The "Market Potential" for Communism

[redstar2000]

After the collapse of the USSR, we were told emphatically that "communism is dead", end of story!

So when the World Public Opinion outfit conducted a recent poll on the statement The free enterprise system and free market economy is the best system on which to base the future of the world, it would be expected that "nearly everyone would agree", right?

http://65.109.167.118/pipa/articles/home_p...nt=154&lb=hmpg2 (http://65.109.167.118/pipa/articles/home_page/154.php?nid=&id=&pnt=154&lb=hmpg2)

I was frankly shocked to find that 24% of Americans polled disagreed!

Nearly a quarter of the American population -- proud citizens of the world's most reactionary capitalist country -- think capitalism sucks?

In "cappie-talk", we communists have a significant market potential!

Imagine if we could put together a determined revolutionary movement of this size?

Much easier said then done, of course. It will take a substantial amount of time to achieve anything like that.

But who would have thought that so many Americans -- in the midst of "the Glorious Triumph of Capitalism" -- have rejected the hype?

Not me. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[VonClausewitz]

Nearly a quarter of the American population -- proud citizens of the world's most reactionary capitalist country -- think capitalism sucks?

Hmmm, perhaps they may not agree 300% with the economic system, but it's rather believable that they aren't exactly going to be waving the red flag and singing the internationale any time soon.

The results of that census would depend wholly on where it was taken. Take it in a big city, and you'll get more people attuned with your view. Take it out in the sticks, and you'll probably get gawped at a bit. It's an interesting idea though, if you could get that many people into a revolutionary movement, you lot really could have a good go of it.

[theraven]

so less then a quarter are opposed to free market capitilsm...did they say what they were for? perhaps they just didn't like some asepct or another..

[redstar2000]

I agree that a more detailed survey would be quite informative -- it's what market surveys are all about. :lol:

Many of those surveyed might prefer the "Swedish model" of capitalism...but don't even know it exists.

Others may be simply nostalgic for American capitalism c.1955 -- when good jobs at good wages with plenty of benefits were relatively common and easily acquired.

And almost no one with any sense wants to "re-create" anything like the USSR or People's China...if those were the alternatives, capitalism would win 99.99% approval.

I'm sure there were considerable geographic variations in the responses. Rural areas are usually reactionary compared to urban areas and the same goes for the more backward cities compared to the more progressive cities. Capitalism probably took the "hit" in Boston, New York City, San Francisco, Seattle, and Chicago...while polling better numbers in Kansas City, Salt Lake City, Dallas-Fort Worth, Miami, etc.

Perhaps in a few years, it might be possible to set up communist "focus groups"...to get a better idea of what people "hate the most" about American capitalism. We might find some things that we could really pound on! :D

We already know from this poll that it is the largest corporations that Americans really despise. Some 85% of Americans think large corporations "have too much influence over the government".

Who doesn't cheer at the "perp-walk" of some big shot CEO on his way to prison? :lol:

My own prediction for communist revolution in the United States is c.2100 -- but it's quite possible that I may have been considerably too pessimistic. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 06:53 PM
I agree that a more detailed survey would be quite informative -- it's what market surveys are all about. :lol:

Many of those surveyed might prefer the "Swedish model" of capitalism...but don't even know it exists.

Others may be simply nostalgic for American capitalism c.1955 -- when good jobs at good wages with plenty of benefits were relatively common and easily acquired.

And almost no one with any sense wants to "re-create" anything like the USSR or People's China...if those were the alternatives, capitalism would win 99.99% approval.

I'm sure there were considerable geographic variations in the responses. Rural areas are usually reactionary compared to urban areas and the same goes for the more backward cities compared to the more progressive cities. Capitalism probably took the "hit" in Boston, New York City, San Francisco, Seattle, and Chicago...while polling better numbers in Kansas City, Salt Lake City, Dallas-Fort Worth, Miami, etc.

Perhaps in a few years, it might be possible to set up communist "focus groups"...to get a better idea of what people "hate the most" about American capitalism. We might find some things that we could really pound on! :D

We already know from this poll that it is the largest corporations that Americans really despise. Some 85% of Americans think large corporations "have too much influence over the government".

Who doesn't cheer at the "perp-walk" of some big shot CEO on his way to prison? :lol:

My own prediction for communist revolution in the United States is c.2100 -- but it's quite possible that I may have been considerably too pessimistic. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
I woudl call you delusional not pessimastic. There may well be some sort of reovlution in america, but a communist one is probably the very bottom of the barrel of ideas. far more likely wold be some sort of religous revolution or a reovlutoin with a focus on states rights type of things.

[Delirium]

When i talk to people my age i get the better results. Nearly everyone i know would agree that capitalism is seriously flawed.

Even most of the hardcore supporters of the current system will agree that there has to be a better way to do it.

The problem is that they see no alternative to it.

As redstar said many would be satisfied with liberal capitalism, but there is a great potential to radicalize, especially the youth.

[ColinH]

I've met tons of "casual commies" - people that openly express their opinions about how they dislike the current economy and think everything should be more equal.

[Nicky Scarfo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 06:53 PM
I agree that a more detailed survey would be quite informative -- it's what market surveys are all about. :lol:

Many of those surveyed might prefer the "Swedish model" of capitalism...but don't even know it exists.

Others may be simply nostalgic for American capitalism c.1955 -- when good jobs at good wages with plenty of benefits were relatively common and easily acquired.

And almost no one with any sense wants to "re-create" anything like the USSR or People's China...if those were the alternatives, capitalism would win 99.99% approval.

I'm sure there were considerable geographic variations in the responses. Rural areas are usually reactionary compared to urban areas and the same goes for the more backward cities compared to the more progressive cities. Capitalism probably took the "hit" in Boston, New York City, San Francisco, Seattle, and Chicago...while polling better numbers in Kansas City, Salt Lake City, Dallas-Fort Worth, Miami, etc.

