Is Communism Realistic?

[Publius]

As a sholw, as a social, philosophical, economic system, is communism realistic, or is it idealistic?

I think you know where I stand on this issue, but I want to know how you can defend a system that that seems to me to be build on assumptions and, essentially, wishful thinking.

What makes you think that there is a 'class conciousness'? Or that classes behave rationally, for their own interest? That seems to me to be an a-historical view, and an idealisized view. Really, people aren't that rational at all.

I ask why the abolition of private property should be seen as a benefit to society.

Basically, just try to make sense of it for me. I know the details, the arguments, etc., I've been here long enough to get all that, just tell me why you think it's realistic, or it's desirable.

Quanitify it.

[Comrade Phil]

Communism is extremely idealistic, however that doesn't mean that it is impossible to achieve. The Communist ideology was formulated in response to the inequalities and injustices created by Capitalism. The basic ideals of Communism, society based on equality, solidarity and collectivism, have existed in civilization for thousands of years. So long as there has been a class hierarchy in society, there have been those which sought to equalize.

There are no assumptions involved in observing the suffering which Capitalism creates. There are no assumptions involved in observing that we live in a society in which the ruling class is exploiting the working class. It is unquestionable that Capitalism must be destroyed and must be replaced with an egalitarian society. Communism provides the means to form such a society.

However, when you say assumptions and wishful thinking, do you mean regarding human nature? In a Capitalist society, greed, hatred and corruption are major portions of the human psyche. This is understandable, as Capitalism creates a competitive society. Capitalism plays off of humanity's animalistic instincts. However, in order for a co-operative society such as a Communism to exist and remain uncorrupt, these animalistc instincts must be eliminated from humanity. That is not to say that all animalistic instincts are to be removed, just the ones which prevent the egalitarian society from existing. Communsim would reinforce humanity (compassion, a sense of family, a sense of duty) and would suppress our animal heritage (hatred, greed, power-lust). Communism would destroy the "survival of the fittest" mentality which exists in most human beings. Most capitalists would say that people's mindsets cannot be changed so extensively. However, Communists believe that human nature is malleable and through conditioning of environment and education, our "idealistic" society can become a reality. If human nature is not malleable, then how is it possible that humans have changed from violent, tribal, hunter-gatherers, who were essentially animals, to citizens of complex cultures and collective civilisations? Capitalism was humanity's progression from Feudalism which was an advancement over Tribalism. Socialism will follow Capitalism. Communism will follow Socialism. This "evolution" of the human mind is going to take an extremely long period of time, centuries even millennium perhaps, but we have to start somewhere. I can see where you would you believe that Communism is based on assumptions but anything not factually known is based on educated hypothesis. Like any hypothesis, whether it be in science or economics, you have failures (arguably every "Socialist" state which has ever existed). In order to succeed the hypothesises must be continually revised and corrected but the goal remains the same. In my opinion, it is clear from past Socialist states that vanguard dictatorship will always lead to corruption and power-lust and therefore failure (not to mention the cost of human life). After the revolution, participatory democracy must be maintained in order to purge corruption and maintain many vital human rights (right to own private property not included).

I believe the above answers your class conciousness question. In a Communism, the ideal of classifying human beings will be eliminated from the human mind, with the exception perhaps of occupation classification. Once again, this is going to take a long time of mental enrichment.

Private property is abolished because if it were to remain after the overthrow of capitalism, the proletariat workers who own the means of production and distribution will become the new capitalists, because they would become greedy and power-hungry (negative animalistic instincts would still exist well after the revolution, obviously). In socialism, private property would still exist as consumer products, but not capital. In a communsim, people would no longer need private property of any sort. Virtues like ownership would not exist (similar to past native american belief).

I hope this provided some insight and some answers. Communism is realistic because humans have grown and developed our humanity immensely since our first appearance on earth (although we definitely have not become less violent). Communsim will be the final step in the development of humanity.

[Avtomatov]

Communism and Anarchism are both too idealistic for me. It can only work in small communities where there is still outside competition. Thats why im a socialist, and not one of those pussy social democrats either. Equality of outcome is not important at all too me. I think classes have historically been based on different amounts of opportunity not just wealth. Too me socialism offers equal opportunity, and thats all i want.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 07:13 PM
Communism and Anarchism are both too idealistic for me. It can only work in small communities where there is still outside competition. Thats why im a socialist, and not one of those pussy social democrats either. Equality of outcome is not important at all too me. I think classes have historically been based on different amounts of opportunity not just wealth. Too me socialism offers equal opportunity, and thats all i want.
Do you know what socialism is? It's the democratic control of the means of production by the community for the community.

[Avtomatov]

I know that and i support it because it leads to opportunity egalitarianism.

I dont support equality of outcome, because i think some people deserve higher pay.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

generalissimo seems to support what is known by some as "socialism", but is actually capitalism with bourgeois government resources to alleviate poverty and other natural results of capitalism.

To answer the initial question: we're not idealists, we're materialists =D

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Communism at the moment is hypothetical.

We dont know how it will really work or what it will look like apart from the obvious stateless, classless, moneyless part.

It is for the revolutionary class to do at the time.


What makes you think that there is a 'class conciousness'?

Everyone who is a worker, will usually think they should get more holiday, be paid more, certain laws are unfair etc. They share the same way of thinking, because of their individual position within the economy.

People who are capitalists, will also share a class conciousness. To them, certain laws are good, certain laws are bad, ones that are usually the opposite of the workers. For example, the capitalist class will act against striking workers, they wont just 'let' the strikes happen.
One individual capitalist, wont support strikes of workers that he deosnt employ because the capitalist would share class conciousness, the same goals, as the capitalist that does employ those striking workers, as profit is being lost.


Or that classes behave rationally, for their own interest?


When a boss puts down a strike, that boss is acting rationally. When the workers strike to get more pay, they are acting rationally and in each's own interest.



I ask why the abolition of private property should be seen as a benefit to society.

Well when a system is set up on private property, then the whole state is geared towards the needs and wants of the property owners.

The system that results is very harmful to the workers. Now, the workers could socialise that property and run it democratically. Then the state, would be geared towards the owners of the socialised property. Workers would have political and ECONOMIC democracy.

[Avtomatov]

redzeppelin you are an idiot, socialism is not capitalism. Would you have called the USSR capitalist before it turned capitalist. It wasnt, it was socialist.

I already said i dont support social democracy, and that is what you are implying that i support. I support socialism. I support public ownership of the means of production, I support free and equal education, and I support free and equal healthcare. Those things are all socialist. I dont think you know what socialism is. In socialism you dont make money by owning stuff, you make money by working. Nuclear physicists make more then iron workers in socialism, and in the USSR.

