Hypothetical revolution

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

Imagine a proletariat revolution happens in a small country, say, Timor or Iceland. Due to their insignificance, it's highly unlikely the revolution spreads through the rest of the World.
What can they do?

Even if government and classes are abolished they cannot abolish money, they'll need it for trades, since, at best, they'll only be auto sufficient, but lack many important resources (I don't know the actual situation of those countries right now).
If a revolution like this happened, would you support it? For many of Revleft the revolution has to be international, but what would you do if it happened in just a few countries? Would you be against it because it 'doesn't work´?

Because a situation like this is much more likely than an international revolution.

I didn't even mentioned self defense, I mean, Timor would be screwed probably, with Indonesia right next to it, but I do believe no one would attack Iceland.

[motion denied]

If classes cease to exist, so do commodities and any form of government.


If a revolution like this happened, would you support it? For many of Revleft the revolution has to be international, but what would you do if it happened in just a few countries? Would you be against it because it 'doesn't work´?

Of course. Anyone who does not support a proletarian revolution is a bourgeois lackey. For everyone on revleft the revolution must be international.

I don't think anyone is so delusional as to think revolutions will happen at the same time throughout the world.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

Not at the same time, but if one happened in France, Germany or US, it could easily spread through the rest of the World in a space of a few years, didn't it almost happened in the XX century?

But what could these small countries do?

[Slavic]

Ultimately I think that if a revolution had only occurred within a single country, the determining factor of whether or not the people are successfully striving for socialism would be how they implement the DotP.

Do they establish a party administration ala USSR, or consolidate power toward a military elite like the DPRK, or do they form a syndicalist society with local policing?

History has shown that if a singular country experiences a socialist revolution it is immediately diplomatically and economically isolated if not outright attacked by capitalist nations. How the DotP reacts to this external threat determines whether the revolution continues to unfold or die out under a police state or reverting to a market economy.

In an ideal situation, were said DotP isn't threatened by external capitalists, the DotP could ration and strive for a semblance of an autarky economy while waiting/instigating other socialists revolutions worldwide.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

Ultimately I think that if a revolution had only occurred within a single country, the determining factor of whether or not the people are successfully striving for socialism would be how they implement the DotP.

Do they establish a party administration ala USSR, or consolidate power toward a military elite like the DPRK, or do they form a syndicalist society with local policing?

History has shown that if a singular country experiences a socialist revolution it is immediately diplomatically and economically isolated if not outright attacked by capitalist nations. How the DotP reacts to this external threat determines whether the revolution continues to unfold or die out under a police state or reverting to a market economy.

No, nothing like DPRK or USSR.



In an ideal situation, were said DotP isn't threatened by external capitalists, the DotP could ration and strive for a semblance of an autarky economy while waiting/instigating other socialists revolutions worldwide.
Even if the majority of the population would have better quality of living in the capitalist society than in the standby socialism? That could be the case in some countries, like the Nordic ones.

[Slavic]

No, nothing like DPRK or USSR.


I don't know what you mean by that. The USSR is a classic example of what can happen to a socialist revolution when it occurs within a single country. Situations like the DPRK, USSR, and Cuba are very real possibilities if a socialist revolution only occurs within one country.


Even if the majority of the population would have better quality of living in the capitalist society than in the standby socialism? That could be the case in some countries, like the Nordic ones.

The Nordic countries are not standby socialism, they are active social democracies. The proletariat in those countries do not controls the means of production.

What I was referring to was a country in which the proletariat controlled the means of productions and implemented a DotP. If such a situation developed in a singular country, the DotP would be forced to either open its borders to international market trading or close them and attempt an autarky. The first scenario isn't ideal because utilizing an international market has been proven to reintroduce capitalism; the second scenario isn't ideal because while the DotP could eliminate wage labor its people would not be able to enjoy any commodity that had previously been imported.

Honesty, I have no clue how socialism can continue to develop from a revolution within a singular country. Every time this has occurred, each society either allowed a market to return or turn into a police state. Idealy a socialist revolution would occur worldwide and eliminate the external pressures that would of come from capitalist states, but to believe such a thing is foolish. Revolutions will occur in a piecemeal fashion with the hope that the interval between each one is short enough to prevent markets and police states from forming.