Perhaps in a few years, it might be possible to set up communist "focus groups"...to get a better idea of what people "hate the most" about American capitalism. We might find some things that we could really pound on! :D

We already know from this poll that it is the largest corporations that Americans really despise. Some 85% of Americans think large corporations "have too much influence over the government".

Who doesn't cheer at the "perp-walk" of some big shot CEO on his way to prison? :lol:

My own prediction for communist revolution in the United States is c.2100 -- but it's quite possible that I may have been considerably too pessimistic. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
I rather like the idea of revolutionary left "focus groups" on a random sampling of the population (of course we all realize those samples are never random and the methodology flawed, because people self-include or exclude). Of course, the people most likely to want the $50 or $100 for the session would probably be the people who's opinions we are most interested in anyways, though you would want to do it both during the day and evening to catch people who work different shifts.

Anyways, I think we could learn valuable information from this, but it would be most effective if a large enough socialist organization with good cadre and an ambitious program conducted the "focus groups" and kept the results internal in order to craft their propaganda and political program to get the best possible response from the working-class. Otherwise, the various left factions would just debate over what the results "mean" and it would expose our findings to the capitalists who could create countermeasures before we even started exploiting the new info.

As far as my personal predictions are concerned, I would say revolutionary or near-revolutionary conditions will exist in the US somewhere between 2010 and 2050, and I think those conditions will develop sooner if the GOP maintains control over the WH and Congress in 2008. The continuing Iraq War (and other possible conflicts), neoliberal economic policy, and a return to 19th century standards in terms of social programs and employment protections will come to a head and create a deep economic and social crisis in the next decade or three in my opinion. I think the US will find itself in a deep economic recession or depression with few saftey net provisions for the working-class, and will be in the midst of imperial decay at once. Whether a successful revolution actually ensues is anyone's guess, but I believe conditions favorable to one will be present long before the current century ends.

[RebelDog]

I know that if you talk to most workers in the UK where I live you would find very few who would agree with present system. Most would probably be in favour of more regulation. The peoblem, as it has always been, is education and the media. People are unaware of the alternative to the savage market economics that destroys their lives and makes there working life more and more unbearable. Most people would like change but are apathetic about getting it. Everyone is disgusted when their local hospital is under threat of closure or some public service is to be privatised. Some don't even link these events with our market-crazed so called Labour government. I ask the question; Why do any working class support the free market? Its chewing them up more than ever.

[redstar2000]

Some of the other countries polled...

Canada 29% disagreed

U.K. 27% disagreed

Germany 32% disagreed

Italy 31% disagreed

France 50% disagreed! :D

The potential for an international communist movement is significant.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[anomaly]

Whatever the people that said 'no' do want, this can only be taken as good news for us. :)

[theraven]

boy you guys are really jumping on this poll....

how about we base it on the success of the communist part in these countries?

[fernando]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 04:23 AM
Some of the other countries polled...

Canada 29% disagreed

U.K. 27% disagreed

Germany 32% disagreed

Italy 31% disagreed

France 50% disagreed! :D

The potential for an international communist movement is significant.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
These are the numbers that disagree, now you would need to see how many of those would actually get up and rebel. In some countries (like France) I could see a future potential for a revolution, but I doubt it would turn into a 100% communist society as you would like to see it. I think that after this revolution many on this forum would call it reformist anyway since it doesnt follow the purist doctrines of the "holy" ideology.


how about we base it on the success of the communist part in these countries?
I doubt the masses would pick "communism" over the current capitalist society, I think it would be something else a more social form with capitalist elements. But what communist parts in these nations?

[Dyst]

I think that, in some of the 'old capitalist' countries (especially the USA) the theories and ideas behind communism in itself is actually pretty accepted and widespread, however, if someone mentions "communism", in some places you will almost get yelled at.

So what I mean is that there will come a revolution but it won't necessarily be called a communistic one, allthough perhaps exactly the same.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 12:19 AM
boy you guys are really jumping on this poll....

how about we base it on the success of the communist parties in these countries?
With the possible exception of Italy, the parties that call themselves "communist" are social democratic...that is, if they were successful, all they would do is, at best, follow the "Swedish model" of capitalism. They are not revolutionary.

There really isn't yet in existence anything that could be called a revolutionary communist movement in Europe (or anywhere)...as there was, for example, back in the 1920s and 1930s.

We're in a historical position of "starting from scratch"...in an era when what Marx meant has been almost completely forgotten.

The reason that we're "jumping on this poll" is that it has revealed to us an unexpected weakness in the hegemony of capitalism.

If you had asked any of us to "guess at the results" in advance, I think very few of us would have come very close to the actual results.

So yes, it is great news to us...to know that there are a lot more people out there who might be open to our ideas than we had any reason to believe. :D

Don't be surprised if they don't do this kind of poll again. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[theraven]

I think that, in some of the 'old capitalist' countries (especially the USA) the theories and ideas behind communism in itself is actually pretty accepted and widespread, however, if someone mentions "communism", in some places you will almost get yelled at.

No, more likely laughed at.


So what I mean is that there will come a revolution but it won't necessarily be called a communistic one, allthough perhaps exactly the same.

Doubtful, any revolutions that seem liekly in the next 100 or so years would be religous inspired ones.


With the possible exception of Italy, the parties that call themselves "communist" are social democratic...that is, if they were successful, all they would do is, at best, follow the "Swedish model" of capitalism. They are not revolutionary.

if by that you mean they don't want to overthrow their government, then yes your probably right.


There really isn't yet in existence anything that could be called a revolutionary communist movement in Europe (or anywhere)...as there was, for example, back in the 1920s and 1930s.

thank god.


