The most basic economic question...

[t_wolves_fan]

Imagine:

World population is at 5 billion.

"Central federation" of economic planning estimates 4 billion pairs of shoes are necessary in Fiscal Year 2006.

Approximately 5,000 shoe-making communes exist throughout the world.

The shoe-making communes meet on March 25 to determine their output for the upcoming fiscal year. Central to your philosophy, each commune is in charge of determining their work schedule, production methods, and output.

Result of March 25 votes is that the 5,000 shoe-making communes have collectively voted to produce a total of 3.5 billion pairs of shoes.


What happens?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What I want to know is, where did a billion people go?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 02:38 PM
What I want to know is, where did a billion people go?
You're going to use this as an excuse not to answer the question, but let's say you liquidated them in the revolution for expressing religious beliefs.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I knew you were going to say that.

Fuck off troll.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 02:47 PM
I knew you were going to say that.

Fuck off troll.
I knew it.

Why not just answer the question instead of obfuscating?

[NovelGentry]

"Central federation" of economic planning estimates 4 billion pairs of shoes are necessary in Fiscal Year 2006.

Central Federation? WTF?

Let's make one thing clear first off. "Central Federation" does not calculate the entire world need. The economic organization in communism is the way it is for a reason, there is a determined local distribution and an obvious determined local consumption per trade/product. Furthermore, the levels of federation that do exist, are NOT there to determine what one another need. They are indeed, however, able to determine if one area has a surplus and can provide for another area with a deficit, not only do they aptly determine this, they serve as a function to actually properly manage the shift in supply.

Any scarcity issue on a local level would be settled with a surplus from the local production force from however many miles away. If indeed no such surplus exists, there would be a determined scarcity, the workers of shoe factories can determine whether or not they are going to supply this need (which I see little reason why they wouldn't) -- if not, pull workers from the voluntary work force to put in shift work to produce the necessary amounts to supply the population. Worst case scenario is a ration system, where shoes are distributed as evenly as possible across more localized distribution centers, and those are then handed out on an extremely local community basis -- where indeed those who need it most will be determined and provided with the good.

My personal position is as follows, if I saw there was such a need, and particularly a serious need for these goods as those who needed shoes really needed shoes (say they work in a job where their feet need protection) -- I would gladly give up my own shoes, volunteer my labor time to overcome the deficit, and work directly with producers already in the trade to overcome.

The same goes for any other situation -- until need itself was settled. Only then would I think about working on my normal "luxury" productions (computers, literature, etc...).

Mind you, the situation you are proposing is rather foolish and unlikely. Shoes are easily stored, overproductions would flow from any single year, and probably the years leading up under socialism to provide for probably years to come. It's unlikely even in a population of say 8 billion people that 4 billion would even need shoes after a year. I've had the same shoes for about 3 years not. Children would be where the primary supply would focus as their feet are still growing and we need to accomidate.

But again, these things would have really been settled under socialism. Indeed the logistics involved in determining average social hour of labor -- the value not only of a product as it's valued to society, but also with relation to whether or not the time it takes to make the product is indeed worth it. Some things truly aren't necessary, and it's unlikely you'd see deficits like this on simple decision to create a deficit alone.

Even if there was a "Central Federation" that determined the overall output needed for the entire world -- you've given no reason for them deciding to only produce less than what is determined required, in fact, the way you present it, it seems like they purposefully undershot the number.

Why? What are the conditions that create this deficit? If you give me information on where the problem lies, I can give you info on how to solve it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Children would be where the primary supply would focus as their feet are still growing and we need to accomidate.

Not only that, but it would be possible to have 'shoe banks' were outgrown but not worn out shoes are collected and redistributed.

Recycling would play a major role in smoothing over any production bumps.

[t_wolves_fan]

Central Federation? WTF?

Yes, many on this board have suggested there would be a central "economic planning board".


Let's make one thing clear first off. "Central Federation" does not calculate the entire world need. The economic organization in communism is the way it is for a reason, there is a determined local distribution and an obvious determined local consumption per trade/product. Furthermore, the levels of federation that do exist, are NOT there to determine what one another need. They are indeed, however, able to determine if one area has a surplus and can provide for another area with a deficit, not only do they aptly determine this, they serve as a function to actually properly manage the shift in supply.

Jesus H. Christ on a crutch you contradict yourself well.

1>"Central federation does not calculate world need"

2>"Central federation, in as much as it exists, calculates if one area has a surplus (surplus can only be determined when need is known) and can provide for another area with a deficit (again, deficit can only be determined when need is known).

3>"They can properly manage the shift in supply (which they could only do as a "central body" with some sort of authority)."

You're funny.


Any scarcity issue on a local level would be settled with a surplus from the local production force from however many miles away. If indeed no such surplus exists, there would be a determined scarcity, the workers of shoe factories can determine whether or not they are going to supply this need (which I see little reason why they wouldn't)

Again, it's easy to pretend everything will work out because everyone will magically agree.

I am asking what happens when they don't.

What if the shoe commune in Chicago determines that to meet the need in Buffalo they'd have to work 3 extra hours per day, and they vote not to do it? You've said yourself that people need to negotiate with communes and if the communes vote no then they're SOL.

What happens then?


-- if not, pull workers from the voluntary work force

What if there are not enough workers in the "voluntary work force" or the workers who are in the pool don't know how to make shoes?


to put in shift work to produce the necessary amounts to supply the population. Worst case scenario is a ration system, where shoes are distributed as evenly as possible across more localized distribution centers, and those are then handed out on an extremely local community basis -- where indeed those who need it most will be determined and provided with the good.

So there are shoe shortages in both Cleveland (population 1.2 million) and New York (population 17 million). All distribution being equal, Cleveland gets 1 million shoes (shortage of 200K) while New York gets 1 million shoes (shortage of 16 million)?


My personal position is as follows, if I saw there was such a need, and particularly a serious need for these goods as those who needed shoes really needed shoes (say they work in a job where their feet need protection) -- I would gladly give up my own shoes, volunteer my labor time to overcome the deficit, and work directly with producers already in the trade to overcome.

Very admirable. What happens when there are not enough people as charitable as you?


Mind you, the situation you are proposing is rather foolish and unlikely. Shoes are easily stored, overproductions would flow from any single year, and probably the years leading up under socialism to provide for probably years to come.

It's easy to pretend the problem won't exist.

What about perishable items like food?


It's unlikely even in a population of say 8 billion people that 4 billion would even need shoes after a year. I've had the same shoes for about 3 years not.

What if people don't want the same kind of shoes you have? What if they lose them, or their shoes go up in flames in a house fire?


But again, these things would have really been settled under socialism. Indeed the logistics involved in determining average social hour of labor -- the value not only of a product as it's valued to society, but also with relation to whether or not the time it takes to make the product is indeed worth it.

In the meantime people go without eh, sort of like those 20 million who starved under Stalin. No big deal until we get production/labor equations figured out? I'm sure people will be patient enough with that.

Who determines the logistics, labor and product values? Central body or local production commune? What if their figures don't mesh? Who is right?


Even if there was a "Central Federation" that determined the overall output needed for the entire world -- you've given no reason for them deciding to only produce less than what is determined required, in fact, the way you present it, it seems like they purposefully undershot the number.

But, if local communes are making their decisions based on what the central federation tells them are required, they're not really making their decision locally, are they? Which is a more local decision:

1>Central federation says we need to produce 5 million shoes. How do we organize to produce that many or more?

vs.

2>How many hours per day do we feel like working and what production method shall we use? As a result, how many shoes are we going to produce?


Why? What are the conditions that create this deficit? If you give me information on where the problem lies, I can give you info on how to solve it.

I just did. Try not to contradict yourself this time.

[NovelGentry]

Indeed -- Scarcity is should really never be an issue. Not to mention by the time this roles around yet even more improved technology which makes more output even faster.

To t_wolves_fan -- this is why we say capitalism is a necessary step in advancing the means of production. We rely on this rapid development of technology which seeks to saturate markets for profit and grow markets into huge customer bases to lay the groundwork so that our society has the means to sustain itself quite easily. Once you look at these advancements which are progresing just as rapidly today in under capitalism and will progress all the way until revouiton, you can begin to understand why underdeveloped nations struggle when trying to skip over capitalism to socialism.

As successful as a five year plan may be at simple industrialization. There are entire sets of industries that capitalism explores and develops naturally that no strict industrial plan could ever seek to replicate.

In having these advancements made, the transition post-revolution should never be difficult in terms of scarcity -- at least not in any advanced capitalist country. For any country that isn't in such a position, you're damn right it's hard, and that is why you like to affiliate starving to death with communism. Because where a nation like Cuba has severly underproduced food and can no longer get it in direct trade due to embargo restrictions ... well, needless to say the infastructure was hardly advanced enough to really push society in a fully sustainable way. Same for pretty much every country where socialism has been tried.

Why socialism has been tried in such underdeveloped countries could be in part by chance, but could be in part also by the ideological development happening alongside in more advanced countries with the glaring material consciousness in poorer or earlier capitalist countries. What you're left with is people ready for action to make things better, but who haven't really seen a development in the proletariat, that is, there has been no real proletariat class development, and thus can be no real proletariat class consciousness.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What about perishable items like food?

At the moment we produce too much food. At least, too much for capitalism. It has to be destroyed in order to keep prices high. Not to mention the amount of food we end up wasting in the West.

Also, dried and canned food can be kept for years.

[t_wolves_fan]

NovelGentry that sounds all well and good for the future but you failed or refused to answer my specific questions.

I will post them again in case you didn't see them.

Remember, 'It will all work out' is hardly a substantial answer.

1>What if the shoe commune in Chicago determines that to meet the need in Buffalo they'd have to work 3 extra hours per day, and they vote not to do it? You've said yourself that people need to negotiate with communes and if the communes vote no then they're SOL.

What happens then?

2>What if there are not enough workers in the "voluntary work force" or the workers who are in the pool don't know how to make shoes?

3>So there are shoe shortages in both Cleveland (population 1.2 million) and New York (population 17 million). All distribution being equal, Cleveland gets 1 million shoes (shortage of 200K) while New York gets 1 million shoes (shortage of 16 million)?

4>Who determines the logistics, labor and product values? Central body or local production commune? What if their figures don't mesh? Who is right?


Take your time.

[NovelGentry]

Yes, many on this board have suggested there would be a central "economic planning board".


The idea of extrmely centralized and planned economies is left up to socialism. Communism offers more of a broken down but still coordinated means of production, namely that of the commune.


1>"Central federation does not calculate world need"

2>"Central federation, in as much as it exists, calculates if one area has a surplus (surplus can only be determined when need is known) and can provide for another area with a deficit (again, deficit can only be determined when need is known).

3>"They can properly manage the shift in supply (which they could only do as a "central body" with some sort of authority)."

Your inability to comprehend strikes yet again. When I mentioned "Central Federation" in quotes in my initial reply, as I did just now. I quoted it for a reason.

Centralized/Planned economy is not necessarily, and certainly is not in this case the same as federated locally planned production.

The idea is quite simply this. Need and consumption are determined locally by local production forces. There is no point for members of a shoe factory in eastern asia to be worried about what people in new england need for shoes.

2 and 3 do not contradict one, as world need is not calculated, only local needs are. And only in the event a local need exists as a deficit when compared to it's own local production, are other regional surpluses brought into the picture. Again, there is no GLOBAL calculation -- only inter regional coordination.

If you want to call this global planning, you'd still be using an extremely false terminology. As it is not global planning, it is global coordination, seen through a federation, but all the actual planning is local and at the most local with respect to select few other local facilities.

Again, coordination != planning, one is extremely preemptive. The idea of globally planning is to do as you said "We need this many shoes world wide, this many here, this many over here blah blah blah" -- But any form of federation should never be concerned with that.


You're funny.

Unfortunately you're boring and mindless.


Again, it's easy to pretend everything will work out because everyone will magically agree.

I am asking what happens when they don't.

It has nothing to do with everyone agreeing. You either work or you don't, and you produce what you can and will, or you don't. That's your individual choice. If you want to work 4 hours a day or 17, that's a decision you can really take into your own hands (as we've said, you don't HAVE to work at all).

production quotas are not particularly goals to be met, as much as they are goals to ensure are reasonable given the normal flow. Based on what you know you produce in an hour, CAN you produce what will be needed? That is the question one would answer, and it is not a question that is voted on. It is a question that is answered by watching the actual production output and consumption (which has all been done previously in socialism) and guess what... is already done under capitalism.

If you CANNOT meet that projected consumption rate, then you seek the alternative options. It's not like the federation of shoe factories has to convene in swtizerland to discuss who's gonna get what shoes sent where. A factory in new England running say 1,000 pairs short for an array of women's sizes can contact a factory in New Zealand and acquire surplus from them. What makes this a "federation" of sorts is that you would have lots of trades grouped together in such a manner, and there would be cross trade supplies (think, machinists need metal to machine) and there would be same trade supplies, all shifting back and fourth without any idea of money or getting any product in return.

One place has deficit, the other has surplus, and they can know and be aware of one another, but this does not mean, 8,000 workers sitting at a giant round table discussing how the shoes from Paris are going to be split since they have surplus. What may be the case, given the technology that will be used, is New Zealand with say a 4,000 surplus may need to supply to a number of factories. THEN, you would seem worker's democracy between these factories to determine who needs what exactly and come to a decision on where to send what.

This is a far cry different from central planning once again. Under central planning there really would be no such discussion. Central planning would know what is needed where, and simply send it -- good for speed, bad for equality. Because SOMEONE or SOME GROUP has to be in control of that central planning, which gives them control over means of distribution, which in turn is part of the control over the means of production, since materials or products themselves might play a role in other products production, and that gives them power and a very separate and alienated role. This is how you run into new classes formed, and precisely why any central planning that may have existed in the state, dies with the state.


What if the shoe commune in Chicago determines that to meet the need in Buffalo they'd have to work 3 extra hours per day, and they vote not to do it? You've said yourself that people need to negotiate with communes and if the communes vote no then they're SOL.

What happens then?

They talk to another commune, or talk to mutliple communes at once and split the work. If they talk to 1,000 other communes around the world, to garner necessary supply the actual increase in work required by each commune, for each person, for each day will be negligable.

Technololgy obviously facilitates this a great deal.


What if there are not enough workers in the "voluntary work force" or the workers who are in the pool don't know how to make shoes?

You've still given me no reasonable answer for why scarcity exists to begin with and why these other communes are refusing to work (but I suppose that's what you believe human nature and greed is all about). But anyway, and again, in the event such a shortage does actually occur, it would be left up, and once again, democratically, to the various points of distribution to decide what goes where, in what amount, and who gets it. It's extremely hierarchical in a sense, not in terms of power, but simply in terms of how the distribution takes place, and each level has a complete say in what affects them. Or at least however much of a say can be garnered by that levels population.

