Something I've Never Understood About Communism [Archive]

LSD

27th July 2006, 05:38

will you be allowed to keep what you produce, and do what you want with it, including sell it?

Not personally, no.

But if you aren't allowed to keep the products of your goods, they are being taken from just as assuredly as they are in capitalist society, correct?

They key difference is that under communism those goods will be used for the benefit of the entire society, whereas under capitalism they are "sold" for the private benefit of some capitalist.

Communism is not autarky, it's not individuals producing for themselves and themselves alone. Everything that is produced is produced for everyone, the fact that a worker happened to be involved in the production of an item does not grant him special "ownership" over that item, after all the resources that went into creating it were societal.

Our problem with labour under capitalism is that workers are not rewarded for their efforts. We don't want every pin maker to "keep" all the pins he makes, we just want his societal recompense to be equal to that which he contributed.

Under communism everyone shares equally in everything and so everyone is more than fairly rewarded for their labour.

Dean

27th July 2006, 05:38

A communist society recognizes that the land cannot be owned, and that the goods of the land are a right of the collective people.

Communist society is governed by this idea, and as such money and gold become ludicrous as commodities, so sale is unrealistic. Most people would gladly work with others to further the end of the collective well-being, and those who are not interested in this are either cared for as in cases of psychological dependance on others, or accepted as outcasts of the economic system who may benefit from it if it becomes a dire necessity but are not expected to give up their own creation for the common good.

Publius

27th July 2006, 05:48

Property is an idea, not a thing.

But property is 'things'.

Communism is a world where nobody uses the idea of property anymore.

Hahahaha.

I guess that just makes it 'go away'?

"Communism is a world where nobody uses the idea of starvation, therefore people won't starve."

Whether or not you acknowledge it, people still put their physical labor into the production of commodities. Don't call it property if you don't want to, but realize it's the same thing.

Nobody "keeps" anything except in the sense of keeping grain dry, keeping ice cold, etc. Who wants to make a hoard of things that other people need and use?

We aren't talking about 'hoarding'.

We're talking about keeping what you produce; keeping the product of your labor.

Take out the word 'property', if you'd like. Are not people entitled to keep what they produce? That seems to me the most basic form of freedom.

Who would want to use violence to prevent others from using some things? Doesn't make sense. Other people would start doing that to you. Who would want to live in a world like that?

I'm not talking about any of that; you're projecting?

Is it because you aren't comfortable with the fact that communism really has nothing to do with personal freedom, under any guise?

Capitalist Lawyer

27th July 2006, 05:54

I have a few questions myself on the matter:

--What's the incentive for a kiwi fruit farmer in New Zealand to ship grade A kiwi fruit from his farm to my local grocery store?

Also, you guys seem to throw the word, "slavery" rather liberally around here. Not all societies or organization which have rules or laws, which exercises consequences for those who disobey them, are not by definition "a form of slavery".

Every society, except those where anarchy exists, have rules of conduct, and law, and consequences for not following them.

Slavery is involuntary indentured service without compensation.

Comparing VOLUNTARY employment and military service (Redstar2000 has) to slavery is total nonsense.

I would suppose that even the New Zealand military prosecutes its soldiers who disobeys orders of its military's officers or civilian leaders. Gonna call the New Zealand military a "form of slavery" as well?

Another question: How come you guys are quick to label conservatives and capitalist supporters domineering and reactionary when the question really is: Why is the left so domineering and reactionary?

Publius

27th July 2006, 05:55

Not personally, no.

Than there is no freedom.

They key difference is that under communism those goods will be used for the benefit of the entire society, whereas under capitalism they are "sold" for the private benefit of some capitalist.

But the key similarity is that either way the products of your labor are taken from you, through various means.

"It's not theft if we do it"? "It's not theft if it's for a good cause."?

Communism is not autarky, it's not individuals producing for themselves and themselves alone. Everything that is produced is produced for everyone, the fact that a worker happened to be involved in the production of an item does not grant him special "ownership" over that item, after all the resources that went into creating it were societal.

No, all value is derived from labor; correct?

Products are clearly worth more than their resources; if they weren't, none would take the time to convert them.

A car is worth more than a hunk of steel. Isn't this because of labor?

Our problem with labour under capitalism is that workers are not rewarded for their efforts. We don't want every pin maker to "keep" all the pins he makes, we just want his societal recompense to be equal to that which he contributed.

But that's absolutely absurd.

There is no way to accurately gauge his contributions and his deductions, espescially since there is no monetary system.

It's nonsense.

Under communism everyone shares equally in everything and so everyone is more than fairly rewarded for their labour.

And everyone is stolen from equally.

Not to mention that no society can be rewarded 'more' than its total labor input; it's rewarded exactly equal to its output, all that matters is the distribution.

Those that produce more 'get less' relative to their production.

For them, it's a clear theft of the value they've created. I guess you could defend it on consequentialist terms (which would also be strange, because it's pure theory), but philosophically, it's trash.

It's, quite honestly, nonsense. I have no better way to describe a system where everyone is treated fairly by having their product stolen from them.

Publius

27th July 2006, 06:03

A communist society recognizes that the land cannot be owned, and that the goods of the land are a right of the collective people.

Yes, but the goods of production are owned by the producer.

Communist society is governed by this idea, and as such money and gold become ludicrous as commodities, so sale is unrealistic. Most people would gladly work with others to further the end of the collective well-being, and those who are not interested in this are either cared for as in cases of psychological dependance on others, or accepted as outcasts of the economic system who may benefit from it if it becomes a dire necessity but are not expected to give up their own creation for the common good.

Change the terms: Most people would gladly work for capitalists to further the end of the collective well-being, and those who are not interested in this are either cared for as in cases of psychological dependance on others, or accepted as outcasts of the economic system who may benefit from it if it becomes a dire necessity but are not expected to give up their own creation for the common good.

It makes just as much sense either way.