[Sabot Cat]

Imagine a proletariat revolution happens in a small country, say, Timor or Iceland. Due to their insignificance, it's highly unlikely the revolution spreads through the rest of the World.
What can they do?

Even if government and classes are abolished they cannot abolish money, they'll need it for trades, since, at best, they'll only be auto sufficient, but lack many important resources (I don't know the actual situation of those countries right now).
If a revolution like this happened, would you support it? For many of Revleft the revolution has to be international, but what would you do if it happened in just a few countries? Would you be against it because it 'doesn't work´?

Because a situation like this is much more likely than an international revolution.

I didn't even mentioned self defense, I mean, Timor would be screwed probably, with Indonesia right next to it, but I do believe no one would attack Iceland.

Such a nation would likely still need to trade and invest with foreign countries due to the constraints imposed by the globalized economic system, and I would argue that the Icelandic Workers' Free Territory or what have you could function well as a federation of worker cooperatives in the context of international commerce. And they should definitely be supported, because they could be pointed to as an instance of a successful proletarian revolution.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Personally I don't really view revolution as a single event, usually defined by the seizure of political power via force by a given group in a single nation. That's certainly one definition of "revolution", but I feel that the most significant waves of social change can't be really defined as a singular event that one can look back on and say "that's where things all changed". Certainly widespread social change often manifests itself in the seizure of political power, whether brief (like the Paris Commune or some of the events in Germany in the immediate aftermath of WW1) or relatively long-term (like the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution), but I think that there's a definite ebb-and-flow of struggle, victory & reaction. So in that sense, if some sort of revolutionary government was established and subsequently defeated in a isolated nation-state, it might not even be as significant as the fact that a revolutionary government was established in the first place.

I can think of no examples where the primary principles of a revolution weren't critically compromised, whether by internal or external forces, esp. when analyzed over a long enough timeline. Does that mean that such things are worthless? No, IMO, because they're usually bellwethers of sentiments or changes that aren't easily fit into neat little historical boxes.

[AmilcarCabral]

From my own point of view. I think we should support all changes in this evil world. This world out there is not a piece of cake for the great majority of people, and any change toward the better, even in some hungry countries like Haiti, Ethiopia, etc. any change that can at least install a welfare state-capitalist system with free medical care is a lot better. Most humans are hungry right now and millions and millions are sick, have eye problems, diabetes, heart disease, etc. and even in the USA millions of poor people older than 40 (when the body begins its decadence process) cannot enjoy their second half of life in a good positive way because in the damn satanic USA you gotta be rich or at least part of the right-wing middle classes in order to even get a regular dental check up.

So I think that any changes in poor countries should be supported out of compassion, love and humanism for the people who are in actual real pain right now.

You know have you noticed that in USA even poor americans who are under 30 years old or under 40 years old are not worried at all about politics and about their last part of their life. Because most americans are very existentialists and very heart-less and soul-less, they don't care about their own past and own future. And that's why many young teens and young americans think that there will be always food on their table, a good mom and a good dad and lots of food from Wal Mart all the time (Not true). Even Thomas Jefferson predicted that because USA was slowly being taken over by oligarchic corporations in the future americans will sleep in the streets.

This whole world is a hell trust me, and changes like Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela should be critisized but supported out of compassion for the poor. Like here in USA where we should support public schools, food stamps, and universal health care. While at the same time spreading propaganda for the need of a super large radical leftist party that would be able to install a government for the workers and poor US citizens


.



Imagine a proletariat revolution happens in a small country, say, Timor or Iceland. Due to their insignificance, it's highly unlikely the revolution spreads through the rest of the World. What can they do?

Even if government and classes are abolished they cannot abolish money, they'll need it for trades, since, at best, they'll only be auto sufficient, but lack many important resources (I don't know the actual situation of those countries right now). If a revolution like this happened, would you support it? For many of Revleft the revolution has to be international, but what would you do if it happened in just a few countries? Would you be against it because it 'doesn't work´?

Because a situation like this is much more likely than an international revolution. I didn't even mentioned self defense, I mean, Timor would be screwed probably, with Indonesia right next to it, but I do believe no one would attack Iceland.