Really pure democracy on almost all levels. -- but again, scarcity should never be a real issue barring natural disaster or unforseen events, and in that sense, there's not going to be 3 hours of your day that you should be worried about voting on certain things. Under normal circumstances there probably wouldn't be any time spent doing such things except maybe directly in your workplace, which would definitely be the norm and considered part of work itself.


So there are shoe shortages in both Cleveland (population 1.2 million) and New York (population 17 million). All distribution being equal, Cleveland gets 1 million shoes (shortage of 200K) while New York gets 1 million shoes (shortage of 16 million)?

That's not equal distribution.


Very admirable. What happens when there are not enough people as charitable as you?

Good luck ever running out. These people of the future socialist and eventually communist society have a rich history of something that you will never be able to comprehend. They have an idea of this thing called class consciousness, at one point in their history it actually gave them a portion of their reasoning behind overthrowing an entire government and taking over factories and the mechanisms of the old system.

These people respect one another as equals and individuals. There is something of a brotherly love between all members of society, even complete strangers. Their attitude is so rich with this "revolutionary spirit" that you'd be hard pressed to find an shortage of such volunteers.

Don't believe me? Read about some of the actual social conditions in various workers democracies. In Spain it went so far that people stopped using formal references, the equivalent of "sir" -- that is, they didn't even show inequality in their speech.


It's easy to pretend the problem won't exist.

What about perishable items like food?

Most food can be frozen, technology is changing. We have these things called canned goods now... last forever man. Swear to god, you could have canned soup for years and it'll still be good when you open it. You should really look into that stuff, it's neat. There's this really high tech food store with all those kinds of crazy things called Shaw's (at least here in the states) and there's another called Stop & Shop.

On top of that obvious aspect, a lot of food production will be extremely localized. It's doubtful in the previous example you'd have communes with their own shoe factories -- but in terms of communal organization there is certainly both trade and inter/trade organization and sharing. With either a separate commune specific towards food supply that would supply surrounding non-foodstuff communes with food, or by actually embedding agricultural production as a "sub function" so to speak of each commune. No matter how you cut it, your food is pretty much right there in your face. Does this mean food won't come from elsewhere? No. There will still be very large farming areas no doubt that might really distribute a lot of food world wide (as many corporate farms already do).

But as it stands it's fairly frequent for such corporate farms to throw food out -- this would never happen. Oveall point is, if you've got land under your feet, you have the ability to grow food if indeed you need it.

Remember, no private property. No one can come and kick you off land, no one can say "you can't farm this land" -- although there'd be obvious suggested agriculture zones, and for fairly obvious reasons to say... avoid an area where sewage is draining. So you'd probably want to consult and talk about it with the community first.


What if people don't want the same kind of shoes you have? What if they lose them, or their shoes go up in flames in a house fire?

Do you ever go into a shoe store and fine no shoes available? Ok, so why do you suspect we're going to "make shoes as they're needed" or anyhting strictly as it's neeeded. There will be as consistent a supply of these things as in capitalism, and it will come very much the same way, with you walking into a "store" and getting yourself a new pair of shoes. Need food, go to the "super market" and get the food you need -- or go directly to a local commune or inter commune supply and get it from there. If your house goes up in flames you'd probably be put up in a respectable temporary living space until a new home can be built. Think of all the hotels that won't be reserved for rich guys on vacation!

Why do you really assume life is going to be that much different?


In the meantime people go without eh, sort of like those 20 million who starved under Stalin. No big deal until we get production/labor equations figured out? I'm sure people will be patient enough with that.

Are you referring to starving industrial workers who died because the peasants turned petty bourgeoisie under the NEP refused to give up their harvest and went as far as to purposefully destroy it rather than give it to the state? -- Sometimes I can really see why the best thing to do was just to kill them all. Any sort of selfiishness and greed of that nature is dispicable.

However, let me remind you that Russia was an extremely underdeveloped country when it attempted socialism. I've already explained where you run into problems with this. Capitalism does a LOT of development. And it didn't help that a lot of that starvation came throughout the actual attempts to catch up with capitalism.


Who determines the logistics, labor and product values? Central body or local production commune? What if their figures don't mesh? Who is right?

Under socialism it's a very simple book keeping that's fairly obvious -- the actual value has something of a meaning there, not to say it doesn't have a meaning under communism, but within communism (and probably even a really advanced socialism) you're going to see the general function of "money" slip away. This will happen along with the state itself, as the administrative would centralize the bank and money system -- and of course, the money under socialism only serves really to equalize productoin and consumption. Once scarcity presents itself as a non issue, really the credit system could dissolve right then. But it is something of the assurance that production and consumption are normalized and work in some form of equilibrium with one another.

Read a hell of a lot more on the specifics of it here: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/6579/index.htm

This is of course how I personally and my ideology envisions socialism. Communism itself has no money, so unless money has been abandoned, it's not communism.

Oh and I forgot to mention above so I'll just answer it now. A variety of different shoes would be made... why wouldn't they? I perosnally where plane black sneaker-boots. But there would be obviously different shoes/boots for different requirements (running, climbing, hiking, paving driveways, trudging through snow, playing basketball, etc..etc) as well as a number of styles in each no doubt. People tend to like choice. If by some chance that proves otherwise, choice can always minimize itself.


But, if local communes are making their decisions based on what the central federation tells them are required, they're not really making their decision locally, are they? Which is a more local decision:

This is why I said even if there was. A) there's not.. (note: I'm not saying there isn't any idea of federation, I'm simply saying there is no global planning aspect behind it) there's no team of people calculating the numbers needed for the world shoe supply. It'd be pointless to start that high up, because either way you're going to work it up as a sum of local areas, and you'll have to determine the size in population of those local areas to determine how much goes there -- so it's a moot system. Local planning makes more sense. B) if there was, the central planning would still take these things into account, afterall, that is what planning is all about. What IS the normal output of this factory? What IS the requirement? The only difference is you're changing the nature in which the planning is organized. Central planning need not mean it's undemocratic, nor does it need to mean that local factories don't have a say... all it means is that there is CENTRAL planning, that planning is done for everything within a single working template to so speak. That once you've got your plan, that plan is what's in play and it is what is expected of you -- doesn't say you didn't have a say in that plan.


I just did. Try not to contradict yourself this time.

You've given me nothing more but foolishness like "people won't want to work" all the way to putitng a single deficit vs. surplus dependence all on another factory rather than distributing it across multiple factories to ensure any addition of work was negligable for each person. You can't see outside your capitalist box, and when you try to you look at things in a one to one manner, as if people are TRADING. This is not a market trade or monetary... NOT A MARKET. You don't have to get shoes from one place and pay them back... you can take a pair from each end of the globe and never think about what you're "paying" them in return. You need to open up your mind.

EDIT: Accidently typed capitalist in a few places I meant to say communist (fairly obvious... no other fixes.) I'm aware my grammar is horrible and the what not... but I'm a bit tired right now and it's a lot of shit I'm trying to cram out in simple terms so I don't confuse you.

[NovelGentry]

That smaller post was an addition I added to my original post based on what NoXiom had said, it was not a response to you, see my previous response for that.

[t_wolves_fan]

The idea of extrmely centralized and planned economies is left up to socialism. Communism offers more of a broken down but still coordinated means of production, namely that of the commune.

Fair enough.


Your inability to comprehend strikes yet again. When I mentioned "Central Federation" in quotes in my initial reply, as I did just now. I quoted it for a reason.

Centralized/Planned economy is not necessarily, and certainly is not in this case the same as federated locally planned production.

I didn't ask about centrally planning the economy, per se, I simply asked what would happen if global need were identified by a central "federation", advocated by many on this board. The fact that I ask what would happen when the local communes agree to produce in sum a number of shoes less than the total needed indicates I didn't mean that actual production was planned centrally.


The idea is quite simply this. Need and consumption are determined locally by local production forces. There is no point for members of a shoe factory in eastern asia to be worried about what people in new england need for shoes.

What about goods that cannot be produced in the local environment?


2 and 3 do not contradict one, as world need is not calculated, only local needs are. And only in the event a local need exists as a deficit when compared to it's own local production, are other regional surpluses brought into the picture. Again, there is no GLOBAL calculation -- only inter regional coordination.

The same question applies and your qualification is irrelevant. The regional (not Global, between which there is no difference other than square miles covered) federation sees there is a deficit of shoes in Washington State. The shoe-producing communes in Oregon and Idaho vote to not produce more.

What happens?


If you want to call this global planning, you'd still be using an extremely false terminology. As it is not global planning, it is global coordination, seen through a federation, but all the actual planning is local and at the most local with respect to select few other local facilities.

Again, coordination != planning, one is extremely preemptive. The idea of globally planning is to do as you said "We need this many shoes world wide, this many here, this many over here blah blah blah" -- But any form of federation should never be concerned with that.

LOL. Definitely go to law school. You're good at splitting hairs.

But you're basically just asking my question for me again. Now try to answer it.



It has nothing to do with everyone agreeing. You either work or you don't, and you produce what you can and will, or you don't. That's your individual choice. If you want to work 4 hours a day or 17, that's a decision you can really take into your own hands (as we've said, you don't HAVE to work at all).

Wow, even better. What happens if the regional (not global) coordination (not planning) board tries to coordinate (not plan) an arrangement where the shoe-making commune in Portland increases production to meet the shortage of shoes in Seattle, but not only does the commune in Portland vote to not increase work load to produce the necessary shoes, but in fact can't even find the necessaryr workers to produce more shoes because too many people have decide not to work?


production quotas are not particularly goals to be met, as much as they are goals to ensure are reasonable given the normal flow.

:lol:

You can't reach your goal of producing enough shoes to meet the "normal flow" without MEETING your goal of producing enough shoes.

In other words, there's no frigging diference!


Based on what you know you produce in an hour, CAN you produce what will be needed? That is the question one would answer, and it is not a question that is voted on. It is a question that is answered by watching the actual production output and consumption (which has all been done previously in socialism) and guess what... is already done under capitalism.

If you CANNOT meet that projected consumption rate, then you seek the alternative options. It's not like the federation of shoe factories has to convene in swtizerland to discuss who's gonna get what shoes sent where. A factory in new England running say 1,000 pairs short for an array of women's sizes can contact a factory in New Zealand and acquire surplus from them. What makes this a "federation" of sorts is that you would have lots of trades grouped together in such a manner, and there would be cross trade supplies (think, machinists need metal to machine) and there would be same trade supplies, all shifting back and fourth without any idea of money or getting any product in return.

That's nice but doesn't address my question.

What happens if there is NO surplus of women's shoe sizes? That is my very basic, very easy-to-answer question.

You're answering the question by inventing a surplus. I'm asking you what happens if the surplus doesn't exist.

Very slowly now....the shoe factories determine their output, based on working hours and production methods of their choice (am I wrong in assuming the workers would be allowed to make these choices colletively?) Yet that output is not enough to meet demand/need.

WHAT HAPPENS?

Don't invent a surplus as an easy answer. Write the numbers down if you have to to make them more real: 4 billion shoes needed, 3 billion shoes being produced. You can't find enough people to donate their old ones. You don't have a strategic shoe reserve.

WHAT HAPPENS?


They talk to another commune, or talk to mutliple communes at once and split the work. If they talk to 1,000 other communes around the world, to garner necessary supply the actual increase in work required by each commune, for each person, for each day will be negligable.

You just said above that all the shoe making communes wouldn't be meeting to discuss all this.



You've still given me no reasonable answer for why scarcity exists to begin with and why these other communes are refusing to work (but I suppose that's what you believe human nature and greed is all about).

Are you going to tell me it's impossible that these conditions will exist? Your faith in the system is that great?


But anyway, and again, in the event such a shortage does actually occur, it would be left up, and once again, democratically, to the various points of distribution to decide what goes where, in what amount, and who gets it.

No, no, no. You JUST SAID that these issues are NOT democratically decided: "Based on what you know you produce in an hour, CAN you produce what will be needed? That is the question one would answer, and it is not a question that is voted on. It is a question that is answered by watching the actual production output and consumption (which has all been done previously in socialism) and guess what... is already done under capitalism."

Again, WHICH IS IT?


It's extremely hierarchical in a sense, not in terms of power, but simply in terms of how the distribution takes place, and each level has a complete say in what affects them. Or at least however much of a say can be garnered by that levels population.

Each level has complete say on the matters that affect them, but they have no power.

Uhhhh.......never mind.




So there are shoe shortages in both Cleveland (population 1.2 million) and New York (population 17 million). All distribution being equal, Cleveland gets 1 million shoes (shortage of 200K) while New York gets 1 million shoes (shortage of 16 million)?

That's not equal distribution.

What is?



Good luck ever running out. These people of the future socialist and eventually capitalist society have a rich history of something that you will never be able to comprehend. They have an idea of this thing called class consciousness, at one point in their history it actually gave them a portion of their reasoning behind overthrowing an entire government and taking over factories and the mechanisms of the old system.

Perhaps as you say in a thousand years.

But let me ask you, how patient do you think people are going to be? You seem to be suggesting that people are going to be perfectly happy to go without shoes or food in the event of a shortage (I can envision the t-shirts that say "Anorexic for the cause!") to help the glorious revolution eventually rid humanity of its natural tendency to seek the greatest gain for least cost.

Good luck.


These people respect one another as equals and individuals. There is something of a brotherly love between all members of society, even complete strangers. Their attitude is so rich with this "revolutionary spirit" that you'd be hard pressed to find an shortage of such volunteers.

So it's utopian.


Most food can be frozen, technology is changing. We have these things called canned goods now... last forever man.

Canned foods require processing that destroys most of their nutritious value.


Swear to god, you could have canned soup for years and it'll still be good when you open it. You should really look into that stuff, it's neat. There's this really high tech food store with all those kinds of crazy things called Shaw's (at least here in the states) and there's another called Stop & Shop.

Problem: Your supermarkets carry foods that cannot be produced locally. More importantly, when scarcity occurs (and it often does because of weather), prices go up, reducing demand. In your society though, everything is free, so prices will not increase. The result will be a black market.


On top of that obvious aspect, a lot of food production will be extremely localized.

I'm sure folks will look forward to their starvation as that is organized.


It's doubtful in the previous example you'd have communes with their own shoe factories -- but in terms of communal organization there is certainly both trade and inter/trade organization and sharing.

So it's a barter system.


With either a separate commune specific towards food supply that would supply surrounding non-foodstuff communes with food, or by actually embedding agricultural production as a "sub function" so to speak of each commune. No matter how you cut it, your food is pretty much right there in your face. Does this mean food won't come from elsewhere? No. There will still be very large farming areas no doubt that might really distribute a lot of food world wide (as many corporate farms already do).