We're in a historical position of "starting from scratch"...in an era when what Marx meant has been almost completely forgotten.

because marx is compleltly forgettable


The reason that we're "jumping on this poll" is that it has revealed to us an unexpected weakness in the hegemony of capitalism.

If you had asked any of us to "guess at the results" in advance, I think very few of us would have come very close to the actual results.

So yes, it is great news to us...to know that there are a lot more people out there who might be open to our ideas than we had any reason to believe.

Don't be surprised if they don't do this kind of poll again.

the poll askes do you support free market capitilsm. howevr if you asked them do you support communsim or osomething along those lines, you'd get a minsiucle response. capitlism is a solid maority and not going anywhere.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

capitlism is a solid maority and not going anywhere.

I believe they said similar things about fuedalism.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 06:09 PM

capitlism is a solid maority and not going anywhere.

I believe they said similar things about fuedalism.
and it didnt' go anywhere for a very long time. when something new comes along that does things better then captilism then it will replace it, however communism has a very shitty record (sorry folks its true).

[Severian]

Of interest, I think: "Solid majorities in every country favored more regulation of large companies to protect the rights of workers (mean 74%), the rights of consumers (mean 73%), and the environment (mean 75%)." and "In nearly every country, large majorities agree that “Large companies have too much influence over our national government.” On average, 73% agreed with this statement."

Reflects that the opinion-forming machinery is far from all-powerful, and opinions are sometimes widespread which have little reflection in bourgeois politics.

On the other hand: "Contrary to the stereotype that very-high-income people perceive the influence of large companies as serving their interests, those with very high incomes were more likely to agree that such companies have too much influence (77%) than those with very low income (66%)." So that may just reflect a concern with "special interests" subverting the general interest of the upper class.

[fernando]

Originally posted by theraven+Apr 10 2006, 06:18 PM--> (theraven @ Apr 10 2006, 06:18 PM)
[email protected] 10 2006, 06:09 PM

capitlism is a solid maority and not going anywhere.

I believe they said similar things about fuedalism.
and it didnt' go anywhere for a very long time. when something new comes along that does things better then captilism then it will replace it, however communism has a very shitty record (sorry folks its true). [/b]
Communism has no record yet since it hasnt occured yet. State capitalism yes, pseudo social capitalism etc, communism no...sorry.

[theraven]

Originally posted by fernando+Apr 10 2006, 06:59 PM--> (fernando @ Apr 10 2006, 06:59 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 06:18 PM

[email protected] 10 2006, 06:09 PM

capitlism is a solid maority and not going anywhere.

I believe they said similar things about fuedalism.
and it didnt' go anywhere for a very long time. when something new comes along that does things better then captilism then it will replace it, however communism has a very shitty record (sorry folks its true).
Communism has no record yet since it hasnt occured yet. State capitalism yes, pseudo social capitalism etc, communism no...sorry. [/b]
every time it has been attempted it has fallen into some kind of tyranny. not a good record.


Of interest, I think: "Solid majorities in every country favored more regulation of large companies to protect the rights of workers (mean 74%), the rights of consumers (mean 73%), and the environment (mean 75%)." and "In nearly every country, large majorities agree that “Large companies have too much influence over our national government.” On average, 73% agreed with this statement."

Reflects that the opinion-forming machinery is far from all-powerful, and opinions are sometimes widespread which have little reflection in bourgeois politics.

On the other hand: "Contrary to the stereotype that very-high-income people perceive the influence of large companies as serving their interests, those with very high incomes were more likely to agree that such companies have too much influence (77%) than those with very low income (66%)." So that may just reflect a concern with "special interests" subverting the general interest of the upper class.

sources?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by theraven
thank god.

Well you might; religion has done much to slow down and/or sidetrack human progress.

But we can beat it! :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[YSR]

Of interest I think is the possibilities of championing new leftist movements that haven't been given their fair shake instead of "communism" as a word.

I'm thinkin' anarchism, but maybe I'm biased.

In all seriousness, I think that a lot can come from organizing on a "grassroots" "anti-capitalist" and "non-hierarchal" basis, rather than calling it "anarchism" or "communism". People may not immediately like the labels, but once they get the ideas in their heads, they will understand what these terms really mean.

[ColinH]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 09:20 PM
every time it has been attempted it has fallen into some kind of tyranny. not a good record.
Please give an example of a developed capitalist state being overthrown and replaced with a socialist society.

[SmithSmith]

China is the new capitalistic headquarter. Build, destroy, move capital, rebuild and the cycle continues. decline and rise. It systemically creates the next target and victim.

Capitalists hoard too much power and are too smart to allow thier system to collapse or banish. It just keeps destroying and rebuilding.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 07:20 PM
sources?
Heh. I'm quoting from the article linked at the start of this thread, of course.

[Tungsten]

NoXion


capitlism is a solid maority and not going anywhere.

I believe they said similar things about fuedalism.
People will not care if one king is removed and replaced with another. However, people will almost certainly care if their economic freedom suddenly dissappears or the ownership of their property suddenly becomes invalid.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 03:54 PM
NoXion


capitlism is a solid maority and not going anywhere.

I believe they said similar things about fuedalism.
People will not care if one king is removed and replaced with another. However, people will almost certainly care if their economic freedom suddenly dissappears or the ownership of their property suddenly becomes invalid.
I like the selection of words you used.

economic freedom :lol:

Sure Ayn Rand.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 03:54 PM
NoXion


capitlism is a solid maority and not going anywhere.

I believe they said similar things about fuedalism.
People will not care if one king is removed and replaced with another. However, people will almost certainly care if their economic freedom suddenly dissappears or the ownership of their property suddenly becomes invalid.
The transition from fuedalism to modern capitalism was more than a change of figureheads. It was a fundamental change in the economic relations between the aristocracy (Who for the most part died out) the rising bourgeouisie, and the peasants (Who during the course of the transition from fuedalism to modern capitalism in europe became the proletariat due to a change in their material conditions and relations with the new ruling class.)

