overwhelming. It was the first time that I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle. Practically every building of any size had been seized by the workers and was draped with red flags and with the red and black flag of the Anarchists; every wall was scrawled with the hammer and sickle and with the initials of the revolutionary parties; almost every church had been gutted and its images burnt. Churches here and there were being systematically demolished by gangs of workmen. Every shop and cafe had an inscription saying that it had been collectivized; even the bootblacks had been collectivized and their boxes painted red and black. Waiters and shop-walkers looked you in the face and treated you as an equal. Servile and even ceremonial forms of speech had temporarily disappeared. Nobody said 'Señor' or 'Don' or even 'Usted'; everyone called everyone else 'Comrade' or 'Thou', and said 'Salud!' instead of 'Buenos días'. Tipping had been forbidden by law since the time of Primo de Rivera; almost my first experience was receiving a lecture from a hotel manager for trying to tip a lift-boy. There were no private motor-cars, they had all been commandeered, and the trams and taxis and much of the other transport were painted red and black. The revolutionary posters were everywhere, flaming from the walls in clean reds and blues that made the few remaining advertisements look like daubs of mud. Down the Ramblas, the wide central artery of the town where crowds of people streamed constantly to and fro, the loud-speakers were bellowing revolutionary songs all day and far into the night. And it was the aspect of the crowds that was the queerest thing of all. In outward appearance it was a town in which the wealthy classes had practically ceased to exist. Except for a small number of women and foreigners there were no 'well-dressed' people at all. Practically everyone wore rough working-class clothes, or blue overalls or some variant of militia uniform. All this was queer and moving. There was much in this that I did not understand, in some ways I did not even like it, but I recognized it immediately as a state of affairs worth fighting for...so far as one could judge the people were contented and hopeful. There was no unemployment, and the price of living was still extremely low; you saw very few conspicuously destitute people, and no beggars except the gypsies. Above all, there was a belief in the revolution and the future, a feeling of having suddenly emerged into an era of equality and freedom. Human beings were trying to behave as human beings and not as cogs in the capitalist machine."

TheWannabeAnarchist

17th January 2014, 01:49

Sea answered your questions pretty well, but I think I'll allow some more detail.

If you want to imagine one potential communist society, here's an idea of what walking into a "shop" would be like, if you hopped on a time machine and traveled to the year 2114. I put "shop" in quotes because it would not be a commercial enterprise, just a place to obtain items you need for day to day life.

You'd find yourself in a huge building, run by a municipal council under the direct control of a city's population, in which thousands of goods are distributed. You'd walk from aisle to aisle and see food, clothing, games, batteries, and so on.

Let's say you wanted a gallon of milk and some bananas. Simple. You'd just put the food in a bag and walk out the door. No cash registers, no aisle, it would be easily available, free of charge. Higher rates of production, hopefully, will make all necessities, and eventually all goods, available without having to pay.

But let's say there's a shortage of something. Let's say that there isn't enough lithium being mined for you to have unlimited access to the metal, and you want some lithium batteries.

Even then, the system wouldn't be that tough. You'd whip out a "debit card." This card would be authorized by the municipal assembly and store 100 "credits" on a computer chip inside. Each citizen would receive a equal monthly supply of credits. These "credits" could be used to receive a good in limited supply. It would not be money, because after taking your batteries, you'd lose five "credits" off your card, but no one else would receive the five credits. The cards would just be a form of rationing system to ensure that each individual has equal access to less abundant resources without them being rapidly depleted.

You'd take your batteries, swipe your card through a machine, and leave, and go home, wondering why it took humanity 100 years to accept such a workable system.:laugh:

I'm a socialist, not a fortune teller. I can't predict the future and what it'll look like. Even so, this example should give you an idea of how items could be distributed without money.

Mrcapitalist

17th January 2014, 02:11

Sea answered your questions pretty well, but I think I'll allow some more detail.

If you want to imagine one potential communist society, here's an idea of what walking into a "shop" would be like, if you hopped on a time machine and traveled to the year 2114. I put "shop" in quotes because it would not be a commercial enterprise, just a place to obtain items you need for day to day life.

You'd find yourself in a huge building, run by a municipal council under the direct control of a city's population, in which thousands of goods are distributed. You'd walk from aisle to aisle and see food, clothing, games, batteries, and so on.

Let's say you wanted a gallon of milk and some bananas. Simple. You'd just put the food in a bag and walk out the door. No cash registers, no aisle, it would be easily available, free of charge. Higher rates of production, hopefully, will make all necessities, and eventually all goods, available without having to pay.

But let's say there's a shortage of something. Let's say that there isn't enough lithium being mined for you to have unlimited access to the metal, and you want some lithium batteries.

Even then, the system wouldn't be that tough. You'd whip out a "debit card." This card would be authorized by the municipal assembly and store 100 "credits" on a computer chip inside. Each citizen would receive a equal monthly supply of credits. These "credits" could be used to receive a good in limited supply. It would not be money, because after taking your batteries, you'd lose five "credits" off your card, but no one else would receive the five credits. The cards would just be a form of rationing system to ensure that each individual has equal access less abundant resources.

You'd take your batteries, swipe your card through a machine, and leave, and go home, wondering why it took humanity 100 years to accept such a workable system.:laugh:

I'm a socialist, not a fortune teller. I can't predict the future and what it'll look like. Even so, this example should give you an idea of how items could be distributed without money.
I thought as long as if you work you will get paid according to how much you need instead of how much you have worked.

Sea

17th January 2014, 04:04

A list of examples of the dictatorship of the proletariat?Wasn't the Paris commune an example?Most certainly, and it is likely the one that almost all can agree upon. Many, if not most users on here would also uphold Russia, Hungary and Spain during certain historical periods.
I thought as long as if you work you will get paid according to how much you need instead of how much you have worked.The phrase "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need", which I assume you are referring to when you speak of production for need, was intended to be an easily memorable simplification of how distribution would broadly be organized when all of the following conditions are met:

1. Egalitarian (communistic) structures of making and distributing goods
2. Production that vastly eclipses need, or, to put it another way, an aggregate productive capacity (ability) that greatly exceeds aggregate demand (need), or, to rephrase it a third way, a very high ratio of supply to demand.

As you can see, such conditions are rather broad and are open to interpretation. Because the difference between how many goods would be consumed if everyone had what they want, and how many if everyone had what they needed can be very high when each individual is given the choose of what goods to consume, such a system would be if unfeasible the conditions of economic organization (condition 1) and productive capacity (condition 2) are not met. Thus, this phrase, though useful to grasp in a very broad way the goals of a communist, is not to be taken as a strategy for economic organization during that awkward time when much of the capitalist social formation has been successfully smashed (such, for example, as by revolution) but while the social organization of society (and therefore the economy) retain certain aspects of capitalism, such as through social norms as to what "work" should be like, the traditional belief that there must be some who manage and some who are managed, etc.

Thus, during the transitional period that would have to exist between the formal fall of capitalism and the development of pure (completely noncapitalistic) communism, many will propose a system of labor credits as payment.

Klaatu

17th January 2014, 04:36

3.Are there any examples of successful socialism and communism(Besides the hunter-gatherers)?

You mean government-owned or member-owned: how about the US Postal Service or a typical credit union. These organizations are quite successful, even with no über-rich guy owning them (see, you don't actually need a capitalist to run things efficiently after all!)

TheWannabeAnarchist

17th January 2014, 04:54

I thought as long as if you work you will get paid according to how much you need instead of how much you have worked.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.:)

Psycho P and the Freight Train

17th January 2014, 04:54

Sea

18th January 2014, 19:11

Oh and I forgot, many North American indigenous peoples came very close to or basically achieved communism as well.This is false. Many tribes kept slaves and lived in very hierarchical societies.

Lowtech

19th January 2014, 03:33

1.How would production directly for use to satisfy economic demands affect allocation of goods/Commodities?

It would affect allocation only in the positive. Rather than resources being horded to increase "price" or provided for profitability at the detriment of meeting need or public health, need would take precedence. It would be economical.

2.In communism if distribution is based according to needs does that mean commodities will be free?

This is obviously a trick question. The kind of free you mean is to take without reciprocation. A mature society will understand the value of participating in economics (working). So the answer is no, things will not be provided without the obligation to participate, however yes it will be provided without a monetary price.

3.Are there any examples of successful socialism and communism(Besides the hunter-gatherers)?

I see you've been paying attention. That's a dangerous thing if you're trying to protect your belief system. First thing to understand is that there's no example of successful capitalism. Something working for only 20% of the population, creating imperialist wars and concentration of wealth doesn't satisfy the definition of a legitimate, let alone successful, economic system.

For an example of communism, look at any company. The employees are forced to function in a very communistic way, they aren't allowed to consume more resources than they need to do their job, they have uniform "compensation" in the form of wages (with the exception of being exploited via being paid less than the value of their labor). The missing pieces however are skill sets designed around need, rather than profitability and the exclusion of the business owners.

This is false. Many tribes kept slaves and lived in very hierarchical societies.

The issue here is that there is a difference between practical hierarchies and totalitarian structures that reinforce economic subjugation. It is undeniable that the precursors to capitalism existed and exist in early and indigenous cultures, however don't confuse practical hierarchies and plutocratic dominance.

Baseball

20th January 2014, 01:00

A mature society will understand the value of participating in economics (working).

But what exactly will such a "mature" society understand? Simply going to work for whatever the workday is, and just working? How does the result of that "working" correspond with providing for "need"?

So the answer is no, things will not be provided without the obligation to participate,

work or starve

For an example of communism, look at any company. The employees are forced to function in a very communistic way, they aren't allowed to consume more resources than they need to do their job, they have uniform "compensation" in the form of wages (with the exception of being exploited via being paid less than the value of their labor). The missing pieces however are skill sets designed around need, rather than profitability and the exclusion of the business owners.

Well, it is true that capitalists wish to keep costs low as possible. And it is good to hear that the communists would wish to do the same.

The difference here is that the capitalist has a concrete way of measuring whether in fact costs have been kept as low as possible. Producing a 100 set of shoes, even if a profit is turned, still is not final proof that success has been made.
The communist has no such method, since producing a 100 set of shoes is the objective (assuming that meets the "need") and thusly success or failure is determined.

The employees of "any company" behave in a"communistic way" because they are enjoying the benefits and advantages of capitalism, benefits and advantages which the communist proposes to abolish.

Sea

20th January 2014, 17:19

The issue here is that there is a difference between practical hierarchies and totalitarian structures that reinforce economic subjugation. It is undeniable that the precursors to capitalism existed and exist in early and indigenous cultures, however don't confuse practical hierarchies and plutocratic dominance."Totalitarianism" is a useless (and illogical) concept that pisses all over the methods of class analysis. The same can be said about contrasting it with "practical" hierarchies. What matters is the class relations, not how "totalitarian" or "anarchic" a given social formation may be.

Mrcapitalist

20th January 2014, 19:38

"Totalitarianism" is a useless (and illogical) concept that pisses all over the methods of class analysis. The same can be said about contrasting it with "practical" hierarchies. What matters is the class relations, not how "totalitarian" or "anarchic" a given social formation may be.
"Totalitarianism-totalitarianism, Mussolini, Benito [Credit: H. Roger-Viollet]form of government that theoretically permits no individual freedom and that seeks to subordinate all aspects of the individual’s life to the authority of the government. Italian dictator Benito Mussolini coined the term totalitario in the early 1920s to describe the new fascist state of Italy, which he further described as: “All within the state, none outside the state, none against the state.” By the beginning of World War II, “totalitarian” had become synonymous with absolute and oppressive single-party government."

Sabot Cat

20th January 2014, 19:51

But what exactly will such a "mature" society understand? Simply going to work for whatever the workday is, and just working?

Fun fact: regular work hours are an invention from the industrial era that were first balked at by laborers upon their introduction as akin to slavery.

ArisVelouxiotis

20th January 2014, 20:00

work or starve
So funny that this is coming from a capitalist.Isnt that the motto of capitalist societies I think?:laugh:

Mrcapitalist

20th January 2014, 20:03

So funny that this is coming from a capitalist.Isnt that the motto of capitalist societies I think?:laugh:

That should be the motto of any economic system, laziness is a vice not a virtue.

ArisVelouxiotis

20th January 2014, 20:06

That should be the motto of any economic system, laziness is vice not a virtue.

Does a kid need to work?And yes I agree laziness is a vice but I was commenting on the irony of his comment.

Mrcapitalist

20th January 2014, 20:11

Does a kid need to work?And yes I agree laziness is a vice but I was commenting on the irony of his comment.
Not really, I do think people that aren't able to get employed because injury like a car accident shouldn't have to work.

Marxaveli

20th January 2014, 20:38

That should be the motto of any economic system, laziness is a vice not a virtue.

Yes, because forced labor and starving people is indeed a virtue :rolleyes:

Seriously, fuck off.

Mrcapitalist

20th January 2014, 21:28

Yes, because forced labor and starving people is indeed a virtue :rolleyes:

Seriously, fuck off.

How is it forced when you decided not to work?

Sinister Intents

20th January 2014, 21:31

How is it forced when you decided not to work?

Unemployment keeps people from working and discrimination for economic reasons and other reasons keeps people out of work, and capitalism thrives on certain levels of unemployment. Often discrimination is encouraged under capitalism. Me being a male with long hair who wears predominantly black, I dress very Gothic, I have been turned down for jobs due to my appearance despite being fully capable of doing the fucking work. People don't just decide not to work, there are so many reasons people often can't work such as discrimination, mental health, physical health, et cetera. Also capitalism is a very forceful ideology, broaden your views of force, coercion, and other related things.

Marxaveli

20th January 2014, 21:34

Schumpeter

20th January 2014, 21:43

The freedom to starve is not freedom at all. Are you really this fucking stupid comrade? Think about it for a second - you either work, or you starve. That is called forced. It's like a rapist telling a woman if she does what he says he wont kill her - I suppose that rape isn't forced either right, since the woman can "choose" to die instead of being raped?

You capitalists arguments are so easy to destroy that if there was a job for debating you guys, I'd be fucking richer than Bill Gates and I'd be able to start my own communist party and we'd finally be able to overthrow you guys and move on with society.

Nonsense, work or starve is not a motto that is prevalent in the capitalist societies of today, absolute poverty has been all but eradicated in the 'capitalist' countries of American and Europe, look at Denmark, one of the most successful capitalist nations on earth, Denmark shows us the true extent to which the driving force a capitalist economy with a strong welfare state can provide for the good of nation or in your case the proletariat.

Sinister Intents

20th January 2014, 21:47

Marxaveli

20th January 2014, 22:00

Nonsense, work or starve is not a motto that is prevalent in the capitalist societies of today, absolute poverty has been all but eradicated in the 'capitalist' countries of American and Europe, look at Denmark, one of the most successful capitalist nations on earth, Denmark shows us the true extent to which the driving force a capitalist economy with a strong welfare state can provide for the good of nation or in your case the proletariat.

Oh yes, because these places are paved with gold and have no impoverishment whatsoever, a shining beacon of the common good.

LOL, what fantasy world are you living in?

Keynesians thought their theory had all the answers to Marx, but they have been all but proven wrong - firstly, the welfare state does not and cannot eliminate the exploitation and contradictions of capitalism, it can only trivially reduce or slow them down at best...which leads me to point #2, we are living in a period of austerity, where the welfare state is largely being reduced or outright destroyed. The welfare state isn't designed to make life more livable or humane for workers anyway, its designed to bolster and protect the capitalist system, through ironically enough it is antithetical to what the capitalist systems bottomline is: the accumulation of capital and maximization of profits - so the welfare state in itself is yet another paradoxical feature of capitalism. All you have done is help strengthen my point further.

We don't want capitalism reformed. We want it destroyed.

Sabot Cat

20th January 2014, 22:41

Sinister Intents

20th January 2014, 22:47

I would actually provisionally agree with Schumpeter that capitalist nations do not operate on the basis of work or starve, because the bourgeois can get along just fine by passively receiving inheritances, interest on bank deposits and returns on investments.

I provisionally agree with this as well, but still I think he doesn't understand capitalism the way he thinks he understands it. I mean I don't think he fully understands what he's talking about and I think hes just a troll

Marxaveli

20th January 2014, 22:47

Well, yea, but for the workers - its work or starve, which is conducive to the whole "if you are poor, its because you are lazy" blame the victim logic that is so inherent within American capitalist culture.

TheWannabeAnarchist

21st January 2014, 04:22

This is false. Many tribes kept slaves and lived in very hierarchical societies.

And some didn't. They were as diverse as Europeans, Asians, Africans--as diverse as the people of any other continent.

The Hopi people had what may have been history's freest, most peaceful, most egalitarian society in history. Their name means "the peaceful ones" in their language.

Meanwhile, the Aztecs were pretty brutal as far as empires go, which is saying something. They reportedly once sacrificed thousands of people in a single day (although there's a good chance that's just European propaganda from the time.)

It's really fascinating to learn about, I'd recommend the book 1491 to anyone interested in American history before Columbus.

o well this is ok I guess

21st January 2014, 04:57

Sea

21st January 2014, 15:19

Thirsty Crow

21st January 2014, 15:42

1.How would production directly for use to satisfy economic demands affect allocation of goods/Commodities?

2.In communism if distribution is based according to needs does that mean commodities will be free?

3.Are there any examples of successful socialism and communism(Besides the hunter-gatherers)?
Good questions.

1) The very way you pose the question is actually very adequate (it implies that relations in production structure the relations of distribution); an answer would go along these lines - due to a high level of labor productivity and technological development, the communist relations of production engender relations of distribution which are best described as free access - the access to the means of consumption is not tied in to either a wage or an recorded and actual labor effort expended. This also answers your second question, but I'd add that the expression free commodities is a kind of an oxymoron - at least for a language use based on Marxist terminology. That means that commodities aren't mere useful goods, but rather useful things produced, distributed and consumed in a specific set of social conditions - it's a social form so to speak, on that is characteristic of production for exchange and enlarged reproduction of the initial mass of value (capital accumulation). There are no commodities to speak of in a projected communist society.