And it is your position that it will be efficient for food-producing communes to negotiate the millions of contracts necessary to export food and import every other necessity of life?



Remember, no private property. No one can come and kick you off land,

That's funny, in another thread you said it'd be perfectly acceptable to take ownership of a company away from Bill Gates.

If the place you live isn't yours, what stops me from walking in your front door and making myself comfortable on the couch?



Do you ever go into a shoe store and fine no shoes available?

No, because I live in a capitalist society.


Ok, so why do you suspect we're going to "make shoes as they're needed" or anyhting strictly as it's neeeded. There will be as consistent a supply of these things as in capitalism, and it will come very much the same way, with you walking into a "store" and getting yourself a new pair of shoes. Need food, go to the "super market" and get the food you need

Because when everything is free I can walk in and take as many or as much as I want and everyone else will do the same.


Are you referring to starving industrial workers who died because the peasants turned petty bourgeoisie under the NEP refused to give up their harvest and went as far as to purposefully destroy it rather than give it to the state? -- Sometimes I can really see why the best thing to do was just to kill them all. Any sort of selfiishness and greed of that nature is dispicable.

Basically, yes.



Under socialism it's a very simple book keeping that's fairly obvious -- the actual value has something of a meaning there, not to say it doesn't have a meaning under communism, but within communism (and probably even a really advanced socialism) you're going to see the general function of "money" slip away. This will happen along with the state itself, as the administrative would centralize the bank and money system -- and of course, the money under socialism only serves really to equalize productoin and consumption. Once scarcity presents itself as a non issue, really the credit system could dissolve right then. But it is something of the assurance that production and consumption are normalized and work in some form of equilibrium with one another.

What happens when you cannot sustain production because making everything free has led to unlimited demand?




This is why I said even if there was. A) there's not.. (note: I'm not saying there isn't any idea of federation, I'm simply saying there is no global planning aspect behind it) there's no team of people calculating the numbers needed for the world shoe supply.

Then what happens when different communes reach difference calculations on the values of products/work/etc.


It'd be pointless to start that high up, because either way you're going to work it up as a sum of local areas, and you'll have to determine the size in population of those local areas to determine how much goes there -- so it's a moot system. Local planning makes more sense. B) if there was, the central planning would still take these things into account, afterall, that is what planning is all about. What IS the normal output of this factory? What IS the requirement? The only difference is you're changing the nature in which the planning is organized. Central planning need not mean it's undemocratic, nor does it need to mean that local factories don't have a say... all it means is that there is CENTRAL planning, that planning is done for everything within a single working template to so speak. That once you've got your plan, that plan is what's in play and it is what is expected of you -- doesn't say you didn't have a say in that plan.

You're really still not answering my basic question.

OK, local planning. How on earth does a "local planning" agency possibly "plan" or "coordinate" the needs for every possible good and service?

What if the Chicago shoe-making commune agrees to meet Buffalo's shoe shortage in exchange for 5,000 pounds of Buffalo Wings a month. Buffalo also needs jackets, which Chicago also can produce, but has nothing else to offer Chicago? Does it now need to spend time searching elsewhere for extra jackets?

You do realize how many products are necessary for us to function in our daily life, right? Do you really, honestly believe that local planning or coordinating bodies can possibly negotiate efficiently for all of the products? Do you believe industry-specific communes can do it?



You've given me nothing more but foolishness like "people won't want to work"

Hey, look at this board. People are complaining that labor isn't voluntary but forced. If they were so eager to work why would they care?


all the way to putitng a single deficit vs. surplus dependence all on another factory rather than distributing it across multiple factories to ensure any addition of work was negligable for each person.

How can it be distributed across multiple factories and still meet the requirements of A>individual commune decision-making (which you simultaneously claim is required and is not required) and B>no centralized decision-making?


You can't see outside your capitalist box, and when you try to you look at things in a one to one manner, as if people are TRADING. This is not a market trade or monetary... NOT A MARKET. You don't have to get shoes from one place and pay them back... you can take a pair from each end of the globe and never think about what you're "paying" them in return. You need to open up your mind.

How in the world would there be enough of any product if people just took what they wanted and never worried about producing something in return?

I'm not asking for a utopian answer here, I'm asking for a real one.

[NovelGentry]

I didn't ask about centrally planning the economy, per se, I simply asked what would happen if global need were identified by a central "federation", advocated by many on this board. The fact that I ask what would happen when the local communes agree to produce in sum a number of shoes less than the total needed indicates I didn't mean that actual production was planned centrally.

You'd have to ask them exactly what they mean. What I call what you name the "central federation" is the FAWP/AFEP -- in fact, I'm fairly certain this is probably the idea you're referring to, as I've seen little people advocate such systems with any specifics here aside from myself.

The idea, however, is that you global need is not identified, and if it is, it is not the problem of individual communalized factories or separate communes designed for that sole production. They deal with what they distribute to directly under all normal conditions. If indeed someone else has presented the idea that they are ever concerned with global need, then you would have to ask that person.

As far as the global need goes, it can be determined, and quite easily. Under socialism, global produciton so to speak factors in as the "average social hour of labor" -- That is to say, with the same hierarchy you consistently take averages of production "costs" in labor time so to speak, and build these up. The global cost of a pair of shoes is the average of cumulative labor time for hourly output being pushed by all these separate entitite (singular collectivized factories, entire communes, etc). Their cost of a shoe is determined by the averages of each workers hourly output.

There's formulas on the that page I linked to earlier that make it a lot more clear how to calculate these things. But you in essence, drive up the scale to get a total average social hour of labor for products, and that in essence becomes the primary cost factor.


What about goods that cannot be produced in the local environment?

Distributed in much the same way it is now, and again, handled with federations. If there is a primary iron ore supplier running out of Northern Canada who is supplying say 1/3 of the world with with necessary iron ore, they will distribute it straight away to the given producers who use the raw material. Those raw materials are they converted to whatever products or product coponents and distributed out to those building the final product. (it's obviously a lot more broken down than this, as those mining the ore probably aren't refining it on the spot *but I could be wrong*). But you get the general idea. Each is concerened with their own product consumption. That is to say, we normally have this many orders for this many products or sub-products, so wer're going to base on that and fluctuate. Using that, they can then, along with the other membes who pull supply from this iron ore supplier, determine the division of the iron ore itself. In all cases, it's always workers dealing with workers, no bosses.

But the locla community who needs for example... pipes for fixing plumbing doesn't need to play a role in the iron ore coming down. They work with their pipe supplier, who in turn works with the machinists, who in turn works with refinderies or stock metal places, who in turn work with the miners. Like I said, a hierarchy, with a lower level where the product starts, building it's way up to a higher level, each level being more inclusive as to how many relations went in to coordinating the product production and distribution.

Regardless of where these places are, local or not, it works the same way. And again, technology makes this possible. Think of a decently automated system where workers at a factory take a vote, post their results up, and everything syncs with the results of other workers, video conference to discuss major changes -- maybe there's new machines coming in to one place and there will be a surplus from what they won't be producing for the changeover, etc... whatever. I'm not really in that business or at that level in any business so I can't tell you what kind of decisions go on.

CEO and what not is obsolte, cause money is not an issue.


The same question applies and your qualification is irrelevant. The regional (not Global, between which there is no difference other than square miles covered) federation sees there is a deficit of shoes in Washington State. The shoe-producing communes in Oregon and Idaho vote to not produce more.

What happens?

Again, this is scarcity. I've already said what happens in the event of scarcity. You have multiple distribution points. Ever worked for a distribution center? You call up all these different regional stores and ask them what they need, if anything -- eveyr now and then you get calls from larger distribution centers that actually supply you, and those get supplied direct from factories. Same principles, but the supply would be spread even across population, filteirng down to where each distribution center supplies, and eventually straight into the communes, where the people running that extremely local distribution center and the people who depend on it come together and decide what individuals actually become the endpoints of the distribution.

Again, I'm not sure WHy scarcity would ever exist. But this is what happens in the event it does, for whatever reason, whether it be a loss in the supply of foam padding for the soles of shoes, or just because workers don't want to work. If indeed you don't want to work, expect a scarcity in shoes -- or a scarcity in some other place where workers require shoes to do their job.

Need is the throttle, if you see you're starving, grow food. If you seee you're thirsty, find and purify water. If you see you're in need of shoes... go make them. This can be done by individuals who can acquire the raw materials and have the skill, it can be a decision by the community to find volunteers, and then have them train under normal working hours with the sneaker makers, whatever. However democracy and control of the means of production want to cut it.


LOL. Definitely go to law school. You're good at splitting hairs.

But you're basically just asking my question for me again. Now try to answer it.

Your question was already answered every other time I addressed scarcity, as that is what the issue is called. And there's a strong need to split hairs, because this should never be confused with central planning. It's far from it.


Wow, even better. What happens if the regional (not global) coordination (not planning) board tries to coordinate (not plan) an arrangement where the shoe-making commune in Portland increases production to meet the shortage of shoes in Seattle, but not only does the commune in Portland vote to not increase work load to produce the necessary shoes, but in fact can't even find the necessaryr workers to produce more shoes because too many people have decide not to work?

Same problem, different level of severity. What happens in capitalism if plastics workers go on strike? Hospitals lose iv tubes, bags, syringes ? people die? What if 100 farmers decide not to show up for work for a few weeks... food scarcity ensues, companies have to deal. The problem as you see it is this, yo think capitalism solves this with supply and demand, the self righting mechanism.

The problem is such, under capitalism, scarcity in certain food items would increase cost of food items, thus not allowing poor wage laborers or those who are paid inanely exploitative amounts the abilyt to afford it. You may not see it, because you get paid plenty and don't ever have a problem affording food, but others do. Under socialized production, scarcity doesn't mean some for half and none for the other half, it means less for all, but still everyone gets some.

In this sense it's more direct, the workers respond to their own needs. They see directly what is scarce and they can response to pushing labor into that field. Of course, hopefully being smart enough to realize that they should take labor from sources where these people aren't producing other things they need, as to not cause scarcity there. Either way, as I've said 800 times, scarcity is not going to be a problem.


You can't reach your goal of producing enough shoes to meet the "normal flow" without MEETING your goal of producing enough shoes.

In other words, there's no frigging diference!

Quite the contrary, a goal to be met means you're working toward that goal. It assumes your action and how much you work is based on trying to fill that quota. The reason for the logistical work is not to set quotas, it's to set expected consumer demand -- you should work steady regardless of consumer demand to create the surplus. Ovesupply is extremely welcome. That is to say, you don't work toward the goal, but you simply ensure the goal is reasonable. One determines production efforts, the other determines if normal production efforts will be enough. And there IS a difference. As again, using the first would determine production efforts and then in a swing for that, producers may run into a mistake and may not have enough. Or worse, they may have enough, but demand was up. If you find a liklihood that you're gonna distribute 3,215 pairs of shoes, and know your normal production rate is 4,000 -- do the 4,000.

Do you HAVE to do more? no, you don't even have to do the projected amount. You don't have to do a lot of things But it is aspects of your life that are dependent on all this. Again, a decrease in a product anywhere can easily create a decrease or a defficiency in another field, and people will feel this directly.

This is something extremely visible in th open source world, and you can see how production changes in forks, which is essentially someone new taking the code that the old guy wrote, and continuing doing it because the old guy found new interests, died, or simply doesn't update it as much as the community needs it to be frequently updated for bug fixes or security or features etc. So what happens is a new guy takes his place. There is a self righting mechanism in communism then too, and that is of course the DIRECT producer -> consumer and vice versa relation we have with one another and in essence to ourselves.


What happens if there is NO surplus of women's shoe sizes?

Again, a scarcity issue, which WAS already answered before, whether you realized it or not. I'm pretty sure I've already answered it three times or so.

When I talk about even distribution I'm not just talking about to producers and distribution facilities for those producers/suppliers, I'm talking about even distribution split across the region at every distribution point, ensuring equal and fair distrubtion from one point to the next by encorporationg the workers on all sides into the flow.

Consumers are Producers too, remember that.


Very slowly now....the shoe factories determine their output, based on working hours and production methods of their choice (am I wrong in assuming the workers would be allowed to make these choices colletively?) Yet that output is not enough to meet demand/need.

Very slowly? This is a fairly automatic determiniation. A company knows how much product it yields, and if it adds up the clocktimes of all it's workers it knows how much labor time goes into it. Undre socialism, this all contributes to the average social hour of labor for that single factory. The longer it takes to create a product, effectively the higher the price goes.

In communism, however, there's no money, thus in the event scarcity does occur, it becomes the situation I mentioned earlier.


Don't invent a surplus as an easy answer. Write the numbers down if you have to to make them more real: 4 billion shoes needed, 3 billion shoes being produced. You can't find enough people to donate their old ones. You don't have a strategic shoe reserve.

Need more numbers than that to crunch what goes where. There's also the possibility certain sizes won't be useful one place, so you can shift excess of anything after distribution on the local level directly to another local one in need.

But to keep it simple let's use a really small example. You need 100 shoes, and produce 50. Your 100 is divided into even groups of 10 that you normally distribute 10 pairs each to, indeed they may even work directrly with you for what shoes they'll need. There's only 50, so each place gets 5 each -- end of story for the producer. Who those 5 goes to comes down to the decision those 10 people make.

However, you're looking at this from far too warped a view. Indeed this is the general hierarchy, and how it's structured. But it's not cycled like this with a single point in which they reach their quota and then distribute. Production and consumption is constant. There is no "new shoe day."

So just like you have J.C Penny calling up their distributor and saying here's what we need. You have these communities doing the same. The yield of every sieze shoe, total yield, labor time for sizes, labor yield per worker per hour, etc... these things can all be easily and quickly calculated.

And that is the point where you collectivize and say "Well we need to start making more of these" -- Ever been in a business meeting? Even some shafty retail store meeting? Or even some crap micromanagement session? They're always like "this is what we're trying to get out the door, we need to push these." -- same deal, but where they do it to try and sell items before theyy're not hot, or in order to maximize profit for that item during a given time, the sole purpose to that kind of work under socialism/communism is to satisfy the needs.


You just said above that all the shoe making communes wouldn't be meeting to discuss all this.

And I haven't changed that. They wouldnt' all be meeting. Only those inolved and necessary would need to discuss this. And surpluses would be posted as would deficites so each coulb be aware of one another. This would all be done over a fairly simple interent appication system (more than likely) that automated a whole lot of things... like for example: Suggests to the single commune where surpluses exist and who else is in need of surpluses..etc.