[Skyhilist]

There would need to be trading networks. Personally, what I'd like to see done is that an international pact be formed between revolutionaries where they agree to help and fight for one another should one ever have a shot of overthrowing bourgeois power-structures. So, ideally, international solidarity could help any comrades get resources and help. Besides that the people who'd seized power would definitely have to rely on markets to obtain foreign goods, at least until the revolution spread to a much wider area of the globe. However, I imagine that a revolutionary communities could pool their exports and work together, exchange them for money, collectively decide what foreign goods were most needed in the community, and use the money the made off exports (combined with help from international comrades) to purchase the things that they'd need, which could then be distributed based on need, so that they wouldn't need to use money internally. That's personally what I'd like to see happen, although I'd support any overthrow of bourgeois power that I thought had revolutionary potential.

As a side note, it would be huge if a first-world country like Iceland had a revolution because I think it'd be more likely to have a domino effect than if it were a third-world country.

[Marshal of the People]

We could install yours truly as a "temporary" dictator. I "promise" I won't be bad.:rolleyes:

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

I don't know what you mean by that. The USSR is a classic example of what can happen to a socialist revolution when it occurs within a single country. Situations like the DPRK, USSR, and Cuba are very real possibilities if a socialist revolution only occurs within one country.



The Nordic countries are not standby socialism, they are active social democracies. The proletariat in those countries do not controls the means of production.

What I was referring to was a country in which the proletariat controlled the means of productions and implemented a DotP. If such a situation developed in a singular country, the DotP would be forced to either open its borders to international market trading or close them and attempt an autarky. The first scenario isn't ideal because utilizing an international market has been proven to reintroduce capitalism; the second scenario isn't ideal because while the DotP could eliminate wage labor its people would not be able to enjoy any commodity that had previously been imported.

Honesty, I have no clue how socialism can continue to develop from a revolution within a singular country. Every time this has occurred, each society either allowed a market to return or turn into a police state. Idealy a socialist revolution would occur worldwide and eliminate the external pressures that would of come from capitalist states, but to believe such a thing is foolish. Revolutions will occur in a piecemeal fashion with the hope that the interval between each one is short enough to prevent markets and police states from forming.
You misunderstood me, Nordic countries are capitalist, I was asking if you'd support this kinda of capitalism where most people actually lead good quality of living, or a 'standby' socialism where due to lack of a variety of resources they'd have lower quality of living.

USSR and others alike lacked class consciousness and I believe that's the reason they became repressive.
In this hipothetical scenario the revolution would be the true one.


Such a nation would likely still need to trade and invest with foreign countries due to the constraints imposed by the globalized economic system, and I would argue that the Icelandic Workers' Free Territory or what have you could function well as a federation of worker cooperatives in the context of international commerce. And they should definitely be supported, because they could be pointed to as an instance of a successful proletarian revolution.
Agreed. But then you disagree that the revolution HAS to be international no? It should be and it's desirable that sooner or later it reaches the whole globe. But it does not have to be to work right?

We could install yours truly as a "temporary" dictator. I "promise" I won't be bad.:rolleyes:
Hmm, I don't know if I want everyone who disagree's with you in mental hospitals for brainwashing.

[Althusser]

I don't think anyone is so delusional as to think revolutions will happen at the same time throughout the world.

You would be surprised. I've met some delusional Trots.

[Manic Impressive]

Imagine a proletariat revolution
Even if government and classes are abolished they cannot abolish money, they'll need it for trades, since, at best, they'll only be auto sufficient, but lack many important resources (I don't know the actual situation of those countries right now).

I think you answered your own question. If money still exists then it will still be capitalism. The existence of a money means the existence of the market, means the existence of value, means the existence of surplus value being exploited from workers, means you would still have the accumulation of capital pathing the way back to the capitalism we know today.

This is the problem with syndicalism, and the same problem with your hypothetical situation. Revolution is not the overthrow of a government, it is the change between one mode of production to another. Your example is not a revolution, it is merely a change in how value would be exploited from those who produce it.

So would I support capitalism under certain nice and fluffy conditions?

Capitalism must be opposed equally in any and all of it's guises.

Anything else makes you a bourgeois lackey.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

I think you answered your own question. If money still exists then it will still be capitalism. The existence of a money means the existence of the market, means the existence of value, means the existence of surplus value being exploited from workers, means you would still have the accumulation of capital pathing the way back to the capitalism we know today.

This is the problem with syndicalism, and the same problem with your hypothetical situation. Revolution is not the overthrow of a government, it is the change between one mode of production to another. Your example is not a revolution, it is merely a change in how value would be exploited from those who produce it.

