Socialism & Tyranny

[ZX3]

There is a thread that has been kicking around for some time on the "History" board wondering if Revlefters lament the collapse of the USSR. While there were many "qualified" yes's and no's from the various socialist sects, it seemed the majority do lament the collapse.

Since socialism claims it will lead to a greater freedom for people, how does this inability to to celebrate the collapse of that tyranny lend credence to this claim? How does it lead credence to the claim socialism will be able to resist tyranny in the future, when it is unable to condemn it in the past? How will socialism be able to guard against tyranny erupting internally, when it seems so willing to justify that tyranny in the advancement of its tenents of socialism?

[EwokUtopia]

I lament the collapse of the USSR insofar as Putin's Russia is arguably the worst Capitalist state in existance currently, but I do not see the death of the USSR as being the death of Socialism, or even the death of a truly Socialist state. Socialism in the USSR was flawed at best, Stalinism is to Socialism what Fascism is to Capitalism, and I use Stalinism as an Umbrella term to describe all extreme authoritarian regimes that use the guise of "Communism" IE- Juche Korea and Khmer Rouge Cambodia.

The USSR did need many of the things Stalin delivered however, in bashing Stalin, its all to convenient to forget that without his rapid industrialisation process (which was a huge source of most of his crimes) we would all be speaking German right now. The USSR did improve an incredible amount after Stalins death, in the 70's it was a pretty good place to be. If you doubt what I am saying, ask any Russian who isnt a billionaire/maffiya/Putin if they would rather live in Russia in 1977 or 2007. Its the Russians who are most lamenting the collapse of the Soviet Union.

But I am a Canadian, so Im not too beat up about the collapse of the Soviet Union (I was like 4 at the time). I am pissed that it fell, and its not because of the death of a "socialist" state, but that it has left the world in a really tricky spot:

-America is left as the only superpower, and shes kind of gone mad with power (this is really 5 or 6 points condensed into one)

-The weapons which were formerly held by the Soviet military are being sold by Nova Russian Capitalists to fuel mainly African civil wars at a horrible cost to the people

-White Slavery is at an all time high in Eastern Europe/Central Asia

-AIDS has spread like mad throughout Russia

-Moscow has more Billionaires than any other city in the world, yet most Russian people live in 3rd world poverty levels.

-White Supremacism and Neofascism is making it big in Post-Soviet Russia, many Nazi's are people in power, like Cossack para-military's

-Ethnic Minorities are facing huge discrimination: Meshket Turks have been expelled to America, and being a Muslim in Russia is even worse than it is in America, and on par with Israel

-Chechnya has been fucked even harder than America fucked Iraq


As I said, most of these issues do not directly effect me as i am in Canada, but I do try to pay attention to what is going on in our planet. I have absolutely no loyalty to my country and every loyalty to my race (the human race).

[ZX3]

Socialists often refer to fascism as the logical ending of capitalism. Is Stalinism therefore the logical ending of socialism?

Russia, pre-WW I, was the fastest growing economy on earth. It was outsripping the USA. The rapid industrialisation which Stalin is praised, was happening and would have happened any ways (and why are the crimes excused, when cetrtainly they would not be if it was a capitalist economy?). Since the theory of fascism is that is that it is a reaction to communism, why assume the browns would have gained traction even if tsars remained on the throne?

The response otherwise is interesting. The claim is being made that ECONOMICALLY, things were better for russians under, say, Brezchnev than today. But that also plays up that ALL that matters is the economic angles. But my initial question was that socialism claims to bring about greater freedom for people.

Question to socialists: Is it better to be poor, but free, or rich (or even have all material needs met) but unfree?

[Demogorgon]

A lot of people here lament the collapse of the Soviet Union for ironically the same reason people like Kissenger secretly lament it. They believe having two competing powers stops either from going to far out of control. The Soviet Union was no more a Socialist country than America, but I do mis the fact that America doesn't have such a powerful country checking it anymore (and vice ersa of course).

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 08:58 am
A lot of people here lament the collapse of the Soviet Union for ironically the same reason people like Kissenger secretly lament it. They believe having two competing powers stops either from going to far out of control. The Soviet Union was no more a Socialist country than America, but I do mis the fact that America doesn't have such a powerful country checking it anymore (and vice ersa of course).

Do you lament the collapse of nazi Germany, as it too kept a check on the USSR?

How about the Japanese Emprire , as it kept check on the USA in the Pacific?

A guy like Kissinger I can understand the sentiments. But the socialists seem to want to build socialism, and reject that realpolitic stuff of a kissinger or a Metternicht.

How are pretenders to the throne lamented when they are cast aside? Does it harm or help the cause? The majority seemed to think the former.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by ZX3+March 07, 2007 03:41 pm--> (ZX3 @ March 07, 2007 03:41 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 08:58 am
A lot of people here lament the collapse of the Soviet Union for ironically the same reason people like Kissenger secretly lament it. They believe having two competing powers stops either from going to far out of control. The Soviet Union was no more a Socialist country than America, but I do mis the fact that America doesn't have such a powerful country checking it anymore (and vice ersa of course).

Do you lament the collapse of nazi Germany, as it too kept a check on the USSR?

How about the Japanese Emprire , as it kept check on the USA in the Pacific?

A guy like Kissinger I can understand the sentiments. But the socialists seem to want to build socialism, and reject that realpolitic stuff of a kissinger or a Metternicht.

How are pretenders to the throne lamented when they are cast aside? Does it harm or help the cause? The majority seemed to think the former. [/b]
How did Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan keep other coutries in check? They went to war very quickly. You might want to improve your history.

The point was that the USSR and the USA were easilly capable of wiping each other off the face of the earth and that meant that neither could really step out of line. Now without such a strong check on America see how it acts.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I would just have rather the USSR never occurred. All debates about the extent of it's successes and failures and horrors aside, the way it's now viewed by the vast majority of non leftists is possibly our biggest obstacle today. People just can't get past Stalin. Communism, Stalin, Communism=Stalin. It's so painful to watch.

Out of context, ZX3, I'd say poor and free, absolutely.

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Exactly. It was like the mother of all back-fires. Total disaster.

It's just useless to explain that they tried to jump from feudal to socialism and hence ran into problems, or that Stalin was just one nutter, who wasn't even as black as he's painted. It's just pounded into you by the ruling class, every day, that the USSR equates to Nazi germany, constant comparisons of Stalin to Hitler. If I can be allowed a moment of pessimism, I wonder if we'll ever get past it.

-Alex

[EwokUtopia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 01:08 pm
Question to socialists: Is it better to be poor, but free, or rich (or even have all material needs met) but unfree?
Poor and free without question.

Look at those poor schmucks who live in the suburbs, rich and enslaved by their wants, ignorance and fears. Look at their suicide rates. Shoot me before I ever move to a street named after some long-extinct tree and have my wife and 2.5 kids and SUV. That is the worst lifestyle I can imagine. These people are utter wretches, they think they are so wealthy and free, and they do not see the slavery or poverty that surrounds them. They are perhaps the safest people in the world, yet they are the most afraid. They have a huge access to education, but anything outside Sports Trivia is unknown to them. They are commodities, their Suburbs are farms, their jobs are fertilizer, their only purpose to society is consumption. Credit Cards are their Chains, TV is their blindfold.



I would much rather live in a Yurt in Mongolia than a McMansion in Missouri.

[RNK]

Question to socialists: Is it better to be poor, but free, or rich (or even have all material needs met) but unfree?

What exactly is the point of this question? For the vast majority of us the question should read, "Is it better to be poor but free, or poor but unfree?"

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 03:57 pm

Question to socialists: Is it better to be poor, but free, or rich (or even have all material needs met) but unfree?

What exactly is the point of this question? For the vast majority of us the question should read, "Is it better to be poor but free, or poor but unfree?"
I asked the question because the first response cited the material gains, allegedly, as a result of communism, and so why the demise was not completely unlamented.

My initial comment on this thread was noting that socialists claim that socialism will result in greater freedom for people. Most of the revlefters seem to have agreed, in other threads, at other times, that the USSR was not a particularly sterling example of freedom in action. Yet in that "History baord" thread, just about all had a heavy heart for the USSR collapse. I wondered about how socialists can claim to say socialism will lead to greater freedom, when they can't get over their love affair with the reds. The second question was more along the lines wondering whether socialists would dispense with political liberty in exchange for economic prosperity (or in any event, how they would define economic prosperity).

[ZX3]

Originally posted by patton+March 07, 2007 03:09 pm--> (patton @ March 07, 2007 03:09 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 07:37 pm
I would just have rather the USSR never occurred. All debates about the extent of it's successes and failures and horrors aside, the way it's now viewed by the vast majority of non leftists is possibly our biggest obstacle today. People just can't get past Stalin. Communism, Stalin, Communism=Stalin. It's so painful to watch.

Out of context, ZX3, I'd say poor and free, absolutely.

-Alex
Yes unfortunetly when you say communism the first thing that pops into peoples heads is Stalin not Marx. [/b]
But why not? Marx spent his life in a library. He was not faced with the opportunity of putting his views into action.

[inquisitive_socialist]

marx spent his life in the library, possibly, but he was alive during, living in, and around the most abject poverty, the most cruel excesses of law and industry. marx didn't write what he wrote, or say what he said out of some sort of harebrained idea of a utopia. he wrote about what he saw in the world, and how he felt it could be changed for the best. he thought about what he said and wrote, and wether you agree or not, you must recognize that the thought involved was more effort towards change than most people put into their day to day life then or now.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 05:16 pm
marx spent his life in the library, possibly, but he was alive during, living in, and around the most abject poverty, the most cruel excesses of law and industry. marx didn't write what he wrote, or say what he said out of some sort of harebrained idea of a utopia. he wrote about what he saw in the world, and how he felt it could be changed for the best. he thought about what he said and wrote, and wether you agree or not, you must recognize that the thought involved was more effort towards change than most people put into their day to day life then or now.
No, Marx spent his life in a library. he was not a worker toiling in the factories by day, and reordering the world by night. Nor was he from the working class, (which is common trait amongst all the socialist heroes), nor did he marry into the working class, instead marrying into the nobility.

Marx wrote in the United Kingdom, the wealthiest country on earth at the time. He didn't understand what he was seeing, which is that ALL nascent insdustrial communities go through tough times during the trasnsition. He was simply witnessing the begining, and trying to draw conclusions based upon it. Its like writing about computers and what its impact will be on the world.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by EwokUtopia+March 07, 2007 03:51 pm--> (EwokUtopia @ March 07, 2007 03:51 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 01:08 pm
Question to socialists: Is it better to be poor, but free, or rich (or even have all material needs met) but unfree?
Poor and free without question.

Look at those poor schmucks who live in the suburbs, rich and enslaved by their wants, ignorance and fears. Look at their suicide rates. Shoot me before I ever move to a street named after some long-extinct tree and have my wife and 2.5 kids and SUV. That is the worst lifestyle I can imagine. These people are utter wretches, they think they are so wealthy and free, and they do not see the slavery or poverty that surrounds them. They are perhaps the safest people in the world, yet they are the most afraid. They have a huge access to education, but anything outside Sports Trivia is unknown to them. They are commodities, their Suburbs are farms, their jobs are fertilizer, their only purpose to society is consumption. Credit Cards are their Chains, TV is their blindfold.



I would much rather live in a Yurt in Mongolia than a McMansion in Missouri. [/b]
i don't think anyone would want to live in missouri

anyways, you do realize that you don't have to let where you live define who you are?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by ZX3+March 07, 2007 10:42 pm--> (ZX3 @ March 07, 2007 10:42 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 05:16 pm
marx spent his life in the library, possibly, but he was alive during, living in, and around the most abject poverty, the most cruel excesses of law and industry. marx didn't write what he wrote, or say what he said out of some sort of harebrained idea of a utopia. he wrote about what he saw in the world, and how he felt it could be changed for the best. he thought about what he said and wrote, and wether you agree or not, you must recognize that the thought involved was more effort towards change than most people put into their day to day life then or now.
No, Marx spent his life in a library. he was not a worker toiling in the factories by day, and reordering the world by night. Nor was he from the working class, (which is common trait amongst all the socialist heroes), nor did he marry into the working class, instead marrying into the nobility.

Marx wrote in the United Kingdom, the wealthiest country on earth at the time. He didn't understand what he was seeing, which is that ALL nascent insdustrial communities go through tough times during the trasnsition. He was simply witnessing the begining, and trying to draw conclusions based upon it. Its like writing about computers and what its impact will be on the world. [/b]
You are kind of losing credibility here. The UK proved Marx's point. Despite the huge amount of wealth in the country, most workers at the time lived in terrible poverty. Back then most families were having to send their children to work in factories in order to survive.

How does this prevent Max knowing about poverty? Incidentally Marx was not a rich man himself. By the time he was in Britain he had next to nothing.

And the UK at the beginning of capitalism going through transition? Come on, learn some history.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+March 07, 2007 07:45 pm--> (Demogorgon @ March 07, 2007 07:45 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 10:42 pm

[email protected] 07, 2007 05:16 pm
marx spent his life in the library, possibly, but he was alive during, living in, and around the most abject poverty, the most cruel excesses of law and industry. marx didn't write what he wrote, or say what he said out of some sort of harebrained idea of a utopia. he wrote about what he saw in the world, and how he felt it could be changed for the best. he thought about what he said and wrote, and wether you agree or not, you must recognize that the thought involved was more effort towards change than most people put into their day to day life then or now.
No, Marx spent his life in a library. he was not a worker toiling in the factories by day, and reordering the world by night. Nor was he from the working class, (which is common trait amongst all the socialist heroes), nor did he marry into the working class, instead marrying into the nobility.

Marx wrote in the United Kingdom, the wealthiest country on earth at the time. He didn't understand what he was seeing, which is that ALL nascent insdustrial communities go through tough times during the trasnsition. He was simply witnessing the begining, and trying to draw conclusions based upon it. Its like writing about computers and what its impact will be on the world.
You are kind of losing credibility here. The UK proved Marx's point. Despite the huge amount of wealth in the country, most workers at the time lived in terrible poverty. Back then most families were having to send their children to work in factories in order to survive.

How does this prevent Max knowing about poverty? Incidentally Marx was not a rich man himself. By the time he was in Britain he had next to nothing.

And the UK at the beginning of capitalism going through transition? Come on, learn some history. [/b]
Child labor was a fact of life throughout all of human history. The wealth generated by capitalism ended it. Marx saw something in 1848 he would have seen in 1748 or 1648, or 1548...

Granted, in the UK of the 50s and 60s was not the absolute beging in that country. But in the scheme of things, the long historical processes if you will, it was.

[RNK]

On the contrary, child labour has only grown since Marx's time. Granted, workers in the West are a bit better off than in 1850, but there are still billions who live in far worse conditions than what Marx experienced and saw. Infact, most of the world's current population would kill to live in the conditions of the mid 19th century.

[grouchomarx]

The USSR did need many of the things Stalin delivered however, in bashing Stalin, its all to convenient to forget that without his rapid industrialisation process (which was a huge source of most of his crimes) we would all be speaking German right now. The USSR did improve an incredible amount after Stalins death, in the 70's it was a pretty good place to be. If you doubt what I am saying, ask any Russian who isnt a billionaire/maffiya/Putin if they would rather live in Russia in 1977 or 2007. Its the Russians who are most lamenting the collapse of the Soviet Union.


If it wasnt for massive American financial and military aid to the Soviets during WW2, that communist empire would of been wiped off the map.
Stalin was all too happy to ally himself with Hitler through the Ribbentropp-Molotov Pact. This forced leftist Party members in the West to assume a pro-Nazi attitude as per Moscow's marching orders.
Not too many people know (leftists conveniently omit) that WW2 began by Germany and the Soviet Union invading Poland. Germany overran that country from the west, and the Soviets smashed in from the east. The Soviet and Nazi armies celeberated over the corpse of murdered Poland at Brest-Litovsk.
It is mendaciously hypocritical for leftists to celebrate a brutal and genocidal "rapid industrialization" in Stalin's Russia when they condemn peaceful present-day industry in Western democracies where workers have mountains of volumes worth
of legal protections and rights. Not to mention that Western industrial workers earn more in a single month than workers trapped in communist countries earn in an entire year.
Leftists lament the loss of the Soviet Union because it shattered their charade and the piles of excuses they employed to rationalize the Soviet terror and poverty.
Leftists need to desperately argue that the Soviet Union was "not communist" only because the socialist idea failed to produce material abundance and human freedom. Had the Soviets nuked the free world ( and the rest of the planet still survived) right now radioactive leftists would be cheering on that nuclear holocaust as "necessary" for the cause; and there would be no need for them to pretend to disown their beloved gulag.

[RGacky3]

Question to socialists: Is it better to be poor, but free, or rich (or even have all material needs met) but unfree?

I would have to say Moraly its better to be poor but free, perhaps if I was poor and the needs were immediate I would be pragmatic and say better to have all my needs mett but be unfree, but that is not an important question because poverty is caused by Capitalism, which restrics freedom, if people were truely Socially free Poverty would not exist or at least drop substantionally. But from a philisophical standpoint poor but free definately.

As for the USSR, you ask any Anarchist and they will probably tell you that while the USSR was around they were praying for its downfall, not so it could become what it is now, but because they wanted it to go towards a truely free and equal Society, do I lament its downfall? No, do I lament what it was become? Yes?

If you look at the fall of the USSR a lot of what caused it was the Libertarian Left, the Solidarity movement was an independant workers movment against the state. Now about those who took advantage of the Collapse to Consolidate power and Wealth for themselves, I lament and dispise that.

[KC]

Question to socialists: Is it better to be poor, but free, or rich (or even have all material needs met) but unfree?

This question is inherently flawed, because you can't be poor and free at the same time. That's a contradiction.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Zampanò@March 08, 2007 01:40 pm

Question to socialists: Is it better to be poor, but free, or rich (or even have all material needs met) but unfree?

This question is inherently flawed, because you can't be poor and free at the same time. That's a contradiction.
And how is that?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by ZX3+March 09, 2007 12:38 pm--> (ZX3 @ March 09, 2007 12:38 pm)
Zampanò@March 08, 2007 01:40 pm

Question to socialists: Is it better to be poor, but free, or rich (or even have all material needs met) but unfree?

This question is inherently flawed, because you can't be poor and free at the same time. That's a contradiction.
And how is that? [/b]
Because to be free you need to have practical freedom. For example, the right to a far trial means nothing if you can't afford a awyer. The right to own property means nothing if you can't afford it etc.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+March 09, 2007 11:52 am--> (Demogorgon @ March 09, 2007 11:52 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 12:38 pm

Zampanò@March 08, 2007 01:40 pm

Question to socialists: Is it better to be poor, but free, or rich (or even have all material needs met) but unfree?

This question is inherently flawed, because you can't be poor and free at the same time. That's a contradiction.
And how is that?
Because to be free you need to have practical freedom. For example, the right to a far trial means nothing if you can't afford a awyer. The right to own property means nothing if you can't afford it etc. [/b]
Nonsense. "Practical" freedom? Hey, Joe Stalin said the USSR was the freest and most democratic society on earth. Nobody had to worry about paying for a lawyer there, or owning private property.

[RGacky3]

How come Capitalists only answer the Lenninists Posts, but never mine??? I have an idea why.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 02:07 pm
How come Capitalists only answer the Lenninists Posts, but never mine??? I have an idea why.
When it is declared that Solidarity was a socialist movement, there was nothing much more to say.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 06:10 pm
Nonsense. "Practical" freedom? Hey, Joe Stalin said the USSR was the freest and most democratic society on earth. Nobody had to worry about paying for a lawyer there, or owning private property.
What does Stalin have to do with this?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+March 11, 2007 02:46 pm--> (Demogorgon @ March 11, 2007 02:46 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 06:10 pm
Nonsense. "Practical" freedom? Hey, Joe Stalin said the USSR was the freest and most democratic society on earth. Nobody had to worry about paying for a lawyer there, or owning private property.
What does Stalin have to do with this? [/b]
Concrete application. It is not 1848 anymore.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by ZX3+March 11, 2007 08:22 pm--> (ZX3 @ March 11, 2007 08:22 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 02:46 pm

[email protected] 11, 2007 06:10 pm
Nonsense. "Practical" freedom? Hey, Joe Stalin said the USSR was the freest and most democratic society on earth. Nobody had to worry about paying for a lawyer there, or owning private property.
What does Stalin have to do with this?
Concrete application. It is not 1848 anymore. [/b]
Nor is it 1953. Stalin has been dead for over sixty years, yet you still want to use him to answer any criticism of capitalism? I repeat so called freedoms are not much use if you are unable to exercise them through lack of money.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+March 11, 2007 03:31 pm--> (Demogorgon @ March 11, 2007 03:31 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 08:22 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 02:46 pm

[email protected] 11, 2007 06:10 pm
Nonsense. "Practical" freedom? Hey, Joe Stalin said the USSR was the freest and most democratic society on earth. Nobody had to worry about paying for a lawyer there, or owning private property.
What does Stalin have to do with this?
Concrete application. It is not 1848 anymore.
Nor is it 1953. Stalin has been dead for over sixty years, yet you still want to use him to answer any criticism of capitalism? I repeat so called freedoms are not much use if you are unable to exercise them through lack of money. [/b]
And I have said you are not the first person to make such a claim. But we can see the results of those communities who have chosen to define freedom in that manner. Why should it be any different a fifteenth or sixteenth time around?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 08:34 pm
And I have said you are not the first person to make such a claim. But we can see the results of those communities who have chosen to define freedom in that manner. Why should it be any different a fifteenth or sixteenth time around?
It is hardly just Communists who define freedom the way I have. It is also defined that way by Social Democrats and sometimes Liberals. Just about every country in Western Europe accepted at last to an extent this particular argument of mine ntroducing things such as legal aid and housing assistance. This did not bring about tyranny.

Come to think of it, did Stalin even define Freedom the way I defined it? Henever really spoke of practical freedom, did he? And thatkind of brings me to a ey point, not only are my views far away from what Stalin did, they are also far away even from what his were before he assumed power, why on Earth should following my views lead to tyranny? BTW I can point to plenty of examples of capitalism leading to tyranny if you need help climbing down from your moral high ground.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+March 11, 2007 04:08 pm--> (Demogorgon @ March 11, 2007 04:08 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 08:34 pm
And I have said you are not the first person to make such a claim. But we can see the results of those communities who have chosen to define freedom in that manner. Why should it be any different a fifteenth or sixteenth time around?
It is hardly just Communists who define freedom the way I have. It is also defined that way by Social Democrats and sometimes Liberals. Just about every country in Western Europe accepted at last to an extent this particular argument of mine ntroducing things such as legal aid and housing assistance. This did not bring about tyranny.