3) This question is highly contentious since in the first place it rests on what people think constitutes success. For instance, some people will claim that the elimination of individual private property in societies such as the fUSSR represents a shining success. Other factors might also be at work here, such as raising labor productivity, literacy, life expectancy, healthcare and access to it, rising wages (sorry, M-Ls, I meant rising compensation for labor) and so on.

But if we employ what I wrote under 1) as a fundamental distinguishing characteristic of communist social relations (obviously, social and political matters and the way society deals with them is left out; I'll assume it is well known for the sake of argument here), that is, as a clear vision of what constitutes communism, then no, it is obvious that there aren't any historical examples of communism to speak of. Here, some people would prefer the route of distinguishing communism from socialism, insisting on the interpretation of the latter term as denoting a kind of a social formation such as the USSR, which is different from both communism and capitalism.

For the sake of argument again, I'll accept this position. What then constitutes success? I'd argue that the crucial thing here is not the existence of one kind of property or another (state property in USSR, as opposed to "social property" in former Yugoslavia, for instance), much less a rise in productivity. The existence of tendencies towards the constitution of communism (which are not to be understood as effective only within the borders of what is called a socialist country), both in more narrowly understood political life, cultural life and economic life is crucial.

One might dispute this methodological perspective, of course. But, i you accept it, it is crystal clear that you cannot speak of a successful socialism.

Lowtech

21st January 2014, 16:07

But what exactly will such a "mature" society understand? Simply going to work for whatever the workday is, and just working? How does the result of that "working" correspond with providing for "need"?

A mature society will understand economics, not simply act based on the command of employers or blindly believe neoliberal apologetics. They will be aware that assets do not produce value.

And they won't have "jobs" but rather they will be trained in multiple need-based skill sets, in contrast to capitalist skill sets designed for profitability to business owners (menial jobs).

work or starve

capitalism: work for nothing or starve.

are you trying to have a coherent debate or just being childishly argumentative?

Well, it is true that capitalists wish to keep costs low as possible. And it is good to hear that the communists would wish to do the same.

The difference here is that the capitalist has a concrete way of measuring whether in fact costs have been kept as low as possible.

you're implying that people can't organize without being subjugated by the rich, as if the information isn't available on how to produce things in an efficient manner, you essentially say "we just have to" submit to plutocratic dominance, without explaining why. you are expressing your belief system; neoliberal apologetics that excuse economic subjugation, rather than a description of a legitimate economic system.

Producing a 100 set of shoes, even if a profit is turned, still is not final proof that success has been made.
The communist has no such method ^citation needed

The employees of "any company" behave in a"communistic way" because they are enjoying the benefits and advantages of capitalism, benefits and advantages which the communist proposes to abolish.

What benefit and advantages? Workers must be paid less than the value of their labor for it to be profitable to the owner. Essentially, workers must be exploited or there is no profit to be made. The only advantage of this is to the owner. It would help your case more if you at least tried to make sense.

And no, i said they function in a communistic way, however i also explain that even though workers function communistcally, the workers do not benefit from this behavoir as value is passed on to the owner being that the worker's labor is profitized (they are paid less than the value of their labor).

Baseball

22nd January 2014, 00:40

Fun fact: regular work hours are an invention from the industrial era that were first balked at by laborers upon their introduction as akin to slavery.

And...
Would pre-industrial living standards be preferred?

Baseball

22nd January 2014, 00:45

Does a kid need to work?And yes I agree laziness is a vice but I was commenting on the irony of his comment.

Its ironical in the sense that people in the socialist community must work as well. They have no choice. They are required to do so OR they wlll not benefit.
Its no different than in the capitalist system.
The gripe has no merit when directed against capitalism.

Baseball

22nd January 2014, 00:53

A mature society will understand economics, not simply act based on the command of employers or blindly believe neoliberal apologetics. They will be aware that assets do not produce value.

But will a "mature" society blindly follows the dictates of the majority?

And they won't have "jobs" but rather they will be trained in multiple need-based skill sets, in contrast to capitalist skill sets designed for profitability to business owners (menial jobs).capitalism: work for nothing or starve.

You have already stated that people will need to work in order to accrue the benefits of socialism. As such, the "work or starve" chant can be safely ascribed to socialism as well, making such a claim completely meaningless when describing capitalism.

you're implying that people can't organize without

I am suggesting that in order for people to organize in a certain manner, such organization needs to be described.

ckaihatsu

22nd January 2014, 18:45

Its ironical in the sense that people in the socialist community must work as well. They have no choice. They are required to do so OR they wlll not benefit.

This is a common misconception due to ignoring the productive leverage of mass industrial production, and the historical rationing used by the former USSR under conditions of duress.

Its no different than in the capitalist system.
The gripe has no merit when directed against capitalism.

Yes, it would be different, because a post-capitalist society's collective work effort and material outputs would *not* be siphoned off into sitting profits and unproductive caches of wealth in offshore accounts.

That's why it's far more than just a mere "gripe" -- it's the politics of social production.

---

'How would an individual obtain goods in a feasible post-capitalist social order, in a socially acceptable way, without having to work.'

And, to address this, my conception of such a social order *would* readily allow individuals to receive goods *without* providing work themselves, *because of* the existence of machinery that doesn't require much work-effort input to produce mass quantities of manufactured goods.

Here's the "proof", in steps:

Material function

consumption [demand] -- All economic needs and desires are formally recorded as pre-planned consumer orders and are politically prioritized [demand]

Determination of material values

consumption [demand] -- Basic human needs will be assigned a higher political priority by individuals and will emerge as mass demands at the cumulative scale -- desires will benefit from political organizing efforts and coordination

Ownership / control

communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population -- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only

Infrastructure / overhead

communist administration -- Distinct from the general political culture each project or production run will include a provision for an associated administrative component as an integral part of its total policy package -- a selected policy's proponents will be politically responsible for overseeing its implementation according to the policy's provisions

Propagation

labor [supply] -- Workers with past accumulated labor credits are the funders of new work positions and incoming laborers -- labor credits are handed over at the completion of work hours -- underfunded projects and production runs are debt-based and will be noted as such against the issuing locality

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174

So, in brief, this means that any one person's demands would only be their own, but, depending on what's demanded, they may resonate with the same, or similar, demands of many others.

If the goods that someone wanted were commonly demanded and routinely produced then it would just be a matter of making sure that the number of units produced would be adequate to satisfy one's own personal requirements -- I'd imagine this would simply be an administrative matter of contacting those whose policy package it is that's actively in use, to have production bumped-up accordingly. I doubt that additional labor credits would have to be considered for this, since you're only one person, and the additional production to cover one person would be negligible.

So we can see that the key variable here is 'which goods'. If the request / demand can be satisfied with already-existing mass production, then there you have it -- no work needed on your part, and you get what you want, subject to the real-world political process.

The downside is that it *would* still require you to be part of a *social-political* process, since the context is a *political economy*, unless regular practices included producing significant surpluses of whatever, for those like yourself to just find and take from.

At *worst* you might have to deal in a more-involved way with those whose policy package is being used, to have it favorably amended, and/or to deal with the liberated laborers themselves, to ask them to run a larger batch, for your personal benefit.

Axiomasher

22nd January 2014, 18:53

I think it's worth being a little sceptical when references are made to people as being 'lazy'. A more scientific approach is to think about people being 'demotivated', once we adopt the term 'demotivation' instead of 'lazy' we're in a stronger position to analyse the why and the how.

ckaihatsu

22nd January 2014, 19:40

But let's say there's a shortage of something. Let's say that there isn't enough lithium being mined for you to have unlimited access to the metal, and you want some lithium batteries.

Even then, the system wouldn't be that tough. You'd whip out a "debit card." This card would be authorized by the municipal assembly and store 100 "credits" on a computer chip inside. Each citizen would receive a equal monthly supply of credits. These "credits" could be used to receive a good in limited supply. It would not be money, because after taking your batteries, you'd lose five "credits" off your card, but no one else would receive the five credits. The cards would just be a form of rationing system to ensure that each individual has equal access to less abundant resources without them being rapidly depleted.

You'd take your batteries, swipe your card through a machine, and leave, and go home, wondering why it took humanity 100 years to accept such a workable system.:laugh:

I'm a socialist, not a fortune teller. I can't predict the future and what it'll look like. Even so, this example should give you an idea of how items could be distributed without money.

Sorry to be un-comrade-ly here, but on a technical / logistical note I'll point out that a blanket 'rationing' approach would *not* be very good because the 'credits' / points you outline here could *not possibly* apply to all goods on an even / proportional basis.

(For example, if the available supply of lithium-ion batteries was under-supplied by 25%, compared to the expressed demand for them, and the available supply of LED flashlights was under-supplied by *12%*, the two items would not be comparable in terms of demand, and a blanket point system would only *gloss over* this objective difference in demand for the two items.)

I thought as long as if you work you will get paid according to how much you need instead of how much you have worked.

There's some *internal* debate about this (mostly coming from me -- heh), since this kind of approach would tend to encourage a blanket *minimum* of work effort across-the-board, while demands could then readily outstrip supply, especially for more-labor-intensive goods and services.

Baseball

23rd January 2014, 14:02

This is a common misconception due to ignoring the productive leverage of mass industrial production, and the historical rationing used by the former USSR under conditions of duress.

Lowtech seems to have that same "misconception" -- that work is mandatory in a socialist system.

Yes, it would be different, because a post-capitalist society's collective work effort and material outputs would *not* be siphoned off into sitting profits and unproductive caches of wealth in offshore accounts.

That's why it's far more than just a mere "gripe" -- it's the politics of social production.

It is a "gripe." All this means is that the profits (outputs) which the socialist commniuty accrues would be divided up in other prescribed ways.
But if you don't work... you will not be included in that vision

---

Thirsty Crow

23rd January 2014, 15:42

It is a "gripe." All this means is that the profits (outputs) which the socialist commniuty accrues would be divided up in other prescribed ways.
But if you don't work... you will not be included in that vision

---
It's really curious, the way you use the term "profit".

In short, profits as part of capital aren't mere "outputs" (this rests on identifying "profits" with masses of commodities stored somewhere and waiting for their buyers), but rather the monetary difference between advanced capital at the chronological starting point of the cycle and its end point. Usually one talks about profit when the money accrued at the end of the cycle is larger than the sum initially advanced for accumulation.

ckaihatsu

23rd January 2014, 16:24

Lowtech seems to have that same "misconception" -- that work is mandatory in a socialist system.

More vacuous assertions on your part, as usual. You presume to speak for others without even referencing their own words.

Sure, 'work' -- in general -- *would* be required for a socialist system, but it's another matter as to *how much* and *from who* and *what constitutes work*.

The great con of the present time is that the vast majority of humanity is denied the full benefits of its own tools and technologies, all for the sake of increasing *private* accumulations.

It is a "gripe." All this means is that the profits (outputs) which the socialist commniuty accrues would be divided up in other prescribed ways.
But if you don't work... you will not be included in that vision

I think it's clear by now that you're *not* the 'go-to' person when it comes to issues of socialism.

You play the 'scarecrow' role quite well, though -- hope it's worth your time.

Lowtech

24th January 2014, 18:19

But will a "mature" society blindly follows the dictates of the majority?

^This question has no relevance, but i will play your silly little game.

Normative notions like Laws and rights take into account how behavior of individuals effect the greater society as a whole.

capitalism in contrast seeks only to maintain plutocratic dominance of the few over the many and use of the profit mechanism to derive value from those who produce value. It doesn't concern itself with humanistic matters, but rather what will turn the most profit. Concentrating "wealth" is not normative at all, but rather the reverse, as is true of any totalitarian structure.

although you have a distorted view of the "dictates of the majority," and so won't agree out of willful ignorance, "dictates of the majority" is exactly how use of resources must be governed.

Civilized societies will seek mutually beneficial solutions. Archaic ideas of "I only fend for my own" and "As long as I benefit, that's all that matters" will be discarded for the barbaric and indifferent attitudes that they are.

You have already stated that people will need to work in order to accrue the benefits of socialism. As such, the "work or starve" chant can be safely ascribed to socialism as well, making such a claim completely meaningless when describing capitalism.

I said "capitalism: work for nothing or starve." Please address my actual comments.

I am suggesting that in order for people to organize in a certain manner, such organization needs to be described.

I know you wrote that in English, however you've said absolutely nothing.

Baseball

24th January 2014, 21:03

You play the 'scarecrow' role quite well, though -- hope it's worth your time.

OK-- so your are idly wondering whether being on Revleft is "worth" my time.

In other words, do the benefits of my time being here outweigh the costs of not doing something else during the same period of time?

Obviously, this is my concern, and I am making this decision based upon my own criteria.
This is also true of everyone else who is on this message board.
Indeed, people go about their lives determining whether the benefits of certain actions outweigh the costs of those actions. And those are also the concerns of those people.

However-- in order to rationalize the (economic) activities of millions and billions of people behaving in such fashion there must be ways to coordinate such action.
Money and prices and production based upon profit remain the best way to do so.

Baseball

24th January 2014, 21:12

It's really curious, the way you use the term "profit".

In short, profits as part of capital aren't mere "outputs" (this rests on identifying "profits" with masses of commodities stored somewhere and waiting for their buyers), but rather the monetary difference between advanced capital at the chronological starting point of the cycle and its end point. Usually one talks about profit when the money accrued at the end of the cycle is larger than the sum initially advanced for accumulation.

I use profit in the sense of it being a positive, a benefit i.e 'I profit from spending an hour on Revleft" or "I profit by eating a fine meal." The costs involved are less than the benefits accrued.

In an economic sense, I do believe that there must be a clear defined benefit accrued as a result of production. It can't be a vague benefit; it can't be subject other people's opinions. This must be true in a socialist system as well.

So when the term "output" is used in the socialist system, I am looking at it this way. That that "output" must be of a benefit, that its costs must be less than the benefit earned. Otherwise, what was the point of that production?

ckaihatsu

24th January 2014, 21:31

However-- in order to rationalize the (economic) activities of millions and billions of people behaving in such fashion there must be ways to coordinate such action.

Yes -- there is. See post #39.

Money and prices and production based upon profit remain the best way to do so.

Nope -- again, see post #39.

Mrcapitalist

26th January 2014, 05:54

Wouldn't several religious communes like the Zoars in Ohio be examples of communism?

ckaihatsu

26th January 2014, 15:45

Wouldn't several religious communes like the Zoars in Ohio be examples of communism?

Strictly speaking communism *has* to be worldwide, because capitalism insists on private-type valuations, while communism is all about *collectivizing* productive assets and natural resources -- the two approaches are mutually contradictory.

Lowtech

30th January 2014, 20:13

However-- in order to rationalize the (economic) activities of millions and billions of people behaving in such fashion there must be ways to coordinate such action.

You're combining coordination with the existence of the rich and their control of resources for their own gain. Economic subjugation, as currently imposed onto the lower classes by the rich, is not a practical hierarchy. You imply that the working class is dull-minded and so must labor in exchange for plutocratic benevolence. This implication is a belief as part of a belief system. You have yet to confirm otherwise.

Money and prices and production based upon profit remain the best way to do so.

The best way to do what? The economic process is the converting of raw resources into usable materials and items; ultimately producing what we consume. This process does not require money, markets nor the rich. Concentration of wealth (which is the mathematical inverse of poverty) and the detrimental effect of production for profit are unnecessary problems as they are produced by unnecessary factors.

I use profit in the sense of it being a positive, a benefit i.e 'I profit from spending an hour on Revleft" or "I profit by eating a fine meal." The costs involved are less than the benefits accrued.

In an economic sense, I do believe that there must be a clear defined benefit accrued as a result of production. It can't be a vague benefit; it can't be subject other people's opinions. This must be true in a socialist system as well.

So when the term "output" is used in the socialist system, I am looking at it this way. That that "output" must be of a benefit, that its costs must be less than the benefit earned. Otherwise, what was the point of that production?

No engine or technology ever invented by humanity has been able to achieve over unity, yet some how you assume over unity to be fundamental to economics. That alone confirms your view of economics to be complete fantasy and horribly ill informed.

Baseball

31st January 2014, 16:38

You're combining coordination with the existence of the rich and their control of resources for their own gain. Economic subjugation, as currently imposed onto the lower classes by the rich, is not a practical hierarchy. You imply that the working class is dull-minded and so must labor in exchange for plutocratic benevolence. This implication is a belief as part of a belief system. You have yet to confirm otherwise.

I am implying nothing of the sort. I am saying what I said-- amongst billions of people there needs to be ways to coordinate economic activity.
The use of money, and the pursuit of profit, remains the best way to do so.

No engine or technology ever invented by humanity has been able to achieve over unity, yet some how you assume over unity to be fundamental to economics. That alone confirms your view of economics to be complete fantasy and horribly ill informed.

I have no idea what perpetual motion has to do with this.

Lowtech

2nd February 2014, 07:59

I am implying nothing of the sort. I am saying what I said-- amongst billions of people there needs to be ways to coordinate economic activity.
The use of money, and the pursuit of profit, remains the best way to do so.

Yes it is the best way to subjugate others; to exploit them. However, "economic activity" does not include subjugating others for one's own gain. Exploitation is not an axiom of economics.

People are compelled to do as they must to survive, with such action coming out of an innate vitality to support the survival of ourselves and our families; money has never been necessary for this function. if it had, money would have been present from the dawn of man. And a resource is only capital when hoarded and kept from those that need it. e.g. If I hoard water, I can contract others to do work for me in exchange for water. However, I can never provide them with water equal to the value of their labor, if I do, I will not gain any "profit" for myself. Profit is only sought by those that wish to economically subjugate others. Also you will say that need for capital is natural however that is false as this "need" for capital is not a natural need at all, but rather expression of the vacuum created by capitalism's artificial scarcity (all things hoarded as capital and sold at a profit).
I have no idea what perpetual motion has to do with this.Riiight, however you did say:

I use profit in the sense of it being a positive, a benefit i.e 'I profit from spending an hour on Revleft" or "I profit by eating a fine meal." The costs involved are less than the benefits accrued.