[NoMoreBosses]

Cottage cheese is good on Freedom Pickles

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 12:29 AM
I wouldn't call communism unrealistic. The Amish are communists; their system works fine.
No, they are not.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 07:26 PM
redzeppelin you are an idiot, socialism is not capitalism. Would you have called the USSR capitalist before it turned capitalist. It wasnt, it was socialist.

I already said i dont support social democracy, and that is what you are implying that i support. I support socialism. I support public ownership of the means of production, I support free and equal education, and I support free and equal healthcare. Those things are all socialist. I dont think you know what socialism is. In socialism you dont make money by owning stuff, you make money by working. Nuclear physicists make more then iron workers in socialism, and in the USSR.
Jesus, you like you douche bags try to missinterpret what I post.
I said that what you seemed to advocate was capitalism and not "socialism". Of course I make a distinction between socialism and capitalism.

[NoMoreBosses]

Don't take care of others.

[Avtomatov]

But those communities are voluntary, sadists and criminals do not join them. Only people who want to be good and live in a good society do.

[NoMoreBosses]

RedZeppelin is a turd-muncher.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

another naive anarcho-kiddie

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 12:35 AM

Well, they live in a communal system where they are expected to take care of eachother. Isn't that kinda communist?



Communist =/= A plain egalitarian.

The first REAL Communist/Communist movement I would have to say was Babeuf and the Conspiracy of Equals. Being a Communist or a Communist movement means having the aim to abolish class society through and by class struggle, a proletarian movement.


Egalitarian societies can still be class societies, the Radical Anabaptists during the Religous wars in Europe are an example of this.

[Dean]

Is it fair to say that any system that hasn't yet existed can reasonably exist?

The problem I think is that most people think communism is perfection, which would of course require an exhaustive eugenic program.

Basically, communism is a state of things where the general trend is that people are free to do as they please. I think that, because of people's inherant desire for freedom for themselves and their social nature, communism appears to be a historical necessity. If it doesn't occur, I expect that society will continue to sway from freer to less free and back again.

[Zingu]

The problem I think is that most people think communism is perfection, which would of course require an exhaustive eugenic program.


What do you mean by "Eugenics"?



Basically, communism is a state of things where the general trend is that people are free to do as they please. I think that, because of people's inherant desire for freedom for themselves and their social nature, communism appears to be a historical necessity.

Agreed.



If it doesn't occur, I expect that society will continue to sway from freer to less free and back again.

Can you explain why? I don't follow your reasoning.


(Sorry for the excessive quoting, I just wish to hear your reasoning behind those two comments.)

[Avtomatov]

Theres nothing wrong with eugenics. Sterilization is a small price to pay for insuring that future generations have equal opportunities.

[Zingu]

As a sholw, as a social, philosophical, economic system, is communism realistic, or is it idealistic?


Well Publius, it depends who you are talking to.

The theory behind Communism; Marxism, is based on materialism. The materialist conception of history relies on an analysis of historical progression and change in man's society.

Marx's conclusion is that the Communist movement is grounded in history, the anti-thesis to our current historical epoch; capitalism and the antagonisms between social classes.


Utopian Socialism, and I would argue a good section of Anarchism, is idealistic (as theory).

Regular eclectic socialists, follow out of idealism for the betterment of their class, although idealistic, their struggle is based in material relations.

"Champange Socialists" are just pure idealists.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 01:18 AM
Theres nothing wrong with eugenics. Sterilization is a small price to pay for insuring that future generations have equal opportunities.


Wtf?


I would have to ask you about the reasoning behind that as well. :blink:


Nobody has the right to do something like that to an other person. Not only is it grotesque, its unnessecary, all will have equal oppurtonity to do and excel in what they want to do in a communist society.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 13 2006, 11:10 PM



Communism is extremely idealistic, however that doesn't mean that it is impossible to achieve. The Communist ideology was formulated in response to the inequalities and injustices created by Capitalism.

And religion was formulated in response to the inequalities and injustices of life..

I could carry the comparison further.


The basic ideals of Communism, society based on equality, solidarity and collectivism, have existed in civilization for thousands of years.

But so have their antitheses, and I think it's impossible to create a society that doesn't reflect all human values. I would say the only real question is in what proportion, and what gets rewarded.


So long as there has been a class hierarchy in society, there have been those which sought to equalize.

Fairly or unfairly.



There are no assumptions involved in observing the suffering which Capitalism creates. There are no assumptions involved in observing that we live in a society in which the ruling class is exploiting the working class. It is unquestionable that Capitalism must be destroyed and must be replaced with an egalitarian society. Communism provides the means to form such a society.


Well, I would describe myself as a cultural evolutionist. Better societies, if they are desired, and people know how to make them, will be made.

Why aren't they being made?


However, when you say assumptions and wishful thinking, do you mean regarding human nature? In a Capitalist society, greed, hatred and corruption are major portions of the human psyche. This is understandable, as Capitalism creates a competitive society.

No, people are competitive.

That's obvious.



Capitalism plays off of humanity's animalistic instincts. However, in order for a co-operative society such as a Communism to exist and remain uncorrupt, these animalistc instincts must be eliminated from humanity.

Wishful thinking.

If that were to happen, our current society would be perfect.

All you're saying is "If people were perfect, society would be perfect" which is obvious.




Communsim would reinforce humanity (compassion, a sense of family, a sense of duty)

There is no 'family' under communism and 'duty' makes no sense in a voluntary society.



and would suppress our animal heritage (hatred, greed, power-lust).

Instinctual.

We love our kin-group and we hate outsiders. We hate seeing other people succeed, since we percieve it as being harmful to us, even when it isn't. We lust for power because it's only through power that we can feel secure.



Communism would destroy the "survival of the fittest" mentality which exists in most human beings.

That's nonsense.

Survival of the fittest is the way things work; it's like gravity.



Most capitalists would say that people's mindsets cannot be changed so extensively. However, Communists believe that human nature is malleable and through conditioning of environment and education, our "idealistic" society can become a reality.

And you've been proven wrong by reputable science.

Even Chomsky disagrees with this conception; he destroyed it.


If human nature is not malleable, then how is it possible that humans have changed from violent, tribal, hunter-gatherers, who were essentially animals, to citizens of complex cultures and collective civilisations?

Incentives.

You can't change the instincts, but you can put people in different situations, with incentives, rewards, and punishments.

How would Communism reward or punish behavior, if everyone is equal?