You're really too hung up on the idea of scarcity though. What makes you think it'll be a problem? I've never walked into a store and not seen a common thing missing. For example, I've never been in a situation where there were no more shoes -- there might be no shoes I liked, or none my size. So I go to a different store... or I wait till they get more in. Same deal here. I don't know why you assume production would be so drastically cut and scarcity so drastically increased.


Are you going to tell me it's impossible that these conditions will exist? Your faith in the system is that great?

I'm telling you it will be no more of an issue than it is in current society. Newsflash, people in Russia were already starving long before Stalin and through Lenin too -- the mod of production went from demi-feudal towards a state run (something of a state capitaist/deformed workers state) system. Not saying it's that comparible of a system -- but you're asking a lot.

It's not a shock to you that people starve under feudalism though. Of course not, it's obvious. So why is it a shock to you when their attempt at socialism STILL ran into scarcity problems -- and this was on top of the fact that the farmers were actually DENYING giving the food, and DESTROYING it when they could.

That is what makes you think there's scarcity issue, but you don't realize a nation like the US has developed byond this. We have these means, and where we don't have all the means or a full enough means it is not a necessity and e can eaily build the means or make the current means more efficient with technology we have.

Scarcity will NOT be an issue for a forward moving nation.


No, no, no. You JUST SAID that these issues are NOT democratically decided: "Based on what you know you produce in an hour, CAN you produce what will be needed? That is the question one would answer, and it is not a question that is voted on. It is a question that is answered by watching the actual production output and consumption (which has all been done previously in socialism) and guess what... is already done under capitalism."

Again, WHICH IS IT?

You're really distorting what I'm saying here. It's like when Rove and Bush's campaign goons tried to make Kerry look like this massive flip-flopper, when in reality he was just a fucking moron. -- Problem is, I'm not a moron. I may be tired, but I'm not a moron.

How would you propose someone to vote on the question of "Based on what we know to be our production in an hour, can we produce what is needed?" It's not a question of "do you want to produce" It's CAN we. Given our normal rate, can we do it. You don't take a vote on that, you answer it with the information you already know. If you want to take a vote on "Do we work more, or longer hours, or harder hours to try and make the grade" -- then you vote on it. But they're two different question.

Can we do this given our normal production output? (it's yes or no and based completely on logistics)

Do we want to work harder to make this possible? (that's a vote).

See the difference? The first is only a question to grade where you stand, and it is in effect a question that is consistenly asked and consistenly answered with each new incoming request. The minute your supplly or projected supply drops below projected consumption, you need to ration.


Each level has complete say on the matters that affect them, but they have no power.

Hierarchial power means someone at a higher level has more power than someone at a lower level. This is not the case. It is simply the case that someone at a higher level works within that higher level's distribution calls. Where someone in the lower level, works only within the distribution calls between his level and the level they're distributing to.

It is not the case that someone within the consumption bracket can tell all lower distribution points to ship out all the stuff to them. They have no power over those brackets, the only power they have (and to use the example from before) is once they get the 5 pairs of shoes, who out of the 10 gets the 5?


What is?

By population. 1.2 millions vs 17 million... one should be getting a vastly greater number of shoes than the other. NY's major distribution center should have nearly 14 times as much.


Perhaps as you say in a thousand years.

But let me ask you, how patient do you think people are going to be? You seem to be suggesting that people are going to be perfectly happy to go without shoes or food in the event of a shortage (I can envision the t-shirts that say "Anorexic for the cause!") to help the glorious revolution eventually rid humanity of its natural tendency to seek the greatest gain for least cost.

Good luck.

In a thousand years you're probably talking communism. Scarcity can exist within communism, within socialism, and within capitalism. Only reason you don't call it scarcity in capitalism is because when it occurs less people can even afford to buy said product. In fact, it's much the same in socialism, so in that sense, scarcity won't exist, but much more of a supply and demand type system -- only with the "price" becoming the average social hour of labor.

Here's a simple example from that website I linked earlier which oddly enough uses shoes:

125000 Labour-Hours
divided by
40000 pairs of shoes
equals 3.125 Labour-Hours per pair of shoes.

This means a pair of shoes would cost 3.125 hours of labor. Roughly $21 for a bit over minimum wage in the US. Not sure how acurate the labor hours and number of shoes produced in that time is, but you get the idea. Here's what happesn though... that say comes out of one factory -- you then compare that with the out of another, which say is 3.5 LH/s (labor-hours per pair of shoes). The average would then become roughtly 3.31 Labor Hours.

This ensures total input of Labor always equals total output of labor. That is, if you are to get say 140 Labor Hours from the system in terms of products, you would of had to put 140 in. If you only created one product in that time then you created a very "valuable" product.

This removes subjectivity from value, and it's a perfect bridging game economy to play in socialism. As it takes the objective value of the time spent in actually performing the task, and sets it equivalent to the value that one must supply in order to "acquire" the initial. Thus you maintain something of a self-righting mechanism, while turning the subjective aspect of supply and demand right on it's head.


So it's utopian.

Also from that paper:


The second argument deployed against us by our critics is that of an alleged "utopianism". However, this also is incorrect, since throughout the entire examination no imaginary constructions whatsoever have been dreamed up for the future. We have examined only the basic economic categories of communist economic life. Our sole aim has been to show that the proletarian revolution must summon forth the power to implement in society the system of Average Social Reproduction Time (ASRT); should it fail in this, then the end outcome of the revolution will inevitably be State communism.

In short, as much as I love and rely heavily on the idea that people will have that revolutionary spirit, it is in essence ensured through the period of socialism. Indeed this is why I believe a transitional state is necessary. As concious as people may be, this system, which is an extremely objective economic system, is the precursor to establishing a working productive/distributive/consumer system in light of the new founded equality

Communism is something of the icing on the cake, when this system is far less worried about in specific terms.


Problem: Your supermarkets carry foods that cannot be produced locally. More importantly, when scarcity occurs (and it often does because of weather), prices go up, reducing demand. In your society though, everything is free, so prices will not increase. The result will be a black market.

Well not under the conditions in socialism as I have pointed out just moments ago. The issue if of course that you still think scracity exists. To my knowledge oranges, strawberries, and mangos are not produced locally here, yet I guarantee I could go find them in the store right now. Note, there is excess of these things -- I used to work in a produce market. There is EXTREME excess of these things. Scarcity is about as far from the fresh produce field as you could want it. However, even with indulging your point, I do not NEED oranges, or mango, or whatever crop wheather decides to take out for a week. I can sustain myself on another crop... I can sustain myself on different foods from different regions... or I can sustain myself on food that CAN be produced locally.

As communism would have it, scarcity is not a problem quite simply because it's not a problem. It's something 200+ years of development in socialism should have long taken care of.


So it's a barter system.

No, by trade I meant skill, like you "take up a trade." That is to say the commune, as an economic organization can have the form of both a single purpose production facility for example, a full blooded farmers commune, or it could cover multiple aspects, resembling the likes of a small town with multiple trade personalities in it.

I did not mean the action of trading itself.


And it is your position that it will be efficient for food-producing communes to negotiate the millions of contracts necessary to export food and import every other necessity of life?

Of course not. Do you worry about making sure your local stores have exactly what you need to survive. No, if you want something and they don't have it, tough, you deal with it or go to another place that might. But in general they probably don't let you down too much -- distribution centers within these enviornments will be on the same level. The exporting is on the same level as any other normal trade under capitalism. It is indeed a function of the production.


That's funny, in another thread you said it'd be perfectly acceptable to take ownership of a company away from Bill Gates.

Well let's get one tihng clear, When Bill Gate's property is seized and handed over to the working class is going to be a far cry earlier than when we've completely abolished private property, at that point we are indeed expropriating it, and it's private if for no other reason than the bourgeoisie is now restricted from that luxury.


If the place you live isn't yours, what stops me from walking in your front door and making myself comfortable on the couch?

Nothing, why should it be a problem? I would assume you have the general curtesy to knock, for privacy sake. But why should I care if you come in and sit on the couch? Hell, switch houses for all I care -- if indeed you like it that much.

If you've ever played the game of GO there is a rule that stops something of an infinite loop from happening -- similar would be a general accepted but probably unspoken rule -- it would not be feasible for you to say, take the couch out of the house I was living in, as I could simply take it back, and we would go on like that, like children forever. It's pointless too when you can go down and get a couch for free.

In that sense there is a personal domain that I that would be respected -- but in complete honesty, nothing should stop you, and it should not bother me one bit in terms of "property rights." Just like if you go into the garage of the house I'm living in and take the lawnmower. It'd probably be nice if you let me know you took it, but there is nothing illegal about it.


No, because I live in a capitalist society.

Ahh, yes, and the $120+ pair of Nike's has nothing to do with a brand label and the basketball player sellling them to you and everything to do with scarcity issues. There are extreme subjective aspects that keep capitalism in a really abstract state. It presents a life that truly isn't available to even a large minority.

But this is indeed a lie, because scarcity is not calculated on such an individual level as that. Footlocker is not going to mark the price of those shoes up $50 dollars when they realize they only have 2 pairs left. Instead, they will order more from Nike and when they sell the last two, they will tell the person who comes in looking for them that they sold the last two.

So your arguments for scarcity are still mindless dribble that amount to nothing in capitalism and will amount to nothing in any post-capitalist society witht he same productive mechanisms.


Because when everything is free I can walk in and take as many or as much as I want and everyone else will do the same.

And when there is no private property they can take it from you without running into any issue and laugh at your dumbass self trying to be greedy in a world where such a basis does not exist for it.

Again, you're going to be looking at a different societal structure. There's no point to you taking 7 pairs of shoes when you can only wear one. Or grabbing 20 oranges when you will only eat 10. And for the few morons like you that might remain in communism afte socialism has regulated that (yes, in socialism things will "cost money") -- it's not going to cause us an issue.


Basically, yes.

So you blame capitalism for the deaths in the USSR. The deaths were caused by the farmers (old peasants) turned petty bourgeoisie. Both much of the starvation and theoretically their own deaths. That is to say, the farmers were the new capitalists, demanding they had a right to the food they were growing, and witholding it from state control and quotas.

Did you expect communism to magically make food fall out of the sky when the people growing it refused to give it up because they wanted to make profit off of it? It was their own capitalist tendencies and the leniency of the NEP that allowed it to fermet in the first place.

The only thing that Lenin/Staling really screwed up on was ever allowing it to happen in the first place (but had they not they would have seen a strong peasant uprising in favor fo capitalism). Like I said, you can't skip capitalism, and even when they tried, they had to implement something that gave it to their new bourgeoisie in one form or another. Then when it threated and took the lives of the industrial workers, Stalin decided to do something about it and exiled and killed a bunch of em.

Strange you blame communism for the death's of a capitalist compromise/reform within the USSR.


What happens when you cannot sustain production because making everything free has led to unlimited demand?

When I cannot sustain production. So you mean, what happens when people limitlessly consume the goods they're producing, and no longer have any of the goods they're producing? I'd imagine they produce more. They can't consume what they don't produce. Workers are consumers, consumers are workers.

But this is a really stupid point to begin with, cause it's based on the idea that everyone's just going to grab as much as they can carry with no regard at all for what they actually want or need. The idea that you will go into a store and take all the cheese just because you can -- and then the idea that somehow you will eat it all. If you do not eat it all, nothing stops the others from taking it from you to eat it. Again, no private property. The minute you try and say "It's mine" there's a huge problem thought, and don't expect revolutionary people to react very nicely.

The question is of course... why bother? What's the point in taking all of that when they can just as easily access it no matter where you put it? You cannot STOP someone else from accessing these things -- so unless you plan to actually eat everything or use everything you take from these distribution centers all at once, nothing is lost.

You're looking for a way to say that someone can be greedy, and they can to an extent, but there's no way you can eat enough shit to make it a problem for others. And things that aren't being eaten, well, they're always there to be used -- hell, they can even take them back to the place they're living in.


Then what happens when different communes reach difference calculations on the values of products/work/etc.

AVERAGE social hour of labor.


OK, local planning. How on earth does a "local planning" agency possibly "plan" or "coordinate" the needs for every possible good and service?

Apprently you're not reading properly again. They don't. The producers do. It's already built into how things work. There is no a planning service that does it for every good and service, each provider of good and service does it for their own stuff. You're changing the relationship here very directly to producer and consumer with no middle man. We need 4,000 shoes translates to the shoe factory that the total consumption thus far would be 4,000 -- so if they yield 4,000 shoes, they meet consumption. Of course you get more exact numbers and can do stats like consumption over a month, over a year, over a week, etc... the longer you check it. But that is of course something capitalism already does. Tell me one business that doesn't keep track of how much they buy and how much they sell. And if they are a manufacturer, how much they produce. That is, How much raw material do the buy, how much product do they produce, and how much of that sells. They already know all these things... deamand will go up, yes, as people are equalized, but a lot of old products will be trashed anyway -- it's a revolution after all.

Overall point, the math is really easy, it's already done within businesses... it's just how one keeps track, and how one ensures what is going on.


What if the Chicago shoe-making commune agrees to meet Buffalo's shoe shortage in exchange for 5,000 pounds of Buffalo Wings a month. Buffalo also needs jackets, which Chicago also can produce, but has nothing else to offer Chicago? Does it now need to spend time searching elsewhere for extra jackets?

No, that's illegal. As far as communism is concerned anyway. Witholding the jackets would be in short making claim that they belong to you -- that they are your property. Also, under socialism and communism it's a pointless exercise. Witholding the jackets benefits you nothin,g because if you want buffalo wings you can get buffalo wings wherever the hell you want for free, or go make your own.

More foolishness I see.


You do realize how many products are necessary for us to function in our daily life, right? Do you really, honestly believe that local planning or coordinating bodies can possibly negotiate efficiently for all of the products? Do you believe industry-specific communes can do it?

I'm quite certainly most people can do 3rd grade math, which is what this amounts to.


Hey, look at this board. People are complaining that labor isn't voluntary but forced. If they were so eager to work why would they care?

It has nothing to do with being eager to work. Again, you'd never understand it. It's a term we call class consciousness.


How can it be distributed across multiple factories and still meet the requirements of A>individual commune decision-making (which you simultaneously claim is required and is not required) and B>no centralized decision-making?

You've still misread a lot. Which could be my fault, I am still extremely tired and I've probably typed a lot of stuff that was really not even nearly clear. I'm hoping this post is a bit better and should clarify your old question from before, which I've answered probably 4 times now, including in old posts, and hopefully what's causing your ocnfusion on this question.