Come to think of it, did Stalin even define Freedom the way I defined it? Henever really spoke of practical freedom, did he? And thatkind of brings me to a ey point, not only are my views far away from what Stalin did, they are also far away even from what his were before he assumed power, why on Earth should following my views lead to tyranny? BTW I can point to plenty of examples of capitalism leading to tyranny if you need help climbing down from your moral high ground. [/b]
The Communists and Social Democrats were once joined at the hip (Stalin was a Social Democrat. the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were opposing wings of the Russian Social Democratic Party. Many of the Mensheviks joined the Bolsheviks after 1917). But as many revlefters have noted, the Social Democrats have spent the better part of the 20th century shedding their socialist heritage. So it is not surprising the two talk in the same language. And Stalin did indeed talk, see his address at the signing of the Soviet Constitution of 1936, about how Soviet citizens were the freest on Earth because they did not have to worry about their material needs.

What many on this board have discovered is what the Social Democrats had begun to figure out in the 1920s: They couldn't figure out how to go from a capitalist community to a socialist community without violence and crushing liberty. Hence their backpedaling and reevaluations. But rather than backpedal, revlefters seem intent to deny the USSR was a socialist community, while debating the need for violence to bring about a socialist community (and often concluding that the violence will be the fault of those who are in opposition).

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 07:28 pm
When it is declared that Solidarity was a socialist movement, there was nothing much more to say.
I said it was a workers movement, a Labor union.

My point in bringing up why Capitalists tend to fight almost soly with Lenninists rather than the Anarchists and likeminded Socialists is that when arguing with the Lenninists you are always arguing the USSR against Capitalism, your arguing the Brutal history of the USSR against the Brutal, but perhaps not so apparent Brutal History of the United States and the Capitalistic nations, the you have the other Lenninst countries that are generally just as brutal. The problem is with Anarchists you don't have this tool, so its much harder to attack the Anarchist movement, you can't attack it from the "Red Tyrrany" stand point of that it takes away freedom, because of the Nature of Anarchism, and other theories and movments like Left Communism.

[RNK]

Exactly. 99% of cappies and kids who come here have absolutely no ideological leg to stand on when it comes to arguing the tenets of Communism, and almost always resort to "omfg communizm is teh brootel l0ok at teh USRS!!!1"

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 08:33 pm

My point in bringing up why Capitalists tend to fight almost soly with Lenninists rather than the Anarchists and likeminded Socialists is that when arguing with the Lenninists you are always arguing the USSR against Capitalism, your arguing the Brutal history of the USSR against the Brutal, but perhaps not so apparent Brutal History of the United States and the Capitalistic nations, the you have the other Lenninst countries that are generally just as brutal. The problem is with Anarchists you don't have this tool, so its much harder to attack the Anarchist movement, you can't attack it from the "Red Tyrrany" stand point of that it takes away freedom, because of the Nature of Anarchism, and other theories and movments like Left Communism.

It is the Lenninists who seem to be the only ones willing to defend their views hereabouts. It is often difficult to debate with those who believe a critique of capitalism is a proof for socialism.

[KC]

Do you ever shut up about the whole "proof for socialism" bullshit? We covered that weeks ago.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Zampanò@March 12, 2007 11:02 am
Do you ever shut up about the whole "proof for socialism" bullshit? We covered that weeks ago.

Sure. The response was not only nobody could, but that inability was not to be considered a sign of a major flaw in socialist thinking, but rather a sign of deep and powerful thought. Considering the fractious nature of socialism, I am ever hopeful there will be socialists about who would also find such reasoning laughable, not to mention highly "unscientific."

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 09:17 pm
Exactly. 99% of cappies and kids who come here have absolutely no ideological leg to stand on when it comes to arguing the tenets of Communism, and almost always resort to "omfg communizm is teh brootel l0ok at teh USRS!!!1"
well, what do you point to when trying to show the virtues of communism?

oh wait.

[KC]

Sure. The response was not only nobody could, but that inability was not to be considered a sign of a major flaw in socialist thinking, but rather a sign of deep and powerful thought. Considering the fractious nature of socialism, I am ever hopeful there will be socialists about who would also find such reasoning laughable, not to mention highly "unscientific."

You apparently missed that whole thread. You can't "prove" a system like socialism; it's not math, it's a social theory.

[colonelguppy]

you're right, but you can test it's practicality by observing application.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 12:15 am
you're right, but you can test it's practicality by observing application.
True, but what if somebody proposes something not yet applied, or only applied on a small scale?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+March 12, 2007 07:32 pm--> (Demogorgon @ March 12, 2007 07:32 pm)
[email protected] 13, 2007 12:15 am
you're right, but you can test it's practicality by observing application.
True, but what if somebody proposes something not yet applied, or only applied on a small scale? [/b]
depends on what we are talking about. for communism, i would say

1. places like china, russia, and cuba failed to be truely communist because they had uneducated masses easily swayed by powerful leaders, and lacked industrialized economies, a key component marx said would be necessary.

2. places with post industrial eocnomies and educated populations have universally rejected communism in favor of liberalism or social democracy.

3. small scale applications can't be used as a judge because everyone knows an industrialized society cannot operate on the small scale, recources are too isolated.

now, because of these things, i don't see how the marxist vision of communism could be realisticly acheived.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 12:40 am

depends on what we are talking about. for communism, i would say

1. places like china, russia, and cuba failed to be truely communist because they had uneducated masses easily swayed by powerful leaders, and lacked industrialized economies, a key component marx said would be necessary.

2. places with post industrial eocnomies and educated populations have universally rejected communism in favor of liberalism or social democracy.

3. small scale applications can't be used as a judge because everyone knows an industrialized society cannot operate on the small scale, recources are too isolated.

now, because of these things, i don't see how the marxist vision of communism could be realisticly acheived.
Let's leave aside Communism for a moment and look at anarchism. Personally I am not an anarchist, though I agree with them about a lot of things, but I think it is ridiculous to answer an anarchist's point be referring to the Soviet Union or any other country for that matter.

As for Communism, well it is acceptable to answer a Stalinist with a criticism of the Soviet Union (not that they'll listen mind you) but what would you ay to a Trotskyist, someone who takes criticism of the Soviet Union to the level of an art form?

Of the points you make I accept one and three, but I cannot accept number two. I'm pretty sure a lot of industrial societies would have taken Communism, even of the Stalinist kind had it been on offer. We tried it here in Scotland and the tanks were sent in and famously there was nearly a revolution in France in 1968, so really, don't be so sure. I agree that we are not living in revolutionary times right now (at least as far as Western Europe and North America goes), something that people here need to wake up to, but don't try and predict the future too closely. Not an easy thing to do.

[RNK]

1. places like china, russia, and cuba failed to be truely communist because they had uneducated masses easily swayed by powerful leaders, and lacked industrialized economies, a key component marx said would be necessary.

Communist countries that have undergone their initial transition to socialism are incapable of expanding that into a true Communist economy so long as capitalism is still alive and well in the world. Honestly, if Cuba suddenly dissolved its government and military and all forms of centralized authority, what do you think would happen the day after?

Unfortunately you are mildly correct in our inability to actually criticize the applications of true communinsm as they haven't happened yet. What we can analyse, however, is the socialist aspects of those countries which have undergone the first transitional stage. We can also make informed hypotheses by scientifically studying economic and social history.

Anyway, the failure of past socialist movements can be directly attributed to the failure to expand it worldwide. The only logical course of action would therefore be to work towards a global revolution to completely eradicate capitalism from every corner of the planet. After that's done, and Communism is capable of operating under its essential conditions, THEN you can criticize it. Until then, your opinion of it is completely irrelevant.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+March 12, 2007 08:16 pm--> (Demogorgon @ March 12, 2007 08:16 pm)
[email protected] 13, 2007 12:40 am

depends on what we are talking about. for communism, i would say

1. places like china, russia, and cuba failed to be truely communist because they had uneducated masses easily swayed by powerful leaders, and lacked industrialized economies, a key component marx said would be necessary.

2. places with post industrial eocnomies and educated populations have universally rejected communism in favor of liberalism or social democracy.

3. small scale applications can't be used as a judge because everyone knows an industrialized society cannot operate on the small scale, recources are too isolated.

now, because of these things, i don't see how the marxist vision of communism could be realisticly acheived.
Let's leave aside Communism for a moment and look at anarchism. Personally I am not an anarchist, though I agree with them about a lot of things, but I think it is ridiculous to answer an anarchist's point be referring to the Soviet Union or any other country for that matter.

As for Communism, well it is acceptable to answer a Stalinist with a criticism of the Soviet Union (not that they'll listen mind you) but what would you ay to a Trotskyist, someone who takes criticism of the Soviet Union to the level of an art form?

Of the points you make I accept one and three, but I cannot accept number two. I'm pretty sure a lot of industrial societies would have taken Communism, even of the Stalinist kind had it been on offer. We tried it here in Scotland and the tanks were sent in and famously there was nearly a revolution in France in 1968, so really, don't be so sure. I agree that we are not living in revolutionary times right now (at least as far as Western Europe and North America goes), something that people here need to wake up to, but don't try and predict the future too closely. Not an easy thing to do. [/b]
but what about now? after the end of the cold war, there has been an increased shift towards neoliberalism in alot of inudstrialized countries, are there really any potential communist movements in the first world that have a realistic chance of suceeding?

[KC]

you're right, but you can test it's practicality by observing application.

Yes and no. In this case that doesn't really apply because Marxist theory doesn't really discuss how to "apply" socialism; it merely discusses the development of capitalism and the general principles of socialist (and also communist) society based on the transition into it from capitalist society. So you can't really say "socialism failed because look at the USSR!" The fact is that blueprints for creating socialism just don't exist, because they would just be speculation. This is because the form socialism takes in different countries is achieved and applied differently due to different material conditions. This is why we are able to look back on past revolutions and determine where they went right and where they went wrong based on the material conditions in which they existed.


1. places like china, russia, and cuba failed to be truely communist because they had uneducated masses easily swayed by powerful leaders, and lacked industrialized economies, a key component marx said would be necessary.

I don't think you can lump these three different situations into the same category. Also, I think your conclusion is simplistic and incorrect. Determining where these "went wrong" is a lot more in depth and complex than just saying "the masses were dumb". Also, Russia had a very developed industrial sector, as did Cuba.


2. places with post industrial eocnomies and educated populations have universally rejected communism in favor of liberalism or social democracy.

I don't think postindustrialism really exists. Rather, the industries have been moved to places where cheaper labour can be hired. Also, this support of moderate politics is due mostly to the good position that the citizens of these countries enjoy. Of course, this isn't true for the country as a whole, as there's always a group of people that are being horribly exploited regardless of country. What is necessary to get the proletariat in these countries political is a crisis; it doesn't have to be huge, but it does have to be profound.


3. small scale applications can't be used as a judge because everyone knows an industrialized society cannot operate on the small scale, recources are too isolated.

I agree with you on that.


but what about now? after the end of the cold war, there has been an increased shift towards neoliberalism in alot of inudstrialized countries, are there really any potential communist movements in the first world that have a realistic chance of suceeding?

Actually, I would argue that the living standards of the working class in this country are declining and that, with the propaganda from the cold war wearing off, more people are becoming interested in communism. When I talk of communism with working class people nowadays, I get people who are apprehensive and want to learn more.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 02:44 am
but what about now? after the end of the cold war, there has been an increased shift towards neoliberalism in alot of inudstrialized countries, are there really any potential communist movements in the first world that have a realistic chance of suceeding?
First of all if its in the first or third world is irrelivent, and yes it is gaining huge momentum in the third world, and the fact that the Soviet Movment has collapsed has actually helped Genuine socialist movements a lot. The shift towards Neo-Liberalism is'nt a popular democratic shift, its a busines inspired state shift, Neo-Liberalism among the general working class is very unpopular in the first world.

Why don't Capitalists ever address things such as the Spanish Anarchist Communities, or the Zapatista municipalities, or say the worker controlled areas in Argentina, or other Genuine Communistic examples, all of which were destroyed from external military forces, why must you insist on focusing on the Lenninist states.

[colonelguppy]

Communist countries that have undergone their initial transition to socialism are incapable of expanding that into a true Communist economy so long as capitalism is still alive and well in the world. Honestly, if Cuba suddenly dissolved its government and military and all forms of centralized authority, what do you think would happen the day after?

communist are going to have to deal with external threats, thats a fact of life. removing capitalism doens't change this.

as for cuba, i doubt we would need to intervene, theres no real need for us to try in intervene anyways, they don't have anyhting we want or need.


Anyway, the failure of past socialist movements can be directly attributed to the failure to expand it worldwide. The only logical course of action would therefore be to work towards a global revolution to completely eradicate capitalism from every corner of the planet. After that's done, and Communism is capable of operating under its essential conditions, THEN you can criticize it. Until then, your opinion of it is completely irrelevant.

well excuse me if i'm not overwhelmed by a system that hasn't been succesfully implicated ever. if it's essential condition is the whole world being communist without any external threats, then i won't hold my breath waiting for it to work.

[colonelguppy]

Yes and no. In this case that doesn't really apply because Marxist theory doesn't really discuss how to "apply" socialism; it merely discusses the development of capitalism and the general principles of socialist (and also communist) society based on the transition into it from capitalist society. So you can't really say "socialism failed because look at the USSR!" The fact is that blueprints for creating socialism just don't exist, because they would just be speculation. This is because the form socialism takes in different countries is achieved and applied differently due to different material conditions. This is why we are able to look back on past revolutions and determine where they went right and where they went wrong based on the material conditions in which they existed.

is telling me that there is no known way to achieve true communism supposed to be increasing my faith in it's likeliness or practicality? gotta say it's having the opposite effect, going itno a revolution without knowing what your specific goals ar eis a good way to end up in a dictatorship.


I don't think you can lump these three different situations into the same category. Also, I think your conclusion is simplistic and incorrect. Determining where these "went wrong" is a lot more in depth and complex than just saying "the masses were dumb". Also, Russia had a very developed industrial sector, as did Cuba.

well, simply put, there was no democratic tradition in any of those countries and the people were used to being led by charimatic leaders promising them a better life. they had certian levels of industrialization, but not neraly enough to support a highly educated populous who are more resistant against the common tools of tyrants.



I don't think postindustrialism really exists. Rather, the industries have been moved to places where cheaper labour can be hired. Also, this support of moderate politics is due mostly to the good position that the citizens of these countries enjoy. Of course, this isn't true for the country as a whole, as there's always a group of people that are being horribly exploited regardless of country. What is necessary to get the proletariat in these countries political is a crisis; it doesn't have to be huge, but it does have to be profound.

the problem is that most the proletariat aren't in a worse enough condition to justify trying to change it, which is why political moderation is so popular. so realisticly, how is a small minority going to achieve this?


Actually, I would argue that the living standards of the working class in this country are declining and that, with the propaganda from the cold war wearing off, more people are becoming interested in communism. When I talk of communism with working class people nowadays, I get people who are apprehensive and want to learn more.


i know that real wages are declining due to inflation (in the US atleast), but thats hardly a measure of current standard of living, which encompasses many things besides wages (goods available, employment, CPI etc..).

[colonelguppy]

First of all if its in the first or third world is irrelivent, and yes it is gaining huge momentum in the third world, and the fact that the Soviet Movment has collapsed has actually helped Genuine socialist movements a lot. The shift towards Neo-Liberalism is'nt a popular democratic shift, its a busines inspired state shift, Neo-Liberalism among the general working class is very unpopular in the first world.

but that doens't mean that they will necessarilly support communism in the first world, which is where it needs to happen if it is going ot have any success.



Why don't Capitalists ever address things such as the Spanish Anarchist Communities, or the Zapatista municipalities, or say the worker controlled areas in Argentina, or other Genuine Communistic examples, all of which were destroyed from external military forces, why must you insist on focusing on the Lenninist states.

because economic plans on the micro scale are irrelevent to the macro scale.

[KC]

is telling me that there is no known way to achieve true communism supposed to be increasing my faith in it's likeliness or practicality?

No?


gotta say it's having the opposite effect, going itno a revolution without knowing what your specific goals ar eis a good way to end up in a dictatorship.

That's like asking a country how they're going to go about winning a war. It's stupid. Rather, we know general principles that we strive for and that we must base our tactics on the material conditions in which we act, just as any commander would do in a war.


well, simply put, there was no democratic tradition in any of those countries and the people were used to being led by charimatic leaders promising them a better life.

I hardly think that's the case for Russia. The Russian revolution was led by a mass party in which the leaders had to convince other party members of the correct way forward. And these other party members weren't just "uneducated idiots" either, or however you want to make them out to be. Also, the party was democratic.


i know that real wages are declining due to inflation (in the US atleast), but thats hardly a measure of current standard of living, which encompasses many things besides wages (goods available, employment, CPI etc..).

You might be correct; I was basing that assumption on anecdotal evidence and my own personal situation, as well as things that I have been told from other comrades with regards to the work they have done within the working class.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 06:15 am

First of all if its in the first or third world is irrelivent, and yes it is gaining huge momentum in the third world, and the fact that the Soviet Movment has collapsed has actually helped Genuine socialist movements a lot. The shift towards Neo-Liberalism is'nt a popular democratic shift, its a busines inspired state shift, Neo-Liberalism among the general working class is very unpopular in the first world.

but that doens't mean that they will necessarilly support communism in the first world, which is where it needs to happen if it is going ot have any success.



Why don't Capitalists ever address things such as the Spanish Anarchist Communities, or the Zapatista municipalities, or say the worker controlled areas in Argentina, or other Genuine Communistic examples, all of which were destroyed from external military forces, why must you insist on focusing on the Lenninist states.

because economic plans on the micro scale are irrelevent to the macro scale.
I ask Why, to both statements, why must it happen in the first world if its going to have success, and what do you consider success?
Also why are economies on a micro scale irrelevent to the macro scale, if they work for the people involved then they work.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Zampanò@March 12, 2007 04:15 pm

Sure. The response was not only nobody could, but that inability was not to be considered a sign of a major flaw in socialist thinking, but rather a sign of deep and powerful thought. Considering the fractious nature of socialism, I am ever hopeful there will be socialists about who would also find such reasoning laughable, not to mention highly "unscientific."

You apparently missed that whole thread. You can't "prove" a system like socialism; it's not math, it's a social theory.
If the socialist cannot prove that theirs will bring about a better like for people, then all their theories are meaningless.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+March 12, 2007 07:32 pm--> (Demogorgon @ March 12, 2007 07:32 pm)
[email protected] 13, 2007 12:15 am
you're right, but you can test it's practicality by observing application.
True, but what if somebody proposes something not yet applied, or only applied on a small scale? [/b]
Then work it through.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 09:16 pm

1. places like china, russia, and cuba failed to be truely communist because they had uneducated masses easily swayed by powerful leaders, and lacked industrialized economies, a key component marx said would be necessary.

Communist countries that have undergone their initial transition to socialism are incapable of expanding that into a true Communist economy so long as capitalism is still alive and well in the world. Honestly, if Cuba suddenly dissolved its government and military and all forms of centralized authority, what do you think would happen the day after?

Unfortunately you are mildly correct in our inability to actually criticize the applications of true communinsm as they haven't happened yet. What we can analyse, however, is the socialist aspects of those countries which have undergone the first transitional stage. We can also make informed hypotheses by scientifically studying economic and social history.

Anyway, the failure of past socialist movements can be directly attributed to the failure to expand it worldwide. The only logical course of action would therefore be to work towards a global revolution to completely eradicate capitalism from every corner of the planet. After that's done, and Communism is capable of operating under its essential conditions, THEN you can criticize it. Until then, your opinion of it is completely irrelevant.
The problem with this is that your proposal is based upon the need for a sudden world wide instantaneous socialist revolt.

Its not going to happen.

So socilaist communities are going to have to accept that they will exist, at least for a while, in a world where exists capitalist countries.

The police states which the USSR or Cuba created are argued as being neccessary in such an environment to protect from the capitalist onslaught. The claim is that it will vanish after the glorious worldwide revolt (which incidently, the USSR and Cuba worked assidiously for) But then that claim becomes a matter of faith and trust, not "science."

Socialism theoretical problems are legion.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by RGacky3+March 14, 2007 01:11 am--> (RGacky3 @ March 14, 2007 01:11 am)
[email protected] 13, 2007 06:15 am

First of all if its in the first or third world is irrelivent, and yes it is gaining huge momentum in the third world, and the fact that the Soviet Movment has collapsed has actually helped Genuine socialist movements a lot. The shift towards Neo-Liberalism is'nt a popular democratic shift, its a busines inspired state shift, Neo-Liberalism among the general working class is very unpopular in the first world.

but that doens't mean that they will necessarilly support communism in the first world, which is where it needs to happen if it is going ot have any success.



Why don't Capitalists ever address things such as the Spanish Anarchist Communities, or the Zapatista municipalities, or say the worker controlled areas in Argentina, or other Genuine Communistic examples, all of which were destroyed from external military forces, why must you insist on focusing on the Lenninist states.

because economic plans on the micro scale are irrelevent to the macro scale.
I ask Why, to both statements, why must it happen in the first world if its going to have success, and what do you consider success?
Also why are economies on a micro scale irrelevent to the macro scale, if they work for the people involved then they work. [/b]
1. success is establishing communism, if a said country isn going to be ocmmunist then i t helps if the people want it. it must happen in the first world because this is where the educated populouses of the world are and are thus less likely to accept dictatorship.

2. you can't compare micro economies to macro ones because managing recources is infinitely harder for a large modernized society than it is for a hippie commune of 100 people.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+March 14, 2007 09:25 pm--> (colonelguppy @ March 14, 2007 09:25 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 01:11 am

[email protected] 13, 2007 06:15 am

First of all if its in the first or third world is irrelivent, and yes it is gaining huge momentum in the third world, and the fact that the Soviet Movment has collapsed has actually helped Genuine socialist movements a lot. The shift towards Neo-Liberalism is'nt a popular democratic shift, its a busines inspired state shift, Neo-Liberalism among the general working class is very unpopular in the first world.

but that doens't mean that they will necessarilly support communism in the first world, which is where it needs to happen if it is going ot have any success.