So would I support capitalism under certain nice and fluffy conditions?

Capitalism must be opposed equally in any and all of it's guises.

Anything else makes you a bourgeois lackey.
No, Only the higher phase of Communist money disappears, the lower phase stops being capitalist, that's what I'm talking about. It's possible to not abolish money but still not having capitalist mode of production.

[Manic Impressive]

No, Only the higher phase of Communist money disappears, the lower phase stops being capitalist, that's what I'm talking about.
No you're wrong. For Marx the lower phase was a moneyless society. The only difference is that Marx thought that rationing would be needed in the first years meaning that it would not be complete free access.


It's possible to not abolish money but still not having capitalist mode of production.
No it isn't.


Owen's 'labour-money' ... is no more 'money' than a ticket to the theatre


these vouchers are not money. They do not circulate

Not that I'm advocating the use of labour vouchers. Marx was wrong on that point, Kropotkin was right.

[AnaRchic]

This is no longer the 1900s. With how amazingly connected the people of the world are nowadays, I don't see a real social revolution popping off in one country and not spreading like wildfire through many others. The Occupy movement sparked hundreds of similar movements all over the world, the Tunisian Revolution sparked the Arab Spring, etc. A proletarian social revolution in any one country would without a doubt spark many others.

I am optimistic given the way we're all becoming connected together, without authoritarian intermediaries, through the internet. I think that once a real social revolution becomes a reality anywhere, nothing on this planet will be able to stop it. World consciousness is moving in a non-hierarchical, cooperative direction. In due time this world will change significantly.

Either that or we facilitate an ecological mass destruction and revert to primitivism with 1/1000th of the population left. That's why we need to work really hard to spread revolutionary ideas, before its too late and all for nothing.

[Cheese Guevara]

I'd imagine this hypothetical country would have to resolve to become fully self sufficient. Outside trade would have to be stopped entirely, unless you have some local body with a currency set aside for buying and selling to foreign nations. Whatever is imported is then distributed within the "self sufficient" nation.



"Not that I'm advocating the use of labour vouchers. Marx was wrong on that point, Kropotkin was right."


Can you elaborate on this please?

[reb]

I think your presuppositions are wrong. Timor and Icelanda are, as far as I am aware, not hugely deveolped capitalist states. Iceland operates mostly on a financial level. Certainly there is a proletariat in these places but I am not sure how they would be able to over throw capital. So unless it's combined with a world wide struggle for the abolition of captial then I doubt they would amount to much beyond social democracies.

[reb]

No, Only the higher phase of Communist money disappears, the lower phase stops being capitalist, that's what I'm talking about. It's possible to not abolish money but still not having capitalist mode of production.

No, that's wrong. Nowhere does Marx argue this. It's impossible in this day and age to keep money, which is a commodity, in a non-commodity producing society. And it's non-commodity producing for a reason and that is tied up with the abolition of wage-labor and private property.

[argeiphontes]

No it isn't. [possible to abolish capitalism without abolishing money]


If not, then doesn't that imply that any society with money is necessarily capitalist, which is false?

Capitalism is a social mode of production. Those social relations are wage labor, private ownership of the means of production, and accumulation/distribution of the social surplus by a class that's not the producers. Money may be the root of all evil, but it does not "cause" capitalism.

[reb]

If not, then doesn't that imply that any society with money is necessarily capitalist, which is false?

Capitalism is a social mode of production. Those social relations are wage labor, private ownership of the means of production, and accumulation/distribution of the social surplus by a class that's not the producers. Money may be the root of all evil, but it does not "cause" capitalism.

Uh, maybe becaue communism is the end of commodity production and money is a commodity? Or how about this, communism is the end of alienated labor and money is alienated labor incarnate? Or how about this one, communism is the end of abstract human labor and money is human labor abstracted? We live in capitalism and the socoety after us is either communism or barbarism. It isn't as if we can make up some new fancy society where money exists but capitalism doesn't.

[argeiphontes]

^ Well, I'm not going to argue but I don't think any of those things are true. It also doesn't negate my point that if money is essential to capitalism, then any society with money must be capitalist (the features of money you described). Market socialism eliminates the social relations of capitalism without eliminating money. If money is an embodiment of social relations, then it will embody those relations instead of the ones it currently does. Unless of course, as you said, money is necessarily a capitalist thing.

