Communism and Progress

[VCrakeV]

I was having a discussion on a different forum, and one thing lead to another, until we started debating about communism and its practicality. This is one of the responses I got, which I found interesting. It hasn't swayed my opinion, but it's an interesting thought to entertain:

"The problem here [on communism] is that it is completely unnatural to work for the benefit of the collective in spite of one's own needs and wants. When the state takes away the ability for an individual to keep the fruits of his own labors, that individual ceases to be a human being, and becomes a piece of machinery. The fact of the matter is that not all men are created as equals. Those of exceptional ability must have the choice to prosper from their abilities. If the state prevents an individual from owning his physical and intellectual property, the progress of mankind will grind to a halt. Just look at the former Soviet Union or Cuba to see what happens when ability is not rewarded and equality is forcibly imposed. If the state were to tell me that the products of my intelligence and labor had to be surrendered to the collective, my only reasonable response would be to destroy my creation rather than have it stolen by those who produce nothing--the government. The idea of socialism, while personally repugnant to me, is also completely counter-intuitive to the continued progress of human achievement."

Your thoughts?

[Blake's Baby]

My thoughts are that 'the state', Cuba and the Soviet Union have nothing to do with communism so they're irrelevant to the question.

[G4b3n]

This argument stems from a misunderstanding of what communism is. It is in capitalism where someone labors in spite of their own needs or wants because they are deprived of the means of subsistence unless they comply with the will of those who claim ownership over these things. What actually turns people into machines is the inability to determine the objectives of one's own labor; labor being a fundamental expression of humanity and human individuality. In communism a person would work to the best of their ability because they are allowed the autonomy to direct their labor in such a way that expresses their desires as individuals as they are freed of the oppression of capital that direct's labor in the interests of certain privileged individuals.

If you take a look at these arguments, you will notice that they are always from a privileged perspective, never a worker's perspective. The premise to these arguments tends to be "what about my property?" The worker has no property and does not care to debate why you ought to be able to keep your privileged position as it is a position that is to be smashed with force.

[Creative Destruction]

I was having a discussion on a different forum, and one thing lead to another, until we started debating about communism and its practicality. This is one of the responses I got, which I found interesting. It hasn't swayed my opinion, but it's an interesting thought to entertain:

"The problem here [on communism] is that it is completely unnatural to work for the benefit of the collective in spite of one's own needs and wants. When the state takes away the ability for an individual to keep the fruits of his own labors, that individual ceases to be a human being, and becomes a piece of machinery. The fact of the matter is that not all men are created as equals. Those of exceptional ability must have the choice to prosper from their abilities. If the state prevents an individual from owning his physical and intellectual property, the progress of mankind will grind to a halt. Just look at the former Soviet Union or Cuba to see what happens when ability is not rewarded and equality is forcibly imposed. If the state were to tell me that the products of my intelligence and labor had to be surrendered to the collective, my only reasonable response would be to destroy my creation rather than have it stolen by those who produce nothing--the government. The idea of socialism, while personally repugnant to me, is also completely counter-intuitive to the continued progress of human achievement."

Your thoughts?

They don't understand what communism is.

They start off with a false premise, that it is "unnatural" for people to work in a collective spirit, rather than individually. First of all, communism proposes a system that respect individual labor and considers it to be social labor, which is the opposite of what capitalism does. Capitalism is incredibly efficient partly because of its alienation of labor, which is a disrespect for individual labor, as well as reducing them to being cogs. Communism proposes freely cooperative labor as a way to transcend alienated labor. Second to that, most of our history as a species (some ~100,000 years) has been spent people working for the collective, in spite of one's needs and wants. This was, in fact, necessary as a way to survive in periods of extreme scarcity.

As to the question of "equality," communism isn't concerned with equality as such, at least not at first. Not the least of which is because "equality" is such a nebulous term that has been abused so much as to render it meaningless. It's better to deal with the situations and proposals themselves and later on any discussion about their merits vis a vis equality can occur as an afterthought. Marx proposes that there are two phases of communism; the "lower phase," in which it is just developing on the charred remains of capitalism after a revolution has occurred. In this epoch, distribution would occur along the lines of proportional receipt. That is, you get from the general social product, in proportion, what you give in labor. This necessitates, as the person pointed out, a level of inequality since people do have inequitable abilities to work (in terms of how long they can work and what not.) Once supply has outstripped demand in a period of great material abundance, then the principle of "from each according to ability, to each according to need" becomes the ruling maxim of the day. This occurs in what Marx termed the "higher phase" of communism, where work is transformed into "life's prime want."

