Inflation / Economics

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I am wondering about how economics working; more specifically, inflation. I was debating with my friend about a conservative policy to lower GST.

I said that it removes a tax cut for only the working class in favor of one for the rich. I said that more money in the hands of the average consumer will cause economies that aren't regulated by the government to have a higher inflation rate. I just assumed this based on my little knowledge of economics.

Perhaps I am wrong, though.

[ComradeRed]

Well, if you printed more money, the value of the money would decrease and prices would go up to compensate for this. It would be bad for the workers, considering how little money they have; and then how much the value of that money decreases makes it even worse :o

But why are you debating such esoteric things? Look at the big picture: the collapse of capitalism. Who cares about inflation in this light?

[WorkerBolshevik]

Comrade Red, if you knew anything about the history of Socialism, from the Bolshevik Revolution of to the modern era, you would know how very important economic policy and the contorl of inflation is for the progression from Capitalism to Socialism. Reighning in inflation is what allowed the Stalinists to acheive such astronomical growth rates in the early 30s, and it was a lack of control over inflation which hurt the economy of the country in the late 20s and during the era of Military Communism. The fact is, as long as a Workers State, or even any State pruporting to be socialist has yet to pass up the most advanced capitalist nations, and therefore become socialist, economics is important. As long as the monetarian system, and with it bourgeoise economic systems are the only effective means my which to control the economy, commerce, and industrialization, economic policy and inflation control are amongst the most important issues in a Worker's State. I am surprised that you seem to lack such a complete ignorance over this crucial idea, and it leaves me questioning, as it should do for all members of this forum, the qualifications for entry and the quality of the membership of the "Commie Club".

[ComradeRed]

What brilliance have I overlooked!? Obviously the communist must focus on inflation, and read the Wall Street Journal, and invest in stocks and bonds! Why, it would be directly anti-Marxist to not do so!

Clearly we need to follow the self evidently perfect and flawless model of Stalinism and reinstitutionalize the State Capitalist paradigm! It'd be reactionary not to!

After all, Stalin was a Marxist (or so I am told...), and Uncle Joe can't be wrong!

This is clearly the communist thing to do!

[WorkerBolshevik]

Comrade, you are merely making yourself foolish. After achieving a revolution, even if it were to be a global one, a new system could no instantly be put into place, is that not one of Marxist's major quarrels with Anarchists? For a time, the basic frame work of the bourgeoise state will have to remain in place, without a bourgeoise, as society is transitioned into a Marxist form of governance. During this time, which is greatly prolonged when revolution is not achieved on a global scale, and even further in nations which were not at the pinnacle of capitalist developement, the correct manegement of the old bourgeosie economic system, put to use of the worker's state, is essential in the transition of capitalism to socialism. To assume that the revolution will cast off with it the laws of economics is rediculous, and not only has every workers or socialist revolution in history shown this, but this view was upheld by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, and most other socialists of any school who had a DEVELOPED knowledge of economics.

[ComradeRed]

For a time, the basic frame work of the bourgeoise state will have to remain in place, without a bourgeoise, as society is transitioned into a Marxist form of governance. This can't work. All tools are designed to have a specific purpose. The tool of a bourgeois state apparatus was to have an elite class of capitalists manage society.

You are suggesting to "inherit" this and not change it? Albeit "temporarily", it will degenerate back into capitalism.

This is not something that should be achieved. As soon as the workers take control, they should energetically take control in all forms (hence the dictatorship of the proletariat).

Should the workers simply take control of the bourgeois state, it will only create a new yoke with which capitalism will re-emerge.


During this time, which is greatly prolonged when revolution is not achieved on a global scale, and even further in nations which were not at the pinnacle of capitalist developement, the correct manegement of the old bourgeosie economic system, put to use of the worker's state, is essential in the transition of capitalism to socialism. What I would expect to happen (and since neither of us can predict the future, neither of us can really know) would be that the nations which have had the revolution would have a model that works superior to the capitalist paradigm.

There would be none of this "correct management of the old bourgeois system"...there would be a better system that presents itself based on the material conditions (especially the level of technological advancement of that society in terms of automation, etc.).

We can't say "Well, we're going to have to use the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie to our advantage" for this says "Well, we're going back to capitalism."


To assume that the revolution will cast off with it the laws of economics is rediculous, and not only has every workers or socialist revolution in history shown this, but this view was upheld by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, and most other socialists of any school who had a DEVELOPED knowledge of economics. Oh, Lenin and Stalin said this? How could this ever be wrong?!

This makes no sense "After we overthrow capitalism, we'll still use capitalism because Lenin inc. said so."

Why bother with a revolution in the first place if you are going to imediately go back to capitalism?

Look at how it worked for the Soviet Union, China, et al. They're all capitalist states now.

"Oh but that was Kruschev's/Dao Xengping/Someone's fault, it would have worked otherwise."

No, it couldn't have! What happened was a result of the material conditions of the states.

Since they weren't capitalist states prior to the revolution, material conditions indicate they would become capitalist states. There is none of this "Well, it's a party controlled capitalism until we can get to socialism, then the party will step down and the workers will rule." No, that's capitalism.

Such an idea doesn't work. For real communism that is.

[WorkerBolshevik]

Marx said it too, and you are misinterrpreting the concept. The workers, having seized power, can not merely create socialist means of production, that is a process. They must first harness the capitalist's means of production and use them to build socialism, something which takes a system of economics and distribution to control. Unless such a system instantly springs to place, and if chaos is to be avoided, than aspects from the old system must be harnessed in order to sanely stear the course of developement towards socialism. No, it is not real communism, but if we beleived that such was possible at the moment of the revolution, then we would all be anarchists :)

[ComradeRed]

They must first harness the capitalist's means of production and use them to build socialism, something which takes a system of economics and distribution to control. Sorry, but no. Marx had also mentioned something about "social being determines social consciousness"; with the material conditions (or "social being" if you prefer) being that favoring the capitalist mode of production, it follows that the social conditions will evolve into a capitalism.

This, of course, is to be avoided. The workers taking a role of the capitalists will result with capitalism! Albeit "the workers' capitalism" :lol:


Unless such a system instantly springs to place, and if chaos is to be avoided, than aspects from the old system must be harnessed in order to sanely stear the course of developement towards socialism. Thus we should ignore the concept that "Being determines consciousness"?

Look, material conditions result in changes in social reality. It follows reasonably that the material conditions which favors capitalism remaining will cause just that!

It doesn't matter that the "vanguard" is managing things, it doesn't matter that there are red flags everywhere, and it doesn't matter that communist leaflets are everywhere...slavery is slavery, regardless of the bosses!


No, it is not real communism, but if we beleived that such was possible at the moment of the revolution, then we would all be anarchists :) So favoring a transition back to capitalism is "better" than anarchism? :huh:

Look, the transition would not resemble something like the Soviet Union or the PRC. It would be more along the lines of the Paris Commune, where the workers have the power and capitalism is destroyed!

If there is going to be a transition (which there may or may not be, who knows!), it will have to resemble the Paris commune; NOT CAPITALISM!!!