...

So when the term "output" is used in the socialist system, I am looking at it this way. That that "output" must be of a benefit, that its costs must be less than the benefit earned. Otherwise, what was the point of that production?

You are describing over unity in a superstitious fashion; implying that 1) value is attributed to things via the individual's perception of it and 2) leads to processes yielding an output greater than the inputs.

Firstly, if these outlandish claims are left to dictate economics we'll wallow in this economic dark ages forever.

While over unity has yet to be found among the natural laws of physics it sure as hell won't be found in the mystical capitalist "economics" no matter what fancy economist speak you might have. Why do you insist on passing on this arcane nonsense as economic theory?

Baseball

4th February 2014, 10:45

Yes it is the best way to subjugate others; to exploit them. However, "economic activity" does not include subjugating others for one's own gain. Exploitation is not an axiom of economics.

It is not exploitation.

People are compelled to do as they must to survive, with such action coming out of an innate vitality to support the survival of ourselves and our families; money has never been necessary for this function. if it had, money would have been present from the dawn of man.

The "dawn of man" people lived in caves.

And a resource is only capital when hoarded and kept from those that need it. e.g. If I hoard water, I can contract others to do work for me in exchange for water. However, I can never provide them with water equal to the value of their labor, if I do, I will not gain any "profit" for myself.

Which is why money is used.

Profit is only sought by those that wish to economically subjugate others.

Its sought by people who wish to rationalize economic activity.

You are describing over unity in a superstitious fashion;implying that

1) value is attributed to things via the individual's perception of it

Which is true.

2) leads to processes yielding an output greater than the inputs.

I said that this is, or ought to be, the objective. It is certainly not always realized.

Lowtech

7th February 2014, 08:57

It is not exploitation.
perhaps in your mind assertion is enough to make something a fact. You are clearly wrong, even if looked at purely in the mathematical and practical sense, no where has anyone from your school of thought (if I entertain the idea that what capitalists do is thought at all) proven that economic subjugation is necessary to the economic process. Meager wages and hefty profits are no coincidence, they are directly related. Neoliberalism is an ideology that asserts the majority must submit itself to economic subjugation in exchange for plutocratic benevolence. You would have us live and die believing "If we work hard for a meager wage, the 'job creators' will have work for us to do." While in reality need creates jobs not the rich and we do not require exploiters to organize effectively.

The "dawn of man" people lived in caves.
So you scanned my comment, saw "dawn of man" and regurgitated unrelated nonsense? I hope no one lets you play with a baseball.

Which is why money is used.
Which is why usage of money cannot change the actual value of anything. Contrary to what capitalists assert; money is fictional, an erroneous measurement of value, not value itself.

Its sought by people who wish to rationalize economic activity.
Rationalize economic activity to the benefit of the bussiness owner; profit. Its rational for the owner, irrational for the worker. Every dollar I earn working, or dollar I spend purchasing, my return is a deficit as I have been compensated with less than the value of my labor and provided less amount of product than the equivilent of my money in production cost. You believe that deficit has no relation to the profit gained by capitalists.

1) value is attributed to things via the individual's perception of itWhich is true.
I've actually shown many times this is not true. Human perception of resources does not change its value. Your perception of a drug doesn't change it's harmful effect anymore than the price of oil changes the distance you can travel in your car with a gallon of gas. However the change in price can change the amount of profit the capitalist gains. The flexibility of price is not an economically necessary function or benefit, its used to produce a surplus of value; profit. Poverty and economic subjugation is the direct byproduct of profit based economics, and as I have shown profit to be unnecessary, the undesirable social impact it causes is in turn unnecessary.

You may assert that the need for capital necessitates profit. However as we can see that capitalism creates the predisposition to need capital to get anything done (as everything is hoarded and sold at a profit), this is circular reasoning.

I said that this is, or ought to be, the objective. It is certainly not always realized.
Not always realized? over unity has yet to be observed in nature and as far as modern science is concerned, it is mechanically impossible. Inspite of that, maybe capitalists are right and all of science is wrong, after all, "he who has the gold makes the rules", right Mr. Capitalist?

Vladimir Innit Lenin

7th February 2014, 09:17

You'd think these innovative, creative, entrepreneurial capitalists would be able to use the search function.

argeiphontes

7th February 2014, 10:14

^ The arguing's the thing, though, isn't it? Speaking of which...

OK-- so your are idly wondering whether being on Revleft is "worth" my time.

In other words, do the benefits of my time being here outweigh the costs of not doing something else during the same period of time?

Obviously, this is my concern, and I am making this decision based upon my own criteria.
This is also true of everyone else who is on this message board.
Indeed, people go about their lives determining whether the benefits of certain actions outweigh the costs of those actions. And those are also the concerns of those people.

Why are you assuming that anybody is here for rational reasons? Not that I'm pointing fingers. You know what they say about pointing--one at the target, three back at you.

However-- in order to rationalize the (economic) activities of millions and billions of people behaving in such fashion there must be ways to coordinate such action.
Money and prices and production based upon profit remain the best way to do so.Why would you think that economic activity is rational? Does the stock market behave rationally? Does Coke flash celebrities at you in order to help you make a rational decision between Coke and Pepsi? Pshaw, no reasonable person would make those claims.

Money, prices, profit, are just aspects of market allocation. It doesn't mean that anything underlying them is rational, does it? Even though I like market socialism, I'd be the first to admit that a planned economy would be the most 'rational'. I just separate what's desirable from what's rational. There's no shame in admitting that capitalism isn't the most rational system possible.

Baseball

7th February 2014, 17:27

While in reality need creates jobs

Completely true. The purpose of work is to provide needed goods and services.

and we do not require exploiters to organize effectively

But you do require explanations as to effective organization.
And critiques of capitalism are not it.

So you scanned my comment, saw "dawn of man" and regurgitated unrelated nonsense?

I responded in kind.

money is fictional, an erroneous measurement of value, not value itself

Yes. Money measures value.

Rationalize economic activity to the benefit of the bussiness owner; profit. Its rational for the owner, irrational for the worker.

Its rational across the board. Again, the value of production needs to be measured. This is true in the socialist community as well.

Every dollar I earn working, or dollar I spend purchasing, my return is a deficit as I have been compensated with less than the value of my labor and provided less amount of product than the equivilent of my money in production cost.

Its not a deficit at all. Value and wealth is being created. Its how both parties are measuring the worth of that production and that consumption.

Human perception of resources does not change its value.

How valuable are typewriters these days?

Your perception of a drug doesn't change it's harmful effect anymore than the price of oil changes the distance you can travel in your car with a gallon of gas.

Yep.

However the change in price can change the amount of profit the capitalist gains.

Yep.

The flexibility of price is not an economically necessary function or benefit,

false. It helps measure value amongst millions of goods across billions of people.

Not always realized? over unity has yet to be observed in nature and as far as modern science is concerned, it is mechanically impossible.

I continue to await the explanation as to perpetual motion being brought into this.
My response was was based upon your conclusion that capitalist processes lead to a situation where output exceed inputs. However, it appears you were talking about perpetual motion.

Loony Le Fist

7th February 2014, 22:01

Its ironical in the sense that people in the socialist community must work as well. They have no choice. They are required to do so OR they wlll not benefit.
Its no different than in the capitalist system.
The gripe has no merit when directed against capitalism.

Capitalism will never account for benefits or losses to society that cannot be commoditized or monetized. You believe it is moral for people to be turned into commodities by a system that pits every person against every other person as adversaries. I disagree that this is moral, or even necessary.

You may even be able to form some kind of a case (though I know it would be very wobbly) that capitalism might be the most efficient way to allocate resources. Fine. Dictatorships are, for example, the most efficient form of governance. After all, corporations are essentially dictatorships within their own domain. There is no bureaucracy: you do what you are told or you are left without a means of sustenance. There is no democracy to tie up the decision making process. However, efficiency of a process doesn't make it moral or good for society. Efficiency doesn't always mean better.

You don't mind the opportunity cost of being a wage slave for the remote chance of one day becoming a slave owner. I do. In fact, I mind more than just that opportunity cost: I reject the very system itself.

There are costs that are much more difficult to measure. The cost of making everyone adversaries. The cost of having a society where we must lie and cheat in order to survive. Every transaction in a capitalistic system has a winner and a loser if a given market is efficient (Pareto efficiency). In a perfectly efficient market, no one would have the motivation to transact, since no one could be made better off by doing so. So, in a proper functioning capitalist efficient economic system the only way to make a transaction, is through deception or coercion. Period. Free-marketeers preach the wonders of efficiency, yet every businesses goal is to be become a monopoly. Tell me how that is a rational system again? That is a schizophrenic, self-contradictory system at best.

Of course your response might be the snarky "What is the alternative?". That's a stupid question. Why? Because the answer is an infinite set. The answer is any other system other than capitalism, fascism, feudalism or any other exploitative system.

::END RANT::

Baseball

8th February 2014, 15:06

Of course your response might be the snarky "What is the alternative?". That's a stupid question. Why? Because the answer is an infinite set. The answer is any other system other than capitalism, fascism, feudalism or any other exploitative system.

::END RANT::

That wouldn't be my response. My response would be "How is socialism any better?"

Lowtech

10th February 2014, 13:50

That wouldn't be my response. My response would be "How is socialism any better?"

How isn't It?

The economy is a public utility whose intended purpose is to sustain a civilization. Civilization includes every living person, not just a plutocratic minority.

Capitalism on the other hand is economic subjugation, introduction of artificial scarcity and capitalist ideology that compels and conditions people to exploit others, rather than a legitimate economic system.

An economic system would be the underlying infrastructure that allows a civilization to produce all the items and materials needed by the entire global populace.

This process does not require money, markets nor the rich.

Any argument for capitalism must predispose the necessity of a plutocratic ruling class. Therefore, a belief system: neoliberalism.

Exactly why every self proclaimed capitalist on this board describes capitalism in the form of ideology and crude sociological grounds, rather than a logistical system that directly addresses the physical needs of a civilization. We know today that political economy underlies everything that happens in our world.

Examples of capitalist ideology:

The rich are wealthy because they are better than the dull minded workers (might makes right)

Workers are dull minded and so cannot organize effectively unless they submit themselves to economic subjugation.

The majority submitting themselves to economic subjugation is beneficial as they receive the favor of the rich; they enjoy plutocratic benevolence.

All of this of course is based on the belief that the rich as a ruling class is necessary to economics. Exactly what every tyrannical ruling class would have you believe.

Loony Le Fist

11th February 2014, 19:15

That wouldn't be my response. My response would be "How is socialism any better?"

Asked and answered. First I defined what an exploitative system (a set including capitalism, and not including socialism.)

There are costs that are much more difficult to measure. The cost of making everyone adversaries. The cost of having a society where we must lie and cheat in order to survive. Every transaction in a capitalistic system has a winner and a loser if a given market is efficient (Pareto efficiency). In a perfectly efficient market, no one would have the motivation to transact, since no one could be made better off by doing so. So, in a proper functioning capitalist efficient economic system the only way to make a transaction, is through deception or coercion. Period. Free-marketeers preach the wonders of efficiency, yet every businesses goal is to be become a monopoly. Tell me how that is a rational system again? That is a schizophrenic, self-contradictory system at best.

Then I went further:

...the answer is any other system other than capitalism, fascism, feudalism or any other exploitative system.

My claim is not only that socialism is better. My claim is that all conceivable systems that don't create exploitation are better. Capitalism is not part of the solution set. The answer is an infinite set. The logic is simple: given the choice between a system that turns us into perpetual and mutual enemies and a system that does not while granting the similar levels of autonomy, which is better?

EDIT: Let me add, that is that a strong argument can be made that a socialist type system increases autonomy, since one's livelihood and their societal function would no longer coupled.

Baseball

12th February 2014, 02:07

The economy is a public utility whose intended purpose is to sustain a civilization.

Ok-- how does socialism do this?

Capitalism on the other hand is economic subjugation, introduction of artificial scarcity and capitalist ideology that compels and conditions people to exploit others, rather than a legitimate economic system.

Ok-- what does this have to do with socialism?

An economic system would be the underlying infrastructure that allows a civilization to produce all the items and materials needed by the entire global populace.

Ok-- how does socialism do this?

This process does not require money, markets nor the rich.

Ok- how does socialism do this?

Any argument for capitalism must predispose the necessity of a plutocratic ruling class. Therefore, a belief system: neoliberalism.

Ok- so what's the argument for socialism? That it is not capitalism?

Exactly why every self proclaimed capitalist on this board describes capitalism in the form of ideology and crude sociological grounds, rather than a logistical system that directly addresses the physical needs of a civilization.

Ok-- so describe how socialism "directly addresses..."

Examples of capitalist ideology:

The rich are wealthy because they are better than the dull minded workers (might makes right)

"might makes right?" That is sort of a silly complaint when one of the justifications for socialism is number-- there are more proleteriat- "we got the numbers" the phrase "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one" might be familiar.
No, "might makes right" is a staple in socialist thinking. "Might" is its principle of operation. "Might" has nothing to do with how capitalism is justified.

Workers are dull minded and so cannot organize effectively unless they submit themselves to economic subjugation.

The argument is more along the lines that it is insufficient to simply say "the workers will organize their production" or something similar. The "organization" still has to be described, and then shown to be effective.

The majority submitting themselves to economic subjugation is beneficial as they receive the favor of the rich; they enjoy plutocratic benevolence.

Naturally, the claim of subjugation is rejected.

Baseball

12th February 2014, 02:11

The logic is simple: given the choice between a system that turns us into perpetual and mutual enemies and a system that does not while granting the similar levels of autonomy, which is better?

You are making a mere assertion about socialism here, and in the original post to which I had responded.
Prove the claim about what socialism is true. Argue it.
Condemning capitalism doesn't prove socialism.

Jimmie Higgins

12th February 2014, 09:52

You are making a mere assertion about socialism here, and in the original post to which I had responded.
Prove the claim about what socialism is true. Argue it.
Condemning capitalism doesn't prove socialism.

You can't have empirical data on a possibility and you can't describe specific details of what would emerge out of a mass democratic process and so your whole line of questioning is illegitimate.

The basis of arguing that communism (in the most general sense - i.e. not specifically Marxist or a kind of Anarchism) is possible is 1) a critique of the present system and how it actually undermines itself 2) that society produces more than is needed to just merely sustain ourselves (for workers but also basically the whole "99%") 3) that the mechanisms and features of the present system actually prevents that global surplus from benefiting the people whose labor actually creates that surplus. 4) That there is a class who seeks to sustain this system and there is a class who suffer from it and don't have an inherent interest in it but must be controlled and managed by the ruling class and so this causes conflicts in society.

For some real-world precidents (inexact because they are not "generalized social relations", but smaller examples or examples from other forms of class societies)

Can things be produce without a market? Yes.

Can communities on a local scale organize themselves? Yes.

Do workers produce more than they need to survive or maintain their current standards of living? Yes.

Can workers complete complex tasks? Yes.

Can workers self-manage production? Yes.

argeiphontes

12th February 2014, 10:36

You can't have empirical data on a possibility and you can't describe specific details of what would emerge out of a mass democratic process and so your whole line of questioning is illegitimate.

@Baseball: Here's communist theory in a nutshell, and a long-winded answer to why your question is "illegitimate", which might not be obvious. It's the Cliff's Notes version so I could be technically wrong about some of it.

See, Baseball, communism is indeterminate. Nobody can say much about it because nobody knows what it will look like. What communists think will happen, is that if a communist revolution takes place, then by the Theory of Dialectical Materialism, a completely new economic system will spontaneously spring into existence. By the Theory of Historical Materialism, the new system cannot be thought up by people, because that would be "idealist" and/or "utopian," but instead the new system must spontaneously develop from the actual relations between people and things in the new conditions.

By the theory of Dialectical Materialism, communism will be the "dialectical synthesis" of the historical precedents of "primitive communism" (also indeterminate, anthropologically speaking) and capitalism. A dialectical synthesis is a kind of "solution" and contains parts of both the antecedents, but in a new combination. Dialectical "logic" was developed by Hegel; he used it to refer to the self-moving of history as a set of concepts or ideas, zeitgeists, etc, while Marx uses it to describe the self-movement of history as a material thing (productive forces, modes of production, concrete social relations, etc).

This new synthesis will be "communism" and will have the social relations of primitive communism, but in the setting of an advanced society that has been prepared for us by capitalist accumulation and development. Like primitive communism, communism will feature communal ownership of the means of production, free association of producers making whatever they want, and free consumers taking whatever is available. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

Other than that, it's all a bit hazy, kind of like "heaven" in Christian theology. This is why some people think communism is a substitute for religion. This indeterminacy makes proving anything about it either impossible, or very easy, depending which side you're on. This is why the philosopher Carl Popper calls Marxism an unfalsifyable totalization. At the same time, all questions that attempt to pin it down are illegitimate.

I think that's the Cliff's Notes for why your questions can never be answered.

Welcome to the rabbit hole. ;)

Criminalize Heterosexuality

12th February 2014, 10:40

By the theory of Dialectical Materialism, communism will be the "dialectical synthesis" of the historical precedents of "primitive communism" (also indeterminate, anthropologically speaking) and capitalism.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Marxists don't even use the term "dialectical synthesis", let alone claim that communism would be a synthesis of capitalism and primitive communism.

argeiphontes

12th February 2014, 10:49

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Marxists don't even use the term "dialectical synthesis", let alone claim that communism would be a synthesis of capitalism and primitive communism.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. The other point is wrong, though. Before your time I was arguing about that very fact with ckaihatsu, and I was forced to apologize on the grounds that Marx thought that communism would in fact be a synthesis between primitive communism and capitalism. I had to search the internet for Christ's sake. (I was about to proclaim that dialectical materialism reduces to dialectical idealism, so it was a special moment I will never forget.)