With regards to "the state," communism is necessarily stateless. Since communism is society wherein class has been abolished, and the state is primarily an instrument of class rule, then there is no state to take this person's "intellectual" or "physical" property. Since a state is necessary to enforce things like property rights, it's also incoherent. There is no property. As far as "intellectual property" or "physical property" itself, you can't contain ideas. Once they're out in the open, if the collective of people feel like it is a necessary thing to add to the social product, then they'll do it despite whether this person destroys it or not. They are not so brilliant as to have been the only person to find the fountain of youth and no one else is capable of such a thing. Ideas, inventions and all that exist outside the realm of individual thought.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I concur with much of what has been written above, but the one thing I should like to point out is that most of the people who think of themselves as having exceptional ability that somehow gives them the right to more than the "average" person are not going to contribute to the advancement of human knowledge at all. And most scientific and technological breakthroughs in the present period are the result of collaboration, often large-scale, and are driven by the needs of an objectively socialised, large-scale industrial production.

Why should members of society work for the benefit of bellends such as that guy, anyway?

[Redistribute the Rep]

I suppose its also "unnatural" for us to use modern sewage systems. Let your opponent ruminate on that for a while

But anyway, any claim of capitalism being natural is absurd. It took considerable efforts to transform backwards traditional economies to efficient capitalist ones. Your opponent isn't really looking at the larger picture of capitalism, but a very narrow part of it (it's ostensible individualism) which other posters have already addressed above. In short, the argument is flawed on many levels.

[VCrakeV]

My thoughts are that 'the state', Cuba and the Soviet Union have nothing to do with communism so they're irrelevant to the question.


Short, sweet, and to the point! ^_^ It's exactly what I was trying to tell him.

Great points everyone, by the way. Quite a few things I didn't think about.

Now that I think about it, are there any Capitalists here? 0_o I found it so strange to run into one on an intellectual forum (the discussion is on a Satanism forum)...

[Creative Destruction]

satanists are basically randroids with cartoonish rituals. it's not surprising you'd run into a capitalist there.

[VCrakeV]

satanists are basically randroids with cartoonish rituals. it's not surprising you'd run into a capitalist there.

We're actually pretty cool. Only the wannabes do any sort of rituals and "praise Satan". We're just big on individualism and science, for the most part. I could actually go into detail about what being a Satanist is, but I don't want to stray off topic.

[Creative Destruction]

We're actually pretty cool. Only the wannabes do any sort of rituals and "praise Satan". We're just big on individualism and science, for the most part. I could actually go into detail about what being a Satanist is, but I don't want to stray off topic.

well, i understand what it is, both the religious and "philosophical" forms. the part about being "big on individualism and science" is what i was getting at. that attracts the same sort of dopes who go for Libertarianism.

[VCrakeV]

well, i understand what it is, both the religious and "philosophical" forms. the part about being "big on individualism and science" is what i was getting at. that attracts the same sort of dopes who go for Libertarianism.

Wouldn't you say that a lot of the "dopes" on this forum are pro-libertarian?

[Creative Destruction]

i suppose that entirely depends on what you mean by "libertarian." when i refer to Libertarians, i mean the small-government, pro-capitalist ideology.

[Loony Le Fist]

"The problem here [on communism] is that it is completely unnatural to work for the benefit of the collective in spite of one's own needs and wants.


Please explain why.



When the state takes away the ability for an individual to keep the fruits of his own labors, that individual ceases to be a human being, and becomes a piece of machinery.


Who said anything about there being a state? But note that a state is required to protect those rights. Keep reading. The contradiction below is amusing. :laugh:



The fact of the matter is that not all men are created as equals. Those of exceptional ability must have the choice to prosper from their abilities.


Those of exceptional abilities are stewards and mentors for those of lesser abilities. They still have to demonstrate how it is a contradiction to simultaneously benefit oneself and a community.



If the state prevents an individual from owning his physical and intellectual property, the progress of mankind will grind to a halt.