[Remus Bleys]

You my friend agre, are a stalinist. Stalinist conception of socialism is this mythical society whereby we still have money and commodities, but unsteady of capitalism it is different because there is apparently no wage labour, no exploitation, and no private ownership. You claim to be an anarchist but I really don't see what seperates you from stalinism.

[argeiphontes]

Yes, because Stalin's conception of socialism had money, and mine does too, it logically follows that I must be a Stalinist.

[Sinister Intents]

Yes, because Stalin's conception of socialism had money, and mine does too, it logically follows that I must be a Stalinist.

I think money is a big aspect of capitalism, you don't need money comrade. Money is vastly unnecessary and will always lead to hierarchy because wealth will get into fewer, and fewer hands. Even Marx said this of the bourgeoisie that wealth will get into fewer and fewer hands. Let go of the conception of money, money is useless under socialism

[argeiphontes]

No way, anybody who doesn't love money as much as I do is going to the gulag.

FHjHXpFiegA

Break the deal, play the wheel. This is anarcho-Stalinism, damn it.

[Sinister Intents]

How about..... NO!!! Fuck money!!! Why do you love money????

[argeiphontes]

Well, for starters, how is my anarcho-Stalinist regime going to pay the guy (or gal) to weld a heavy, metal Wheel of Punishment for me? And without that, how will I rule my Bartertown? With leniency? No way--I wear that WWSD bracelet for a reason! Without money, anarcho-Stalinism crumbles.

Seriously, though, I'm a market socialist. (A little to the left of mutualism.) So there's still money. I don't think money magically recreates social relationships. I neither love nor hate money.

[Sabot Cat]

Money is inherently capitalistic, because either they are banknotes or their value is determined by the exchange value of goods and services in a market, and not by heuristics of labor value and communal need.

Now, certificates of labor that are personalized for each worker and expire after they're used is something more compatible with a socialist society, but they aren't money.

[Remus Bleys]

Yes, because Stalin's conception of socialism had money, and mine does too, it logically follows that I must be a Stalinist.

I did reference more than money. Socialist competition among the proletariat anyone?

[argeiphontes]

I did reference more than money.

Yeah, and I'll concede it all:


Stalinist conception of socialism is this mythical society

Mythical society: Check.


we still have money and commodities

Money & commodities: Check.


no wage labour, no exploitation, and no private ownership.


Check. Check. And Checkmate, apparently.



You claim to be an anarchist but I really don't see what seperates you from stalinism.

Nothing, apparently I'm an anarcho-Stalinist. There is no difference between a market socialism or mutualism and Stalinism. It's clear as day.

[Remus Bleys]

You see but the existence of a commodity presupposes private property: stalinism and prodhoubism just hide this in workers control or some other nonsense. The workers therefore, in your Paradise themselves become their own exploiters. Wage labour is retained but mystified in the fact that workers also get profits from this. I don't care if stalin had a big bad mean state, I care of it was capitalist, and as it was capitalism pretending to be a socialist Wonderland I can make judgements on the state. But given the fact that I'm agreiphontes market commodities and money are still upheld, in addition to private property. This agre is explicitly supporting capitalism (at least stalinists can be clever and cloak this in this being a transistional period. Agre makes no Claims.). So I really musty act what is someone who's end goal is capitalism doing on this supposedly communist website?

[argeiphontes]

Market socialism == capitalism, ey? Interesting logic. It's getting late, I'm going to go "exploit myself" now...

[Blake's Baby]

So, anyway back in Iceland or Timor, the working class can do nothing of any great utility, as capitalism is a world-system now and they haven't abolished it. You could no more abolish capitalism in Iceland than you could in New York or your own bedroom.

The proletariat (that is, the world working class) will abolish capitalism (that is the world economic & property system).

Not Einar Svenssen will expropriate his boss an become a little commune all to himself or any such nonsensical notion.

[Sabot Cat]

So, anyway back in Iceland or Timor, the working class can do nothing of any great utility, as capitalism is a world-system now and they haven't abolished it. You could no more abolish capitalism in Iceland than you could in New York or your own bedroom.