Why don't Capitalists ever address things such as the Spanish Anarchist Communities, or the Zapatista municipalities, or say the worker controlled areas in Argentina, or other Genuine Communistic examples, all of which were destroyed from external military forces, why must you insist on focusing on the Lenninist states.

because economic plans on the micro scale are irrelevent to the macro scale.
I ask Why, to both statements, why must it happen in the first world if its going to have success, and what do you consider success?
Also why are economies on a micro scale irrelevent to the macro scale, if they work for the people involved then they work.
1. success is establishing communism, if a said country isn going to be ocmmunist then i t helps if the people want it. it must happen in the first world because this is where the educated populouses of the world are and are thus less likely to accept dictatorship.

2. you can't compare micro economies to macro ones because managing recources is infinitely harder for a large modernized society than it is for a hippie commune of 100 people. [/b]
1. You saying it MUST happen in the first world because only educated first world people won't let a dictatorship happen is first of all just your opinion, and second of all a very stupid opinion. People in the third world, as well as the first, people in General have a sense of justice and liberty, and education levels usually don't have anything to do with it, I point to Chiapas, most of the indians there don't get a formal education at all, but their sense of justice probably is better than the average American. Its VERY possible for a revolution to happen in the third world. Its also very possible that as the first world gets education about the roots of neo-liberalism, they will drift toward Socialism (the people that is).

2. Of coarse its harder to Manage a large scale economy than it is a small one, but the principles are the same, plus in a Communistic society it won't be neccesary to manage a large scale economy, the ones to Manage it are the ones involved, there won't be a central power making all the decisions. I'll ask you too look up a little bit on the Spanish revolution, it was'nt hippie communes with 100 people in it, ever been to Barcelona?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 11:22 pm
Of coarse its harder to Manage a large scale economy than it is a small one, but the principles are the same, plus in a Communistic society it won't be neccesary to manage a large scale economy, the ones to Manage it are the ones involved, there won't be a central power making all the decisions.

Okay, lets "figure things out" here:

"the ones to Manage it are the ones involved."

Now, what does this mean?

1. The people in the local comminity will decide and control the disposition of the economic resources in their community, people outside the community being excluded from such decisons?

or

2. The people working in the local industries themselves will be making the decisions concerning the disposition of the economic activity of that industry, people who work outside the industry being excluded from the decision making process?

or

3. Something else?

[wtfm8lol]

I point to Chiapas, most of the indians there don't get a formal education at all, but their sense of justice probably is better than the average American.

I'll bet their sense of justice is something like "The national government owes me everything regardless of the fact that i don't want to work and contribute to society"

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 06:38 pm

I point to Chiapas, most of the indians there don't get a formal education at all, but their sense of justice probably is better than the average American.

I'll bet their sense of justice is something like "The national government owes me everything regardless of the fact that i don't want to work and contribute to society"
Other than work the land, build their houses, and actually do everything for their society, what they want from the national government is the land that they work.

I would love for you to travel down to Chiapas, go to the one of the Campasinos and tell him that he does'nt work, nor does he contribute to society, all he does is demand stuff from the government. Seriously, if you said that to me in person I would spit in your face.

[wtfm8lol]

I'll admit I know little about Chiapas and that was more of a joke than anything. After a bit of reading it seems as though I might agree with their fight against the Mexican government. I may even agree with you that their sense of justice is better than that of the average american, but probably for a different reason than you do.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 07:25 pm
I'll admit I know little about Chiapas and that was more of a joke than anything. After a bit of reading it seems as though I might agree with their fight against the Mexican government. I may even agree with you that their sense of justice is better than that of the average american, but probably for a different reason than you do.
all right high five comrade. :redstar:

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by ZX3+March 16, 2007 11:02 am--> (ZX3 @ March 16, 2007 11:02 am)
[email protected] 15, 2007 11:22 pm
Of coarse its harder to Manage a large scale economy than it is a small one, but the principles are the same, plus in a Communistic society it won't be neccesary to manage a large scale economy, the ones to Manage it are the ones involved, there won't be a central power making all the decisions.

Okay, lets "figure things out" here:

"the ones to Manage it are the ones involved."

Now, what does this mean?

1. The people in the local comminity will decide and control the disposition of the economic resources in their community, people outside the community being excluded from such decisons?

or

2. The people working in the local industries themselves will be making the decisions concerning the disposition of the economic activity of that industry, people who work outside the industry being excluded from the decision making process?

or

3. Something else? [/b]
I would have to say both one and two, the people in the local community decide what the resources in the community will be used for, and those in the industry will decide how the industry is run, those outside the community or industry would probably be excluded from those decisions because it does'nt involve them. But as I said before it is not set in stone and depending on the Community or the industry it might be different.

That is a question however that not all Socialists can agree on and its a hard issue (In the Anarchist tradition this is pretty much what devides the Social-Amarchists in to Anarcho-Communistis, Mutualists Anarchists and so on). But both are more just and reasonable than the Boss Making the decisions or the State make the decisions.

[RNK]

Yes. We have differences about it, and some of us are unsure, and it will undoubtedly require some "trial and error", although naturally there will be far less "error" now that we've had 150 years and dozens of revolutions to iron out the "kinks". The history of the proletarian movement has given us a treasure trove of historical experience that we can use to formulate new ideas and fix old ones.

And before anyone attempts to use that fact as an excuse why socialism is destined to lead to economic ruin, keep in mind that it took "democracy" nearly 2000 years to become what it is today. And based on the development of communism, we're doing a hell of a lot better.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 02:09 am
Yes. We have differences about it, and some of us are unsure, and it will undoubtedly require some "trial and error", although naturally there will be far less "error" now that we've had 150 years and dozens of revolutions to iron out the "kinks". The history of the proletarian movement has given us a treasure trove of historical experience that we can use to formulate new ideas and fix old ones.

And before anyone attempts to use that fact as an excuse why socialism is destined to lead to economic ruin, keep in mind that it took "democracy" nearly 2000 years to become what it is today. And based on the development of communism, we're doing a hell of a lot better.
What do you figure some of the kinks would be?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by RGacky3+March 17, 2007 03:02 pm--> (RGacky3 @ March 17, 2007 03:02 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 11:02 am

[email protected] 15, 2007 11:22 pm
Of coarse its harder to Manage a large scale economy than it is a small one, but the principles are the same, plus in a Communistic society it won't be neccesary to manage a large scale economy, the ones to Manage it are the ones involved, there won't be a central power making all the decisions.

Okay, lets "figure things out" here:

"the ones to Manage it are the ones involved."

Now, what does this mean?

1. The people in the local comminity will decide and control the disposition of the economic resources in their community, people outside the community being excluded from such decisons?

or

2. The people working in the local industries themselves will be making the decisions concerning the disposition of the economic activity of that industry, people who work outside the industry being excluded from the decision making process?

or

3. Something else?
I would have to say both one and two, the people in the local community decide what the resources in the community will be used for, and those in the industry will decide how the industry is run, those outside the community or industry would probably be excluded from those decisions because it does'nt involve them. But as I said before it is not set in stone and depending on the Community or the industry it might be different.

That is a question however that not all Socialists can agree on and its a hard issue (In the Anarchist tradition this is pretty much what devides the Social-Amarchists in to Anarcho-Communistis, Mutualists Anarchists and so on). But both are more just and reasonable than the Boss Making the decisions or the State make the decisions. [/b]
What is the knowledge people will use in making their decsisions?

[RGacky3]

What is the knowledge people will use in making their decsisions?[QUOTE]

The same knowledge we have now, I really don't get this question.

What do you figure some of the kinks would be?[QUOTE]

Maybe the slowness of getting things done due to the direct Democracy, perhaps industry needs vrs community needs which could be worked out pretty easily I think, what has always been a Major kink is how to deal with outside forces, thats probably the biggest one. But there could be plenty of them, but at least it would be free and equal.

[ZX3]

[QUOTE]What is the knowledge people will use in making their decsisions?[QUOTE]

The same knowledge we have now, I really don't get this question.

What do you figure some of the kinks would be?


Maybe the slowness of getting things done due to the direct Democracy, perhaps industry needs vrs community needs which could be worked out pretty easily I think, what has always been a Major kink is how to deal with outside forces, thats probably the biggest one. But there could be plenty of them, but at least it would be free and equal.

What I mean by "knowledge" is this: Capitalism has a system and method of ideas which directs its production. Capitalists uses this system, "knowledge" about the economic structure of capitalism in determing their actions. Socialists of course dissagree with these types of capitalist theories will lead to a better society for all.

But regardless of socialists opinion of capitalist ideas, it is still ideas on how to allocate resources effectively and eficiently(at leat, as per the capitalist). Socialism will still have to deal with this issue. Socialism needs to have its own ideas on how to do this, its own "knowledge" which people will use (democratically of course :D ) when hammering out decisions. The knowledge which capitalists use in making those decisions will be unavailable to the socialist community. What will replace it?

I am asking for the PRINCIPLES which might be used. i am not asking for the blueprints of a particular socialist community. I have long stipulated (for the sake of argument) that the socialist community in Norway will be different from the one in Botwana which will be different from the one in El Salvador. But the PRINCIPLES of allocating resources will be more alike than unlike amongst all three.

[RNK]

What will replace it?

Oi vey... I know this is probably very hard for you to understand. Afterall, you've grown up in this sytem, you know nothing different from the status quo...

What will replace it is a centralized economy acting with the whole of society's interests in mind. This is not an abstract concept. It is straightforward. If something is lacking, industry or agriculture adapts. Try to wrap your head around it.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 07:19 am

What will replace it?

Oi vey... I know this is probably very hard for you to understand. Afterall, you've grown up in this sytem, you know nothing different from the status quo...

What will replace it is a centralized economy acting with the whole of society's interests in mind. This is not an abstract concept. It is straightforward. If something is lacking, industry or agriculture adapts. Try to wrap your head around it.
Okay.

It will act in the interest of all.
What tells "it" is acting in interest of all?

How does industry or agriculture know if something is lacking? What tells "it" this is so? What does "it" do in response?

Oi vei... Proof, proof, proof.

[RNK]

How does industry or agriculture know if something is lacking? What tells "it" this is so? What does "it" do in response?

How is that sort of information gathered today? Who or what tells us when certain industry sectors are lacking? Jesus, dude, use your head. Official, commissioned, and public-sector study groups, for the most part, are fully capable of observing the economy -- nothing would change in that regard. As for what "it" does in response, that is entirely up to the democratic process of the executive and/or legislative branches of government in conjunction with the Ministries of whatever economic sectors are applicable. For instance, if there is a shortage of beer, it will be discovered, observed and reported by the above-mentioned means to the "People's Commissar of Tobacco and Alcohol", or whatever the post is called. He would work with his deputies, if he has any, and/or the legislative and/or executive assemblies or branches of government (insofar as there is one) and/or whatever applicable generic people's assembly that may exist. A plan is formulated and then adopted, much like is done in modern democracy, with one very important difference -- whatever action is taken, it is specifically for the betterment of the people, and nothing else.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by RGacky[email protected] 19, 2007 11:01 pm

Maybe the slowness of getting things done due to the direct Democracy, perhaps industry needs vrs community needs which could be worked out pretty easily I think, what has always been a Major kink is how to deal with outside forces, thats probably the biggest one. But there could be plenty of them, but at least it would be free and equal.
I would agree that there could be a clash between Factory A and the socialist community in which its owners reside. Such clashes occur in capitalism. I would dissagree that such a clash would be easy to resolve.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 08:33 am

How does industry or agriculture know if something is lacking? What tells "it" this is so? What does "it" do in response?

How is that sort of information gathered today? Who or what tells us when certain industry sectors are lacking? Jesus, dude, use your head. Official, commissioned, and public-sector study groups, for the most part, are fully capable of observing the economy -- nothing would change in that regard. As for what "it" does in response, that is entirely up to the democratic process of the executive and/or legislative branches of government in conjunction with the Ministries of whatever economic sectors are applicable. For instance, if there is a shortage of beer, it will be discovered, observed and reported by the above-mentioned means to the "People's Commissar of Tobacco and Alcohol", or whatever the post is called. He would work with his deputies, if he has any, and/or the legislative and/or executive assemblies or branches of government (insofar as there is one) and/or whatever applicable generic people's assembly that may exist. A plan is formulated and then adopted, much like is done in modern democracy, with one very important difference -- whatever action is taken, it is specifically for the betterment of the people, and nothing else.

What are these officials observing FOR in the SOCIALIST economy? It cannot possibly be the the same things which one looks for in a capitalist economy. That economy, and all the information it uses to produce sufficient quanities of beer, is eliminated. A shortage of beer could be the result of a problem at the distillery. Or it could be a result of a problem with the bottlemakers, the barley growers, the alcohol manufacturers, which in turn could be the result of problems further down the line in their own production (ie the glassmakers may be causing a headache for the bottleworkers, the farmers did not grow enough barley ect ect).

So what is that information which the officials rely upon in making their determinations in the socialist community?

[RNK]

It cannot possibly be the the same things which one looks for in a capitalist economy. That economy, and all the information it uses to produce sufficient quanities of beer, is eliminated.

The capitalist economy is eliminated but only a complete idiot would even attempt to claim that a socialist economy wouldn't include a system of checks and balancing to ensure that the economy doesn't suffer shortages). A socialist government is not some monolithic entity which sits on a golden throne completely unaware of the society it "maintains". It is an entity which is made in whole by the people themselves; if any particular area suffers shortages their local representatives will become immediately aware of it and carry that knowledge up through the proper channels so that it can be dealt with. This is ontop of the already mentioned observational committees and organizations which will be put in place (and which are already in place).

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 09:09 am

It cannot possibly be the the same things which one looks for in a capitalist economy. That economy, and all the information it uses to produce sufficient quanities of beer, is eliminated.

The capitalist economy is eliminated but only a complete idiot would even attempt to claim that a socialist economy wouldn't include a system of checks and balancing to ensure that the economy doesn't suffer shortages). A socialist government is not some monolithic entity which sits on a golden throne completely unaware of the society it "maintains". It is an entity which is made in whole by the people themselves; if any particular area suffers shortages their local representatives will become immediately aware of it and carry that knowledge up through the proper channels so that it can be dealt with. This is ontop of the already mentioned observational committees and organizations which will be put in place (and which are already in place).

Okay. So what are the checks and balances which a socialist community might use to avoid shortages?

[pusher robot]

How is that sort of information gathered today? Who or what tells us when certain industry sectors are lacking?

The answer is: prices. If you propose to eliminate prices, something has to fill that role.



For instance, if there is a shortage of beer

That begs the question of what is a shortage? Normally, the answer would be that there is a shortage if people are willing to pay more for another beer than it costs to produce another beer. But how do you know this without prices? The costs of producing another beer are determined by adding the prices for the elements of the beer, and so on. If you are producing to the point that people are physically unable to consume more beer, you are definitely over-producing, and your customers are over-consuming. You could produce enough for every person to consume a "reasonable" amount - but if the marginal cost to a consumer for drinking another beer is zero, what mechanism prevents them from over-consuming?

This doesn't even get into the agency problem: if you have a Kommisar of Beer, what conern is he going to have for the manufacturers of other products that need the same raw materials as beer? How do the Kommisar of Bread and the Kommisar of Beer figure out what the "right" balance of beer vs. bread is, especially given that at zero cost, people will consume as much as they possibly can of each?

[RNK]

This is getting very old. If you guys are incapable of independant thought, I don't see any reason to continue wasting my time trying to explain something that you are utterly unable to grasp.


So what are the checks and balances which a socialist community might use to avoid shortages?

I already told you, most of the current techniques utilized today will still be applicable. Look it up yourself. I'm not your fucking teacher.


The answer is: prices.

Are you stupid, or is it just your head?

Tell me, Einstein -- how do companies figure out what to set their prices at?


That begs the question of what is a shortage?

You've got to be the dumbest person ever on the internet.


Normally, the answer would be that there is a shortage if people are willing to pay more for another beer than it costs to produce another beer.

Wtf?


But how do you know this without prices?

Gee, maybe Mr. Beerfuck, CEO of Fuck Flavoured Beer, realizes, based on his executive monthly reports, that distributors and retailers are making more orders for his beer than his company has the capability to produce. This magical thing called "supply and demand" happens! Because his beer is in such high demand, and because he is unable to give everyone beer, he decides to raise prices, because he can! Therefore, you see, prices do not dictate supply and demand; supply and demand dictates prices! Visa vis, you're a moron!


If you are producing to the point that people are physically unable to consume more beer, you are definitely over-producing, and your customers are over-consuming.

Your logic would astound Sherlock Holmes himself.


You could produce enough for every person to consume a "reasonable" amount - but if the marginal cost to a consumer for drinking another beer is zero, what mechanism prevents them from over-consuming?

Considering that whinos would glady spend their last buck to get wasted on some booze, and forego eating for days at a time, I don't see how it would be any different. Hell, given the extreme availability of beer it would be quite possible for someone to do nothing but get wasted day in and day out. But they don't. Why? Perhaps you should examine the social history of alcohol consumption.


This doesn't even get into the agency problem: if you have a Kommisar of Beer, what conern is he going to have for the manufacturers of other products that need the same raw materials as beer?

Are you trying to say that the Commissar Of Beer would, by the very nature of his post, become some sort of beer tyrant hell-bent on screwing over every other type of food or beverage so that he has dominance? That might make sense if it were a capitalist society in which Ministers of specific areas routinely receive hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists trying to win them over.


How do the Kommisar of Bread and the Kommisar of Beer figure out what the "right" balance of beer vs. bread is, especially given that at zero cost, people will consume as much as they possibly can of each?

Are you absolutely retarded? It's a serious question. I've never seen someone attempt to claim that if given the chance, the entirety of humanity would do nothing but sit at home and eat bread and drink beer every minute of every day, until they are bloated and/or passed out from alcohol poisoning.

Maybe you exhibit this very violent lack of self-control but the majority of people are capable of responsibly not clearing out a grocery store just to force themselves into cardiac arrest as quickly as possible.

So what have we learned today? We've learned that systems of economic checks are already inplace, both at the external and internel level of specific sectors. Distributors, producers, and consumers are all capable of determining whether there is a shortage of something or another in their own way. Producers can figure it out by comparing their productive capacities with the demand for their product; distrubots can compare their orders with the amount they receive; and consumers can simply walk into a grocery store and point out anything that isn't there. Then they can call you guys up and tell you how stupid you are for having absolutely no idea about how the world works.

[pusher robot]

I don't think your rudeness is not called for. I've been nothing but polite in this forum. Ignoring your insults, I'll respond to what substantive points there are.


Tell me, Einstein -- how do companies figure out what to set their prices at?
By determining what people are willing to pay. How is this done if their are no prices, no markets?

Wtf?
This is basic microeconomics. If people are willing to pay more for something than it costs me to make it, there's inefficiently unsastisfied demand and I should make more. If not, there isn't, and I shouldn't.

Hell, given the extreme availability of beer it would be quite possible for someone to do nothing but get wasted day in and day out. But they don't. Why?Focusing on beer as a good is a red herring. The basic principle is that if the marginal cost of a good to somebody is zero, they will take it so long as it provides any non-negative value to them - even if the value provided is far less than the actual costs, i.e., far less than what they would be willing to pay.

Are you trying to say that the Commissar Of Beer would, by the very nature of his post, become some sort of beer tyrant hell-bent on screwing over every other type of food or beverage so that he has dominance?No, but I am suggesting that beer production would be his priority, and that he would be more likely to favor greater beer production over greater bread production.

Are you absolutely retarded? It's a serious question.That's not a serious question. Most people of diminished mental capacity have difficulty using any complex technology. I find your lack of sensitivity on the issue somewhat shocking. Suppose I was retarded. Would that make me deserving of your scorn and hatred?

Then they can call you guys up and tell you how stupid you are for having absolutely no idea about how the world works.How the world works? We're not talking about keeping the shelves at the 7-11 stocked. We're talking about how to efficiently globally allocate fundamentally scarce resources to hundreds of millions if not billions of possible uses. This isn't a supply-chain management issue. It's an issue of aggregating the wants and needs of billions of people over a practically infinite array of production vectors. The only mechanism that has been proven able to accomplish this is that of prices and markets. If communists propose something different, I'd like to have a clear idea of what it is and how it would work.

[RNK]

I don't think your rudeness is not called for. I've been nothing but polite in this forum.

It's absolutely called for. You're the one who has decided to come to a Leftist forum and attempt to argue economics and politics with your extremely narrow-minded view of social dynamics. And my question was serious, because I can not see how someone can be as dumb-witted as you are acting without it either being an act or being due to some sort of disability. And no, if you did end up being mentally handicapped, I wouldn't be scornful towards you. But as of yet nothing has convinced me that you're not simply forcing yourself to be stupidly stubborn.

I really don't want to waste any more time on you. There's no point in trying to explain things to you when you're plugging your ears. I gave it a shot. Have fun as a restricted member.

[KC]

I really don't want to waste any more time on you. There's no point in trying to explain things to you when you're plugging your ears. I gave it a shot. Have fun as a restricted member.

Good; then shut the fuck up. Pusher Robot's been respectful and there's no reason to be rude to him. So you can fuck right off.


By determining what people are willing to pay. How is this done if their are no prices, no markets?

The price of commodities isn't determined so simply. There are other rules that you have to keep in mind. For example, a company can't sell a product lower than it costs to produce for a long period of time otherwise it will go out of business. Generally, the fluctuations of market prices in a given industry actually even out to about the cost of production. This is the basic principles of the Marxist theory of value.

You must realize that when Marxists speak of prices they're not speaking of price for a given transaction; they're speaking of general trends in market prices over time. Marxist economics isn't about the determination of such things as prices in transactions; it's concerned with the overall laws governing capitalist society.

[pusher robot]

Thank you for responding. I'm not afraid to admit that I don't know everything about non-capitalist economics; that's why I'm here. My questions are not rhetorical.


Generally, the fluctuations of market prices in a given industry actually even out to about the cost of production. This is the basic principles of the Marxist theory of value.

