Swapping one ruling class for another?

[t_wolves_fan]

On one thread, I asked what would happen in a stateless-communist system if I wanted a brand new Ferarri.

I was told that, my request being so stupid, the collective that builds cars could very well laugh in my face at my stupid request.

Now, if that were to happen, wouldn't the following be true:

1>The collective will have taken the place of the owners of Ferarri who refuse to sell me a car if I cannot afford it. Either way, they're refusing me a product I want or need for their reasons. Nothing has improved.

2>Instead of being at the mercy of what I can afford under capitalism (I can't afford a new Ferarri, so I don't get one, how sad for me); I'm now at the mercy of the car-making collective who can decide whether or not I get a new car (they decide I can't have one because my request is so stupid, how sad for me). Nothing has improved.

Thoughts?

[Urban Rubble]

I think you're right.

Though if the extent of your argument is "Under Communism I can't get free Ferarris", then I think we're O.K.

The new "government" will be the people's will. Obviously most rational people understand that a Ferarri is of very low priority and that producing them would be a waste of time.

I'll gladly trade your right to drive a Ferarri for the right of every human to have dinner.

[RedLenin]

Cars might very well be communal anyway. There could be car garages where anyone could take out a car when they need to or something like that. I picture a lot of communal goods and services under communism instead of them being private. Like if you want to watch tv, use computers, play basketball, ect. you could just go to a community rec center or something. I think a lot of times this would be better than privately possessed goods because they would all be available for use by the whole commune. So if you really wanted to drive a farari, the workers could make one and you and anyone else could drive it when you needed to.

[CommieBastard]

You would do better to point out the hypocrisy of those 'leftists' who talk of how the bourgois will become the new underclass... thats what i was expecting :(

Ah well, you raise a very good point in a similar vein anyway. Getting rid of a system of exploitation is no good if it is just replaced by a new system of exploitation.

Personally, if you point out how anything i am suggesting would result in a new system of exploitation, I am more than willing to take what you say on board and consider alternatives. I don't care about the methodology, just the result. We have to consider all methodologies in moving towards our aims.

[Lamanov]

Your thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=33767)
[Go back, i think i gave you the answer.]

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 05:36 PM
On one thread, I asked what would happen in a stateless-communist system if I wanted a brand new Ferarri.

I was told that, my request being so stupid, the collective that builds cars could very well laugh in my face at my stupid request.

Now, if that were to happen, wouldn't the following be true:

1>The collective will have taken the place of the owners of Ferarri who refuse to sell me a car if I cannot afford it. Either way, they're refusing me a product I want or need for their reasons. Nothing has improved.

2>Instead of being at the mercy of what I can afford under capitalism (I can't afford a new Ferarri, so I don't get one, how sad for me); I'm now at the mercy of the car-making collective who can decide whether or not I get a new car (they decide I can't have one because my request is so stupid, how sad for me). Nothing has improved.

Thoughts?
So just because YOU want a ferrari, people should make one??? Seems more like you're exploiting them! Look, i dont give a fuck about cars, lets just first get everyone something to eat before beginning to talk about this shit. Then if the people agree, you can hav ur ferrari ;)

[Hodgeh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 10:14 PM
So just because YOU want a ferrari, people should make one??? Seems more like you're exploiting them! Look, i dont give a fuck about cars, lets just first get everyone something to eat before beginning to talk about this shit. Then if the people agree, you can hav ur ferrari ;)
If he has the moneyu to pay for one, why should he be prevented from purchasing one? It creates jobs and payment to feed those mouths you are so obsessed with and it stimulates the economy.

If he wants to waste his money on an unneccassary car, so be it. It hurts no one except himself.

[Ele'ill]

So just because YOU want a ferrari, people should make one??? Seems more like you're exploiting them! Look, i dont give a fuck about cars, lets just first get everyone something to eat before beginning to talk about this shit. Then if the people agree, you can hav ur ferrari

Ok so replace the word 'ferrari' with 'plow' or 'seeds' or 'food' ect... There would still be one group of people controling the means to access neccessities, public water, waste disposal, farming, tools, ect....

