First part my theory..... criticism is welcome

[wereanimal]

race, and languages differences must be minimized, I believe this can be done through encouraging in interracial marriages the more different the better , one language maybe English should be first language of all people, as it is already globally used and many non native speaker want to be good at it. Their native language will then become their second language. Traditional culture are preserved as long as it does not conflict with socialist/ communist values.
Well then have many offspring with your partner from other race as you can, and bring them up with a socialism/ communism education. If this tradition carry on
Overtime, the barrier for unity of the proletarian will be removed , class consciousness can easily gain
a new race/ group of people will form, and they will only serve the interest of the proletarian, not their 'country'.
I think one of the reason why Communist block lost, it's because countries like China and Russia only care about their national interest and led to China turning friendly to the United States

[Rafiq]

"Racial differences" do not have to be overcome biologically to destroy political conflicts. It is probable that as a result of world revolution people will inter-marry: but the source of war doesn't have its groundings in biology but out social reality. Races can be destroyed by destroying the necessity of their image.

The idea of nations has differed historically. The idea of race is unique to our epoch and stems from colonialism and slavery. If "racial differences" are so real biologically that they have to be minimized, why has the de-humanization of the barbaric other occured historically with no regard for "racial" characteristics as we think of them now? For example, for Greeks there were no Caucasians and negroes. There were barbarians, and there were Greeks (it didn't matter how genetically similar neighbors were). And that is all. The point is that you can find genetic differences in any enclosed community - why it is designated as meaningful is historically relative.

[Alet]

Am I right, when I assume that you basically believe in (almost) total equality as the precondition for a communist society? If so, I will never understand how people can support this idea as if it was necessary to build up communism. To my mind equality is an attack on social disparities, authority, and unequal rights. I think variety among humans is not only conventional but also desirable. Is it not such a variety what makes life interesting and worth living? Making everybody equal makes humanity indiscernible from animals, although communism should be a society, in which "man, in a certain sense, is finally marked off from the rest of the animal kingdom, and emerges from mere animal conditions of existence into really human ones", as Engels said. If you ask me, equality among society, pluralism among humanity.

[John Nada]

Am I right, when I assume that you basically believe in (almost) total equality as the precondition for a communist society? If so, I will never understand how people can support this idea as if it was necessary to build up communism. To my mind equality is an attack on social disparities, authority, and unequal rights. I think variety among humans is not only conventional but also desirable. Is it not such a variety what makes life interesting and worth living? Making everybody equal makes humanity indiscernible from animals, although communism should be a society, in which "man, in a certain sense, is finally marked off from the rest of the animal kingdom, and emerges from mere animal conditions of existence into really human ones";, as Engels said. If you ask me, equality among society, pluralism among humanity.No, though I like being an animal who attacks social disparities, authority, and unequal rights. With being an animal universally true, capitalism or full communism.:)
But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.Source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm Communism is not turning everyone into the Zerg or the Borg. This is a common strawperson.

No one will ever be the exact same, but at the same time no one should be privileged or oppressed because of accident of birth like under capitalism. The higher phase of communism is essentially post-scarcity. What little differences there are won't matter. If anything, pluralism and individualism under capitalism is a sham. It only exist for the rich now. Communism will free everyone up to fulfill their want's and needs. It'll be an explosion of art and science, unbound by capitalism. Individualism will flourish.

I'd hope and expect at some point the whole world will be one "race" and no more separate nationalities/ethnicities, but that's up to the individuals and will probably take time. Anyone can speak whatever language they feel like. Women can fuck whoever they want. If you mean preserving races and nationalities/ethnicities via racists/bigoted laws, no. Eugenics, suppressing different languages, segregation, and laws banning or forcing women to have kids only a certain race/ethnicity/nationality are reactionary.

[Rafiq]

Am I right, when I assume that you basically believe in (almost) total equality as the precondition for a communist society?

No, because this is a silly abstraction which society would have to be conformed to. Equality is not an imposition, it is the result of a negation. That is to say, our "natural" inequality isn't something that is there naturally, it is something that has to be regularly reinforced violently. Will some always be better at others in respective domains? Yes. This is not "inequality" in the political sense - otherwise, you would find physicists regularly complaining of the injustice nature of other physicists being better at what they do. But this doesn't happen. Perhaps, maybe it is because there are no systemic mechanisms inhibiting the ability for any plain physicist to achieve brilliance.