I agree with that - economics tells us that competition pushes marginal revenue toward zero, which induces rent-seeking activities like cost reductions or product differentiation.


You must realize that when Marxists speak of prices they're not speaking of price for a given transaction; they're speaking of general trends in market prices over time. Marxist economics isn't about the determination of such things as prices in transactions

But aren't trends nothing more than aggregates of individual transactions? My chief questions are these:
1. Doesn't communism propose to eliminate prices in all transactions?
2. If so, without prices, how do we know what the cost of production is?
3. If so, without prices, how do we know what demand there is for any good relative to every other good?
4. Or am I missing the point here and "supply," "demand," and "production" are irrelevant concept in a marxist economy?

[KC]

But aren't trends nothing more than aggregates of individual transactions?

Yes.


My chief questions are these:
1. Doesn't communism propose to eliminate prices in all transactions?
2. If so, without prices, how do we know what the cost of production is?
3. If so, without prices, how do we know what demand there is for any good relative to every other good?
4. Or am I missing the point here and "supply," "demand," and "production" are irrelevant concept in a marxist economy?

Marxist economics is a system of economics that describes how capitalism as a system works. It generally has nothing to do with socialist or communist society (although there are economic theories like Parecon, but those really don't have anything to do with Marxist economics).

With that said, I'll answer your questions:
1. Yes, communists desire not only to eliminate prices, but money in general.
2. That would be unnecessary as everything would be free (or "priceless" since free is generally a term equated with money).
3. By looking at the consumption of goods you can determine the demand. How is demand determined right now, in capitalist society?
4. Well, yes and no. Supply and demand is a tool used to determine the production of goods, but wouldn't be used to determine a price system, as nothing would cost anything.


Glad to see you're so defensive of him. I see YOU also like spending the majority of your time in OI... why?

Fuck off if you're not able to be respectful and participate in productive discussion.

[RNK]

You say "productive discussion", I say "have fun trying to beat sense into a dead horse". I tried productively trying to explain things. I just don't have the patience to deal with someone who refutes the answers I give them based on their own gross misconceptions of socialism without giving any credibility to their misconception.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 01:47 pm
You say "productive discussion", I say "have fun trying to beat sense into a dead horse". I tried productively trying to explain things. I just don't have the patience to deal with someone who refutes the answers I give them based on their own gross misconceptions of socialism without giving any credibility to their misconception.

It is generally difficult to have a "misconception" of socialism, when the socialists themselves seem to have no conception of socialism.

Describe those "checks and balances." You have yet to do so.

[RNK]

I already told you (and this will be the last time that I do tell you), those checks and balances will, by and large, be duplicates of the current checks and balances.

Take Wal-Mart for instance. Currently Wal-Mart, like all other retail outlets and distributors, have a system of aquiring commodities to sell to the public. At the top of this system is the CEO and board of directors who make overall business decisions, such as which products they should sell, how much they should buy the products from manufacturers, how much to sell them for, etc -- they also have a small army of labour aristocracy under them (ie executives) to assist them in this. These directives filter down the "chain of command" to specific departments in charge of ordering, aquiring and shipping the commodities Wal-Mart stores sell. They contact manufacturers and aquire large numbers of their products, either by buying them outright or by initiating a bargaining system whereby the manufacturer gets X% of the profit of that merchandise. Whichever. This filters down to a more local-level, to area managers who oversee the operations of the individual stores. They keep track of which stores are ordering which products and they send those orders accordingly. Then you get down to each individual Wal-Mart itself; the staff, co-managers, managers and store owners who oversee the day-to-day operation of the store. They are the ones who become aware of which products are needed and which aren't; they pass on this info to the tier above them, as I stated. Workers at these Wal-Marts can see, "Oh, gee, we're out of SHIT-BRAND OATMEAL. I'll go check to see if we have more in stock in the back. Oh, we don't? Okay, better order some." And there you have the first indication of what is needed. Of course, if it is a product that isn't very popular -- ie, if they fill a shelf with SHIT-BRAND OATMEAL and it remains there for weeks before being emptied, they can generally assume it isn't very popular and that demand for the product isn't very high. However if it's something more important, such as bread or beer, they send this info back with their order; ontop of that, the local area managers and their beauraucracy are aware of this fact too, simply by observing and analysing commodity orders. They themselves will be able to see which products are being ordered more often, and are fully able to communicate with store managers to find out if there are any shortages, ie, if lots and lots of people are demanding bread. Because store employees and consumers are fully capable of communication.

This is "one way". Switch that over to a socialist system and it becomes the same (although I doubt the continued existence of supermarket chains in a socialist society). The collectivized workers in said Wal-Mart will contact whatever local organizational branch and communicate with them their need for certain products; in turn that local organizational branch will be able to report shortages, high-demand commodities, and co-ordinate aquisition of commodities from manufacturers, all the while reporting back to "the state" about the goings-on of the economy in their particular sector. By doing this "the state" is able to keep track of the whole economy. This is like what occured in China during the famine; although in China, those local-level officials would frequently lie about the quota of grain and other essential foodstuffs being demanded and aquired, which led to management problems -- without accurate knowledge about the realities of the situation the centralized planning was doomed to failure simply because it was based atleast partially on erroneous data.

Other checks and balances involve 3rd party organizations tasked with overseeing how manufactured commodities are aquired and distributed (which I think is a must in order to avoid the errors of the Chinese situation). There should be a plethora of organizations whose soul task is to keep track of these "Wal-Marts" by contacting individual outlets directly, by contacting the local sector authority, and by contacting the manufacturers, etc etc. The data they observe would then also be fed to the state economy planning "commission" or whatever, so that they now have atleast two sources of data concerning the overall efficiency of commodity distribution and so are better able to plan accordingly.

Again, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by ZX3+March 22, 2007 11:16 am--> (ZX3 @ March 22, 2007 11:16 am)
[email protected] 21, 2007 01:47 pm
You say "productive discussion", I say "have fun trying to beat sense into a dead horse". I tried productively trying to explain things. I just don't have the patience to deal with someone who refutes the answers I give them based on their own gross misconceptions of socialism without giving any credibility to their misconception.

It is generally difficult to have a "misconception" of socialism, when the socialists themselves seem to have no conception of socialism.

Describe those "checks and balances." You have yet to do so. [/b]
That makes absolutely no sense at all, so I guess Capitalists get to define Socialism, and Socialists actually don't know what they believe :rolleyes: great man, you have blown my mind, So us Socialists don't actually know our own theory? huh, so who does? You guys?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by RGacky3+March 23, 2007 12:25 am--> (RGacky3 @ March 23, 2007 12:25 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:16 am

[email protected] 21, 2007 01:47 pm
You say "productive discussion", I say "have fun trying to beat sense into a dead horse". I tried productively trying to explain things. I just don't have the patience to deal with someone who refutes the answers I give them based on their own gross misconceptions of socialism without giving any credibility to their misconception.

It is generally difficult to have a "misconception" of socialism, when the socialists themselves seem to have no conception of socialism.

Describe those "checks and balances." You have yet to do so.
That makes absolutely no sense at all, so I guess Capitalists get to define Socialism, and Socialists actually don't know what they believe :rolleyes: great man, you have blown my mind, So us Socialists don't actually know our own theory? huh, so who does? You guys? [/b]
I'm a broken record. By all means, DEFINE socialism, DECRIBE socialism, PROVE socialism. What do you think I have been asking for? What do you think most socialists hereabouts have refused to do (hell, I have been told its impossible because nobody can see the future)?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 06:33 am
I already told you (and this will be the last time that I do tell you), those checks and balances will, by and large, be duplicates of the current checks and balances.

Take Wal-Mart for instance. Currently Wal-Mart, like all other retail outlets and distributors, have a system of aquiring commodities to sell to the public. At the top of this system is the CEO and board of directors who make overall business decisions, such as which products they should sell, how much they should buy the products from manufacturers, how much to sell them for, etc -- they also have a small army of labour aristocracy under them (ie executives) to assist them in this. These directives filter down the "chain of command" to specific departments in charge of ordering, aquiring and shipping the commodities Wal-Mart stores sell. They contact manufacturers and aquire large numbers of their products, either by buying them outright or by initiating a bargaining system whereby the manufacturer gets X% of the profit of that merchandise. Whichever. This filters down to a more local-level, to area managers who oversee the operations of the individual stores. They keep track of which stores are ordering which products and they send those orders accordingly. Then you get down to each individual Wal-Mart itself; the staff, co-managers, managers and store owners who oversee the day-to-day operation of the store. They are the ones who become aware of which products are needed and which aren't; they pass on this info to the tier above them, as I stated. Workers at these Wal-Marts can see, "Oh, gee, we're out of SHIT-BRAND OATMEAL. I'll go check to see if we have more in stock in the back. Oh, we don't? Okay, better order some." And there you have the first indication of what is needed. Of course, if it is a product that isn't very popular -- ie, if they fill a shelf with SHIT-BRAND OATMEAL and it remains there for weeks before being emptied, they can generally assume it isn't very popular and that demand for the product isn't very high. However if it's something more important, such as bread or beer, they send this info back with their order; ontop of that, the local area managers and their beauraucracy are aware of this fact too, simply by observing and analysing commodity orders. They themselves will be able to see which products are being ordered more often, and are fully able to communicate with store managers to find out if there are any shortages, ie, if lots and lots of people are demanding bread. Because store employees and consumers are fully capable of communication.

This is "one way". Switch that over to a socialist system and it becomes the same (although I doubt the continued existence of supermarket chains in a socialist society). The collectivized workers in said Wal-Mart will contact whatever local organizational branch and communicate with them their need for certain products; in turn that local organizational branch will be able to report shortages, high-demand commodities, and co-ordinate aquisition of commodities from manufacturers, all the while reporting back to "the state" about the goings-on of the economy in their particular sector. By doing this "the state" is able to keep track of the whole economy. This is like what occured in China during the famine; although in China, those local-level officials would frequently lie about the quota of grain and other essential foodstuffs being demanded and aquired, which led to management problems -- without accurate knowledge about the realities of the situation the centralized planning was doomed to failure simply because it was based atleast partially on erroneous data.

Other checks and balances involve 3rd party organizations tasked with overseeing how manufactured commodities are aquired and distributed (which I think is a must in order to avoid the errors of the Chinese situation). There should be a plethora of organizations whose soul task is to keep track of these "Wal-Marts" by contacting individual outlets directly, by contacting the local sector authority, and by contacting the manufacturers, etc etc. The data they observe would then also be fed to the state economy planning "commission" or whatever, so that they now have atleast two sources of data concerning the overall efficiency of commodity distribution and so are better able to plan accordingly.

Again, someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Okay, though I wonder about the efficiency of a system used during the Chinese famine.

A couple of questions:

What is the difference between the capitalist structured Wal-Mart and the socialist structured Wal-Mart? Why is the latter stronger than the former (if that is what we should assume)?


What keeps the officials honest in the socialist system (as compared to the Chinese experience)?

What is the data being used? For example, what tells the manufacturers what they be producing? Why should they sell it to socialist Wal-mart as opposed to Socialist K-Mart?

[KC]

I'm a broken record. By all means, DEFINE socialism, DECRIBE socialism, PROVE socialism. What do you think I have been asking for? What do you think most socialists hereabouts have refused to do (hell, I have been told its impossible because nobody can see the future)?

This has been addressed millions of times. You just don't like the answer.

Proletarian rule can't be described in detail because it's impossible to describe it accurately completely independent of material conditions. Socialism is a system that will come into being in the real world, and because of that it can't be described independent from the conditions into which it is born and exists. You might not like it, and you can whine all you want, but that's simply the truth for anything like this and you're just going to have to learn to suck it up and deal with it.

If you want a definition of socialism then go look up dictatorship of the proletariat or socialism or something on marxists.org and quit bothering us.

Socialism isn't something that can simply be "proven". That's like saying "prove capitalism will exist in 1000 years. If you can't prove it then that's because it won't." That's your logic, right? So prove capitalism will exist in 1000 years and I'll prove socialism.

[RNK]

What is the difference between the capitalist structured Wal-Mart and the socialist structured Wal-Mart?

The former is structured to deliver maximum profit to shareholders and executives. The latter is structured to deliver commodities to the population as efficiently as possible.


Why is the latter stronger than the former (if that is what we should assume)?

It depends on your definition of "stronger". Profitably stronger? Productively stronger? Obviously it would be inferior where profitability is concerned. Productively, it would be stronger, for the reasons give; the main goal of the entire enterprise would be to deliver products to society and would naturally do so in the most efficient manner.


What keeps the officials honest in the socialist system (as compared to the Chinese experience)?

A proper system of transparency.


What is the data being used? For example, what tells the manufacturers what they be producing?

I'm not sure, but I think you're asking the same question that I've already answered. Just re-worded.


Why should they sell it to socialist Wal-mart as opposed to Socialist K-Mart?

You joined this forum in August 2006 and you still haven't been able to wrap your head around it? Nobody will be "selling" anything.

Yeah, at this point, I'd have to agree with Zampano. All of your questions have been answered. You're either incapable of understanding (which is very odd...), you're purposely being stubborn, or you have an incredibly short memory.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Zampanò@March 25, 2007 10:41 pm

I'm a broken record. By all means, DEFINE socialism, DECRIBE socialism, PROVE socialism. What do you think I have been asking for? What do you think most socialists hereabouts have refused to do (hell, I have been told its impossible because nobody can see the future)?

This has been addressed millions of times. You just don't like the answer.

Proletarian rule can't be described in detail because it's impossible to describe it accurately completely independent of material conditions. Socialism is a system that will come into being in the real world, and because of that it can't be described independent from the conditions into which it is born and exists. You might not like it, and you can whine all you want, but that's simply the truth for anything like this and you're just going to have to learn to suck it up and deal with it.

If you want a definition of socialism then go look up dictatorship of the proletariat or socialism or something on marxists.org and quit bothering us.

Socialism isn't something that can simply be "proven". That's like saying "prove capitalism will exist in 1000 years. If you can't prove it then that's because it won't." That's your logic, right? So prove capitalism will exist in 1000 years and I'll prove socialism.
Its a complete non-answer. Which is why I do not like it. Consumers needs and wants still need to be determined; goods need to be produced and distributed. Principles on how to most efficiently deal with those issues are going to be universal, and will have nothing to do with whatever the material needs of the particular community are.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 11:53 pm

What is the difference between the capitalist structured Wal-Mart and the socialist structured Wal-Mart?

The former is structured to deliver maximum profit to shareholders and executives. The latter is structured to deliver commodities to the population as efficiently as possible.


Why is the latter stronger than the former (if that is what we should assume)?

It depends on your definition of "stronger". Profitably stronger? Productively stronger? Obviously it would be inferior where profitability is concerned. Productively, it would be stronger, for the reasons give; the main goal of the entire enterprise would be to deliver products to society and would naturally do so in the most efficient manner.




The structure of your socialist Wal-Mart is not complete. It assumes a stationary condition exists (people quickly acquire all the baseballs in socialist Wal-Mart., the call is made to produce more baseballs). But how does the socialist wal-mart know the need for baseballs will stay constant? The manager of the socialist wal_mart wil be debited for each baseball delivered to the store, and credited for each baseball which is distributed to the community. His objective will be for the socialist wal-Mart to have more credits than debits, as that indicates the store is satisfying the community wants and needs. Aside from the notion that this is nothing more than "profit" (the value of a completed good is greater than thew sum of its parts), failure to have more credits than debits indicates that the store is NOT satisfying the needs and wants of the community (the manager would at some point no doubt be replaced). So that would mean the manager must have authority to make determinations on whether to order more baseballs, and upon terms he deems most beneficial to the store (ie for the fewest amounts of debits), otherwise he cannot be held accountable for failures. Similiarly, he must distribute the baseballs for the greatest amount of credits possible, or again, he cannot be held accountable.

Of course, everyone else must have the same rights. The baseball factory manager needs to maximise his credits as opposed to debits, and will seek to ship the baseballs and for the most amounts of credits to the manager of socialist wal-mart (and seek to acquire his raw materials for the fewest debits possible). But the community at large will also seekl to maximise its credits as opposed to its debits, and can refuse to accept products that will have too great a debit for themselves.

All parties will need a set of knowledge, a system which tells them whether what they want or need, what they want to produce, is in fact needed and wanted, and is being produced and distributed in the most effoicent means possible.

[KC]

Its a complete non-answer.

Not completely, but it is generally a non-answer, yes. That's because the question really can't be answered; unless you would be satisfied with an answer that's bound to turn out incorrect?


Consumers needs and wants still need to be determined; goods need to be produced and distributed.

Well, duh. That can pretty easily be determined by consumption.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Zampanò@March 26, 2007 07:55 am

Its a complete non-answer.

Not completely, but it is generally a non-answer, yes. That's because the question really can't be answered; unless you would be satisfied with an answer that's bound to turn out incorrect?


Consumers needs and wants still need to be determined; goods need to be produced and distributed.

Well, duh. That can pretty easily be determined by consumption.
Consumption never changes?

A static economy has NEVER existed, and can never exist.

[RNK]

His objective will be for the socialist wal-Mart to have more credits than debits, as that indicates the store is satisfying the community wants and needs.

So you've essentially replaced the word "money" with "debit"... you still don't understand the notion of an economy that is not driven by profit.


It assumes a stationary condition exists (people quickly acquire all the baseballs in socialist Wal-Mart., the call is made to produce more baseballs).

It makes no such assumption. It only dictates that commodities must be produced in surplus to fulfill society's need for that product, at which time industry can be shifted from baseballs to a more needed commodity, such as baseball bats.


A static economy has NEVER existed, and can never exist.

The strong-point of socialist industry is that it is capable of shifting to meet the demands of society. "Working armies" are created to be "deployed" to sectors of industry that need expansion. As consumption changes, so does industry.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 02:30 pm

His objective will be for the socialist wal-Mart to have more credits than debits, as that indicates the store is satisfying the community wants and needs.

So you've essentially replaced the word "money" with "debit"... you still don't understand the notion of an economy that is not driven by profit.


It assumes a stationary condition exists (people quickly acquire all the baseballs in socialist Wal-Mart., the call is made to produce more baseballs).

It makes no such assumption. It only dictates that commodities must be produced in surplus to fulfill society's need for that product, at which time industry can be shifted from baseballs to a more needed commodity, such as baseball bats.


A static economy has NEVER existed, and can never exist.

The strong-point of socialist industry is that it is capable of shifting to meet the demands of society. "Working armies" are created to be "deployed" to sectors of industry that need expansion. As consumption changes, so does industry.
You're not understanding that in order to deploy "labor armies" or whatever you wish to call it, you need a system to tell you where, and under what circumstances, and how many people, to deploy. You need a system which shows how production is being met, if it is being met appropriately, if demand is being met, and products properly distributed.

You are suggesting that "officials" will "observe" for unspecified economic developments, in unspecified ways, in order to make such deployments, also in unspecified ways. Then, after being compltely unspecified, you conclude it is a strong-point of socialism. Good grief!!

[RNK]

Well, I gave it a second shot. The dead horse is still dead. Happy now, Zampano? :P

[KC]

Consumption never changes?

A static economy has NEVER existed, and can never exist.

Who said consumption wouldn't change?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Zampanò@March 26, 2007 03:48 pm

Consumption never changes?

A static economy has NEVER existed, and can never exist.

Who said consumption wouldn't change?
You did. You said production can be determined by consumption. If consumtion changes, if needs change, then past patterns of consumption are not beneficial for allocating future production.

[KC]

You did. You said production can be determined by consumption. If consumtion changes, if needs change, then past patterns of consumption are not beneficial for allocating future production.

You think that the market is more efficient at determining demand? I'd say that having the consumption data of the day before is much more accurate than market prices, which have already proven to be a poor measure of demand, as it constantly leads to lopsided investment and overproduction.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Zampanò@March 26, 2007 04:18 pm

You did. You said production can be determined by consumption. If consumtion changes, if needs change, then past patterns of consumption are not beneficial for allocating future production.

You think that the market is more efficient at determining demand? I'd say that having the consumption data of the day before is much more accurate than market prices, which have already proven to be a poor measure of demand, as it constantly leads to lopsided investment and overproduction.
ALL economic activity involves risk. Certainly, nothing is perfect.

The issue remains in determining future demand, responding to that demand in the best way possible, (which requires methods which the socialists remain mum about) and as well ensuring that the risk is minimised. So far, the socilaists on these boards have "solved" these problems for socialism by saying absolutely nothing about them.

[KC]

ALL economic activity involves risk. Certainly, nothing is perfect.

It has nothing to do with risk. My entire point was that the market does a very poor job of measuring demand and allocating supply to meet that demand. When demand rises in a particular industry, investment is allocated to that industry and the demand is met. Sounds great, right? The problem is the fact that time isn't taken into account here. The problem with the market in determining demand is that the investment isn't made in the industry instantaneously and doesn't allocate elsewhere instantaneously when demand in that industry declines. Because of this we have problems such as overproduction or underproduction.


The issue remains in determining future demand, responding to that demand in the best way possible, (which requires methods which the socialists remain mum about) and as well ensuring that the risk is minimised. So far, the socilaists on these boards have "solved" these problems for socialism by saying absolutely nothing about them.

I've already offered one possibility. Determining demand by consumption is essentially the same as determining demand by market prices; the difference is that demand can be determined much faster by consumption due to the fact that consumption can be determined right at the end of a set period of time (day, every couple hours, whatever), depending on the amount of goods purchased.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Zampanò@March 26, 2007 06:47 pm

ALL economic activity involves risk. Certainly, nothing is perfect.

It has nothing to do with risk. My entire point was that the market does a very poor job of measuring demand and allocating supply to meet that demand. When demand rises in a particular industry, investment is allocated to that industry and the demand is met. Sounds great, right? The problem is the fact that time isn't taken into account here. The problem with the market in determining demand is that the investment isn't made in the industry instantaneously and doesn't allocate elsewhere instantaneously when demand in that industry declines. Because of this we have problems such as overproduction or underproduction.


The issue remains in determining future demand, responding to that demand in the best way possible, (which requires methods which the socialists remain mum about) and as well ensuring that the risk is minimised. So far, the socilaists on these boards have "solved" these problems for socialism by saying absolutely nothing about them.