Criminalize Heterosexuality

12th February 2014, 10:52

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. The other point is wrong, though. Before your time I was arguing about that very fact with ckaihatsu, and I was forced to apologize on the grounds that Marx thought that communism would in fact be a synthesis between primitive communism and capitalism. I had to search the internet for Christ's sake.

Even though I respect ckaihatsu as a poster, they aren't exactly a published Marxist theoretician, are they? None of us are, I think, with the exception of P. Cockshott. Not to mention that, not having seen the comment, I can't possibly comment on it. Most likely ckaihatsu was using a metaphor.

argeiphontes

12th February 2014, 10:53

Even though I respect ckaihatsu as a poster, they aren't exactly a published Marxist theoretician, are they? None of us are, I think, with the exception of P. Cockshott. Not to mention that, not having seen the comment, I can't possibly comment on it. Most likely ckaihatsu was using a metaphor.

A metaphor about what? I don't recall you being there?

Criminalize Heterosexuality

12th February 2014, 10:54

A metaphor about what? I don't recall you being there?

Er, yes, that was my point - since I wasn't there, and you haven't linked to the comment, I can only speculate that they were using some sort of metaphor.

argeiphontes

12th February 2014, 10:56

Er, yes, that was my point - since I wasn't there, and you haven't linked to the comment, I can only speculate that they were using some sort of metaphor.

You shouldn't be so nosy. That was my discussion with ckaihatsu. I was wrong about what I said for the reason that Marx did think that communism was the dialectical synthesis of primitive communism and capitalism. Have you asked the mods to restrict me yet? I'm waiting.

Loony Le Fist

12th February 2014, 19:01

You are making a mere assertion about socialism here, and in the original post to which I had responded.
Prove the claim about what socialism is true. Argue it.
Condemning capitalism doesn't prove socialism.

Let's try this again. Given a system makes us all adversaries vs. one that doesn't while providing more autonomy, what is the best one? I have already demonstrated how capitalism makes us adversaries. It is obvious why any other non-exploitative system doesn't. I made my case: asked and answered. I can't change the fact that you prefer to be a wage slave. I'm sorry that you prefer to stay a slave.

ckaihatsu

12th February 2014, 20:59

[I] was arguing about that very fact with ckaihatsu, and I was forced to apologize on the grounds that Marx thought that communism would in fact be a synthesis between primitive communism and capitalism. I had to search the internet for Christ's sake. (I was about to proclaim that dialectical materialism reduces to dialectical idealism, so it was a special moment I will never forget.)

[N]ot having seen the comment, I can't possibly comment on it. Most likely ckaihatsu was using a metaphor.

Did a web search for 'argeiphontes synthesis ckaihatsu' and found the thread -- one could do a search on the page for 'negation'....

Having a detailed vision of communism

http://www.revleft.com/vb/having-detailed-vision-t183268/index.html?p=2663500

Even though I respect ckaihatsu as a poster, they aren't exactly a published Marxist theoretician, are they? None of us are, I think, with the exception of P. Cockshott.

My own participation *aside*, I find it curious that comrades -- no less -- would look to bourgeois academia (and/or publishing) as the benchmark for measuring one's Marxist credentials.

*Regarding* my own participation I leave it for what it is, on the grand yardstick of 'maximum' to 'minimum', relatively to all others in the world.

Baseball

13th February 2014, 04:08

You can't have empirical data on a possibility and you can't describe specific details of what would emerge out of a mass democratic process and so your whole line of questioning is illegitimate.

Nobody is asking for specific details. However, "a mass democratic process" must have substance behind it; its doing something.

The basis of arguing that communism (in the most general sense - i.e. not specifically Marxist or a kind of Anarchism) is possible is

1) a critique of the present system and how it actually undermines itself

Yet again, how does a critique that capitalism undermines itself demonstrate that socialism will not?

2) that society produces more than is needed to just merely sustain ourselves (for workers but also basically the whole "99%")

However, you are describing a current situation that exists because of capitalist method of production. Socialism proposes to abolish the capitalist method of production. Isn't it reasonable to expect the socialist to explain why and how productivity will continue at its high level, or even higher, under socialist method of production? Certainly this is a crucial issue of which the "mass democratic process" will be engaging and wrestling with.

3) that the mechanisms and features of the present system actually prevents that global surplus from benefiting the people whose labor actually creates that surplus.

I agree that socialism, at its core, is essentially a claim for a "just" system of distribution. Such distribution is again something of which the "mass democratic process" will be engaging and wrestling with. And again, isn't it reasonable to expect the socialist to explain how socialism will do a better job of distributing goods?

But, also as above, does any course of action the "mass democratic action" choose to take, is automatically considered an action consistent with socialism?

4) That there is a class who seeks to sustain this system and there is a class who suffer from it and don't have an inherent interest in it but must be controlled and managed by the ruling class and so this causes conflicts in society.

This tends to be more of a substantive argument in the sense that clear action can be taken that will have as its objective the removal of this "ruling class." The analysis, however, I think is faulty.

Can things be produce without a market? Yes.

Yes they can. The question though is can production be rational without the market? the answer is no.

Can communities on a local scale organize themselves? Yes.

Yes they can. Can they organize themselves "socialistically"?

Do workers produce more than they need to survive or maintain their current standards of living? Yes.

Yes, under capitalist method of production? Under socialist method of production? No.

Can workers complete complex tasks? Yes.

Of course.

Can workers self-manage production? Yes.

Yep. A worker owned firm is not "uncapitalist."

Criminalize Heterosexuality

13th February 2014, 08:54

Did a web search for 'argeiphontes synthesis ckaihatsu' and found the thread -- one could do a search on the page for 'negation'....

Having a detailed vision of communism

http://www.revleft.com/vb/having-detailed-vision-t183268/index.html?p=2663500

Thanks. I was actually waiting for argeiphontes to provide the link - since they made the claim, it's their responsibility to provide evidence when asked.

And, as much as we are in agreement on economic matters, I don't think using this sort of Chalybaean terminology is useful - I realize what you were trying to say, but the alleged triad of thesis-antithesis-synthesis is associated with a very bad, high-school interpretation of Hegel.

It is interesting to note that the "synthesis of primitive communism and capitalism" was in fact the synthesis of that thread and argeiphontes' imagination.

My own participation *aside*, I find it curious that comrades -- no less -- would look to bourgeois academia (and/or publishing) as the benchmark for measuring one's Marxist credentials.

*Regarding* my own participation I leave it for what it is, on the grand yardstick of 'maximum' to 'minimum', relatively to all others in the world.

I wasn't necessarily talking about academic work, though. Most of what is published about Marxism in an academic context is revisionist drivel. And the most important Marxist theoreticians have, mostly, not published through the academic press - I was talking about the publications of Marxist movements etc. The point is that Marxism isn't simply a theory, it's a living political movement.

argeiphontes

13th February 2014, 10:54

argeiphontes' imagination.

And Marx's, of course. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/03/zasulich1.htm)

...Western Europe as well as in the United States, engaged in battle both with science, with the popular masses, and with the very productive forces which it engenders. In a word, it finds it in a crisis which will only end in its elimination, in the return of modern societies to the “archaic” type of communal property, a form in which, in the words of an American writer [L H Morgan] quite free from any suspicion of revolutionary tendencies and subsidised in his work by the Washington government, “the new system” towards which modern society tends “will be a revival in a superior form of an archaic social type”.

The best proof that this development of the “rural commune” is in keeping with the historical trend of our age is the fatal crisis which capitalist production has undergone in the European and American countries where it has reached its highest peak, a crisis that will end in its destruction, in the return of modern society to a higher form of the most archaic type — collective production and appropriation.

Criminalize Heterosexuality

13th February 2014, 11:05

And Marx's, of course. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/03/zasulich1.htm)

Marx and Engels said some pretty excruciatingly stupid things about Russia - Marx's letter to Zasulich is one example of this tendency (Engels' statements about "Russian despotism" are another), given how friendly it is to narodism. But there you have it. In fact you can't be a consistent Marxist and believe everything M&E wrote down - just as you can't be a modern biologist and accept Darwin's vague "plasm theory".

But Marx isn't saying that communism is a "synthesis of capitalism and primitive communism", as you allege, merely that some features of primitive communism would be found in proletarian-communism (this is the point of the materialist notion of "the negation of the negation").

argeiphontes

13th February 2014, 11:25

Marx and Engels said some pretty excruciatingly stupid things about Russia - Marx's letter to Zasulich is one example of this tendency (Engels' statements about "Russian despotism" are another), given how friendly it is to narodism. But there you have it. In fact you can't be a consistent Marxist and believe everything M&E wrote down - just as you can't be a modern biologist and accept Darwin's vague "plasm theory".

The fact that the letter was about Russia is a non-sequitur, since he specifically mentions that the West is going to be undergoing this revolutionary change. It's right in the quotes.

But Marx isn't saying that communism is a "synthesis of capitalism and primitive communism", as you allege, merely that some features of primitive communism would be found in proletarian-communism (this is the point of the materialist notion of "the negation of the negation").

Yes, capitalism is the negation of primitive communism in the realm of property relations. The neg of this neg will be final communism, which is this Hegelian voodoo you guys peddle. It's the only thing capitalism could be. Otherwise the revolution has to be a negation, and that opens the door to idealism.

Anyway, this is a total derail of the thread. I don't care enough about Marx to argue about him.

Criminalize Heterosexuality

13th February 2014, 11:40

The fact that the letter was about Russia is a non-sequitur, since he specifically mentions that the West is going to be undergoing this revolutionary change. It's right in the quotes.

And yet you miss the broader context of the letter - Marx was writing to Zasulich, who hadn't broken with narodism at that point - and probably never did, from her early activism to her activities in the Yedinstvo groupuscule - and wrote approvingly on the Russian peasant communes that narodniks considered the nucleus of the future society. Which is rubbish, as it happens.

Yes, capitalism is the negation of primitive communism in the realm of property relations.

No, it really isn't, given that there have been at least three major social formations in the period between the end of primitive communist society and the birth of capitalism, each with its own particular relations of production.

The neg of this neg will be final communism, which is this Hegelian voodoo you guys peddle.

Negation in dialectical materialism isn't some sort of operator you apply to a variable two times to get the negation of the negation - the n. of the n. is a name for the tendency of developing phenomena to retain features of the previous stages of development.

argeiphontes

13th February 2014, 12:20

And yet you miss the broader context of the letter - Marx was writing to Zasulich, who hadn't broken with narodism at that point - and probably never did, from her early activism to her activities in the Yedinstvo groupuscule - and wrote approvingly on the Russian peasant communes that narodniks considered the nucleus of the future society. Which is rubbish, as it happens.

Ok, but I question why he would say that in that context only. If he says something about America crumbling, shouldn't it be true regardless of whether there are leftover communes in Russia?

No, it really isn't, given that there have been at least three major social formations in the period between the end of primitive communist society and the birth of capitalism, each with its own particular relations of production.
Yup, this threw me for a loop too. I was trying to figure out what he thought communism was, though, because it didn't seem right to me that a materialist theory of the unfolding of history doesn't have a material stage as one of the dialectical antecedents. There's another source besides the letter, but I didn't save it, maybe I gave chaihatsu the link in the previous one?

Negation in dialectical materialism isn't some sort of operator you apply to a variable two times to get the negation of the negation - the n. of the n. is a name for the tendency of developing phenomena to retain features of the previous stages of development.I'm no dialectician, I'll concede that. But I'm familiar with Hegel's Logic and by now do understand a bit about diamat. I don't think it's rocket science or should require mining the cannon to demonstrate the slightest thing about it. If it's a "scientific" or a "social theory" then it's a simple theory that my autodidact idiot's mind can understand in 5 minutes or less.

But I would agree with that last paragraph, it's not an operator. In fact, I would contend that these stages have to be actually existing stages of history for the theory to be materialist, at least if it's an inversion of Hegel in that cliche Marxian phrase about standing Hegel on his head. And that's exactly what happens if what I said about primitive communism is right.

If capitalism is not this synthesis, then you can just tell me something else and I won't fight you if it sounds reasonable. It's not like I accept the theory to begin with, being an idealist. ;)

Lowtech

13th February 2014, 16:49

The economy is a public utility whose intended purpose is to sustain a civilization.
Ok-- how does socialism do this?

The same as how people have always met their needs, by processing raw resources into usable materials and items; unimpeded by the rich and the profit mechanism. The exclusion of a plutocratic class and profit centric production doesn't render this inferior, in fact it is the opposite. In an economy devoid of artificial scarcity, "price" would equal production cost, resources would be utilized by the most amount of people possible;e.g. food would feed people at a 1:1 cost/value ratio for everyone.

Capitalism on the other hand is economic subjugation, introduction of artificial scarcity and capitalist ideology that compels and conditions people to exploit others, rather than a legitimate economic system.
Ok-- what does this have to do with socialism?

I would hope you'd have answered this question for yourself out of even the most rudimentary observation of political economy, but I will play your silly little game. Socialism is both a system of economics and sociopolitical reaction to plutocratic oppression and systematic economic subjugation.

An economic system would be the underlying infrastructure that allows a civilization to produce all the items and materials needed by the entire global populace.
Ok-- how does socialism do this?

Again, the same as humans have done since the dawn of our species; continuing to perfect tools and technologies in the pursuit of increasing our ability to survive and increase the well being and health of ourselves and each other. Capitalism 101 is to predispose plutocratic rule as an economically practical hierarchy. I and others have shown without a doubt that markets, money and the rich are not necessary to the process of converting raw resources into usable materials and items. Economic subjugation is not an axiom of economics.

This process does not require money, markets nor the rich.
Ok- how does socialism do this?

Go outside and gather resources for a fire, gather rocks for starting, build that fire and then ask yourself how you did it without the rich dictating to you how to do so and without the rich benefiting from your actions. That is "how" socialism "does it."

Any argument for capitalism must predispose the necessity of a plutocratic ruling class. Therefore, a belief system: neoliberalism.
Ok- so what's the argument for socialism? That it is not capitalism?

No the argument for socialism is that the economic process should not be impeded and exploited by the agenda of the few.

Exactly why every self proclaimed capitalist on this board describes capitalism in the form of ideology and crude sociological grounds, rather than a logistical system that directly addresses the physical needs of a civilization.
Ok-- so describe how socialism "directly addresses..."

Socialism is not profit oriented/centric. It does not function to create a value surplus for the enjoyment of the few. It seeks economics that functions for the sake of it's intended purpose, to sustain a civilization, as a public utility not as a means for the few to systematically subjugate the many.

Examples of capitalist ideology:

The rich are wealthy because they are better than the dull minded workers (might makes right)
"might makes right?" That is sort of a silly complaint when one of the justifications for socialism is number-- there are more proleteriat- "we got the numbers" the phrase "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one" might be familiar.

Capitalism as an economic system is not justified, however the manipulation of economics by the rich is excused by the belief that they being wealthy equates to them being more productive, more intelligent or somehow more desirable than the rest. Yet in truth, their superiority is only constituted by the ownership of assets and assets do not produce value. Their possession of wealth and economic subjugation has no utilitarian nor humanistic validation; the rich and their tyranny have no economic practicality.

No, "might makes right" is a staple in socialist thinking. "Might" is its principle of operation. "Might" has nothing to do with how capitalism is justified.

Your argument willfully confuses "might makes right" with normative principles that determine utilitarian and humanistic economic practices; the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. For example, a capitalist "business" ignores the utilitarian nature of economics by designing and producing products in a profit centric fashion, and is not humanistic as it prioritizes a larger net income ahead of paying a living wage. If businesses functioned as economically necessary, there would be no net income, they would function at cost.

Workers are dull minded and so cannot organize effectively unless they submit themselves to economic subjugation.
The argument is more along the lines that it is insufficient to simply say "the workers will organize their production" or something similar. The "organization" still has to be described, and then shown to be effective.

Rather, you mean to say "The 'organization' still has to be described [by the intelligent desirables; the 'rich'], and then shown to be effective [in producing a net income; a surplus of value for the rich].

The majority submitting themselves to economic subjugation is beneficial as they receive the favor of the rich; they enjoy plutocratic benevolence.Naturally, the claim of subjugation is rejected.

Your ignoring of even the most rudimentary observation of really existing capitalism is amusing.

Jimmie Higgins

13th February 2014, 18:42

Nobody is asking for specific details. However, "a mass democratic process" must have substance behind it; its doing something.what do you mean by substance? A program of sorts? That's possible, but accuracy would depend on how close to an actual revolution things really are.

Or a blueprint? If so, this is not possible. The American revolution happened before the constitution. Revolutionaries today are more in a tom Payne situation of attempting to rally and support the existing forces in society that we think have an inherent interest in a different sort of life. We have to show that the king is illogical and illegitimate in meeting the needs of the people we want to rally.

Yet again, how does a critique that capitalism undermines itself demonstrate that socialism will not?if you design a car that breaks down, how does understanding and critiquing that design, trying to understand the systemic failure, demonstrate that a new design which attempts to solve those problems will not also fail?

And I thought capitalist thinking was supposed to be innovative.

However, you are describing a current situation that exists because of capitalist method of production. Socialism proposes to abolish the capitalist method of production. Isn't it reasonable to expect the socialist to explain why and how productivity will continue at its high level, or even higher, under socialist method of production? Certainly this is a crucial issue of which the "mass democratic process" will be engaging and wrestling with. ah, much more clear. But the problem is that to show this we must critique the present system, which you claim does nothing... So your demand here is a bit of a catch-22 and I think that's why your debates are so circular.

But in short, capitalism has created the base conditions which allow people to produce more than they need... Generally, not just individually. These conditions are progressive compared to feudalism where society only produced enough for a small amount of people to develop specialized skills and not just farm. But the way capitalism organizes also then becomes a barrier to further development.

I agree that socialism, at its core, is essentially a claim for a "just" system of distribution. Such distribution is again something of which the "mass democratic process" will be engaging and wrestling with. And again, isn't it reasonable to expect the socialist to explain how socialism will do a better job of distributing goods?i think "just distribution" is the wrong way to look at it... Stalinism or social democracy might create more "just distribution", even Keynesian capitalism reduced inequality for a time. I think production is more important than distribution because it determines what can be distributed.