Let me explain further anyway. The decision making is not individual -- it is BETWEEN those parties who are involved. If it's a question of who gets the shoes, it's of no interest to the distribution center. If it's a question of which distribution center gets 10 shoes, and another gets 6, it's probably because the distribution center that gets 10 serves 1 and 2/3 the amount of people as the other one. And that s dealt with between the major distribution center and the minor one. If it's a matter of where the factory is sending it's initial products, that too is between the distribution center, which is based on their consumption by the minor distribution centers, which is based on the consumption within the communes -- like I said, hierarchical, not in a sense of power as in who controls it, but in how it accounts for who's involved in the decision making. Why should the factory workers who might not even be within 500 miles have any say who gets the shoes within a 5 x 5 mile commune?

The answer is, they shouldn't have a say. However, the consumption of that commune does have a say in where their products go, as that is one of the determining factors because those people account to the overall.

And yet again, this is still only an issue under a situation where scarcity exists, which it would not.


How in the world would there be enough of any product if people just took what they wanted and never worried about producing something in return?

I'm not asking for a utopian answer here, I'm asking for a real one.

No matter how real my answer is, you will believe it to be Utopian.

With that said, the answer is quite simply that there would never be enough people not producing. Everyone offers sometihng to society, even if it's not a "necessity" per se. On top of this, and again, this is a real answer as much as you'd like to think it isn't -- this is what these people fought for, there is this thing called class consciousness, material consciousness, etc..etc. It is the driving force behind why we got there to begin with -- in short, we'd never progress that far if indeed no one had any intentions to do things this way.

Maybe that is indeed te point you're trying to make, that we can never get there.

Now, let me ask you a very serious question. What do you do for a living?

[t_wolves_fan]

I'm not going to go through the entire post because it's possible our long posts will continue to crash the system.

I will say you seem to have an answer for everything, but that your answers don't seem realistic to me in the least. You do continually contradict yourself, for instance by claiming scarcity could exist and then claiming scarcity will be no problem.

The bottom line is that I don't see how distribution could be run efficiently in your system. You claim it would all work as it does now but even the current efficient system would break down once demand explodes thanks to everything being free and nobody being required to work.

Perhaps though in a thousand years people will have this great "consciousness". Who knows, we can't really debate the effectiveness of a hypothetical, can we?

To answer your question, I am a policy analyst and sometime lobbyist for a non-profit trade association.

[1936]

Dude, when you lose the keys, its ok. When you lose the remote control, its ok. When you lose all morales and become capatilst, its ok. And when you lose 20 quid when your out on the town, its ok.

BUT WHERE THE HELL DID 1 BILLION PEOPLE GO!?!?

[NovelGentry]

I will say you seem to have an answer for everything, but that your answers don't seem realistic to me in the least. You do continually contradict yourself, for instance by claiming scarcity could exist and then claiming scarcity will be no problem.


This is due to your inability to comprehend the English language. The word "if" is what can be called a conditional -- it does not imply, at least not inherently so, that something believes this what follows the condition to be the case or the reality.

Example:

I do not believe there will be problems with scarcity, but IF.....

It is even acceptable, for the sake of abstract argument to use a conditional to contradict fact.

Example:

Water quenches my thirst, IF it didn't.....

There are also interesting logical contradictions that form circular opposition based on the conditional.

Example:

If anything is possible, than nothing is possible.

You'd probably understand these things better if you were a programmer.


The bottom line is that I don't see how distribution could be run efficiently in your system. You claim it would all work as it does now but even the current efficient system would break down once demand explodes thanks to everything being free and nobody being required to work.

Well now you're talking communism. Under socialism people would be required to work to earn a "wage." -- under communism things are different, however, not insanely different from socialism. But under socialism the general ideas of distribution or at least the general infrastructure and idea of "payment" (so to speak) are pretty much the same.


Perhaps though in a thousand years people will have this great "consciousness". Who knows, we can't really debate the effectiveness of a hypothetical, can we?

No, we can't debate hypotheticals, that's why Marx points out what actually happens through the progression of capitalism with technological advancment outgrowing current property relations -- and in doing so the bourgeoisie must resolve them in certain ways.

1) Expand the market (not possible once every nation is capitalist)
2) Destroy a portion of the means of production. (not the norm)
3) More thoroughly exploit old markets.

Number 3 is the kicker, because once you start doing that people begin to notice and quality of life shifts downards.


To answer your question, I am a policy analyst and sometime lobbyist for a non-profit trade association.

Non-Profit as in... not generating surplus value.

Question to Marxists: Can non-profit workers be considered proletarians?

[encephalon]

Again, coordination != planning, one is extremely preemptive.

Hey! No logical operators are allowed in this area! You'll confuse them.


Question to Marxists: Can non-profit workers be considered proletarians?

Not usually, I'm guessing. Those who can afford to do "non-profit" work are usually part of the ruling class, as the working-class is generally too busy trying to stay alive.

Of course, a non-profit trade organization may garnish enough support from corporations to pay its associates quite well, perhaps better than working for a profit corporation, and there could be a slim chance, I guess, of a prole actually living off of what said non-profit organization pays.

I still find it highly unlikely, though, that a proletarian would be found working in a non-profit organization, except perhaps in his/her free time (the little he/she has) outside of a full-time job of pure drudgery.

[NovelGentry]

Not usually, I'm guessing. Those who can afford to do "non-profit" work are usually part of the ruling class, as the working-class is generally too busy trying to stay alive.

Not so. Non-Profit organizations generally fill the realm of services, for example a non-profit organization that helps to locate the real parents of orphans (or something of that nature). There is nothing in their existence that requires existing wealth, donations, or anything of this nature. They can sustain themselves by charging for the service they provide, they simply do not profit from this i.e. no surplus value is extracted.

The workers themselves are paid, and the customers pay the organization. Non-Profit workers can technically be in the same position as a regular worker, paid by the organization (thus they don't need existing wealth).

The organization doesn't even create capital -- thus the relation of the worker is not one of a subjugated laborer, but an equal laborer.

[t_wolves_fan]

No, we can't debate hypotheticals, that's why Marx points out what actually happens through the progression of capitalism with technological advancment outgrowing current property relations -- and in doing so the bourgeoisie must resolve them in certain ways.

1) Expand the market (not possible once every nation is capitalist)
2) Destroy a portion of the means of production. (not the norm)
3) More thoroughly exploit old markets.

Number 3 is the kicker, because once you start doing that people begin to notice and quality of life shifts downards.

Well, we can't really prove or disprove the hypothetical future, can we? My answer is that two factors solve the problem: 1, class is fluid, meaning there will always be an underclass that will work for less wages than the rich and middle class. Perhaps someday they will be paid a "living wage", either because of government action or because of growing awareness of poverty and rejection of gross inequity in pay.

If it becomes a value to pay workers more equitably, it'll still be by the choice of owners, and therefore not inherently uncapitalist.


And number 2, technology will always improve and as a result, there will always be unskilled workers.



To answer your question, I am a policy analyst and sometime lobbyist for a non-profit trade association.

Non-Profit as in... not generating surplus value.

Indeed, we charge just enough to operate and work on behalf of our members. It's really quite socialist when you think of it.

The great part is, if I were materialistic or driven to innovate a new product, I'd be allowed to go out and make a lot more money in another field in the private sector. Totally my choice.

[encephalon]

true. I was mainly thinking about Rome, as I've been drawing more and more similarites between the Romans and the US lately.. generally, charity work of any sort was done by the aristocracy, including governance.

That is an interesting question, though, and could be applied to some coops as well.

I'm assuming that most are still subject to strict hierarchical management, though, and like profit businesses they still have the same basic setup (except in cases where the work is basically charity): the higher up the ladder, the more the "worker" makes, regardless of skill involved.

That's a damned difficult question. I'm going to have to think about this more.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by The World's 1st [email protected] 28 2005, 01:57 PM
Dude, when you lose the keys, its ok. When you lose the remote control, its ok. When you lose all morales and become capatilst, its ok. And when you lose 20 quid when your out on the town, its ok.

BUT WHERE THE HELL DID 1 BILLION PEOPLE GO!?!?
They were killed off in your revolution for having the audacity to want to raise their own children and wear a necklace with a cross on it out on the street.

[encephalon]

They were killed off in your revolution for having the audacity to want to raise their own children and wear a necklace with a cross on it out on the street.

Those fascist bastards. Good thing they weren't communists.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 03:26 PM

They were killed off in your revolution for having the audacity to want to raise their own children and wear a necklace with a cross on it out on the street.

Those fascist bastards. Good thing they weren't communists.
Those fascist bastards are calling themselves communists on this board.

[RedAnarchist]

Of course they are. We even haev Stalin as a moderator <_<

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 03:33 PM
Of course they are. We even haev Stalin as a moderator <_<
I&#39;ll let their words speak for themselves.

Go read a few posts in the religion thread.

[RedAnarchist]

None of them have actually done anything. Words are so very blunt, compared to actions, which can scar deeply for centuries.

[encephalon]

Those fascist bastards are calling themselves communists on this board.

haha. I was talking about the people and their children. :D It was sarcasm, though.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 03:40 PM
None of them have actually done anything. Words are so very blunt, compared to actions, which can scar deeply for centuries.
Oh, well as long as the revolution happens quite differently from how people here are describing it, and its aftermath is run quite differently from how people here are advocating, I have nothing to worry about.

Did you vote for Bush because you figured he&#39;d really raise taxes?

:D

[RedAnarchist]

I&#39;m English you fool&#33; Look at peoples profiles once in a while&#33; <_<

[1936]

A billion people killed?....

[(R)evolution of the mind]

Ok, so why do you suspect we&#39;re going to "make shoes as they&#39;re needed" or anyhting strictly as it&#39;s neeeded. There will be as consistent a supply of these things as in capitalism, and it will come very much the same way, with you walking into a "store" and getting yourself a new pair of shoes.

Actually, as technology advances, many things could be produced on-demand. Say you want some particular book, just go to a print "shop" and have it printed and bound in a few minutes from a global database containing everything produced by mankind. Bring the books you no longer want in dead-tree format back for use as raw material for the new book, or reuse if it is a popular item.

[unconvinced]

I am impressed&#33;

The debate between t_wolves_fan and NovelGentry is fascinating&#33; Both are arguing their points fairly well and, with little exception, are resisting what must be overwhelming desire to resort to name-calling (from what I&#39;ve seen in other threads and other boards, name-calling is the usual end to a thread - congrats to both of you&#33;)

Perhaps misplaced but - implementation of a communist system appears, at least to me, to be the most profound and difficult issue to deal with. Having read some (admittedly not all) of NovelGentry&#39;s posts, there seems to be an unprecedented paradigm shift in the human psyche somewhere in the future in which altruism is the norm, across all economic and social bounds. True, NovelGentry states he is willing to do &#39;his share&#39; and perhaps more than that, to ensure a smooth-running operation, but I submit that he is an exception, rather than the rule.

Again, assuming the paradigm shift I mention above, jumping into the middle of a communist society is plausible. Changing the mindset of the general population to accept the tenets . . . a problem.

Though, the shift would have to be more than just one toward altruism. It is my belief that some people, through genetics or environment, are leaders and some are followers. Leaders &#39;need&#39; to have a following and followers &#39;need&#39; (a) leader(s).

In addition, one particular post (I couldn&#39;t find it easily but perhaps you&#39;ll recognize it from this: "In addition, there is a kind of justice to this arrangement that strongly appeals to me. In capitalist society, those who have the most interesting and challenging careers also gain the greatest material rewards; while millions of people who do the grubby shitwork that keeps civilization functioning receive, for their indispensable labors, shit pay and no respect" It comes from a thread about who does the "shitwork".
The heart of the problem with this argument is the imposition of the author&#39;s mores on the whole of society. Just what are those "interesting and challenging careers" that are revered by society and what is the "grubby shitwork" that no one likes nor receives respect for doing? Based on the other points made in this same post, the author believes engineers are of the former and, say, dishwashers are of the latter group. You can&#39;t say that absolutely, yet the foundation of this society rests on some discrimination between what is the pleasurable work and what is the less-than-pleasurable work. And just as important is the idea of the skills and intelligence required for particular types of work. Another post mentions the waste associated with training &#39;the unwilling&#39; to do the shitwork. The same is true for skilled labor or skilled thought-work (engineering, for example). At some point, it is more than desire to do some particular work that dictates the ability to do it.

(Sorry, I&#39;m starting to ramble.)

As this is my first post, I&#39;ll leave it at that. There are other issues I find fascinating and troubling about the instituting of such a society. I&#39;ll be back . . .

Thank you.

[NovelGentry]

Both are arguing their points fairly well and, with little exception, are resisting what must be overwhelming desire to resort to name-calling (from what I&#39;ve seen in other threads and other boards, name-calling is the usual end to a thread - congrats to both of you&#33;)

In all fairness I believe I called him boring and mindless, but it was payback... he called me "funny."


Again, assuming the paradigm shift I mention above, jumping into the middle of a communist society is plausible. Changing the mindset of the general population to accept the tenets . . . a problem.

In order to understand this you&#39;d have to be looking at it from a Marxist perspective of how people&#39;s consciousness is made up through material existence, and in the material conditions changing, our consciousness, and thus our very nature and relation to one another shifts. If you&#39;re looking to actually learn about this perspective and maybe see things from a different angle I would suggest "The German Ideology."

This is something of the centerpiece for Marx&#39;s argument on man as a material being and how historical materialism and in essence man&#39;s consciousness moves forward.

So as far as WHY I believe this will very much be the case -- hell, I believe people will be willing to die for the destruction of capitalism -- this pretty much embodies it.

I wouldn&#39;t expect you or t_wolves_fan to understand that from being outside of this perspective, however, I don&#39;t think it&#39;s fundamental to the (counter)arguments which were actually being presented.

[unconvinced]

Thank you, NovelGentry, for both your &#39;fairness&#39; (about calling each other names) and your thoughtful reply. I have to say you are among the more readable posters anywhere due to your calm assurance - it seems to lead you away from having to attack and towards your ability to explain, calmly, your perspective.

As I sit just outside of the capital of the 4th (or 5th or 6th - whatever) largest economy in the world (Sacramento, CA), I am amazed at the inability for the average person to fully understand the scope and diversity of people&#39;s perspectives, not simply opinions, but, as far as they are concerned, fully entrenched, thought-out (or not), intrinsic ideals that shape the way they live their lives and think about themselves and the rest of the world.
This, I believe, is at the very core of disputes and confrontations (aka wars) - far beyond the belief that &#39;we&#39; are right and &#39;they&#39; are wrong is the need for acceptance that there is more than one way to see and deal with a situation.

In any case, unlike other message boards I&#39;ve visited, I am inclined to return to this one, possibly posting on occasion, to learn more about your, and others&#39;, perspectives, if for no other reason than to be able to more deftly defend mine own beliefs and perspectives.