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think initially (as in soon after the revolution) asking for a ferrarri is asking a bit much.

But once all the infrastructure is in place and running relatively smoothly, I see no good reason why someone should not build a ferrarri for you.

I once thought maybe private motor vehicles should be disallowed, but now I see it as an unnecessary infringement on freedom of movement and convenience. A collective garage is still a good idea though - a place to keep all the tools handy so to speak.


If he has the moneyu to pay for one, why should he be prevented from purchasing one? It creates jobs and payment to feed those mouths you are so obsessed with and it stimulates the economy.

If he wants to waste his money on an unneccassary car, so be it. It hurts no one except himself.

What is this archaic 'money' you speak of kind sir? We have no need for trading tokens in the gift economy!

[Hodgeh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 09:35 PM
What is this archaic 'money' you speak of kind sir? We have no need for trading tokens in the gift economy!
pfffttt.


So you expect to receive any modest item you ask for without due compensation to the suppliers? Humans don't work that way.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So you expect to receive any modest item you ask for without due compensation to the suppliers? Humans don't work that way.

The human propensity for giving gifts has proved your unscientific blanket assertion wrong.

The gift economy works thus: All collectives produce different goods and services, all collectives give freely to any other collective that asks, and anyone that misbehaves is excluded from the gift economy and has to either improve their behaviour or fend for themselves.

Pffft right back atcha.

[Hodgeh]

The human propensity for giving gifts has proved your unscientific blanket assertion wrong.
Moot point. I'm not referring to gift giving, but the exchange of goods from one individual to another. We, as a race, are naturally greedy. Explain that as you may, but it would take an awful lot of work and coercion to convince someone to simply give an item to another and not expect any immediate return back.

[Wolnosc-Solidarnosc]

To counter you philosophically, people give other people gifts in the hopes of some immediate or future benefit to themselves from those people.

The problem with your collectives is that they do not have an infinite amount of goods and services. At some point, decisions will have to be made and some will get shafted. Then you have resentment, revenge, and so much for the spirit of gift-giving. Not to mention that the decision of who gets what has to be made by some authority and so then you get one group ruling over others, etc.

[Ele'ill]

The gift economy works thus: All collectives produce different goods and services, all collectives give freely to any other collective that asks, and anyone that misbehaves is excluded from the gift economy and has to either improve their behaviour or fend for themselves.

There are many lazy people in this world. Many full of greed and egotism. You would not simply be excluding one person every two years, it would be a large number of people, possibly every day. Why wouldn't they unite and form their own system of social and economic interaction?

[Hodgeh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 10:16 PM
There are many lazy people in this world. Many full of greed and egotism. You would not simply be excluding one person every two years, it would be a large number of people, possibly every day. Why wouldn't they unite and form their own system of social and economic interaction?
Exactly.


But hey, the gift givers live in their eutopian theory world so everything's all right in the end!


/waits for NoXion's pseudo-witty reply.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Moot point. I'm not referring to gift giving, but the exchange of goods from one individual to another.

A gift economy is not a system of exchange.


We, as a race, are naturally greedy. Explain that as you may,

I was going to say prove it! But you can't.


but it would take an awful lot of work and coercion to convince someone to simply give an item to another and not expect any immediate return back.

Only if they didn't feel like giving whatever it was they were producing. What can one collective do with a thousand keyboards anyway? The societal pressure that compels people to give in a gift economy is the same pressure that currently stops me from randomly smashing windows (Note that the Law doesn't do that - the Law can only punish you for crime you have committed not crimes you are currently doing or are going to commit)

[Ele'ill]

I was going to say prove it! But you can't.

We got some snow the other day, my aparment has neighboring aparments joined together as on building, rather than a hotel style room set up. My neighbor knows I leave for work early in the morning, I caught him shoveling snow from his parking spot, into mine around my car. It was a lot of snow.
Everyday life is what we are talking about.