But at any rate, the easy answer is that all the time money and labor used in capitalist competition, alone, would free up tons of money and time. Billions and billions wouldn't be devoted to war and military production, billions in money could be saved without marketing. That's just scratching the surface.

There would still be supply and demand but this would be determined by democratic prioritization, not private profits.

But, also as above, does any course of action the "mass democratic action" choose to take, is automatically considered an action consistent with socialism?no, but you are making a totally different argument here. I'm taking "revolutionary consciousness" for granted when I'm talking about "mass democratic action" in this case. If you mean does any mass action or revolt spontaniously lead to the desire for socialism as the result? No, that's why I'm a communist, we try and organize and agitate for that so that when Egypt happens in our locations, there will be enough basic class militancy and organization that an explicitly working class grouping, not something like the Muslim brotherhood is in a position to offer a "socialist program" for solving the crisis.

This tends to be more of a substantive argument in the sense that clear action can be taken that will have as its objective the removal of this "ruling class." The analysis, however, I think is faulty.ok

Yes they can. The question though is can production be rational without the market? the answer is no. no, the answer is yes.:lol:

Yes they can. Can they organize themselves "socialistically"? in terms of a system of communist relations - no, not fully now. But communally? Yes, people do, but it's not free of having to deal with capitalist relations to a degree.

Yep. A worker owned firm is not "uncapitalist."hence my disclaimer.

ckaihatsu

13th February 2014, 22:51

Thanks. I was actually waiting for argeiphontes to provide the link - since they made the claim, it's their responsibility to provide evidence when asked.

And, as much as we are in agreement on economic matters, I don't think using this sort of Chalybaean terminology is useful - I realize what you were trying to say, but the alleged triad of thesis-antithesis-synthesis is associated with a very bad, high-school interpretation of Hegel.

I'll have to take issue with your summary dismissiveness here -- the process of thesis-antithesis-synthesis is actually the *essence* of the dialectical method, and could be seen as a forerunner to the scientific method itself:

Principles

The purpose of the dialectic method of reasoning is resolution of disagreement through rational discussion, and, ultimately, the search for truth.[5][6] One way to proceed—the Socratic method—is to show that a given hypothesis (with other admissions) leads to a contradiction; thus, forcing the withdrawal of the hypothesis as a candidate for truth (see reductio ad absurdum). Another dialectical resolution of disagreement is by denying a presupposition of the contending thesis and antithesis; thereby, proceeding to sublation (transcendence) to synthesis, a third thesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Principles

It is interesting to note that the "synthesis of primitive communism and capitalism" was in fact the synthesis of that thread and argeiphontes' imagination.

I wasn't necessarily talking about academic work, though. Most of what is published about Marxism in an academic context is revisionist drivel. And the most important Marxist theoreticians have, mostly, not published through the academic press - I was talking about the publications of Marxist movements etc. The point is that Marxism isn't simply a theory, it's a living political movement.

Okay.

Yes, capitalism is the negation of primitive communism in the realm of property relations.

I'll second CH in that capitalism is the negation of its *predecessor*, *feudalism* -- not primitive communism.

The neg of this neg will be final communism, which is this Hegelian voodoo you guys peddle.

No Marxist would be found peddling the Hegelian dialectic since that approach is too open to the vagaries of arbitrary (non-material) abstract formulations, or 'idealism'.

Dialectical materialism, instead, would see the historical negation of capitalism as being the prerequisite for a new, worker-controlled society -- communism.

It's the only thing capitalism could be. Otherwise the revolution has to be a negation, and that opens the door to idealism.

You're just throwing terms around without a real understanding of them -- to rephrase your wording, one could more accurately say that the revolutionary negation of capitalism would bring about true communism.

Mrcapitalist

13th February 2014, 23:49

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2007/09/the-transformation-of-the-kibbutz-and-the-rejection-of-socialism-becker.html

ckaihatsu

13th February 2014, 23:59

The kibbutz movement was *communal*, but *not* socialistic since it never threatened the continued rule of the bourgeoisie:

The kibbutz movement was very important in the creation of Israel

A trend that began more than 40 years ago accelerated in the 1980's as kibbutzim lost many young members, and they failed to attract enough new members. Many of them were forced into bankruptcy, and the future of this movement was exceedingly dim if they continued with their old ways. The vast majority of the kibbutz that remained survived because they changed their ways. They expanded into industry and even real estate, they allowed a substantial degree of private ownership and private enterprise on the kibbutz, pay is no longer equal and is now significantly related to productivity, and parents and children live and eat together privately in their own homes.

argeiphontes

14th February 2014, 08:08

No Marxist would be found peddling the Hegelian dialectic since that approach is too open to the vagaries of arbitrary (non-material) abstract formulations, or 'idealism'.

That was thrown in for CH's benefit ;)

You're just throwing terms around without a real understanding of them -- to rephrase your wording, one could more accurately say that the revolutionary negation of capitalism would bring about true communism.

I agree, Chris, I really don't understand it. :( Nevermind I guess, but that thing about the different ontic status of a mode of production and a revolution always bothered me.

edit: So, if capitalism is the negation of feudalism, then the negation of this negation (the synthesis) will be communism. That would mean that communism would retain features of both capitalism and feudalism, which doesn't sound very appealing to me.

liberlict

14th February 2014, 08:36

No Marxist would be found peddling the Hegelian dialectic since that approach is too open to the vagaries of arbitrary (non-material) abstract formulations, or 'idealism'.

"Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it" - KM :D

Loony Le Fist

14th February 2014, 13:40

Lowtech seems to have that same "misconception" -- that work is mandatory in a socialist system.

It is a "gripe." All this means is that the profits (outputs) which the socialist commniuty accrues would be divided up in other prescribed ways.
But if you don't work... you will not be included in that vision
---

And so your counter-argument that people that don't participate or contribute benefits to society should be included in societies vision? It would make sense since it's precisely what capitalism does. It allows those with only the "talent" of manipulating capital or good at lying and deceiving others to benefit rather than having to actually produce. I could see why you would support this position.

Capitalism is a system that benefits conmen (no sexism intended) while they suck the productive individuals dry. The only reason to support capitalism is if you recognize how useless you would be without it.

No offense.

EDIT: Please note that I'm not saying that we (as in all of us) are useless without capitalism. I'm claiming that many of those that support capitalism (in this particular case OP), do so because they make better con-artists than productive workers. Or else they are fine with the idea of being a wage slave with the remote possibility of becoming one of the privileged con-artists.

ckaihatsu

14th February 2014, 20:29

ckaihatsu

14th February 2014, 20:47

That was thrown in for CH's benefit ;)

Got it. The, uh, permanent record will be amended to, um, reflect this notation of worth. (grin)

I agree, Chris, I really don't understand it. :( Nevermind I guess, but that thing about the different ontic status of a mode of production and a revolution always bothered me.

No prob -- your demonstrated ease for self-criticism is exemplary. (grin)

I would just say, offhand, to think of this subject matter in terms of 'punctuated equilibrium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium)', since this dynamic is a relatively new discovery for science, and it applies to a wide variety of both natural and societal phenomena. (I'll also note that it's compatible with complexity theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system), if you are / should ever get into that area....)

edit: So, if capitalism is the negation of feudalism, then the negation of this negation (the synthesis) will be communism. That would mean that communism would retain features of both capitalism and feudalism, which doesn't sound very appealing to me.

I'd say you're overlapping too much, though your instinct / inclination is understandable.

One thing to keep in mind, too, is that communism would be the first time in human history where the revolution / overturning would have to be *fully conscious* and *intended*, unlike all of history heretofore.

Did some digital digging and found this:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm

Main types of Relations of Production

Five main types of relations of production are known to history: primitive communal, slave, feudal, capitalist and socialist.

The basis of the relations of production under the primitive communal system is that the means of production are socially owned. This in the main corresponds to the character of the productive forces of that period. Stone tools, and, later, the bow and arrow, precluded the possibility of men individually combating the forces of nature and beasts of prey. In order to gather the fruits of the forest, to catch fish, to build some sort of habitation, men were obliged to work in common if they did not want to die of starvation, or fall victim to beasts of prey or to neighboring societies. Labor in common led to the common ownership of the means of production, as well as of the fruits of production. Here the conception of private ownership of the means of production did not yet exist, except for the personal ownership of certain implements of production which were at the same time means of defense against beasts of prey. Here there was no exploitation, no classes.

The basis of the relations of production under the slave system is that the slave-owner owns the means of production, he also owns the worker in production – the slave, whom he can sell, purchase, or kill as though he were an animal. Such relations of production in the main correspond to the state of the productive forces of that period. Instead of stone tools, men now have metal tools at their command; instead of the wretched and primitive husbandry of the hunter, who knew neither pasturage nor tillage, there now appear pasturage tillage, handicrafts, and a division of labor between these branches of production. There appears the possibility of the exchange of products between individuals and between societies, of the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few, the actual accumulation of the means of production in the hands of a minority, and the possibility of subjugation of the majority by a minority and the conversion of the majority into slaves. Here we no longer find the common and free labor of all members of society in the production process – here there prevails the forced labor of slaves, who are exploited by the non-laboring slave-owners. Here, therefore, there is no common ownership of the means of production or of the fruits of production. It is replaced by private ownership. Here the slaveowner appears as the prime and principal property owner in the full sense of the term.

Rich and poor, exploiters and exploited, people with full rights and people with no rights, and a fierce class struggle between them – such is the picture of the slave system.

The basis of the relations of production under the feudal system is that the feudal lord owns the means of production and does not fully own the worker in production – the serf, whom the feudal lord can no longer kill, but whom he can buy and sell. Alongside of feudal ownership there exists individual ownership by the peasant and the handicraftsman of his implements of production and his private enterprise based on his personal labor. Such relations of production in the main correspond to the state of the productive forces of that period. Further improvements in the smelting and working of iron; the spread of the iron plow and the loom; the further development of agriculture, horticulture, viniculture and dairying; the appearance of manufactories alongside of the handicraft workshops – such are the characteristic features of the state of the productive forces.

The new productive forces demand that the laborer shall display some kind of initiative in production and an inclination for work, an interest in work. The feudal lord therefore discards the slave, as a laborer who has no interest in work and is entirely without initiative, and prefers to deal with the serf, who has his own husbandry, implements of production, and a certain interest in work essential for the cultivation of the land and for the payment in kind of a part of his harvest to the feudal lord.

Here private ownership is further developed. Exploitation is nearly as severe as it was under slavery – it is only slightly mitigated. A class struggle between exploiters and exploited is the principal feature of the feudal system.

The basis of the relations of production under the capitalist system is that the capitalist owns the means of production, but not the workers in production – the wage laborers, whom the capitalist can neither kill nor sell because they are personally free, but who are deprived of means of production and) in order not to die of hunger, are obliged to sell their labor power to the capitalist and to bear the yoke of exploitation. Alongside of capitalist property in the means of production, we find, at first on a wide scale, private property of the peasants and handicraftsmen in the means of production, these peasants and handicraftsmen no longer being serfs, and their private property being based on personal labor. In place of the handicraft workshops and manufactories there appear huge mills and factories equipped with machinery. In place of the manorial estates tilled by the primitive implements of production of the peasant, there now appear large capitalist farms run on scientific lines and supplied with agricultural machinery

The new productive forces require that the workers in production shall be better educated and more intelligent than the downtrodden and ignorant serfs, that they be able to understand machinery and operate it properly. Therefore, the capitalists prefer to deal with wage-workers, who are free from the bonds of serfdom and who are educated enough to be able properly to operate machinery.

But having developed productive forces to a tremendous extent, capitalism has become enmeshed in contradictions which it is unable to solve. By producing larger and larger quantities of commodities, and reducing their prices, capitalism intensifies competition, ruins the mass of small and medium private owners, converts them into proletarians and reduces their purchasing power, with the result that it becomes impossible to dispose of the commodities produced. On the other hand, by expanding production and concentrating millions of workers in huge mills and factories, capitalism lends the process of production a social character and thus undermines its own foundation, inasmuch as the social character of the process of production demands the social ownership of the means of production; yet the means of production remain private capitalist property, which is incompatible with the social character of the process of production.

These irreconcilable contradictions between the character of the productive forces and the relations of production make themselves felt in periodical crises of over-production, when the capitalists, finding no effective demand for their goods owing to the ruin of the mass of the population which they themselves have brought about, are compelled to burn products, destroy manufactured goods, suspend production, and destroy productive forces at a time when millions of people are forced to suffer unemployment and starvation, not because there are not enough goods, but because there is an overproduction of goods.

This means that the capitalist relations of production have ceased to correspond to the state of productive forces of society and have come into irreconcilable contradiction with them.

This means that capitalism is pregnant with revolution, whose mission it is to replace the existing capitalist ownership of the means of production by socialist ownership.

This means that the main feature of the capitalist system is a most acute class struggle between the exploiters and the exploited.

argeiphontes

15th February 2014, 09:33

No prob -- your demonstrated ease for self-criticism is exemplary. (grin)

Don't forget my tendency to lose interest and give up. :grin:

Criminalize Heterosexuality

15th February 2014, 15:00

Ok, but I question why he would say that in that context only. If he says something about America crumbling, shouldn't it be true regardless of whether there are leftover communes in Russia?

Well, yes. But the statement that proletarian-communism will exhibit some of the features of primitive communism is not what I dispute - although, ah, let's be honest, Marx's knowledge of primitive communism was restricted by the state of the anthropological sciences in his day. What I find to be unsupportable in the letter are Marx's statements about the Russian mir.

Yup, this threw me for a loop too. I was trying to figure out what he thought communism was, though, because it didn't seem right to me that a materialist theory of the unfolding of history doesn't have a material stage as one of the dialectical antecedents.

Quite frankly, I have no idea what you're trying to say here. You still seem to be thinking in terms of the "wooden triad" (Marx's term) of thesis-antithesis-synthesis, something that isn't applicable to Hegel, let alone Marx.

I'm no dialectician, I'll concede that. But I'm familiar with Hegel's Logic and by now do understand a bit about diamat. I don't think it's rocket science or should require mining the cannon to demonstrate the slightest thing about it. If it's a "scientific" or a "social theory" then it's a simple theory that my autodidact idiot's mind can understand in 5 minutes or less.

It could, but the problem seems to be that you're trying to fit Marx in a Hegelian - or even early-Fichtean - mold.

But I would agree with that last paragraph, it's not an operator. In fact, I would contend that these stages have to be actually existing stages of history for the theory to be materialist, at least if it's an inversion of Hegel in that cliche Marxian phrase about standing Hegel on his head. And that's exactly what happens if what I said about primitive communism is right.

If capitalism is not this synthesis, then you can just tell me something else and I won't fight you if it sounds reasonable. It's not like I accept the theory to begin with, being an idealist. ;)

I'm not sure what you're asking me to do. Capitalism is a stage that succeeds feudalism, and to an extent petty commodity production and arguably the Asiatic mode of production. It retains some of the characteristics of these modes of production - e.g. property laws are to a large extent the derivatives of feudal institutions - this is the "negation of the negation" (capitalism negates feudalism - but this negation is partly negated by the retention of certain features of feudalism).

argeiphontes

15th February 2014, 15:21

I'm not sure what you're asking me to do. Capitalism is a stage that succeeds feudalism, and to an extent petty commodity production and arguably the Asiatic mode of production. It retains some of the characteristics of these modes of production - e.g. property laws are to a large extent the derivatives of feudal institutions - this is the "negation of the negation" (capitalism negates feudalism - but this negation is partly negated by the retention of certain features of feudalism).

See, my understanding of the whole thing (minus things I forgot) was always the same as found on these ancient websites:

http://econc10.bu.edu/economic_systems/Theory//Marxism/Classics/marxism_classics_frame.htm

http://econc10.bu.edu/economic_systems/Lecture_notes/Marxism/marxism_historical_materialism.html#2

It looks like we could both be right. The thing would be that Slavery/Feudalism/Capitalism would be their own "subset" within the larger progression of classless->class->back to classless. In both of these sets, each of the dialectical "terms" is a really existing phase of history, which is what I wanted to make it sound more elegant, I guess.

Anyway... I'm giving up this argument on practical grounds...

Criminalize Heterosexuality

15th February 2014, 15:46

See, my understanding of the whole thing (minus things I forgot) was always the same as found on these ancient websites:

http://econc10.bu.edu/economic_systems/Theory//Marxism/Classics/marxism_classics_frame.htm

http://econc10.bu.edu/economic_systems/Lecture_notes/Marxism/marxism_historical_materialism.html#2

It looks like we could both be right. The thing would be that Slavery/Feudalism/Capitalism would be their own "subset" within the larger progression of classless->class->back to classless. In both of these sets, each of the dialectical "terms" is a really existing phase of history, which is what I wanted to make it sound more elegant, I guess.

Anyway... I'm giving up this argument on practical grounds...

The site - by the way, what institution did the person who designed the color scheme escape from? - telescopes over two thousand years of human history into one category of "class society" in order to fit them into a simplified schema. This is anti-materialist - of course, all societies after primitive communism were class societies, but they must be understood in their concrete form. Furthermore, local, sectoral and regional variations must also be understood - i.e. it is anti-materialist to treat European guild labor and the Japanese za system - for that matter it is lazy to treat urban and rural za as the same.

Idealism is schematic; materialists need to learn to think concretely.

Baseball

15th February 2014, 20:11

Go outside and gather resources for a fire, gather rocks for starting, build that fire and then ask yourself how you did it without the rich dictating to you how to do so and without the rich benefiting from your actions. That is "how" socialism "does it."

I thought primitivists were banned here. Of what value does caveman economics have to do with a modern industrial community?

No the argument for socialism is that the economic process should not be impeded and exploited by the agenda of the few.

And...?

Socialism is not profit oriented/centric. It does not function to create a value surplus for the enjoyment of the few. It seeks economics that functions for the sake of it's intended purpose, to sustain a civilization, as a public utility not as a means for the few to systematically subjugate the many.

