Why will communism never work?

[Vendetta]

In all you OI-ers opinions, why will communism never work?

[Marsella]

I'm not an OI-er but this is a question I've been wondering:

1. In a communist society what would drive the introduction of new goods? For example, some latest product is invented; who will fund the manufacture of this product? Since there is no profit motive why would you manufacture a product where the profit from its sales go to workers, not you?

[Tupac-Amaru]

Communism doesnt work cose people like to own things.

And to answer Martov's question: aside from the knowledge that you'd get shot if you dont, there would be very little incentive for producers to invent new goods, because they wouldn't get rewarded for their hard work anyway.

That's why consumer goods in the former communist countries were so gray, dull and ugly...

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Tupac-[email protected] 03, 2007 04:04 pm
Communism doesnt work cose people like to own things.
:lol: We are only against personal ownership of the means of production. Stuff is different. See the Property vs. Possession thread.

[Enragé]

yea and people like to own what they produce too, like to own their means of production

yay for common ownership!

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 03, 2007 03:37 pm
In all you OI-ers opinions, why will communism never work?
Because I have not heard any proposed mechanism for the transmission of supply and demand information that is even close to as effective as pricing markets. Prices provide an amazingly accurate index of aggregate supply and demand for any conceivable good or service, in units that allow us to compare to any other good or service. Our insanely complex infrastructure of goods and services could not possibly operate without them. But to have them, you need prices, and for prices to work, you need a free market.

[Enragé]

Because I have not heard any proposed mechanism for the transmission of supply and demand information that is even close to as effective as pricing markets.

i know its a bit radical but
how about
if people want something
people make it?
:rolleyes:

since the economy is controlled by the people as a whole, the people as a whole decide what to make. period.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 04:51 pm

Because I have not heard any proposed mechanism for the transmission of supply and demand information that is even close to as effective as pricing markets.

i know its a bit radical but
how about
if people want something
people make it?
:rolleyes:

since the economy is controlled by the people as a whole, the people as a whole decide what to make. period.
I'm sorry, but that's not radical, it's just simplistic. It's not enough to know that somebody wants something. You to also know how much they want it in order to know how many resources to devote to its production.

[Janus]

In a communist society what would drive the introduction of new goods? For example, some latest product is invented; who will fund the manufacture of this product?
The entire community will and since it's a cooperative effort, the end product would be tuned to the needs of the people rather than a market like in capitalism. Just look at the open source movement, there's no lack of development, effort, and innovation simply because people don't gain an actual profit.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 06:15 pm

In a communist society what would drive the introduction of new goods? For example, some latest product is invented; who will fund the manufacture of this product?
The entire community will and since it's a cooperative effort, the end product would be tuned to the needs of the people rather than a market like in capitalism. Just look at the open source movement, there's no lack of development, effort, and innovation simply because people don't gain an actual profit.
I disagree. I like FOSS and use it a lot, but the vast majority of the effort goes into reproducing commercial software that already exists. Linux reproduces Unix, KDE reproduces Windows, the Gimp reproduces Photoshop, and so on and so on. What technical innovations have really come from the open-source movement? Very few that I can think of. Sadly, real efforts at innovation frequently fall victim to bickering and lack of direction among the participants; furthermore, the resulting software is usually still inferior to commercial offerings because once the software is usable developers have little interest in really polishing it so that The People can easily use it. There are a couple of high-profile counterexamples, but that appears to be the general trend.

[t_wolves_fan]

1. Look at the people who advocate it. I have a difficult time believing in the feasibility of system pushed by angry teens, dope heads, and whatever Jazzratt is.

2. This...


The entire community will and since it's a cooperative effort, the end product would be tuned to the needs of the people.


...isn't going to happen.

and

3. This...


Because I have not heard any proposed mechanism for the transmission of supply and demand information that is even close to as effective as pricing markets. Prices provide an amazingly accurate index of aggregate supply and demand for any conceivable good or service, in units that allow us to compare to any other good or service. Our insanely complex infrastructure of goods and services could not possibly operate without them. But to have them, you need prices, and for prices to work, you need a free market.

...is true.


Sorry kiddies, dopeheads and Jazzratt. It isn't as simple as claiming "people will just all agree on everything and take only what they need".

Life is neither a computer game nor an acid trip. Deal with it.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 06:43 pm
1. Look at the people who advocate it. I have a difficult time believing in the feasibility of system pushed by angry teens, dope heads, and whatever Jazzratt is.
Hooray. You've made an actual ad-hominem attack; attacking the arguers not the argument. Clever you.



2. This...


The entire community will and since it's a cooperative effort, the end product would be tuned to the needs of the people.


...isn't going to happen.
Nice assertion, anything else to add to it or is it just "that won't happen because I say it won't and if you disagree with me I'll make an irrelevant appeal to authority in the form of my supposed credentials as some government lowlife.".



3. This...


Because I have not heard any proposed mechanism for the transmission of supply and demand information that is even close to as effective as pricing markets. Prices provide an amazingly accurate index of aggregate supply and demand for any conceivable good or service, in units that allow us to compare to any other good or service. Our insanely complex infrastructure of goods and services could not possibly operate without them. But to have them, you need prices, and for prices to work, you need a free market.

...is true.
No it isn't and you know it, the technocrats trashed the fuck out of the price system back in the '30s for fuck's sake. Stop beating that dead horse.



Sorry kiddies, dopeheads and Jazzratt. It isn't as simple as claiming "people will just all agree on everything and take only what they need".
Strangely our argument isn't that simple, maybe the straw man you have been bravely battling since you joined this site has been, but I'm afraid that communist, anarchist, technocrat and other contemporary leftist theories are much more indepth than that. Now fuck off.

[t_wolves_fan]

Hooray. You've made an actual ad-hominem attack; attacking the arguers not the argument. Clever you.

Guilty as charged. But still, when you look at the people making the argument, you have to wonder about it.

With like, all due respect and stuff.



Nice assertion, anything else to add to it or is it just "that won't happen because I say it won't and if you disagree with me I'll make an irrelevant appeal to authority in the form of my supposed credentials as some government lowlife.".

Or like history and stuff.

What's funny is "people" like you say, well, it would have worked here or there if only capitalism hadn't interfered. But that's a cop out. A system doesn't "work" if it keeps getting beaten by another system. Pretending that the alternative will go away is, like ad hominem, not an argument.




No it isn't and you know it, the technocrats trashed the fuck out of the price system back in the '30s for fuck's sake. Stop beating that dead horse.

And yet you think other technocrats will do a better job.




Strangely our argument isn't that simple,

Yes, it is.


maybe the straw man you have been bravely battling since you joined this site has been, but I'm afraid that communist, anarchist, technocrat and other contemporary leftist theories are much more indepth than that.