Intellectual property is a problem for progress. After all, it's a state enforced monopoly. What kind of libertarian is this? :laugh:

There is a difference between private property and personal property. I'd like to hear their explanation as to why progress would grind to halt.



Just look at the former Soviet Union or Cuba to see what happens when ability is not rewarded and equality is forcibly imposed.


No. They are examples of what happens when basic freedoms are denied to a population.



If the state were to tell me that the products of my intelligence and labor had to be surrendered to the collective, my only reasonable response would be to destroy my creation rather than have it stolen by those who produce nothing--the government. The idea of socialism, while personally repugnant to me, is also completely counter-intuitive to the continued progress of human achievement."


That same government provides the service of protection of property rights that you require to keep the fruits of your labor that you love so much, idiot! :laugh: But of course, the government produces nothing--except ensure that profits are privatized and losses are socialized and subsidized by taxes.

You are repugnant with your self contradictory libertarian bullshit. Ugh. Where do you find these people.



Your thoughts?

Yes. People like this ought to stop being so brain fucked. People like this make me want to slap them.

[Dave B]

How about?



The problem here [on capitalism] is that it is completely unnatural to work for the benefit of the capitalist class in spite of one's own needs and wants. When the capitalist takes away the ability for an individual to keep [all] the fruits of his own labors, that individual ceases to be a human being, and becomes a piece of machinery.

---------------------------------

The fact of the matter is that not all men are created as equals.

Those of exceptional ability must have the choice to prosper from their abilities.



(Come to that later)

-----------------------------------------

To continue;


If the capitalist class compels an individual to sell his physical and intellectual property [labour power], the progress of mankind will grind to a halt.

(It doesn’t matter what kind of ‘physical and intellectual property’ you own, or have, unless there is an application for it.

Most ‘physical and intellectual property’ needs to be applied to ‘capital’ or the means of production, machinery etc etc which most ‘owners’ of ‘physical and intellectual property’ don’t possess.

They have to sell it for less than it is likely to produce in order for the buyer, employer/capitalist, to make a profit.

The exception in the past was artisan production in simple commodity production like handloom linen weavers and taylors and maybe now Joe the plumber and independent car mechanic etc. And that kind of thing is even more on the periphery of global production than it was.)


And;


Just look at the former Soviet Union or Cuba to see what happens when ability is not rewarded and equality is forcibly imposed.

(As people have noted this is not relevant as neither was or is it communism.)

To continue again;


If the capitalist class were to tell me that the products of my intelligence and labor had to surrendered to the them, my only reasonable response would be to destroy my creation rather than have it stolen by those who produce nothing--the capitalist class.

The idea of capitalism, while personally repugnant to me, is also completely counter-intuitive to the continued progress of human achievement.



Then;


Those of exceptional ability must have the choice to prosper from their abilities.


What is exceptional ability; aside for the moment of a natural gift?


It can be an acquired skill that is ‘rare’; but that doesn’t necessarily mean that there might be much opportunity to prosper from it eg a cello player.

In fact it may have once been well remunerated and since become completely redundant eg manual typesetting.

As far as the opportunity to 'prosper' from an acquired skill; it has to be a particular form of ‘labour power’ that has a high demand and short supply; and thus as a commodity it attracts a higher price as does its product.

When ‘prices’ of some commodities , including the various types of labour power, are increased by excess demand the capitalist system tends to increase the supply.

However increasing the supply of skilled labour power has always been a headache for the capitalist class; who become understandably irritated at having to their pay workers more than they really need.

Training them up yourself is an obvious economic hazard as they are liable to be poached by your competitor.

One solution was ‘public education’ to increase the supply to the national labour pool and thus the ‘competition’ between the sellers of labour power to reduce the price eg

Capital Vol. III Part IV
Conversion of Commodity-Capital and Money-Capital into Commercial Capital and Money-Dealing Capital (Merchant's Capital)
Chapter 17. Commercial Profit



Secondly, because the necessary training, knowledge of commercial practices, languages, etc., is more and more rapidly, easily, universally and cheaply reproduced with the progress of science and public education the more the capitalist mode of production directs teaching methods, etc., towards practical purposes. The universality of public education enables capitalists to recruit such labourers from classes that formerly had no access to such trades and were accustomed to a lower standard of living. Moreover, this increases supply, and hence competition.

