What is Communism

[L Mises]

Hello, I was gathering information for my paper on China, and I happen to come across this forum. I was reading an old topic "Replying to Communist China Collasping." I think the topic is at least a few months old by now, but I would like to reply to it regardless.

Here is the link of the thread.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...opic=34782&st=0 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=34782&st=0)


First, I have to pretty much agree with everything Prime have said regarding the flaws of Communism. However, most of you are arguing the system has never been put into practice.

I have not read any of Marx's works. From what I can gather from the discussion, Communism is a direct classless democracy where the means of production are controlled by "the worker." Is this correct? Before I start agruing flaws of communism; I would like someone to describe what communism exactly is.

I have been mostly exposed to the works of Ayn Rand, Ludwig Von Mises, and Adam Smith. I am interested in seeing if there is an hidden angle to communism beyond brief introduction I have been given in my Macroeconomics and History classes.

[viva le revolution]

For a good introduction into Communism i would suggest reading 'principles of communism' by friedrich Engles followed by the 'communist manifesto' by karl marx and friedrich engles. although a few ideas are a little outdated but on the whole paints a very good picture of the goals of communism. After reading those i would suggest reading 'state and revolution' by vladimir Lenin for a more in-depth look into Marxism-leninism(which most actual relevant communist parties practiced in the past and continue to do so).

[L Mises]

That is going to take awhile. I do not have the luxury of time nor the desire to read these works in great detail. I am going to skim through the Sparknotes versions of these works. Since no one is willing to provide their summary what Communism truly is; I shall begin to rip apart this flawed idealogy.

Since you mentioned goals of Communism. Let's start it with its most basic goal, equality. Communsim seeks to eliminate the social-economics disparities that exist between people and attempt to make everyone equal. Is this correct?

Have you ever questioned the morality of this goal or the means to go about achieving this goal?

I do not want everyone to be equal, and I am sure many others share my beliefs. In the thread that I linked, Prime cited the crimes commited by the Soviet Union, Communist China, and other countries with Communist labels aganist its citizen.

Many of people on forums denounced those countries claiming they did not follow the true dogma of Communism, and that no one ever has.

My question therefore is supposed that a society were able to follow the exact doctrices laid by Marx and Engles; how people with differing beliefs be dealt with in a communism society?

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by L [email protected] 5 2006, 03:05 PM
That is going to take awhile. I do not have the luxury of time nor the desire to read these works in great detail. I am going to skim through the Sparknotes versions of these works. Since no one is willing to provide their summary what Communism truly is; I shall begin to rip apart this flawed idealogy.
So, you're going to try to "rip apart" an ideology you won't even bother to study beyond a two-bit Sparknote summary?!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Go away, you pathetic little troll. You can't even carry the jockstrap of some of the advocates of capitalism in this OI forum. They at least had the sense to read a little before submitting themselves to the rhetorical gauntlet.

Miles

[KickMcCann]

Its good that you've read some economics books, but its bad that they've been so one-sided, you definitley need to balance yourself out with some leftist readings, not just on theory, but on historical analysis of the growth of anarchism/socialism/communism. I can fairly well gaurantee that the entire goal of your economics class is to generalize and belittle socialist ideas, expousing capitalism as the greatest system ever-without question, thats just the nature of the competition between socialism and capitalism. So read some primary sources and make up your own mind, don't have it handed to you.

try these:

http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm (Einstein on socialism)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/sw/index.htm (the short list for beginners has good stuff.)

http://zpedia.org/Profit_Over_People (One of Chomsky's classic works)

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/ (Anarchism FAQ)

http://dynamics.org/~altenber/PAPERS/BCLSFV/ (Leland Standford-interesting)


Not to boggle you down, but its good stuff, and hell if you want, just look us socialism and communism on wikipedia, its balanced enough.

But the assumption about communism not existing yet is true. Socialism is like music, there are unlimited styles and differentiating only to the smallest degree in many cases, but its enough to create bitter arguements amoung socialists.

So I'll just say my 2 cents. Communism has existed, but only in a non-industrial, agrarian sense. The original tribes of humans and civilization until not too long ago was cummunal and egaltarian. Marx theorized, and just about everyone agrees, that humanity will once again reach that communal order again, only industrialized and after a long drawn out evolution.
The Leninists and Maoists basically ignored or altered Marx's scientific analysis in order to justify their revolutions and attempts for communism in countries that were not prepared for it, and dispite the advances that were made in many areas, they were backward and statist.
Statist is a very important term, many of the so-called "Marxist" movements in the 20th century were actually "Statist" movements, seeking to centralize all power and decision making within the coffer of the State. This was inspired by the reigning ideas of most 18th and 19th century philosophers who considered that modern State, a new idea at the time, the culmination of human perfection, capable of doing no wrong. But the neccessity of human participitation was largely ignored in these theories and attempts, which in the long run meant the ruling classes just siezed the new state, lowered their old flags and put up red flags.
But the collapse of the USSR is gradually leading to a renewed analysis on the flaws of statism and the refocusing of impowering the people, not the government. The old popular definition of socialism was " the means of production owned by the state" the new, more correct definiton is "the means of production owned by the workers".
China is an authoritarian capitalist country. Its important to remember the difference between economic systems and political systems. Socialism and Capitalism are economic systems; democracy and dictatorship are political systems--you can mix and match them.
In China, the communist movement, however well intentioned in the beginning, has been gradually taken over by the ruling class capitalists of china, or conversely, the ruling class of the party have become capitalists. The capitalists as members of the Communist party simply use the governments authoritarian and statist nature to accumulate massive amounts of wealth on the backs of the chinese proletarian, and use the state to keep themselves in power through the use of force, nationalism, and tradition.

[KickMcCann]

Originally posted by L [email protected] 5 2006, 08:05 PM
My question therefore is supposed that a society were able to follow the exact doctrices laid by Marx and Engles; how people with differing beliefs be dealt with in a communism society?
what do you mean by differing?

[L Mises]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Jan 5 2006, 08:20 PM--> (CommunistLeague @ Jan 5 2006, 08:20 PM)
L [email protected] 5 2006, 03:05 PM
That is going to take awhile. I do not have the luxury of time nor the desire to read these works in great detail. I am going to skim through the Sparknotes versions of these works. Since no one is willing to provide their summary what Communism truly is; I shall begin to rip apart this flawed idealogy.
So, you're going to try to "rip apart" an ideology you won't even bother to study beyond a two-bit Sparknote summary?!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Go away, you pathetic little troll. You can't even carry the jockstrap of some of the advocates of capitalism in this OI forum. They at least had the sense to read a little before submitting themselves to the rhetorical gauntlet.

Miles [/b]
Name calling already? How many books have you read on Capitalism or any credible theory of economics?

[viva le revolution]