I think it matters if we could point to a successful example of communism in the world because one of the most common arguments against it are: "it'll never work in real life, every time it's been attempted it has failed, even if the idea is good." Well those naysayers would have to eat those words and look upon Iceland or Timor, which would hopefully inspire more leftist revolutions until we can get the sort of momentum for a worldwide overthrow of the bourgeois.

[Per Levy]

Market socialism == capitalism, ey? Interesting logic. It's getting late, I'm going to go "exploit myself" now...

market socialism is capitalism, yes absoloutly. if you want to keep capitalism under a different name, with wage labour, money and exploitation than it is and always will be capitalism.

[argeiphontes]

market socialism is capitalism, yes absoloutly. if you want to keep capitalism under a different name, with wage labour, money and exploitation than it is and always will be capitalism.

There is no wage labor in market socialism.

[Sinister Intents]

There is no wage labor in market socialism.

You want a money economy, makes me think you just want reformed capitalism. How would people make money in market socialism if not wage labor? I'm not very knowledgeable on it, I'd rather abolish the money system and have full communism. Humans have suffered enough thanks to money.

[reb]

There is no wage labor in market socialism.

Are you describing a hypothetical and utopian situation intead of looking at actual historical developments? Unless you think that there was no wage labor in the soviet union either....

[argeiphontes]

You want a money economy, makes me think you just want reformed capitalism. How would people make money in market socialism if not wage labor? I'm not very knowledgeable on it, I'd rather abolish the money system and have full communism. Humans have suffered enough thanks to money.

Capitalism is a mode of production with the following features:

a) Market allocation.
b) Wage labor.
c) Private ownership of the means of production.
d) Allocation and distribution of social surplus to a class that didn't produce it.

Market socialism gets rid of b through d and suppresses a. It eliminates the social relations that constitute capitalism, while retaining market allocation. As another example, the Soviet Union suppressed a but did not eliminate b-d, which is why the Soviet Union is considered state capitalist. One can only think that market socialism is capitalism if one doesn't understand that economic systems are composed of social relations of production, allocation, and distribution of social surplus.

Check out Marxian economist Richard D. Wolff's website for some info on his Economic Democracy (http://www.rdwolff.com/), which is a logical and attainable vision for a market socialism. Philosopher and mathematician David Schweickart (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Schweickart) also has his book, After Capitalism (http://www.amazon.com/After-Capitalism-New-Critical-Theory/dp/0742513009/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1391289260&sr=1-2&keywords=after+capitalism+economic+democracy+in+ac tion).

[Remus Bleys]

How can a market exist without private property? How can a commodity exist without wage labour?

[RedMaterialist]

No, that's wrong. Nowhere does Marx argue this. It's impossible in this day and age to keep money, which is a commodity, in a non-commodity producing society. And it's non-commodity producing for a reason and that is tied up with the abolition of wage-labor and private property.

The question is who owns the commodity. In capitalism the capitalist class owns the commodities and the money. The working class owns only their labor.

Under socialism the state owns all commodities, including money. Under a higher stage of socialism commodities are produced only for their utility or use-value; then the use of a commodity for exchange, money, will slowly disappear.

[Remus Bleys]

The question is who owns the commodity. In capitalism the capitalist class owns the commodities and the money. The working class owns only their labor.

Under socialism the state owns all commodities, including money. Under a higher stage of socialism commodities are produced only for their utility or use-value; then the use of a commodity for exchange, money, will slowly disappear.

Socialism is the destruction of the law of value. Under socialism things are only produced for use, things are rationally planned and produced because they benefit broader society somehow. How can the commodity form persist under such a system?
edit : posting on this thread was a mistake. I will not waste my time by arguing with pro capitalists or people who think that the fsu withered away.

[RedWaves]

Have you seen revolutions spread through out the world recently?


We could have one happen in a bigger country and I guarantee you it won't change anything for the entire world.

Western society is a long, long long ways from ever having a revolution. There is still that cold war feel of anything that disagrees with capitalism is bad. The people know they are slaves and don't even give a shit. If anything it's turned into worship of the rich.

Anytime there is a real revolution, there is propaganda that goes against it. This is classic moves in American media. Look at how they still portray Cubans as Commie criminals coming to take your health care. The mainstream media don't even have to really try that hard, they barely give people bait and they take it like the blind suckers they are. And it's wrapped up in sexism and racism and so forth, but it all comes back to the class war. That's why I say the only war is class war. Everything comes back to the class war and how the rich see you as cattle.