Capitalism was humanity's progression from Feudalism which was an advancement over Tribalism. Socialism will follow Capitalism. Communism will follow Socialism. This "evolution" of the human mind is going to take an extremely long period of time, centuries even millennium perhaps, but we have to start somewhere. I can see where you would you believe that Communism is based on assumptions but anything not factually known is based on educated hypothesis. Like any hypothesis, whether it be in science or economics, you have failures (arguably every "Socialist" state which has ever existed). In order to succeed the hypothesises must be continually revised and corrected but the goal remains the same. In my opinion, it is clear from past Socialist states that vanguard dictatorship will always lead to corruption and power-lust and therefore failure (not to mention the cost of human life). After the revolution, participatory democracy must be maintained in order to purge corruption and maintain many vital human rights (right to own private property not included).

Honestly, I see no reason why a 'Socialist' society has any worse reason succeeding than a Communist one.


I believe the above answers your class conciousness question. In a Communism, the ideal of classifying human beings will be eliminated from the human mind, with the exception perhaps of occupation classification. Once again, this is going to take a long time of mental enrichment.


The human mind is designed to classify things. "Friends", 'enemies', 'unknowns'. That's how socialization works.



Private property is abolished because if it were to remain after the overthrow of capitalism, the proletariat workers who own the means of production and distribution will become the new capitalists, because they would become greedy and power-hungry (negative animalistic instincts would still exist well after the revolution, obviously). In socialism, private property would still exist as consumer products, but not capital. In a communsim, people would no longer need private property of any sort. Virtues like ownership would not exist (similar to past native american belief).

What incentive would workers have to abolish the system, and not simply commandeer it?



I hope this provided some insight and some answers. Communism is realistic because humans have grown and developed our humanity immensely since our first appearance on earth (although we definitely have not become less violent). Communsim will be the final step in the development of humanity.

Why does a system need to change, if people change?

People changing would change the system, on their own.

[Zingu]

When I read Comrade Phil&#39;s post, I was afraid this would happen. <_<

Yet an other Classical Liberal induced sticky mess of quotes, Lol.

[Publius]

Do you know what socialism is? It&#39;s the democratic control of the means of production by the community for the community.

Why can&#39;t the democratic owners then loan the means off, and charge for their use, via taxation?

[Publius]

Everyone who is a worker, will usually think they should get more holiday, be paid more, certain laws are unfair etc. They share the same way of thinking, because of their individual position within the economy.

Because they are selfish.



People who are capitalists, will also share a class conciousness. To them, certain laws are good, certain laws are bad, ones that are usually the opposite of the workers.

Because they are selfish.


For example, the capitalist class will act against striking workers, they wont just &#39;let&#39; the strikes happen.
One individual capitalist, wont support strikes of workers that he deosnt employ because the capitalist would share class conciousness, the same goals, as the capitalist that does employ those striking workers, as profit is being lost.

So what you really mean to say is there exists selfishness.



When a boss puts down a strike, that boss is acting rationally. When the workers strike to get more pay, they are acting rationally and in each&#39;s own interest.


If workers acted rationally, they would all be in Unions and would all strike together to get the absolute highest wages possible.



Well when a system is set up on private property, then the whole state is geared towards the needs and wants of the property owners.

But why is this a bad thing? If it were not for the owners, the property would not exist.



The system that results is very harmful to the workers. Now, the workers could socialise that property and run it democratically. Then the state, would be geared towards the owners of the socialised property. Workers would have political and ECONOMIC democracy.


Can you tell me the differnence between Politics and Economics, in terms of demoracy?

[nickdlc]

Incentives.

You can&#39;t change the instincts, but you can put people in different situations, with incentives, rewards, and punishments.

How would Communism reward or punish behavior, if everyone is equal? Totally wrong, peoples attitudes change as material conditions change and people are forced to adapt to new relations of production. People like you merely look at the surface of society and all you see is different "incentives" when really material conditions have changed. and you are basically agreeing that people are maleable under different social conditions.

If eveyone is equal then there is no reason to punish or reward.

[Zingu]

But why is this a bad thing? If it were not for the owners, the property would not exist.

Do the people who own the factories today build those factories?

But Pubilus does touch a point about historical materialism, capitalism was a progressive force back in the 1800s. Yet he can&#39;t seem to understand the forces of change in history and how property relations have shifted throughout the thousands of years of man&#39;s existance, in Adam Smith&#39;s time, burgeoisie freedoms were the ideals of yet an other step for a freer man, which was true. The reality of today was simply dreams and ideals in the 1700s.

But, is it true anymore? No. History is a process.

[Publius]

Totally wrong, peoples attitudes change as material conditions change and people are forced to adapt to new relations of production.

People&#39;s attitudes change for reasons that have nothing to do with &#39;the means of production&#39;.

Racism, for instance, is not caused by &#39;the means of production&#39;, but by ignorance. Really, being racist is AGAINST your own interest, as a capitalist; it makes you less money, but people still were racist.

Your problem is you take changes and ascribe them to &#39;the means of production&#39;, wrongly.



People like you merely look at the surface of society and all you see is different "incentives" when really material conditions have changed. and you are basically agreeing that people are maleable under different social conditions.

Maleable? To a degree. But you can only get people to do what they will already do, under the right circumstances.

You can&#39;t change their whole make-up.

It&#39;s why all societies will have corruption, and theft, and violence.

[Publius]

Do the people who own the factories today build those factories?

Do the people who build factories have any incentive to build factories, other than being payed for it?



But Pubilus does touch a point about historical materialism, capitalism was a progressive force back in the 1800s. Yet he can&#39;t seem to understand the forces of change in history and how property relations have shifted throughout the thousands of years of man&#39;s existance, in Adam Smith&#39;s time, burgeoisie freedoms were the ideals of yet an other step for a freer man, which was true. The reality of today was simply dreams and ideals in the 1700s.

But, is it true anymore? No. History is a process.

Yes, a cultural evolution.

[Zingu]

Do the people who build factories have any incentive to build factories, other than being payed for it?

So they don&#39;t starve. People will always go after what they need, its only that wages is a means to acquiring what a person needs in today&#39;s society.

Ultimately, its not wages what people are after, but what is aquirable by using money, if it was something else (different economic structure), they would go after that. In communism, it would be a direct relationship with no intermediatary in between.

Hence, "Each according to his needs, each according to his abilities", using productive, social labor would be the only way to aquire anything.


Yes, a cultural evolution.

....which was prompted by the growing power of the burgeoisie, which came into conflict with Feudal society.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Racism, for instance, is not caused by &#39;the means of production&#39;, but by ignorance. Really, being racist is AGAINST your own interest, as a capitalist; it makes you less money, but people still were racist.

Arguably, racism has been linked directly to the means of production.

Workers might &#39;hate&#39; immigrants who take jobs, which they feel are theirs. Its what fascist scum attempt tell workers anyway.