Dean

27th July 2006, 06:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 03:04 AM
Yes, but the goods of production are owned by the producer.
In almost all situations, the activity of production is not one of a single producer, however. Furthermore, the psychological revolution of communism encourages the individual to want to work with his fellow man and for the good of the general population.

Change the terms: Most people would gladly work for capitalists to further the end of the collective well-being, and those who are not interested in this are either cared for as in cases of psychological dependance on others, or accepted as outcasts of the economic system who may benefit from it if it becomes a dire necessity but are not expected to give up their own creation for the common good.

It makes just as much sense either way.

This is filled with logical errors. Capitalism has no regard for those who need help but cannot help themselves; it does not accept that people have a right to be free of the economic system because it supposes that people have a right to own the earth.

Perhaps the most compelling difference is that you point out the alienating nature of capitalism in your modification: while I make it clear that there is respect and equality with the phrase, "with others," you point out that there is a clear, alienating heirarchy by changing that to "for capitalists." It is not conceivable that one can work with capitalists, as their intent and action will increasingly erode your economic health and freedom, but to work for capitalists, to work toward their end, is the realistic way of describing the interaction.

LSD

27th July 2006, 06:48

Than there is no freedom.

Nonsense, there's much greater freedom.

If all you have access to is what you personally produced, your freedom of action is rather limited. If, on the other hand, you have access to every product available, you obviously have greater freedom of action.

If it's freedom that you're after then you can't put up artificial barriers like "property" or "ownership". By its very nature, "property" is about limiting action. In the end, all that property is is the concept (usually enforced by violence) that some object can only be used by that object's "owner".

The libertarian fetish for "the product of your labour" has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom. It's rather an ideological concept, and one quite divorced from the reality of production.

A pin maker working 50 hours a week is contributing his labour to society. In return, he should get a hell of a lot more than a bunch of fucking pins! The capitalist solution is to allow him a small amount of "money" in exchange for his work with which he can "buy" other goods and services.

The communist solution, of course, is to make him a member of a democratic society which communally manages everything it has.

I suppose the autarkical solution would be for our hypothetical worker to keep his pins and die of starvation. :D

But the key similarity is that either way the products of your labor are taken from you, through various means.

Well... yeah. But that's just the nature of complex society. People can't "keep" everything they "make" because those things are needed by other people.

In capitalism, people "sell" their "labour" and are "rewarded" by being given relatively limited access to social products, in communism people are rewarded by being given full access.

As such it eliminates the inequality and exploitation that is inherent to "property" production.

And as you yourself stated, capitalism does not allow people to "keep" "their" products either. In fact, as far as the "market" is concerned those products "belong" to some capitalist as soon as they are made.

The only relevent question here is which redistribution program is fairer; the capitalist one in which "property" funnels all wealth upwards or the communist one in which all share equally.

No, all valee is derived from labor; correct?

Products are clearly worth more than their resources; if they weren't, none would take the time to convert them.

A car is worth more than a hunk of steel. Isn't this because of labor?

Oh, I agree with you entirely.

I must admit, I'm somewhat shocked to see a capitalist adopt the Labour Theory of Value, but I certainly won't argue with you about it!

My point was merely that labour must be preformed on something; and that one's using of those resources prevents others from using them.

If I, for instance, make insulin I am using societal resources to do it. If I then keep that insulin I am preventing needy diabetic citizens from bennefiting from said communal resources. My "keeping" of "my" product would therefore not be in the interest of society.

But that's absolutely absurd.

There is no way to accurately gauge his contributions and his deductions, espescially since there is no monetary system.

Exactly. That's why no economic "market" can ever be fair.

Property by its nature leads to inequality; the only way for society to distribute its wealth equally is for everything to be publically "owned".

And everyone is stolen from equally.

If you want to call it "stealing", fine, but that's just a word and one with very little meaning in a property-less society. If one never owned something it can hardly be "stolen" from one.

Besides, if communism "steals" from workers then so does capitalism. By your own admission, both systems share the "key similarity" that "products of your labor are taken from you".

Publius

27th July 2006, 15:13

In almost all situations, the activity of production is not one of a single producer, however. Furthermore, the psychological revolution of communism encourages the individual to want to work with his fellow man and for the good of the general population.

If we can go around positing nonsense like that, debate of any kind is pointless.

You have no idea how the 'psychological revolution' will take place. I'm going out on a limb here and assuming you're not a PhD. in psychology, but if you aren't, I can't find your opinions on the issue to be more than idealogical propoganda.

I know it makes your argument easy to say "Well after the Revolution, none would ever possibly do anything bad, therefore society would be perfect."

I mean, yeah, that makes sense (I'm sure it makes sense to you), but it's starting from an impossible premise, and it's the premise (THe Revolution will solve everything) that I can't accept without evidence. I mean, I have a rather limited knowledge of pyschology, but I don't think Kohlberg's stages of moral development has the disclaimer "Except under communism" in it.

I guess I'm just too scientific.

This is filled with logical errors.

You wrote it.

:lol:

Capitalism has no regard for those who need help but cannot help themselves;

Social welfare systems exist.

it does not accept that people have a right to be free of the economic system because it supposes that people have a right to own the earth.

People do have a right to own the earth. If they didn't, none would be justified in using any resources.

Perhaps the most compelling difference is that you point out the alienating nature of capitalism in your modification: while I make it clear that there is respect and equality with the phrase, "with others," you point out that there is a clear, alienating heirarchy by changing that to "for capitalists."

Capitalists are indeed 'others'.

You just used an impossibly vague term (name one economy that wasn't based on working 'with others'), I just clarified it.

It is not conceivable that one can work with capitalists, as their intent and action will increasingly erode your economic health and freedom, but to work for capitalists, to work toward their end, is the realistic way of describing the interaction.

You have ends yourself.

If all that happened were the capitalist's ends were met, none but capitalists would have anything.

In fact, the average person in the modern west is quite rich; much richer than they would be under communism.

27th July 2006, 18:22

Whether or not you acknowledge it, people still put their physical labor into the production of commodities. Don't call it property if you don't want to, but realize it's the same thing.