No, they aren't. In your more lucid moments you use a lot more words than that in an attempt to sound like you know what you're talking about, but in the end the message is all the same: "Well, once everyone is convinced to share and not want stuff and only take what we believe they need (which they'll magically believe too), then everything will work just great. Councils and consensus and marijuana and stuff."

That's all your arguments ever boil down to. Stop pretending they're more sophisticated than that, because they aren't.


Now fuck off.

No.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 08:57 pm


Hooray. You've made an actual ad-hominem attack; attacking the arguers not the argument. Clever you.

Guilty as charged. But still, when you look at the people making the argument, you have to wonder about it.

With like, all due respect and stuff.
If we had to select a system based on what we thought of the person advocating it then someone who was as much of a monolithic prick as yourself wouldn't stand a fucking chance.




Nice assertion, anything else to add to it or is it just "that won't happen because I say it won't and if you disagree with me I'll make an irrelevant appeal to authority in the form of my supposed credentials as some government lowlife.".

Or like history and stuff.

What's funny is "people" like you say, well, it would have worked here or there if only capitalism hadn't interfered. But that's a cop out. A system doesn't "work" if it keeps getting beaten by another system. Pretending that the alternative will go away is, like ad hominem, not an argument. The point of the revolution is to get rid of capitalism globally, that is why all countries that have a "successful" revolution must continue to behave as if in a state of revolution otherwise they are crushed by wthe weight of a capitalist majority - see the USSR for a perfect example of this.





No it isn't and you know it, the technocrats trashed the fuck out of the price system back in the '30s for fuck's sake. Stop beating that dead horse.

And yet you think other technocrats will do a better job.
Nothing in what I said suggested I shouldn't. In fact given that they trashed the price system I would believe they were on stronger grounds in formulating an alternative.



maybe the straw man you have been bravely battling since you joined this site has been, but I'm afraid that communist, anarchist, technocrat and other contemporary leftist theories are much more indepth than that.

No, they aren't.
This is all you ever have isn't it? a pathetic "No it isn't, Yes it is, I work in government, ZOMG UR ALL HAX!, No it isn't" cycle of phrases - and you accuse us of sloganeering.
In your more lucid moments you use a lot more words than that in an attempt to sound like you know what you're talking about, but in the end the message is all the same: "Well, once everyone is convinced to share and not want stuff
Fuck. Off. No one has ever advocated a system whereby everyone is simply introduced to the idea of sharing or told they can't own stuff. They can have all the fucking stuff they want that's the fucking point.
and only take what we believe they need (which they'll magically believe too), then everything will work just great. Councils and consensus and marijuana and stuff."
You know I've only ever mentioned marijuana in reference to a future society once and that is when someone who smokes pot asked me where it would come from post revolution.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 09:11 pm



If we had to select a system based on what we thought of the person advocating it then someone who was as much of a monolithic prick as yourself wouldn't stand a fucking chance.

Monolithic?

That's a new insult. Is it an attempt to claim I'm rigid and uncompromising? That's kind of ironic considering I reject both right-wing and left-wing ideologies in favor of a more reality-based, case-by-case philosophy when it comes to government intervention in the economy and political life. You on the other hand seem to have no room for compromise whatsoever. Which is really cute.


The point of the revolution is to get rid of capitalism globally, that is why all countries that have a "successful" revolution must continue to behave as if in a state of revolution otherwise they are crushed by wthe weight of a capitalist majority - see the USSR for a perfect example of this.

Excuses are like assholes Jazz. If communism were successful, it should have been able to crush capitalism because in theory people would have liked it. They didn't.

Look at the American revolution. If it were like Communism, we would have been crushed by the British. But we weren't and do you know why? Because people here actually wanted the change.

Why, for instance, hasn't a single eastern European nation indicated any desire to return to the good old days of communism?

I know, I know, your failure is other peoples' fault. Ideologues, hacks and losers like you always make that excuse. If only everyone believed me...wah wah wah!!.


But I wish you luck with your global rapture. I mean revolution.

:lol:



Nothing in what I said suggested I shouldn't. In fact given that they trashed the price system I would believe they were on stronger grounds in formulating an alternative.

Right. I bet if you lived here and saw the news about Walter Reed Medical Center, you'd be saying how government ought to run our health care.


This is all you ever have isn't it? a pathetic "No it isn't, Yes it is, I work in government, ZOMG UR ALL HAX!,

I didn't bring my employment into this discussion.


No it isn't" cycle of phrases - and you accuse us of sloganeering.

Because that's all you do.


Fuck. Off. No one has ever advocated a system whereby everyone is simply introduced to the idea of sharing or told they can't own stuff. They can have all the fucking stuff they want that's the fucking point.

Except they won't want as much stuff because they'll all be socially conscious and less materialistic, depending on which stoned teenagers' rants I read.

Oh yeah I forgot, the robots will do it all. Gotta remember the robots.

:lol:

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 09:25 pm

If we had to select a system based on what we thought of the person advocating it then someone who was as much of a monolithic prick as yourself wouldn't stand a fucking chance.

Monolithic?

That's a new insult. Is it an attempt to claim I'm rigid and uncompromising?
Why not, your viewpoint is no more flexible than mine, it's just more central.



The point of the revolution is to get rid of capitalism globally, that is why all countries that have a "successful" revolution must continue to behave as if in a state of revolution otherwise they are crushed by wthe weight of a capitalist majority - see the USSR for a perfect example of this.

Excuses are like assholes Jazz. If communism were successful, it should have been able to crush capitalism because in theory people would have liked it. They didn't.

Look at the American revolution. If it were like Communism, we would have been crushed by the British. But we weren't and do you know why? Because people here actually wanted the change. You can't be ignorant enough to say that, having lost the war in America the British had the means to crush the burgeoning American state, surely?


Why, for instance, hasn't a single eastern European nation indicated any desire to return to the good old days of communism? Because nations don't tend to say much, and when they do it is through their leaders not their people.


I know, I know, your failure is other peoples' fault. Ideologues, You probably couldn't even call my ideology because you know I don't have one


hacks
http://washington.uwc.edu/depts/compsci/cps217sp06/bardd8004/images/WTF_hax.jpg


and losers like you always make that excuse. If only everyone believed me...wah wah wah!!. And you always argue against something that no one is saying, so I may as well not post anything and you can argue against imaginary communists and we'll all be happy.



Right. I bet if you lived here and saw the news about Walter Reed Medical Center, you'd be saying how government ought to run our health care. Yes, and?


I didn't bring my employment into this discussion.
Have a drink on me, it's the first time in ages.