If workers acted rationally, they would all be in Unions and would all strike together to get the absolute highest wages possible

They do act rationally. Its just that they are not always confident of the results.

For example, striking can and does result in unemployment.

Class consiousness can be dependant on how confident that class is.

If workers knew they could boss around bosses and not get fired, then they would soon dismiss the boss.



But why is this a bad thing? If it were not for the owners, the property would not exist.

It wasnt a bad thing at first, as it allows development. But, as some people get harmed by the state, it is right for them to seek to change it.



Can you tell me the differnence between Politics and Economics, in terms of demoracy?

Well, if workers can use their labour power in an organised way which they have planned, or a body they have elected in has planned, then the workers have control over the economy.

Their labour dictates what production there will be. Some products they dont want to produce, wont be produced.

There are many different ways the left tries to think of for workers to control the economy. The Soviet Union, although the legitimacy of the CPSU was questionable, if you take the fact that they were an extension of the working class, then the Soviet planned ecenomy was democratically run. I however, dont agree that the CPSU was part of the Working class.

Political democracy could be of a similar system to modern capitalist countries. For example, there could be a three teir system. 1. Workers council of a certain workplace, elected by workers. 2. Local area councils elected by local residents. 3. central council/parliament elected in a general election.

Political democracy is about representatives and policy whereas economic democracy is about planning of the economy to suit the workers.



Because they are selfish.

Because its to their material advantage.

[Publius]

So they don&#39;t starve. People will always go after what they need, its only that wages is a means to acquiring what a person needs in today&#39;s society.

"I&#39;m feeling pretty hungry, let&#39;s build a factory."?



Ultimately, its not wages what people are after, but what is aquirable by using money, if it was something else (different economic structure), they would go after that. In communism, it would be a direct relationship with no intermediatary in between.

Hence, "Each according to his needs, each according to his abilities", using productive, social labor would be the only way to aquire anything.


But building a factory takes months, years.

How can you plan ahead, and know what the economy will be like then, to know if the factory is necessary?

Building a factory is a HUUUUGE undertaking. Why would anyone embark on it if they get payed the exact same thing for *not building it*?

[Publius]

Arguably, racism has been linked directly to the means of production.

No, I don&#39;t think that&#39;s accurate.



Workers might &#39;hate&#39; immigrants who take jobs, which they feel are theirs. Its what fascist scum attempt tell workers anyway.

Anyone can take your job, not just &#39;immigrants&#39;. Logically then, you should hate everyone.


They do act rationally. Its just that they are not always confident of the results.

For example, striking can and does result in unemployment.


Not if all workers did it.


Well, if workers can use their labour power in an organised way which they have planned, or a body they have elected in has planned, then the workers have control over the economy.

Their labour dictates what production there will be. Some products they dont want to produce, wont be produced.

There are many different ways the left tries to think of for workers to control the economy. The Soviet Union, although the legitimacy of the CPSU was questionable, if you take the fact that they were an extension of the working class, then the Soviet planned ecenomy was democratically run. I however, dont agree that the CPSU was part of the Working class.

Political democracy could be of a similar system to modern capitalist countries. For example, there could be a three teir system. 1. Workers council of a certain workplace, elected by workers. 2. Local area councils elected by local residents. 3. central council/parliament elected in a general election.

Political democracy is about representatives and policy whereas economic democracy is about planning of the economy to suit the workers.

I was more strictly referring to the difference between politics and economics, that in businesses, new things can be created, whereas under politics, things can really only be re-arranged.

This, I think, is the key difference, and is the reason why an economy cannot be satisfactorily run democratically; you have no idea how things will work in the future, economically.

This makes planning difficult; without an incentive, and much more importantly, a discentive, to invest, an economy cannot function.

[nickdlc]

People&#39;s attitudes change for reasons that have nothing to do with &#39;the means of production&#39;. Notice how i never said means of production? Relations of production is different than means of production because means of production is the physical aspect of wealth i.e. machines, factory&#39;s, raw materials ect where relations of production is how society organizes itself which is heavily dependant on the state of technology at a given time.


Racism, for instance, is not caused by &#39;the means of production&#39;, but by ignorance. Really, being racist is AGAINST your own interest, as a capitalist; it makes you less money, but people still were racist.

Ever heard of iraq or afghanistan, or muslims? I mean in order to plunder iraq of it&#39;s oil we are deffinately getting the message that all muslims are terrorists. Not to mention that we have to bring democracy to them because they can&#39;t do it themsleves. This is deffinately racist and the capitalists are deffinately making lots of money which is of course in their interests&#33;

[Zingu]

"I&#39;m feeling pretty hungry, let&#39;s build a factory."?

Oh come on, you&#39;re smarter than this Publius

You&#39;re misinterpreting me, I was responding to your post why people have a "money incentive".

It really doesn&#39;t matter what the job actually is to a proletarian, as long as they manage to obtain a livable amount of money, so they sell their labor out to survive. They have no direct connection with the output of their labor, they&#39;re alienated from it.

I&#39;m assuming we were talking about capitalism here.


I&#39;m assuming you are talking about Communism for the next part.



But building a factory takes months, years.

How can you plan ahead, and know what the economy will be like then, to know if the factory is necessary?

Communism would already exist in an advanced industrial society, capitalism which preceeded it has developed the productive forces (automation, faster production ect.) to substain communism, and if Marx was right, capitalism is also "creating its own grave" with this progress.

EDIT
Besides, due to capitalism&#39;s developments, factories can relatively easily be converted to produce different products, in post industrial countries, it might be rather unrealistic to "build a whole new factory" to build one new product if you can just convert a factory to an other mode of production. Yet an other example of one of capitalism&#39;s developments making it possible to substain a communist society.



Building a factory is a HUUUUGE undertaking. Why would anyone embark on it if they get payed the exact same thing for *not building it*?

Again, technology and productive power in a Communist society would be in a much more advanced state than our current state (see above). Its close to absurdity for me to act like I have a crystal orb and just "predict" what it would look like.

No-one would be "paid" "the exact same thing" for building it.

Besides, even if its a social nessecity, why would people not build it? They enjoy the fruits of their labors. If people want to enhance their productive powers so they can create more with and empower their own labor, they&#39;ll do it. More than 90% of humanity already lives in a posistion where the only thing they really have is their own labor power.

[Avtomatov]

Originally posted by Zingu+Jul 14 2006, 01:25 AM--> (Zingu &#064; Jul 14 2006, 01:25 AM)
[email protected] 14 2006, 01:18 AM
Theres nothing wrong with eugenics. Sterilization is a small price to pay for insuring that future generations have equal opportunities.


Wtf?