As Floyce said, property isn't a thing, it's an idea, a concept. It's a social relation. Private property is the ability to say that this is mine and not yours. That is a social relation. What "this" is isn't private property inherently, but becomes private property when you recognize it as such (i.e. when you say that "this is mine and not yours"). That is why property is a social relation.

Are not people entitled to keep what they produce?

I don't see why they couldn't, although it would be kind of strange. Let's say someone works at a widget factory. You're saying that they should be able to keep the widgets that they produce. But this question really is irrelevant, as those widgets are going to distribution centers where they can pick up widgets for free. So why does it matter if it's the widgets that I produced or the widgets that someone else produced?

That seems to me the most basic form of freedom.

And surely you'd be able to do that; it would just be a strange thing to do.

But the key similarity is that either way the products of your labor are taken from you, through various means.

The products of society's labour are distributed throughout society; so yes, you are receiving the products of your labour, just indirectly.

"It's not theft if we do it"? "It's not theft if it's for a good cause."?

It's not theft if nothing's being stolen.

A car is worth more than a hunk of steel. Isn't this because of labor?

Yeah. What's your point?

And everyone is stolen from equally.

Nothing is stolen from anyone when everything belongs to everyone. To say that people are stolen from is to presuppose the existence of private property. In other words, for someone to steal, there needs to be something that isn't theirs that they are able to steal. Since everything belongs to everyone, then how can they steal something?

Those that produce more 'get less' relative to their production.

Well, yeah. Nobody said that communism is "complete equality" (and anyone that did is simply wrong). Marx himself said that communism isn't "complete equality". However, it's as equal as society can get.

For them, it's a clear theft of the value they've created.

If they really felt that strongly about it they could just work as hard as others do and receive the same benefits.

Yes, but the goods of production are owned by the producer.

Not if there's no private property.

It makes just as much sense either way.

Of course it doesn't. Working with others isn't the same as working for others. Working with others implies an equal say in the production of goods. Of course, if you said "working with capitalists" this would also be untrue, as social relations under the capitalist system are governed by the production and reproduction of capital and not the "collective well-being" (i.e. the benefit of society).

I know it makes your argument easy to say "Well after the Revolution, none would ever possibly do anything bad, therefore society would be perfect."

This is utopian rubbish and if you find anyone saying that then you have my full support in smacking them in the face.

Social welfare systems exist.

Social welfare systems are a result of working class organization and the demand for better working conditions. It's a concession by the capitalists to keep the workers in check.

Capitalists are indeed 'others'.

You yourself should realize that communism is a classless society. You've been here long enough to learn that.

nickdlc

27th July 2006, 20:18

There is no way to accurately gauge his contributions and his deductions, espescially since there is no monetary system. Well there is no monetary system but there is a book keeping system, so yes there is a way to gauge someones work and societies work in general. Infact the book keeping system will be central to the communist system since it is a dynamic system controlled by "free and equal producers" and so if there happens to be renumeration for certain types of work the renumeration will be more objective than it could ever be under capitalism.

Tungsten

27th July 2006, 23:04

Dean

This is filled with logical errors. Capitalism has no regard for those who need help but cannot help themselves; it does not accept that people have a right to be free of the economic system because it supposes that people have a right to own the earth.
And yours supposes that people have a right to own other people. Where else can a "right to help" come from, if not other people? Is this what you're in favour of?
LSD

Nonsense, there's much greater freedom.

If all you have access to is what you personally produced, your freedom of action is rather limited. If, on the other hand, you have access to every product available, you obviously have greater freedom of action.
If you have acess to what someone else has produced, it will no longer be available for them to use, therefore, it will restrict other people's freedom. Leaving someone free to ransack my house is not expanding my freedom. Giving me the right to do the same to him will result in violence, the winner being the most heavily armed.

If it's freedom that you're after then you can't put up artificial barriers like "property" or "ownership". By its very nature, "property" is about limiting action.
And rightly so. Limiting actions from others which will restrict your own is a good idea. Murder, for instance will restrict your freedom.

The communist solution, of course, is to make him a member of a democratic society which communally manages everything it has.
Grossly impractical and unnecessary.

If I, for instance, make insulin I am using societal resources to do it. If I then keep that insulin I am preventing needy diabetic citizens from bennefiting from said communal resources. My "keeping" of "my" product would therefore not be in the interest of society.
Giving you free time would therefore not be in the best interest of society, because it doesn't benefit anyone other than yourself.

red team

28th July 2006, 03:43

If you have acess to what someone else has produced, it will no longer be available for them to use, therefore, it will restrict other people's freedom. Leaving someone free to ransack my house is not expanding my freedom. Giving me the right to do the same to him will result in violence, the winner being the most heavily armed.

But what if you can't sell what you've produced using the current accounting system which is fit to more of a bygone era where debt-for-manual-labour is the dominant mode of production?

Then you'll be needing to give me credit cards and bank loans to keep me from buying things from your store because of my underpaid salary compared to your over-produced goods. By keeping me out of trouble you keep yourself out of trouble since you would rather have happy customers than angry revolutionaries.

And you know what? I agree. I still have lots of credit cards and loans to run up as do most of the working population before we declare bankruptcy and as I suspect so do most businesses and the government. So it's happy consumer day, everyday for everybody! :lol:

But, like all wild parties this would come to end when the rickety system we call Capitalism collapses. :P

And rightly so. Limiting actions from others which will restrict your own is a good idea. Murder, for instance will restrict your freedom.

And when that paper fiction you call money collapses you would expect law and order? :rolleyes:

Anybody with a gun would be either burning and pillaging themselves or be mercenaries for hire including the police.

Grossly impractical and unnecessary.

Not with computers.

Think of it this way. If some poor child worker that you want to "save" by giving him/her a dollar a day to produce 100 shirts a day with each shirt sold at 10 dollars who's going to have the money to buy all those 100 shirts back? You don't know how much money is in circulation so you produce as cheaply as possible, but nobody has the ability to buy all those 100 shirts since what you are essentially doing by having someone produce that much is you're implying that 1 worker need 100 shirts. Well, I don't need 100 shirts nor does anybody else. Businesses are just guessing at the available need for products without any idea whether they have produced too much for anybody to want even for an affordable price. If it's cheap, but I don't want or need it then no matter how cheap it is it's going to go into the trash.