Only if they didn't feel like giving whatever it was they were producing

That is a very large 'if'. Especially to errect a community system based around it.



Only if they didn't feel like giving whatever it was they were producing. What can one collective do with a thousand keyboards anyway?

Sell them on an underground market.



The societal pressure that compels people to give in a gift economy is the same pressure that currently stops me from randomly smashing windows (Note that the Law doesn't do that - the Law can only punish you for crime you have committed not crimes you are currently doing or are going to commit)

You may not smash windows, but the other 70% of the population does.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

We got some snow the other day, my aparment has neighboring aparments joined together as on building, rather than a hotel style room set up. My neighbor knows I leave for work early in the morning, I caught him shoveling snow from his parking spot, into mine around my car. It was a lot of snow.
Everyday life is what we are talking about.

See what I mean? Observe the altruistic nature of man! clearly he felt he didn't need the snow, so he decided to give it freely to you! :rolleyes: [/sarcasm]

What has this to do with my original paragraph anyway?


That is a very large 'if'. Especially to errect a community system based around it.

And the current community system revolves around people not minting their own money. People do produce forgeries, but you seem to have enough faith in it.
Not to mention that abuse of either system does not go unpunished.


Sell them on an underground market.

But why buy them from corrupt collective X when collective Y is giving them away? You can't compete with free.


You may not smash windows, but the other 70% of the population does.

If that statistic you just pulled out of your arse was true, then nobody would have any windows.

[Wolnosc-Solidarnosc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 11:06 PM
But why buy them from corrupt collective X when collective Y is giving them away? You can't compete with free.

That's true only to an extent, assuming that the two collectives are offering identical products. There has to be an incentive to buy. In the case of collectives it comes down to quality. A corrupt collective, ie one that decides to charge money for a profit, needs to give people a reason to buy: quality. Frankly, I'd rather pay for a high quality product than get a shitty one for free. Given that collectivization leads to lower quality (since there's only one kind of product available, the people have no choice but to take it, therefore quality doesn't matter) black markets will arise offering essentially better products.

EDIT - The argument can be made that different collectives will produce the same product. For example, there can be 3 collectives making different TVs, giving the people a choice. Again, the people will take the higher quality TVs. So now you have 2 collectives left producing TVs that no one wants and their essentially free-riding for products from the other collectives. Inefficency, anyone?

[Ele'ill]

What has this to do with my original paragraph anyway?

Look around you and you will see greed and egotism on monumental scales in everyday life.




But why buy them from corrupt collective X when collective Y is giving them away? You can't compete with free.

Remember all of those people you excluded from the 'gift giving community'. Yeah well they started a blackmarket along with their new system of government.


If that statistic you just pulled out of your arse was true, then nobody would have any windows.



Windows was being used as an example. Correct? Well this is how I understood it. Something is stopping you from doing something 'bad', out of your own good natured mindset. There are "a million" (example statisic pointing to the fact that not everyone is 'good' and 'moral') people that will follow through and do that 'bad' thing. Not five to ten people, maybe five to ten thousand people; in one city.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That's true only to an extent. There has to be an incentive to buy. In the case of collectives it comes down to quality. I'd rather pay for a high quality product than get a shitty one for free. Given that collectivization leads to lower quality (there's only one kind of product available, the people have to take it, therefore quality doesn't matter) black markets will arise offering essentially better products.

What makes you assume that there is only one collective producing a particular item? It well become a competition without a financial incentive - "We make better products than A.N. Other collective, acquire from us and we will gain respect from other collectives, who will be more willing to give us stuff."

You can have competition without money.

[Wolnosc-Solidarnosc]

See the edit to my post.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The argument can be made that different collectives will produce the same product. For example, there can be 3 collectives making different TVs, giving the people a choice. Again, the people will take the higher quality TVs. So now you have 2 collectives left producing TVs that no one wants and their essentially free-riding for products from the other collectives. Inefficency, anyone?