I would have to ask you about the reasoning behind that as well. :blink:


Nobody has the right to do something like that to an other person. Not only is it grotesque, its unnessecary, all will have equal oppurtonity to do and excel in what they want to do in a communist society. [/b]
You think everyone is born equal. Thats not true, some people are born retarded. Why dont retards adopt smarter children? There is an obsession with immortality that people have, retards will have children because they want to live forever. Their children will be at a horrible disadvantage but they dont care, sure they would like it if their children were as smart as possible, but they have priorities the biggest one is immortality at the childs expense. If they wanted the best for society and their children because they love them then they would adopt smarter child. But like i said immortality is more important to them then society. So in my opinion it is just selfish to not support eugenics.

And I dont know why you think its grotesque, it is only a minor surgery.

And you are talking about "rights" like you are christian, "rights" are make beleive we use the word like it is the word of god and irrefutable. Do we have the right to own the means of production and exploit workers to the point where they are living on a few dollars a day, or less? YES WE DO. So ask yourself does it really matter wether we have the so called "right" to do something or not?

[Zingu]

You think everyone is born equal. Thats not true, some people are born retarded.

Saying that being "equal" means "being the same" is an intellectual corruption. I want everyone to have equal oppurtonity and chance to excel in anything they want, all because someone is "retarded" doesn&#39;t mean they they do not have aspirations, gifts or something they can do.



There is an obsession with immortality that people have, retards will have children because they want to live forever. Their children will be at a horrible disadvantage but they dont care, sure they would like it if their children were as smart as possible, but they have priorities the biggest one is immortality at the childs expense.

So, to make it fair for the non-existant child, he shouldn&#39;t ever be born? Because its the child&#39;s "expense" to be able to live?


If they wanted the best for society and their children because they love them then they would adopt smarter child.

Unlike you, I believe that every person is entitled to a pursuit of happiness, how can something like that be "for the best of society" when the purpose of communism is when people can be free to do what they want?


And you are talking about rights like you are christian, talking about rights is a technique rhetoricians use


I&#39;m talking about the rights of a living, conscience, human being, not a embroyo. Theres nothing religious about that.





And I dont know why you think its grotesque, it is only a minor surgery.

Sexuality is a very important thing for a human individual, to take that away from someone is a horrible act.

Sorry, but your pseudo-genetics won&#39;t stop retarded people from coming into existance, they have the right to enjoy life as much as anyone else, despite their limited abilities.

[Avtomatov]

Sterlization does not take away your sexuality you dumb fuck. People get vuluntarily sterilized all the time. All it does stop reproductive capabilities. In fact it doesnt even stop them from having a child, it just makes it alot harder. As there is a thread going on that is talking about using stem cells to make sperm. Therefore sterilization is not too different from just fining people for having retarded children and children with other disabilities.

And you think retards will have equal opportunity. I ask you when? A thousand years from now when people pay you regardless of if you worked for it or not. What about fucking now? The world isnt communist dumbfuck. Retards will not have equal opportunity. You have to be realistic and not say oh well when we completely change the very fabric of logic and somehow convince the world that we dont need incentives, then retards will not have to be sterilized. Think about it, which one is more realistic my solution or yours?

[Zingu]

Sterlization does not take away your sexuality you dumb fuck. People get vuluntarily sterilized all the time. All it does stop reproductive capabilities. In fact it doesnt even stop them from having a child, it just makes it alot harder. As there is a thread going on that is talking about using stem cells to make sperm. Therefore sterilization is not too different from just fining people for having retarded children and children with other disabilities.


So what are you trying to say? Stop retards from having kids, or just "making it harder" for them to have kids?


You&#39;re still forcing something on someone, which I don&#39;t agree with at all.

Sexuality means more than just having sex and pleasure you know, most males (I&#39;m a male myself) don&#39;t realize for a woman, sexuality is a much more extensive thing. Sure, for me or you, its just a orgasm, but for a woman, its 6 months of the process and development of creation of life. (And yes, I&#39;m a feminist.)

Its a natural desire to have children for a majority of people, and its a sexual emotion.


And you think retards will have equal opportunity. I ask you when? A thousand years from now when people pay you regardless of if you worked for it or not. What about fucking now? The world isnt communist dumbfuck.

What do you mean by this? Are you even a Communist? Because it doesn&#39;t sound like it.

You sound exactly like one of those "Damn lazy people taking my taxpaying dollars for welfare&#33;".


You have to be realistic and not say oh well when we completely change the very fabric of logic and somehow convince the world that we dont need incentives, then retards will not have to be sterilized.

You sound like a capitalist.

A capitalist only looks at workers as figures on the labor market, hire and fire them at will, not even acknowledging them to be human beings, its only if they are "useful" or not. its all about being an animal isn&#39;t it?

You&#39;re no better.

[red team]

Intelligence was discovered to be half and half. That is half of it is environmentally influenced. That is if you&#39;re born with a "superior" brain, but you don&#39;t exercise it regularly with stimulating challenges you&#39;ll be no better than half your full potential or no better than a person of average intelligence. That basically exploded the myth of hereditary intelligence.

[Avtomatov]

Oh so i sound like a capitalist so therefore im wrong? thats a strawman you know. Im a socialist.

Woman can still give birth to children even though they are sterilized. They just need an egg and sperm implanted in them. The state could pay for it.

Sterlization is good for society and the only thing it changes is that a few women and men cannot perpetuate their defective genes. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. You are deluded by american bourgeois propaganda.

Dont you see the thing you are supporting is harmful. You are supporting the "right" of people with defective genes to perpetuate their harmful effects. What kind a of a right is that?

This obsession with immortality is SUPERFICIAL. Nothing more. You are supporting bourgeois vanity over the health of the worlds offspring.

[Zingu]

Woman can still give birth to children even though they are sterilized. They just need an egg and sperm implanted in them. The state could pay for it.

I&#39;m talking about your idea of denying retarded people to be denied their ability towards creation, not sterile "normal" (whatever that means) women.


Sterlization is good for society and the only thing it changes is that a few women and men cannot perpetuate their defective genes.

Again, how is it "good for society", if people individually cannot enjoy theirselves? If you suppress people "for the good of society", how is that making society better?

By the way, the Nazis also followed your pseudo-genetic engineering justification, expect in a much worse way, they systematically massacured anyone with a mental disorder, physical deformation or if they were a cripple. :angry:

And guess what? The genetic arguement for cleansing the human gene pool is incorrect, I remember going this over in Biology class at school.



Oh so i sound like a capitalist so therefore im wrong? thats a strawman you know. Im a socialist.

I&#39;m making an analogy.