Talk about "grossly impractical and unnecessary".

Giving you free time would therefore not be in the best interest of society, because it doesn't benefit anyone other than yourself.

Simple. If you're going to give yourself free time then that means it potentially might be in the expense of somebody else needing to take your place working because of the scarcity of labour, but if your free time doesn't cost somebody else his free time because he have to take your place then it's insignificant. With machinery increasingly magnifying production output from input time then for you to take a break that doesn't cost anybody else any extra expense in time you can do it and nobody would or should care.

MKS

28th July 2006, 04:22

Some things in this world are more valuable than others. Oil obviously is more valuable than pins, and land is even more valuable than oil. Now if I am a farmer who owns a large tract of land don’t I have more power than a pin maker or a coal miner? , since I control such a supply of food and other resources than other workers.

The one thing Communism can never explain to my satisfaction is what if I do want to horde what I have, I have worked for it, why share it? Whets my motivation. This is the reason why Capitalism has flourished, it is realistic because it recognizes the individual as a free entity that can and should exist outside any force or coercion, other than the market, a person who lives in a free market nation ideally has no other restrictions. Trade and commerce are free moving, as are class positions and status.

Floyce White

28th July 2006, 05:38

Publius, freedom and slavery are co-existing conditions. Communists oppose freedom and slavery. I say so in my article Against Anarchism--For Communism (http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty/index.html#A20). You are confusing communism with forms of pro-capitalism such as leftism. Leftists often apply a pro-capitalist definition of communism and say that "communism means freedom." They are in error.

Property will "go away" the same way God will "go away." It was never a material object to begin with. Property is a method of human interaction. Property is violence between people with regard to places, things, ideas, and other persons.

LSD

28th July 2006, 06:22

If you have acess to what someone else has produced, it will no longer be available for them to use

Sure it will.

You're still thinking in property terms, Tungsten, but property does not apply in a communalistic society.

My being able to use something does not mean that others are not able to use it as well. Obviously they can't use it at the exact second I'm using it, but the moment I'm done, they're free to pick it up.

That's a simplifiction, of course, many items are such that usage depletes them and so only a limited number of people can any individual item. But even so, the general principle of usage rights nonetheless applies.

Besides the idea of every worker retaining every item that he produces is ludicrous. Advanced society is predicated on the mass distribution of products. The only question is how will the items in question get from the worker to the public.

In capitalism, the worker is forced to give their products to the capitalist who "owns" them and their labour. The capitalist then gives them some "money" which represents a fraction of the "market value" of the product. He then "sells" the product for even more "money" which he retains for himself.

This who process is unnescessarily complex and incredibly unfair.

Instead, workers should be able to, in consulation with society in general, distribute their products so that they are rationaly and equitably spread out in the entire society.

Leaving someone free to ransack my house is not expanding my freedom.

:rolleyes:

Who said anything about "ransacking"? Elimating private property doesn't mean an end to personal usage rights. Items in your home are yours to use until you tire of them or until your usage of them becomes excessive to one degree or another.

No individual has the right to "ransack" your home or to take items that you are presently using.

Murder, for instance will restrict your freedom.

Indeed, as does property.

Giving you free time would therefore not be in the best interest of society, because it doesn't benefit anyone other than yourself.

Except you are part of socierty and hence your betterment is in society's interest. Not to mention that it's not just you that gets free time, it's everyone.

Social policy is not "individual", it's social. "Free time" is a social issue and its application is very much a societal concern.

The purpose of society after all, is to benefit its members, that means limiting the work required from each individual to the absolute minimum sustainable.

The one thing Communism can never explain to my satisfaction is what if I do want to horde what I have

What if you want to kill someone? What if you want to rape?

If your actions harm other people you will be stopped by society. Youre "hoarding" directly harms others. If it is relatively limited, it will probably be legally tolerated but sociallt condemned; if it is more serious, direct action may be taken against you.

Possible you will be prevented from sharing in societal resources, you will certainly not be given any more resources to work with, meaning that you will very soon not be able to produce at all.

If you want to live on your own outside of society, no one will stop you. You won't be able to bennefit from societal resources, of course, but if you find some way to sustain yourself autarkically and in so doing you don't harm anyone else, you would be allowed to do so.

I have worked for it, why share it? Whets my motivation.

Your motivation is that you want to share in the products that others have produced. Autarky simply isn't a realistic production model. People want more in life than "that which they produce themselves". That means that products have to get into the public distribution system somehow.

Besides, I think you'd pretty quickly get bored of only one item. Let's say you're a pin maker, would you really want to have nothing but pins? Don't you think at one point you may want some, I don't know food as well?

Well how do you expect to get it if you're not participating in society? Do you think that your pins will "turn into" food or that you will be able to "trade" for food?

Communist society means an end to property, no one will want to "trade" or "buy" from you because they will already have everything they need/want.

Either you can share as well or you can try to cut it on your own.

I'd suggest the former.

red team

28th July 2006, 07:13

The one thing Communism can never explain to my satisfaction is what if I do want to horde what I have, I have worked for it, why share it? Whets my motivation. This is the reason why Capitalism has flourished, it is realistic because it recognizes the individual as a free entity that can and should exist outside any force or coercion, other than the market, a person who lives in a free market nation ideally has no other restrictions. Trade and commerce are free moving, as are class positions and status.

Becaused you've never truly "worked" for it literally. The only way that condition of "having worked for it" is fully provable is if you kill dinner everyday and made your own hut for living in, otherwise everything including what "you've worked" for is an illusion from having been rewarded greater than what can be accomplished by human labour power alone.

Seriously, you think you could have "worked for" in literal terms all of the products that you've got? All that metal in a car rearranged into a combustion engine, all that electronics and know-how in your computer rearranged so that it could be a computer? All by yourself?