[colonelguppy]

centralization has a hard enough time working effectively without controlling ever facet of an economy, i don't see how adding this burden will help. not to mention the practical impossibilities of having democratically controlled economies in the modern world.

it also assumes things about value that i disagree with, the LTV is ridiculous. i haven't heard any realistic methods of replacing the price system.

[KC]

it also assumes things about value that i disagree with, the LTV is ridiculous. i haven't heard any realistic methods of replacing the price system.

Uh, the labour theory of value isn't a replacement for the price system.

[colonelguppy]

it's used to value things and thus manage scarce recources, of course it is. enless i'm just not understanding something about the LTV...

[Publius]

In all you OI-ers opinions, why will communism never work?

It's like South Park:

1. Capitalism
2. Revolution
3. ??????
4. Communism!

[KC]

it's used to value things and thus manage scarce recources, of course it is. enless i'm just not understanding something about the LTV...

The labour theory of value is a tool used to analyze the capitalist system; it's not a proposed substitution to price.

[colonelguppy]

how so? every time i've heard it refference it's been talked about as an alternative.

[KC]

You're probably talking about labour time vouchers, which are also sometimes referred to as LTV. Those are based on the labour theory of value but they aren't the same thing. In my opinion Labour Time Vouchers are stupid.

[colonelguppy]

yeah that's what i'm talking about. agreed.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 03:44 pm
I'm not an OI-er but this is a question I've been wondering:

1. In a communist society what would drive the introduction of new goods? For example, some latest product is invented; who will fund the manufacture of this product? Since there is no profit motive why would you manufacture a product where the profit from its sales go to workers, not you?
Because its exciting and fulfilling to invent things, and it satisfies a human need for creativity and productiveness. Also I ask you this, how much of what is invented actually profits the inventor, mostly its investors that get the most out of it.

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 03, 2007 05:24 pm
Because I have not heard any proposed mechanism for the transmission of supply and demand information that is even close to as effective as pricing markets. Prices provide an amazingly accurate index of aggregate supply and demand for any conceivable good or service, in units that allow us to compare to any other good or service. Our insanely complex infrastructure of goods and services could not possibly operate without them. But to have them, you need prices, and for prices to work, you need a free market.
That's funny. I can't quite see how the pricing market reflects, say, the current desperate demand for AIDS medicines. Apparently, the starving masses of the world demands cosmetics, hollywood movies and shiny sparkly things with a high profit margin.

Could it be because some really huge weights on the rubber sheet of economy is distorting the perfect reality of pricing markets?

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Idola Mentis+April 04, 2007 11:52 am--> (Idola Mentis @ April 04, 2007 11:52 am)
pusher [email protected] 03, 2007 05:24 pm
Because I have not heard any proposed mechanism for the transmission of supply and demand information that is even close to as effective as pricing markets. Prices provide an amazingly accurate index of aggregate supply and demand for any conceivable good or service, in units that allow us to compare to any other good or service. Our insanely complex infrastructure of goods and services could not possibly operate without them. But to have them, you need prices, and for prices to work, you need a free market.
That's funny. I can't quite see how the pricing market reflects, say, the current desperate demand for AIDS medicines. [/b]
I'm afraid I don't understand. The newest AIDS medicines are fairly expensive, right? We know that price is a function of supply and demand, yes? And that the greater the demand, the higher the price will rise? I fail to see how the high prices of AIDS drugs do not reflect huge demand. That would be the predicted, correct result.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

We know that price is a function of supply and demand, yes?

No, price oscillates around the value of the commodity.

The value is determined by socially necessary labour needed to produce it.

the value of the the labour power is determined by what the worker needs to sustain himself and produce more workers.

Im sure ComradeRed could expand on the Labour theory of Value in a much greater depth.


And that the greater the demand, the higher the price will rise?

the greater the demand for a commodity means the more socially necessary labour time is required.

For example, the price of a diamond is high because they are rare so lots of labour power is used while finding them. If they were easier to obtain than clay, then the price would reflect that because the labour time needed is much less.

[colonelguppy]

No, price oscillates around the value of the commodity.

The value is determined by socially necessary labour needed to produce it.

the value of the the labour power is determined by what the worker needs to sustain himself and produce more workers.

Im sure ComradeRed could expand on the Labour theory of Value in a much greater depth.


the price oscillates around what people are willing to pay for it, i'll also call that value. i don't see what required amounts of labor has to do with what people are willing to sacrifice to obtain an item.


the greater the demand for a commodity means the more socially necessary labour time is required.

For example, the price of a diamond is high because they are rare so lots of labour power is used while finding them. If they were easier to obtain than clay, then the price would reflect that because the labour time needed is much less.

i would argue that diamonds are expensive because society has created an image of value around it, party through tradition and partly through marketing. they're actually not all that rare unlike what debeers would have you think, if the price reflected simply how much effort it took to obtain them they would be cheaper. but it doesn't, it reflects what people value them as.

[KC]

the price oscillates around what people are willing to pay for it, i'll also call that value. i don't see what required amounts of labor has to do with what people are willing to sacrifice to obtain an item.

If you studied the fluctuation of prices over time, you would realize they equlibrate at the cost to produce the particular commodity.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Zampanò@April 05, 2007 09:27 am

the price oscillates around what people are willing to pay for it, i'll also call that value. i don't see what required amounts of labor has to do with what people are willing to sacrifice to obtain an item.

If you studied the fluctuation of prices over time, you would realize they equlibrate at the cost to produce the particular commodity.
obviously the cost of production is one determinent in the price, but it isn't the only factor in pricing. but the issue is value, not price. just because i spent hours making some good doesn't mean anyone will want it or even find it useful.

[KC]

obviously the cost of production is one determinent in the price, but it isn't the only factor in pricing. but the issue is value, not price. just because i spent hours making some good doesn't mean anyone will want it or even find it useful.

Well, that is true, but for simplicity's sake we're just assuming that the labour is productive, i.e. that the labour is producing something with a use value, or something that is demanded. We all know that something doesn't have a value if it's not useful to anyone, so stating it every time is just a waste of time because everyone already knows it.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Zampanò@April 05, 2007 04:23 pm

obviously the cost of production is one determinent in the price, but it isn't the only factor in pricing. but the issue is value, not price. just because i spent hours making some good doesn't mean anyone will want it or even find it useful.

Well, that is true, but for simplicity's sake we're just assuming that the labour is productive, i.e. that the labour is producing something with a use value, or something that is demanded. We all know that something doesn't have a value if it's not useful to anyone, so stating it every time is just a waste of time because everyone already knows it.
Everyone "knows" it, but the socialists do not seem to follow the thinking through.

It is being assumed, by the socialist, that all production is by definition useful (it probably has something to do with the socialist thinking that the community will democratically know what to produce). Thus, the socialist wishes to attach value in the labor of producing the item.