Sure, the aristocracy had a good old-fashioned whine about the sudden disappearence of their right to live off the profits of the bourgeuoisie, but their whinging and hand-wringing couldn't stop the march of history.

Also you seem to be under the impression that massive social change comes "from up on high". This is not the case. Individuals and small groups cannot "make history" in any meaningful sense however much they may want to. Social change is engendered by the mass of the population and the material conditions in which they live.

[Militant]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 06:53 PM
My own prediction for communist revolution in the United States is c.2100 -- but it's quite possible that I may have been considerably too pessimistic. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Not to threadjack, but I've been hanging around here for years, and watched as redstar's prediction for communist revolution in America has inched closer and closer towards the present. I remember one prediction was 2250, another was 2200ish, I'm sure there were others however these are the only ones I remember, but there is a trend.

Is this due to a study of material conditions, and seeing a possible emerging trend, or are you just inconsistent? :P

I'm just interested in what you see as propelling the movement (which I see as mostly stalled) forward at an increasing rate.

Thanks.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Militant
Not to threadjack, but I've been hanging around here for years, and watched as redstar's prediction for communist revolution in America has inched closer and closer towards the present. I remember one prediction was 2250, another was 2200ish, I'm sure there were others however these are the only ones I remember, but there is a trend.

I believe your memory has played you false.

People like to know "when", so I have indeed speculated that we might look for communist revolution in western Europe c.2050 and North America c.2100 -- I don't think I've ever put it "further into the future" than that.

What about "the whole world"? There, I think 2300-2500 is realistic; the "new" capitalist countries have a lot of shit to get through before communism will make any sense to them at all.

Could it be "sooner"? Well, sure...though not by much. For communism to "work", the working class must mostly "be communist"...and we're still obviously a long way away from that.

And by "being communist", I don't mean simply "opposed to capitalism" or "willing to follow communist leadership" or anything like that. I mean that ordinary people have to learn to "think like communists think".

And that's a big change.

We're getting there...but progress is slow right now. The traffic on this board increases with every passing year...a "straw in the wind". :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[theraven]

yea redstar...I think your going to be wating a long itme.

[Salvador Allende]

The Capitalists of the world, with the population living under the Dictatorship of the Bourgeois reaching 75% of the globe, is a very strong force and it is most strong within the First World, IE, the Imperialist nations led by the USA. The labour aristocracy created in these nations are not model proletariat and are not suitable for the revolution, yet. The Revolution will reach the First World once Imperialism is defeated and these nations are forced to repress and use the full extent of Capitalism on their own workers and not the Third World. Once this occurs, the true Revolutionary potential of the masses will be realized and the First World will fall. However, to assume that Communism will be seen on a mass-scale anytime even within the next 100 years is I think not true. My miracle estimate would have the entire world Socialist by 2050 with the conservative estimate seeing that reached by 2125. Communism would occur probably shortly thereafter in some countries, with others reaching it a longer time after. With the actual fall of Imperialism and the entire world Socialist, the time-frame of the transition from Socialism to Communism would be sped up and probably quite rapid.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Salvador [email protected] 12 2006, 04:29 AM
The Capitalists of the world, with the population living under the Dictatorship of the Bourgeois reaching 75% of the globe, is a very strong force and it is most strong within the First World, IE, the Imperialist nations led by the USA. The labour aristocracy created in these nations are not model proletariat and are not suitable for the revolution, yet. The Revolution will reach the First World once Imperialism is defeated and these nations are forced to repress and use the full extent of Capitalism on their own workers and not the Third World. Once this occurs, the true Revolutionary potential of the masses will be realized and the First World will fall. However, to assume that Communism will be seen on a mass-scale anytime even within the next 100 years is I think not true. My miracle estimate would have the entire world Socialist by 2050 with the conservative estimate seeing that reached by 2125. Communism would occur probably shortly thereafter in some countries, with others reaching it a longer time after. With the actual fall of Imperialism and the entire world Socialist, the time-frame of the transition from Socialism to Communism would be sped up and probably quite rapid.
thats assuming it happens period...

[Dyst]

thats assuming it happens period...

Yeah, cuz it is logical to assume that capitalism will continue forever! :lol:

Dream on.

[Tungsten]

Marmot

I like the selection of words you used.
I know. I'm damn good.

economic freedom :lol:
Yeah, the thing you want to replace with a command economy.

Sure Ayn Rand.
Ad hominem...

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 11:12 AM


thats assuming it happens period...

Yeah, cuz it is logical to assume that capitalism will continue forever! :lol:

Dream on.
capitlism ending does not mean communsim will begin be what replaces it.

[Nicky Scarfo]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 11 2006, 02:55 AM
Of interest I think is the possibilities of championing new leftist movements that haven't been given their fair shake instead of "communism" as a word.

I'm thinkin' anarchism, but maybe I'm biased.

In all seriousness, I think that a lot can come from organizing on a "grassroots" "anti-capitalist" and "non-hierarchal" basis, rather than calling it "anarchism" or "communism". People may not immediately like the labels, but once they get the ideas in their heads, they will understand what these terms really mean.
How bout syndicalism? Few people have even heard of it, so no negative connotations! Of course, people could always adopt "Scarfoism"

Then again, you could always just call socialism or anarchism what it is at its roots-- "democracy" or "social progress". Everyone likes those terms (well, most people at any rate). Sure they're general and also used by liberals, conservatives and reactionaries, but any revolutionary organization could use them effectively under the right conditions, with the right propaganda, tactics and strategy.