All you have is an illusion of having worked for it.

Dean

28th July 2006, 08:01

Originally posted by Publius[email protected] 27 2006, 12:14 PM
If we can go around positing nonsense like that, debate of any kind is pointless.

You have no idea how the 'psychological revolution' will take place. I'm going out on a limb here and assuming you're not a PhD. in psychology, but if you aren't, I can't find your opinions on the issue to be more than idealogical propoganda.

I know it makes your argument easy to say "Well after the Revolution, none would ever possibly do anything bad, therefore society would be perfect."

I mean, yeah, that makes sense (I'm sure it makes sense to you), but it's starting from an impossible premise, and it's the premise (THe Revolution will solve everything) that I can't accept without evidence. I mean, I have a rather limited knowledge of pyschology, but I don't think Kohlberg's stages of moral development has the disclaimer "Except under communism" in it.

I guess I'm just too scientific.
I have read much of Fromm, Freud, Jung and others. A PHD desn't implicate that one has superior knowledge or understanding. This is little more than an ad hominem attack. Furthrmore, I don't implicate that there will be no wrongdoing; I state that communist society is one in which the general trend is that people work together for the common good.

You are actually being unscientific in your argument; you use ad - hominem attacks in order to "prove" your point. To be scientific is to study nature, and to argue with a scientific character is to analyze things for what they are. You are not so far doing this.

You wrote it.

Social welfare systems exist.

People do have a right to own the earth. If they didn't, none would be justified in using any resources.

Those welfare systems do not exist under purist capitalist doctrine, and their existance comes from a state which does not hold a responsibility to it's constituency. This is especially true for the U.S., owning more than 80% of the wealth in the world. Money truly is power, a power over others. That one may be considered free and at the same time unemployment could cause him to starve to death under a global capitalism is a sick, hypocritical ideology.

Capitalists are indeed 'others'.

You just used an impossibly vague term (name one economy that wasn't based on working 'with others'), I just clarified it.

You have ends yourself.

If all that happened were the capitalist's ends were met, none but capitalists would have anything.

In fact, the average person in the modern west is quite rich; much richer than they would be under communism.

It is true that capitalists are others, and that logically it can be stated that such interaction can be described using the terms "with" and "for"; however, my point was that when one's labor is paid without respect for the actual value of his labor in regard to the profit, he is exploited, and the end of the capitalist, capital, is the end for which the laborer is working toward: it is more reasonable to show this authoritarian relationship using the term "for."

Capitalists do not wish to starve their laborers, as they would lose employees and make the job market less competitive. Furthermore, they make certain that the wages can support the worker and his family's addiction to their drugs: televisions, dogmas, cars, music, benzodiazepines, etc.

It is either an indirect result or a direct attempt of capitalism to create these illusory needs, and they serve to sustain that system.

It is clear that all people have ends; that does not relate at all to the disparity between our viewpoints.

The wealthiest man is clearly he who lives as one with his other man; that is, communally. He finds that he no longer needs the possesiveness and idolatry of class society, and finds riches in himself, as opposed to his environment, which itself is transformed from a dead prospect for aquisition to a lively and revered beauty; he finally finds a genuine, respectful relationship with nature and society.

Tungsten

And yours supposes that people have a right to own other people. Where else can a "right to help" come from, if not other people? Is this what you're in favour of?

Not at all. I believe that if one does not want to participate in a communist society, they have the right to set up their own social system. If they take into possession a grotesque sum of the land, some degree of it may be taken from them, but as I have said before, Thoreau would have no problem living in - or outside - a communist society. In regard to the right to help, if a man decided to leave the community but found himself gravely ill, he should have the right to medical care. those who have economic power have a responsibility to help those who have none and yet have a need for it.

MKS

28th July 2006, 09:15

I am borne a man, inheriter of a parcel of land, I work on that land to produce food, and other marketable crops. Who has the right to tell me what to do with my produce? If I have worked for it, why can I not be free to decide how I will profit from it? Should I be forced or coerced into an action just because it is for the benfit of the masses? Why am I responsible for the well being of a larger mass? Why cant I live free from the mas, but trade and market my produce according to value and other aspects of worth?

Seriously, you think you could have "worked for" in literal terms all of the products that you've got? All that metal in a car rearranged into a combustion engine, all that electronics and know-how in your computer rearranged so that it could be a computer? All by yourself?

My labour being valued was sold by myself for a sum of money, and that money was used to buy an automobile. Therfore I did work for the product although I did not literally shape the metal of build the engine, my work on other areas of production or labour, is deemed valued enough to pruchase a car. My labour is valued for a certain wage, and that wage can be used to obtain other material possesions. Obviously a man cannot be excpted to create every aspect of modern life (i.e. cars, tools, etc.) but their labour in realitive terms of the market can be valued in order to obtain certain ends.

Communists cannot explain the difference between market value and direct societal value. Therfore their idealogy is flawed. Man works, and produces certain materials, to trade them or share them is the same as to sell them. Each one assigns value to work and product.

LSD

28th July 2006, 09:37

I am borne a man, inheriter of a parcel of land, I work on that land to produce food, and other marketable crops. Who has the right to tell me what to do with my produce?

The better question is by what right are you the sole worker of that land? What right do you have to stop other people from growing/planting on "your" land?

You see the problem here is that, like most cappies, you are approching a classless society from a property paradigm. What you need to understand is that property is a conceptual institution not a "natural" entity.

The fact that your father claimed "ownershi" over a "parcel" of land does not make it yours anymore than it made it "his". All land is common and should be used for the general interest of society.

All that you grow on that land is only able to exist thanks to the use of that common land; accordingly you do indeed have an obligation to share the product of your labour.

That obligation is not unique to you, of course, but applies to every single person. If you don't want to participate, that is your right, but you have no right to stop other people from growing on "your" land.

Should I be forced or coerced into an action just because it is for the benfit of the masses?

Depends on what that action is.