But what if the item is not needed? Is the product still "valueable?" It wuld seem to be the case.

[KC]

Everyone "knows" it, but the socialists do not seem to follow the thinking through.

It is being assumed, by the socialist, that all production is by definition useful (it probably has something to do with the socialist thinking that the community will democratically know what to produce). Thus, the socialist wishes to attach value in the labor of producing the item.

But what if the item is not needed? Is the product still "valueable?" It wuld seem to be the case.

Uh, no. When we're talking about labour as a value, we're talking about productive, homogeneous, abstract labour. We're talking about labour as a unit. If the item isn't needed then the item has no value, obviously.

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 04, 2007 03:46 pm
I'm afraid I don't understand. The newest AIDS medicines are fairly expensive, right? We know that price is a function of supply and demand, yes? And that the greater the demand, the higher the price will rise? I fail to see how the high prices of AIDS drugs do not reflect huge demand. That would be the predicted, correct result.
I think you need to think that over again. Artificially increasing the price to reflect demand only works within the capacity of the demanders. At some point, you have made the product a completely different one for purposes of calculating demand. If you want $1000 per unit for your aids medicine, you're not even attempting to meet the demand for $10 per unit aids medicine.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Idola Mentis+April 06, 2007 03:13 pm--> (Idola Mentis @ April 06, 2007 03:13 pm)
pusher [email protected] 04, 2007 03:46 pm
I'm afraid I don't understand. The newest AIDS medicines are fairly expensive, right? We know that price is a function of supply and demand, yes? And that the greater the demand, the higher the price will rise? I fail to see how the high prices of AIDS drugs do not reflect huge demand. That would be the predicted, correct result.
I think you need to think that over again. Artificially increasing the price to reflect demand only works within the capacity of the demanders. At some point, you have made the product a completely different one for purposes of calculating demand. If you want $1000 per unit for your aids medicine, you're not even attempting to meet the demand for $10 per unit aids medicine. [/b]
Of course you're not, because you don't have the supply.

Of course, the real criticism of my argument that nobody has raised is that it only applies in a competitive market, and patented drugs are by definition monopolistic. This creates a moral hazard, where a monopolizer can artificially restrict supply (and leave people without effective treatment) in order to maximize revenue. So, I do support more stringent anti-monopoly regulation in the drug industry, expecially so where the company's R&D costs are subsidized by tax money. It is a tricky balance, though - clamp down too hard on profits, and the drug company will decide it is not worthwhile to develop the drugs in the first place.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Bourgeois to the Core

I thought you were searching and searching for shitty jobs but no boss wanted to hire you? How can you call yourself 'bourgeois to the core' when you aren't even petty bourgeois?
And I'd bet you will never have that car you have as your avatar. How are you going to get that when you earn 4 dollars an hour?

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 03, 2007 04:24 pm
Because I have not heard any proposed mechanism for the transmission of supply and demand information that is even close to as effective as pricing markets. Prices provide an amazingly accurate index of aggregate supply and demand for any conceivable good or service, in units that allow us to compare to any other good or service. Our insanely complex infrastructure of goods and services could not possibly operate without them. But to have them, you need prices, and for prices to work, you need a free market.
I think it's important to discuss with people that idea that prices convey useful information. I don't believe it, but I consider it important to address the subject.

Suppose there were a nonprofit system which has prices for everything set intentionally at their cost of production. It can monitor the number of orders from stores, therefore it has enough information to produce more of whatever consumers use more, and make less if consumers begin to use less. What other useful information do you think there is in a system of prices determined by a competitve market? The competitive price signals do convey how desperate or vulnerable people are, so that a cheaply made piece of plastic can be priced at $5000 if it's used in surgery to save someone's life, or the so-called "desperate widow" effect in the real estate business, or the $554.00 that I paid someone last January to take 45 minutes to clean my chimney. But how could it be considered useful to human society to have a mechanism for finding opportunities for some people to take advantage of the misfortunes of others? I am asserting that "the more they use of this, the more we will make", which any economic system at all can do by simple inventory bookkeeping, is the only useful quantitative information. To set prices according to "supply and demand" is a euphemism for taking advantage of other people's misfortunes and desperations levels. To whatever extent there is some information in that price, it is information the consideration of which is socially useless and harmful.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Tupac-Amaru+--> (Tupac-Amaru)
Communism doesnt work cose people like to own things.[/b]
I like to own things too, and i would 'own' more 'things' if the value of my labour wasnt robbed from me by my employer.

Originally posted by Tupac-[email protected]

And to answer Martov's question: aside from the knowledge that you'd get shot if you dont, there would be very little incentive for producers to invent new goods, because they wouldn't get rewarded for their hard work anyway.

That isnt knowledge, thats a presumption that it would be a state capitalist government co-existing with a prominent capitalist economy, as was the case with the USSR.
Also people would be rewarded for their hard work, (just not in the capitalist sense) if not more so because their labour value wouldnt be robbed from them.

Tupac-Amaru

That's why consumer goods in the former communist countries were so gray, dull and ugly...
aesthetics aside, it doesnt mean they didnt function well. The americans spent $1million researching a pen that could write in outer space. You know what the soviets used? A fucking pencil.
Anyway, the competition argument is a moot point. Just because all the factories have to be state owned, doesnt mean that individual innovation has to be ignored. The Stalin model is entirely irrelevant.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by t wolves fan

1. Look at the people who advocate it. I have a difficult time believing in the feasibility of system pushed by angry teens, dope heads, and whatever Jazzratt is.
Why are those who push right or central ideaology any more credible?
The only thing consistent between those who are most widely vocal is that they have money (lots of it), therefore access to the mainstream media machine plutocracy. It doesnt make them any 'smarter' or 'brainy'.

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by pusher robot+April 03, 2007 04:24 pm--> (pusher robot @ April 03, 2007 04:24 pm)
Comrade [email protected] 03, 2007 03:37 pm
In all you OI-ers opinions, why will communism never work?
Because I have not heard any proposed mechanism for the transmission of supply and demand information that is even close to as effective[B] as pricing markets. Prices provide an amazingly accurate index of aggregate supply and demand for any conceivable good or service, in units that allow us to compare to any other good or service. Our insanely complex infrastructure of goods and services could not possibly operate without them. But to have them, you need prices, and for prices to work, you need a free market.
When you use the word "Effective".....effective in terms of what??? In just determining a price or effective in getting such items to people who need them????

[RHIZOMES]

Guilty as charged. But still, when you look at the people making the argument, you have to wonder about it.

With like, all due respect and stuff.

Because Karl Marx is a dopehead angry teen.


Why, for instance, hasn't a single eastern European nation indicated any desire to return to the good old days of communism?