But if we created an organization known as say "Full Democracy" or the "Progress Party" we'd have to be careful not to follow the traditions of the Leninists and end up helping the capitalists make a bad-name for "democracy" and "progress" too!

[red team]

Yeah, the thing you want to replace with a command economy.

I like my electricity, gas, oil, plumbling, shelter, staple foods, internet and phone access, postal service, police, health services, and fire fighting services to be commanded. That way I don't need to worry about billionaire investors pricing these things out of my reach by bidding these things up for the sake of market "efficiency". Who's "efficiency"? Your "efficiency" in running speculative shell games?

I would rather see your efficiency in generating that proportion of energy expended by each worker during the course of a day which you take away as profit. Last time I've calculated it comes to roughly 1,000,000 calories for a 10% profit margin on an enterprise of 5000 workers.

Here's an idea! Harness you in front of a car with the electrical ignition system plugged up your butt. I'm sure with a dozen or so wealthy investors put into that position, we can move the car along just fine. That's what I call efficiency. :lol:

[cyu]

economic freedom
Yeah, the thing you want to replace with a command economy.

I find it hard to believe you're that stupid. You've been using this board a long time. You should know by now that not every leftist believes in a centralized economic system like the Soviet Union. Do you even listen to the people you debate with, or do you just have a set list of arguments you always pull out, regardless of your opponent?

Democratic control of companies by their employees sounds a lot more like economic freedom than autocratic control of companies by a few wealthy parasites. Would you call that a command economy? What is your definition of a command economy?

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 11:43 PM


economic freedom
Yeah, the thing you want to replace with a command economy.

I find it hard to believe you're that stupid. You've been using this board a long time. You should know by now that not every leftist believes in a centralized economic system like the Soviet Union. Do you even listen to the people you debate with, or do you just have a set list of arguments you always pull out, regardless of your opponent?

Democratic control of companies by their employees sounds a lot more like economic freedom than autocratic control of companies by a few wealthy parasites. Would you call that a command economy? What is your definition of a command economy?
just beucase you want it controlled democraticly doesnt' mean you dont' want it centralizied.

no economic freedom means the freedom to control and ivest your own capitol, not everyon has a say whether they desreve it or not.



I like my electricity, gas, oil, plumbling, shelter, staple foods, internet and phone access, postal service, police, health services, and fire fighting services to be commanded. That way I don't need to worry about billionaire investors pricing these things out of my reach by bidding these things up for the sake of market "efficiency". Who's "efficiency"? Your "efficiency" in running speculative shell games?


and then everyoen will got sub par services, instead of some peopel getting good and others getting subpar. i suppose thats more equal to you lol


I would rather see your efficiency in generating that proportion of energy expended by each worker during the course of a day which you take away as profit. Last time I've calculated it comes to roughly 1,000,000 calories for a 10% profit margin on an enterprise of 5000 workers.

ook


Here's an idea! Harness you in front of a car with the electrical ignition system plugged up your butt. I'm sure with a dozen or so wealthy investors put into that position, we can move the car along just fine. That's what I call efficiency. laugh.gif

my aren't you a witty one

[cyu]

just beucase you want it controlled democraticly doesnt' mean you dont' want it centralizied.

Maybe you should read up on anarchist theory. Democratic control can be decentralized. For example, employees have democratic control over their companies, but the companies still operate independently from each other, so on the company level, it's no more centralized than a capitalist system. Inside the company, all power is no longer vested in the CEO and board - doesn't sound very centralized to me.


no economic freedom means the freedom to control and ivest your own capitol, not everyon has a say whether they desreve it or not.

I think you'll agree economic freedom doesn't include the right to control and invest in your own slaves. The same concept is applied by anti-capitalists to the means of protection. There would be no concept of owning productive capital that you don't use yourself to produce things. It would not be a right to control other people's economic behavior simply because you claim ownership. The people using the productive capital (that is, the employees) would be the ones who have economic freedom to do what they want with the means of production. You're still free to spend your money, but you just won't have the right to buy slaves or control over things you don't use.

Technically, you'd still have the "right" to agree with potential "wage slaves" to use your equipment if they give you a cut of everything they produce. The only catch is, they have the right at any time to assume control over the equipment they're using, so you'll just be pretty stupid if you try to set up this arrangement.

[theraven]

Maybe you should read up on anarchist theory. Democratic control can be decentralized. For example, employees have democratic control over their companies, but the companies still operate independently from each other, so on the company level, it's no more centralized than a capitalist system. Inside the company, all power is no longer vested in the CEO and board - doesn't sound very centralized to me.

but how are your resoruces distrubted? you say in another thread that resoruces would go to those who msot need it, clealry then you would need some central group to distrube these resources. this group woudl then gain control fo the economy.

as for reading up on anarchist theory, I'd rather read my math text book, it'd be more useful.



I think you'll agree economic freedom doesn't include the right to control and invest in your own slaves.

I would because a mans body is his proprerty and a slave master takes that away by force. I oppose any seizure of property by force except for when abseoutly nesscary (lke the builidign of roads or conspcritopn) and then the man must be justly compensated.


The same concept is applied by anti-capitalists to the means of protection.

you mean production here right?


There would be no concept of owning productive capital that you don't use yourself to produce things. It would not be a right to control other people's economic behavior simply because you claim ownership. The people using the productive capital (that is, the employees) would be the ones who have economic freedom to do what they want with the means of production. You're still free to spend your money, but you just won't have the right to buy slaves or control over things you don't use.

slavery is not practiced legally in any modern capitlist society. indeed slavery is a shitty system outside of low technology platntiotns. . none of that makes sense and you'd be denying economic freedoms in a veyr basci way. first off you'd be taking ownership of proprty from the owners and giving it to the people he employs. this itself is a vioilation of freedom becuase it takes away someos property without just cause (see above for my defintion)


Technically, you'd still have the "right" to agree with potential "wage slaves" to use your equipment if they give you a cut of everything they produce. The only catch is, they have the right at any time to assume control over the equipment they're using, so you'll just be pretty stupid if you try to set up this arrangement.

why would they have the right ot setal my equitment? that makes no sense.