If America has proved anything in it's 300 years of history it is that you can easily enslave an entire country and they won't do a goddamn thing about what you do. They got it from the British, but at least in the UK we still see riots and when people get mad they go berserk. You don't see that in America, no one gets mad at all unless they think standing on the fucking street holding up a stupid sign really means something.

[RedMaterialist]

How can a market exist without private property? How can a commodity exist without wage labour?

Gift economies, exchange by gift, existed for thousands of years before private property.

[Sinister Intents]

Gift economies, exchange by gift, existed for thousands of years before private property.

Give me some sources or evidence please.

[argeiphontes]

How can a market exist without private property?

How is private property required to sell things? Or are you going to eliminate personal property as well? My understanding is that the private property referred to by communism is private property in the means of production. People have been making things for sale for a long time before capitalism came into existence.



How can a commodity exist without wage labour?

If you define commodities as things made using wage labor, then there are no commodities in market socialism. If you just define them as things offered for sale, then there are.

[RedMaterialist]

Socialism is the destruction of the law of value. Under socialism things are only produced for use, things are rationally planned and produced because they benefit broader society somehow. How can the commodity form persist under such a system?

I agree that, strictly speaking, commodities cannot be produced in the higher stage of socialism. A product will no longer be a 'complex' of use-value and exchange-value.

Maybe it will be called social-commodity production which production cannot be sold or exchanged (because it has no value in exchange), but only used.

[argeiphontes]

Give me some sources or evidence please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy

[Sinister Intents]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy

Thanks, I know what the economy is, but not so much as to where and when they've existed, thats because I'm forgettful and it sucks :(

[argeiphontes]

Thanks, I know what the economy is, but not so much as to where and when they've existed, thats because I'm forgettful and it sucks :(

Albert Schrauwers has argued that the kinds of societies used as examples by Weiner and Godelier (including the Kula ring (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kula_ring) in the Trobriands, the Potlatch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch) of the Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Pacific_Northwest_Coast) , and the Toraja (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toraja) of South Sulawesi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sulawesi), Indonesia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia)) are all characterized by ranked aristocratic kin groups that fit with Claude Lévi-Strauss (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_L%C3%A9vi-Strauss)' model of "House Societies" (where "House" refers to both noble lineage and their landed estate). Total prestations are given, he argues, to preserve landed estates identified with particular kin groups and maintain their place in a ranked society.

[argeiphontes]

I agree that, strictly speaking, commodities cannot be produced in the higher stage of socialism. A product will no longer be a 'complex' of use-value and exchange-value.

Maybe it will be called social-commodity production which production cannot be sold or exchanged (because it has no value in exchange), but only used.

I would call such as system 'communism'. It goes above and beyond the destruction of capitalist social relations into some metaphysics of the commodity and a reified conception of markets. :)

[Sinister Intents]

Albert Schrauwers has argued that the kinds of societies used as examples by Weiner and Godelier (including the Kula ring (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kula_ring) in the Trobriands, the Potlatch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch) of the Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Pacific_Northwest_Coast) , and the Toraja (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toraja) of South Sulawesi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sulawesi), Indonesia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia)) are all characterized by ranked aristocratic kin groups that fit with Claude Lévi-Strauss (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_L%C3%A9vi-Strauss)' model of "House Societies" (where "House" refers to both noble lineage and their landed estate). Total prestations are given, he argues, to preserve landed estates identified with particular kin groups and maintain their place in a ranked society.

Thanks, I'll also re read Kropotkin's Mutual Aid and The Conquest of Bread.

[cyu]

Imagine a proletariat revolution happens in a small country. Due to their insignificance, it's highly unlikely the revolution spreads through the rest of the World.
See also http://kasamaproject.org/projects/revolution-in-south-asia



they cannot abolish money, they'll need it for trades, since, at best, they'll only be auto sufficient, but lack many important resources
Do you think it is possible to abolish business "owners" and CEOs, but use money? I used to never be able to imagine an actual gift economy, so I imagined even a leftist economy would also have to use money. Alternatively, you could have votes determine resource allocation within the economy - for example, everyone might be given 1000 votes to use on whatever they think needs more resources. See also http://cjyu.wordpress.com/article/equal-pay-for-unequal-work/

Also from Chomsssssssky earlier:

I imagine that a revolutionary communities could pool their exports and work together, exchange them for money, collectively decide what foreign goods were most needed in the community, and use the money the made off exports (combined with help from international comrades) to purchase the things that they'd need, which could then be distributed based on need, so that they wouldn't need to use money internally.