The Communist Party of Russia always gets the 2nd amount of votes, and they did a poll and not only do most people in Russia want Communism back, a very large majority want Stalin back. The fall of communism also represented the fall of a large amount of people into poverty.

Moldova actually has the Communist Party elected in power right now.

[Comrade J]

Comunism wil neva werk cos peeple like to own fings and buy fings and sell fings. Also look at Cuba, USSSSR and china, dey are not gud and peeples r starving and hav to liv outside cos nobody can hav a house. America is awsum cos we have FREEDUM!1!!

I guess that amounts to a typical anti-Communist argument, though even that's debatable, seeing as most people who post such arguments actually have no idea what they're actually arguing against.

If anyone has any reasonably intelligent, original criticism that hasn't been refuted a million times in OI already, I'd love to hear it. Really.

[La Comédie Noire]

Well when companies determine what to make and how much it costs they do this little thing called "market research". They use test groups, surveys, and product samples to see what people like or hate and adjust supplies accordingly. I don't see why this still can't be done under Socialism/Communism.

As for taking "to much" I don't know what on earth could compel someone to say grab 10 tvs, 300 donuts, 3 bicycles, a cat, and a gros of roses. Not to mention the fact money, credits, or labor vouchers won't just disappear under Socialism. No money will still run it's respective historical course.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The problem is simply that money is not only a medium of exchange to ensure the smooth running of society, but it is also gives the bearer (whether that be an individual or a corporation) status and power. As we have seen again and again, corporations and individuals are all too willing to abuse that power in order to further their own ends. That is on of the reasons I advocate the abolishment of the monetary system.

As for keeping track of supply and demand, why not just give everyone a swipe card so that what they take is constantly monitored and updated? The card doesn't have to say more than "Consumer has taken products X, Y, and Z" and then send that information to the distribution centre's servers and the factories servers, enabling up-to-the-minute information on supply, demand and consumptions and production to be kept. Long-term records can be used to chart trends, etc etc.

Really, it's not all that difficult to imagine an alternative way of tracking supply and demand. The OIers can't or won't imagine an alternative for ideological reasons that require them to justify monetary-based oppression.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 02:47 am
When you use the word "Effective".....effective in terms of what??? In just determining a price or effective in getting such items to people who need them????
Effective in signaling to everybody involved how to allocate every resource to best meet the needs and desires of the population at large. It's a two-way street. If people want beer instead of wine, the price will rise for beer, leading more producers to make more beer. But the price of beer must automatically include the costs of all its constituent components relative to every other good, so if beer is not that important, the price will be too high and those resources will be allocated to other, more productive activities.


As for keeping track of supply and demand, why not just give everyone a swipe card so that what they take is constantly monitored and updated? The card doesn't have to say more than "Consumer has taken products X, Y, and Z" and then send that information to the distribution centre's servers and the factories servers, enabling up-to-the-minute information on supply, demand and consumptions and production to be kept. Long-term records can be used to chart trends, etc etc.

That doesn't actually help that much, though, because it doesn't tell you how subjectively important those things are to people.

Consider:
In a hypothetical society, farmers are able to produce 100 units of wheat. That wheat can be directed to beer, bread, or animal feed. Farmers could also produce 75 units of corn on the same land but not at the same time, which could be used for animal feed or biofuels. Pricing markets, by automatically including the subjective desires for bread, meat, beer, and fuel, in units that can be measured against each other, at the same time as the costs for producing each of those, will automatically allocate the proper production and consumption of each of those products and resources.

Measuring consumption alone tells you nothing. Suppose that people will drive around and heat their swimming pools and otherwise use biofuels for anything they feel like. But bread is the most important thing to them, even though they only want a loaf a day. In a pricing system, the price of bread starts to rise as more and more resources are directed to fuel consumption. The higher prices for bread lead more producers to manufacture bread to capture the potential profit. As resources are directed to bread, fuel prices rise, discouraging profligate use, automatically targeting the most wasteful. The two prices will balance, based on the importance of each and the available resources to supply them.

In a command economy, the trackers show that bread consumption is static. Fuel consumption, however, is exploding! Conclusion: divert more resources to fuel production. This actually dis-serves the community, because despite the fact that they like to burn fuel so long as it is available, the bread is more important to them.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 12, 2007 10:36 pm
aesthetics aside, it doesnt mean they didnt function well. The americans spent $1million researching a pen that could write in outer space. You know what the soviets used? A fucking pencil.


That is, of course, not true (http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp) and doesn't illustrate what you think it does. While both space programs started off using pencils, they were not ideal. In zero-g, broken leads and shavings were a breathing and optical hazard and in a highly-oxygenated atmosphere, the wood and graphite presented an unacceptable fire hazard. Only in the United States, with its free-market profit potential, did a private organization, on its own initiative, risk its own assets to research and develop a solution suitable enough for NASA to generate a return on investment. NASA wasn't their only customer, of course - all subsequent manned Soviet flights used the same free-market pen.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher robot+August 13, 2007 04:18 pm--> (pusher robot @ August 13, 2007 04:18 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 12, 2007 10:36 pm
aesthetics aside, it doesnt mean they didnt function well. The americans spent $1million researching a pen that could write in outer space. You know what the soviets used? A fucking pencil.


That is, of course, not true (http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp) and doesn't illustrate what you think it does. While both space programs started off using pencils, they were not ideal. In zero-g, broken leads and shavings were a breathing and optical hazard and in a highly-oxygenated atmosphere, the wood and graphite presented an unacceptable fire hazard. Only in the United States, with its free-market profit potential, did a private organization, on its own initiative, risk its own assets to research and develop a solution suitable enough for NASA to generate a return on investment. NASA wasn't their only customer, of course - all subsequent manned Soviet flights used the same free-market pen. [/b]
free market economics isnt the life blood of freedom that you think it is. Say that i own a very large pencil company, that is also the sponsor of, or at the least has common interests with the existing government.
If someone comes along with a better technology that could eat into my profit base, i am not going to support a government that allows this to happen. If i own a company,particularly one which gives substantial sums of money to the government then this gives me a lot of leverage in affecting which technologies are and are'nt implemented.
An industry which is not only not impeded by this brand of cronieism, but also utilises the collective intelligence of a society unburdened by the competitive nature of privately owned bodies is going to create more advanced technologies.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 13, 2007 06:26 pm
If i own a company,particularly one which gives substantial sums of money to the government then this gives me a lot of leverage in affecting which technologies are and are'nt implemented.

To the extent that a market is manipulated by the corrupt forces of monopolized coercion (the government), it is not a free market, so your criticism is misdirected. Keep in mind that a government only has as much market influence as they are able to seize by force from the population. The best protection against market manipulation is a limited government.