I am sorry but your democrait anarhcsit theory makes about as much sense as suicide bombing.

[cyu]

but how are your resoruces distrubted? you say in another thread that resoruces would go to those who msot need it, clealry then you would need some central group to distrube these resources. this group woudl then gain control fo the economy.

Resources are owned by those who are already using it. If there are resources that are not currently used by anyone, but could be used, then the people in that area decide democratically what to do with those resources. After the resources are allocated, the new companies formed are independent - democratically run by the employees in the companies, not by outsiders.


first off you'd be taking ownership of proprty from the owners and giving it to the people he employs. this itself is a vioilation of freedom becuase it takes away someos property without just cause

Actually, there is just cause. He wasn't using it himself. He wasn't doing any real work. He was just living as a parasite off the back of other people's hard work. More importantly, the major problem being solved is the existence of a large gap between the rich and poor. The larger this gap, the less an economy is able to provide for all its participants because the rich cause a disproportionate amount of resources to be allocated to serving them, leaving everyone else poorer than if spending power is more equal.

[red team]

and then everyoen will got sub par services, instead of some peopel getting good and others getting subpar. i suppose thats more equal to you lol


GARBAGE!

You don't want quality, you want a premium. You want a disproportionate amount of resources and attention devoted to you because you've hoarded enough wealth from the labour of others to pay for it. The productivity of labour including professional services like health and sanitation have been going up constantly with advancing in technology, so your argument for limiting service due to the scarcity of resources is invalid. I've been brought up with government subsidised healthcare. The fact that I haven't keeled over dead meant that it's functional.

[theraven]

You don't want quality, you want a premium. You want a disproportionate amount of resources and attention devoted to you because you've hoarded enough wealth from the labour of others to pay for it. The productivity of labour including professional services like health and sanitation have been going up constantly with advancing in technology, so your argument for limiting service due to the scarcity of resources is invalid. I've been brought up with government subsidised healthcare. The fact that I haven't keeled over dead meant that it's functional.

thats because its governemtn subsidezed, not governmetn run. the governemtn couldn't affrod to subsidze everyone. taxes would be to high. as it is the gov'ts in a huge deficit.



Resources are owned by those who are already using it. If there are resources that are not currently used by anyone, but could be used, then the people in that area decide democratically what to do with those resources. After the resources are allocated, the new companies formed are independent - democratically run by the employees in the companies, not by outsiders.

I would love to see this tried in practice. you are viewing this in a small scale of a few hundred people maybe. on a large scale this would be way to complex to manage on a "state wide" or even national scale such an economy would be absleotly crazy.



Actually, there is just cause. He wasn't using it himself. He wasn't doing any real work. He was just living as a parasite off the back of other people's hard work.

not doing "real" work is not a jsutifcatio to lose your prorpety. other peopel were living as a parsite on his capital.


More importantly, the major problem being solved is the existence of a large gap between the rich and poor. The larger this gap, the less an economy is able to provide for all its participants because the rich cause a disproportionate amount of resources to be allocated to serving them, leaving everyone else poorer than if spending power is more equal.

expalin how this is a problem ro how this fits my standard?

[cyu]

you are viewing this in a small scale of a few hundred people maybe. on a large scale this would be way to complex to manage on a "state wide" or even national scale such an economy would be absleotly crazy.

Decentralization is a wonderful thing. It means everything is small scale. Aren't consumers buying things in a free market making decentralized economic decisions? I don't suppose you're against consumers buying things in a free market.



More importantly, the major problem being solved is the existence of a large gap between the rich and poor. The larger this gap, the less an economy is able to provide for all its participants because the rich cause a disproportionate amount of resources to be allocated to serving them, leaving everyone else poorer than if spending power is more equal.
expalin how this is a problem ro how this fits my standard?

The problem is this: people agree to follow a set of economic laws regarding property, business, etc., because they believe these laws create the greatest good for the greatest number. If it is shown that some laws do not meet this standard, then people will want to change those laws. Regardless of what rights you claim to have, if the rights you claim can be shown to cause harm to the general population, then those rights will be revoked.

[theraven]

Decentralization is a wonderful thing. It means everything is small scale. Aren't consumers buying things in a free market making decentralized economic decisions? I don't suppose you're against consumers buying things in a free market.


except people buy things from all over. i have things made in many differnt countires in my dorm room. they all traded far and wide for their resources. your communtiy would have to be small and self sustanting, and thats not a very prosperus community.


The problem is this: people agree to follow a set of economic laws regarding property, business, etc., because they believe these laws create the greatest good for the greatest number. If it is shown that some laws do not meet this standard, then people will want to change those laws. Regardless of what rights you claim to have, if the rights you claim can be shown to cause harm to the general population, then those rights will be revoked.

excpeth these rigths help the whole popuaiton. it means no one can take anyones property without due cause.

[вор в законе]

With the possible exception of Italy, the parties that call themselves "communist" are social democratic


It is more likely the other way around.



I think that a lot can come from organizing on a "grassroots" "anti-capitalist" and "non-hierarchal" basis, rather than calling it "anarchism" or "communism".

I agree, we can call it however we want to in order to be seen more ''appealing'' to the masses as long as the goal is a classless society.



Doubtful, any revolutions that seem liekly in the next 100 or so years would be religous inspired ones.

Doubtful, any self-proclaimed religious will be seen as a lunatic in 100 or so years as reason and education prevails.



People will not care if one king is removed and replaced with another. However, people will almost certainly care if their economic freedom suddenly dissappears or the ownership of their property suddenly becomes invalid.