"That is going to take awhile. I do not have the luxury of time nor the desire to read these works in great detail."
So you essentially aim to pass judgement on an ideology without even reading any of the works on it?
"Since you mentioned goals of Communism. Let's start it with its most basic goal, equality. Communsim seeks to eliminate the social-economics disparities that exist between people and attempt to make everyone equal. Is this correct?"
Not entirely, You see according to Marxist theory, after Capitalism and imperialism, there is a tranisionary phase in social evolution known as socialism, this still has classes, and since every state and social system caters to the needs and will of a particular class( feudalism for the landlord, capitalism for the capitalist) socialism will be for the worker. This is characterized by an equality of opportunity (not of class), whereby education, healthcare, basic needs, infrastructure and facilities no longer operate on a profit motive but for the collective welfare of the population. The aim of this transitionary phase is to eliminate the class differences in the society through universality of opportunity and state care. this is typified by the slogan: " from each according to his ability to each according to his work".
Once the class differences have been abolished, the society moves towards communism where eventually the repressive organs and functions of the state are no longer needed, thus nullifying a need for a state. The slogan for this "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".
However Marxism and it's various interpretations follow the system of dialectical and historical materialism, whereby everything is looked at logically and scientifically.
"have you ever questioned the morality of this goal or the means to go about achieving this goal?"
Not for a second. Social inequality and Exploitation of the capitalist system is an unavoidable fact. Proof of this is the entire third world! The means is a conscious act of revolution by the vast mass of exploited workers and peasants.
"I do not want everyone to be equal, and I am sure many others share my beliefs. In the thread that I linked, Prime cited the crimes commited by the Soviet Union, Communist China, and other countries with Communist labels aganist its citizen. "
Of course i am assuming you are a yankee. The prime concern here is a lack of opportunity. You are for instance able to afford schooling and college based on the fortunate luck of being born in a well-to do household. Most aren't so luck and even getting daily bread is an uphill task. Tell me how do you justify this. Please do not give me the lack of talent or lack of personal initiative crap! it is that they could not afford an education. In the third world, where i am from, they cannot even afford to eat properly! The crimes of soviet russia, china etc. pale in comparison to the crimes of capitalism. The early industrial age in europe consisted of brutal inhuman conditions of workers and colonila peoples. Only a fool would doubt that. The numerous wars of colonialism(in search of new markets and resources to fuel industrial growth etc), imposition of globilization through force and the inhuman national exploitation of the third world by first world corporations speaks volumes about the utter hypocrisy of capitalists accusing communists of being inhuman. Often the criticisms of communism come from sensationalist literature and extreme narrow plagiarism of propaganda. If communism were so inhuman and aggressive towards humanity why did the U.S be the first to instigate wars against third world communist nations and prop up brutal military dictators to keep left-wing ideas in check? The list is quite long; Pinochet, Zia-ul-haq, Duvalier, suharto, Batista, hell even the whole islamic fundamentalist movement was armed and financed by the U.S! but of course it is inconvenient for the media to look at issues in this light isn't it? The health statistics of cuba surpass even those of the united states! Cuba, a communist country, is the leading advocate of internationalist humanitarian assistance in the world!
"many of people on forums denounced those countries claiming they did not follow the true dogma of Communism, and that no one ever has."
Most nations implemented socialism but many failed due to a number of reasons. Not all divorced from U.S imposed conditions and policies.
"my question therefore is supposed that a society were able to follow the exact doctrices laid by Marx and Engles; how people with differing beliefs be dealt with in a communism society?"
Marx and engles are improved upon by many marxist writers and theoreticians. In a communist society, there is complete freedom of religion, free speech etc. Since antagonistic elements such as capitalists, landlords no longer exist. Therefore no need for repression of populations. Unlike of course the constant oppression of people the world over by the imperialist neo-liberal capitalist world order.
However my answers wont satisfy you, you must read the works of marx, engles and lenin to really understand what i am talking about.

[L Mises]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 08:29 PM
Its good that you've read some economics books, but its bad that they've been so one-sided, you definitley need to balance yourself out with some leftist readings, not just on theory, but on historical analysis of the growth of anarchism/socialism/communism. I can fairly well gaurantee that the entire goal of your economics class is to generalize and belittle socialist ideas, expousing capitalism as the greatest system ever-without question, thats just the nature of the competition between socialism and capitalism. So read some primary sources and make up your own mind, don't have it handed to you.

try these:

http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm (Einstein on socialism)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/sw/index.htm (the short list for beginners has good stuff.)

http://zpedia.org/Profit_Over_People (One of Chomsky's classic works)

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/ (Anarchism FAQ)

http://dynamics.org/~altenber/PAPERS/BCLSFV/ (Leland Standford-interesting)


Not to boggle you down, but its good stuff, and hell if you want, just look us socialism and communism on wikipedia, its balanced enough.

But the assumption about communism not existing yet is true. Socialism is like music, there are unlimited styles and differentiating only to the smallest degree in many cases, but its enough to create bitter arguements amoung socialists.

So I'll just say my 2 cents. Communism has existed, but only in a non-industrial, agrarian sense. The original tribes of humans and civilization until not too long ago was cummunal and egaltarian. Marx theorized, and just about everyone agrees, that humanity will once again reach that communal order again, only industrialized and after a long drawn out evolution.
The Leninists and Maoists basically ignored or altered Marx's scientific analysis in order to justify their revolutions and attempts for communism in countries that were not prepared for it, and dispite the advances that were made in many areas, they were backward and statist.
Statist is a very important term, many of the so-called "Marxist" movements in the 20th century were actually "Statist" movements, seeking to centralize all power and decision making within the coffer of the State. This was inspired by the reigning ideas of most 18th and 19th century philosophers who considered that modern State, a new idea at the time, the culmination of human perfection, capable of doing no wrong. But the neccessity of human participitation was largely ignored in these theories and attempts, which in the long run meant the ruling classes just siezed the new state, lowered their old flags and put up red flags.
But the collapse of the USSR is gradually leading to a renewed analysis on the flaws of statism and the refocusing of impowering the people, not the government. The old popular definition of socialism was " the means of production owned by the state" the new, more correct definiton is "the means of production owned by the workers".
China is an authoritarian capitalist country. Its important to remember the difference between economic systems and political systems. Socialism and Capitalism are economic systems; democracy and dictatorship are political systems--you can mix and match them.
In China, the communist movement, however well intentioned in the beginning, has been gradually taken over by the ruling class capitalists of china, or conversely, the ruling class of the party have become capitalists. The capitalists as members of the Communist party simply use the governments authoritarian and statist nature to accumulate massive amounts of wealth on the backs of the chinese proletarian, and use the state to keep themselves in power through the use of force, nationalism, and tradition.
What is Marx's reasoning that the human race will eventually revert back to communism?

Looking at current global events, I think the world is shifting more in favor of more capitalism. The only reason that the America and EU are able to have social programs is because they can afford to do so.

After reading Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat; trade barriers between countries are dropping and international trade is now widely encouraged. Work is flowing to where it can be done the most efficent.

As the countries such as China and India become economically developed; the West will only be able to compete with them through economical means. Socialism is burdening the West's ability to do so, and eventually the governments will lack the means to fund their social programs.

Meanwhile I am going to read the links you have posted. Finally, I was the impression from the thread that I have linked that there was an ideal version of Communism that no one has tried.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by L Mises+Jan 5 2006, 09:38 PM--> (L Mises @ Jan 5 2006, 09:38 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 08:20 PM

L [email protected] 5 2006, 03:05 PM
That is going to take awhile. I do not have the luxury of time nor the desire to read these works in great detail. I am going to skim through the Sparknotes versions of these works. Since no one is willing to provide their summary what Communism truly is; I shall begin to rip apart this flawed idealogy.
So, you're going to try to "rip apart" an ideology you won't even bother to study beyond a two-bit Sparknote summary?!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Go away, you pathetic little troll. You can't even carry the jockstrap of some of the advocates of capitalism in this OI forum. They at least had the sense to read a little before submitting themselves to the rhetorical gauntlet.

Miles
Name calling already? How many books have you read on Capitalism or any credible theory of economics? [/b]
Oh, don't even try going there with Miles, trust me...

As for communism, our basic idea is that every human being is equal and should be treated as such; If you think otherwise, please explain why for example Bill Gates is more valuable to you than the man down the street who has to beg for food in order to survive.