[bluescouse]

Capitalists do not develop new products, engineers, designers, scientists do, ie company employees. There is nothing to stop the state employing them for the same purpose.
Does competion, fuel development, I don't think so, competition between companies, leads to over production, which leads to recession, and unemployment.
Capitalists rely on heavy subsidies, from the government (our taxes), to subsidise the development of new products
So in effect capitalists are shafting us twice over, firstly by stealing our surplus labour power, secondly by using our taxes to subsidise their little adventures.
Three times over if you count the financial capitalists, shafting us through interest on mortgages and loans

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

All of the reasons given are based purely on misconceptions about communist theory. Of course none of us actually know what communism will be like, but we do know what the theories consist of and why. Nowhere is it written that people cannot own things. Nowhere is it written than capital cannot be allocated for the manufacture of different goods. The central point of communism is the collective control of capital. Marx and Engels wrote that capitalism concentrates property to the point where all private property is drawn into the ownership of the capitalists, which led to his statements that communism means the abolition of all private property. He makes this logic quite explicit, leading me to believe that some of you haven't even read the Communist Manifesto.

The collective control of capital by the workers, Soviets, citizens, or whatever will allow them to democratically allocate resources for the production of whatever they want.

[Obese-Dimentia]

Give me one example of a blossoming communist economy.
Perhaps Ive seen too many Propaganda US shows, but Cuba seems to not be pushing any amazing markets, in North Korea people have to eat grass and tree bark, in China they got close but are they really communist? Different people have different incomes so I dont really think they are pressing it hard.

Cant think of any others.
Please dont take it the wrong way Id like a levelheaded reply...I honestly want to know...

I dont believe communism can work because it counts on everyone being good. In essence society is bad, the human motive is to gain, not to help others, thats why its considered unusual for someone to help their fellow man and they are congragulated.

To truely prosper in communism, you need a small group...very small...A good small group of great people. In a country people dont act how they should. Too many will slack and be given bread for free to have others be sustained. The best way I feel to prosper in a world of evil is to allow people to gain from their actions, and fend for themselves.

My first post in a while...Hope everyone here can teach me a good lesson about commies.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher robot+August 13, 2007 07:11 pm--> (pusher robot @ August 13, 2007 07:11 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 13, 2007 06:26 pm
If i own a company,particularly one which gives substantial sums of money to the government then this gives me a lot of leverage in affecting which technologies are and are'nt implemented.

To the extent that a market is manipulated by the corrupt forces of monopolized coercion (the government), it is not a free market, so your criticism is misdirected. Keep in mind that a government only has as much market influence as they are able to seize by force from the population. The best protection against market manipulation is a limited government. [/b]
my point is that maximising private leverage gives them greater influence over state affairs. As corporations grow, they will increasingly use their economic clout to bribe the 'elected' government; to hell with what the voting population think. This is what is meant by the dictatorship of capital.

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 13, 2007 04:03 pm
Pricing markets, by automatically including the subjective desires for bread, meat, beer, and fuel, in units that can be measured against each other, at the same time as the costs for producing each of those, will automatically allocate the proper production and consumption of each of those products and resources.
If we actually ask people to consciously grade the relative importance of capital investments, we get evaluations that are very different from what we spend consumer money on, or what industry's development money is spend on. Most people would say that it would be better in the long run for the human race if the investments that now go to such things as the annual cosmetic redesign of car bodies, or developing new plastic toys to market to children, were expended instead on faster improvements to medicine and educational methods. What consumers spend our money on doesn't indicate what we "want". Obviously, we don't see a box labeled "faster improvements to medicine and educational methods" on the shelf at the department store.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

In a command economy, the trackers show that bread consumption is static. Fuel consumption, however, is exploding! Conclusion: divert more resources to fuel production. This actually dis-serves the community, because despite the fact that they like to burn fuel so long as it is available, the bread is more important to them.

Except that we won't use biofuels for just that reason - it diverts valuable food supplies into useless shit like personal transport and heating fucking swimming pools!

Even so, it is still possible to track energy consumption as well as food and goods. Like I said, it is a problem to be solved not some impassable barrier. The price system is fucking broken, in case you haven't noticed. It concentrates power and influence into the hands of a few, with all the crap that follows when that happens.

[pusher robot]

If we actually ask people to consciously grade the relative importance of capital investments, we get evaluations that are very different from what we spend consumer money on, or what industry's development money is spend on.

That's because when people are asked such questions, they always assume that those diversions will come at no cost to them. If, after asking that question, you asked those exact same people to donate $1000 towards any of those goals, what do you think their answer would be?

What that demonstrates is that while people may think those things are good ideas in the abstract, or are at least willing to say so to pollsters, they actually have a relatively low value to the same people. They're worthwhile goals - so long as somebody else sacrifices for them. Remember, 99% of Americans agree: everybody else should be using mass transit - but I'm a special case.

At the same time, it's worth pointing out that the most productive drug companies and the most lavishly funded educational systems are both located in the most capitalist countries. I hardly think that's a coincidence.


Except that we won't use biofuels for just that reason - it diverts valuable food supplies into useless shit like personal transport and heating fucking swimming pools!

You're missing the point. That's just an example. The same situation applies to any commodity. Feel free to substitute oil for biofuel and measure consumption for fertilizers versus consumption for personal transport and pool heating. The point is that for any given commodity, people will expand their consumption without feeling any need to limit themselves if the commodity comes at no personal cost to them. So if you're basing your economic allocation on consumption patterns, all you do is magnify an overconsumption misallocation.

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 14, 2007 04:22 pm

If we actually ask people to consciously grade the relative importance of capital investments, we get evaluations that are very different from what we spend consumer money on, or what industry's development money is spend on.

That's because when people are asked such questions, they always assume that those diversions will come at no cost to them. If, after asking that question, you asked those exact same people to donate $1000 towards any of those goals, what do you think their answer would be?

What that demonstrates is that while people may think those things are good ideas in the abstract, or are at least willing to say so to pollsters, they actually have a relatively low value to the same people. They're worthwhile goals - so long as somebody else sacrifices for them. Remember, 99% of Americans agree: everybody else should be using mass transit - but I'm a special case.


People here were writing about industry doing one thing versus another thing. Now you speak of a cost or sacrifice in the development of some things as though it weren't so with other things. No matter what new product gets developed or tooled, it's a deduction from workers' wages. Anytime a company pays any money for anything, that money can have only one source, namely, the fact that it was retained instead of paying all of it out in the employee's wages. So it's not a matter of some future choices being a cost while other possible choices are not. All choices have costs. As far as discussing capitalism versus socialism, the main point is that the localized me-here-now loyalty of the private investors of capital is not connected with whatever might be the long term good of the human race according to any consciously adopted formula. For example, if investors are of the opinion that zero-sum gambling on options and futures would be more a profitable use of their money than applying it to faster development of that new kind of hydrogen fuel cell that everyone's talking about, that doesn't tell us what would most benefit the human race.