2]How well this forecast of the fate of the commercial proletariat, written in 1865, has stood the test of time can be corroborated by hundreds of German clerks, who are trained in all commercial operations and acquainted with three or four languages, and offer their services in vain in London City at 25 shillings per week, which is far below the wages of a good machinist.



https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch17.htm#2

The same could be said of chemists and engineers whose skills used to be so rare and 'valued' that the capitalist class used to have to co-opt them as joint shareholders etc.

However that Karl and Fred quote introduces another problem; of headhunting the low hanging fruits of the education systems of other national capitalists, as goes on today.

That includes for instance, as we are on it, Cuban computer programmers in the UK; if employers can’t get the people they want for less than £30K they can pull them in from almost anywhere it seems.

Or outsource it to India for even less where they seem to take to that kind of work likes ducks to water.

Due to the time required to acquire those skills and the fluidity of the different types of concrete labour needed by capitalism some types of labour power will always be on the up, and others down.

I agree with the capitalists, that the best system in communism would be to flood the labour pool with trained labour so that there would be more doctors than people who would be prepared to collect garbage.

Then maybe garbage workers might acquire an elitist bourgeois consciousness?

The ‘other system’ is for workers to pay for their own education by taking out loans.

Then their acquired ‘abilities’ like a 'machine' are owned by the creditor or investor; for which they receive rent money when it is used; as interest on the loan.

The students may speculate at what point they might be able to pay it off and themselves out of debt peonage.

In capitalism there is always the possibility that one individual eg a bricklayer might be so naturally gifted that they are always more efficient than two or three say.

In which case they might be always able to command a higher wage.

It is very rare I think for an individual to be so skilled for them not to be replaced by multiples of less ‘skilled’ individuals.

However I think most of them are in academia of one kind or another and are more devoted to their work than the remuneration.

Although I think the more general idea is that;

‘I am a clever person and there is a general natural shortage of clever people like myself capable of acquiring ‘exceptional’ skills and an abundance of thicko’s who will always be good for nothing but emptying garbage bins.’

Most of the really high ‘paid work’ now is almost exclusively in the finance sector of casino capitalism which produces or does nothing but the;


pocketing dividends, tearing off coupons, and gambling on the Stock Exchange, where the different capitalists despoil one another of their capital.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch24.htm

And there will no need for that or any equivalent requirement in communism

[zamen]

Those of exceptional ability must have the choice to prosper from their abilities.


That's also assuming that under capitalism, everyone who has an "exceptional ability" or a talent can prosper from it, but that's far from the truth.
I'm sure there are millions of 'exceptional' people out there that could be contributing to society (and improving their own lives as well) in many different ways, but have no choice other than sell their labor-power.

[Lowtech]

"The problem here [on communism] is that it is completely unnatural to work for the benefit of the collective in spite of one's own needs and wants.

communism is not a "collective." people are not a collective economically, rather we are inescapably interconnected so working for mutual benefit is natural. being exploitative, maliciously individualistic is what is actually unnatural.


When the state takes away the ability for an individual to keep the fruits of his own labors, that individual ceases to be a human being, and becomes a piece of machinery.

this sentence is extraordinarily contradictory to really existing capitalism. employers do exactly what this person is saying is wrong. we are paid less than the value of our labor so it will be profitable to employers. this sentence only makes sense if it is in support of communism.


The fact of the matter is that not all men are created as equals. Those of exceptional ability must have the choice to prosper from their abilities.

this doesn't occur in capitalism. assets derive value and build "wealth," rather than performance. and actually yes people are "created as equals." DNA does not support a "natural" explanation of class stratification in a plutocratic society. rather human DNA proves we are far more alike than different. the disparity between classes is human invented social engineering.


If the state prevents an individual from owning his physical and intellectual property, the progress of mankind will grind to a halt.

how can you own something you consume? you could own a tool, but a hammer is tangible, its not "intellectual property," its not a blueprint or some other idea. value exists as part of a metabolic system (economics) so it must be physically tangible.


Just look at the former Soviet Union or Cuba to see what happens when ability is not rewarded and equality is forcibly imposed.

"when ability is not rewarded" is this guy for or against capitalism? he sounds confused.