[L Mises]

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 5 2006, 08:44 PM
"That is going to take awhile. I do not have the luxury of time nor the desire to read these works in great detail."
So you essentially aim to pass judgement on an ideology without even reading any of the works on it?
"Since you mentioned goals of Communism. Let's start it with its most basic goal, equality. Communsim seeks to eliminate the social-economics disparities that exist between people and attempt to make everyone equal. Is this correct?"
Not entirely, You see according to Marxist theory, after Capitalism and imperialism, there is a tranisionary phase in social evolution known as socialism, this still has classes, and since every state and social system caters to the needs and will of a particular class( feudalism for the landlord, capitalism for the capitalist) socialism will be for the worker. This is characterized by an equality of opportunity (not of class), whereby education, healthcare, basic needs, infrastructure and facilities no longer operate on a profit motive but for the collective welfare of the population. The aim of this transitionary phase is to eliminate the class differences in the society through universality of opportunity and state care. this is typified by the slogan: " from each according to his ability to each according to his work".
Once the class differences have been abolished, the society moves towards communism where eventually the repressive organs and functions of the state are no longer needed, thus nullifying a need for a state. The slogan for this "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".
However Marxism and it's various interpretations follow the system of dialectical and historical materialism, whereby everything is looked at logically and scientifically.
"have you ever questioned the morality of this goal or the means to go about achieving this goal?"
Not for a second. Social inequality and Exploitation of the capitalist system is an unavoidable fact. Proof of this is the entire third world! The means is a conscious act of revolution by the vast mass of exploited workers and peasants.
"I do not want everyone to be equal, and I am sure many others share my beliefs. In the thread that I linked, Prime cited the crimes commited by the Soviet Union, Communist China, and other countries with Communist labels aganist its citizen. "
Of course i am assuming you are a yankee. The prime concern here is a lack of opportunity. You are for instance able to afford schooling and college based on the fortunate luck of being born in a well-to do household. Most aren't so luck and even getting daily bread is an uphill task. Tell me how do you justify this. Please do not give me the lack of talent or lack of personal initiative crap! it is that they could not afford an education. In the third world, where i am from, they cannot even afford to eat properly! The crimes of soviet russia, china etc. pale in comparison to the crimes of capitalism. The early industrial age in europe consisted of brutal inhuman conditions of workers and colonila peoples. Only a fool would doubt that. The numerous wars of colonialism(in search of new markets and resources to fuel industrial growth etc), imposition of globilization through force and the inhuman national exploitation of the third world by first world corporations speaks volumes about the utter hypocrisy of capitalists accusing communists of being inhuman. Often the criticisms of communism come from sensationalist literature and extreme narrow plagiarism of propaganda. If communism were so inhuman and aggressive towards humanity why did the U.S be the first to instigate wars against third world communist nations and prop up brutal military dictators to keep left-wing ideas in check? The list is quite long; Pinochet, Zia-ul-haq, Duvalier, suharto, Batista, hell even the whole islamic fundamentalist movement was armed and financed by the U.S! but of course it is inconvenient for the media to look at issues in this light isn't it? The health statistics of cuba surpass even those of the united states! Cuba, a communist country, is the leading advocate of internationalist humanitarian assistance in the world!
"many of people on forums denounced those countries claiming they did not follow the true dogma of Communism, and that no one ever has."
Most nations implemented socialism but many failed due to a number of reasons. Not all divorced from U.S imposed conditions and policies.
"my question therefore is supposed that a society were able to follow the exact doctrices laid by Marx and Engles; how people with differing beliefs be dealt with in a communism society?"
Marx and engles are improved upon by many marxist writers and theoreticians. In a communist society, there is complete freedom of religion, free speech etc. Since antagonistic elements such as capitalists, landlords no longer exist. Therefore no need for repression of populations. Unlike of course the constant oppression of people the world over by the imperialist neo-liberal capitalist world order.
However my answers wont satisfy you, you must read the works of marx, engles and lenin to really understand what i am talking about.
It is not like I do not process any working knowledge of communism. Are you able to claim that your knowledge of communism is as sufficent as your knowledge of capitalism without causing you to be biased?

How will classes be completely abolished when the basic problem of limited resources and unlimited wants will continue to exist for awhile?

One of the biggest critque by Ludwig Von Mises of any form of socialism or communism system is its inability to caculate price. Assuming every individual and their profession is of equal value is choosing to ignore reality. Look at the current professions out there.

One has to go a lot of schooling to become a doctor versus one working as a cashier at McDonalds. Not saying one profession is more noble than the other, but most doctors are paid more than cashiers at McDonalds. What financial incentives would people have to become doctors if they were to paid the same amount as cashiers at McDonald. Value is not possible in a society where everything is deem "equal."

To many people, money is not everything. Suppose everyone is paid evenly, or not paid at all since money is not practical in a communist society. Because even being paid the same amount of money can still create disparities through frugal spending and saving habits.

A famous music perfomer is more widely renounced but is paid the same. The perfomer would have more in terms of fame than the average person. How would such society account intangible assets such as fame, power, and influence?

The only means of making everyone equal would be to force everyone to have the same job which would destroy specialization of labor. In Socialogy, studies showed that tribes that were the least specialized could only to support the lowest number of people.

When you speak about the evils of capitalism; I am assuming you are talking about the conditions of the workers in the industry revolution. I ask you was that a product of capitalism or industry revolution? Were factories conditions that much different in the workers paraside of the Soviet Union.

Capitalism suggested by Mises, Smith, and Rand never encouraged the State to use force aganist others. You cannot blame Austrian or market free capitalism for the actions of the United States government.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by L [email protected] 5 2006, 04:50 PM





What is Marx's reasoning that the human race will eventually revert back to communism?

We CANT revert back to it as we never have had communism.


Looking at current global events, I think the world is shifting more in favor of more capitalism.

Yes the third world is developing. This is covered under Marx's historical materialism. This does not mean that communism wont happen, these developing nations are doing just that, developing. Marx thought communist revolutions were likely to happen in advanced capitalist countries, such as western europe (france, germany, uk).


After reading Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat; trade barriers between countries are dropping and international trade is now widely encouraged.

Since when is trade an anti-communist action :lol: The neo-liberals "free trade" however, is not how trade would function under communism.


As the countries such as China and India become economically developed; the West will only be able to compete with them through economical means.

According to Marx, the west wont be "competing" in a capitalist market forever. Because the west is where proletarian revolutions are first going to apear.


Socialism is burdening the West's ability to do so, and eventually the governments will lack the means to fund their social programs.

Socialism (the means of production held in common for the needs of the community as a whole) has never existed. Your capitalist countries with charity (what you call socialist) is not what we want.


Work is flowing to where it can be done the most efficent.

That is the most cheaply. ;)


Meanwhile I am going to read the links you have posted. Finally, I was the impression from the thread that I have linked that there was an ideal version of Communism that no one has tried.

Here is a basic deffinition of communism,

http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?su...rt_from=&ucat=& (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082898978&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by L [email protected] 5 2006, 08:50 PM



Looking at current global events, I think the world is shifting more in favor of more capitalism. The only reason that the America and EU are able to have social programs is because they can afford to do so.





Oh Really? The world is anything is expressing it's dissatisfaction with the current world order. mOVEMENTS AROUND THE GLOBE express this dissatisfaction. To name a few:
1.The anti-WTO protests that have repeatedly derailed WTO conferences.
The emergence of growing communist movements in Asia:
2. The strong communist movement in Bangladesh.
3. The guerrilla war in India. (where Maoists control 3 states and the Marxists control most urban unions and are growing in electoral majorities. The whole congress government is propped up by the ML movement)
4. The growing communist movement in Pakistan where communists still control an area of 200 square miles.
5.The Communist movement in Nepal(where Maoists control 80% of the country).
6. The growing calls for a return to Maoist Values in China.
In Latin America:
7. Cuba still socialist under Castro.
8. FARC still conducting armed struggle in Columbia.
9. Venezuela under Chavez follows a socialist agenda
10. Evo Morales, another pro-socialist elected in Bolivia.
11. Zapatista movement in Mexico.
In Europe:
12. Growing popularity of Communists in what is now East germany.
13. Eastern European nations increased dissillusionment with the EU.
14. Growing Maoist movement in Turkey.
In south asia:
15. Growing communist movement in Malaysia.
16. Communist guerrillas conducting armed struggle in Phillipines.
Non-Communist anti-globalization movements:
17. These include Islamist movements to check the influence of american capitalism and globalization.
18. Iran, which proclaims as part of it's agenda, opposition to american financial domination.
These are of course just to name a few. Not really taking all of them into account. The main indicator of thedecline of american imperialism and capitalismw ould be the sagging economy. The EU too has a stagnating economy.
The reason america and the eu are able to have welfare economies is because of the inhuman super-exploitation of the third world. In terms of labour and captive markets.
The reason for outsourcing is not that labour goes where it is most efficient but where it is cheapest so that maximum profits can be strangled out.