I've already offered one possibility. Determining demand by consumption is essentially the same as determining demand by market prices; the difference is that demand can be determined much faster by consumption due to the fact that consumption can be determined right at the end of a set period of time (day, every couple hours, whatever), depending on the amount of goods purchased.
You are still basing the determination of future demand and thus future production, on PRESENT consumption levels.

And of course risk is a factor. When you decide to produce the same number of baseballs tomorrow that was consumed today, the risk is that there will be the same level of demand tomorrow as today. If one is incorrect, then more baseballs have produced than are needed, at the cost of another item that may be more in demand.

How does one respond to consumption demands, if production decisions are being made based upon the previous consumption level? I am sure there must be a way, but I doubt it can be particulary effective and efficient.

[KC]

You are still basing the determination of future demand and thus future production, on PRESENT consumption levels.

And of course risk is a factor. When you decide to produce the same number of baseballs tomorrow that was consumed today, the risk is that there will be the same level of demand tomorrow as today. If one is incorrect, then more baseballs have produced than are needed, at the cost of another item that may be more in demand.

How does one respond to consumption demands, if production decisions are being made based upon the previous consumption level? I am sure there must be a way, but I doubt it can be particulary effective and efficient.

My point is that it won't be completely 100% efficient, but it will be at least as efficient, or more efficient, than the current system of letting market prices determine demand.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Zampanò@March 26, 2007 07:08 pm

You are still basing the determination of future demand and thus future production, on PRESENT consumption levels.

And of course risk is a factor. When you decide to produce the same number of baseballs tomorrow that was consumed today, the risk is that there will be the same level of demand tomorrow as today. If one is incorrect, then more baseballs have produced than are needed, at the cost of another item that may be more in demand.

How does one respond to consumption demands, if production decisions are being made based upon the previous consumption level? I am sure there must be a way, but I doubt it can be particulary effective and efficient.

My point is that it won't be completely 100% efficient, but it will be at least as efficient, or more efficient, than the current system of letting market prices determine demand.
No system is 100% efficient. But I have yet to see it demonstrated that your system is more efficient.

[KC]

Yeah. What's your point?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Zampanò@March 27, 2007 07:25 am
Yeah. What's your point?
What it has always been: Socialists make claims about what socialism will do, but rarely bother to prove it, or to try to prove it.

[KC]

What it has always been: Socialists make claims about what socialism will do, but rarely bother to prove it, or to try to prove it.

What does that have to do with the assertion that "[you] have yet to see it demonstrated that [my] system is more efficient"? I just offered up an example about how a communist economy could be run and you completely backed up to the crap about "proving" socialism. I already responded to that anyways.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Zampanò@March 21, 2007 05:39 pm

But aren't trends nothing more than aggregates of individual transactions?

Yes.


My chief questions are these:
1. Doesn't communism propose to eliminate prices in all transactions?
2. If so, without prices, how do we know what the cost of production is?
3. If so, without prices, how do we know what demand there is for any good relative to every other good?
4. Or am I missing the point here and "supply," "demand," and "production" are irrelevant concept in a marxist economy?

Marxist economics is a system of economics that describes how capitalism as a system works. It generally has nothing to do with socialist or communist society (although there are economic theories like Parecon, but those really don't have anything to do with Marxist economics).

With that said, I'll answer your questions:
1. Yes, communists desire not only to eliminate prices, but money in general.
2. That would be unnecessary as everything would be free (or "priceless" since free is generally a term equated with money).
3. By looking at the consumption of goods you can determine the demand. How is demand determined right now, in capitalist society?
4. Well, yes and no. Supply and demand is a tool used to determine the production of goods, but wouldn't be used to determine a price system, as nothing would cost anything.


Glad to see you're so defensive of him. I see YOU also like spending the majority of your time in OI... why?

Fuck off if you're not able to be respectful and participate in productive discussion.
Too bad this thread sort of petered out into the usual namecalling. I'm afraid I may be asking unanswerable questions, but I'll give it a go:

I perhaps was not clear on my distinction between "costs" and "prices." Even if goods are exchanged without prices, there surely must be costs to their production in materials and labor. To make beer, crops must be farmed, equipment must be mainained, fuel must be burned, and work must be done. Those are all costs even without any prices because materials that are used to make beer cannot also be used to make something else, and labor spent making beer cannot also be spent making something else. Where prices are so useful is in deciding how to allocate those resources. For example:

Suppose I brew Duff and sell it for some abitrary and irrelevant (for our purposes) price. My costs in labor and materials are some slighly lower value. Looking at my figures, I have some choices: I can brew a higher quality beer that has higher costs, but which fewer people would be willing to trade more of their resources for; I can brew a lower quality beer with lower costs that a greater number of people would be willing to trade fewer resources for; or I can stay the same. In this case, prices allow me, as the producer, to make production decisions that ultimately satisfy the most people as best as possible. Just as important, they aggregate the entire society's collective value of different qualities of beer, and cause resources to be so allocated.

For example, if the society doesn't much care about the quality of beer, then prices will lead me to sell low quality beer that consumes fewer resources to produce, freeing up those resources for some more socially valuable use.

On the other hand, if the society cares greatly about their beer, then their willingness to trade their resources for better beer will automatically cause greater overall usage of resources for beer production instead of other, less socially valuable uses. Since there are a practically infinite number of other things those resources could be used for, this would be a terrible burden for any person or persons to try to manage - every use of a resource affects every other use of that resource, prices or no - but it's achieved easily with a pricing market.

These are the types of decisions which I haven't a clear idea how they would be made without prices. Looking strictly at demand, people will simply demand they have everything they want until they are more or less satisfied; but this is often impossible due to a scarcity of resources. It is determining how these scarce resources are allocated that I am interested in. For example, with no cost to the consumer, everybody "wants" a luxury car, creating near 100% demand. But while it would be possible to manufacture a luxury car for everybody, you could only do so by consuming resources and labor that could have been used for things that most people want more than a luxury car. In a price-based market, nobody would refuse a luxury car, but many also don't think it important enough to trade their resources for that instead of other things that they want more. Ultimately, this determines how much of the society's raw material and labor goes into building luxury cars.

[KC]

I perhaps was not clear on my distinction between "costs" and "prices." Even if goods are exchanged without prices, there surely must be costs to their production in materials and labor. To make beer, crops must be farmed, equipment must be mainained, fuel must be burned, and work must be done. Those are all costs even without any prices because materials that are used to make beer cannot also be used to make something else, and labor spent making beer cannot also be spent making something else. Where prices are so useful is in deciding how to allocate those resources.

Well, the only difference between cost and price is that price is value in money form. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough when I said that communist society is simply moneyless; communist society is valueless. In other words, goods don't have exchange values; they only have use values.


Suppose I brew Duff and sell it for some abitrary and irrelevant (for our purposes) price. My costs in labor and materials are some slighly lower value. Looking at my figures, I have some choices: I can brew a higher quality beer that has higher costs, but which fewer people would be willing to trade more of their resources for; I can brew a lower quality beer with lower costs that a greater number of people would be willing to trade fewer resources for; or I can stay the same. In this case, prices allow me, as the producer, to make production decisions that ultimately satisfy the most people as best as possible. Just as important, they aggregate the entire society's collective value of different qualities of beer, and cause resources to be so allocated.

For example, if the society doesn't much care about the quality of beer, then prices will lead me to sell low quality beer that consumes fewer resources to produce, freeing up those resources for some more socially valuable use.

On the other hand, if the society cares greatly about their beer, then their willingness to trade their resources for better beer will automatically cause greater overall usage of resources for beer production instead of other, less socially valuable uses. Since there are a practically infinite number of other things those resources could be used for, this would be a terrible burden for any person or persons to try to manage - every use of a resource affects every other use of that resource, prices or no - but it's achieved easily with a pricing market.

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting hung up on. Could you clarify this passage?


These are the types of decisions which I haven't a clear idea how they would be made without prices. Looking strictly at demand, people will simply demand they have everything they want until they are more or less satisfied; but this is often impossible due to a scarcity of resources. It is determining how these scarce resources are allocated that I am interested in. For example, with no cost to the consumer, everybody "wants" a luxury car, creating near 100% demand. But while it would be possible to manufacture a luxury car for everybody, you could only do so by consuming resources and labor that could have been used for things that most people want more than a luxury car. In a price-based market, nobody would refuse a luxury car, but many also don't think it important enough to trade their resources for that instead of other things that they want more. Ultimately, this determines how much of the society's raw material and labor goes into building luxury cars.

This argument is fallacious for the reason that luxuries wouldn't exist in a communist society. Luxuries are simply status symbols and are a product of class society; with the abolition of classes, its effects on society also disappear. This includes the concept of "luxuries" or "status items".

It is also fallacious for the reason that you are assuming that people would put individual needs ultimately over societal needs. In a communist society, this individualist mindset that capitalism has created wouldn't exist; people would have a strong sense of community and would feel a responsibility towards it. Commodity fetishism would no longer have a hold over individual consciousness and put itself above all else.

A lot of people have trouble grasping this part of communist theory because of the fact that they are attempting to impose their consciousness on members of communist society. You have to take in account the fact that consciousness will change profoundly and that understanding these changes is essential to understand this stuff.

[pusher robot]

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting hung up on. Could you clarify this passage?

Sure. I was giving an example of how prices are useful for ascertaining an aggregate demand for higher-quality beer as opposed to some other social good. My implicit question is how such a thing would be accomplished without prices. Consider the People's Brewery, which provides beer to a collectivist population. Suppose that in a survey, 90% of people expressed a desire for better quality beer. How does the beer commissioner figure out how much of the communal resources and labor should go into increasing the beer quality? It could be that 85% of people would like higher quality beer, but not if they have to give up something else. And without money as an arbitrary standard of comparison, you have no easy way of figuring out what people would be willing to give up for better beer, so you have no good way of knowing where to shift the production resources from.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Zampanò@March 28, 2007 11:05 am

What it has always been: Socialists make claims about what socialism will do, but rarely bother to prove it, or to try to prove it.

What does that have to do with the assertion that "[you] have yet to see it demonstrated that [my] system is more efficient"? I just offered up an example about how a communist economy could be run and you completely backed up to the crap about "proving" socialism. I already responded to that anyways.
You keep insisting that future production can be determined by past production. You do agree that consumtion can and does change. But how does your system adjust to such consumption changes, if the system is being structured upon previous consumtion patterns?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Zampanò@March 28, 2007 09:52 pm
It is also fallacious for the reason that you are assuming that people would put individual needs ultimately over societal needs. In a communist society, this individualist mindset that capitalism has created wouldn't exist; people would have a strong sense of community and would feel a responsibility towards it. Commodity fetishism would no longer have a hold over individual consciousness and put itself above all else.

A lot of people have trouble grasping this part of communist theory because of the fact that they are attempting to impose their consciousness on members of communist society. You have to take in account the fact that consciousness will change profoundly and that understanding these changes is essential to understand this stuff.

Even if "consciousness" changes in a communist community, one still must describe how people might work together for "community."

The sketch of the People's Brewery and Duff Brewery by pusher robot is they type of situation which ALL economies, ALL communities, must face. If the communist community is unable to resolve the issue, then communism cannot be, regardless of whatever the "consciousness" is of the people.

[wtfm8lol]

This argument is fallacious for the reason that luxuries wouldn't exist in a communist society. Luxuries are simply status symbols and are a product of class society; with the abolition of classes, its effects on society also disappear. This includes the concept of "luxuries" or "status items".

It is also fallacious for the reason that you are assuming that people would put individual needs ultimately over societal needs. In a communist society, this individualist mindset that capitalism has created wouldn't exist; people would have a strong sense of community and would feel a responsibility towards it. Commodity fetishism would no longer have a hold over individual consciousness and put itself above all else.

A lot of people have trouble grasping this part of communist theory because of the fact that they are attempting to impose their consciousness on members of communist society. You have to take in account the fact that consciousness will change profoundly and that understanding these changes is essential to understand this stuff.


You're asserting that individuals are going to stop wanting to eat filet mignon more than lower cuts of beef because they're worried that some guy across the city they've never met before might not get any filet mignon? :D :D :D :lol: :lol: :lol:

[pusher robot]

This argument is fallacious for the reason that luxuries wouldn't exist in a communist society.

I only used the term "luxury car" because so-called luxury cars are of higher quality and ability than average cars, and consume more resources to build. Surely you don't mean that, in a communist society, people would shun products of higher quality and ability?

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 12:55 am
There is a thread that has been kicking around for some time on the "History" board wondering if Revlefters lament the collapse of the USSR. While there were many "qualified" yes's and no's from the various socialist sects, it seemed the majority do lament the collapse.

Since socialism claims it will lead to a greater freedom for people, how does this inability to to celebrate the collapse of that tyranny lend credence to this claim? How does it lead credence to the claim socialism will be able to resist tyranny in the future, when it is unable to condemn it in the past? How will socialism be able to guard against tyranny erupting internally, when it seems so willing to justify that tyranny in the advancement of its tenents of socialism?
I would argue that the USSR was not an example of true Socialism from Stalin's rule and onwards. Socialism is not 'unable' to condemn tyranny. The vast majority of socialists the world over fully condemn the atrocities commited by Stalin. You are confusing the true definition of 'Socialism'. Socialism does not advocate "tyranny in the advancement of its tenents of socialism". This may have been the method Stalin and others adopted, but many socialists (including myself) condemn this fully.

And finally, the tyranny created by so called 'Socialism' in the past is minute compared to the tyranny of capitalism. Some people's ridiculous attempts at 'Socialism' or 'Communism' have caused the death of millions, but I shudder to think where the death toll created by capitalism now stands.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Tommy-K+March 31, 2007 04:31 am--> (Tommy-K @ March 31, 2007 04:31 am)
[email protected] 07, 2007 12:55 am
There is a thread that has been kicking around for some time on the "History" board wondering if Revlefters lament the collapse of the USSR. While there were many "qualified" yes's and no's from the various socialist sects, it seemed the majority do lament the collapse.

Since socialism claims it will lead to a greater freedom for people, how does this inability to to celebrate the collapse of that tyranny lend credence to this claim? How does it lead credence to the claim socialism will be able to resist tyranny in the future, when it is unable to condemn it in the past? How will socialism be able to guard against tyranny erupting internally, when it seems so willing to justify that tyranny in the advancement of its tenents of socialism?
I would argue that the USSR was not an example of true Socialism from Stalin's rule and onwards. Socialism is not 'unable' to condemn tyranny. The vast majority of socialists the world over fully condemn the atrocities commited by Stalin. You are confusing the true definition of 'Socialism'. Socialism does not advocate "tyranny in the advancement of its tenents of socialism". This may have been the method Stalin and others adopted, but many socialists (including myself) condemn this fully.

And finally, the tyranny created by so called 'Socialism' in the past is minute compared to the tyranny of capitalism. Some people's ridiculous attempts at 'Socialism' or 'Communism' have caused the death of millions, but I shudder to think where the death toll created by capitalism now stands. [/b]
I have no doubt that you would deny Stalin the title of "true" socialist. He would probably have reciprocated. But that would be your, and his, personal partisan opinion on the matter, which non-socialists need not accept as being objectively true.

My questions concerened the inability of socialists to condem a brutal regime which claimed itself to be socialist, even though many denied its status as being a "true" socialist community. Instead, one contuinues to see the "lamentable, but..." arguments.

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by ZX3+March 31, 2007 12:00 pm--> (ZX3 @ March 31, 2007 12:00 pm)
Originally posted by Tommy-[email protected] 31, 2007 04:31 am

[email protected] 07, 2007 12:55 am
There is a thread that has been kicking around for some time on the "History" board wondering if Revlefters lament the collapse of the USSR. While there were many "qualified" yes's and no's from the various socialist sects, it seemed the majority do lament the collapse.

Since socialism claims it will lead to a greater freedom for people, how does this inability to to celebrate the collapse of that tyranny lend credence to this claim? How does it lead credence to the claim socialism will be able to resist tyranny in the future, when it is unable to condemn it in the past? How will socialism be able to guard against tyranny erupting internally, when it seems so willing to justify that tyranny in the advancement of its tenents of socialism?
I would argue that the USSR was not an example of true Socialism from Stalin's rule and onwards. Socialism is not 'unable' to condemn tyranny. The vast majority of socialists the world over fully condemn the atrocities commited by Stalin. You are confusing the true definition of 'Socialism'. Socialism does not advocate "tyranny in the advancement of its tenents of socialism". This may have been the method Stalin and others adopted, but many socialists (including myself) condemn this fully.

And finally, the tyranny created by so called 'Socialism' in the past is minute compared to the tyranny of capitalism. Some people's ridiculous attempts at 'Socialism' or 'Communism' have caused the death of millions, but I shudder to think where the death toll created by capitalism now stands.
I have no doubt that you would deny Stalin the title of "true" socialist. He would probably have reciprocated. But that would be your, and his, personal partisan opinion on the matter, which non-socialists need not accept as being objectively true.

My questions concerened the inability of socialists to condem a brutal regime which claimed itself to be socialist, even though many denied its status as being a "true" socialist community. Instead, one contuinues to see the "lamentable, but..." arguments. [/b]
I, and many others, do not give the 'lamentable, but' argument. The USSR was a brutal regime that had no right to use the term 'Socialist' in it's self-description. I fully condemn their actions.

What I don't understand is why capitalists seem unable to condemn their own brutal regime which is responsible for countless more deaths and suffering the world over and makes the brutal regime of the 'socialist' USSR look miniscule in comparison.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Zampanò@March 29, 2007 02:52 am




This argument is fallacious for the reason that luxuries wouldn't exist in a communist society.

That's a fallacy I'm unaware of. What's that in Latin?


Luxuries are simply status symbols and are a product of class society;

So pre-class societies don't have status symbols? That is to say, primative tribes without a class system, collectivist ones, don't have status symbols like shells or jewelry? Are you sure about that?



with the abolition of classes, its effects on society also disappear. This includes the concept of "luxuries" or "status items".

How will 'luxury' or 'status' disappear? If anyone has anything you don't have, for any reason, there will be jealousy and envy, and thus 'status'.



It is also fallacious for the reason that you are assuming that people would put individual needs ultimately over societal needs.

Really? What's fallacious about that assumption? I guess you could say that it's argument from ignorance, or a fallacy of induction, but ANY speculation you make about a future society will be 'fallacious' in that same way. That's the nature of the game.



In a communist society, this individualist mindset that capitalism has created wouldn't exist;

Capitalism doesn't create the individualist mindset, subjective experience and state of being produces the individualist mindset.

I can't know what you want, what you're feeling, or what you 'mean'. I can know what I want, what I'm feeling, and what I 'mean.'

That alone produces individuality and conflict.


people would have a strong sense of community and would feel a responsibility towards it.

Towards 'it'? So dehumanizing.


Commodity fetishism would no longer have a hold over individual consciousness and put itself above all else.

Commodities would become less important? People would say to themselves "I really don't want a faster computer" or "I really don't feel like driving a better car" or "I won't increase my compensation until everyone else does"?

Why? Why would anyone possibly put society ahead of themselves? Answer this without using circular logic. What makes society more important than me? What makes you more deserving, or equally deserving, as me?



A lot of people have trouble grasping this part of communist theory because of the fact that they are attempting to impose their consciousness on members of communist society.

Yes, imposing the actual on the mythical often produces discord, but whose problem is that?


You have to take in account the fact that consciousness will change profoundly and that understanding these changes is essential to understand this stuff.

No, I don't that into account because it's unscientific and roundly ridiculous.

What you have to take into account is that these things must be demonstrated.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Tommy-K+March 31, 2007 07:34 am--> (Tommy-K @ March 31, 2007 07:34 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 12:00 pm

Originally posted by Tommy-[email protected] 31, 2007 04:31 am

[email protected] 07, 2007 12:55 am
There is a thread that has been kicking around for some time on the "History" board wondering if Revlefters lament the collapse of the USSR. While there were many "qualified" yes's and no's from the various socialist sects, it seemed the majority do lament the collapse.

Since socialism claims it will lead to a greater freedom for people, how does this inability to to celebrate the collapse of that tyranny lend credence to this claim? How does it lead credence to the claim socialism will be able to resist tyranny in the future, when it is unable to condemn it in the past? How will socialism be able to guard against tyranny erupting internally, when it seems so willing to justify that tyranny in the advancement of its tenents of socialism?
I would argue that the USSR was not an example of true Socialism from Stalin's rule and onwards. Socialism is not 'unable' to condemn tyranny. The vast majority of socialists the world over fully condemn the atrocities commited by Stalin. You are confusing the true definition of 'Socialism'. Socialism does not advocate "tyranny in the advancement of its tenents of socialism". This may have been the method Stalin and others adopted, but many socialists (including myself) condemn this fully.

And finally, the tyranny created by so called 'Socialism' in the past is minute compared to the tyranny of capitalism. Some people's ridiculous attempts at 'Socialism' or 'Communism' have caused the death of millions, but I shudder to think where the death toll created by capitalism now stands.
I have no doubt that you would deny Stalin the title of "true" socialist. He would probably have reciprocated. But that would be your, and his, personal partisan opinion on the matter, which non-socialists need not accept as being objectively true.

My questions concerened the inability of socialists to condem a brutal regime which claimed itself to be socialist, even though many denied its status as being a "true" socialist community. Instead, one contuinues to see the "lamentable, but..." arguments.
I, and many others, do not give the 'lamentable, but' argument. The USSR was a brutal regime that had no right to use the term 'Socialist' in it's self-description. I fully condemn their actions.

What I don't understand is why capitalists seem unable to condemn their own brutal regime which is responsible for countless more deaths and suffering the world over and makes the brutal regime of the 'socialist' USSR look miniscule in comparison. [/b]
We tend to reject the claim.

Its also uninteresting. Its more of the "capiatlsim is bad, so socialism must be better" arguments which so often seem the ONLY basis peple make for socialism. Socialism has to be judged on its own merits. Unfortunately, socialists hereabouts often seem unwilling to do so.

[Tommy-K]

You reject a claim backed up by undisputable fact? Surely that's what you're accusing us of doing?