If the state were to tell me that the products of my intelligence and labor had to be surrendered to the collective

he obviously doesn't like being an employee, i suspect he is a closet marxist.


, my only reasonable response would be to destroy my creation rather than have it stolen by those who produce nothing--the government.

again with sentences that only make sense in support of communism.


The idea of socialism, while personally repugnant to me, is also completely counter-intuitive to the continued progress of human achievement."

^so adorable. what "human achievement" is there in capitalism? unless we assume only 20% of the population met the definition of human.

[ckaihatsu]

I was having a discussion on a different forum, and one thing lead to another, until we started debating about communism and its practicality. This is one of the responses I got, which I found interesting. It hasn't swayed my opinion, but it's an interesting thought to entertain:

"The problem here [on communism] is that it is completely unnatural to work for the benefit of the collective in spite of one's own needs and wants. When the state takes away the ability for an individual to keep the fruits of his own labors, that individual ceases to be a human being, and becomes a piece of machinery.


This part is definitely being-dramatic -- as though *any* obligatory pooling of common efforts is equivalent to enslavement. If this mindset prevailed there wouldn't even be households or families because no one would want to give an inch, and roads (etc.) would definitely be impossible.

Unfortunately this individual is conflating the *principle* of collectivism, with the capitalist state as it exists today. This is problematic because as leftists we of course do not see the state as being anywhere *near* the kind of collectivism that we know would be *healthy* for society. Basically this is a *misrepresentation* of (proletarian) collectivism, by associating it with the privilege-protecting capitalist state.

This person is conceptualizing 'the collective' as a kind of black-hole over our heads, into which individual efforts and fruits would be wrested-away and disappeared for good despite any protestations. (Incidentally this characterization is in reality a much better description of the world's system of finance, but that's another topic altogether.)

A true collectivism would be more like a community garden in which all efforts would be additive and cumulative, leaving only the issue of how to apportion the fruits -- not a problem at all if there's enough for everyone.





The fact of the matter is that not all men are created as equals. Those of exceptional ability must have the choice to prosper from their abilities.


This is a decidedly strange construction, as if each and every person somehow exists on a separate, individual planet of their own, where they, and only they, were born into untouched, pristine conditions.

It's only in this kind of fanciful context that the premise would make any sense, because, as we know, the *reality* is that the world was here before we got here, and one's 'abilities' only go so far in the 'raw' sense of the term. The rest of it is how we interact with others and relate to the productive forces that have already been in operation, for our livelihood and potential growth.





If the state prevents an individual from owning his physical and intellectual property, the progress of mankind will grind to a halt.


This assertion is ludicrous, of course, because materials that are collectivized (to whatever incomplete degree) actually *give back*, and confer benefits to people in common, for those who use them (again, roads).

I could flip this statement around and just as validly say in the abstract that 'If the state obligates an individual to surrender his physical and intellectual property, the progress of mankind will flourish and blossom, because all of humanity will be able to potentially benefit from it.'





Just look at the former Soviet Union or Cuba to see what happens when ability is not rewarded and equality is forcibly imposed. If the state were to tell me that the products of my intelligence and labor had to be surrendered to the collective, my only reasonable response would be to destroy my creation rather than have it stolen by those who produce nothing--the government. The idea of socialism, while personally repugnant to me, is also completely counter-intuitive to the continued progress of human achievement."

Your thoughts?


(Already addressed.)

[fearthebeard]

Basically, in a capitalist society, individuals have been brainwashed into believing that individualism and individuality is the most important and most dear characteristic. Capitalism gives off the facade that an individual always has a choice and is never restricted. This fuels capitalism to exploit the working class without the working class having any semblance of the truth. So this idea of private property rights among other individualist sentiments that the capitalist machine provide are also facades trying to cover up the exploitation that arises.

Now let's evaluate whether these private property rights (in its true and perfect form) are actually important or relevant. I'm going to start kind of at the beginning to bare with me. Throughout history, a large part of evolutionary history starting from bacteria, the fittest survive by forming groups and working together. Whether that be forming organelles so eukaryotic cells can exist, etc. That has progressed into animals forming clans, wolves in packs, lions in prides, etc. etc. The collective entity is vital for survival and progression. Homo Sapiens and even the Neanderthals before us formed small groups with the people closest to them, in general families that progressed together. Then we had larger groups, kingdoms, people banding together for various reasons. We have always had this collective entity inbred through our past, our ancestors past, our evolutionary past, etc.