That is applicable only on invalids such as yourself.

[Salvador Allende]

Economic freedom is the same as economic democracy. It is the freedom for the working people themselves to own and run the means of production and this is best realised through a collective economy, one which allows the people to take hold of their own destiny and maintain independance, use the true potential of their creativity in running their economy and maintaining a good level of ideological consciousness. All of this can be accomplished by a collective, Socialist economy.

"The history of mankind is one from the realm of neccesity to the realm of freedom"- Chou En-lai

If that quote is true, which I believe it is, then the more effective economies are inherently the free ones, the ones which the people maintain control of. Indeed, Marxism affirms this, Socialism is vastly superior to Capitalism and a Capitalist economy will, under the same circumstances, naturally show off it's inferiority to a Socialist one. Today, the fastest growing economies are ones of Socialist nations and this is not a coincidence, it is merely the model of a scientific fact.

[theraven]

Doubtful, any self-proclaimed religious will be seen as a lunatic in 100 or so years as reason and education prevails.

lol if you think so..

[Ultra-Violence]

RedStar makes a really good point revolution seems to be right around the corner. No joke! i have been going to many demonstrations and each of them just gets bigger and bigger i see different people now. People want change i see it. But what our '"job's" as communist is to teach the poeple about the alternative's. Also most immportantly i dont care much about " answer " but they got the right idea in order for this revolution to go our way WE NEED TO FIGHT RACISM,HOMOPHOBIA, AND ALL OTHER FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION! but ya revolution does seem close in america. so its up to us commrades to go out there and educate our commrades to make it swing our way or else it'll be just another reform era......

:hammer:

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Please give an example of a developed capitalist state being overthrown and replaced with a socialist society.

I guess you could say Cuba but it didn't really turn out to be a true socialist society.


RedStar makes a really good point revolution seems to be right around the corner. No joke! i have been going to many demonstrations and each of them just gets bigger and bigger i see different people now. People want change i see it. But what our '"job's" as communist is to teach the poeple about the alternative's. Also most immportantly i dont care much about " answer " but they got the right idea in order for this revolution to go our way WE NEED TO FIGHT RACISM,HOMOPHOBIA, AND ALL OTHER FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION! but ya revolution does seem close in america. so its up to us commrades to go out there and educate our commrades to make it swing our way or else it'll be just another reform era......

See I agree alot with what communism aims for. To be prescise, everything except the economy. I'm just not to sure about it. How will a communist economy succeed. It seems like it doesn't accumalate wealth. I've been thinking about alot aways to fix it like attracting foreign investors or allowing small local privatized business but nothing makes any sense....

[Black Dagger]

To be prescise, everything except the economy.

Hmmm



How will a communist economy succeed. It seems like it doesn't accumalate wealth.

Well that is logical, since money will have been abolished. Or do you mean another form of wealth?



I've been thinking about alot aways to fix it like attracting foreign investors

Why would a communist society want investment from international capitalists? The people have just fought a bloody revolution to smash capitalism and the state and then they invite the CEO of blah-blah corporation over to discuss investment opportunities? :huh:



or allowing small local privatized business but nothing makes any sense....

Of course those things don't make sense, communism is anti-capitalist philosophy, as such there is no room in a communist society for 'foreign investors' or 'privatised business'.

[Salvador Allende]

The closest thing to a developed Capitalist economy being overthrown and replaced by Socialism is Cuba or the Paris Commune. As for all of the talk of a Communist society, I tend to agree, but stress the extreme difference between Communism, which requires incredible development of the productive forces to allow the abolition of Capital and has to be far superior in the productive capacity than Capitalist nations to even exist, according to Marx and Socialism, which in the modern day is often being developed in semi-feudal countries which are extremely backwards and decades behind many of the medium Capitalist countries and must therefore spend decades building the economy and Socialism to even have a chance at reaching the productive level called for by Communism.

[cyu]

except people buy things from all over. i have things made in many differnt countires in my dorm room. they all traded far and wide for their resources. your communtiy would have to be small and self sustanting, and thats not a very prosperus community.

I don't understand why you think anarcho-syndicalist communities would have to be self-sustaining. Each company is democratic. They remain independent in control from other companies. But they still are free to trade with any other company or community around the world.


excpeth these rigths help the whole popuaiton. it means no one can take anyones property without due cause.

Anarchists draw a distinction between personal property and productive property. You have not proven that property rights over the means of production helps the whole population. In fact, property rights over equipment you don't use personally, but just use to extract money from employees is detrimental to the general population, because it leads to concentration of spending power. The more spending power is concentrated, the more skewed the economy is to producing only for the wealthy, leaving everyone else poorer.

[theraven]

I don't understand why you think anarcho-syndicalist communities would have to be self-sustaining. Each company is democratic. They remain independent in control from other companies. But they still are free to trade with any other company or community around the world.


but you want them to essaintl be reudced to a barter system. that is extremely in effective.



Anarchists draw a distinction between personal property and productive property. You have not proven that property rights over the means of production helps the whole population. In fact, property rights over equipment you don't use personally, but just use to extract money from employees is detrimental to the general population, because it leads to concentration of spending power. The more spending power is concentrated, the more skewed the economy is to producing only for the wealthy, leaving everyone else poorer.

yes, but see the owner of the machine that the worker is owrking paid for it to be betl, he traded his capital for othe peoplse resources and labour, he then pays someone to work it, hwile he pays for upkeep and all the materials it uses.

[cyu]

I don't understand why you think anarcho-syndicalist communities would have to be self-sustaining. Each company is democratic. They remain independent in control from other companies. But they still are free to trade with any other company or community around the world.

but you want them to essaintl be reudced to a barter system. that is extremely in effective.