Consumer behavior at the marketplace cannot drive investors to develop anything because products must already exist and must already be affordable before consumers can select them, and a cause can't occur after its effects. Why didn't the car companies start developing electric cars sixty years ago? If they had done so, the product would probably already be debugged and mass produced by now. The fact that consumers, acording to marketplace signals, apparently didn't "choose" to buy electric cars fifty or sixty years ago doesn't contain any "information", in the Mises-Hayek sense of the word "information", because the availability and affordability of the product must occur before the consumer choice first becomes possible. To this, the economist's usual answer is that the capitalist makes a guess about what the consumers will probably want in the future, and that's what gets developed. To that I say: then it's not socialism that would be a command economy -- it's capitalism that's a command economy.

[Ahura Mazda]

Why will communism never work?

Really, my reply is more of a reply to Marxism or Marxism-Leninism, or Maoism (though I don't know anything about that other than what history has shown me).

Communism will never work because, although the end (IIRC) is in the achievement of a completely classless society with nobody ruling over anyone else, it cannot get there because instead of abolishing the power that certain people have over others, it gathers this into one organization (the Communist Party), where the majority (lol, Bolsheviks) will get what they want and will punish dissent, and you will often find one man who has power over the entire organization--a monster like Mao Zedong, Vladimir Lenin, or Iosef Stalin. The party becomes a class above the people who are not in the party, as they decide the way the wind blows, and that one man who people listen to is in a class above the communist party, effectively deciding everything the party will do. This changes nothing but hands, and is a Revolution in the true sense of the term--rather than an Evolution. In a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" manner.

College showed me that I am, at heart, an anarchist :)

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by Ahura [email protected] 23, 2007 10:39 pm
Why will communism never work?

Really, my reply is more of a reply to Marxism or Marxism-Leninism, or Maoism (though I don't know anything about that other than what history has shown me).

Communism will never work because, although the end (IIRC) is in the achievement of a completely classless society with nobody ruling over anyone else, it cannot get there because instead of abolishing the power that certain people have over others, it gathers this into one organization (the Communist Party), where the majority (lol, Bolsheviks) will get what they want and will punish dissent, and you will often find one man who has power over the entire organization--a monster like Mao Zedong, Vladimir Lenin, or Iosef Stalin. The party becomes a class above the people who are not in the party, as they decide the way the wind blows, and that one man who people listen to is in a class above the communist party, effectively deciding everything the party will do. This changes nothing but hands, and is a Revolution in the true sense of the term--rather than an Evolution. In a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" manner.

College showed me that I am, at heart, an anarchist :)
All anarchists are communists, but not all communists are anarchists.:) Big C Communists(party bureaucrats) are not little c communists(citizens of a communist "state[condition, not national entity]" or people who uphold communist theory/want a communist society).

First off, I wouldn't call Lenin a "monster". But that's for another topic.

I will assume you don't believe in Communism, since you're indicative of your dislikes for CPs and the "Big-3", if you will. Yeah yeah, they were fuck-ups, but how exactly were they really communists in deed? Surely you wouldn't call them - Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot - Marxists. Besides that, you're ignoring the historical materialism that created the "evil dictators" and their inhumane policy.

Marxism, not just theory, but practice, can work but without hierarchical vanguards, and with the right conditions/popular, global support. It won't be like the failed/failing experiments we've seen so far.

[The-Spark]

Is not the Paris Commune and Spanish Revolution evidence of working communism?

And, Ahura, does not Anarchy work towards communism aswell?

[Ahura Mazda]

All anarchists are communists, but not all communists are anarchists.smile.gif Big C Communists(party bureaucrats) are not little c communists(citizens of a communist "state[condition, not national entity]" or people who uphold communist theory/want a communist society).
Not the way I would want to put it, but sure, I can accept that. Of course, seeing myself from an anarchist perspective, I see the supposed end result of communism to be the same as the supposed end result of anarchism--ie, two different paths to the same place. You call that end result communism, I call it anarchism, but we are both calling it the same thing--unless you can differentiate for me the difference between the two (for example, anarchism being the state of the entirety and communism being the state of the community)...well, I think I made my point here.


First off, I wouldn't call Lenin a "monster". But that's for another topic.

I will assume you don't believe in Communism, since you're indicative of your dislikes for CPs and the "Big-3", if you will. Yeah yeah, they were fuck-ups, but how exactly were they really communists in deed? Surely you wouldn't call them - Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot - Marxists. Besides that, you're ignoring the historical materialism that created the "evil dictators" and their inhumane policy.
First, my understanding of Marxism is the dialectical progression from tribalism (or something like this) to a stateless society governed exclusively at the community level (this is what I think of as anarchism, and probably what you think of as communism...from now on I will refer to this as "The End Result"), and the people who thought they could skip over all the intermediate steps that they did should most certainly NOT be called Marxists.

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin--I see you admit that all of these (with the exception of Lenin) were monsters. They did nothing to bring about the End Result and everything to consolidate their own personal power over everyone else in their respective nation-states (the fact that they ruled over a nation state automatically steers them away from the End Result that communism and anarchism seek to bring about in two ways--they are governing, and what they govern is seen by the ruler/s and the people as a nation-state rather than a group of people who live in a geographical entity that the rest of the world sees as Russia, China, or Cambodia). I could explain why Lenin falls in this group, but I guess it is a discussion for another thread entirely.



Marxism, not just theory, but practice, can work but without hierarchical vanguards, and with the right conditions/popular, global support. It won't be like the failed/failing experiments we've seen so far.
As I think I said but probably didn't say, the fact that Marxism consolidates power in the hands of a certain group of people rather than into the hands of absolutely everyone or nobody at all will invariably lead it into the tyrannical despotic states that we have seen all attempts at fail. Even then, Marxism was a dialectical thing, and thus you couldn't skip over the intermediary steps without ending in the same way, and IIRC Marx thought Capitalism (ownership in the hands of many) was a much better state to live through than Socialism (ownership in the hands of one organization). I can't prove it though.


Is not the Paris Commune and Spanish Revolution evidence of working communism?
I can say nothing about the Paris Commune because that is what I know about it. With the Spanish Revolution I presume you are talking about the successful communes in Spain + Barcelona in the closing years of the Spanish Civil War, the ones that both the fascists and the Russian Communists were seeking to destroy. Since I figure your definition of working communism is the same as my definition for anarchism, then I would say yes. (I do not know very much about the Spanish Anarchists, but I like to think that I know enough to get by). Also, was it just me or did they did think of themselves as Anarchosyndicalists, the Spaniards I am talking about? My one source of information on the subject was a book written in the seventies called "The Spanish Anarchists," and I stopped reading it halfway through because I had a lot of classwork on my hands (in a class I wasn't doing all that well in) and eventually had to return it to the library.