Ok--- so what are its economics?

Your argument willfully confuses "might makes right" with normative principles that determine utilitarian and humanistic economic practices; the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. For example, a capitalist "business" ignores the utilitarian nature of economics by designing and producing products in a profit centric fashion, and is not humanistic as it prioritizes a larger net income ahead of paying a living wage. If businesses functioned as economically necessary, there would be no net income, they would function at cost.

If it functions at "cost" how would the comunity whether that production, including the manner of its production, was beneficial?

Rather, you mean to say "The 'organization' still has to be described [by the intelligent desirables; the 'rich'], and then shown to be effective [in producing a net income; a surplus of value for the rich].

No, i mean what I said. Socialists still need to describe how socialism is organized.

Baseball

15th February 2014, 20:29

Or a blueprint? If so, this is not possible. The American revolution happened before the constitution. Revolutionaries today are more in a tom Payne situation of attempting to rally and support the existing forces in society that we think have an inherent interest in a different sort of life. We have to show that the king is illogical and illegitimate in meeting the needs of the people we want to rally.

Tom Payne didn't just say the king was illogical. He also said why an independent America made sense.

if you design a car that breaks down, how does understanding and critiquing that design, trying to understand the systemic failure, demonstrate that a new design which attempts to solve those problems will not also fail?

So what is the new design?

ah, much more clear. But the problem is that to show this we must critique the present system, which you claim does nothing...

I said it does nothing to explain socialism.

But in short, capitalism has created the base conditions which allow people to produce more than they need... Generally, not just individually. These conditions are progressive compared to feudalism where society only produced enough for a small amount of people to develop specialized skills and not just farm. But the way capitalism organizes also then becomes a barrier to further development.

Such as?

i think "just distribution" is the wrong way to look at it... Stalinism or social democracy might create more "just distribution", even Keynesian capitalism reduced inequality for a time. I think production is more important than distribution because it determines what can be distributed.

Ok-- so the concern is production. So when capitalism produces more than we need of X,Y,Z what is this barrier that is supposedly existing?

But at any rate, the easy answer is that all the time money and labor used in capitalist competition, alone, would free up tons of money and time. Billions and billions wouldn't be devoted to war and military production, billions in money could be saved without marketing. That's just scratching the surface.

But since production is the most important element of socialism, and since production will change in socialism, isn't it fair to speculate whether in fact the gains achieved by elimination of all the "capitalist competition" surpass the costs associated with eliminating capitalism?
Which still means that socialist production needs to be explained.

There would still be supply and demand but this would be determined by democratic prioritization, not private profits.

How does "democratic prioritization" work with supply and demand?

no, but you are making a totally different argument here. I'm taking "revolutionary consciousness" for granted when I'm talking about "mass democratic action" in this case.

Not entirely different. A "revolutionary consciousness" doesn't grow wheat.

in terms of a system of communist relations

So what are communist relations?

Baseball

15th February 2014, 20:37

And so your counter-argument that people that don't participate or contribute benefits to society should be included in societies vision?

AsI recall, that note to which you responded was my response to a characterization of capitalism as "work or starve." Since as you agree that such a characterization is true of socialism as well, it becomes a worthless criticism of capitalism by socialists.

It would make sense since it's precisely what capitalism does. It allows those with only the "talent" of manipulating capital

Aside from the editorial comment of the capitalist, your description of the role of the capitalist in capitalism is accurate-- that is he or she moves capital (wealth, assets, resources) in a direction for which in his or her judgement yield the greatest return.
The thing is, is that the socialist community also requires this function to be performed as well. They will need somebody (or a group of somebodies) to determine where best the resources of the community be directed.

Baseball

15th February 2014, 20:44

These contentions seem to remain outstanding, even though I replied to them in post #44.

I'll *add* to that reply by noting that I have a distinct position on this issue -- that work would *not* be mandatory for all, and my full explanation is at post #39:

#44 simply said that the nature of work would change.
#39 simply said work would not be "siphoned off"

However, #44 requires that the contemporary understanding of the nature of work change, while #39 requires it to remain a more contemporary understanding.

ckaihatsu

15th February 2014, 20:56

[Post #39] requires a more contemporary understanding of the nature of work, which as per #44, will change.

Here's a post from yesterday, on another thread, that's apropos here:

Many, myself included, conceive of revolution as having to *always* be an ongoing process, which would mean that most 'work' would be of the social-political kind, in having *everyone* step-up to a continuously active role in the matters of mass co-administration over social production.

Baseball

15th February 2014, 21:02

Here's a post from yesterday, on another thread, that's apropos here:

I edited #99.

However, that other quote still says little. Working is after all an active role. The problem remains in determining when its a beneficial role.

ckaihatsu

15th February 2014, 22:12

I edited #99.

However, that other quote still says little.

No, actually, that quote says *much* -- it's saying that if there is to be no more social hierarchy (which is currently based on private ownership), then mostly everyone will need to take an active role over how society is cooperatively structured.

Working is after all an active role. The problem remains in determining when its a beneficial role.

You really have a penchant for exaggerating 'concerns' and 'issues' into much-inflated "problems" -- the way a post-capitalist society would determine what's beneficial and what's not is by *discussing* such, much as we're doing today here at RevLeft.

Jimmie Higgins

16th February 2014, 09:06

Tom Payne didn't just say the king was illogical. He also said why an independent America made sense.As we advocate the working class independently lead society.

So what is the new design?Mutual and coordinated production, proletarian democracy, expropriation of the expropriators, and the end of exploitation and profit being the relations which govern production.

Such as?International competition and competition between firms ensures that the most profitable present way of producing energy is going to continue to be used until it is no longer cheaper than alternatives which are possible at this moment but would require investment in infrastructure. Cross-border problems in capitalism require international cooperation, but as any of the environmental accords show, competition prevents even easy cooperation on the scale necessary to combat climate change. The need for capitalism to constantly expand hits limits leading to imperial competition to the extent that the biggest part of the government is just in creating weapons and armies. Perfection of production, nearing meeting absolute rather than market demand deflates prices and causes investments to dry up and stagnation until the surplus is reduced. There are more empty dwellings in Oakland right now than there are homeless people - how does that make sense from any perspective other than market perspectives? The more labor-saving tech used in capitalist competition, the higer the regular initial investment becomes which causes profits to fall as the investment required begins to encroach on the ability to get surplus value from workers. For the capitalist economies to recover today, they are in competition to lower social spending but more importantly labor costs -- i.e. austerity. But austerity also requires more direct repression, suppression of normal democratic processes, and this causes instability in society leading to both less consumer spending as regular folks worry about their own personal stability, but also less investments due to worries over social instability. So in countries like Greece, captialism is in a bind because to "fix" capitalism they need to massively suppress the population but then this causes social instability, etc.

Ok-- so the concern is production. So when capitalism produces more than we need of X,Y,Z what is this barrier that is supposedly existing?Price deflation which reduces the returns possible which causes less investment, etc. If this happens in one sector or one industry it causes problems, but if the problem then causes ripple effects in connected industries and services, then there is a general downturn and this is solved by eliminating the surplus. In optimal capitalist circumstances this means that the weak firms go under and then the more stable firms can buy them up, close the excess productive capacity (layoff workers, close production or service facilities)... but it can also be much more severe and capitalists just sit on their money waiting for a more profitable atmosphere for production/investments, but the general slowdown then prevents this. In worse-case scenarios, this problem is solved by one imperial power destroying the excess productive capabilities... flattening Dresden and whatnot.

So capitalism's own need for growth also causes instability and in the worse-case to periodically collapse in on itself, and prevents any rational planning or long-term sustainability.

How does "democratic prioritization" work with supply and demand?It would actually be popular demand, not market-demand. How is urban land-use determined now? By what is the most profitable possible use of a given piece of land (zoning laws aside -- they are part of how this is managed and to both reign-in and encourage market-forces at different times). You won't get a bank loan or investors if you want to turn a piece of land in a gentrifying neighborhood into low-income family housing - you will get a loan if you want to put in upscale lofts. Instead of satisfying market-demand, productive efforts could instead be determined by people who live there in cooperation with workers who do the construction. They might prioritize high-density housing, they might prioritize other forms, but the determination would be based on use - if there's not a lot of available land and high demand for new good housing, then maybe apartments or lofts or whatever would be created - maybe there isn't as much density in the population or absolute demand for housing and so people create individual family homes.

Not entirely different. A "revolutionary consciousness" doesn't grow wheat.No, but I'm assuming that a revolution OVER workers, a revolution from above by some benevolent political grouping or coup or whatnot, would be incapable of allowing for socialism as I see it. So I'm taking for granted that if there is a massive working class revolution, huge sections of workers already have revolutionary consciousness because they went through with a mass revolution.

So what are communist relations?From each, to each. It's how humans lived for most of human existance, just in conditions of scarcity.

Baseball

16th February 2014, 13:06

International competition and competition between firms ensures that the most profitable present way of producing energy is going to continue to be used until it is no longer cheaper than alternatives which are possible at this moment but would require investment in infrastructure. Cross-border problems in capitalism require international cooperation, but as any of the environmental accords show, competition prevents even easy cooperation on the scale necessary to combat climate change. The need for capitalism to constantly expand hits limits leading to imperial competition to the extent that the biggest part of the government is just in creating weapons and armies. Perfection of production, nearing meeting absolute rather than market demand deflates prices and causes investments to dry up and stagnation until the surplus is reduced. There are more empty dwellings in Oakland right now than there are homeless people - how does that make sense from any perspective other than market perspectives? The more labor-saving tech used in capitalist competition, the higer the regular initial investment becomes which causes profits to fall as the investment required begins to encroach on the ability to get surplus value from workers. For the capitalist economies to recover today, they are in competition to lower social spending but more importantly labor costs -- i.e. austerity. But austerity also requires more direct repression, suppression of normal democratic processes, and this causes instability in society leading to both less consumer spending as regular folks worry about their own personal stability, but also less investments due to worries over social instability. So in countries like Greece, captialism is in a bind because to "fix" capitalism they need to massively suppress the population but then this causes social instability, etc.

These barriers are scarcely unique to capitalism and would be faced by socialism. eg-- yes, the socialist community could choose to invest its resources into fuel sources that are far more costly than using present cheaper ones, but this would simply means those resources being used in doing so could not be used elsewhere. Cross border cooperation would be required in a socialist community, unless there is one single global administrative unit which encompasses the world whose job it is to coordinate production globally. There is no reason to suppose that there will never be empty dwellings in a socialist community (and in any event, this is more a problem of distribution than production).

Price deflation which reduces the returns possible which causes less investment, etc. If this happens in one sector or one industry it causes problems, but if the problem then causes ripple effects in connected industries and services, then there is a general downturn and this is solved by eliminating the surplus. In optimal capitalist circumstances this means that the weak firms go under and then the more stable firms can buy them up, close the excess productive capacity (layoff workers, close production or service facilities)... but it can also be much more severe and capitalists just sit on their money waiting for a more profitable atmosphere for production/investments, but the general slowdown then prevents this. In worse-case scenarios, this problem is solved by one imperial power destroying the excess productive capabilities... flattening Dresden and whatnot.

We have already established that capitalist production produces more than is needed, or at least "more than needed" as determined by the socialists- and that is a cause of angst amongst the socialists.
Now you are complaining about problems which might follow such a state of affairs in the capitalist community.
So how are these problems different than in a situation of overproduction in a socialist community? The problem is still the same; resources were directed toward production that was not needed ahead of production that was needed.
You are not suggesting that there are no negative effects to a socialist community for such misjudgements?

It would actually be popular demand, not market-demand. How is urban land-use determined now? By what is the most profitable possible use of a given piece of land (zoning laws aside -- they are part of how this is managed and to both reign-in and encourage market-forces at different times). You won't get a bank loan or investors if you want to turn a piece of land in a gentrifying neighborhood into low-income family housing - you will get a loan if you want to put in upscale lofts.

Ok

Instead of satisfying market-demand, productive efforts could instead be determined by people who live there in cooperation with workers who do the construction. They might prioritize high-density housing, they might prioritize other forms, but the determination would be based on use - if there's not a lot of available land and high demand for new good housing, then maybe apartments or lofts or whatever would be created - maybe there isn't as much density in the population or absolute demand for housing and so people create individual family homes.

OK-- you are describing a situation that might just as well exist in a capitalist community.

No, but I'm assuming that a revolution OVER workers, a revolution from above by some benevolent political grouping or coup or whatnot, would be incapable of allowing for socialism as I see it. So I'm taking for granted that if there is a massive working class revolution, huge sections of workers already have revolutionary consciousness because they went through with a mass revolution.

Ok-- but again such a "revolutionary consciousness" as a result of a "mass revolution" doesn't grow wheat, or build houses.

Jimmie Higgins

16th February 2014, 13:27

These barriers are scarcely unique to capitalism and would be faced by socialism. eg-- yes, the socialist community could choose to invest its resources into fuel sources that are far more costly than using present cheaper ones, but this would simply means those resources being used in doing so could not be used elsewhere.Hence the need for prioritization. But at any rate, fossil fuels, specifically petrol which can last profitably for maybe a few more decades, would be more damaging and used up more quickly than machine parts for renewable energy. It's simply a matter of the market favoring the most profitable (but only for the movement) source of energy.

Cross border cooperation would be required in a socialist community, unless there is one single global administrative unit which encompasses the world whose job it is to coordinate production globally.Sure people would need to cooperate - that's why I think producing cooperativly probably would make dealing with regional problems much easier than when you have two capitalist political states which are competing with each-other and therefore are willing to undercut each-other even if it's worse for both in the long run. If there's one forrest left and two competing logging companies, capitalism would favor the one which clear-cut the fastest and then just took their profits and invest them in some other non-logging area. The firm that clear-cut would put the one trying to log and replenish over time out of business before they could even grow the new generation of trees.

We have already established that capitalist production produces more than is needed, or at least "more than needed" as determined by the socialists- and that is a cause of angst amongst the socialists. More than is "needed" is not an abstract idea of some perfect level of consumption - the understanding is that modern production allows for each laborer to produce more than they could individually consume. This is in general, not the same for each individual task - some specific jobs may not actually "produce" but are part of marketing or part of corporate bureaucracies, etc. Since, as a society, our labor can create more than we individually would be able to consume, there is no real reason in the abstract for there to be any unmet basic need or want. So the reason this happens is because capitalism needs to maintain a labor pool, people willing to work at rates set by the companies.

Now you are complaining about problems which might follow such a state of affairs in the capitalist community.
So how are these problems different than in a situation of overproduction in a socialist community? The problem is still the same; resources were directed toward production that was not needed ahead of production that was needed.
You are not suggesting that there are no negative effects to a socialist community for such misjudgements?In capitalism these are NOT misjudgements, they are how the system plays out according to its own rules. If workers in communism introduce labor-saving tech, then that means more is produced with less effort and so hours can be reduced for basic production work, maybe even fully automated. If need is met and prices depreciate (I can only imagine this for a very early post-revolution time when there isn't generalized communist relations, but still a sort of transition) then that would be part of creating communist relations because staples would become cheap enough to be virtually free.

Ok-- but again such a "revolutionary consciousness" as a result of a "mass revolution" doesn't grow wheat, or build houses.Having a revolution doesn't negate knowledge of hammers and nails.

Baseball

16th February 2014, 14:35

Hence the need for prioritization. But at any rate, fossil fuels, specifically petrol which can last profitably for maybe a few more decades, would be more damaging and used up more quickly than machine parts for renewable energy. It's simply a matter of the market favoring the most profitable (but only for the movement) source of energy.

Ok-- but the problems the capitalist community would face in such prioritization would also be faced by the socialist community.

Sure people would need to cooperate - that's why I think producing cooperativly probably would make dealing with regional problems much easier

But as I have been saying, the nature of that cooperation still needs to be explained.

than when you have two capitalist political states which are competing with each-other and therefore are willing to undercut each-other even if it's worse for both in the long run. If there's one forrest left and two competing logging companies, capitalism would favor the one which clear-cut the fastest

This isn't necessarily true. The need for wood may not be sufficient to justify such rapid clear-cutting and thus the firm that chooses to do so wastes their resources and suffers the negative effects of doing so.

and then just took their profits and invest them in some other non-logging area. The firm that clear-cut would put the one trying to log and replenish over time out of business before they could even grow the new generation of trees.

No-- because of the above and of "private property."
Which goes back to how the socialist community determines the extent of its efforts of clearing wood versus growing new trees and its judgement of success.

More than is "needed" is not an abstract idea of some perfect level of consumption - the understanding is that modern production allows for each laborer to produce more than they could individually consume.

We are back to square one. Modern production is capitalist production. The socialists propose to abolish capitalist production. Why are we assuming then that production rates continue as before, or improve. Change the system, change the result.

Since, as a society, our labor can create more than we individually would be able to consume, there is no real reason in the abstract for there to be any unmet basic need or want.

Sure there is-- that labor has to be directed in this way. This is not a simple problem.

So the reason this happens is because capitalism needs to maintain a labor pool, people willing to work at rates set by the companies.

Or rates set by the workers, depending upon circumstances.
A labor pool allows a situation where labor can be more easily directed into areas so as to meet needs and wants.

In capitalism these are NOT misjudgements, they are how the system plays out according to its own rules.

If the capitalist judges that people want widgets, directs his resources into production of widgets, and it turns out people do not want widgets or do not want them in the quantities or qualities that he or she thought, the capitalist suffers the consequences.

If workers in communism introduce labor-saving tech, then that means more is produced with less effort

If people do not want the quantity of the widgets produced with the labor saving devices, then neither labor nor resources have been saved, regardless of the technical success resulting from the use of that labor saving tech.
The problem for the socialist community remains the same as that of the capitalist community.
The rules don't change.

Having a revolution doesn't negate knowledge of hammers and nails.

Nope. One can continue to have the technical knowledge of how produce hammers and nails.
However, the production process does change, one that evaluates the success of failure of that production, even if the production of hammers and nails has been technically successful.