If someone is starving and you have the food that will save their life, your not sharing that food would directly cause their death. As such, society does have a right to intervene.

If you are making someone "feel bad" however, society does not have the right to "protect" their "feelings".

As always, we need to approach things on a case by case basis and deal with them democratically and minimalistically.

My labour being valued was sold by myself for a sum of money, and that money was used to buy an automobile.

...and?

Again, you're taking capitalist economic theory as if it were natural fact. The fact that the "market" "valued" your "labour" at a certain price does not mean that you "earned" your "money" in any objective sense.

By feudal law, an aristocrat "earned" his money by virtue of his noble title and indentured vassals; that doesn't mean that the vassal's wouldn't be justified in cutting his head off.

Your "earning" of a car is macroeconomic mythology, nothing more.

Obviously a man cannot be excpted to create every aspect of modern life (i.e. cars, tools, etc.) but their labour in realitive terms of the market can be valued in order to obtain certain ends.

Or it can be shared equally.

The only relevent question is which option is better for society in general and individuals specifically. Capitalists often claim that they are "individualist", but they always seem to be the ones telling workers that their "sacrifice" is "nescessary".

The inequality and misery of capitalism is acceptable, we are told, because capitalism is ultimately "better for society". Yes, the poor suffer, but capitalism brings "innovation" and "development".

Communists, by contrast, do not accept that one individual should be sacrificed for the "public good". We insist that everyone be looked after society.

You could try and "keep" products that you make, but what you haven't said yet is why you would want to?

In a classless society, what would be the advantage of hoarding? You already have access to anything you could reasonably want, what do you gain by stockpilling a big pile of extra stuff?

I mean I get that it's sort of a "principle" for you, but you need to approach this from a more practical direction. People won't hoard because there's no reason too and humans are ultimately rational beings.

Comrade-Z

28th July 2006, 11:59

Well, yeah. Nobody said that communism is "complete equality" (and anyone that did is simply wrong). Marx himself said that communism isn't "complete equality". However, it's as equal as society can get.

No, actually, I would think that people who worked harder and visibly contributed more stuff to general use would be tolerated if they appropriated for themselves just a bit more, if only to replenish their energy so that they can continue their work the next day. It wouldn't be encouraged, but, within reason, I don't see why it would be out of the question.

Of course, in all circumstances, these people will only be allowed to take more if they can actually make use of it. Such as if they need more bananas in order to replenish calories expended during their vigorous work. If they are going to just pile the shit up in their house, then no. In all cases, production will be for general use rather than exchange and private accumulation.

We're talking about keeping what you produce; keeping the product of your labor.

Take out the word 'property', if you'd like. Are not people entitled to keep what they produce? That seems to me the most basic form of freedom.

The only reason I could see you wanting to do that would be to hoard the things in anticipation of the social order around you collapsing (not all that unrealistic, I suppose, considering how you personally judge the prospects for a communist system functioning.) Either that, or you anticipated trading off your produce in exchange for something that you could actually use. But who's going to be willing to do that when they could get your exact same produce from the general distribution? And besides, why are you so uncomfortable with the idea of distributing your produce for general use, and then in turn appropriating what you want from general distribution? Are you afraid that there won't be enough in the general distribution to satisfy your wants? There will be. This isn't some developing third world country we are talking about here. This is the same society, with the same productive forces (or even more advanced) that we are living in now. Just different social relations. Take the per-capita GDP figure as it stands right now. At the very minimum, that's the "standard-of-living equivalent" you can count on from the general distribution. Not good enough for ya? Then get your ass over to India or some other still-existing capitalist country and start up a retail chain. We won't care.

Publius

28th July 2006, 13:39

The only reason I could see you wanting to do that would be to hoard the things in anticipation of the social order around you collapsing (not all that unrealistic, I suppose, considering how you personally judge the prospects for a communist system functioning.)

The problem with capitalism, as I understand it, is that the excess value of your labor is expropriated from.

So Communism is then essentially an abrogation of 'wage slavery'; of being paid less than you produce.

But under communism this exact same phenemona would happen.

See, you're talking consequences and effects; I'm talking philosophy.

How is it 'right' for society to take and use your labor, but not for capitalists to do it? It's the same thing, either way. I can't see how you can make a philisophical distinction. I know you don't believe in the contradiction, but it seems pretty glaring to me.

I'm not saying one might usefully want to keep one's produce (just as a worker wouldn't want to keep his produce under capitalism; money, even slightly less than the value of his produce is much more useful to him), I'm saying that, in theory, there is no difference; exploitation is exploitation. If your problem with capitalism is conseqeuntial (it's ineffective), then argue that. Don't start out with a philosophical point about labor belonging the laboror then contradict that later with 'it's for society'.

Either that, or you anticipated trading off your produce in exchange for something that you could actually use. But who's going to be willing to do that when they could get your exact same produce from the general distribution?

I'm talking about the right to do it.

Under capitalism it would make no sense to keep what you make either. But according to communist theory, that would be more fair, because no excess value would be created from your labor.

Sure, it wouldn't do you much good to have a bunch of car bumpers, and trying to trade those for food, but the point stands.

And besides, why are you so uncomfortable with the idea of distributing your produce for general use, and then in turn appropriating what you want from general distribution?

Similarly, why are you uncomfortable with distributing your labor for general demand, and in turn working for a capitalist?

Are you afraid that there won't be enough in the general distribution to satisfy your wants? There will be.

For quite a few people, capitalism supplies their wants.

This isn't some developing third world country we are talking about here. This is the same society, with the same productive forces (or even more advanced) that we are living in now. Just different social relations. Take the per-capita GDP figure as it stands right now.

And divide it by everyone in the world.

I can't imagine they'll allow the US to stay rich while the rest of the world languishes; is communism not worldwide?

At the very minimum, that's the "standard-of-living equivalent" you can count on from the general distribution. Not good enough for ya? Then get your ass over to India or some other still-existing capitalist country and start up a retail chain. We won't care.

I hear IT is more effective; demand isn't high enough for retail yet.