.

[L Mises]

Originally posted by RedFaction+Jan 5 2006, 09:14 PM--> (RedFaction @ Jan 5 2006, 09:14 PM)
Originally posted by L [email protected] 5 2006, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 08:20 PM

L [email protected] 5 2006, 03:05 PM
That is going to take awhile. I do not have the luxury of time nor the desire to read these works in great detail. I am going to skim through the Sparknotes versions of these works. Since no one is willing to provide their summary what Communism truly is; I shall begin to rip apart this flawed idealogy.
So, you're going to try to "rip apart" an ideology you won't even bother to study beyond a two-bit Sparknote summary?!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Go away, you pathetic little troll. You can't even carry the jockstrap of some of the advocates of capitalism in this OI forum. They at least had the sense to read a little before submitting themselves to the rhetorical gauntlet.

Miles
Name calling already? How many books have you read on Capitalism or any credible theory of economics?
Oh, don't even try going there with Miles, trust me...

As for communism, our basic idea is that every human being is equal and should be treated as such; If you think otherwise, please explain why for example Bill Gates is more valuable to you than the man down the street who has to beg for food in order to survive.4 [/b]
I believe that every human being is entitled to certain basic human rights.

I do not believe in the notion that we are all "equal" and the "same." To suggest something like that is choosing to ignore reality.

As an Austrian, I believe things do not possed fixed values.

In the same example that you described of Bill Gates and the homeless person; their value would changes from person to person. If an option exists between which of the two would live; the result would vary from chooser to chooser.

I am sure that people that love Bill Gates such as his close friends and family members would choose him over some random person they do not know. The same goes for the person struggling to 'survive."

[L Mises]

Originally posted by viva le revolution+Jan 5 2006, 09:28 PM--> (viva le revolution @ Jan 5 2006, 09:28 PM)
L [email protected] 5 2006, 08:50 PM



Looking at current global events, I think the world is shifting more in favor of more capitalism. The only reason that the America and EU are able to have social programs is because they can afford to do so.





Oh Really? The world is anything is expressing it's dissatisfaction with the current world order. mOVEMENTS AROUND THE GLOBE express this dissatisfaction. To name a few:
1.The anti-WTO protests that have repeatedly derailed WTO conferences.
The emergence of growing communist movements in Asia:
2. The strong communist movement in Bangladesh.
3. The guerrilla war in India. (where Maoists control 3 states and the Marxists control most urban unions and are growing in electoral majorities. The whole congress government is propped up by the ML movement)
4. The growing communist movement in Pakistan where communists still control an area of 200 square miles.
5.The Communist movement in Nepal(where Maoists control 80% of the country).
6. The growing calls for a return to Maoist Values in China.
In Latin America:
7. Cuba still socialist under Castro.
8. FARC still conducting armed struggle in Columbia.
9. Venezuela under Chavez follows a socialist agenda
10. Evo Morales, another pro-socialist elected in Bolivia.
11. Zapatista movement in Mexico.
In Europe:
12. Growing popularity of Communists in what is now East germany.
13. Eastern European nations increased dissillusionment with the EU.
14. Growing Maoist movement in Turkey.
In south asia:
15. Growing communist movement in Malaysia.
16. Communist guerrillas conducting armed struggle in Phillipines.
Non-Communist anti-globalization movements:
17. These include Islamist movements to check the influence of american capitalism and globalization.
18. Iran, which proclaims as part of it's agenda, opposition to american financial domination.
These are of course just to name a few. Not really taking all of them into account. The main indicator of thedecline of american imperialism and capitalismw ould be the sagging economy. The EU too has a stagnating economy.
The reason america and the eu are able to have welfare economies is because of the inhuman super-exploitation of the third world. In terms of labour and captive markets.
The reason for outsourcing is not that labour goes where it is most efficient but where it is cheapest so that maximum profits can be strangled out.

. [/b]
The things you listed pale in comparsion to the Collaspe of the Berlin Wall, 3.5 billion new people entering the global markets, lessing of trade barriers, outsourcing, offshoring, home sourcing, corporate mergers, and the increase in FDI in foreign countries.

[Goatse]

The things you listed pale in comparsion to the Collaspe of the Berlin Wall,

:rolleyes:


3.5 billion new people entering the global markets

No, you mean their bosses entering global markets.


lessing of trade barriers, outsourcing, offshoring, home sourcing, corporate mergers, and the increase in FDI in foreign countries.

The nation-states are moving towards this. People aren't.

I fail to see how these things make VLR's points pale.

[L Mises]

Communism is a hypothetical social order in which there are no classes and consequently no state as an organ of class rule.

A wonderful theory ignoring human nature, current affairs, and reality. In order to established such a social order; one would need to conquer the world and form a state.

It is postulated that such a society will have little in the way of public authorities or "government" and that whatever is found to be useful will be "ultra-democratic" and rely heavily on internet referendums (direct democracy). These public authorities will almost exclusively be concerned with the large-scale co-ordination of production and distribution of goods and services, and most of their "decisions" are likely to be suggestive rather than compulsive.

How these public authories caculated the needs of billions of every individuals and allocate resources to the means of production as efficent as possible. Ever heard the saying just because it is popular doesn't mean it is right.

There will be no formal "nation states" in a communist world, though many of the names may persist as geographic designations.

I am sure EVERY GOVERNMENT would just kindly disasseble itself. Better yet what would happen if a group of radicals such as myself decided to form our own government. What then?

There will be no production of "commodities" -- goods and services produced for sale -- instead goods and services will be produced for use -- either by the producers themselves or freely given to those who will make good use of them.

So I can choose not to do anything and just take whenever I feel like because I need it.

There will be no "currency" as such; no money...though old currency units may be used for record-keeping purposes, they will have no independent utility.

Without money, work would have be completely forced or else a large majority of people wouldn't work. Money represents choice.

Individual compensation will vary little, and that according to "need"...the ability to actually use what is appropriated from the public total.

The most needy are rewarded and the most able punished.

People will have the freedom to gravitate to the "work" that they find most intrinsically rewarding for its own sake. But there will be considerable informal pressure to "work" at something useful. The stereotypical "lazy bum" will be an object of scorn and/or pity. Work that is so "bad" that no one wishes to do it will either be automated, shared out in some collective fashion so that no one has to do very much of it, or simply dispensed with altogether.

Alright the stereotypical lazy bums will be scorned. What incentives do you offer for work besides self motivation.

The social life of a communist society will be extraordinally libertarian; very few of the taboos and and even fewer of the regulations that presently exist will still survive. Religion, if it survives at all, will be in the nature of a hobby, without the power to influence people's lives in any significant way.

I am a libertarian and this society would be a libertarian's worst nightmare. Some religions by their very dogma are supposed to heavily influence people's lives. They wouldn't truly practicing their religion if such laws were imposed. Look at Islam.

Prestige in a communist society will come from competence and reliability...the highest respect will go to those who've demonstrated their ability to perform especially useful work that many will want to emulate.

I thought everyone was supposed to be equal.

The most utterly detested crime in communist society will be the attempt to "hire" wage-labor for the purpose of producing a "commodity". This will be regarded in the same way that we currently regard human sacrifice or chattel slavery...as an unspeakable horror and an attempt to "bring back" an old and disgustingly inhumane social order, namely capitalism.

So the ability to produce is the greatest crime. The would go for techological innovations? Specialized labor, techological innovations, and being rewarded for efficent allocation of resources are the reasons for our standards of living today.