Lowtech

22nd February 2014, 10:56

I thought primitivists were banned here. Of what value does caveman economics have to do with a modern industrial community?
Making a fire is no more primitive than walking or mailing a handwritten letter. Your half witted attack has no barring in this thread. Economics at it's most simplest is how people use resources. Socialism being the means by which a modern civilization uses resources without being exploited by a plutocratic class. My example was exactly that, a human utilizing resources without being exploited by a plutocratic class. If you do not understand economics, why bother arguing it in a forum?

Also, you cannot advocate capitalism without predisposing that we cannot utilize resources without economic subjugation. Once you admit that people can use resources without plutocratic dominance, you've admitted that capitalism is not the only means of utilizing resources and with it exposing poverty and economic subjugation as wholly unnecessary.

And...?

Google "political economy."

Ok--- so what are its economics?

Production as dictated by need. Need being all necessary materials and items required for a healthy, educated civilization, devoid of artificial scarcity (aka capital, profit, poverty, working poor) and economic subjugation.

If it functions at "cost" how would the community whether that production, including the manner of its production, was beneficial?

According to the profit centric definition of "beneficial," diamonds would be more useful than food. In contrast to that nonsense, humans can read, measure, as well as reach consensus. We recognize items and materials. I don't need a plutocratic class to tell me that wood is a good building material or that too much salt is bad. You vehemently insist on predisposing plutocracy as a practical hierarchy. Instead of the repetition, I would much prefer an intellectual response.

No, i mean what I said. Socialists still need to describe how socialism is organized. I see, well to revisit your comment

The argument is more along the lines that it is insufficient to simply say "the workers will organize their production" or something similar. The "organization" still has to be described, and then shown to be effective.
what you said is meaningless in it's literal sense. However, within the context of defending capitalism, you imply that your statement coincides with capitalism, which is the implication that organization must be "described" via the rich dictating it to the working classes. As stated previously, economics at it's most simplest is how people use resources, nowhere stated in the blueprint of a car, a house etc does it specify "capital" as necessary for it's construction. This is because capital is a human, sociological invention, and as such capitalism is not a system of economics, rather a sociological hierarchy of economic subjugation.

Baseball

22nd February 2014, 17:19

Making a fire is no more primitive than walking or mailing a handwritten letter. Your half witted attack has no barring in this thread. Economics at it's most simplest is how people use resources. Socialism being the means by which a modern civilization uses resources....

"Production as dictated by need. Need being all necessary materials and items required for a healthy, educated civilization...

According to the profit centric definition of "beneficial," diamonds would be more useful than food. In contrast to that nonsense, humans can read, measure, as well as reach consensus. We recognize items and materials.....

You continue to try to advance socialism by saying nothing about it.

I don't need a plutocratic class to tell me that wood is a good building material

Steel is better. Why not use steel?

However, within the context of defending capitalism,

I have asked you to defend socialism, within the context of socialism.
I fail to see why this is such an unreasonable request.

you imply that your statement coincides with capitalism, which is the implication that organization must be "described" via the rich dictating it to the working classes.

I am asking you to describe it via the working class governing each other.

Look-- this is a request that one would expect that the socialists would have a great interest in. One of the themes on these (this one and the restricted one) is explaining the problems which socialists of the past faced, challenges faced and why failure occurred.

But the common theme with this is that these socialists had no real idea what they were trying to accomplish. "Production for need" says NOTHING in practical application- its a slogan for a pamphlet. We can "reach a consensus" says NOTHING-- consensus on what, how is the consensus reflected, how to achieve the objective of the consensus.

ckaihatsu

22nd February 2014, 17:40

[T]he common theme with this is that these socialists had no real idea what they were trying to accomplish.

This is simply a slight, and nothing more -- it's very inappropriate for someone like yourself, who's not sympathetic to the revolutionary cause, to make a sweeping mischaracterization of all socialists.

"Production for need" says NOTHING in practical application- its a slogan for a pamphlet. We can "reach a consensus" says NOTHING-- consensus on what, how is the consensus reflected, how to achieve the objective of the consensus.

Your demands, too, for exacting specificity are hardly impactful since you're far outside the orbit of anything resembling a socialist concern. Berating doesn't help.

Lowtech

24th February 2014, 13:21

You continue to try to advance socialism by saying nothing about it.

Actually, as anyone can plainly see, I have said a lot about economics unimpeded or exploited by a plutocratic class. You predispose a plutocracy's necessity and give biased and crude anecdotes in support of it's supposed importance.

Steel is better. Why not use steel?

Why not debate economics in a thread regarding economics? Ah, because you're baseball that's why.

I have asked you to defend socialism, within the context of socialism.
I fail to see why this is such an unreasonable request.

Within the context of socialism? economics is not a matter of sociology, its not about a more pleasing hat or a more pleasing reality show. Capitalism is more pleasing to the elites. Our threads concern the realities of economics, not plutocratic utopia.

I am asking you to describe it via the working class governing each other.

"Governing" is a whole nother debate. The word governing implies a state whose purpose is to maintain order which is not what the rich do, rather they maintain brutal occupation over us all via economic subjugation. With businesses being the de facto "government" of our "modern" consumerist society.

Look-- this is a request that one would expect that the socialists would have a great interest in. One of the themes on these (this one and the restricted one) is explaining the problems which socialists of the past faced, challenges faced and why failure occurred.

Who are these "socialists" that you willfully generalize to the point of falsifying history? Are they marxists? Marxists haddn't created a totalitarian state. Was it the Russian people who rose up against the Tsarist autocracy? Nope. Does Lenin's ideology coincide with Marx? wrong again. You don't concern yourself with reality. Try again Mr. Ham.

But the common theme with this is that these socialists had no real idea what they were trying to accomplish. "Production for need" says NOTHING in practical application- its a slogan for a pamphlet.
It says everything, however we can't make you read the writing on the wall. I'ts not our job to educate you.

We can "reach a consensus" says NOTHING-- consensus on what, how is the consensus reflected, how to achieve the objective of the consensus.
e.g. There are x amount of people over there, they need 30 metric tons of a given resources (be it water, food, building materials for HOMES or other utilitarian needs), can these other people spare that amount? if the second group responds with "yes." They have a consensus, an agreement to allocate resources as necessary for the good of everyone. OR more fundamentally, design all production only to provide for the logistical requirements of a civilization. Massive resorts for the rich are not "logistical requirements" let alone humanistic.

We get it, you and the rich want to keep money they've derived from those who produce value. Your sociological bias toward supremacy does not equate to an economic system.

Baseball

26th February 2014, 22:32

e.g. There are x amount of people over there, they need 30 metric tons of a given resources (be it water, food, building materials for HOMES or other utilitarian needs), can these other people spare that amount? if the second group responds with "yes." They have a consensus, an agreement to allocate resources as necessary for the good of everyone. OR more fundamentally, design all production only to provide for the logistical requirements of a civilization.

Its extremely fortunate that the first group of people found a second group of people with 30 metric tons of resources just lying around. However, its not particularly wise for that for that first group, or any group, to rely upon luck.

From the other angle, why does that second group have 30 metric tons of resources just lying around-- decaying, rusting, taking up space?

Lowtech

1st March 2014, 14:18

Its extremely fortunate that the first group of people found a second group of people with 30 metric tons of resources just lying around. However, its not particularly wise for that for that first group, or any group, to rely upon luck.

it was an example of coming to an agreement to share resources in a mutually beneficial manner. Between people directly, not while being economically subjugated by the rich.

From the other angle, why does that second group have 30 metric tons of resources just lying around-- decaying, rusting, taking up space?
Perhaps they over produce by choice. Today however there is plenty of unutilized value; e.g. concentration of wealth.

Lowtech

1st March 2014, 14:26

What you don't understand baseball is that the rich are not integral to economics. They dictate economics however by hoarding needed resources. People, in the need to survive, then work in exchange for those resources. However thier labor is devalued by the rich, as we must be paid less than the value of our labor for it to be profitable. So we do not receive in return the same value as we've produced, we have a diminished quality of life; we've allowed ourselves to be economically subjugated so the rich may retain a net income. This net income is not an economical necessity, rather it is the spoils enjoyed by a ruthless plutocracy.

Criminalize Heterosexuality

1st March 2014, 15:14

I haven't read the entire thread - it seems to have been derailed quickly into a strange debate between Mr. Spock and Scrooge McDuck - so I might be repeating points that were already brought up.

The first question is, I think, very confused. It uses categories of bourgeois economy - demand, commodities - to talk about the communist society. The distribution of goods would be affected in the sense that (in the higher phases of the communist society) the aggregate social product would be available to all, to use as they see fit, subject only to geographic constraints (which are, even in the present society, rapidly becoming irrelevant, since I can, this instance, hop onto a train and eat some Belgian pralines in Belgium - communism will be like that, except the train will be free and I could vote for more pralines). This might well cause "inefficiencies" from a bourgeois standpoint, but then again, why should we care? "Inefficiency" under capitalism doesn't necessarily mean waste (and a society that has developed the productive forces to an unprecedented extent can deal with a bit of waste, surely), but unprofitability - and obviously there would be no profit under communism.

Would goods be free? Yes, in all phases of the communist society there would be no money, no markets and no buying. Goods might be rationed in the lower phases - when the productive forces haven't been sufficiently developed (and note that revolution implies a civil war, which implies both a physical destruction of a part of the means of production, and diverting means of production and labor-power into the enterprise, useless under communism, of manufacturing corpses out of people). The details of this rationing are up to debate - labor-vouchers, whatever. And yes, for a limited period people would have to work or starve. In the higher phases, of course, if someone doesn't want to work, so what? I doubt many people would like to sit around their entire life, doing nothing, but if it works for them... communists are not moralists, we don't care if laziness is a vice, and in fact we recognize no vice at all.

Finally, "primitive communism" only shares the name with the communism Marxists fight for. Obviously we don't want to go back to previous stages of social development. Proletarian communism would be an industrialized, mass, global society, with centralized, conscious control over the means of production. Those who want to return to hunter-gatherer bands or some sort of local artisanal production are talking about something else entirely - in fact a lot of mean comparisons could be made to some other alleged "socialists", but this is beyond the scope of this thread.

There are obviously no examples of communist societies, unless one of Posadas' UFOs crashes and we are able to interrogate the communist cosmonauts. But we have seen what central planning is like, albeit in a state surrounded by imperialist powers, forced to participate in the world market, and burdened with an increasingly conservative bureaucratic caste. And - actually it was quite good, all the stereotypes about waiting in line aside.

liberlict

1st March 2014, 15:30

Criminalize Heterosexuality

1st March 2014, 15:46

Where do you work? What country do you live in? I'm assuming from your monotonous hatred for the 'rich' that you are of a lower class? The 'rich' as you generally call them provide most of the tax revenue that services the 'poor'.

First of all, without the proletariat, the bourgeoisie couldn't provide one cent of tax revenue. Second, actually the burden of taxation tends to fall on the lower layers of society - particularly due to regressive taxes like the VAT, which makes up a good part of the revenue of many European states - and the revenue is mainly used to benefit the bourgeoisie and allied classes and layers, from subsidies to kulak farmers to grants, bailouts etc.

liberlict

1st March 2014, 16:12

First of all, without the proletariat, the bourgeoisie couldn't provide one cent of tax revenue. Second, actually the burden of taxation tends to fall on the lower layers of society - particularly due to regressive taxes like the VAT, which makes up a good part of the revenue of many European states - and the revenue is mainly used to benefit the bourgeoisie and allied classes and layers, from subsidies to kulak farmers to grants, bailouts etc.

It depends where you live, so it's hard to talk about generally. But yeah all true about the bourgeoisie couldn't provide one cent of tax revenue without the proletariat. This though leads to value theory .. which there are many threads about already. I'll be happy to debate you about that there if you like, or we could make a new one if you wish? I'm really interested in this atm so it's cool with me.

Criminalize Heterosexuality

1st March 2014, 16:34

It depends where you live, so it's hard to talk about generally. But yeah all true about the bourgeoisie couldn't provide one cent of tax revenue without the proletariat. This though leads to value theory .. which there are many threads about already. I'll be happy to debate you about that there if you like, or we could make a new one if you wish? I'm really interested in this atm so it's cool with me.

It doesn't really depend on where one lives - can you name one bourgeois state that does not spend most of its tax revenue on the bourgeoisie?

As for theories of value, you decide.

Lowtech

1st March 2014, 16:34

Where do you work? What country do you live in? I'm assuming from your monotonous hatred for the 'rich' that you are of a lower class? The 'rich' as you generally call them provide most of the tax revenue that services the 'poor'.

You can't provide what you don't produce. The rich "own" sociological constructs called "assets" and assets do not produce value. The rich consume far more than they "provide." So any benefit you attribute to them is negated by the deficit in value they create, globally via concentration of wealth, aka artificial scarcity.

And it doesn't matter what class I am a part of as my assessment of capitalism is based on facts observable by everyone.

I observe it, the rich have a free ride on it.

liberlict

1st March 2014, 17:12

It doesn't really depend on where one lives - can you name one bourgeois state that does not spend most of its tax revenue on the bourgeoisie?

As for theories of value, you decide.

Hard for me to answer because I don't think bourgeoisie and proletariat are useful concepts in the first place. But even if they were, can you really compare the capitalism in Australia (where I currently live) with somewhere like Mexico?

can you name one bourgeois state that does not spend most of its tax revenue on the bourgeoisie?

This is impossible to answer in our context. What is a bourgeois state?

Lowtech

1st March 2014, 19:33

What is a bourgeois state?

Ah, so it's not that you disagree, rather you're ignorant of class based society, class bias, political economy, concentration of wealth, socio economic relations between first and third world countries, "net income," artificial scarcity and the nature of value.

And here I thought you were being a troll, I've misjudged you.

Criminalize Heterosexuality

1st March 2014, 19:52

Hard for me to answer because I don't think bourgeoisie and proletariat are useful concepts in the first place.

So there is no use in pointing out the structural differences between the owners of the means of production and wage laborers? That sounds odd to say the least.

But even if they were, can you really compare the capitalism in Australia (where I currently live) with somewhere like Mexico?

Sure, why wouldn't I be able to?

This is impossible to answer in our context. What is a bourgeois state?

States whose dominant economic configuration includes private ownership of the means of production and where state power is exercised for the benefit of the bourgeoisie. All modern states, with maybe five arguable exceptions.

liberlict

1st March 2014, 20:02

So there is no use in pointing out the structural differences between the owners of the means of production and wage laborers? That sounds odd to say the least.

In my opinion NO, because the means of production are so dynamic. The personal computer is a means of a production.

Sure, why wouldn't I be able to?

I don't know .. maybe you can. Penny for your thoughts?

States whose dominant economic configuration includes private ownership of the means of production and where state power is exercised for the benefit of the bourgeoisie. All modern states, with maybe five arguable exceptions.

OK, I won't argue with that. Your criteria are consistent.

Sinister Intents

1st March 2014, 20:05

In my opinion NO, because the means of production are so dynamic. The personal computer is a means of a production.

I'm sorry, but I'd have to say that a personal computer is more of a personal possession than a means of production. Is it a factory? No, but it can be a part of one, computers more assist means of production.

liberlict

1st March 2014, 20:21

Ah, so it's not that you disagree, rather you're ignorant of class based society, class bias, political economy, concentration of wealth, socio economic relations between first and third world countries, "net income," artificial scarcity and the nature of value.

And here I thought you were being a troll, I've misjudged you.

I disagree and I'm ignorant as well.. wow I must really suck haha.

No actually I think I have a pretty good grasp on all those things. I just have a different perspective.

But my all means educate me. See if you can manage a post without using the word 'rich'. Consider it a creative writing project. ^^

liberlict

1st March 2014, 20:29

I'm sorry, but I'd have to say that a personal computer is more of a personal possession than a means of production. Is it a factory? No, but it can be a part of one, computers more assist means of production.

The computer, personal or whatever, is a means of production. Disagree with this:

ihB3U0fd9MQ

Criminalize Heterosexuality

1st March 2014, 20:38

In my opinion NO, because the means of production are so dynamic. The personal computer is a means of a production.

That depends on how it's used. A personal computer that is used to laze around, playing X3 and avoiding work - that is not a piece of the means of production. Just as a machine tool that sits in a museum is not a piece of the MoP. Someone who uses their computer to program iOS application does own the means of production - although they are the equivalent of a craftsman, not a capitalist per se. They are engaged in petty commodity production and as such, the market will eventually eject them.

I don't know .. maybe you can. Penny for your thoughts?

Well, for example Mexican capitalism - the particular configuration of capitalist relations that is specific or nearly specific to Mexico, or at least a significant portion - depends on a close relationship to the US and exporting migrant labor, whereas Australian capitalism is premised on settler-colonial racism etc. But essentially the relations of production are the same: there is a group of people who own the means of production and employ wage labor in order to extract surplus value; there is a much larger group of wage laborers, and then there are special layers and the middle strata like the petty craftsmen, peasants etc.

OK, I won't argue with that. Your criteria are consistent.

Well, then, which of those spends more money on the proletariat than the bourgeoisie.

Sinister Intents

1st March 2014, 20:39

The computer, personal or whatever, is a means of production. Disagree with this:

ihB3U0fd9MQ

Yes, I disagree that computers are a means of production and because it's not producing a tangible commodity. Perhaps I'm wrong though and need to reeducate myself on this subject. So, I'll get back to this later. edit: As with what Criminalize said. Lately I'm just realizing I need to go back over all the material I've read because It's like I'm forgetting shit and it sucks :/

Criminalize Heterosexuality

1st March 2014, 20:43

Yes, I disagree that computers are a means of production and because it's not producing a tangible commodity. Perhaps I'm wrong though and need to reeducate myself on this subject. So, I'll get back to this later

But ultimately it does produce a tangible object that is a use value - particular structures in the device memory etc. Of course, publishing and distribution are also things that we shouldn't overlook (independent developers still generally rely on large distribution networks, publishing houses etc.). Also you can imagine that he's hooked the computer up to a CNC station and is producing tools or something like that.