And is capitalism judged on its 'merits'? Please name some, I'm intrigued.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 02:55 am
Since socialism claims it will lead to a greater freedom for people, how does this inability to to celebrate the collapse of that tyranny lend credence to this claim? How does it lead credence to the claim socialism will be able to resist tyranny in the future, when it is unable to condemn it in the past? How will socialism be able to guard against tyranny erupting internally, when it seems so willing to justify that tyranny in the advancement of its tenents of socialism?
The problem is that, in Russia, one tyranny was replaced by another. You can't expect us to be very happy that a tyranny was deposed when another one took its place. That is the reason for all the "yes, but..." answers.

Imagine if Hitler had won WW2 and killed Stalin. Would you be celebrating that, because the tyrant Stalin was no more? I think not. You'd probably be saying "yes, it's great that Stalin was deposed, but..." But the guy who replaced him is even worse. That is exactly how we see the present situation in Russia.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 01:28 pm
Its also uninteresting. Its more of the "capiatlsim is bad, so socialism must be better" arguments which so often seem the ONLY basis peple make for socialism. Socialism has to be judged on its own merits. Unfortunately, socialists hereabouts often seem unwilling to do so.
You talk about making arguments based on its 'merits', I'm not sure what you mean by that, if you asking for empirical proof, thats kind of hard because there have been very few genuine socialist attempts and most of those (if no all) have been taken out violently. If your asking for logical merits, then I go back to the question of democracy or an plutocracy, there we go, do democratic societies work better for the people? (seeing as the people rule) or do Plutocracies (seeing as a few people rule).

We've done this over and over again.

Now lets look at the Merits of Capitalism, how has that been doing so far?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

A good argument for socialism follows 3 stages:

1. It identifies problems with capitalism.
2. It shows that those problems cannot be solved within a capitalist economy.
3. It shows how those problems can be solved within a socialist economy.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Edric O+March 31, 2007 09:32 pm--> (Edric O @ March 31, 2007 09:32 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 02:55 am
Since socialism claims it will lead to a greater freedom for people, how does this inability to to celebrate the collapse of that tyranny lend credence to this claim? How does it lead credence to the claim socialism will be able to resist tyranny in the future, when it is unable to condemn it in the past? How will socialism be able to guard against tyranny erupting internally, when it seems so willing to justify that tyranny in the advancement of its tenents of socialism?
The problem is that, in Russia, one tyranny was replaced by another. You can't expect us to be very happy that a tyranny was deposed when another one took its place. That is the reason for all the "yes, but..." answers.

Imagine if Hitler had won WW2 and killed Stalin. Would you be celebrating that, because the tyrant Stalin was no more? I think not. You'd probably be saying "yes, it's great that Stalin was deposed, but..." But the guy who replaced him is even worse. That is exactly how we see the present situation in Russia. [/b]
The "yes, but..." arguments seemed to be about the industrialization which occurred, the progress in education and health care, and not so much the tyranny accompanied it.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Tommy-[email protected] 31, 2007 09:23 am
You reject a claim backed up by undisputable fact? Surely that's what you're accusing us of doing?

And is capitalism judged on its 'merits'? Please name some, I'm intrigued.
It creates the proleteriat, without which children of the revolution would have nothing much to say.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 01, 2007 12:32 am
A good argument for socialism follows 3 stages:

1. It identifies problems with capitalism.
2. It shows that those problems cannot be solved within a capitalist economy.
3. It shows how those problems can be solved within a socialist economy.
Number 1 is what is one usually sees. Numbers 2 & 3 tend to be just assumed by the socialist.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by RGacky3+April 01, 2007 12:19 am--> (RGacky3 @ April 01, 2007 12:19 am)
[email protected] 31, 2007 01:28 pm
Its also uninteresting. Its more of the "capiatlsim is bad, so socialism must be better" arguments which so often seem the ONLY basis peple make for socialism. Socialism has to be judged on its own merits. Unfortunately, socialists hereabouts often seem unwilling to do so.
You talk about making arguments based on its 'merits', I'm not sure what you mean by that, if you asking for empirical proof, thats kind of hard because there have been very few genuine socialist attempts and most of those (if no all) have been taken out violently. If your asking for logical merits, then I go back to the question of democracy or an plutocracy, there we go, do democratic societies work better for the people? (seeing as the people rule) or do Plutocracies (seeing as a few people rule).

We've done this over and over again.

Now lets look at the Merits of Capitalism, how has that been doing so far? [/b]
When dealing with democracy, it has to be understood that the people DO NOT rule in a democracy. The majority of the people ruling the minority of the people is who rules in a democracy. Socialists tend to perceive a socialist community as one where everyone basically agrees with each other on the issues.

Of course, that can never be true (if the democracy is NOT a liberal ie a free democracy. But as socialists tend to reject liberalism, it is not surprising that socialism wound up as tyranny in the USSR et. al. (The Soviets, after all, always claiming they were the true "democrats" of the world)).

Those who (such as yourself) who has been quite vocal on the need for political freedom for the opponents of socialism (note that political freedom is a topic up for discussion amongst socialists hereabouts), will have to deal with a community with the same sort of political debates and factions which presently exist in the capitalist world. The democratic solution is to let the majority have its way over the minority. There is no escape from the "rulers" and the "ruled."

But in the economic arena, it can't be the same way. There, the friction which exists between the producer and consumer needs to fall on the side of the consumer. Yet socialism is forever first and foremost worried worried about the needs of the producer, whose needs are always different from that of the consumer.

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by ZX3+April 02, 2007 12:25 pm--> (ZX3 @ April 02, 2007 12:25 pm)
Tommy-[email protected] 31, 2007 09:23 am
You reject a claim backed up by undisputable fact? Surely that's what you're accusing us of doing?

And is capitalism judged on its 'merits'? Please name some, I'm intrigued.
It creates the proleteriat, without which children of the revolution would have nothing much to say. [/b]
I would argue that creating a class society cannot, and will never be a 'merit' of a particular system. Quite the opposite in fact.

If we didn't have ther proletariat, we wouldn't have the bourgoisie either so the Children of the Revolution wouldn't need to say anything. Not if there is already a classless society. Your arguments, like most (if not all) that I hear from capitalists are fundamentally flawed in several different ways, meaning I can't take anything you say seriously.

[RGacky3]

When dealing with democracy, it has to be understood that the people DO NOT rule in a democracy. The majority of the people ruling the minority of the people is who rules in a democracy. Socialists tend to perceive a socialist community as one where everyone basically agrees with each other on the issues.

Of course, that can never be true (if the democracy is NOT a liberal ie a free democracy. But as socialists tend to reject liberalism, it is not surprising that socialism wound up as tyranny in the USSR et. al. (The Soviets, after all, always claiming they were the true "democrats" of the world)).

The problem with that is that as an Anarchist when I say Democracy I'm not talking about a system of government, I am against government, I'm talking about situations where many people are involved in an issue and all have pretty much the same stake in it, they would resolve it democrativly. Democracy in the sense of the Majority having power over the minority is not what I"m talking about.

Your right the USSR claimed it was a democracy as much as the United States does, but like I said before I'm not talking about a system of government, I"m talking about resolving neccesary conflicts.


Those who (such as yourself) who has been quite vocal on the need for political freedom for the opponents of socialism (note that political freedom is a topic up for discussion amongst socialists hereabouts), will have to deal with a community with the same sort of political debates and factions which presently exist in the capitalist world. The democratic solution is to let the majority have its way over the minority. There is no escape from the "rulers" and the "ruled."

The Democratic solution might be that depending on how you define democracy, the Anarchist solution is no one has his way over anyone, and no one rules over anyone, and of coarse people will be allowed to say whatever they want, but how many people would rather be employess rather than Communal Partners, of coarse there will be those who used to be bosses calling for a return to Capitalism, and a return to their domination of the economy, but I doubt many people will lsiten ot them, and without their use of force or their 'rights' to land and Capital they can't really do much about it.

I've heard this argument before and it does'nt work at all, if people want to be Capitalists fine, if they want to run their own business non communally and do the work themselves fine, just as long as they arn't exploiting anyone, or taking something that the community needs as their own.


But in the economic arena, it can't be the same way. There, the friction which exists between the producer and consumer needs to fall on the side of the consumer. Yet socialism is forever first and foremost worried worried about the needs of the producer, whose needs are always different from that of the consumer.

Under Socialism the producer and the Consumer are the same class, the worries of the producer are the worries of the Consumer, why you ask? Because they are producing for their community, and guess what, they are part of it.

Right now who do they produce for? Their boss, who then has people sell it to the consumer for profit, not their needs.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 12:52 am

When dealing with democracy, it has to be understood that the people DO NOT rule in a democracy. The majority of the people ruling the minority of the people is who rules in a democracy. Socialists tend to perceive a socialist community as one where everyone basically agrees with each other on the issues.

Of course, that can never be true (if the democracy is NOT a liberal ie a free democracy. But as socialists tend to reject liberalism, it is not surprising that socialism wound up as tyranny in the USSR et. al. (The Soviets, after all, always claiming they were the true "democrats" of the world)).

The problem with that is that as an Anarchist when I say Democracy I'm not talking about a system of government, I am against government, I'm talking about situations where many people are involved in an issue and all have pretty much the same stake in it, they would resolve it democrativly. Democracy in the sense of the Majority having power over the minority is not what I"m talking about.

Your right the USSR claimed it was a democracy as much as the United States does, but like I said before I'm not talking about a system of government, I"m talking about resolving neccesary conflicts.


Those who (such as yourself) who has been quite vocal on the need for political freedom for the opponents of socialism (note that political freedom is a topic up for discussion amongst socialists hereabouts), will have to deal with a community with the same sort of political debates and factions which presently exist in the capitalist world. The democratic solution is to let the majority have its way over the minority. There is no escape from the "rulers" and the "ruled."

The Democratic solution might be that depending on how you define democracy, the Anarchist solution is no one has his way over anyone, and no one rules over anyone, and of coarse people will be allowed to say whatever they want, but how many people would rather be employess rather than Communal Partners, of coarse there will be those who used to be bosses calling for a return to Capitalism, and a return to their domination of the economy, but I doubt many people will lsiten ot them, and without their use of force or their 'rights' to land and Capital they can't really do much about it.

I've heard this argument before and it does'nt work at all, if people want to be Capitalists fine, if they want to run their own business non communally and do the work themselves fine, just as long as they arn't exploiting anyone, or taking something that the community needs as their own.


But in the economic arena, it can't be the same way. There, the friction which exists between the producer and consumer needs to fall on the side of the consumer. Yet socialism is forever first and foremost worried worried about the needs of the producer, whose needs are always different from that of the consumer.

Under Socialism the producer and the Consumer are the same class, the worries of the producer are the worries of the Consumer, why you ask? Because they are producing for their community, and guess what, they are part of it.

Right now who do they produce for? Their boss, who then has people sell it to the consumer for profit, not their needs.
It doesn't matter if it is a system of government or not. It is simply not realistic to expect 100% to agree with each other all the time. Especially if it is an anarchial community where such unanimity of opinion would rightly call doubts into its "anarchist" credentials. Someone is going to be told what to do, or at the very least, what they can't do.

Nor should that be considered unexpected, since you are already saying that people will not be allowed to work for a capitalist. Even if they wanted to?



The economic problems are legion though: The worker and the consumer are not the same person. The interests are simply not the same. It may be in the intererest of the community to have 500 computers in a given period of time; but ity may not be in the interest of the workers in the computer factory to make them.

The assumption is that production for profit is not the same as production of need. But that is not true. Profit can only accrue if production satisfies a need. If nobody purchases a product, then profit is not made. That is what tells the capitalist whether production is satisfying a need or want. Capitalist production is geared to satisfy the needs and wants of the community. Socialist or anarchist production? maybe, but nobody seems to know how.

[RGacky3]

It doesn't matter if it is a system of government or not. It is simply not realistic to expect 100% to agree with each other all the time. Especially if it is an anarchial community where such unanimity of opinion would rightly call doubts into its "anarchist" credentials. Someone is going to be told what to do, or at the very least, what they can't do.

Have you listening to any thing I said so far? My God. Listen of coarse they don't agree 100% of the time, but if something concerns multiple people then multiple people will have to be consulted, if someone does'nt agree with the desicion either they can not take part in it, or they can go along with it, and I think thats a little bit better than one guy making the decision for everyone. Someone will be told what they can't do of coarse, but only when in concerns other people. I never said people would agree 100% of the time, I don't think anyones ever said that.


Nor should that be considered unexpected, since you are already saying that people will not be allowed to work for a capitalist. Even if they wanted to?

If someone wanted to work for a person who had no property rights, if someone decided to just give away what he produces in exchange for a wage thats perfectly fine. Of coarse someone could voluntarily be a slave, but I don't see what the reason would be, unless he just enjoys being exploited and having what he produces taken from him. If theres a communal farm and a guy says "Hey why don't you guys work it, but give all the stuff to me, and I'll give you small compensation, I don't have rights to the farm, but I think it would be better if I profit from your work rather than you," and people there agree to do that well then fine, but I doubt thats going to happen.


The economic problems are legion though: The worker and the consumer are not the same person. The interests are simply not the same. It may be in the intererest of the community to have 500 computers in a given period of time; but ity may not be in the interest of the workers in the computer factory to make them.

it would be in the interest of workers in a computer factory to make them simply because thats what a computer factory is for, making computers for the community, people in a Anarchist society would'nt be making computers for fish, they would be making computers for people, why? Because they enjoy making computers and they want to contribute to society?


The assumption is that production for profit is not the same as production of need. But that is not true. Profit can only accrue if production satisfies a need. If nobody purchases a product, then profit is not made. That is what tells the capitalist whether production is satisfying a need or want. Capitalist production is geared to satisfy the needs and wants of the community. Socialist or anarchist production? maybe, but nobody seems to know how.

If production for profit is the same as production for need explain Mcdonalds for me :P. Capitalist production is geard toward profit, its geard to getting cash into the company, if that means making a computer that will last only a couple years so as to make the consumer buy a new one, then more money, if that means sending most of the food to rich countires who will spend more money on it rather than poor countries who need it than so be it, it means getting money, not saitsfying needs. If Profit and societal needs went hand in hand then no one on earth would starve because we produce enough food for everyone.

[Rawthentic]

RGacky, you are against government? You mean against workers councils, assemblies, etc? Hmm.

[RGacky3]

When I say government I mean, a centralized body making desicions for other people, not a group of people making desicions for themselves.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 01:12 pm
When I say government I mean, a centralized body making desicions for other people, not a group of people making desicions for themselves.
RG, you keep trying to create a local "government" which will be unable to govern. You keep saying that people will be "making decisions for themselves" meaing you continue to conceive of a viable community one where everyone agrees with each other. Those who don't, are cast out.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 12:01 pm

It doesn't matter if it is a system of government or not. It is simply not realistic to expect 100% to agree with each other all the time. Especially if it is an anarchial community where such unanimity of opinion would rightly call doubts into its "anarchist" credentials. Someone is going to be told what to do, or at the very least, what they can't do.

Have you listening to any thing I said so far? My God. Listen of coarse they don't agree 100% of the time, but if something concerns multiple people then multiple people will have to be consulted, if someone does'nt agree with the desicion either they can not take part in it, or they can go along with it, and I think thats a little bit better than one guy making the decision for everyone. Someone will be told what they can't do of coarse, but only when in concerns other people. I never said people would agree 100% of the time, I don't think anyones ever said that.


Nor should that be considered unexpected, since you are already saying that people will not be allowed to work for a capitalist. Even if they wanted to?

If someone wanted to work for a person who had no property rights, if someone decided to just give away what he produces in exchange for a wage thats perfectly fine. Of coarse someone could voluntarily be a slave, but I don't see what the reason would be, unless he just enjoys being exploited and having what he produces taken from him. If theres a communal farm and a guy says "Hey why don't you guys work it, but give all the stuff to me, and I'll give you small compensation, I don't have rights to the farm, but I think it would be better if I profit from your work rather than you," and people there agree to do that well then fine, but I doubt thats going to happen.


The economic problems are legion though: The worker and the consumer are not the same person. The interests are simply not the same. It may be in the intererest of the community to have 500 computers in a given period of time; but ity may not be in the interest of the workers in the computer factory to make them.

it would be in the interest of workers in a computer factory to make them simply because thats what a computer factory is for, making computers for the community, people in a Anarchist society would'nt be making computers for fish, they would be making computers for people, why? Because they enjoy making computers and they want to contribute to society?


The assumption is that production for profit is not the same as production of need. But that is not true. Profit can only accrue if production satisfies a need. If nobody purchases a product, then profit is not made. That is what tells the capitalist whether production is satisfying a need or want. Capitalist production is geared to satisfy the needs and wants of the community. Socialist or anarchist production? maybe, but nobody seems to know how.

If production for profit is the same as production for need explain Mcdonalds for me :P. Capitalist production is geard toward profit, its geard to getting cash into the company, if that means making a computer that will last only a couple years so as to make the consumer buy a new one, then more money, if that means sending most of the food to rich countires who will spend more money on it rather than poor countries who need it than so be it, it means getting money, not saitsfying needs. If Profit and societal needs went hand in hand then no one on earth would starve because we produce enough food for everyone.
Great. The majority of workers in the computer factory decide to build 500 computers in a given period of time. The minority who dissagree can either go along with the majority, or refuse to work in such a manner. The anarchist community says "No problem."
But it obviously is a problem, since as you say, the purpose of the computer factory is to produce computers. That is how the community udges its success or failure- by its turning out computers. The purpose of the computer factory is not to give people a job making computers.

While the recognition that the purpose of work is to produce needed items for the community is a welcome sign, this means that much of the flow of socialist/anarchist ideas make little sense. For example, the workers controling the computer factory productions means that their interests (ie the interests of the producers) is the paramount concern. Yet this obviously clashes with the need of the factory to supply the population with sufficient computers (after all, life in a socialist/anarchist society is supposed to be blissful, where workers do not work their fingers to the bone, have plenty of family time, and no real material concerns about survival). The consumers of computer products are the ones who should be controlling computer production, since they are the ones for whom production is geared. Why build computers if nobody wants them? Capitalist production does this quite nicely, since the computer capitalist can only make a profit if people buy the product. The socialist/anarchist production? Since the producers are controlling production, production will be geared to what satisfies their needs (which they may confuse as being society's needs, such as seen by your sneering at McDonald's). as opposed to the community's needs.

[Rawthentic]

When I say government I mean, a centralized body making desicions for other people, not a group of people making desicions for themselves.

Thats merely a form of government.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 02:36 am
Great. The majority of workers in the computer factory decide to build 500 computers in a given period of time. The minority who dissagree can either go along with the majority, or refuse to work in such a manner. The anarchist community says "No problem."
But it obviously is a problem, since as you say, the purpose of the computer factory is to produce computers. That is how the community udges its success or failure- by its turning out computers. The purpose of the computer factory is not to give people a job making computers.

While the recognition that the purpose of work is to produce needed items for the community is a welcome sign, this means that much of the flow of socialist/anarchist ideas make little sense. For example, the workers controling the computer factory productions means that their interests (ie the interests of the producers) is the paramount concern. Yet this obviously clashes with the need of the factory to supply the population with sufficient computers (after all, life in a socialist/anarchist society is supposed to be blissful, where workers do not work their fingers to the bone, have plenty of family time, and no real material concerns about survival). The consumers of computer products are the ones who should be controlling computer production, since they are the ones for whom production is geared. Why build computers if nobody wants them? Capitalist production does this quite nicely, since the computer capitalist can only make a profit if people buy the product. The socialist/anarchist production? Since the producers are controlling production, production will be geared to what satisfies their needs (which they may confuse as being society's needs, such as seen by your sneering at McDonald's). as opposed to the community's needs.
I agree with that critique. The fundamental problem with any ideology that wants to divide the economic system into independent self-managed units is how to find a way to make sure that the economic decisions taken by those independent units actually fit together. The workers at the computer factory may decide to produce X computers, but the number of computers they can produce depends, among other things, on the output of the silicon chip factory down the road. And on the output of the local power plant. If each workplace is independently managed, how are those outputs synchronized?

That is the reason why I support a version of socialism based on a fully integrated planned economy rather than a collection of self-managed units.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 06, 2007 01:05 am
I agree with that critique. The fundamental problem with any ideology that wants to divide the economic system into independent self-managed units is how to find a way to make sure that the economic decisions taken by those independent units actually fit together. The workers at the computer factory may decide to produce X computers, but the number of computers they can produce depends, among other things, on the output of the silicon chip factory down the road. And on the output of the local power plant. If each workplace is independently managed, how are those outputs synchronized?

That is the reason why I support a version of socialism based on a fully integrated planned economy rather than a collection of self-managed units.
I would agree that a centrally planned economy is the only way socialism could logicaly be conceived.

But I would dissagree that a centrally controled socialism will be able to produce and allocate resources more effectively than capitalism.

[RNK]

So you think that corporations, who pursue above all else their own financial well-being, are able to better take care of society rather than society itself?

Essentially, you're saying that some corporation who's only after your money makes better decisions about your own well-being than you do?

That kind of ignorant blind faith reminds me a lot of religion.

"I don't know why God just decided to strike down my entire family, but there must be a good reason for it."

"I don't know why I'm not bankrupt and selling my house because of that car accident which cost me almost $100,000 in medical bills, but I'm sure there must be a good reason for it."

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 03:04 pm
I would agree that a centrally planned economy is the only way socialism could logicaly be conceived.
I would not go so far as to say that socialism requires a centrally planned economy. A planned economy of some kind is necessary, true, and I personally support a centrally planned economy. But I see no reason to rule out the possibility of a form of socialism based on decentralized planning.


But I would dissagree that a centrally controled socialism will be able to produce and allocate resources more effectively than capitalism.
Well, that is the big issue on which we fundamentally disagree.

I'd like to make a small observation here. Keep in mind that the concept of a "centrally planned economy" is at least as broad as the concept of a "market economy". Market economies are present in countries as economically diverse as the United States, Sweden, Brazil, Iraq and Somalia. Clearly some market economies are more efficient than others.

I fully expect socialism to be capable of the same range of variation as capitalism.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 11:43 am
So you think that corporations, who pursue above all else their own financial well-being, are able to better take care of society rather than society itself?

Essentially, you're saying that some corporation who's only after your money makes better decisions about your own well-being than you do?

That kind of ignorant blind faith reminds me a lot of religion.

"I don't know why God just decided to strike down my entire family, but there must be a good reason for it."