Thus, the hypothetical features of a communist society, as extrapolated from the ideas of Marx and Engels.

Since such a social order has never existed for any significant period of time, we presently have no way of "knowing" if it will actually "work". More importantly, it is really unknown what kinds of things must be done and must be avoided to successfully manage the transition from capitalism to communism...although there are many theories about this. It seems likely that there will be several centuries of "trial and error" before the human species manages this transition successfully.


I am going to quote Marx's Mother.

"I wish Karl would actually go and accumulated some capital instead of just writing about it."

[L Mises]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 09:50 PM

The things you listed pale in comparsion to the Collaspe of the Berlin Wall,

:rolleyes:


3.5 billion new people entering the global markets

No, you mean their bosses entering global markets.


lessing of trade barriers, outsourcing, offshoring, home sourcing, corporate mergers, and the increase in FDI in foreign countries.

The nation-states are moving towards this. People aren't.

I fail to see how these things make VLR's points pale.
The majority of the people are moving to capitalism while nation-states have been attemping to prevent it.

Friedman mentions one of his friends used to own a photography firm, and speaks woes about how fierce the competition the industry has become.

He asks what is the difference between a teenage with access to the equal techology and software working for my firm, a major corporation, and in his basement. He said "you lose clients to another firm of the same size; now you can lose clients to individuals!."


Technology is enpowering people to compete on an individual level and is evening the playing field.

It makes VLR's poitn pale, because more people are entering the Global Economy to compete and reap the fruits of their labor. People are who anti globalization are not having much success.

[Zingu]

After reading Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat; trade barriers between countries are dropping and international trade is now widely encouraged. Work is flowing to where it can be done the most efficent.

Marx predicted this....



As the countries such as China and India become economically developed; the West will only be able to compete with them through economical means. Socialism is burdening the West's ability to do so, and eventually the governments will lack the means to fund their social programs.

China, Russia, Vietnam and parts of Eastern Europe became developed under the Communist Party you know.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by L [email protected] 5 2006, 09:20 PM
It is not like I do not process any working knowledge of communism. Are you able to claim that your knowledge of communism is as sufficent as your knowledge of capitalism without causing you to be biased?
Of course you don't possess any working knowledge of communism.

And yes, I can claim that my knowledge of capitalism is sufficient. Remember, the book is called Das Kapital, not Das Kommon. Marx studied and described capitalist society; contrary to the persistent fantasies of anti-communists that can't suffer studying what they profess to fight, Marx never laid prescriptions about a future communist society. It is understood that communist society shall evolve from capitalism, as a result of the suppression of the bourgeois state and private property.

Marx's critique of capitalism remains entirely valid - in fact, what you consider the world going for more capitalism validates it even more. If you could put your lazyness aside and effectively read The Capital, you would clearly see that the world in the first decade of the XXI century resembles Marx's description more, not less, than it did in the 70's of the last century.

The logic of value is self-contradictory; capital requires its own infinite self-expansion, in a finite world. Plus, it demands a steady increase in its own composition, which makes surplus-value tendencially fall.

Bourgeois economy is phlogistical pseudoscience. It cannot even come to agree to a working concept of "capital" (have you read Boehm-Bawerk, at least?).

You should read The Capital, and you should read Production of Commodities by the means of Commodities by Piero Sraffa.

Or you could realise that you cannot engage in a serious intellectual discussion without reading more than the cover of the books.

Luís Henrique

[L Mises]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 10:43 PM

After reading Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat; trade barriers between countries are dropping and international trade is now widely encouraged. Work is flowing to where it can be done the most efficent.

Marx predicted this....



As the countries such as China and India become economically developed; the West will only be able to compete with them through economical means. Socialism is burdening the West's ability to do so, and eventually the governments will lack the means to fund their social programs.

China, Russia, Vietnam and parts of Eastern Europe became developed under the Communist Party you know.
As did many of the proponents of globalization before Friedman. China and many those countries were struggling until they became more capitalistic.

[JKP]

Anarchists are dedicated to social equality because it is the only context in which individual liberty can flourish. However, there has been much nonsense written about "equality," and much of what is commonly believed about it is very strange indeed. Before discussing what anarchist do mean by equality, we have to indicate what we do not mean by it.

Anarchists do not believe in "equality of endowment," which is not only non-existent but would be very undesirable if it could be brought about. Everyone is unique. Biologically determined human differences not only exist but are "a cause for joy, not fear or regret." Why? Because "life among clones would not be worth living, and a sane person will only rejoice that others have abilities that they do not share." [Noam Chomsky, Marxism, Anarchism, and Alternative Futures, p. 782]

That some people seriously suggest that anarchists means by "equality" that everyone should be identical is a sad reflection on the state of present-day intellectual culture and the corruption of words -- a corruption used to divert attention from an unjust and authoritarian system and side-track people into discussions of biology. "The uniqueness of the self in no way contradicts the principle of equality," noted Erich Fromm, "The thesis that men are born equal implies that they all share the same fundamental human qualities, that they share the same basic fate of human beings, that they all have the same inalienable claim on freedom and happiness. It furthermore means that their relationship is one of solidarity, not one of domination-submission. What the concept of equality does not mean is that all men are alike." [The Fear of Freedom, p. 228] Thus it would be fairer to say that anarchists seek equality because we recognise that everyone is different and, consequently, seek the full affirmation and development of that uniqueness.

Nor are anarchists in favour of so-called "equality of outcome." We have no desire to live in a society were everyone gets the same goods, lives in the same kind of house, wears the same uniform, etc. Part of the reason for the anarchist revolt against capitalism and statism is that they standardise so much of life (see George Reitzer's The McDonaldisation of Society on why capitalism is driven towards standardisation and conformity). In the words of Alexander Berkman:

"The spirit of authority, law, written and unwritten, tradition and custom force us into a common grove and make a man [or woman] a will-less automation without independence or individuality. . . All of us are its victims, and only the exceptionally strong succeed in breaking its chains, and that only partly." [What is Anarchism?, p. 165]

Anarchists, therefore, have little to desire to make this "common grove" even deeper. Rather, we desire to destroy it and every social relationship and institution that creates it in the first place.

"Equality of outcome" can only be introduced and maintained by force, which would not be equality anyway, as some would have more power than others! "Equality of outcome" is particularly hated by anarchists, as we recognise that every individual has different needs, abilities, desires and interests. To make all consume the same would be tyranny. Obviously, if one person needs medical treatment and another does not, they do not receive an "equal" amount of medical care. The same is true of other human needs. As Alexander Berkman put it:

"equality does not mean an equal amount but equal opportunity. . . Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the forced equality of the convict camp. True anarchist equality implies freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the very reverse in fact."

"Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is equal opportunity to satisfy them that constitutes true equality.

"Far from levelling, such equality opens the door for the greatest possible variety of activity and development. For human character is diverse . . . Free opportunity of expressing and acting out your individuality means development of natural dissimilarities and variations." [Op. Cit., pp. 164-5]

For anarchists, the "concepts" of "equality" as "equality of outcome" or "equality of endowment" are meaningless. However, in a hierarchical society, "equality of opportunity" and "equality of outcome" are related. Under capitalism, for example, the opportunities each generation face are dependent on the outcomes of the previous ones. This means that under capitalism "equality of opportunity" without a rough "equality of outcome" (in the sense of income and resources) becomes meaningless, as there is no real equality of opportunity for the off-spring of a millionaire and that of a road sweeper. Those who argue for "equality of opportunity" while ignoring the barriers created by previous outcomes indicate that they do not know what they are talking about -- opportunity in a hierarchical society depends not only on an open road but also upon an equal start. >From this obvious fact springs the misconception that anarchists desire "equality of outcome" -- but this applies to a hierarchical system, in a free society this would not the case (as we will see).