Sincerely,

unconvinced

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 02:42 PM
I am impressed&#33;

The debate between t_wolves_fan and NovelGentry is fascinating&#33; Both are arguing their points fairly well and, with little exception, are resisting what must be overwhelming desire to resort to name-calling (from what I&#39;ve seen in other threads and other boards, name-calling is the usual end to a thread - congrats to both of you&#33;)

Perhaps misplaced but - implementation of a communist system appears, at least to me, to be the most profound and difficult issue to deal with. Having read some (admittedly not all) of NovelGentry&#39;s posts, there seems to be an unprecedented paradigm shift in the human psyche somewhere in the future in which altruism is the norm, across all economic and social bounds. True, NovelGentry states he is willing to do &#39;his share&#39; and perhaps more than that, to ensure a smooth-running operation, but I submit that he is an exception, rather than the rule.

Again, assuming the paradigm shift I mention above, jumping into the middle of a communist society is plausible. Changing the mindset of the general population to accept the tenets . . . a problem.

Though, the shift would have to be more than just one toward altruism. It is my belief that some people, through genetics or environment, are leaders and some are followers. Leaders &#39;need&#39; to have a following and followers &#39;need&#39; (a) leader(s).

In addition, one particular post (I couldn&#39;t find it easily but perhaps you&#39;ll recognize it from this: "In addition, there is a kind of justice to this arrangement that strongly appeals to me. In capitalist society, those who have the most interesting and challenging careers also gain the greatest material rewards; while millions of people who do the grubby shitwork that keeps civilization functioning receive, for their indispensable labors, shit pay and no respect" It comes from a thread about who does the "shitwork".
The heart of the problem with this argument is the imposition of the author&#39;s mores on the whole of society. Just what are those "interesting and challenging careers" that are revered by society and what is the "grubby shitwork" that no one likes nor receives respect for doing? Based on the other points made in this same post, the author believes engineers are of the former and, say, dishwashers are of the latter group. You can&#39;t say that absolutely, yet the foundation of this society rests on some discrimination between what is the pleasurable work and what is the less-than-pleasurable work. And just as important is the idea of the skills and intelligence required for particular types of work. Another post mentions the waste associated with training &#39;the unwilling&#39; to do the shitwork. The same is true for skilled labor or skilled thought-work (engineering, for example). At some point, it is more than desire to do some particular work that dictates the ability to do it.

(Sorry, I&#39;m starting to ramble.)

As this is my first post, I&#39;ll leave it at that. There are other issues I find fascinating and troubling about the instituting of such a society. I&#39;ll be back . . .

Thank you.
Thank you unconvinced. You are right, we&#39;ve mostly kept from personal attacks, though I haven&#39;t done as good a job at that as NovelGentry. For that I apologize. It&#39;s a result of a combination of indignation (for lack of a better word) and lack of coffee when I start posting in the early morning.

You are right, I think, in that Novel&#39;s system only works after a paradigm shift in human behavior. If people are as self-centered and greedy as they are today, his system does not work because demand goes through the roof, workers do not agree with suppliers and distributors, and resources are used up in about 6 hours. If, as a result of some paradigm shift, people only take "what they need", become more interested in the social good than their own good (to a radical degree), and genuinely volunteer to provide labor when it is not required of them, I could see it working. Frankly if it could work I&#39;d support it.

The only reason I don&#39;t support it is because I don&#39;t think it is realistic. Judging from the attitude of most people on this board, I don&#39;t see how this &#39;paradigm shift" could occur without the coercion of the "revolution" supported by many on this board. I view the "revolution" as supported by most members of this board as being a childish dream of revenge against the "rich", which considering the age of most people here means killing the jocks and preps in their high schools.

Further, the "goals" of their revolution can succeed in only one of two ways. One, this paradigm shift occurs; or two, it&#39;s forced on people. And if the paradigm shifts, it will probably still require that it be forced on people. The posters on this board seem to think everyone will just naturally agree with them:

"Homeschooling will go away because people will think it&#39;s best if kids participate in society"

-No, homeschooling is not just going to "go away" because it&#39;s natural for parents to want to teach their children the same values they have. Homeschooling is going to have to be banned.

"Children will be free at birth"

-No, parents are going to want to keep their children with them and not leave them to be raised by the community. People are going to resist, are you going to kill them all or forcibly take children out of the home?

"Private property will cease and no one will care"

-No, people are going to want to keep what they have and they are going to want to be ensured their privacy. They&#39;re not going to magically go through a "consciousness" where they&#39;ll all want to abandon their homes and move into the Glorious People&#39;s Apartment Complex.

There are going to be criminals, rapists, murderers, perverts, child molesters, and the like who have no interest in property but in attacking and taking advantage of people. The fact they can be arrested for trespassing is a deterrent. What happens when it&#39;s no crime to walk into your "home" at 3:45 in the morning?

"People will take only what they need"

No, people are still going to want nice things. They&#39;re going to want to eat until they are full and they are going to want sugar instead of vegetables. They&#39;re going to want quality whiskey and good chocolate and high-quality vehicles. If they are free, they&#39;re going to want a lot of them. If you ban them, you create hording and a black market.

The whole point is that no "consciousness" is going to just magically develop in a short time frame, if at all, so that people all band together to create an efficient, homogenous borg that resembles a bee hive or an ant farm. And who would want such conformity anyway?

Since it can&#39;t develop in a short time frame, it&#39;s going to need to be facilitated by, you guessed it, a central band of "revolutionaries" who are prodding society towards this ideal. Two problems with that: 1, this requires a central band to prod us towards something they want. Not exactly what I call freedom. 2, the likes of Rice and NoXoim, angry that the revolution isn&#39;t as "pure" as they think it should be, start killing off the quasi-realistic types and take control. Do you have faith people like that will relinquish control at all? Based on their hate and anger-filled posts, I sure as hell am not willing to risk my life or my family&#39;s life on it.

[1936]

Fuck all your "what a good argument"

A BILLION PEOPLE?&#33;?&#33;

[unconvinced]

Yeah - If I&#39;m not mistaken, the first word in this thread is "Imagine". So, those billiion people have been &#39;imagined&#39; into non-existence. Good enough?&#33;?&#33;

fan, even harder to avoid sarcasm than personal attacks. It&#39;s in our genes, I think, which I&#39;ve proudly passed on to my daughters.

I agree with most everything you&#39;ve said (what I&#39;ve read anyway) when you&#39;re not being sarcastic. NovelGentry seems to believe in an evolution into the new paradigm while others (and they know who they are) are apt to be more militant about it.

Who what is that said (paraphrased): Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely?

And then there&#39;s: It&#39;s good to be the king&#33;

NovelGentry&#39;s are the most reasonable arguments I&#39;ve read so far, limitations notwithstanding.

Get some coffee, fan, and I&#39;ll be back.

[unconvinced]

BTW, is it Elmoist as in Sesame Street? Pardon my ignorance.

Edited for typo

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by The World&#39;s 1st [email protected] 29 2005, 03:51 PM
Fuck all your "what a good argument"

A BILLION PEOPLE?&#33;?&#33;
You think if the likes of NoXoin and Rice were running the show, a good billion people wouldn&#39;t perish?

Hell even the reasonable NovelGentry justifies the death of 20 million as agriculture was reorganized in the Soviet Union. How many you think are going to die on a global scale?

[1936]

Well im just saying, a revolution for the people...wiping out a billion people?

[unconvinced]

Never mind -

The economics of a commune-based society certainly couldn&#39;t be any more contorted than those under which we live now.

AND, since there could be no accumulation that wouldn&#39;t be readily apparent, the drive to acquire would, assuming the tenets of &#39;shame&#39; and &#39;guilt&#39; or societal &#39;dis-favor&#39; toward the lazy and non-contributing, be mitigated somewhat. However, the innate need for a person to protect his (family, home, &#39;possessions&#39;, etc.) would still be extant - quashing innate behavior or tendencies would be necessary in some form.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by The World&#39;s 1st [email protected] 29 2005, 05:31 PM
Well im just saying, a revolution for the people...wiping out a billion people?
It&#39;s a hypoethical and not meant to be entirely serious, though there&#39;s little doubt in my mind that a "revolution" led by the angry teenagers on this site would probably kill hundreds of millions or even a billion.

[unconvinced]

and, fan, the ensuing carnage due to the inability to organize anything resembling a reasonable society would lead to the the near-destruction of human life on the planet, if the teenagers led the &#39;revolution&#39;.

[unconvinced]

Do you think Elmoist knows that the True Voice of God (as Elmoist sees it) is embodied in a 6&#39; tall, 200lb black man?

[comrade_mufasa]

My thinking is that when the revolution happens it will be becouse the masses will be feed up with capitalism so they will want communism. Their will be no need for coercion, as t_wolves_fan said, becouse the masses will want communism and be willing to work for it. The paradigm shift will happen becouse the people will change them selves to combat capitalism.

[1936]

Do you think Elmoist knows that the True Voice of God (as Elmoist sees it) is embodied in a 6&#39; tall, 200lb black man?

Eh???

[1936]

Why the hell aint unconvinced on OI?....

[unconvinced]

comrade-mufasa,

You&#39;re making the assumption that the default position of the revolutionaries will be communism rather than some other alternative.

If there were to be a revolution against capitalism, wouldn&#39;t it be the poor masses (the have-nots) revolting? Wouldn&#39;t they be more interested in gaining for themselves what they had been watching the &#39;haves&#39; get for themselves for so long?

It seems to me that, the main focus of a revolution by a people fed up with capitalism will be by a people left with no other choice - i.e., the desperate. They will be more inclined, I would think, to get what they need at any expense. The result would be anarchy and/or a dictatorial regime in which EVERYONE but an even smaller upper class would be relegated to have-not status.

Revenge against the haves by the have-nots would be the rule.

OK, after a while, after the anarchy, there might be a slight possibility to organize. BUT, in order for communism to work, mustn&#39;t it be an organized, global effort? Is a fragmented society, with pockets of communism, socialism, dictatorships, and all forms of &#39;isms&#39; viable, desirable, sustainable? Would people migrate toward communism rather than another system?

An aside - I, for one, though generous as I am, will not willingly give up my house and other comforts any more than I already do. My tax dollars already go to support the shiftless and unskilled and criminally-minded. When I imagine what my situation would be if I didn&#39;t have to help support millions and millions of the non-contributing, my mind reels&#33;&#33;&#33; Yes, I would have more stuff, OR, work less and spend more time becoming more educated, with my family, doing volunteer work at my kids&#39; school and in the community . . . maybe?

[unconvinced]

Elmoist,

I just did a little reading on Elmoism. Unless I&#39;ve been mislead, the Elmo indicated in the term Elmoism is the character from Sesame Street. That being the case, if it is, then Elmo is God, as I&#39;ve read. Therefore, logically, the Voice of God (in this case, Elmo) is provided, on Sesame Street, by a 6-foot tall, 200-pound black man. I saw an interview. Nice guy - seems to embrace the tenets of Elmoism himself. Funny voice, when he&#39;s in character.

Edited for typo

[comrade_mufasa]

unconvinced, the revolution I speak of will be a communist revolution and this revolution will only happen becouse the people will want communism. You are thinking that I&#39;m thinking that there will be a revolution weather communism exist or not. I dont know how to put this with out sounding like I am preaching. It is our job, as communist, to teach people about communism so that when the material conditions are right for communism, the proletariat will creat the revolution out of need for a better life.

[1936]

Unconvinced, all racists dont go round temples praising a guy call race....

[Ele'ill]

It is our job, as communist, to teach people about communism so that when the material conditions are right for communism, the proletariat will creat the revolution out of need for a better life.

Who are you to predict what the proletariat will want? What you are saying sounds dangerously close to someone eager to use a revolution to errect a non-majority ideology in their own favor. As of right now the proletariat are not eager for revolution. An uprising to change specific areas for general improvment of life would be more practical in my opinion. I can&#39;t see a full over throw of a system that controls world trade to be a good thing let alone feasible to begin with.

[unconvinced]

Unconvinced, all racists dont go round temples praising a guy call race....

Elmoist,
I didn&#39;t mean to imply you went around praising anybody, least of all, a little red Sesame Street character.

mufasa,

With the current trend in the U.S., at least, and considering what I know about the social clime in Europe, you&#39;ll have a hard time convincing me that anyone is going to create anything resembling a revolution. As more and more individual rights are subjugated for the benefit of the whole (gun control, increased forced taxation, etc.) revolution will continue to become more and more difficult to &#39;create&#39;.


I still think that what the people will want is what they&#39;ve seen others have - material possessions. Revolution, begun by a desire to end capitalism, will result in anarchy, followed by dictatorships that will not meld into communism. Once in power, the powerful will do what they can to stay in power.

They say necessity is the mother of invention. Just what need is that, however? Is it the need to satisfy that which the invention eases/simplifies/solves/improves? Or is it the knowledge that perhaps the invention is a marketable commodity that can bring wealth, status and respect to the inventor? Do you think the Thighmaster satisfied a need? or was it a brilliant marketing scam that suckered people with more money than sense (and, most likely, not THAT much money to begin with&#33;)?

There I go rambling again - mufasa, you brought out a point I hadn&#39;t considered. Mari counters with a good point.

[comrade_mufasa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 04:37 PM

It is our job, as communist, to teach people about communism so that when the material conditions are right for communism, the proletariat will creat the revolution out of need for a better life.

Who are you to predict what the proletariat will want? What you are saying sounds dangerously close to someone eager to use a revolution to errect a non-majority ideology in their own favor. As of right now the proletariat are not eager for revolution. An uprising to change specific areas for general improvment of life would be more practical in my opinion. I can&#39;t see a full over throw of a system that controls world trade to be a good thing let alone feasible to begin with.
Did you even read my post. Im not predicting anything. I said:

I speak of will be a communist revolution and this revolution will only happen becouse the people will want communism
This means that a communist revolution will only happen becouse the proletariat want communism. I never said that I know that the proletariat will choose communism. I was saying that if the proletariat choose communism then the said revolution will happen. How can I sound like I want to "errect a non-majority ideology in my own favor" when my post clearly took into acount that the proletariat would have choosen communism.

Again, did you read my post, I said:

so that when the material conditions are right for communism
To try and push a revolution now would mean that it would fail becouse it would be easly stoped. The revolution needs material conditions for it to work.


With the current trend in the U.S., at least, and considering what I know about the social clime in Europe, you&#39;ll have a hard time convincing me that anyone is going to create anything resembling a revolution. As more and more individual rights are subjugated for the benefit of the whole (gun control, increased forced taxation, etc.) revolution will continue to become more and more difficult to &#39;create&#39;.
I think it is wrong for anyone (i know i used it in my last post) to use the word "create" in terms of the revolution. It would be better to say that the revolution will "manafest" itself in the hands of the proletariat if they so choose it. It does not matter if the current trends make the idea of a revolution look bleak becouse when the revolution happens the people will do what it must against an enemy that has no one to make its bullets and tanks.