The point is that whether something is a piece of the MoP or not depends on how it's employed. My oven is an example of personal property until I open a cookie stand for example. But note that generally it costs a lot more to employ the same object as a means of production than as an object for personal use. And you're ejected from the market almost immediately.

liberlict

1st March 2014, 20:55

Yes, I disagree that computers are a means of production and because it's not producing a tangible commodity.

Think of the forum you are posting on now. Is that not 'tangible' to you? I assure it exists. Maybe not like a hammer or plastics factory, but it has a physical existence in the form of bytes on some server somewhere.

Sinister Intents

1st March 2014, 21:02

Think of the forum you are posting on now. Is that not 'tangible' to you? I assure it exists. Maybe not like a hammer or plastics factory, but it has a physical existence in the form of bytes on some server somewhere.

It relies on how it's employed indeed. I was thinking at that moment MoPs must produce something physical, but yeah it depends on how it's used

liberlict

1st March 2014, 21:37

That depends on how it's used. A personal computer that is used to laze around, playing X3 and avoiding work - that is not a piece of the means of production. Just as a machine tool that sits in a museum is not a piece of the MoP. Someone who uses their computer to program iOS application does own the means of production - although they are the equivalent of a craftsman, not a capitalist per se. They are engaged in petty commodity production and as such, the market will eventually eject them.

All that can be said about any MOP.

Well, for example Mexican capitalism - the particular configuration of capitalist relations that is specific or nearly specific to Mexico, or at least a significant portion - depends on a close relationship to the US and exporting migrant labor, whereas Australian capitalism is premised on settler-colonial racism etc. But essentially the relations of production are the same: there is a group of people who own the means of production and employ wage labor in order to extract surplus value; there is a much larger group of wage laborers, and then there are special layers and the middle strata like the petty craftsmen, peasants etc.

Mexico's economy is fucked up by America's, and the rest of the world's, drug regulations. There are minimal developmental prospects for a banana republic whose most valuable exports are methamphetamine and cocaine.

Criminalize Heterosexuality

1st March 2014, 21:53

All that can be said about any MOP.

Well, yes, that was the point. Of course there are practical limits - no one owns a bottling plant for personal use, for example, nor could they operate it individually. Likewise it isn't possible to use bottling machinery as a petty craftsman.

Mexico's economy is fucked up by America's, and the rest of the world's, drug regulations. There are minimal developmental prospects for a banana republic whose most valuable exports are methamphetamine and cocaine.

Well, as much as I oppose drug laws, the legality of the commodity exported doesn't have that much of an impact - after all, the original banana republics exported the perfectly legal bananas, sugarcane, indigo, coffee etc.

liberlict

1st March 2014, 22:17

Well, as much as I oppose drug laws, the legality of the commodity exported doesn't have that much of an impact - after all, the original banana republics exported the perfectly legal bananas, sugarcane, indigo, coffee etc.

Are you serious? The drug-cartels tell the government what to do down there. Or 'up there', from my location.

the original banana republics exported the perfectly legal bananas, sugarcane, indigo, coffee etc.

Well said! And they did well. If the idiotic war on drugs was relaxed Mexico's, and most of South America's economies would at least have a fighting chance to develop. You can't blame capitalism for all that shit that goes on in South America when it's regulations that are the problem.

Criminalize Heterosexuality

1st March 2014, 22:24

Are you serious? The drug-cartels tell the government what to do down there. Or 'up there', from my location.

That might well be the case, but so did United Fruit. Coca-Cola, to an extent, does so to this day.

Well said! And they did well.

Well, "doing well" in terms of economic indices didn't really translate into any substantial improvement in the material circumstances for the proletariat, the peasantry, Indians etc. The old colonial oligarchy did very well. Everyone else was liable to be shot for organizing a union.

If the idiotic war on drugs was relaxed Mexico's, and most of South America's economies would at least have a fighting chance to develop. You can't blame all that shit that goes on in South America when it's regulations that are the problem.

Regulations were much more relaxed at one point; the material situation of the proletariat was roughly the same. This is not to say that regulations are good, or that crazy autarchic regimes like the one that existed in Paraguay for a time are a good idea. It's just that the regulation/free trade debate is not a debate that interests communists; it's like asking us to choose if we're going to be killed with a smooth or serrated knife.

liberlict

2nd March 2014, 00:32

It's just that the regulation/free trade debate is not a debate that interests communists

Why not?? It interested Marx.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/free-trade/

Baseball

2nd March 2014, 02:28

it was an example of coming to an agreement to share resources in a mutually beneficial manner. Between people directly, not while being economically subjugated by the rich.
Perhaps they over produce by choice. Today however there is plenty of unutilized value; e.g. concentration of wealth.

I was not being facetious in my response. The scenario presented could certainly occur, though not on any sort of regular basis.

The objection here is that these types of decisions do not occur in a vaccum. There are consequences for choices made.

So had that community produced 30 thousand tons of resources in excess of what was needed, it means it underproduced something that was needed. It produced things it did not need ahead of things it needed. Such production makes no sense, and it certainly tends to violate the repeated stated objectives of socialism.

Moreover, while the community that needed those resources to build houses ect benefited, nothing has been presented describing how the community which overproduced the resources benefited.

Lowtech

2nd March 2014, 14:19

I disagree and I'm ignorant as well.. wow I must really suck haha.

No actually I think I have a pretty good grasp on all those things. I just have a different perspective.
A different perspective doesn't change a thing's obvious implications.

But my all means educate me. See if you can manage a post without using the word 'rich'. Consider it a creative writing project. ^^if I can manage a post without using a term that fits and commonly understood? Think of it as a creative writing project? Sorry, I don't aspire to write satire for faux news.

Lowtech

2nd March 2014, 16:17

I was not being facetious in my response. The scenario presented could certainly occur, though not on any sort of regular basis.

The objection here is that these types of decisions do not occur in a vaccum. There are consequences for choices made.

So had that community produced 30 thousand tons of resources in excess of what was needed, it means it underproduced something that was needed. It produced things it did not need ahead of things it needed. Such production makes no sense, and it certainly tends to violate the repeated stated objectives of socialism.

Moreover, while the community that needed those resources to build houses ect benefited, nothing has been presented describing how the community which overproduced the resources benefited.

I did provide a vague example that you were keen to exploit, you've asked valid questions and I intend to respond the soonest I can.

Criminalize Heterosexuality

3rd March 2014, 13:22

Why not?? It interested Marx.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/free-trade/

Only because he - and most Marxists of the period - thought that free trade was conductive to rapid capitalist development, which in turn makes the socialist revolution more likely. (His approving comments about British rule in India were made for the same reason.) The data that would have been available to Marx and Engels in the forties or the eighties certainly seemed to support that conclusion.

Now, however, we can look back at nearly a century of capitalist expansion and rearrangement, and notice that the archaic social forms that Marx expected capitalism to sweep away have not only been retained in the periphery of the capitalist mode of production, they have been straightened. Saudi Arabia, for example, is in most aspects a modern bourgeois state, and a junior partner in the imperialist exploitation of much of the Middle East, but it retains both de facto slavery and appalling theocratic backwardness.

In fact the one example of capitalist development eroding archaic social forms I can think of would be the Daoud regime in Afghanistan, and this was only possible due to the extreme backwardness of Afghanistan and partially due to Soviet/PDPA influence.

Generally, it should be kept in mind that Marx was far from a consistent Marxist, and some things that are taken for granted by most Marxists today were not clear to Marx and the first Marxists. Take for example, the statement, in the text you link to, that universal suffrage in England would be equal to the political power of the proletariat. Now, today, even the SPGB, whose love of parliamentary politics is downright creepy and inappropriate, would say that.

Of course, Marx never suggested that communists should fight for free trade or protectionism. That is another important point. Generally, communists do not try to advise the bourgeois state on how to conduct its affairs. Our demands are purely negative - that is, not "introduce this tax" or "pay the police 1.4% less", but "leave this group alone, stop persecuting this group, stop breaking up strikes" etc. And these are not petitions - we know that unless we apply genuine pressure on the bourgeoisie, our demands will not be met.

liberlict

5th March 2014, 08:02

Only because he - and most Marxists of the period - thought that free trade was conductive to rapid capitalist development, which in turn makes the socialist revolution more likely. (His approving comments about British rule in India were made for the same reason.) The data that would have been available to Marx and Engels in the forties or the eighties certainly seemed to support that conclusion.

Now, however, we can look back at nearly a century of capitalist expansion and rearrangement, and notice that the archaic social forms that Marx expected capitalism to sweep away have not only been retained in the periphery of the capitalist mode of production, they have been straightened. Saudi Arabia, for example, is in most aspects a modern bourgeois state, and a junior partner in the imperialist exploitation of much of the Middle East, but it retains both de facto slavery and appalling theocratic backwardness.

In fact the one example of capitalist development eroding archaic social forms I can think of would be the Daoud regime in Afghanistan, and this was only possible due to the extreme backwardness of Afghanistan and partially due to Soviet/PDPA influence.

Generally, it should be kept in mind that Marx was far from a consistent Marxist, and some things that are taken for granted by most Marxists today were not clear to Marx and the first Marxists. Take for example, the statement, in the text you link to, that universal suffrage in England would be equal to the political power of the proletariat. Now, today, even the SPGB, whose love of parliamentary politics is downright creepy and inappropriate, would say that.

Of course, Marx never suggested that communists should fight for free trade or protectionism. That is another important point. Generally, communists do not try to advise the bourgeois state on how to conduct its affairs. Our demands are purely negative - that is, not "introduce this tax" or "pay the police 1.4% less", but "leave this group alone, stop persecuting this group, stop breaking up strikes" etc. And these are not petitions - we know that unless we apply genuine pressure on the bourgeoisie, our demands will not be met.

So does all this mean you support regulation or oppose it? Or is it a situational type thing?

Mrcapitalist

8th March 2014, 01:03

How are you ever going to get socialism to work most of Utopian socialist communities failed and also the kibbutzim failed.

Sinister Intents

8th March 2014, 01:06

How are you ever going to get socialism to work most of Utopian socialist communities failed and also the kibbutzim failed.

I think you should read this: Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/)
Also fuck utopianism, and I don't know what Kibbutzim are so I'll look that up

liberlict

8th March 2014, 11:41

I think you should read this: Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/)
Also fuck utopianism, and I don't know what Kibbutzim are so I'll look that up

Kibbutz's are Jewish religious camps that are for all intents and purposes communist. They are a real world example of how a communist society might be run. Only thing is they are racist as hell, exclusionary ---
'chosen people' is the ideological 'glue' that keeps it all together, not workers rights. It has some features of fascism about it, but apart from that it is an actual example of communism at work nowadays.

Mrcapitalist is wrong about them failing, they are thriving still.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz

Axiomasher

8th March 2014, 12:53

...

3.Are there any examples of successful socialism and communism(Besides the hunter-gatherers)?

Even when trapped within the structures of capitalism as we are there's a strong tendency towards mutualism - people join all kinds of societies which are intended to facilitate mutual social support and cooperation. Our long human evolution as a community-orientated species is hard to extinguish despite the best efforts of the capitalist class to reduce us to exploited atoms of individualistic consumerism. History is on our side in more ways than one.

Mrcapitalist

8th March 2014, 19:32

Kibbutz's are Jewish religious camps that are for all intents and purposes communist. They are a real world example of how a communist society might be run. Only thing is they are racist as hell, exclusionary ---
'chosen people' is the ideological 'glue' that keeps it all together, not workers rights. It has some features of fascism about it, but apart from that it is an actual example of communism at work nowadays.

Mrcapitalist is wrong about them failing, they are thriving still.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz

"The privatization processes and the adoption of non-cooperative beliefs in all of the Israeli society, affected the moral and structural support of kibbutzim, and with the years penetrated the new generations of the kibbutzim.
The kibbutzim were built on the attempt to create a permanent and institutionalized framework, which would be able to set a pattern of conduct that would successfully handle the implementation of shared values. The attempt to place such a regular pattern required creativity in the adoption of kibbutz practices to its growth and changing kibbutz system and encompassing society, but kibbutz leadership suppressed innovators and critical thinkers, causing either failures to deal with changes or adoption of capitalist solutions that negated kibbutz basic principles.[15]
The kibbutzim had a rural patterns of settlements, while over the years the Israeli society began adopting urban patterns of settlements. The lack of match between the patterns of the kibbutz society and the majority of the Israeli society, appealed the strong linkage between the kibbutzim with the entire Israeli society, a principle that did not allow the continuation of the collaborative model (because of the internal weakening and the loss of the all-Israeli legitimacy).
The kibbutzim were established during the pioneer period and were the fulfilment of the Zionist vision, during that period of time every member was required to give the maximum from himself for the good of the collective: the kibbutz and the state. In addition, as a group it was easier to deal with the common problems of the individuals—which allowed the recruitment of a large number of people for maintaining the safety of the community at that time, and therefore this way of life was suited for the Zionist goals more than other forms of life at that time.
The original concept of the kibbutzim was based to a large extent on self-sacrifice of its members for the sake of abstract foundations and not on the cancellation of work, and therefore after the pioneer period the linkage between the kibbutz members decreased, due to the decline in the pioneering spirit and the decline in the importance of the self-sacrifice values.
When the kibbutz was perceived as an initiator for values and national objectives, it was very much appreciated in the Israeli society and it was easier for the members to identify themselves with the kibbutz, its function and its significance. With the decrease of its appreciation and the minimizing of the social significances in the Israeli society, the kibbutz identity weakened.
The kibbutzim were not capable of dealing with the increase in the standard of living in order to keep the communal values relevant, which eventually led to the changes in patterns of life of many members, undermining the relevancy of the communal framework, which was not adapted to this.
The globalization processes and the kibbutz failure to block them exposed the kibbutz society to a different type of culture. For example, after kibbutz members were allowed to have Television sets in their own homes, the kibbutz members were exposed to "the good life" in which people were compensated for their work and could buy themselves different luxurious items. The kibbutzim were not capable of dealing with these processes.[16]
The collapse of the Communist block resulted in the weakening of Socialist beliefs around the world, including in the kibbutz society."

Sinister Intents

8th March 2014, 19:35

NGNM85

9th March 2014, 19:13

Kibbutz's are Jewish religious camps that are for all intents and purposes communist. They are a real world example of how a communist society might be run. Only thing is they are racist as hell, exclusionary ---
'chosen people' is the ideological 'glue' that keeps it all together, not workers rights. It has some features of fascism about it, but apart from that it is an actual example of communism at work nowadays.

Mrcapitalist is wrong about them failing, they are thriving still.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz

The problem with this is it does not recognize the diversity within the kibbutzim, and within Zionism, and how they have evolved over the years. This is partly due to a substantial international effort to rewrite history, as Chomsky explains in the following interview;

`SCHIVONE: You've mentioned that you were a Zionist youth organizer opposed to a Jewish state. What sort of Zionism did you and other youth envision and want to organize around?
CHOMSKY: I was connected to a considerable part of the Zionist movement which was opposed to a Jewish state. It's not too well known, but until 1942 there was no official commitment of Zionist organizations to a Jewish state. And even that was in the middle of World War II. It was a decision made in the Hotel Biltmore in New York, where there was the first official call for a Jewish state. Before that in the whole Zionist movement, establishing a Jewish state was maybe implicit or in people's minds or something, but it wasn't an official call.
The group that I was interested in was bi-nationalist. And that was not so small. A substantial part of the Kibbutz movement, for example, Hashomer Hatzair, was at least officially anti-state, calling for bi-nationalism. And the groups I was connected with were hoping for a socialist Palestine based on Arab-Jewish, working-class cooperation in a bi-national community: no state, no Jewish state, just Palestine.
There were significant figures involved in that. Actually one of them in Philadelphia was Zellig Harris, the guy I ended up studying with at the University of Pennsylvania. He was one of the leaders of a group called Avukah. By the time I got there it had disbanded but through the 1930s and early 1940s it was quite an important organization of left-wing, Zionist, anti-state, young Jews. Plenty of people went through that -- a lot of people who are pretty well-known now -- from all over the place. It was not an insignificant part of the young, left Jewish community in the United States, and happened to be partially in Philadelphia.
I can remember when the UN partition resolution was announced in 1947. It was almost like mourning in these circles because we didn't want a Jewish state.
The Anglo-American Commission claimed that about 25% of the Jewish population in Palestine was opposed to a state. There was kind of a different mentality at the time. To talk about socialism wasn't considered a joke at that time. It was a real meaningful, live phenomenon. And a large part of the Yishuv -- the Jewish community in Palestine -- was, in fact, a co-operative community with collectives, co-operative industry, commerce, lots of socialist institutions. They were also racist Jews. But there was also a lot of opposition to that, too in our groups. We thought they should be Arab-Jewish.
From about then, from the late 1960s until the mid-1970s, I think bi-nationalism was actually a feasible objective. Even then it could have moved in that direction. By then it would have taken a different form than pre-1948, of course. But there could have been moves toward a kind of federalism, which might have evolved further into a more integrated, bi-national community. And, in fact, even elements of Israeli intelligence were pressing for something like this.
By 1975, the opportunity had been lost. By that time, Palestinian nationalism had entered the international agenda and mainly among Palestinians. And since about 1975, I don't think there has been any way of realizing objectives like that except in stages with a two-state settlement being the first stage. If there was some other way of doing that, I'd be in favor of that, but I've never heard of it.
People now talk about one state -- which would, of course, be a bi-national state -- but without saying how you get there. At that time of my youth, there was, pre-1948. In the early 1970s, it was possible to think about how to get there directly. Now, as far as I can see, the only way to achieve goals like that is indirectly, through a two-state.
And incidentally, I've never been really in favor of a bi-national state because I don't see any reason to worship the imperial borders. They're perfectly arbitrary. Actually, when my wife and I lived on a kibbutz back in the early 1950s, we were backpacking around the place.'

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20111107.htm