"I don't know why I'm not bankrupt and selling my house because of that car accident which cost me almost $100,000 in medical bills, but I'm sure there must be a good reason for it."
No, I think that capitalists, because they want my money, do a better job of producing and distributing goods and services, than do the socialists.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Edric O+April 06, 2007 02:59 pm--> (Edric O @ April 06, 2007 02:59 pm)
[email protected] 06, 2007 03:04 pm
I would agree that a centrally planned economy is the only way socialism could logicaly be conceived.
I would not go so far as to say that socialism requires a centrally planned economy. A planned economy of some kind is necessary, true, and I personally support a centrally planned economy. But I see no reason to rule out the possibility of a form of socialism based on decentralized planning.


But I would dissagree that a centrally controled socialism will be able to produce and allocate resources more effectively than capitalism.
Well, that is the big issue on which we fundamentally disagree.

I'd like to make a small observation here. Keep in mind that the concept of a "centrally planned economy" is at least as broad as the concept of a "market economy". Market economies are present in countries as economically diverse as the United States, Sweden, Brazil, Iraq and Somalia. Clearly some market economies are more efficient than others.

I fully expect socialism to be capable of the same range of variation as capitalism. [/b]
I would agree that are different variants of socialism. After being on this message board for several months, who could deny it?

But whatever the variants which may exist, the socialist communities will be more alike than unlike, and will need organise themselves on roughly the same line.

"Decentralised planning" strikes me as an oxymoron, since production of a given item almost always needs other products and services, which are completely dissimiliar in nature and can go in other directions. The glassmaker can make the covers for computer monitor, or make windshields for cars and planes, or glasses to drink from, or coffee tables ect ect ect. One cannot just plan for the production of one item without recognising its impact on another.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 11:12 pm
I would agree that are different variants of socialism. After being on this message board for several months, who could deny it?

But whatever the variants which may exist, the socialist communities will be more alike than unlike, and will need organise themselves on roughly the same line.
Of course.


"Decentralised planning" strikes me as an oxymoron, since production of a given item almost always needs other products and services, which are completely dissimiliar in nature and can go in other directions. The glassmaker can make the covers for computer monitor, or make windshields for cars and planes, or glasses to drink from, or coffee tables ect ect ect. One cannot just plan for the production of one item without recognising its impact on another.
The "decentralized" adjective applies to the institution doing the planning. There may be a Central Planning Board in one city which collects information from all over the country and issues a N-year plan, or there may be more localized planning institutions which are more or less autonomous in their day-to-day activities and hold conferences at certain time intervals in order to agree on a common country-wide plan for the next time interval.

In other words, planning could be done by one permanent central institution or by a temporary conference of local institutions.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Edric O+April 07, 2007 06:29 pm--> (Edric O @ April 07, 2007 06:29 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 11:12 pm
I would agree that are different variants of socialism. After being on this message board for several months, who could deny it?

But whatever the variants which may exist, the socialist communities will be more alike than unlike, and will need organise themselves on roughly the same line.
Of course.


"Decentralised planning" strikes me as an oxymoron, since production of a given item almost always needs other products and services, which are completely dissimiliar in nature and can go in other directions. The glassmaker can make the covers for computer monitor, or make windshields for cars and planes, or glasses to drink from, or coffee tables ect ect ect. One cannot just plan for the production of one item without recognising its impact on another.
The "decentralized" adjective applies to the institution doing the planning. There may be a Central Planning Board in one city which collects information from all over the country and issues a N-year plan, or there may be more localized planning institutions which are more or less autonomous in their day-to-day activities and hold conferences at certain time intervals in order to agree on a common country-wide plan for the next time interval.

In other words, planning could be done by one permanent central institution or by a temporary conference of local institutions. [/b]
One would suppose that the local planning boards could only plan "locally." But since no locality has within its borders every product it could possibly need, whatever planning occurs cannot in way be considered complete. It would be dependent upon the planning which went on in some other locality, whose plans may not jibe and satisfy what that other community needs for its own needs. In other words, the problem is the same as with the planning by the local enterprise which you had rejected earlier, just on a larger level.

No, big statewide/nationwide/whatever planning, of the type seen and enjoyed in the old USSR, is the only conceivable method of planning which can occur in a socialist community.

[RGacky3]

ZX3, you talk about the need for cooperation between communities and the such, I don't understand why you think this is impossible? If one community needs something from another community I don't see why its impossible for them to cooperate and come to agreements of sharing whatever it is they mutually need, also as far as basic nessesities go, most communities could probably take care of those on there own, as far as food, water and shelter are concerned.

Your whole premis of this is that cooperation is impossible and coercion is the only way things can get done, and this premis is flawed on many levels.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 01:44 pm
ZX3, you talk about the need for cooperation between communities and the such, I don't understand why you think this is impossible? If one community needs something from another community I don't see why its impossible for them to cooperate and come to agreements of sharing whatever it is they mutually need, also as far as basic nessesities go, most communities could probably take care of those on there own, as far as food, water and shelter are concerned.

Your whole premis of this is that cooperation is impossible and coercion is the only way things can get done, and this premis is flawed on many levels.
I doubt very much populations in cities could provide for their own housing, inasmuch as modern buildings require steel, stone, cement, copper, plastic ect ect, which tend to be in short supply in cities. It needs to come from other areas.

I have no doubt there will be cooperation people in a socialist/anarchist/communist community. But this leads to the situation I, and many other OIers, have asking for months: Describe. That seems to be a toxic word around here, as witnessed by the abandonment when challenges were issued to the possible, general, scenarios proposed as to how socialist communities would organise themselves.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by ZX3+April 06, 2007 12:14 am--> (ZX3 @ April 06, 2007 12:14 am)
[email protected] 05, 2007 01:12 pm
When I say government I mean, a centralized body making desicions for other people, not a group of people making desicions for themselves.
RG, you keep trying to create a local "government" which will be unable to govern. You keep saying that people will be "making decisions for themselves" meaing you continue to conceive of a viable community one where everyone agrees with each other. Those who don't, are cast out. [/b]
Indeed R, you are describing government whether you wish to or not. In fact you're basically describing the township form of government to a "T".

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 05:01 am
One would suppose that the local planning boards could only plan "locally." But since no locality has within its borders every product it could possibly need, whatever planning occurs cannot in way be considered complete. It would be dependent upon the planning which went on in some other locality, whose plans may not jibe and satisfy what that other community needs for its own needs. In other words, the problem is the same as with the planning by the local enterprise which you had rejected earlier, just on a larger level.
There is a certain level at which the problem no longer exists because the various planned economies can trade with each other. The planned economies of Eastern Europe, for example, existed quite nicely without establishing autarky within their borders.

No locality has within its borders every product it could possibly need, but socialist localities can trade with each other. If the localities are too small (e.g. enterprise-sized), the only way this trade could work is through some kind of market, which goes against the whole idea of having socialism in the first place.

But if the localities are large enough, they can trade with each other on the basis of a loose overarching economic plan. The idea is that the planners from all the different localities get together at regular intervals to iron out the common economic plan. That's how CMEA worked, after all.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Edric O+April 16, 2007 11:06 pm--> (Edric O @ April 16, 2007 11:06 pm)
[email protected] 08, 2007 05:01 am
One would suppose that the local planning boards could only plan "locally." But since no locality has within its borders every product it could possibly need, whatever planning occurs cannot in way be considered complete. It would be dependent upon the planning which went on in some other locality, whose plans may not jibe and satisfy what that other community needs for its own needs. In other words, the problem is the same as with the planning by the local enterprise which you had rejected earlier, just on a larger level.
There is a certain level at which the problem no longer exists because the various planned economies can trade with each other. The planned economies of Eastern Europe, for example, existed quite nicely without establishing autarky within their borders.

No locality has within its borders every product it could possibly need, but socialist localities can trade with each other. If the localities are too small (e.g. enterprise-sized), the only way this trade could work is through some kind of market, which goes against the whole idea of having socialism in the first place.

But if the localities are large enough, they can trade with each other on the basis of a loose overarching economic plan. The idea is that the planners from all the different localities get together at regular intervals to iron out the common economic plan. That's how CMEA worked, after all. [/b]
How are the workers in charge then if the central planners are telling them they need N units of X this quarter?

[Rawthentic]

Central planning, or a group of "elites" who do the planning, inhibit on worker self-management.

There will of course have to be some centralization of worker's councils and assemblies as a part of a national or regional conference of some sort.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 03:42 pm
How are the workers in charge then if the central planners are telling them they need N units of X this quarter?
Actually, the workers are the ones who tell the central planners what they need, and it is the job of the central planners to draw up an economic plan that provides for those needs as well as possible given the available resources.


Central planning, or a group of "elites" who do the planning, inhibit on worker self-management.
Worker self-management can only go so far; you cannot expect every worker to be interested in the minute details of the economic situation of the entire country. Workers should set plan targets, but there is nothing wrong with having a group of elected (and recallable) planners whose job it is to determine how best to achieve the goals put forward by the workers.

In bourgeois terms, I want the workers to be the legislature, but I have no problem with a smaller group of people forming the executive.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Edric O+April 18, 2007 01:15 am--> (Edric O @ April 18, 2007 01:15 am)
[email protected] 17, 2007 03:42 pm
How are the workers in charge then if the central planners are telling them they need N units of X this quarter?
Actually, the workers are the ones who tell the central planners what they need, and it is the job of the central planners to draw up an economic plan that provides for those needs as well as possible given the available resources.

[/b]

We go round and round in circles here. Yes, one can create a council to "plan." It can be structured in the manner you suggest. When you say "it is the job of the central planners to draw up an economic plan that provides for those needs as well as possible given the available resources" you said what ANY economy has to do. What the socialists are being asked is to DESCRIBE how this objective might be acheived in a socialist community.

Because the community still has to operate. It has to function. Already, there is a problem: Your workers are the ones telling the planning board what they need. But who really cares how many mufflers the auto workers need? Only the auto workers. And how many cars do those workers really need for their own consumption?

All that really matters is that the consumer gets the product they need. Its the consumers who drive production. Yet your suggestions continue to insist upon leaving the producers in charge.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 07:48 pm
Central planning, or a group of "elites" who do the planning, inhibit on worker self-management.

There will of course have to be some centralization of worker's councils and assemblies as a part of a national or regional conference of some sort.
Okay. So how will these "national or regional conferences" function WITHOUT inpinging upon "worker self-manangement?"

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Edric O+April 16, 2007 06:06 pm--> (Edric O @ April 16, 2007 06:06 pm)
[email protected] 08, 2007 05:01 am
One would suppose that the local planning boards could only plan "locally." But since no locality has within its borders every product it could possibly need, whatever planning occurs cannot in way be considered complete. It would be dependent upon the planning which went on in some other locality, whose plans may not jibe and satisfy what that other community needs for its own needs. In other words, the problem is the same as with the planning by the local enterprise which you had rejected earlier, just on a larger level.
There is a certain level at which the problem no longer exists because the various planned economies can trade with each other. The planned economies of Eastern Europe, for example, existed quite nicely without establishing autarky within their borders.

No locality has within its borders every product it could possibly need, but socialist localities can trade with each other. If the localities are too small (e.g. enterprise-sized), the only way this trade could work is through some kind of market, which goes against the whole idea of having socialism in the first place.

But if the localities are large enough, they can trade with each other on the basis of a loose overarching economic plan. The idea is that the planners from all the different localities get together at regular intervals to iron out the common economic plan. That's how CMEA worked, after all. [/b]
So by what standard would these socialist communities trade with each other?

[Rawthentic]

Okay. So how will these "national or regional conferences" function WITHOUT inpinging upon "worker self-manangement?"
Because its all made up of workers? :wacko:


So by what standard would these socialist communities trade with each other?
What exactly do you mean?

[RGacky3]

So by what standard would these socialist communities trade with each other?

By the standard of what one community needs and what the other ones needs, mutual assistance. Thats what we mean when we say an economy based on human needs rather than profit.


Okay. So how will these "national or regional conferences" function WITHOUT inpinging upon "worker self-manangement?"

Because these Central organizations will A: Not have any innate power, B: be compleatly answerable to who they represent, C: will be able to have their position revoked at any time by who ever they represent.


Because the community still has to operate. It has to function. Already, there is a problem: Your workers are the ones telling the planning board what they need. But who really cares how many mufflers the auto workers need? Only the auto workers. And how many cars do those workers really need for their own consumption?

All that really matters is that the consumer gets the product they need. Its the consumers who drive production. Yet your suggestions continue to insist upon leaving the producers in charge

You forget the purpose of production, its for the community, the auto workers may me making cars for themselves as well, but they are also doing it for the community, and the community IS the consumer, and everyone in the community is also a worker, and they all contribute different things to the community. So everyone is a producer of something and a consumer, and everyone is in charge of what they produce, but the reason they produce is either for themself, or for the community, and if it is for the community they will plan things according to what the community needs neccesarily.

Now a question you could ask is if people will voluntarily produce and voluntarity contribute, and if your answer is no your going to have a tough time proving it.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:12 pm

Okay. So how will these "national or regional conferences" function WITHOUT inpinging upon "worker self-manangement?"
Because its all made up of workers? :wacko:


So by what standard would these socialist communities trade with each other?
What exactly do you mean?
Whether it is all made up of workers has nothing to do with it. . If the workers of a factory democratically vote to build 500 units of "X," can a worker council tell them to build 750 units of "X?" Even if the workers of the factory are opposed? Even if the rep from the factory at the worker council is opposed?

By standard of trade, i mean how do socialist communities make such judgement? what knowledge, what information, do they utilise? How might an agricultural socialist community judge its production against the production of an industrial community?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 12:24 am

So by what standard would these socialist communities trade with each other?

By the standard of what one community needs and what the other ones needs, mutual assistance. Thats what we mean when we say an economy based on human needs rather than profit.


Okay. So how will these "national or regional conferences" function WITHOUT inpinging upon "worker self-manangement?"

Because these Central organizations will A: Not have any innate power, B: be compleatly answerable to who they represent, C: will be able to have their position revoked at any time by who ever they represent.


Because the community still has to operate. It has to function. Already, there is a problem: Your workers are the ones telling the planning board what they need. But who really cares how many mufflers the auto workers need? Only the auto workers. And how many cars do those workers really need for their own consumption?

All that really matters is that the consumer gets the product they need. Its the consumers who drive production. Yet your suggestions continue to insist upon leaving the producers in charge

You forget the purpose of production, its for the community, the auto workers may me making cars for themselves as well, but they are also doing it for the community, and the community IS the consumer, and everyone in the community is also a worker, and they all contribute different things to the community. So everyone is a producer of something and a consumer, and everyone is in charge of what they produce, but the reason they produce is either for themself, or for the community, and if it is for the community they will plan things according to what the community needs neccesarily.

Now a question you could ask is if people will voluntarily produce and voluntarity contribute, and if your answer is no your going to have a tough time proving it.
Okay, so the central organisations will not have any power. So:

1. Why is the socialist society wasting resources in establishing such a useless board?
2. Since the board was proposed as a way of coordinating production (since it was agreed that the democratic decision of Factory A to produce 500 units of "X" was dependent upon Factory B democratic decion to produce enough product to ship to Factory A for it to produce Unit "X") one still is left with the problem of coordinating production amongst different factories whose workers have their own interests and goals. The solution to the problem cannot be "they will figure it out" or "mutual assistance" since those solutions still need to involve a mechanism and rationale for its decisions.

Yes, the purpose of production is to produce for the community, not to create jobs for the workers. Thank you. That means the interests of the workers need to take second fiddle to consumers in production decisions. Socialists however seem to say that the interests of the workers trumpet the interests of the consumers.

And the workers are not consumers. How many cars do the auto workers (or any other worker, anywhere, of what they produce) really use for themselves in the course of a career on the assembly line? Statistically zero, I would think, and I know of no reason to suppose workers would need more of what they produce (and every reason to suppose they would need less, particularly auto workers), in a socialist community.

So the auto workers (and any other worker) are not really producing for themselves; they are producing for people who want cars and other items. So the workers have to figure out all the various production aspects of it, make constatnt adjustments in production and distribution, decisions which may not be in the best interest of the worker, but they believe (hope) to be in the best interest of the consumer.

Capitalism has ideas which guide such decisions. Socialism? Nobody seems to know.

[Rawthentic]

Thats cute that you can come up with all these scenarios, but the most important thing is that we will have the ability to decide things for ourselves and our benefits. In other words, not being hassled by a leech who wants more money.


Okay, so the central organisations will not have any power. So:
Wrong, of course they would have power. These would be regional or national conferences of workers councils and such.


Yes, the purpose of production is to produce for the community, not to create jobs for the workers
And to produce for themselves. And it doesn't "create jobs", because jobs under socialism would be a given, a human right.


And the workers are not consumers
Thats relative, and not under capitalism. Today, most auto workers don't make enough to buy something that they are making with their bare hands.

Under socialism, that would of course be eliminated, and workers would be consumers of what they make and any other things.


So the auto workers (and any other worker) are not really producing for themselves; they are producing for people who want cars and other items
Under capitalism. Of course they are producing for themselves, but also for their communities.


So the workers have to figure out all the various production aspects of it, make constatnt adjustments in production and distribution, decisions which may not be in the best interest of the worker, but they believe (hope) to be in the best interest of the consumer.

But that will, assuming your weird scenario is legitimate, be in the future interests of the workers. Why would they make decisions that contradict their interests?


Capitalism has ideas which guide such decisions. Socialism? Nobody seems to know
Guided by profit and at the expense of those that create the wealth. You expect there to be a blueprint for socialism, but thats not how it goes. However it is organized, it will logically be done in the best interests of the workers, since they run society.

For some logical reason, whatever you say has no water. You honestly think that we in the class struggle as proletarians give a crap about such things at this time? No, that comes after our victory. The class struggle must end in either the end of humanity, or socialism, because class antagonisms are irreconcilable. Just some objective facts.

[wtfm8lol]

You honestly think that we in the class struggle as proletarians give a crap about such things at this time? No, that comes after our victory. The class struggle must end in either the end of humanity, or socialism, because class antagonisms are irreconcilable. Just some objective facts.

and this is why we like to laugh at you. you think you can convince the entire working class to join you based on hoping that your system will work out OK after you've destroyed the entire economic infrastructure that allows the vast majority of them to live decent lives.

[Rawthentic]

Decent lives!!! I want to throw up, and then look up your IP address and kick the shit out of you!!

In the face of extreme poverty, hunger, alienation, death, wars, human trafficking, and all of the other sick symptoms of capitalism you have the balls to say that we live decent lives. Fuck you. If I ever know who you are I will beat you, because you don't know what we go through everyday to just make it in life. And all because of profit. Sick fuck.

Socialism is the system of the workers and oppressed, who want to really lead decent lives and have a stable future and control every aspect of their lives because we create all the wealth in the world. Denying this is ignorant.

But I guess you can't help it.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 07:12 pm

[Guided by profit and at the expense of those that create the wealth. You expect there to be a blueprint for socialism, but thats not how it goes. However it is organized, it will logically be done in the best interests of the workers, since they run society.

For some logical reason, whatever you say has no water. You honestly think that we in the class struggle as proletarians give a crap about such things at this time? No, that comes after our victory. The class struggle must end in either the end of humanity, or socialism, because class antagonisms are irreconcilable. Just some objective facts.
Nice. Socialists have no idea what they are doing. But whatever it is, it will "be in the best interests of the workers." How do we know this? Easy. Hastalavictoria just said so, and that is all that matters.

[Rawthentic]

Easy: the workers have different interests than the leeches, because that is an objective fact.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 11:19 am
Easy: the workers have different interests than the leeches, because that is an objective fact.
Which is meaningless cliche. It has nothing to do with what their interests are or are not. What matters is how their interests are best served, and whether what is SAID will benefit the workers, actually will.

See? Socialists still need to prove socialism.

[RNK]

So... wait...

Workers having more (or total) control over their work... would be bad for them? So me being able to receive a return in the full value of my labour is a bad thing?

See? You still need to disprove socialism.

[Rawthentic]

Ha, nice RNK.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 05:22 pm
So... wait...

Workers having more (or total) control over their work... would be bad for them? So me being able to receive a return in the full value of my labour is a bad thing?

See? You still need to disprove socialism.
The CONSUMERS should have control over what the workers produce. It does not matter what the workers want to produce.

Why on earth do socialists believe that the producers should be determining what is available for the consumers?

[RGacky3]

Okay, so the central organisations will not have any power. So:

1. Why is the socialist society wasting resources in establishing such a useless board?
2. Since the board was proposed as a way of coordinating production (since it was agreed that the democratic decision of Factory A to produce 500 units of "X" was dependent upon Factory B democratic decion to produce enough product to ship to Factory A for it to produce Unit "X") one still is left with the problem of coordinating production amongst different factories whose workers have their own interests and goals. The solution to the problem cannot be "they will figure it out" or "mutual assistance" since those solutions still need to involve a mechanism and rationale for its decisions.

1. When I say it has no power, I mean it has no innate power, meaning it can be taken away at any time, it may have authority but only authority given to it by the people it represents. So its not useless its used to make immediate desicions that involve a lot of people and cannot be made directly by all those people.

2.What different interests and goals do the workers have than the consumers? The workers are working for the consumer, the mechanism could be a number of things, it could be democratic, it could be consensus based or whatever, there are even socialists who say it could be some sort of market structure.

But you have this idea that the worker and the consumer have different goals, the worker is a consumer, maybe not of his own product but of someone elses product, instead of seeing it as a bunch of different workshops, farms and factories, see it as one big community working together, becuase thats exactly what it is, not a competitive senario. The Goals of the worker when it comes to his production are exactly the same as the goals of the consumer, because thats the purpose of his production, and he also knows that other workers are producing things that he might use and that their goals meet his needs.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 11:32 pm

Okay, so the central organisations will not have any power. So:

1. Why is the socialist society wasting resources in establishing such a useless board?
2. Since the board was proposed as a way of coordinating production (since it was agreed that the democratic decision of Factory A to produce 500 units of "X" was dependent upon Factory B democratic decion to produce enough product to ship to Factory A for it to produce Unit "X") one still is left with the problem of coordinating production amongst different factories whose workers have their own interests and goals. The solution to the problem cannot be "they will figure it out" or "mutual assistance" since those solutions still need to involve a mechanism and rationale for its decisions.