I still think that what the people will want is what they&#39;ve seen others have - material possessions. Revolution, begun by a desire to end capitalism, will result in anarchy, followed by dictatorships that will not meld into communism. Once in power, the powerful will do what they can to stay in power.
again you are thinking that the revolution will happen weather the communist theory existed or not. I call it a "communist revolution" and not just "revolution" becouse the revolution I speak of is one were the people fighting against capitalism want communism in the end.

[t_wolves_fan]

Mufasa, Winston thought the proletariat would certainly rise up of their own volition as well, and it never happened.

Unconvinced I think you&#39;re on to something I&#39;ve been noticing as well. Most of these communists assume the revolution will play out as they see it, that "of course" the proles will choose their way, because it&#39;s the best way. And of course when you&#39;re pushing an ideology, you always assume yours is best and people should just realize that, right?

The thing is, if the "revolution" doesn&#39;t play out like these folks want, the militant onces like NoXion and Rice will start killing people.

[NovelGentry]

Hell even the reasonable NovelGentry justifies the death of 20 million as agriculture was reorganized in the Soviet Union.

Well unlike some people I realize where these numbers come from. I have no problem killing people who are effectively starving other people willfully. The number, however, is made up of both those causing the starving, and those starving. Where Stalin was responsible for either is a fair bit beyond me. I do realize that collectivizing some of the farms had some negative effects on output, however, I&#39;d wager had all been collectivized immediately, rather than allowing for those now wealthy peasants to restrict the flow coming from their own production... you probably wouldn&#39;t of had such a big problem.

Of course, you&#39;d still be here *****ing and moaning about the deaths of those people simply trying to protect their "private property." So either way, in your eyes, there is no justification... probably not even if the number of people who died from it was something like 300.

So what are you really looking for? A reason why I wouldn&#39;t have killed the petty bourgeois farmers starving people because they&#39;re not getting what they want for their private property? I can&#39;t give you one, because I pretty much would have done the same thing.

I would never hope to be in Stalin&#39;s position, because I don&#39;t agree Russia was ever ready for socialism, but I&#39;m not going to pretend that if I were in his position, and maintained my commitment to socialism, that I would of had any other choice.

Certainly our choices do play some role, and maybe someone like myself would of caused less death, but then again, maybe someone like myself would have made the whole thing collapse back to capitalism a decade earlier.

EDIT: BTW, I think it is precisely this attitude that makes me "reasonable."

[NovelGentry]

If there were to be a revolution against capitalism, wouldn&#39;t it be the poor masses (the have-nots) revolting? Wouldn&#39;t they be more interested in gaining for themselves what they had been watching the &#39;haves&#39; get for themselves for so long?


Most of these communists assume the revolution will play out as they see it, that "of course" the proles will choose their way, because it&#39;s the best way. And of course when you&#39;re pushing an ideology, you always assume yours is best and people should just realize that, right?

It is within the class interest, the same as it was within the class interest of the bourgeoisie to open a free market. And much like the bourgeoisie, the proletariat has grown to an insurmountable force, unable to be tactfully controlled by the ruling class if indeed they push together.

Individual struggle can be taken out of the context of society. It exists for each and every one of us, regardless of the form of society -- or I should say, each and every member of the under classes.


However, class struggle must be taken within the context of society as a whole. It is not the individual interests of man, but their shared individual interests which constitutes their goals as a class. For the bourgeoisie it was to open up property ownership, and to open up a market for their wares. For the proletariat it will too be property ownership, but to open up the means of production itself.

If the bourgeoisie was to fight for the right to property, with respect to it as a right. The proletariat will fight for property, with respect to it as an entitlement. As the right, has yet to manifest itself as something truly offered to the proletariat.

In doing this, however, one must question what it means to have entitlement to such things -- Indeed this is why we see socialism first -- as it does not abolish private property itself, but instead, keeps this property within the hands of the class, or even within members of the classes. A collectivized factory should not be seen as public under socialism, but actually as the property of all the workers and producers therein. Rather than owning a portion of this (as is the case with stocks) each member owns the whole of it, equally, and thus, all have equal say and equal control. Communism is then, the logical extension of this, where all members of society equally own the whole of this property, and thus all have equal say and equal control. How is such a thing possible? TRUE DEMOCRACY.

[Ele'ill]

Direct democracy instead of the other said political ideologies. It would be more practical to change the current system through non violent means, as opposed to revolting, tearing the system down, errecting essentially the same system with a few modifications.

[NovelGentry]

Direct democracy instead of the other said political ideologies. It would be more practical to change the current system through non violent means, as opposed to revolting, tearing the system down, errecting essentially the same system with a few modifications.

Real democracy can only be found in communism. There can be no real democracy so long as there is classes, the bourgeoisie has made this a point, and when the proletariat takes the system, we will make it a point to them as well.

As far as non-violent means... what do you expect the bourgeoisie to do? You&#39;re talking about destroying the constructs of the system itself, violating everything that is assumed holy under it. The moment workers take control of their work places is the moment they have breached someone&#39;s "private property" -- and the police will meet them with force... and soon the national guard... and not too long after the full force of the military. As this movement grows, there will be more and more force applied from the bourgeoisie -- until it is so great of a force that not even our police and military can stand against it. Indeed many of these forces may be enveloped by it -- as much of these people are from the throws of working class, and they too have a boss (not to mention are pretty shittily paid for risking their necks).

The violence will be brought TO us, not BY us. And in that sweep of defense, we too will seem violent -- and in doing so may grow violence and attack the very people who look to oppress us, but are not actually pointing the gun: The bourgeoisie.

Whether or not moneybags wants to roll around and say we are "initiating force" with this -- I couldn&#39;t care less. Merely because the ruling class obfuscates it&#39;s oppression through the hands of other paid workers does not make them free of blame. In fact, that hand of oppression which guides the toy soldiers into play should be the focus of the blame.

[Ele'ill]

As far as non-violent means... what do you expect the bourgeoisie to do? You&#39;re talking about destroying the constructs of the system itself, violating everything that is assumed holy under it. The moment workers take control of their work places is the moment they have breached someone&#39;s "private property" -- and the police will meet them with force... and soon the national guard... and not too long after the full force of the military. As this movement grows, there will be more and more force applied from the bourgeoisie -- until it is so great of a force that not even our police and military can stand against it. Indeed many of these forces may be enveloped by it -- as much of these people are from the throws of working class, and they too have a boss (not to mention are pretty shittily paid for risking their necks).

I never said anything about destroying the constructs. Changing, Yes. Yes. The police, military, and national guard are workers. The military would not engage the civilian population in actual warfare and I doubt the pay has anything to do with this decision. So the revolution will attack what? What will be the body of this revolutionary war? Workers battling workers while the real government is shielded? This is how it would play out. You cannot fight for something and expect to get what you want when you&#39;re fighting an illegitimate force being the military, police, national guard ect. The violent revolution will reap nothing but casualties.

[NovelGentry]

I never said anything about destroying the constructs. Changing, Yes. Yes. The police, military, and national guard are workers. The military would not engage the civilian population in actual warfare and I doubt the pay has anything to do with this decision. So the revolution will attack what? What will be the body of this revolutionary war? Workers battling workers while the real government is shielded? This is how it would play out. You cannot fight for something and expect to get what you want when you&#39;re fighting an illegitimate force being the military, police, national guard ect. The violent revolution will reap nothing but casualties.

Maybe you misunderstand what I mean by destroying the constructs. In order to change the way things work, the old method must be gone, done away with, and a new method employed. No matter how gracefully or violently or peacefully the old method is done away with, in order for change to happen it must be done away with; destroyed. This is what I mean by destroying the constructs of old society.


The police, military, and national guard are workers.

I realize they are workers.


The military would not engage the civilian population in actual warfare and I doubt the pay has anything to do with this decision.

:lol: You&#39;re an optimist, I&#39;ll give you that much.


So the revolution will attack what?

The answer is quite simple... the revolution, or should we say, the revolutionaries, will attack whatever attacks it. If you are naive enough to believe no one will attack us and thus "it" -- then I suppose that explains why you are naive enough to believe peaceful revolution is possible.

But mind you, this isn&#39;t about stealing vending machines -- this is about controlling factories and the state itself.


What will be the body of this revolutionary war? Workers battling workers while the real government is shielded?

Possibly some reactionary workers would try and oppose revolutionary workers. But I can&#39;t picture someone attempting to take over a factory without first consulting the rest of his fellow workers -- or at least not doing it without getting a real big laugh as he stands up on a table and yells out "This factory now belongs to the workers."

As for the government... we want the state too -- not just the factories. Remember the state is a tool of class oppression, the state is precisely what lays down and protects the law which says we cannot take the factories, they are not ours to take, and they belong to "our boss."


This is how it would play out. You cannot fight for something and expect to get what you want when you&#39;re fighting an illegitimate force being the military, police, national guard ect. The violent revolution will reap nothing but casualties.

Again -- we want the state. Not only that, we want the means to protect the state... we want the police stations, we want the army bases, we want the factories, we want the white house, we want the schools, we want the industrial parks, the distribution centers, the think tanks, the play houses, the movie theaters, the strip malls, .... get it?

If you think there will not be opposition to this, you&#39;re ideas remain ungrounded in reality. (as was mentioned on another thread).

[Ele'ill]

The answer is quite simple... the revolution, or should we say, the revolutionaries, will attack whatever attacks it. If you are naive enough to believe no one will attack us and thus "it" -- then I suppose that explains why you are naive enough to believe peaceful revolution is possible.

But mind you, this isn&#39;t about stealing vending machines -- this is about controlling factories and the state itself.

I don&#39;t believe peaceful revolution is possible which is why i&#39;m not in favor of a revolution at this time. Maybe in the future as you have been stating where everything is perfect then yes, sure. But even then i&#39;d question it. So these revolutionaries will be reactionary workers. :rolleyes:

I cannot really argue this because you use the example of this happening in the future some time when it happens and works. I cannot debate an issue that has theoretically already happend in your eyes. So I suppose i&#39;ll debate it more rationally. From the current perspective that it hasn&#39;t happend. (it hasn&#39;t)


As for the government... we want the state too -- not just the factories. Remember the state is a tool of class oppression, the state is precisely what lays down and protects the law which says we cannot take the factories, they are not ours to take, and they belong to "our boss."

The state is operated by the proletariats. This shouldn&#39;t be hard to take. Unless of course there is a considerable opposistion to the revolution.


If you think there will not be opposition to this, you&#39;re ideas remain ungrounded in reality. (as was mentioned on another thread).

I think I cleared that up a bit. What if the opposistion isn&#39;t from the government itself but from the proletariats? then there wouldn&#39;t be a revolution ok right because the conditions wouldn&#39;t be right but if the conditions were right and the system was deconstructed and it was a success and everyone lived a happy life after that then what&#39;s the point in debating something that has already happend? It&#39;s more realistic to debate the current time rather than assume everything goes well and the revolution is a success so lets go back and recap the whole event that hasn&#39;t happend yet. :rolleyes:

[NovelGentry]

I don&#39;t believe peaceful revolution is possible which is why i&#39;m not in favor of a revolution at this time. Maybe in the future as you have been stating where everything is perfect then yes, sure. But even then i&#39;d question it. So these revolutionaries will be reactionary workers. rolleyes.gif

Not in the traditional sense, no. Reaction as it&#39;s basis is built on the principles and foundation of existing society. What is your normal reaction when you are told by a police officer to stop what you are doing? You stop. What is your normal reaction towards sustaining life? Get a job. Indeed, the reactionary elements of future society will be based on the revolutionary elements of today.

Although, I cannot conceive what any post-communist society would look like, there no way for me to determine for sure that one would not exist. I certainly believe one wouldn&#39;t exist, given that classes have been destroyed.


I cannot really argue this because you use the example of this happening in the future some time when it happens and works. I cannot debate an issue that has theoretically already happend in your eyes. So I suppose i&#39;ll debate it more rationally. From the current perspective that it hasn&#39;t happend. (it hasn&#39;t)

It&#39;s not that I assume it already "has happened" this isn&#39;t about fate or alternative dimensions where everything that has happened will happen. There are obvious ways to avoid revolution... the bourgeoisie could give up all it owns right now and turn rewrite property laws to work in favor of collectivization... etc..etc.. blah blah blah. There&#39;s lots of things that could STOP it.

It is more that I believe it will happen so long as we continue the way we&#39;re going, and I do believe we will continue the way we&#39;re going. There&#39;s no reason not to believe that.

On the issue of "it hasn&#39;t happened." -- Obviously.


The state is operated by the proletariats. This shouldn&#39;t be hard to take. Unless of course there is a considerable opposistion to the revolution.

The functions of the state may be. But what represents the state itself -- congress, the executive office, the judicial system, etc... it is not. And again, we will have to fight reactionary workers -- which will no doubt include much of the police, national guard, and military. They&#39;ve been brainwashed for a long time. Not saying the whole lot of them... but a good chunk of them will remain.


I think I cleared that up a bit. What if the opposistion isn&#39;t from the government itself but from the proletariats? then there wouldn&#39;t be a revolution ok right because the conditions wouldn&#39;t be right but if the conditions were right and the system was deconstructed and it was a success and everyone lived a happy life after that then what&#39;s the point in debating something that has already happend

It&#39;s not as simple as you make it sound. I cannot take a headcount of everyone on our side vs. everyone on their side, instantaneously know who is proletariat who is not, etc..etc. This is why I support ANY movement. It is not for me to say that it is the "right time" or the "wrong time" -- nor am I capable of doing so.

However, the right time and the wrong time can be made quite clear in the aftermath -- and this is where I would certainly run into problems. Hell, I might even be thrown in a gulag or executed by the likes of rice -- and to be quite honest, that doesn&#39;t disuade me from supporting a revolution founded around a Leninist vanguard.

How rapidly class consciousness can be developed is questionable -- But I believe it will be a necessity to sustained socialism. That is to say, if a Leninist party attempts to really force this mindset into people... in the end it will not work. It might last awhile, but it will not succeed in it&#39;s overall intention.

My position is quite simply to oppose capitalism, in every form possible. This is the first necessity to making socialism. After I oppose capitalism and there is no more capitalism to oppose... then I will reevaluate my situation


It&#39;s more realistic to debate the current time rather than assume everything goes well and the revolution is a success so lets go back and recap the whole event that hasn&#39;t happend yet.

What part do you want to debate?

[t_wolves_fan]

Frankly it just sounds more and more like we&#39;d be replacing one "oppressive" system for another.