Equality, in anarchist theory, does not mean denying individual diversity or uniqueness. As Bakunin observes:

"once equality has triumphed and is well established, will various individuals' abilities and their levels of energy cease to differ? Some will exist, perhaps not so many as now, but certainly some will always exist. It is proverbial that the same tree never bears two identical leaves, and this will probably be always be true. And it is even more truer with regard to human beings, who are much more complex than leaves. But this diversity is hardly an evil. On the contrary. . . it is a resource of the human race. Thanks to this diversity, humanity is a collective whole in which the one individual complements all the others and needs them. As a result, this infinite diversity of human individuals is the fundamental cause and the very basis of their solidarity. It is all-powerful argument for equality." ["All-Round Education", The Basic Bakunin, pp. 117-8]

Equality for anarchists means social equality, or, to use Murray Bookchin's term, the "equality of unequals" (some like Malatesta used the term "equality of conditions" to express the same idea). By this he means that an anarchist society recognises the differences in ability and need of individuals but does not allow these differences to be turned into power. Individual differences, in other words, "would be of no consequence, because inequality in fact is lost in the collectivity when it cannot cling to some legal fiction or institution." [Michael Bakunin, God and the State, p. 53]

If hierarchical social relationships, and the forces that create them, are abolished in favour of ones that encourage participation and are based on the principle of "one person, one vote" then natural differences would not be able to be turned into hierarchical power. For example, without capitalist property rights there would not be means by which a minority could monopolise the means of life (machinery and land) and enrich themselves by the work of others via the wages system and usury (profits, rent and interest). Similarly, if workers manage their own work, there is no class of capitalists to grow rich off their labour. Thus Proudhon:

"Now, what can be the origin of this inequality?

"As we see it, . . . that origin is the realisation within society of this triple abstraction: capital, labour and talent.

"It is because society has divided itself into three categories of citizen corresponding to the three terms of the formula. . . that caste distinctions have always been arrived at, and one half of the human race enslaved to the other. . . socialism thus consists of reducing the aristocratic formula of capital-labour-talent into the simpler formula of labour!. . . in order to make every citizen simultaneously, equally and to the same extent capitalist, labourer and expert or artist." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, pp. 57-8]

Like all anarchists, Proudhon saw this integration of functions as the key to equality and freedom and proposed self-management as the means to achieve it. Thus self-management is the key to social equality. Social equality in the workplace, for example, means that everyone has an equal say in the policy decisions on how the workplace develops and changes. Anarchists are strong believers in the maxim "that which touches all, is decided by all."

This does not mean, of course, that expertise will be ignored or that everyone will decide everything. As far as expertise goes, different people have different interests, talents, and abilities, so obviously they will want to study different things and do different kinds of work. It is also obvious that when people are ill they consult a doctor -- an expert -- who manages his or her own work rather than being directed by a committee. We are sorry to have to bring these points up, but once the topics of social equality and workers' self-management come up, some people start to talk nonsense. It is common sense that a hospital managed in a socially equal way will not involve non-medical staff voting on how doctors should perform an operation!

In fact, social equality and individual liberty are inseparable. Without the collective self-management of decisions that affect a group (equality) to complement the individual self-management of decisions that affect the individual (liberty), a free society is impossible. For without both, some will have power over others, making decisions for them (i.e. governing them), and thus some will be more free than others. Which implies, just to state the obvious, anarchists seek equality in all aspects of life, not just in terms of wealth. Anarchists "demand for every person not just his [or her] entire measure of the wealth of society but also his [or her] portion of social power." [Malatesta and Hamon, No Gods, No Masters, vol. 2, p. 20] Thus self-management is needed to ensure both liberty and equality.

Social equality is required for individuals to both govern and express themselves, for the self-management it implies means "people working in face-to-face relations with their fellows in order to bring the uniqueness of their own perspective to the business of solving common problems and achieving common goals." [George Benello, From the Ground Up, p. 160] Thus equality allows the expression of individuality and so is a necessary base for individual liberty.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by L [email protected] 5 2006, 10:48 PM
China and many those countries were struggling until they became more capitalistic.
They were countries where the bourgeoisie wasn't unable to undertake primitive accumulation of capital. Such accumulation was provided by their "socialist" regimes, which prepared them to enter capitalist world market in better conditions than what their bourgeoisies could provide.

Luís Henrique

[KickMcCann]

Originally posted by L [email protected] 5 2006, 08:50 PM

What is Marx's reasoning that the human race will eventually revert back to communism?

Looking at current global events, I think the world is shifting more in favor of more capitalism. The only reason that the America and EU are able to have social programs is because they can afford to do so.

After reading Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat; trade barriers between countries are dropping and international trade is now widely encouraged. Work is flowing to where it can be done the most efficent.

As the countries such as China and India become economically developed; the West will only be able to compete with them through economical means. Socialism is burdening the West's ability to do so, and eventually the governments will lack the means to fund their social programs.

-I can't precisely speak for marx, but from an anthropolgical percpective, communal living has been throughout history the traditional order of society, we're talking thousands upon thousands of years, and most isolated tribes, although they constantly change as well, still maintain that kind of order. long-term settlements, the formation of city-states and industrialization had a huge disruptive effect on that order. But if humans have a natural inclination to their instincts, we can expect that like a gyroscope, humanity will absorn those changes and regain its traditional balance. A lot of capitalists use Darwinism to justify their system, survival of the fittest- we must all compete each against each other for limited materials or die off. But Darwin himself was against social darwinism and saw humans as a communal species, like bees for example, that must work together in order to survive and thrive, and compete against the conditions holding them back.

-Its a slight misnomer to say the world is shifting towards capitalism, the world has been capitalist for the last 150-200 years, the soviet bloc were statist, or state capitalist. Capitalism is certainly expanding, and will continue to do so, Marx himself would agree with you. Once it has incompassed the world, then and only then will we begin to see if Marx's hypothesis will occur. The US and the EU only have social programs because the people demanded them and threaten to overthrow the system if they didn't get them. Social programs (specifically in the EU, the US's programs are pale in comparison) are a stop-gap measure to pacify rebellion and maintain order.

-Work is being outsourced not because Milton Friedman and his friends are on some humanitarian mission to bring capitalism to the undeveloped world, their escaping the west and its labor laws, democracy, human rights, and high standards of living that make production more expensive. Production isn't actually more expensive in the West, but the workers and society here feel they have more of a right to the profit made, meaning a western factory has to settle for 15% profit instead of 40% in the undeveloped world.

-Socialism is not a burden to the western economies-democracy, human rights, labor laws and high standards of living are holding them back. The economy of china is booming because it has an authoritarian government that has no qualm or quarrel with working its people 90 hrs a week for dirt pay. For one thing, the workers/people have no power, and their standard of industrialized living isn't as high as it is in the west, so they don't need as much wages with which to live by.
If the western capitalists want to compete with the East, they'll have to ressurect their old friend Mussolini and completely enslave the US or EU in a fascist dictatorship, then the "trains will run on time".

[L Mises]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+Jan 5 2006, 10:48 PM--> (Luís Henrique @ Jan 5 2006, 10:48 PM)
L [email protected] 5 2006, 09:20 PM
It is not like I do not process any working knowledge of communism. Are you able to claim that your knowledge of communism is as sufficent as your knowledge of capitalism without causing you to be biased?
Of course you don't possess any working knowledge of communism.

And yes, I can claim that my knowledge of capitalism is sufficient. Remember, the book is called Das Kapital, not Das Kommon. Marx studied and described capitalist society; contrary to the persistent fantasies of anti-communists that can't suffer studying what they profess to fight, Marx never laid prescriptions about a future communist society. It is understood that communist society shall evolve from capitalism, as a result of the suppression of the bourgeois state and private property.

Marx's critique of capitalism remains entirely valid - in fact, what you consider the world going for more capitalism validates it even more. If you could put your lazyness aside and effectively read The Capital, you would clearly see that the world in the first decade of the XXI century resembles Marx's description more, not less, than it did in the 70's of the last century.