You&#39;re viewing human beings as "things", if they don&#39;t serve a "purpose" or "are useful", in your eyes, since they don&#39;t meet obligations, they likewise shouldn&#39;t deserve freedoms.

Its very much like how a capitalist or one of those right wing ideolouges values workers not as human beings, but their usefulness and ability to work, slash employment if it isn&#39;t productive, if they can&#39;t find a job, they&#39;re lazy and don&#39;t deserve support.


As a socialist, I value other people as human beings, as people with emotions, desires, and aspirations. Sure, I&#39;m a materialist and I adhere to Marxist theory, but really underneath it all, I&#39;m a socialist because of a certain genetic trait called love. I have compassion for people and rejoice in the massive, ming-boggling social organism called "humanity", in which like leaves, everyone is different, like a leaves on a tree, theres billions of them, and thats exactly why I believe in Socialism, because I believe in humanity. I want to live and rejoice in a society where everyone can "all they can be" with nothing holding them down, neither with economic or social chains.

Without such a feeling, life, and the theory that illuminates human practice, would be a dead, grey, flat existance.


You are supporting bourgeois vanity over the health of the worlds offspring.

I suppose love is a "burgeois concept" now?

[power... UNLIMITED POWER&#33;]

I suppose love is a burgeois concept now?
Yes&#33; Love is bourgeoise&#33; Marx wanted to rip the family apart. What sort of love is that? Stalin: One death is a tradgedy, a million a statistic. See love comes from capitalsim. You want to put love in charge of the state. A beurocrat cant love you for god sakes.

Now, Generalissimo is thinking eugenics from a statist perspective, which violates capitailst individuality. I mean do you want to be sterilised by force?

But capitlaism looks after eugenics too Generalissimo&#33; Except it is purely voluntary and relies upon individual interations.

From the capitslit perspective, the disabled person gets simply ignored and no one marries them. No state resrouces are requried to maintain them. Their family can do that if they love them enough. Their defective genes are thus destroyed in one generation if no one wants them. No need for sterilisation is necessary under capitaism, hence why its so superior to other system - the states resources are spared. Everything good happens by itself, no government is required.

[Janus]

You are supporting the "right" of people with defective genes to perpetuate their harmful effects. What kind a of a right is that?
Who would enforce this sterilization? You want a state to be able to intervene that much in people&#39;s lives by forcing sterilizations?

[red team]

Love is bourgeoise&#33;

The Menendez brothers sure love their parents.

Parents sure love their kids, until they can boot them out of the house that is.


Marx wanted to rip the family apart.

Great&#33; No more petty family feuds and Romeo and Juliets and domestic violence and child abuse and hereditary dynasties and nepotism in hiring and hereditary elitism and...


A beurocrat cant love you for god sakes.

No, but public services can be funded for young people that don&#39;t like their own family.


capitailst individuality

Capitalist individuality is a self-serving myth created by the Capitalist ego in their own self-importance when nothing of the sort actually exists in reality. There&#39;s no such thing as the self-made man since for every personal success story comes the unrecognized, unappreciated and unrewarded team members that helped the "star" along in his/her ride to personal riches which of course is attributed to only to the "star&#39;s" unique and individual excellence.

[encephalon]

All conceptions of the future are idealistic, even the current ones that incorporate capitalism. The goal of any person wishing to further such a world is to reach as close as humanly possible to the ideal, much like a person would set goals for himself or herself. People are not perfect, and society in turn will never be perfect. We will always have squabbles. Our goal is not perfection; it is merely something better, more sustainable and less alienating. Our goals should always be for the better, not the same old shit.

The fact that people have lived in mostly egalitarian societies means that people can. When the self is taken care if, there is no reason for selfishness.

As for class consciousness: the capitalist class is extremely class conscious; probably because they are on top and because of their small numbers. The working class, however, numbers in the billions. It will take a lot longer for the same solidarity to develop. Mainly, this depends upon the means of communication and thus the level of shared experience--triumph and travesty--that the working class can realize together.

To say that you don&#39;t think that the working class can possibly manifest a class consciousness is one thing; to say class consciousness doesn&#39;t develop within any class at all is an entirely different matter. Historically, the ruling class has always had a class consciousness, while the subordinate class(es) have taken long periods of time to do so. The french and american revolutions didn&#39;t appear out of nowhere; they wholly depended upon the bourgeoisie to consolidate as a single class in order to break the chains of feudalism.

[Black Dagger]

Generalissimo, can you please tone it down a bit?

"Sterlization does not take away your sexuality you dumb fuck....What about fucking now? The world isnt communist dumbfuck."

^ This is quite abusive, and really unnecessary given the context of the debate, there was absolutely no provocation at all, you toned it down in your latest post so thank you, please try and keep the discussion as civil as possible.

Thank you.

-BD

[Avtomatov]

Yes i will, im just a little frustrated with american preconceptions. Why dont people listen to buddha, get rid of your aversions and attractions so you can judge the morality of something at face value. Thats one of the things buddhists try to do.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Zingu+Jul 14 2006, 01:25 AM--> (Zingu @ Jul 14 2006, 01:25 AM)
[email protected] 14 2006, 01:18 AM
Theres nothing wrong with eugenics. Sterilization is a small price to pay for insuring that future generations have equal opportunities.


Wtf?


I would have to ask you about the reasoning behind that as well. :blink:


Nobody has the right to do something like that to an other person. Not only is it grotesque, its unnessecary, all will have equal oppurtonity to do and excel in what they want to do in a communist society. [/b]
That wasn&#39;t me, and he;s rght abot what it is, though mypoint in referring to eugenics was to show that it is wrong to expect perfection unless yo want to do something horrific.

anyways, my reason for thinking society will sway from freer to less free and back is because that&#39;s what it is doing today, and has been for a long time.communism and freedom are necessary for each other; if one doesnt exist, society will not stay static in regards to freedom.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 02:58 PM
Yes i will, im just a little frustrated with american preconceptions. Why dont people listen to buddha, get rid of your aversions and attractions so you can judge the morality of something at face value. Thats one of the things buddhists try to do.
Buddhism has been perverted by the continuing acceptance of a buddhist master.

[Publius]

Yes i will, im just a little frustrated with american preconceptions. Why dont people listen to buddha, get rid of your aversions and attractions so you can judge the morality of something at face value. Thats one of the things buddhists try to do.

You want an award or something?

[Black Dagger]

Generalissimo,

Do you support forced sterilisation?