Ideally what is good for the community that you are in, benefits you as a result. If you find 10 fish, rather than hoarding 10 fish for yourself, giving it to your group allows them to do the same and overall based on your various skills, you individually and your group collectively have a higher propensity of survival. This same idea can be extrapolated to modern society where instead of the top 1% of people have the chance to be able to go into research fields or engineering etc., everyone has the opportunity and the education to pursue that if they want to. Instead of choosing from a sample size of 0.01n, we choose from n. Imagine the exponential increase in collective intellectual progression?

Back to the private property argument. Private property is a way for the state to give you credit for what you have done while keeping your ideas somewhat constricted and protected and can not be easily utilized by the masses or working class. This restriction is simply what the state must do to keep the bourgeoisie individual satisfied while keeping the proletariat in the dark.

So I ask you, do you want to live in a society where all members have a chance at improving the intellectual framework of the nation and the means of production for a nation, even though you might have to sacrifice the facade label of individualism to do it?

[Thirsty Crow]

"The problem here [on communism] is that it is completely unnatural to work for the benefit of the collective in spite of one's own needs and wants. When the state takes away the ability for an individual to keep the fruits of his own labors, that individual ceases to be a human being, and becomes a piece of machinery. Two things are striking at the very beginning of dealing with this.

The irony is magnificent. Specifically, this refers to talking about the state taking away the ability of an individual to keep the fruits of their labor. In fact, it is demonstrable, and has been demonstrated, that our lives as workers are marked by precisely this. The goal is to end this state of affairs.

On the other hand, it is also obvious that people do, and should in a radically different community, provide those unable to work with good living conditions (this has to do with the "should", and the present state of things) and opportunities for the development of their potentials and activities.

Second, it is clear that the person doesn't understand what they're talking about; or in best case, that they stubbornly refer to the historical social relations of USSR. Though, I suspect it is more of the former as the assumption is that non-exploitative social relations are "unnatural" because exploitation is based on basic wants/desires.

It is quite clear that this is nothing more than a metaphysical mystification; I think we can reasonably talk about human nature, but this is definitely far from such a possible talk. It's ideologically loaded and as I said, an open mystification since there is no real attempt at corroboration by evidence (for instance, the person doesn't in any way address alternative, and documented sources of positive motivation and pleasure when it comes to intellectual work - here it's enough to just refer to the development of open source - other than monetary reward which could then translate into climbing the social ladder and dominating/exploiting the labor of other people as the final step). Worse, as I've shown, it flies in the face of how people can, and do act even today.

And finally, if indeed it is repugnant to this person that creative labor is to be performed for mutual benefit of all (which isn't in any way tantamount to negating the creative laborers' desires and needs), it might be good to openly state why the fuck should people care, and that the goal of communism is also the fundamental shift in psycho-social formation so that different personalities can thrive. Which is a nice way to say "fuck off", but during my time of talking to such folks I've come to realize this might just be the right way.

As 870 concluded:



Why should members of society work for the benefit of bellends such as that guy, anyway?

The issue boils down to this simple problem of just why am I, you or anyone else to be subjected to this special snowflake.

[ckaihatsu]

And finally, if indeed it is repugnant to this person that creative labor is to be performed for mutual benefit of all (which isn't in any way tantamount to negating the creative laborers' desires and needs), it might be good to openly state why the fuck should people care, and that the goal of communism is also the fundamental shift in psycho-social formation so that different personalities can thrive. Which is a nice way to say "fuck off", but during my time of talking to such folks I've come to realize this might just be the right way.


The objective distinction here is that, as political people, we have a line of reasoning and understanding to back up our assertions and positions, as you're laying out right here in the initial and middle parts of this excerpt.

If a subtextual intention to this position is also to *rebuff* those who are antagonistic to it, then so be it, and, moreover, if the words 'Fuck off' need to be explicitly used for certain situations where people don't even want to *consider* the underlying political reasoning, then so be it as well -- they're effectively forfeiting their social birthright to be co-participants in the human political process, and are demonstrating that they would prefer to be dealt with crudely and coarsely. They can be obliged in this way.