Jeezuz, the solution is obvious! get the other two collectives to either smarten their act up (And maybe take a few lessons from the better collective), via pressure through other collectives, or get quickly on to producing something else. Simple.


Look around you and you will see greed and egotism on monumental scales in everyday life.

Capitalism rewards greed and egotism.


Remember all of those people you excluded from the 'gift giving community'. Yeah well they started a blackmarket along with their new system of government.

They wouldn't get far... not without resources from the gift economy.


Windows was being used as an example. Correct? Well this is how I understood it. Something is stopping you from doing something 'bad', out of your own good natured mindset. There are "a million" (example statisic pointing to the fact that not everyone is 'good' and 'moral') people that will follow through and do that 'bad' thing. Not five to ten people, maybe five to ten thousand people; in one city.

As far as I know, there are very rarely instances in which vandalism becomes a threat to society. Why should gift economy abuse be different? all one needs to look out for are people/collectives who take all and produce nothing. all the other collectives 'stop the taps' until they make an apology and start producing for the good of society.

That should quickly put a stop to any vampirism.

[Wolnosc-Solidarnosc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 01:32 AM
Jeezuz, the solution is obvious! get the other two collectives to either smarten their act up (And maybe take a few lessons from the better collective), via pressure through other collectives, or get quickly on to producing something else. Simple.


In both cases you are left with only one kind of product being produced. Either the other two move to the same standard as the advanced one, or they produce something else entirely leaving the advanced collective to make TVs all on its own.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Leaving only the popular/high quality models around. Think of it as a kind of evolution.

Not to mention that said collective will be getting continuous feedback from users of their product (Most likely through email) and will therefore always be provided with ways to further improve their product. And there's absaolutely no reason why another process making a different model can't be set up by another collective.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Whooo! Sorry I missed this thread for a while. That's great line me up with my Diablo. I'd like mine in yellow please. Red that is just plain guawdy.

I am quite happy with the recent developments that I can have my Diablo. There is just one doubt. In any kind of socialist or controlled economy, the economy and production quite frankly stinks. Just as long as I'm first in line that would make me quite happy.

[NovelGentry]

line me up with my Diablo

And here I thought we had made it clear that shitty products would die off.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 12:58 AM

line me up with my Diablo

And here I thought we had made it clear that shitty products would die off.
How would they die off? How do you measure a Diablo to be shitty? I have never driven one. The closest I have been is 190 hp driving a 2000 lb Acura and that was a hoot. The Diablo must be a bigger hoot. How can a hoot ever be shitty? I am sure if you were at the wheel of Diablo even you would go "HEEEEEHAW" when you shove the throttle foward? I am I wrong? Would you go "HEEEEHAW". I don't know too many people who would not go "HEEEEEHAW".

I'll believe you when people decide to willing give up things that make them go "HEEEEHAW".

[NovelGentry]

How would they die off?

Assume for a minute it isn't a shitty car.

What makes it a diablo is the company alone -- would you consider a car produced by ferrari with all the same qualities (including physical appearance) to be a diablo? Probably not.

If indeed you want a diablo, as opposed to a just a really fast car or a car with similar qualities, then you probably should have focused on getting on in this society.

Second off we're talking about a progression, I would wager, of at least two centuries of socialism here in the US before the world might be in a position to see communism emerge. In that time, it is doubtful that a socialist nation would ever see the import of such an extreme luxury item -- not simply based on the fact that it is luxury but realistically based on the price and actual value derived from the cost.

So they would most certainly die off in the period of US socialism. Existing ones inside the US would be expropriated from the bourgeoisie and become essentially public property. You could probably drive one somewhere, but it is doubtful you would have one (although I'm not really going to rule out anything).

On this issue of why it would die out if it was shit, see my previous explaination of how progression is made in terms of technology and advancements. The use value of the product more than likely does not warrant the time spent laboring to make it where the use value of other vehicles would be the same and the time spent in production a whole lot less.