It's very simple - even if someone is "naturally" (and this is plainly ludicrous) better at being a capitalist than someone else, that does not mean there is a definite regard for "society" by a capitalist that justifies them, but fulfilling the role of the capitalist. So why is this worth defending? Why would it not be better for more competent administrators, practical problem solvers, community organizers and so on to fulfill such positions for the benefit of society in common? The point is that the role of hte capitalist is systemic - it doesn't even stem from some kind of cold hearted ruthless drive for self-interest, but almost a ritualistic, self-sacrificial drive to fulfill the hunger of capital, to fulfill a role. I mean - we're obviously just playing with abstractions here, but it is important to think about the POSSIBILITY of "human nature" being expressed in a different way than it is now, even if you think it is real.

[ckaihatsu]

Am I right, when I assume that you basically believe in (almost) total equality as the precondition for a communist society?


'Equality' from person to person is a (liberal bourgeois) *abstraction*, one that is necessarily being interpreted / forwarded on the scale of the *individual*, and thus is a skewed premise, due to the incorrectness of the scale being applied.

The norm that's implied here is 'Everyone should strive to raise or lower themselves appropriately, to conform to the across-the-board social average, so that a uniform, blanket approach can be taken regarding *everyone* in terms of work output and social productivity.'

This, of course, is ludicrous to the point of being insulting, and yet this is exactly the kind of premise that is routinely imputed onto revolutionaries every day of the week, as a cliched stereotype.

But -- if this premise is incorrect, then that leaves open the question of what social norms *would* be appropriate to the socialist society, especially regarding its material productivities and use of (liberated) labor.





If so, I will never understand how people can support this idea as if it was necessary to build up communism.




To my mind equality is an attack on social disparities, authority, and unequal rights. I think variety among humans is not only conventional but also desirable. Is it not such a variety what makes life interesting and worth living? Making everybody equal makes humanity indiscernible from animals, although communism should be a society, in which "man, in a certain sense, is finally marked off from the rest of the animal kingdom, and emerges from mere animal conditions of existence into really human ones", as Engels said. If you ask me, equality among society, pluralism among humanity.


On a person-to-person basis there's absolutely *nothing* objectionable about this, the liberal (bourgeois) ideal -- we could see this sense of 'equality' as being relevant to the realm of 'simple' civil society, in how people interact and treat each other in regular daily life.

But capitalism doesn't *operate* at the scale of regular everyday face-to-face interactions -- a cop, bureaucrat, or businessperson will gladly tell you with every fiber of honesty and integrity that you're not where you should be and that you need to move along, according to prevailing social norms -- and they're correct. The world's current norms do not allow anyone to be just anywhere, even though we were all born into the world the same way, and most people wish the best for everyone else in the world.

I would even go so far as to say that there *could* very well be a 'Kumbaya Day' legislated into existence and practiced all over the world, with people holding hands and singing -- and it would end up being mere symbolism and tokenism, because such social-centric sentiments don't address the *material productivity* aspect of society and its functioning.

So if humanity would be uniformly content to sit in the dirt and do nothing but hold hands and sing, then we could have that sense of 'communism', no problem, but if we're to also realize our position and responsibility as collectively self-aware 'stewards' over the earth and all material resources and productivities, then things get a little more complicated and we need to define 'equality' in the sense of *labor* and *labor output*.

If we can agree to the scope of one's person's hour of labor at a particular task as being roughly equivalent to *another* person's hour of labor at the same task -- possibly a stretch, admittedly -- then I have a framework that *adapts* to this baseline over the whole, and accommodates all other relevant factors of political economy:


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

http://s6.postimg.org/nfpj758c0/150221_labor_credits_framework_for_communist_su.jp g (http://postimg.org/image/p7ii21rot/full/)

[tuwix]

I think one of the reason why Communist block lost, it's because countries like China and Russia only care about their national interest and led to China turning friendly to the United States

There was no communist bloc at all. There was state capitalism bloc and it;s lost due to idiocies in their economy and politics.[

QUOTE=ckaihatsu;2829177]'Equality' from person to person is a (liberal bourgeois) *abstraction*[/QUOTE]

No, it isn't. The one of goal of introducing of higher phase of communism is material equality. Because only where there is no (private) property, there is material equality.