28th July 2006, 15:41

How is it 'right' for society to take and use your labor, but not for capitalists to do it?

First, society doesn't take and use your labour; you contribute your labour to society. If you choose not to then you can go live by yourself in the hills or something; nobody'll stop you. But if you don't contribute to society then why should you reap the benefits?

So society doesn't "own" your labour the same way that capitalists do. You are volunteering to enter into an act that keeps society going; if you wish to stop then you are welcome to, but then you have to face the consequences (i.e. not being a part of that society you aren't contributing to).

I'm saying that, in theory, there is no difference; exploitation is exploitation.

Workers aren't being exploited. There is no surplus value being extracted from them under communism.

I'm talking about the right to do it.

And you would have the right, insofar as it doesn't have a major effect on society.

Similarly, why are you uncomfortable with distributing your labor for general demand, and in turn working for a capitalist?

Capitalists exploit workers for surplus value.

For quite a few people, capitalism supplies their wants.

For quite a few people, it doesn't.

I can't imagine they'll allow the US to stay rich while the rest of the world languishes; is communism not worldwide?

Well since money will be abolished the US won't be "rich". :D

Anyways, it's about increasing the productive forces to such an extent that everybody can live like people do in the US.

MKS

28th July 2006, 16:17

What right do you have to stop other people from growing/planting on "your" land?

I have the right to defend my intrests and protect my family/community who uses the land. If I am strong enough to do so I should be allowed to.

All land is common and should be used for the general interest of society

Why should I care about society. I will if benefit from it, but if I benefit more from an isolationist standpoint than I will take it. The only thing that concerns me, and every man/woman, is the survival of their own.

By feudal law, an aristocrat "earned" his money by virtue of his noble title and indentured vassals; that doesn't mean that the vassal's wouldn't be justified in cutting his head off

that is a false analogy. I did earn my wage, my 40-60hrs of work (expended time and energy) allowed me that wage, the value of the wage is irrelevant, but the fact that I earned it through work is the basis of not only Capitalist economics, but it is the one trait that has defined human culture since the dawn of time. Man has always worked for his survival, they have always earned their food and home. Of course some men have managed to garner such things without earning them, but there is always and will always be a portion of mankind that earns through labour what they possess and need. The nobility obviously did not earn his social position, but the worker who tills the field or forges the iron does earn what he gets, and usually earns far less than what he should get.

People won't hoard because there's no reason too and humans are ultimately rational beings

Thats funny, just look at the US. People always horde, the US has the capability to feed its entire population, but there is still starvation problems in many rural and urban areas of the nation. The US could afford to house everyone but there is still rampant homlessness, the examples continue to show that the "people" could care less about society and thier fellow man and more about their own well being and happieness. This is not a rational position, it is cruel and in my opinion immoral.

Capitalism is not the problem, the people are the problem.

28th July 2006, 16:31

Why should I care about society.

Because you're part of society?

The only thing that concerns me, and every man/woman, is the survival of their own.

And if this is best accomplished by working together with others, then they will do it.

People always horde, the US has the capability to feed its entire population, but there is still starvation problems in many rural and urban areas of the nation...

The US could afford to house everyone but there is still rampant homlessness

Why don't these things happen? Because it's not profitable for them to. You say capitalism isn't the problem and people are, but the fact of the matter is that capitalism gives people a capitalist mindset. Things generally aren't done unless they're profitable. Sure, there's things like soup kitchens and charity work and stuff, but that's mostly done for people to feel good about themselves (i.e. to make themselves feel less guilty about their priviliged position in society).

You're never going to see these problems solved because it's not profitable to do so.

MKS

28th July 2006, 16:53

Because you're part of society?

Not a good enough answer. Everyone is borne a part of a society or community, but what else is there that I should potentially sacrafice my well being or the well being of my family? No Communist can ever answer the question; why should I care. At least theists will give a reason even if it is derived from complete mythology.

You're never going to see these problems solved because it's not profitable to do so

the theory of the "capitalist mindset" is complete BS, Capitalism is based on liberal principles. Created to ensure the free trade and commerce and to destroy the fixed socio-economic class structre. Only the people and their idealogy morphed this intent in order to suit their own ends. Capitalism is only a system of economics and markets, it is not a social or moral dogma. Man brings to any system their own morality, or lack therof and shapes that system to its likeness. Blaming the system is meaningless, and in my opinion a waste of time. We must begin to assign blame where it belongs, to the people, all the people. The owners, the governments, the workers and even the poor, for they all are responsible for the oppression that exists.

Communism, Socialism, and Anarchism will always fail because the people have no will to change.

28th July 2006, 18:07

MKS

28th July 2006, 23:51

Everyone is borne a part of a society or community, but what else is there that I should potentially sacrafice my well being or the well being of my family?

Could you please reword this so it makes sense?

Besides meaningless memebership of a society or community why else should I care about other people?

Capitalism was created to further the interests of the rising bourgeoisie (which is essentially free trade and commerce).

It wasn't created to destroy feudalism; rather, the interests of the capitalist class - the bourgeoisie - were in direct contradiction with the interests of the feudal ruling class - the aristocracy. Capitalism is just the result of a society dominated by the bourgeoisie.

Although it was initiated by the upper middle class of society, it is a liberal reform of the very rigid and oppressive mercantilist/feudal structre. Free trade means free people, for the most part that is true. One can point to several instances of Capitalism and its benefits to the individual who works hard and takes risks. Because of the system in place his work and sacrafice are rewarded (in most cases) even more so do his children and their children benefit. Unlike the Old World Order, where regardless of how hard a person worked he/she is still relegated to their inherited station,there is no upward mobility. My own family has seen great success for their efforts to rise from poverty thanks in poart to free commerce and trade.

People's consciousness is determined by the environment in which they live. Since one lives in a capitalist society, consciousness is going to be determined by it. That is where "capitalist consciousness" comes from and if you think it's bullshit then please inform me as to how it's bullshit.