You must have confused me with someone else. When did I ever say that?


yes, but see the owner of the machine that the worker is owrking paid for it to be betl, he traded his capital for othe peoplse resources and labour, he then pays someone to work it, hwile he pays for upkeep and all the materials it uses.

And your point is? His claim to ownership is what enables him to exploit his employees. The exploitive relationship would not be there if the employees themselves owned the machines, paid for their upkeep, and democratically decided if they want to buy new machines for the company.

[theraven]

You must have confused me with someone else. When did I ever say that?

you've said it before, but heres another example


If there are resources that nobody is using, then the people of that region decide democratically how to allocate those resources. If there are new products the people of an area want and no company exists to produce the product, if the new company needs starting capital, then the people decide democratically what to give the new company. The return on the investment would not be in the form of a cut of everything the new company earns, nor would it be control over the new company. Instead, the only benefit the people would get would just be the new products they wanted in the first place.

this is all a fancy way of saying "we will trade the product for the raw materials" this is essaintally a barter system. of course we replaced bartering with capital a long time ago.




And your point is? His claim to ownership is what enables him to exploit his employees. The exploitive relationship would not be there if the employees themselves owned the machines, paid for their upkeep, and democratically decided if they want to buy new machines for the company.

its not exploiative, he is paying his employees. , its far more efficent then if each employee does. esp. if mulitpely employees work the same machine

basicly you just way over complicate things.

[cyu]

If there are resources that nobody is using, then the people of that region decide democratically how to allocate those resources. If there are new products the people of an area want and no company exists to produce the product, if the new company needs starting capital, then the people decide democratically what to give the new company. The return on the investment would not be in the form of a cut of everything the new company earns, nor would it be control over the new company. Instead, the only benefit the people would get would just be the new products they wanted in the first place.
this is all a fancy way of saying "we will trade the product for the raw materials" this is essaintally a barter system.

Uh, no. Raw materials is part of it, true, but when I said "if the new company needs starting capital, then the people decide democratically what to give the new company", I was thinking about using money, in cases where the new company needs to pay others for new buildings or machines.


its far more efficent then if each employee does. esp. if mulitpely employees work the same machine

I don't understand this statement. If each employee does what?


its not exploiative, he is paying his employees.

Sure, you personally don't have to call it exploitation, but the fact remains that the owner gets a cut of everything the employees produce. If the employees owned the company, then there wouldn't be anybody else they would have to pay, and they would be better off.

[Djehuti]

We had a similar survey in Sweden a few years ago (the results were published 25th of October 2004).

The survey was made by the youth barometer, 4000 youth between 15 and 25 years participated.

Four out of ten viewed communism as a living ideology.
A third saw only injustices in market economy and capitalism.
(even though it was a very biased question, not even I view only injustices in market economy and capitalism)

The funny thing is that this "unpolitical" survey group, "the youth barometer", paniced upon seeing the result (horror, it gave the wrong result!). In the article in wich the results were published they imidiatly started to proclaim the youths as dumb and ignorant. "Who shall explain that market economy does not "just lead to injustices", but that its also the very foundation of our welfare and not the least all the choices the youth of today takes for granted?"

They also claim that it is a paradox that you can be against capitalism and yet care about what brands you purchase. Yeah, just because if you want to abolish capitalism, you'll also have to live as bad as possible until it is abolished... A anticapitalist have to buy the lousiest computer, the lousiest clothes and the lousiest food, all else is a paradox! And in a communist society, everyone will have exactly the same clothes! :rolleyes:

[Djehuti]

And I would too like to bet on a year, even though it's doesn't matter.
Guess:

We will se the next intensive wave of proletarian class struggle (1871, 1917, 1968) rising in the 20ties (2020ies that is), the proletarians of south/south western europe (france, spain, italy, etc) will go first (and emerge victorious in 2027), they will be like an avant garde for the rest of the world's proletarians. The rest of Europe (except Russia, Belarus, Balticum) and central-/south america will be next. Russia will be the next major fascist state.

[theraven]

Uh, no. Raw materials is part of it, true, but when I said "if the new company needs starting capital, then the people decide democratically what to give the new company", I was thinking about using money, in cases where the new company needs to pay others for new buildings or machines.

your still making the whole proces less eficent and les workable.also your forgetting that the loss in effeincty will amke things more expensive..hence makng their money worth less.



I don't understand this statement. If each employee does what?

if each employee owns the machines/repairs them.



Sure, you personally don't have to call it exploitation, but the fact remains that the owner gets a cut of everything the employees produce. If the employees owned the company, then there wouldn't be anybody else they would have to pay, and they would be better off.

the employer gets what the employees produce and pays them for tiher labour-the only resoruce they ahve. this is how capitslim works. it has worked well enough that long term capitslit countires (US, western europe) have very high standrds of living. this is what happens in capitslim.

[cyu]

your still making the whole proces less eficent and les workable.also your forgetting that the loss in effeincty will amke things more expensive..hence makng their money worth less.

How so? Where is there a loss in efficiency? If employees no longer have to pay shareholders or huge sums to upper management, that would be more efficiency. In addition, decisions would be made with the employees' best interests in mind, not the interests of some unelected manager, so efficiency in terms of benefits to the employee would be greater. Employees would also have more incentive to do a better job and become more involved in the company, since they are the ones getting all the rewards.


the employer gets what the employees produce and pays them for tiher labour-the only resoruce they ahve. this is how capitslim works. it has worked well enough that long term capitslit countires (US, western europe) have very high standrds of living. this is what happens in capitslim.

There are plenty of examples of nations where employers use employees, in the manner you described, where standards of living are not high. The main difference between those nations and western nations is the relative lack of democracy. I think you're giving credit to capitalism that really belongs to democracy. The standards of living in western nations would be even higher if there was more democracy.