[Bala Perdida]

race, and languages differences must be minimized, I believe this can be done through encouraging in interracial marriages the more different the better , one language maybe English should be first language of all people, as it is already globally used and many non native speaker want to be good at it. Their native language will then become their second language. Traditional culture are preserved as long as it does not conflict with socialist/ communist values.
Well then have many offspring with your partner from other race as you can, and bring them up with a socialism/ communism education. If this tradition carry on
Overtime, the barrier for unity of the proletarian will be removed , class consciousness can easily gain
a new race/ group of people will form, and they will only serve the interest of the proletarian, not their 'country'.
I think one of the reason why Communist block lost, it's because countries like China and Russia only care about their national interest and led to China turning friendly to the United States
Breeding? What if I'm gay? What happens then, am I useless to your interracial fetish cause?

[wereanimal]

Breeding? What if I'm gay? What happens then, am I useless to your interracial fetish cause?

Well child adoption from another country is always a option


Am I right, when I assume that you basically believe in (almost) total equality as the precondition for a communist society?

No I don't believe total equality


If you mean preserving races and nationalities/ethnicities via racists/bigoted laws, no. Eugenics, suppressing different languages, segregation, and laws banning or forcing women to have kids only a certain race/ethnicity/nationality are reactionary.

No, I'm simply promoting interracial marriages, it will be like advertising campaign of the government and it's non compulsory ,beside foreign wives/husbands isn't that bad is it?

[ckaihatsu]

'Equality' from person to person is a (liberal bourgeois) *abstraction*





No, it isn't. The one of goal of introducing of higher phase of communism is material equality. Because only where there is no (private) property, there is material equality.


Tuwix, as usual you're just being contrarian with me only for its own sake -- here you're going on to mix apples-with-oranges.

I don't disagree with what you're saying, and I don't see how what you're saying disagrees with me.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Inter-"racial" marriage has been widespread throughout history - in fact every modern ethnic group is the result of a merger of previously existing ethnicities. The French, for example, are what happened when Gallo-Romans, Franks, Normans, Burgundians etc. intermarried and culturally assimilated to the extent that they were practically indistinguishable. The widespread primary use of a single language in an extended geographical region is also something that has happened quite a lot in history, for example the use of Chagatai Turkic or Persian. And now, I'm not an expert on the Timurid state, but I don't recall it being particularly communist.

So the "theory" does not particularly agree with the historical evidence. Inter-"racial" marriages are a good thing as a sign of a mobile and cosmopolitan population, but "encouraging" people to marry certain groups is "soft" coercion, the same kind of shit we fight against (after all, the bourgeois ideal of one man on one woman of the same social group for purposes of procreation is not openly enforced by the state in many "Western" states anymore). And "asking" women to have "as many kids as possible" is, one, misogynist (women are not baby factories), and second, something that should be repugnant to anyone who is serious about giving women control over their reproductive capabilities.

[ckaihatsu]

[I]f we can agree to the scope of one's person's hour of labor at a particular task as being roughly equivalent to *another* person's hour of labor at the same task -- possibly a stretch, admittedly -- then I have a framework that *adapts* to this baseline over the whole, and accommodates all other relevant factors of political economy


---










But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement.




Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard;


---


So the problem in front of us is that there has to be a resolving of the need for an unwavering *standard* across all persons, for labor, with the empirical fact that people's *abilities* can vary widely and that one person's hour of labor at something will not necessarily equal the same productive output as the next person's hour of labor at the same task.

The model at post #6 posits a 'multiplier rate' onto (liberated) labor hours, which would be determined from exit surveys from work roles -- this accommodates the factor of objective differences in work-role *difficulty* and *hazard*, but it doesn't account for differences in *ability* and *work output* from person to person.





labor [supply] -- Labor credits are paid per hour of work at a multiplier rate based on difficulty or hazard -- multipliers are survey-derived




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


The resolution of the 'work intensity' problem is in the circulation of the labor credits themselves: Those who put in socially-necessary (pre-planned, funded) liberated labor at whatever work roles then become the recipients of labor credits. The labor credits in-hand are a formal acknowlegement for that amount of work done, and the person is socially *empowered* to likewise put forth those labor credits earned to whatever efforts of others that person deems to be most worthy of being funded.

So, just like today, those who work will become known according to their individual labor and work potential -- people can be judged on a per-individual basis, and multiplier rates can be adjusted accordingly. If one person's work is seen to be more socially valuable and desirable, that person may be offered a somewhat *higher multiplier* rate for their efforts than the next person who is available to do the same kind of work.

In this way there remains a social *standard*, the general survey-derived indexed multiplier rate per work role, but variations *from* it are enabled to address individual specifics (and also actual particular balances between available productivities and mass demand, or 'supply-and-demand'.)