[Comrade-Z]

Because they are selfish

Selfishness is the foundation of communism. The proletariat will overthrow the capitalist class and together assume the role as the ruling class out of self-interest. However, this entails several other things. In order to accomplish this overthrow, the entire proletariat (or nearly so) needs to be involved. Thus, every single proletarian must be ensured a position in the future ruling class in order for there to be incentive for every proletarian to revolt. After all, why revolt if you aren&#39;t going to receive a cut of the "winnings"? So, this means that the only possible way that the means of production and society in general can be run after a revolution is democratically among the entire (revolutionary) proletariat. Furthermore, to ensure that society stays this way, exchange-value relations and the accumulation of private property must be done away with. Otherwise, inequality of wealth and, hence, power will result. That is, appropriation must proceed from some sort of democratic basis, whether it is consumer councils (a la ParEcon) or individual appropriation according to desire (perceived need). However, for this system of appropriation to function effectively, the means of production need to be developed to an extent that can provide for everyone relatively well. Hence, superabundance and a certain degree of development of the means of production are material pre-requisites for communism. Capitalism, among other things, establishes these material pre-requisites.

One possible reason that most people don&#39;t perceive communism to be possible right now is that maybe it isn&#39;t possible indeed (right now)&#33; Perhaps people don&#39;t think we have reached an appropriate level of superabundance yet so that appropriation by desire sounds feasible.

Another possible reason might be that revolution is risky business, and there&#39;s always the possibility that things will turn out worse, that people won&#39;t know what they are doing and screw things up even worse, that life and material will be wasted in accomplishing nothing. Thus, if the current system is steadily improving living standards, why risk a revolution that promises even greater living standards but also promises to be initially difficult and its outcome shrouded more or less in doubt? People would obviously be more willing to opt for the revolutionary option if it is seen as the only alternative to intolerably declining standards of living. And Marxist economics (if they are correct) forecast a decline in living standards within the capitalist framework as the organic composition of capital declines and the rate of profit falls.

Another reason might be that people are not perfectly rational at this point, as you alluded to, Publius. They also might not be far-sighted enough. Hence, communists encourage rationality and struggle against things such as religion which obscure the true nature of things. But aren&#39;t people gradually becoming more rational, more far-sighted, and less religious in the advanced capitalist countries?


If workers acted rationally, they would all be in Unions and would all strike together to get the absolute highest wages possible.

If they had that much power and organization, why strike for wages at all? Why not demand every single dime from the capitalist class, and every single ounce of future social and economic power as well? Wouldn&#39;t that be the ultimate act of selfishness?

But yes, you are correct, assuming that all the workers participating in this strike could be guaranteed to receive a payoff from this daring venture (after all, they would face some state-violence for going on this huge massive strike). Could society afford to enrich every single worker in a worthwhile fashion (considering the risk of life and limb) without destroying the rate of profit among the capitalist class? No. The parasitical class would have to be removed, and the working class, as a whole (because each worker must be promised a cut of the winnings in order to be willing to participate), must take over society. For that, a conception of democratic management among the entire working class must exist beforehand (a communist consciousness). And for this new order to be ensured of persisting, with each worker having a stake in the management of society, private property and the accumulation of inequality of wealth would have to be abolished. Appropriation would have to proceed according to desire, and thus, superabundance would be necessary before the working class would undertake any sort of general strike of the type that you describe.

It would appear that communism may not be realistic now because the means of production has not been developed sufficiently. Or maybe most people aren&#39;t accurately perceiving the current capabilities that the current means of production has for providing for everyone. It seems to me that right now superabundance (appropriation of society&#39;s products based on desire) is feasible, but evidently you and most other people do not.

I gotta say, though, Publius, you do approach these questions with a scientific mindset. Way to go for shooting down those idealist communists&#33; :lol:

Edit:

And what is an appropriate level of superabundance? The question is somewhat subjective. What kind of standard of living would you be willing to constrain yourself to in order to help perpetuate the really awesome and libertarian social system that is stateless communism? For me, I&#39;d be willing to constrain myself to the modern equivalent (I say modern equivalent because we won&#39;t be dealing in money or exchange-value) of &#036;20,000 per year in order to be afforded the priviledge of living in a rational, relatively crime-free, sexually-liberated, non-racist, non-militarist, non-compulsory-schooling, gleeful, profoundly democratic, and self-directed society. That is, I&#39;d restrain my free appropriation out of far-sighted self-interest. So, assuming everyone else will think somewhat like me on this question, the question becomes, can a certain society self-sufficiently sustain a &#036;20,000 per year standard of living for every single person. I think a communist Western Europe could self-sufficiently do this. Maybe even a communist U.S/Canada bloc. If you simply look at the per-capita GDP figures for these countries, they are way above &#036;20,000.

[Publius]

Selfishness is the foundation of communism. The proletariat will overthrow the capitalist class and together assume the role as the ruling class out of self-interest.

See, this is interesting.

First I get communists saying selfishness will be done away with by communism, and now this.

I perfectly understand what both of you mean, but you see my problem. How can I know which it really is?

And morally, ethically (whatever those terms may mean), why is this form of selfishness &#39;OK&#39;?



However, this entails several other things. In order to accomplish this overthrow, the entire proletariat (or nearly so) needs to be involved. Thus, every single proletarian must be ensured a position in the future ruling class in order for there to be incentive for every proletarian to revolt. After all, why revolt if you aren&#39;t going to receive a cut of the "winnings"?

Good point.

But I question whether a revolution can ever really stay &#39;proletarian&#39;. I think that there will always be a group that takes power because it will be given power. Somebody has to take the initiative and set things up. It cannot be done autonomously (hard to articulate, but bear with me) because they&#39;ll be no system in which that democracy can function.

The system has to first exist; who&#39;s going to create it?



So, this means that the only possible way that the means of production and society in general can be run after a revolution is democratically among the entire (revolutionary) proletariat.

Or that the proletariat gives away their responsibility because they don&#39;t want to deal with the immense problems of running an entire society, in addition to running their (now more complex) lives.

It makes sense that some people are &#39;better&#39; at running things, (unless you take the obstinate position that consequentialism is not the key here, but &#39;rights&#39; or some such nonsense). Consequentially, there&#39;s no doubt in my mind that there exists a form of heirarchical control better than democratic control (just as I&#39;m certain there exists an economic system better than capitalism), for the simple fact that some people are just smarter than others.

Democracy then, when viewed that way, is actually a limitation upon society&#39;s perfection; perhaps a great one.

Unless of course you grant democracy itself some sort of esteem, which I consider to be as foolish as granting any existing social order esteem as anything other than a means to an end.


Furthermore, to ensure that society stays this way, exchange-value relations and the accumulation of private property must be done away with.

They can&#39;t be.

Value is a human-created concept, created for a reason; to insure fairness in trade.

People estimate value, often very crudely, to make sure they are getting a &#39;fair deal&#39;.