Preexisting ethos and prejudices, as well moral attitudes shape the movement of the markets and ostensibly the shape of any society. The system, whether it is Capitalist, "Communist, Socialist etc is simply a hollow shell of economic ideas, theories and principles. To say that such a system shapes people’s behavior is absurd, it is people’s behavior that bends the system. If this world was inhabited by a purely benevolent race than Capitalism would be perfect, free trade would benefit all people, goods and knowledge would flow at the expense of no one, but such a race does not exist. Man has proven that he is incapable of compassion, and has demonstrated a great proof of Darwinism.

I hate to espouse the greatness of Capitalism, but you cannot deny the great good it has done mankind. Reform is necessary, and perhaps in some instances Revolution, but to all together abandon a system that has proven effective is foolhardy, especially in pursuit of some utopian dream that is Communism.

A greater liberty can exist within Capitalism, a greater justice; it is upon this generation of Liberals to ensure that the system is given back to the people, and that the owners of wealth and property face the consequences of their greed.

Janus

29th July 2006, 00:03

Free trade means free people
Tell that to those who work for miniscule wages in sweatshops.

To say that such a system shapes people’s behavior is absurd, it is people’s behavior that bends the system.
So your environment has no effect on you at all?

If this world was inhabited by a purely benevolent race than Capitalism would be perfect, free trade would benefit all people, goods and knowledge would flow at the expense of no one, but such a race does not exist.
Compassion, altruism, and benevolence rarely exists because capitalism works against it by perpetuating individualism.

LSD

29th July 2006, 00:11

I have the right to defend my intrests and protect my family/community who uses the land.

Why?

Again, by what right do you and you alone work this "parcel" of land? Don't others have the same "right" to "defend [their] interests"?

No one is stopping you from growing whatever you want, but likewise you cannot stop others from doing the same.

Now, you can keep everything you grow and try to make it all on your own, but if you share with others, they will share with you. That allows you to have a greater diversity of goods and to live a better life.

You see the thing about communism is that it's an objectively better living standard, not merely for "others", but for you. Individually speaking, its in your "personal interest".

Refusing to share might make some feel-good "point" but it just doesn't make sense. You can get far more by participating in mutualistic society than you can by "holding" out and trying to find someone who will "buy" from you.

Why try and resurrect the antiquated "market system" when you can free yourself from all the hassle and stress of economic dependency by joining communist society?

That's the whole point, you see. In a post-revolutionary context, capitalism just doesn't make sense.

If I am strong enough to do so I should be allowed to.

What does "strength" have to do with human rights?

All members of society are entitled to the bennefits of society and have a right to a decent and comfortable life. The point of society is to take away the natural power of "strength" and ensure that the rights of all are protected.

If you try to force people off of "your" land society will stop your initiation of force. It's the same as if you tried to rape someone; that fact that you're "strong enough" to do it is irrelevent, society exists to stop your from using that strength when it harms others.

Why should I care about society.

You shouldn't.

"Society" is an abstract and no one cares about abstracts. What you should care about, however, is your objective well-being. Under capitalism, wealth is divided such that the wealthy own the vast majority and the rest of us own little.

Communism divides those same resources more equitably.

That means that if your sole concern is how much you can "get", communism is still the better choice.

Remember, communism is not an idealist philosophy, it is a practical workers' movement. We appeal to the interests of the working class; the reason that they should revolt is that a post-revolutioanry society would be better for them.

The only thing that concerns me, and every man/woman, is the survival of their own.

And what is "your own"? Your family? Your race? Your "nation"?

Why can't all of "society" be "your own" too? Why can't you come to recognize that you have a common kinship with all other humans and that by co-existing and sharing in a mutualistic communalistic society all can bennefit.

It's capitalism that asks for "sacrifice" in the name of "economic health"; communism by contrast promisses a decent life for all individuals.

We're the true individualists! :o

Thats funny, just look at the US. People always horde, the US has the capability to feed its entire population, but there is still starvation problems in many rural and urban areas of the nation.

In case you didn't notice, the US is capitalist. Capitalism promotes a culture of commercialism and greed. People are trained from birth to hold on to everything they can get.

That may lead to "good business", but you're damn right it leads to bad public welfare.

Ferg

29th July 2006, 00:22

It's a flawed idea. Because if everyone collectivly owns your clothing...then that's just unsanitary.

Janus

29th July 2006, 00:26

It's a flawed idea. Because if everyone collectivly owns your clothing...then that's just unsanitary.
There is a difference between personal property and private property. No one expects you to share your toothbrush.

Publius

31st July 2006, 01:07

First, society doesn't take and use your labour; you contribute your labour to society.

Semantics.

If you choose not to then you can go live by yourself in the hills or something; nobody'll stop you.

You can do that in capitalism.

But if you don't contribute to society then why should you reap the benefits?

Almost exactly how it works now.

So society doesn't "own" your labour the same way that capitalists do.

It's exactly the same.

If you want the benefits of the society, you are obliged to give up your labor.

Yes, you can avoid that under communism; you can avoid it under capitalism too. But what does that prove?

You are volunteering to enter into an act that keeps society going; if you wish to stop then you are welcome to, but then you have to face the consequences (i.e. not being a part of that society you aren't contributing to).

And this is freedom? "Take it or leave it"?

Workers aren't being exploited. There is no surplus value being extracted from them under communism.

How is 'surplus value' exploited under capitalism? Obviously it's use value to the capitalist.

It's just a difference in 'use value'.

It hardly matters if, after you've done the labor, your boss makes a profit or a loss on the sale. If, for some reason, the product you produce is overpriced, and the capitalist loses money, is that now reverse exploitation? Is there no exploitation involved?

This is where the whole thing breaks down. How can the exact same labor be exploitive one day, and not the next? It's nonsense.

And you would have the right, insofar as it doesn't have a major effect on society.

What a non-answer.

You have the right to do anything so far as it doesn't have a major effect on society.

Capitalists exploit workers for surplus value.

They try to.

Often they fail and go out of business. I guess because of 'reverse exploitation' those (now jobless) workers made it out like bandits?