[reb]

The question is who owns the commodity. In capitalism the capitalist class owns the commodities and the money. The working class owns only their labor.

Under socialism the state owns all commodities, including money. Under a higher stage of socialism commodities are produced only for their utility or use-value; then the use of a commodity for exchange, money, will slowly disappear.

No, the question is the aboltion of the commodity-form. In capitalism you have commodities because of property, in socialism you have no commodities because property is held in common. Your idea of socialism is just capitalism with the state acting as the capitalist. I really can't believe that I have to deal with this shit on here.

[reb]

I agree that, strictly speaking, commodities cannot be produced in the higher stage of socialism. A product will no longer be a 'complex' of use-value and exchange-value.

Why? You don't give any reason for it not to in your entirely wrong and bourgeois conception of socialism. Just that they "dissappear" as if by magic.


Maybe it will be called social-commodity production which production cannot be sold or exchanged (because it has no value in exchange), but only used.

It is almost as if you have no idea what a commodity is or why it exists.

[Per Levy]

There is no wage labor in market socialism.

than why do you have money if not to pay wages? also id love to know what your stance is on china, since most market socialists i've met are strict defenders of china.

[Blake's Baby]

I think it matters if we could point to a successful example of communism in the world because one of the most common arguments against it are: "it'll never work in real life, every time it's been attempted it has failed, even if the idea is good." Well those naysayers would have to eat those words and look upon Iceland or Timor, which would hopefully inspire more leftist revolutions until we can get the sort of momentum for a worldwide overthrow of the bourgeois.

So? I don't think you thinking it matters has much influence on history. I think it would be nice if the revolution in Russia hadn't ended in the counter-revolution. Does wishing make it true? 'If we all close our eyes very tight and say 'I wish communism could work in one country' three times, then the magic pixies will make it happen...'

[argeiphontes]

than why do you have money if not to pay wages? also id love to know what your stance is on china, since most market socialists i've met are strict defenders of china.

China is some combination of state capitalist and market capitalist. I neither support nor promote China. Again, socialism has to destroy the social relations of capitalism, which I've listed above. Unless China has done that, why would I support it?

Money has more uses than just to pay wages, doesn't it? Not all money originates as wages, even today. The money used by capitalists doesn't originate as wages, for example.

In market socialism, labor is the residual claimant in worker-owned enterprises. This claim is paid out in money. Money is then used to purchase things in the market, just like it is today.

[Remus Bleys]

Just for clarification what do you think money is.

[argeiphontes]

Just for clarification what do you think money is.

An abstract representation of economic value.

edit: Never mind, that's price. Money is a medium of exchange, an abstract commodity that can represent all others.

[Remus Bleys]

So you think the commodity form exists under socialism then? You think the persistence of the commodity form is somehow desirable?

[argeiphontes]

So you think the commodity form exists under socialism then? You think the persistence of the commodity form is somehow desirable?

There's nothing magical about commodities. I want to eliminate capitalism and its exploitative social relations. I'm not a metaphysician of money or commodities.

edit: People oppress me, not commodities.

[RedMaterialist]

There's nothing magical about commodities. I want to eliminate capitalism and its exploitative social relations. I'm not a metaphysician of money or commodities.

edit: People oppress me, not commodities.

Commodities are fetishistic.

[argeiphontes]

Commodities are fetishistic.

No. Commodities aren't fetishistic. Commodities are fetishized. A physical object outside of any social relations has no powers of its own.

[RedMaterialist]

No. Commodities aren't fetishistic. Commodities are fetishized. A physical object outside of any social relations has no powers of its own.

Marx says fetishism attaches itself to a product of labor as soon as it is produced as a commodity.

It may be more accurate to say that a product of labor is fetishized as a commodity.

Since commodities are socially produced, it appears to the producer that the commodities have a social relation between themselves? Thus the fetish of believing that objects, commodities, have some kind of social power. Esp. money. Money in modern capitalism, the ultimate fetish.

But, on the other hand, capital is a social relationship.