&#39;People value things&#39; is an obvious statement. If &#39;people value things&#39;, how can you create an economy where they don&#39;t, or at least, they don&#39;t let their values get in the way of the economy?


Otherwise, inequality of wealth and, hence, power will result. That is, appropriation must proceed from some sort of democratic basis, whether it is consumer councils (a la ParEcon) or individual appropriation according to desire (perceived need).

ParEcon is more complex, and for that reason harder to tackle, but if you want to get into specifics, I can bring up problems I see.

&#39;Perceived need&#39; is, I think, even more problematic. Neither &#39;ability&#39; or &#39;need&#39; can be reasonably quantified.



However, for this system of appropriation to function effectively, the means of production need to be developed to an extent that can provide for everyone relatively well. Hence, superabundance and a certain degree of development of the means of production are material pre-requisites for communism. Capitalism, among other things, establishes these material pre-requisites.

So then communism isn&#39;t a movement, political or economic, but a shift in wealth (once it has been created), from &#39;the rich&#39; to &#39;everyone&#39;.

Sort of a more vulgar summary, no?

Capitalism then does all the heavy lifting, as it were.


One possible reason that most people don&#39;t perceive communism to be possible right now is that maybe it isn&#39;t possible indeed (right now)&#33; Perhaps people don&#39;t think we have reached an appropriate level of superabundance yet so that appropriation by desire sounds feasible.

Another possible reason might be that revolution is risky business, and there&#39;s always the possibility that things will turn out worse, that people won&#39;t know what they are doing and screw things up even worse, that life and material will be wasted in accomplishing nothing. Thus, if the current system is steadily improving living standards, why risk a revolution that promises even greater living standards but also promises to be initially difficult and its outcome shrouded more or less in doubt? People would obviously be more willing to opt for the revolutionary option if it is seen as the only alternative to intolerably declining standards of living. And Marxist economics (if they are correct) forecast a decline in living standards within the capitalist framework as the organic composition of capital declines and the rate of profit falls.[/quote]

The latter is the more convincing argument, for me.

And I don&#39;t grant Marxist economics much credence, though I must admit I&#39;m ignorant on the issue.



Another reason might be that people are not perfectly rational at this point, as you alluded to, Publius. They also might not be far-sighted enough. Hence, communists encourage rationality and struggle against things such as religion which obscure the true nature of things. But aren&#39;t people gradually becoming more rational, more far-sighted, and less religious in the advanced capitalist countries?

Not in America.

I think there is a high-level limit to rationality, in most people, far below &#39;perfectly rational&#39;.

I mean, Kahneman et al have shown people do not behave rationally in economic considerations. I don&#39;t see how this can be changed.

Behavioral Finance is something I&#39;m interested in, but also somewhat ignorant about; incidently, I intend to study either psychology or economics, ideally a combination of them.



If they had that much power and organization, why strike for wages at all? Why not demand every single dime from the capitalist class, and every single ounce of future social and economic power as well? Wouldn&#39;t that be the ultimate act of selfishness?


Yes it would.

Nothing can exist without labor, right? All value comes from labor, right? Monopolize that commodity and simply comandeer the means of production.

Which is more vital, labor or means? We all know what &#39;all value&#39; comes from, don&#39;t we?

(I don&#39;t agree with the LTV, I&#39;m just positing)


But yes, you are correct, assuming that all the workers participating in this strike could be guaranteed to receive a payoff from this daring venture (after all, they would face some state-violence for going on this huge massive strike).

Unless State officials went on strike as well.


Could society afford to enrich every single worker in a worthwhile fashion (considering the risk of life and limb) without destroying the rate of profit among the capitalist class? No. The parasitical class would have to be removed, and the working class, as a whole (because each worker must be promised a cut of the winnings in order to be willing to participate), must take over society. For that, a conception of democratic management among the entire working class must exist beforehand (a communist consciousness). And for this new order to be ensured of persisting, with each worker having a stake in the management of society, private property and the accumulation of inequality of wealth would have to be abolished. Appropriation would have to proceed according to desire, and thus, superabundance would be necessary before the working class would undertake any sort of general strike of the type that you describe.

So again, society has to already being nearing perfettion (superabundance) for anything of worthwhile to happen.

I don&#39;t see how this is a worthwhile theory, then.

"Assuming capitalism, at some point produces so much that everyone in the world can be wealthy, we redistribute it" is not a particularly compelling argument, to me.

I think that&#39;s what would happen, assuming &#39;superabundance&#39;, but I don&#39;t see why that deserves it&#39;s own name and theory. It&#39;s obvious that when production reaches a level of saturation, more production, in the capitalist manner, makes no sense.

But again, what is that really saying? "When things are perfect, things will be perfect", roughly.



I gotta say, though, Publius, you do approach these questions with a scientific mindset. Way to go for shooting down those idealist communists&#33; :lol:


I do what I can.


And what is an appropriate level of superabundance? The question is somewhat subjective. What kind of standard of living would you be willing to constrain yourself to in order to help perpetuate the really awesome and libertarian social system that is stateless communism? For me, I&#39;d be willing to constrain myself to the modern equivalent (I say modern equivalent because we won&#39;t be dealing in money or exchange-value) of &#036;20,000 per year in order to be afforded the priviledge of living in a rational, relatively crime-free, sexually-liberated, non-racist, non-militarist, non-compulsory-schooling, gleeful, profoundly democratic, and self-directed society.

I believe that right now, if you divided up all the wealth on earth, everyone would have less than &#036;10,000.

I believe I heard that somewhere.

But see, I don&#39;t know what that means, or how much of the total &#39;wealth&#39; on earth is infrastructure, or &#39;fake&#39; wealth.


I don&#39;t think it would be a pleasing society, to we rich Western folk.

I don&#39;t think you&#39;re ever going to get people to voluntarily make themselves poorer.



That is, I&#39;d restrain my free appropriation out of far-sighted self-interest. So, assuming everyone else will think somewhat like me on this question, the question becomes, can a certain society self-sufficiently sustain a &#036;20,000 per year standard of living for every single person. I think a communist Western Europe could self-sufficiently do this. Maybe even a communist U.S/Canada bloc. If you simply look at the per-capita GDP figures for these countries, they are way above &#036;20,000.


Yes, but how much of this wealth wouldn&#39;t exist under communism? A lot of it, I would guess. A lot of &#39;paper wealth&#39; and things communist society might not produce. Military spending, for instance.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 09:58 AM
Yes i will, im just a little frustrated with american preconceptions. Why dont people listen to buddha, get rid of your aversions and attractions so you can judge the morality of something at face value. Thats one of the things buddhists try to do.
Wow. Every post you make is just worse and worse than the last. Get out and stop making us look bad.