The logic of value is self-contradictory; capital requires its own infinite self-expansion, in a finite world. Plus, it demands a steady increase in its own composition, which makes surplus-value tendencially fall.

Bourgeois economy is phlogistical pseudoscience. It cannot even come to agree to a working concept of "capital" (have you read Boehm-Bawerk, at least?).

You should read The Capital, and you should read Production of Commodities by the means of Commodities by Piero Sraffa.

Or you could realise that you cannot engage in a serious intellectual discussion without reading more than the cover of the books.

Luís Henrique [/b]
By your logic then my knowledge of communism is excellent. The works by Ayn Rand, Ludwig Von Mises, and many free market economists talk about Socialism and Communism along with its flaws in great details.

First, Karl's prediction does mean that all of his predictions of the future will be absolute nor does it validate his theory of communism. Ludwig Von Mises predicted the eventual collaspe of the Soviet Union. Even some predictions in the bible have come truth.

Perhaps before the world can experience "true communism"; it would be destroy by the 300 million horsemen and Satan according to the Bible.

I thought that Karl believed that world would progress something like this. Capitalism, then socialism, and finally communism. The world has been following this pattern. Capitalism, then socialism, and back to Capitalism which does not validate this theory.

Simply looking at current effects of globalization; the world overall is becoming more depend on global trade therefore more embracing of capitalism. However, the world is a big place. Europe for example is shifting more and more to the left in terms of economic policies.

[L Mises]

Originally posted by KickMcCann+Jan 6 2006, 12:48 AM--> (KickMcCann @ Jan 6 2006, 12:48 AM)
L [email protected] 5 2006, 08:50 PM

What is Marx's reasoning that the human race will eventually revert back to communism?

Looking at current global events, I think the world is shifting more in favor of more capitalism. The only reason that the America and EU are able to have social programs is because they can afford to do so.

After reading Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat; trade barriers between countries are dropping and international trade is now widely encouraged. Work is flowing to where it can be done the most efficent.

As the countries such as China and India become economically developed; the West will only be able to compete with them through economical means. Socialism is burdening the West's ability to do so, and eventually the governments will lack the means to fund their social programs.

-I can't precisely speak for marx, but from an anthropolgical percpective, communal living has been throughout history the traditional order of society, we're talking thousands upon thousands of years, and most isolated tribes, although they constantly change as well, still maintain that kind of order. long-term settlements, the formation of city-states and industrialization had a huge disruptive effect on that order. But if humans have a natural inclination to their instincts, we can expect that like a gyroscope, humanity will absorn those changes and regain its traditional balance. A lot of capitalists use Darwinism to justify their system, survival of the fittest- we must all compete each against each other for limited materials or die off. But Darwin himself was against social darwinism and saw humans as a communal species, like bees for example, that must work together in order to survive and thrive, and compete against the conditions holding them back.

-Its a slight misnomer to say the world is shifting towards capitalism, the world has been capitalist for the last 150-200 years, the soviet bloc were statist, or state capitalist. Capitalism is certainly expanding, and will continue to do so, Marx himself would agree with you. Once it has incompassed the world, then and only then will we begin to see if Marx's hypothesis will occur. The US and the EU only have social programs because the people demanded them and threaten to overthrow the system if they didn't get them. Social programs (specifically in the EU, the US's programs are pale in comparison) are a stop-gap measure to pacify rebellion and maintain order.

-Work is being outsourced not because Milton Friedman and his friends are on some humanitarian mission to bring capitalism to the undeveloped world, their escaping the west and its labor laws, democracy, human rights, and high standards of living that make production more expensive. Production isn't actually more expensive in the West, but the workers and society here feel they have more of a right to the profit made, meaning a western factory has to settle for 15% profit instead of 40% in the undeveloped world.

-Socialism is not a burden to the western economies-democracy, human rights, labor laws and high standards of living are holding them back. The economy of china is booming because it has an authoritarian government that has no qualm or quarrel with working its people 90 hrs a week for dirt pay. For one thing, the workers/people have no power, and their standard of industrialized living isn't as high as it is in the west, so they don't need as much wages with which to live by.
If the western capitalists want to compete with the East, they'll have to ressurect their old friend Mussolini and completely enslave the US or EU in a fascist dictatorship, then the "trains will run on time".[/b]
I would agrue then that capitalism at least free market capitalism visioned by Adam Smith has never truly existed or only briefly. The closest to achieving free market capitalism was the early days of United States.

Smith and most free markest economists believe the only function of the state is to protect its citizen from foreign invaders and themselves. The role of government has clearly expanded beyond that.

Why would humans return or devolved back to an order where the ability to substain life is the worst?

In terms to Social Darwinism, Austrians believe it simply serves as a function of death which is natural.

One of the biggest problems of State programs according Austrian is the inability to do away with such programs once there their usefulness is achieved. In fact, the system offers incentives to keep the program running for as long as possible at the expenses of the taxpayers. People working for government agencies are punished for achieving their objectives, because upon completion the agency would be dissolved.

As a result, many people work for or receive benefits from such program become dependent, and politicans risk their popularity and even possible civil unrest for terminating such programs. Eventually, the State become overburdened and collaspes on its own weight.

Whereas in capitalism, the amount of capital determines how an individual can only run unprofitable business. Each firm is allowed to individually collaspe and has minimum effect on the whole.

Finally there have been many successful business partnerships. There is often talk about investment bankers about the possible synergy or merging two companies together. The Japanese have adopted something called Just in Time Manufacturing or Supply Chain Management in which ideally products are only assembled after consumer orders it. This minimized storage and limits the risk of excess inventory. To achieve this, you need an excellent relationships between your distrubutors and suppliers. The theory states that everyone is part of the chain, and if one is weak the whole chain fails so everyone must work together.

Because of the current rise of global trade; cooperation is even more important. It is extremely risky and expensive to try and directly sell your product to a foreign markets alone. Options of indirect exportings, joint-venture, and strategic alliances reduce the risk and capital required to take your products overseas.

Proponents of Globalization argued aganist the notion of a zero sum job market, and international trade in the long run actually creates more jobs and increase the size of the pie.

Finally, government regulations along with its social programs are holding back the West. Finally, most jobs today are being lost to automation more than anything else. A fascist dictatorship would make the situtation worse as such a society hinders the creavity.

The book Getting Things Done talks about how work has evolved from the industrial age to the information age. Before work could be clearly defined, make X numbers of things in Y amount of time. It was concrete and easily seen. Now work has become more and more abstract. You may ask yourself how my essay be better, or how could have that board meeting been better. It is very difficult to define work as it keeps changing.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by L [email protected] 5 2006, 03:38 PM
Name calling already? How many books have you read on Capitalism or any credible theory of economics?
You get what you deserve, Mises.

And, for the record, I've probably read more books on bourgeois economics, writings by bourgeois economists, etc., than you know exist. I read the minutes of FOMC meetings and NAS white papers. I read the "blue book" that Greenspan was using for four years to keep this shitty economy afloat. I've read Smith, Ricardo, Keynes, Volcker, Friedman and a million other two-bit soothsayers that hide their myopia and ignorance behind a mountain of PhDs.

Too bad you cannot say the same.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by L [email protected] 5 2006, 03:05 PM
My question therefore is supposed that a society were able to follow the exact doctrices laid by Marx and Engles; how people with differing beliefs be dealt with in a communism society?
Though you really don't deserve this, I'll give you an answer to this question.

Given that you are using the term "differing beliefs" to mean "supporter of the capitalist mode of production", I would tend to think that, in a communist society, such people would be dealt with in the same way that people who advocate a return to feudal relations or the absolute monarchy are dealt with today.

Miles

[L Mises]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Jan 6 2006, 05:57 AM--> (CommunistLeague @ Jan 6 2006, 05:57 AM)
L [email protected] 5 2006, 03:05 PM
My question therefore is supposed that a society were able to follow the exact doctrices laid by Marx and Engles; how people with differing beliefs be dealt with in a communism society?
Though you really don't deserve this, I'll give you an answer to this question.