1. When I say it has no power, I mean it has no innate power, meaning it can be taken away at any time, it may have authority but only authority given to it by the people it represents. So its not useless its used to make immediate desicions that involve a lot of people and cannot be made directly by all those people.

2.What different interests and goals do the workers have than the consumers? The workers are working for the consumer, the mechanism could be a number of things, it could be democratic, it could be consensus based or whatever, there are even socialists who say it could be some sort of market structure.

But you have this idea that the worker and the consumer have different goals, the worker is a consumer, maybe not of his own product but of someone elses product, instead of seeing it as a bunch of different workshops, farms and factories, see it as one big community working together, becuase thats exactly what it is, not a competitive senario. The Goals of the worker when it comes to his production are exactly the same as the goals of the consumer, because thats the purpose of his production, and he also knows that other workers are producing things that he might use and that their goals meet his needs.
You are still not dealing with the issue.

All the theories of socialism are invalidated if it is unable to produce goods in a more fair, just, equitable way, than capitalism. Ultimately, nothing else matters. Asking how socialists might do a better job at producing and distributing resources, according to socialist theory, is not some obscure and incidental problem for the socialists. Its the entire ball of wax.

[Rawthentic]

All the theories of socialism are invalidated if it is unable to produce goods in a more fair, just, equitable way, than capitalism.
And thus socialism's validity. By plaicng the means of production in the hands of the workers, they produce for themselves and their community, since the good of the individual is that of the community. The workers simlpy act in their class interests.

[wtfm8lol]

And thus socialism's validity. By plaicng the means of production in the hands of the workers, they produce for themselves and their community, since the good of the individual is that of the community. The workers simlpy act in their class interests.

how many times are you guys going to say this without giving any evidence of any kind that it will be so? it is abundantly obvious that as long as people are not all the same, one person will not benefit the same from one act or production as another person with different interests will.

[RNK]

The CONSUMERS should have control over what the workers produce. It does not matter what the workers want to produce.

Why on earth do socialists believe that the producers should be determining what is available for the consumers?

The workers ARE the consumers, idiot! They're one and the same! And I don't know about you but I would LOVE to not have to pay 10 or 20 times a commodity's costs to produce, just to consume it! And I would also LOVE to earn the full value of my labour! Is that so much to ask?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 05:40 pm

The CONSUMERS should have control over what the workers produce. It does not matter what the workers want to produce.

Why on earth do socialists believe that the producers should be determining what is available for the consumers?

The workers ARE the consumers, idiot! They're one and the same! And I don't know about you but I would LOVE to not have to pay 10 or 20 times a commodity's costs to produce, just to consume it! And I would also LOVE to earn the full value of my labour! Is that so much to ask?

Oh, the workers are the consumers now?

How many cars, of the total which the auto workers produce, do you suppose they aquire for their own use during a career on the assembly line? Statististically, 0%. The same is true for all other areas of production.

The reality is, the workers aren't working to produce goods for themselves. They are working to produce goods for somebody else (ie the consumer of those goods).

Which means, as a result, the work of people is judged by how it satisfies the needs and wants of other people. The work is not judged by how the worker feels about the job he did (this should be obvious, but in light of the frequent claims that socialism will result in people liking their work more than in a capitalism, or that people will be freer to move into professions which they enjoy in a socialist community, it apparently isn't).

So what does this mean? It means that the needs and wants of the consumer is first and foremost in production. The needs and wants of the workers producing those items are secondary in importance. Otherwise, if the needs and wants of the workers producing items are first in importance (ie as is the case in socialism) it means production will be geared to satisfy their needs and wants. Which results in the consumer not getting what it needs and wants. Which does not benefit anyone, including the workers.

[Rawthentic]

No, they are not!! The workers are the workers and the consumers at the same time!!

They produce socially necessary goods, and receive the total earnings of their labor. Thats a whole lot better than capitalism. Besides democratically controlling their workplaces. This is something you cannot get around with.

But seriously, you are quite ridiculous.

[RNK]

Is this what supporters of capitalism have to rely upon? This horribly unfounded belief that consumers get what they want?

How does a person come to believe this? No, seriously -- I simply can't understand how a person can honestly accept this as fact. The very idea seems proposterous, and goes against the very fabric of historical reality.

Are these right-wingers (here on RevLeft) some special crop of the middle class who are entirely ignorant to the realities of the rest of the population? Or are they simply so embroiled by the media and entertainment, that they've essentially been duped? In other words, are they stupid, or just ignorant? I'd really like to learn more about why they think the way they do.

[RGacky3]

We are going in circiles here, I just explained how Workers and Consumers are the same, in the sense that they consumer what other workers produce and other workers consume what they produce, but still consumers are treated as a completely different class, as if they just go around consuming stuff, seriously you guys don't pay attention. I don't see how bosses and Capitalism are needed to gage what people need.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 01:17 am
We are going in circiles here, I just explained how Workers and Consumers are the same, in the sense that they consumer what other workers produce and other workers consume what they produce, but still consumers are treated as a completely different class, as if they just go around consuming stuff, seriously you guys don't pay attention. I don't see how bosses and Capitalism are needed to gage what people need.
i don't think anyone views them as completely different people, but in capitalistism production is spurred by demand (consumption) so naturally we view peoples decisions as consumers as more important than peoples decisions as workers.

i'm not saying that laborers and capitalists don't influence production at all either, i'm just stating how it gets primarily gets done.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 06:17 am
We are going in circiles here, I just explained how Workers and Consumers are the same, in the sense that they consumer what other workers produce and other workers consume what they produce, but still consumers are treated as a completely different class, as if they just go around consuming stuff, seriously you guys don't pay attention.
Well that's the problem - we're not talking about classes as though they were single units. Classes are simply aggregates of individuals, each of whom will have different preferences, priorities, and proclivities. Instead of classes, let's look at sets. The set of all people who work at a factory (set A) is a very small subset of all people who consume from the factory (set B). So which SET of people has democratic say in the production of the factory?

If Set A, then the will of a tiny minority is undemocratically ruling the consumption behavior of the large majority of Set B. Should Set A decide to slash production, Set B simply has to live with the shortages.

If Set B, then Set A cannot actually be said to control their own workplace - they are simply slaves to the will of Set A, of which they are but a tiny minority.

Capitalism does away with this problem by rejecting the idea of democratic control of such activity. Set A and Set B do whatever they want, and voluntarily cooperate when each decides it is beneficial to his or herself to do so.

I don't see how bosses and Capitalism are needed to gage what people need. It's easy to guage what people need. It's very difficult to guage what people want, and exactly how badly they want it. I have asked many times, and nobody has proposed an alternative to pricing that can efficiently determine peoples' relative wants.

[Rawthentic]

Classes are simply aggregates of individuals, each of whom will have different preferences, priorities, and proclivities
Wrong, they are people's relations to the means of production.


It's easy to guage what people need. It's very difficult to guage what people want, and exactly how badly they want it. I have asked many times, and nobody has proposed an alternative to pricing that can efficiently determine peoples' relative wants.
Yeah, thats why theres poverty and starvation. Face it, you are a liar, the market forces and profit are what motivates the economy. These cannot gauge people's needs. Only democratic control of the means of production of those who actually work can do that. And as I have said before, all of your scenarios are useless because class antagonisms are irreconcilable. If you are not able to understand what that means, then that goes to highlight your ignorance. You will NEVER find your magical solution to refute Marxism, because it is not a dogma, but the correct materialist understanding of history to be applied to according material conditions.

The working class' interests lie in controlling the workplace that they produce all of the wealth in the world with; your ridiculous scenarios will never sway them. And never have.

[colonelguppy]

Face it, you are a liar, the market forces and profit are what motivates the economy. These cannot gauge people's needs

of course it can. people need food over pretty much everything else, thus there is a large market for it, which motivates producers to enter the food market. this creates a large number of producers and thus competition, making food readily available and affordable. starvation is such a completely nominal issue in any modern economy, i don't even though why you'd bring it up as though it demonstrated some major flaw in the market. food prices are often kept unnaturally high infact, as government often pay farmers not to produce inorder to keep prices up.

[RNK]

I have asked many times, and nobody has proposed an alternative to pricing that can efficiently determine peoples' relative wants.

Wrong. Lots of people have proposed an alternative; you've just done everything possible to ignore it, and grasp at straws. I even wrote a comprehensive example of how it could work, and what did you capitalists do? Act like basic human communication by phone didn't exist.

But here, I'll spell it out for you:

During one of the weekly, bi-weekly or monthly community council sessions that will take place, the people themselves can simply voice their opinions on what they want, need, and so forth. The council, by telephone, or mail, or email, can then contact the various networks of communities and producers, and plan the production and appropriation of these products accordingly.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 03:04 am

I have asked many times, and nobody has proposed an alternative to pricing that can efficiently determine peoples' relative wants.

Wrong. Lots of people have proposed an alternative; you've just done everything possible to ignore it, and grasp at straws. I even wrote a comprehensive example of how it could work, and what did you capitalists do? Act like basic human communication by phone didn't exist.

But here, I'll spell it out for you:

During one of the weekly, bi-weekly or monthly community council sessions that will take place, the people themselves can simply voice their opinions on what they want, need, and so forth. The council, by telephone, or mail, or email, can then contact the various networks of communities and producers, and plan the production and appropriation of these products accordingly.
I've heard this proposal and explained why it cannot be effective. It even violates your principles of democratic production, unless the decisions of the councils are completely nonbinding and the people's voices no more than mere pleas.

But more to the point, you haven't explained how the people are supposed to express how much they want any given good relative to every other possible good that could be produced with the same resources, nor how different people's wants which require differing amounts of resources are to be balanced in importance, nor how to resolve disputes when everyone's wants cannot be met due to scarcity of resources, nor how to fairly account for different people using their allocated supplies more or less wastefully, nor how to prevent a bare majority from supressing the wants of a minority. These points have never been addressed, other than with hand-waving dismissals of what amounts to "trust us."

[RNK]

I've heard this proposal and explained why it cannot be effective.

Did you try clicking your heels? I hear that can be more effective to make your dreams come true than simply repeating everything over and over again.


But more to the point, you haven't explained how the people are supposed to express how much they want any given good relative to every other possible good that could be produced with the same resources

Why do the people have to express their relative needs and wants? Communities, specifically, communal councils will be quite capable of managing the collective needs of their communities -- that is, infact, their purpose.


nor how different people's wants which require differing amounts of resources are to be balanced in importance

When I walk into a convenience store and they're out of my brand of cigarettes, usually, they say "Okay, next week I'll order more!"

Similarly, if people in the community voice their needs of some product that others do not need, they too will be placated by the community aquiring those products. And depending on the complexity of the product, perhaps the people who need it can produce it themselves.


nor how to resolve disputes when everyone's wants cannot be met due to scarcity of resources

Rationing. Heard of it?


nor how to fairly account for different people using their allocated supplies more or less wastefully

If people want to spend their time and labour to make or aquire some product that they're just going to smash, then they can go ahead and do so. However, one would have to waste a lot to affect the supply of any product...


nor how to prevent a bare majority from supressing the wants of a minority

As I said, plurality democracy is a bankrupt concept (although it is the system of choice for the capitalist society you seem so adamant to defend...).

If there's a community of 100 people, and 45 of them want apple juice, while 55 of them want orange juice, then the community will simply aquire enough apple juice for 45 people and enough orange juice for 55 (until the next "round" of aquisitions, or whatever). I doubt any of the 55 people wanting orange juice will vote to deny the 45 their apple juice. Unless you believe human beings are nothing but selfish, barbaric beasts. Of course, some of them are... but you've really got to have more faith in the compassion of humanity. Though I don't blame you for you lack-thereof; our current system, and current world reality, doesn't really evoke much confidence in humanity.

[RNK]

There are lots of other types of democracy. Check them out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting

[pusher robot]

Why do the people have to express their relative needs and wants? Communities, specifically, communal councils will be quite capable of managing the collective needs of their communities -- that is, infact, their purpose.

Because that is the only way to know how many resources to efficiently allocate to the production of each. The council may know that people want better bread, and people want better beer. But how much of one are they willing to trade off for the other, in aggregate? This is difficult enough to accomplish, with only a single axis. Throw in hundreds if not thousands of axes and you have a near-impossible task.


When I walk into a convenience store and they're out of my brand of cigarettes, usually, they say "Okay, next week I'll order more!"

Managing an entire economy is slightly more difficult than stocking a 7-11. I hope you realize that.


Similarly, if people in the community voice their needs of some product that others do not need, they too will be placated by the community aquiring those products.

Assuming unlimited resources, apparently.


Rationing. Heard of it?
Feel free to explain how rationing will occur fairly without prices, because I have never heard any such explanation.


If people want to spend their time and labour to make or aquire some product that they're just going to smash, then they can go ahead and do so.
It's only the case under capitalism that they're only wasting their own time and labor. The question is what to do about people who wastefully consume other peoples' time and labor. Not to mention scarce resources.


If there's a community of 100 people, and 45 of them want apple juice, while 55 of them want orange juice, then the community will simply aquire enough apple juice for 45 people and enough orange juice for 55 (until the next "round" of aquisitions, or whatever).

This is all assuming, of course, that resources are unlimited, and apple and orange juice are the same cost. Suppose that oranges grow naturally while apples must be labor-intensively cultivated in greenhouses? Would the orange juice majority really be so inclined to entreat this demand, rather than directing those resources towards something - in their opinions - more useful to society?

In the real world, of course, there is only so much labor, there are only so many materials. There must be some way of figuring out how to allocate those scarce resources. How much wheat and how much labor should go to bread? How much to beer? People want both, and whatever quality they are produced at, they want a higher quality. How much electricity should go toward aluminum, and how much to steel? How much to tungsten? Should electricity be made with coal or gas? Should a product be made of higher quality but more scarce aluminum or lower quality but less scarce steel? These are just a couple examples of questions that rely on pricing to answer.

[Red Tung]

Because that is the only way to know how many resources to efficiently allocate to the production of each. The council may know that people want better bread, and people want better beer. But how much of one are they willing to trade off for the other, in aggregate? This is difficult enough to accomplish, with only a single axis. Throw in hundreds if not thousands of axes and you have a near-impossible task.


Not really, modern technology already provides more than can be consumed by the average human being. Almost all "work" within modern industrialized countries are simply busy make-work for people not intelligent or skilled enough to maintain or further develop the technology that keep the population well-fed, clothed and sheltered. This make-work among other idiocies like "suburbs" and "rush-hours" are what is keeping the herd busy and blind from what is in fact unnecessary and often destructive "work".

Just ask yourself why it is that textile fashion exists that are in fact nothing but overpriced labels and food are thrown away in stores and restaurants when plenty of demand exists for it in food banks? The follow-up question should then be why is there even a need for overpriced textile fashion and food banks when demand should be all taken care of from the money/commodity exchange market as Capitalists assume they all magically would be?


Feel free to explain how rationing will occur fairly without prices, because I have never heard any such explanation.


Sure, but first tell me how resources can be distributed fairly under a system where "value" can be accumulated? Let's take a page from nature. Is there anything around in the natural world that can accumulate indefinitely? If not then why should I assume that the fantasy world of money accumulation is fair or rational? And if accumulated money affects the distribution of natural resources and their ownership then why should I respect this ownership when the underlying rationale for the accumulated ownership of money is questionable at best?


It's only the case under capitalism that they're only wasting their own time and labor. The question is what to do about people who wastefully consume other peoples' time and labor. Not to mention scarce resources.

This has to do more with people's mindset. It is difficult for people to break out of the mindset of me or my family or my country because they've been brought up with the whole mistaken notion of "us" vs. "them". If you're brought up in a selfish culture then it is quite natural to think of getting the best ration for yourself even at the expense of the "other".

Further, beyond culture this is not even an issue in Capitalism as people who are without income (often through no fault of their own) are put on mandatory rations in the form of welfare. Why should you assume this will be different in a non-Capitalist society where selfish, sociopathic people seek to get the best deal for themselves at the expense of the larger community? A simple solution is that these anti-social types would simply be put under mandatory rations until they learn to behave themselves better.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 08:40 pm
Is this what supporters of capitalism have to rely upon? This horribly unfounded belief that consumers get what they want?

How does a person come to believe this? No, seriously -- I simply can't understand how a person can honestly accept this as fact. The very idea seems proposterous, and goes against the very fabric of historical reality.

Are these right-wingers (here on RevLeft) some special crop of the middle class who are entirely ignorant to the realities of the rest of the population? Or are they simply so embroiled by the media and entertainment, that they've essentially been duped? In other words, are they stupid, or just ignorant? I'd really like to learn more about why they think the way they do.
The claim, by the socialists, is that socialism will lead to a community where people are able to get far more more of what they want and need, than under capitalism. I've said this time and time again, a critique of capitalism is not a defense of socalism. Socialism has to be judged on its own terms, based upon its own declarations, and analysis whether their declarations are realistic. Socialists on thes boards do a fairly good job, most of the time, in critiquing capitalism in a civil manner. Its when they seek to defend socialism, on its own terms, that their hysteria becomes apparent.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 01:17 am
We are going in circiles here, I just explained how Workers and Consumers are the same, in the sense that they consumer what other workers produce and other workers consume what they produce, but still consumers are treated as a completely different class, as if they just go around consuming stuff, seriously you guys don't pay attention. I don't see how bosses and Capitalism are needed to gage what people need.
You need an system to guage what people needs. An impartial, objective system.

What the socialists have proposed here is neither. Nor is it a complete system, as it only looks at production in its final stage (the finished product, when it goes to the consumer) as opposed to the production neccessary to create the items neccessary to produce the finished product.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 06:00 pm
These cannot gauge people's needs. Only democratic control of the means of production of those who actually work can do that.
How does the auto worker, on the assembly line in Detroit, guage the need for a truck for the worker on the banana field in Costa Rica? Does the bannana field worker make a long distance call (build me a truck, please)?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 25, 2007 01:00 am

Because that is the only way to know how many resources to efficiently allocate to the production of each. The council may know that people want better bread, and people want better beer. But how much of one are they willing to trade off for the other, in aggregate? This is difficult enough to accomplish, with only a single axis. Throw in hundreds if not thousands of axes and you have a near-impossible task.


Not really, modern technology already provides more than can be consumed by the average human being.
Modern technology is based upon the economic calculations of the modern capitalist community. For obvious reasons, the socialist community cannot rely upon those calculations in making their socialist economic calculations.

The socialist community cannot rely upon previous capitalist economic calculations to solve their problems. So that problem for the socialist community remains unsolved.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by ZX3+April 25, 2007 10:42 am--> (ZX3 @ April 25, 2007 10:42 am)
[email protected] 24, 2007 06:00 pm
These cannot gauge people's needs. Only democratic control of the means of production of those who actually work can do that.
How does the auto worker, on the assembly line in Detroit, guage the need for a truck for the worker on the banana field in Costa Rica? Does the bannana field worker make a long distance call (build me a truck, please)? [/b]
Why not? Obviously that over simplifying it, but why can't it just be done through communication?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by RGacky3+April 25, 2007 10:33 am--> (RGacky3 @ April 25, 2007 10:33 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 10:42 am

[email protected] 24, 2007 06:00 pm
These cannot gauge people's needs. Only democratic control of the means of production of those who actually work can do that.
How does the auto worker, on the assembly line in Detroit, guage the need for a truck for the worker on the banana field in Costa Rica? Does the bannana field worker make a long distance call (build me a truck, please)?
Why not? Obviously that over simplifying it, but why can't it just be done through communication? [/b]
trying to centralize the process democratically effectively would be impossible, imagine all of the worlds population each trying to influence production for their benefit while someone somewhere tries to make sure the system is fair to every one without wasting recources...

[Rawthentic]

Oh yeah, last time I checked, huge amounts of resources are being shipped out of Latin American nations to be exported while the people are literally starving.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 08:24 pm
Oh yeah, last time I checked, huge amounts of resources are being shipped out of Latin American nations to be exported while the people are literally starving.
not that this is adresses anything in anyones post at all, but how are countries supposed to acquire capital to build up their economies if not by exporting goods? there isn't the domestic capital at home to support these industries.

[Rawthentic]

not that this is adresses anything in anyones post at all, but how are countries supposed to acquire capital to build up their economies if not by exporting goods? there isn't the domestic capital at home to support these industries.
Yeah, what irony, that the wealth that people create is taken out of their very own hands and shipped elsewhere for the main benefit of the capitalists while that very same producer is starving.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 10:50 pm

not that this is adresses anything in anyones post at all, but how are countries supposed to acquire capital to build up their economies if not by exporting goods? there isn't the domestic capital at home to support these industries.
Yeah, what irony, that the wealth that people create is taken out of their very own hands and shipped elsewhere for the main benefit of the capitalists while that very same producer is starving.
exporting for the purpose of accumulating capital benefits eveyrone in the long run, not just "the capitalists". now maybe you could attempt to answer someones question somewhere.

[luxemburg89]

Originally posted by RGacky3+March 17, 2007 07:54 pm--> (RGacky3 @ March 17, 2007 07:54 pm)
[email protected] 17, 2007 07:25 pm
I'll admit I know little about Chiapas and that was more of a joke than anything. After a bit of reading it seems as though I might agree with their fight against the Mexican government. I may even agree with you that their sense of justice is better than that of the average american, but probably for a different reason than you do.
all right high five comrade. :redstar: [/b]
careful mate you dunno where his hands have been :P

lots of love, Lux :D

[ZX3]

Originally posted by RGacky3+April 25, 2007 10:33 am--> (RGacky3 @ April 25, 2007 10:33 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 10:42 am

[email protected] 24, 2007 06:00 pm
These cannot gauge people's needs. Only democratic control of the means of production of those who actually work can do that.
How does the auto worker, on the assembly line in Detroit, guage the need for a truck for the worker on the banana field in Costa Rica? Does the bannana field worker make a long distance call (build me a truck, please)?
Why not? Obviously that over simplifying it, but why can't it just be done through communication? [/b]
Wages, salaries, prices, profits, losses are all forms of communication which capitalism uses in its econmic calculations.

What form of communication is used by socialism in its economic calculation? Democracy? doesn't answer anything (what knowledge are they basing their decisions upon?) Nothing else has really been proposed thus far.

[Rawthentic]

(
what knowledge are they basing their decisions upon?
Their interests and needs as well of those of their community. Period.