[1936]

Frankly it sounds like your a capatilst that spends all hes time contradicting people of opposing ideologies because getting a social life outside your computers just to damn hard.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by The World&#39;s 1st [email protected] 31 2005, 03:23 PM
Frankly it sounds like your a capatilst that spends all hes time contradicting people of opposing ideologies because getting a social life outside your computers just to damn hard.
:lol:

It&#39;s not lack of a social life, it&#39;s lack of an exciting job.

Notice I don&#39;t post in the evening.

[1936]

So the business that employs you, are providing you with the technology and time to come on here and post, to of which they gain nothing from you doing.

And they pay you for this?


........

THAT ROCKS&#33;

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by The World&#39;s 1st [email protected] 31 2005, 06:37 PM
So the business that employs you, are providing you with the technology and time to come on here and post, to of which they gain nothing from you doing.

And they pay you for this?


........

THAT ROCKS&#33;
If you&#39;re lucky like me, you&#39;ll find out eventually.

[Professor Moneybags]

The violence will be brought TO us, not BY us.

Oh sure. Plenty of evidence of that in my quote collection...


And in that sweep of defense, we too will seem violent

Stealing isn&#39;t an act of defence.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 11:56 PM


Real democracy can only be found in communism.
Yes, assuming overwhelming societal "peer pressure" to adopt values is consistent with "democracy".

:rolleyes:

[Asmoo]

absurd...

oh so you say we force the people to adopt humanity??? we don&#39;t need to force them...the capitalists already are...

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 01:05 PM
absurd...

oh so you say we force the people to adopt humanity??? we don&#39;t need to force them...the capitalists already are...
I don&#39;t think you understand the whole story, ace.

[Ele'ill]

Frankly it sounds like your a capatilst that spends all hes time contradicting people of opposing ideologies because getting a social life outside your computers just to damn hard.

Whoever this was aimed at i&#39;d like to object. I enjoy debating with NovelGentry as they generally keep a semi-neutral stance while still enjoying the task of exercising their own thoughts which is actually rare for this board full of &#39;open minded leftists&#39;. Political ideology is irrelevant as when your revolution happens, which I don&#39;t think it will, you&#39;ll have to deal with a whole grouping of people with all kinds of ideas in their heads. And also thanks for posting on here along side us with no social life outside of computers. It&#39;s nice to not be alone. :rolleyes:


What part do you want to debate?

From the begining. How will it happen? ect.. There are already threads going on these topics though. : |

[NovelGentry]

From the begining. How will it happen?

Well then it comes down to, how what will happen? How people will rise up? Like what form the revolution would take? Or what will cause them to rise up?

What will cause them to rise up would be a number of issues, all worthy of it&#39;s very own topic, if not more than one on specific things in them.

How they will rise up is of course something no one can really answer, at least not definitively so. How we think they SHOULD rise up, is a matter of opinion.

Your free to send me a PM with any specific questions you have towards my way of thinking, and what I think will and should happen.

[Ele'ill]

I would rather debate it openly as I enjoy a wide range of ideas being openly debated at the same time. Although this is not a direct challenge to post any of the said topics as there are and have already been threads going. If you wish to further this discussion, just continue to use this thread.

[Lance Murdoch]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 02:28 PM
The shoe-making communes meet on March 25 to determine their output for the upcoming fiscal year. Central to your philosophy, each commune is in charge of determining their work schedule, production methods, and output.

Result of March 25 votes is that the 5,000 shoe-making communes have collectively voted to produce a total of 3.5 billion pairs of shoes.

What happens?
Well first of all I would ask if this is handled properly in capitalism. That capitalism tends to overproduction is admitted by everyone. I even watched Jack Welch, former GE CEO talk about this on Hardball recently. So you&#39;re not talking about a problem that would be caused by a worker run production system, but one that exists now.

So the question is more like - the problems of overproduction we have now, can they be solved?

Karl Marx said he did not write recipes for cookshops of the future, and I&#39;m wary of trying to predict how things will be set up. Nontheless, I&#39;ll take a jab at one possibility -

One thing to consider however is these things do not have to be guessed, they can be known. So let&#39;s say I am an expert in carpentry. I can enter into some computer that I am a skilled carpenter, and in the next year I have to eat every day, I want to buy some clothes, and that sort of thing. On the flip side of that, I can offer my skills as a carpenter. My offer to work as a carpenter can then be accepted by farmers who want a barn built, so I can trade a week working on their barn for a week of them growing food for me (which will be more than a week&#39;s worth of food to consume remember). And so forth. These things don&#39;t HAVE to be guesswork, these kinds of deals can be worked out beforehand. That&#39;s called planning.

[Ele'ill]

What if these plans fail. We are not talking about a neighborhood trying this out, nor will there be a good year or two before things can work correctly. It will be an entire country, with minimal time. These aspects of work for food and everything else that will be neccessary to survive in the new system would have to be instilled almost pre revolution. The US as an example will not tolerate this at all and those partaking in it will be viewed as odd and will generally lack support.

[Ele'ill]

I don&#39;t believe the people on a global scale will choose such a radical ideology.

[1936]

That is why it wont jump from neo liberalism straight to communism.

It will go through Marxism and Socialsm, which are less radical.

Revolution has happend, is happening and will happen

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by The World&#39;s 1st [email protected] 19 2005, 11:15 AM
That is why it wont jump from neo liberalism straight to communism.

It will go through Marxism and Socialsm, which are less radical.

Revolution has happend, is happening and will happen
Yeah, it&#39;s going to take a while to kill enough people to make it work.

[1936]

When the people realise that they need socialsm, they will tolerate change.

[1936]

Is this another mass genocide theory of yours?....

Whats the latest figure?

[OleMarxco]

People should be convinced that the system is right, and they will do it. I will not take up a rifle and revolt on THEIR behalf. If they believe, then so shall it be. There will be democracy in Communism because it is the people who does the revolution as a whole. And I&#39;m talkin&#39; DIRECT, baby&#33; ;)

It seems unrealistic NOW. Because relatively short since the failed Soviet. BUT: Once time go, why not? Someone might wise up. I see Communism rising again. It is not impossible. History is not made by fate. If the people wants, I shall shoot or possibly die for it. But firsts things first: Educate the proleteriat....

[Ele'ill]

It seems unlikley that the people will decide on such a radical route to take. Something new might be created. I don&#39;t see the masses revolting right now. I see no steps being taken towards revolution. I hear very little talk of it. It seems as though the majority is content or otherwise unwilling to do anything and will stay in this perpetual state of bliss or fatigue. I hope otherwise. I hope change will occur in some other form other than mass genocide with the name revolution. The world simply cannot handle the stress of global change right now and as it looks, into the distant future.

[1936]

Mass genocide? Not another one.

The revolution will come to all those who need it, you dont know about it because your within an enviroment in which the people dont know they need socialsm. But unless your part of the bourgese you WILL eventually need us.

[Ele'ill]

Mass genocide? Not another one.

The revolution will come to all those who need it, you dont know about it because your within an enviroment in which the people dont know they need socialsm. But unless your part of the bourgese you WILL eventually need us.

Who is &#39;us&#39;?

[1936]

QUOTE
Mass genocide? Not another one.

The revolution will come to all those who need it, you dont know about it because your within an enviroment in which the people dont know they need socialsm. But unless your part of the bourgese you WILL eventually need us.



Who is &#39;us&#39;?

Left wing revolutionaries

[Ele'ill]

Left wing revolutionaries

The &#39;you&#39;ll need us one day&#39; phrase has been used for a very long time. I have not needed any fanatical person ever. I don&#39;t plan on needing one in the future. Be careful how you group yourself. The left isn&#39;t all that close with eachother. For example me and some others on this board. We simply do not agree.

[1936]

Well dude, i take it your American or British. So id say at the moment you are under the illusion your free and what not.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by The World&#39;s 1st [email protected] 28 2005, 09:00 PM
Well dude, i take it your American or British. So id say at the moment you are under the illusion your free and what not.
Why do you presume that you should be allowed to comment on people&#39;s view of reality?

Who made you pope of this dump?

http://movies.infinitecoolness.com/23/caddyshack09.jpg

[1936]

Why do you presume that you should be allowed to comment on people&#39;s view of reality?

What the hell are you on about now? Clearly you dont think you need socialsm...thats a given.

[Colombia]

Besides T Wolve, it seems you guys agree with socialism. Why are you then restricted?

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 03:58 AM
Besides T Wolve, it seems you guys agree with socialism. Why are you then restricted?
He rubbed some Commie Club people the wrong way about a subject about National Socialism.

[1936]

Yep...im apparently the sites mascot nazi....or third positionist....im not sure what it is im being called these days.

And t_wolves_fan, your little theory of communism bringing about starvation and what not because the limit of supplies mean SOME people HAE to suffer....dunno if it was in this thread but i looked it up and theres enough food in the world for everyone to have 3000 calories a day&#33; AND the amount western countries spend a year on ice cream could give all the developing countries clean water......but yours was a really nice theory im sure.

[Ele'ill]

I believe I am restricted because the commie club hated me posting the well founded idea that there will always be a group in power that will in some way oppress others.

Oh the Irony. :rolleyes:

[1936]

And t_wolves_fan, your little theory of communism bringing about starvation and what not because the limit of supplies mean SOME people HAE to suffer....dunno if it was in this thread but i looked it up and theres enough food in the world for everyone to have 3000 calories a day&#33; AND the amount western countries spend a year on ice cream could give all the developing countries clean water......but yours was a really nice theory im sure.

.......

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by The World&#39;s 1st [email protected] 29 2005, 07:33 PM

Why do you presume that you should be allowed to comment on people&#39;s view of reality?

What the hell are you on about now? Clearly you dont think you need socialsm...thats a given.
You told Mari3L:

"So id say at the moment you are under the illusion your free and what not."

What gives you the authority to claim Mari3L&#39;s belief that he or she is free is merely an illusion?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by The World&#39;s 1st [email protected] 30 2005, 10:43 AM
Yep...im apparently the sites mascot nazi....or third positionist....im not sure what it is im being called these days.

And t_wolves_fan, your little theory of communism bringing about starvation and what not because the limit of supplies mean SOME people HAE to suffer....dunno if it was in this thread but i looked it up and theres enough food in the world for everyone to have 3000 calories a day&#33; AND the amount western countries spend a year on ice cream could give all the developing countries clean water......but yours was a really nice theory im sure.
True, but the fact is your communist system would fare no better at feeding people.

How do you presume a stateless society would manage to force everyone to share their food equally?

Game, set, match.

[1936]

Im sorry, i didnt realise i was communist.......

Anarcho-socialism, thankyou.

Game, set, match, gay little victory dance AND VICTORY PIE&#33;

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by The World&#39;s 1st [email protected] 2 2005, 02:38 PM
Im sorry, i didnt realise i was communist.......

Anarcho-socialism, thankyou.

Game, set, match, gay little victory dance AND VICTORY PIE&#33;
Hmmmm...victory pie....

http://www.easi.net.nz/images/homer.gif

[Colombia]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+May 2 2005, 02:18 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ May 2 2005, 02:18 PM)
The World&#39;s 1st [email protected] 30 2005, 10:43 AM
Yep...im apparently the sites mascot nazi....or third positionist....im not sure what it is im being called these days.

And t_wolves_fan, your little theory of communism bringing about starvation and what not because the limit of supplies mean SOME people HAE to suffer....dunno if it was in this thread but i looked it up and theres enough food in the world for everyone to have 3000 calories a day&#33; AND the amount western countries spend a year on ice cream could give all the developing countries clean water......but yours was a really nice theory im sure.
True, but the fact is your communist system would fare no better at feeding people.

How do you presume a stateless society would manage to force everyone to share their food equally?

Game, set, match. [/b]
Because markets would be run by the state and so they would distribute the food equally? Kind of like a homeless shelter. Everyone gets a loaf of bread, meat, milk, and so on so they can continue living.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Colombia+May 2 2005, 02:53 PM--> (Colombia @ May 2 2005, 02:53 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 02:18 PM

The World&#39;s 1st [email protected] 30 2005, 10:43 AM
Yep...im apparently the sites mascot nazi....or third positionist....im not sure what it is im being called these days.

And t_wolves_fan, your little theory of communism bringing about starvation and what not because the limit of supplies mean SOME people HAE to suffer....dunno if it was in this thread but i looked it up and theres enough food in the world for everyone to have 3000 calories a day&#33; AND the amount western countries spend a year on ice cream could give all the developing countries clean water......but yours was a really nice theory im sure.
True, but the fact is your communist system would fare no better at feeding people.

How do you presume a stateless society would manage to force everyone to share their food equally?

Game, set, match.
Because markets would be run by the state and so they would distribute the food equally? Kind of like a homeless shelter. Everyone gets a loaf of bread, meat, milk, and so on so they can continue living. [/b]
So people become cogs of the state?

Our daily food intake is subject to the whims of the government?

[Maynard]

How do you presume a stateless society would manage to force everyone to share their food equally?



Because markets would be run by the state
Hmmnn....But I don&#39;t think a society nor a state could nor should force everyone to share equally when it comes to food or anything else. Humans have differing needs and wants. Some people need more food than others, some need or want more food at specific times, like birthdays etc. Choice is both necessary and good.

[1936]

Communism would work on the basis of demad, youd work according to your ability and yourd recieve according to your need.

Society wouldnt work with communism as the theory of how its obseverd by most people on this site.

[Maynard]

Society wouldnt work with communism as the theory of how its obseverd by most people on this site.

I don&#39;t quite understand what you mean here. Explain.

[1936]

How will there be no bourgoius on a economic sense. Someone must allocate the goods, and these will have the power to corupt the system to there own "material wants".

They will be the bourgoius economically.

[Maynard]

A centralised or command economy could well do that and has often happened in the USSR, China and India among others . Decentralisation of power is absolutely necessary in my view, for a viable communist society. So I guess I agree with you there but before you claimed to believe in "Anarcho-socialism", yet you are restricted, why?

[1936]

It is popular belief that im a Nazi/Third positionist.

Because i refused to discriminate against the views of national socialsts and generalise them all as goose stepping anti-semites.

But im not really suposed to talk about it.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by The World&#39;s 1st [email protected] 2 2005, 03:17 PM
Communism would work on the basis of demad, youd work according to your ability and yourd recieve according to your need.

Society wouldnt work with communism as the theory of how its obseverd by most people on this site.
Are you under the impression that people are only going to demand an equal amount to the labor they put in?

:lol:

Who decides this formula? You?

1 hour of work by healthy person = 500 calories of food.

1 hour of work by disabled/handicapped person = 1,000 calories of food.

&#39;Zat how it works?

[1936]

Im not a communist, as im sure ive already stated, i am not the address the flaws of a system i do not support.

[OleMarxco]

......But a system of which you should.........
:D

[1936]

Thats your belief, your entitled to it.