Given that you are using the term "differing beliefs" to mean "supporter of the capitalist mode of production", I would tend to think that, in a communist society, such people would be dealt with in the same way that people who advocate a return to feudal relations or the absolute monarchy are dealt with today.

Miles [/b]
I have read Keynes, Friedman, Porters, Rothbard, Menger, Viner, Levitt, Dubner and a whole lot more.

Mises, Rand, and Smith were just my favorite. What is your point?

[L Mises]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Jan 6 2006, 05:57 AM--> (CommunistLeague @ Jan 6 2006, 05:57 AM)
L [email protected] 5 2006, 03:05 PM
My question therefore is supposed that a society were able to follow the exact doctrices laid by Marx and Engles; how people with differing beliefs be dealt with in a communism society?
Though you really don't deserve this, I'll give you an answer to this question.

Given that you are using the term "differing beliefs" to mean "supporter of the capitalist mode of production", I would tend to think that, in a communist society, such people would be dealt with in the same way that people who advocate a return to feudal relations or the absolute monarchy are dealt with today.

Miles [/b]
Typically of what a commie would do. Finally, one reveals its true colors. Suppose this is the part where I get banned?

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by L Mises+Jan 6 2006, 01:08 AM--> (L Mises @ Jan 6 2006, 01:08 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 05:57 AM

L [email protected] 5 2006, 03:05 PM
My question therefore is supposed that a society were able to follow the exact doctrices laid by Marx and Engles; how people with differing beliefs be dealt with in a communism society?
Though you really don't deserve this, I'll give you an answer to this question.

Given that you are using the term "differing beliefs" to mean "supporter of the capitalist mode of production", I would tend to think that, in a communist society, such people would be dealt with in the same way that people who advocate a return to feudal relations or the absolute monarchy are dealt with today.

Miles
Typically of what a commie would do. Finally, one reveals its true colors. Suppose this is the part where I get banned? [/b]
Nope, just mocked and laughed at -- like people who advocate feudalism or an absolute monarchy today.

Miles

[L Mises]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Jan 6 2006, 06:11 AM--> (CommunistLeague @ Jan 6 2006, 06:11 AM)
Originally posted by L [email protected] 6 2006, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 05:57 AM

L [email protected] 5 2006, 03:05 PM
My question therefore is supposed that a society were able to follow the exact doctrices laid by Marx and Engles; how people with differing beliefs be dealt with in a communism society?
Though you really don't deserve this, I'll give you an answer to this question.

Given that you are using the term "differing beliefs" to mean "supporter of the capitalist mode of production", I would tend to think that, in a communist society, such people would be dealt with in the same way that people who advocate a return to feudal relations or the absolute monarchy are dealt with today.

Miles
Typically of what a commie would do. Finally, one reveals its true colors. Suppose this is the part where I get banned?
Nope, just mocked and laughed at -- like people who advocate feudalism or an absolute monarchy today.

Miles [/b]
I am sure that communists never get mocked or laugh at either :rolleyes:

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by L [email protected] 6 2006, 01:17 AM
I am sure that communists never get mocked or laugh at either :rolleyes:
Not the point, but, yeah, I'm sure it happens.

Miles

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I have not read any of Marx's works.

Read some.

It tends to help to be at least familiar with a subject before you attempt to 'rip it to shreads'.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by L Mises+--> (L Mises)The works by Ayn Rand, Ludwig Von Mises, and many free market economists talk about Socialism and Communism along with its flaws in great details.[/b]

From what I've read on Rand, she appears to be a raving lunatic and Von Mises creates "strawmen" versions of Socialism and Communism and then proceeds to "destroy them" (despite them not having anything to do with Socialism or Communism).


Originally posted by L [email protected]
The world has been following this pattern. Capitalism, then socialism, and back to Capitalism which does not validate this theory.

Uh, no it hasn't.

Russia and China went from feudalism, to State Monopoly Capitalism to (in Russia's case) "Free Market" Capitalism.

You see, you accept things at "face value". If Russia said it was Socialist, you think it must be Socialist. Really you should look beneath appearances.


L Mises
Europe for example is shifting more and more to the left in terms of economic policies.

Are you living in the same Europe I am? ....because Europe (in particular Britain and the "Eastern bloc") have been pursuing right wing (liberal) economic policies.

[Goatse]

A wonderful theory ignoring human nature, current affairs, and reality. In order to established such a social order; one would need to conquer the world and form a state.

Why?


How these public authories caculated the needs of billions of every individuals and allocate resources to the means of production as efficent as possible. Ever heard the saying just because it is popular doesn't mean it is right.

But didn't you just say the majority of people are moving towards capitalism?


I am sure EVERY GOVERNMENT would just kindly disasseble itself

Revolution.


Better yet what would happen if a group of radicals such as myself decided to form our own government. What then?

Fine then, but good luck convincing people to be the subjects of your government.



So I can choose not to do anything and just take whenever I feel like because I need it.

You'll probably be rejected by society if you do this. Anyway, the greedy nature of people will have been destroyed as you'd have been raised in a communist society and have no capitalistic instincts inside you.


Without money, work would have be completely forced or else a large majority of people wouldn't work. Money represents choice.

Why? How?


The most needy are rewarded and the most able punished.

How?


Alright the stereotypical lazy bums will be scorned. What incentives do you offer for work besides self motivation.

It's against human nature to sit around doing nothing productive.


I am a libertarian and this society would be a libertarian's worst nightmare. Some religions by their very dogma are supposed to heavily influence people's lives. They wouldn't truly practicing their religion if such laws were imposed. Look at Islam.

I am no expert on Islam... please explain what you're trying to say?



I thought everyone was supposed to be equal.

Equal opportunity to succeed. People will be regarded highly for working hard, which is an incentive itself.


So the ability to produce is the greatest crime. The would go for techological innovations? Specialized labor, techological innovations, and being rewarded for efficent allocation of resources are the reasons for our standards of living today.

No, the ability to produce but choosing hiring others instead to do the producing is the greatest crime.


I am going to quote Marx's Mother.

"I wish Karl would actually go and accumulated some capital instead of just writing about it."

And I'm going to quote Willy Wonka.

YOU LOSE

GOOD DAY SIR

Just like the typical anti-communist, you spout shit about it not being able to work, but fail to actually say why.

I realise this post was a while back but I didn't really see anyone respond to it.

[bezdomni]

Mises, I recommend that you read more on the subject of historical materialism. Your comprehension of it is weak, at best.

Also, many leftists are fond of the works of Smith. He essentially described capitalism in the same manner as Marx. The real difference is that Marx found capitalism to be undesirable and temporary whereas Smith felt the opposite.

Reading:

YFIS Marxism FAQ - Not very long or complicated (http://www.newyouth.com/archives/theory/marxismfaq.asp)

Marx and Engels on Historical Materialism (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/hist-mat/index.htm)

Marx and Engels on Free Trade (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/free-trade/index.htm)

Marx and Engels on Pre-Capitalist Society (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/precapitalist/index.htm)

A somewhat brief article by Lenin on Proletarian Democracy in the early USSR (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/jun/17b.htm)

I don't honestly expect you to read all of these (or even half of them), but look through and see what interests you. I think you will find that many of your preconceptions of communism are wrong.

Also, some people might disagree with my linking of YFIS (as they are Trotskyists) and works by Lenin...but you should at least read them.

If you're going to just read sparknotes, don't pretend to be an expert on it. It's fine to read them, but don't expect to "rip" an entire ideology apart (as many have tried to do, and failed) because you spent 30 minutes on sparknotes.com.

Don't even expect to get too much done with reading the actual works.

By the way, few people (both left and right) take Ayn Rand's philosophy completely seriously. She is useful for intellectual (for lack of a better word) discussions occasionally, but there is little practical use for objectivism...unless you are trying to justify selfishness and mental disorders.