[Random Precision]

First, my understanding of Marxism is the dialectical progression from tribalism (or something like this) to a stateless society governed exclusively at the community level (this is what I think of as anarchism, and probably what you think of as communism...from now on I will refer to this as "The End Result"), and the people who thought they could skip over all the intermediate steps that they did should most certainly NOT be called Marxists.

I agree!


Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin--I see you admit that all of these (with the exception of Lenin) were monsters. They did nothing to bring about the End Result and everything to consolidate their own personal power over everyone else in their respective nation-states (the fact that they ruled over a nation state automatically steers them away from the End Result that communism and anarchism seek to bring about in two ways--they are governing, and what they govern is seen by the ruler/s and the people as a nation-state rather than a group of people who live in a geographical entity that the rest of the world sees as Russia, China, or Cambodia). I could explain why Lenin falls in this group, but I guess it is a discussion for another thread entirely.

First of all, the realities of national leadership has to be dealt with by us commies just like everyone else when they take charge of a country. The destruction of national identities is something that will happen under communism, not at the beginning of the transitional period.

Secondly, this was a problem adressed many times by Lenin himself, actually. He knew that the revolution in Russia, while it was a step forward, could not survive and progress if it was not joined by revolutions in the industrial West, specifically Germany. He even said "If there is not a revolution in Germany, we are doomed." After three successive revolutions in Germany were crushed, he and the party made the rather difficult decision to try and hold out against the industrialized capitalist countries. Unfortunately, Stalin and the bureaucracy managed to seize the reins after Lenin's death. In my opinion, the bureaucracy headed by Stalin was a new class- a class that, as all classes do, acted in its own interest, crushing the revolutionary gains and asserting their hedgemony over the proletariat. Mao followed almost exactly the same path as Stalin did, except he thought that one could make a socialist revolution with the pesantry instead of the workers. As for Pol Pot, I believe it's a mistake to call him a Marxist at all- he was more like a utopian socialist who idealized the old Khmer country life. In the West, he could have been a Tolstoy-style anarchist. As I recall, he admitted that he never read Marx or Lenin, or ever acquired more than a superficial knowledge of their work. Stalin and Mao on the other hand I will accept as Marxists, but there were no doubt some fundamental flaws in their approach.


As I think I said but probably didn't say, the fact that Marxism consolidates power in the hands of a certain group of people rather than into the hands of absolutely everyone or nobody at all will invariably lead it into the tyrannical despotic states that we have seen all attempts at fail.

You are mistaken. The orthodox Marxist approach is to consolidate power in the hands of the whole proletarian class, which is a very democratic way of doing things. The Stalinist approach, on the other hand, consolidates power in the hands of a ruling bureaucratic class that run the "tyrannical despotic states" you mention.


Even then, Marxism was a dialectical thing, and thus you couldn't skip over the intermediary steps without ending in the same way, and IIRC Marx thought Capitalism (ownership in the hands of many) was a much better state to live through than Socialism (ownership in the hands of one organization). I can't prove it though.

True, the socialist phase is a time of great upheval and instability. But it paves the way to something a hell of a lot better than capitalism.

As for your parentheses: capitalism is ownership in the hands of the few (the bourgeoisie), socialism is ownership in the hands of the many (the proletariat).


I can say nothing about the Paris Commune because that is what I know about it. With the Spanish Revolution I presume you are talking about the successful communes in Spain + Barcelona in the closing years of the Spanish Civil War, the ones that both the fascists and the Russian Communists were seeking to destroy. Since I figure your definition of working communism is the same as my definition for anarchism, then I would say yes. (I do not know very much about the Spanish Anarchists, but I like to think that I know enough to get by). Also, was it just me or did they did think of themselves as Anarchosyndicalists, the Spaniards I am talking about? My one source of information on the subject was a book written in the seventies called "The Spanish Anarchists," and I stopped reading it halfway through because I had a lot of classwork on my hands (in a class I wasn't doing all that well in) and eventually had to return it to the library.

Yes, the Spanish anarchists subscribed to the strategy of anarcho-syndicalism.

[Ahura Mazda]

I agree!
This is very ghood to know! Because, quite honestly, virtually everyhting I know I about marissm is, as surely as I am sehr drunk, enturely learned by word of mouth from a good friend of mine who also as sure.ly as I am drunk knew wht he was talking about, (I bring I up the drunkenness becaus to ex[plain the tewerreible typi gerrors and to exp,kalin them, so you don't think I am suddenly and certainloy an idiot. Not befcause it is cool, because quite hoenstly it isn't. Byt owever I am certain he knew what he was talking about because the nazi legacy of neitzsche was impossible b ut his explaination of the same man made far more sense in contrext and compared to his writing than ms nietzsche in ehr wagenerian antisemitism could have possibly understood.


First of all, the realities of national leadership has to be dealt with by us commies just like everyone else when they take charge of a country. The destruction of national identities is something that will happen under communism, not at the beginning of the transitional period.
The thing about making a revolution gradual is that you can make this gradual as well, and conseqajuewntly less violwnbt a]s it turns out in the real world. This i why I cannot advocate a revolution--by making the prpcess gradual you also make it easier to deal with for virtually everyone, and those that are fucked over by it would be fucked over by it anyw3ays. And hoenstly, it is the duirection we are hurtling towards as Isee it, and in two or three generations we will either be there or in the paradise of the federa reserve as the conspiracy theorists see it and this lifetime is the one to decide whicfh it is, if the last one wasn't.



Secondly, this was a problem adressed many times by Lenin himself, actually. He knew that the revolution in Russia, while it was a step forward, could not survive and progress if it was not joined by revolutions in the industrial West, specifically Germany.
If he was a proiphet, you could actually consider that profetic\, and in a way it certainly was regrdless.


After three successive revolutions in Germany were crushed, he and the party made the rather difficult decision to try and hold out against the industrialized capitalist countries.
Wjhat was his alternative, Alexander Kerensky>? But apparently Lenin understood more than I do at this moment...not suprising since he died while old and I amst a "mere" 22. And as for pol pot, ho previous to the previous post I knew absolutely nothing about except he was cambodian and targetted the intellectuals, he was a fucking idiot who knew nothing about what he preached, if what you wrote was correct.



You are mistaken. The orthodox Marxist approach is to consolidate power in the hands of the whole proletarian class, which is a very democratic way of doing things. The Stalinist approach, on the other hand, consolidates power in the hands of a ruling bureaucratic class that run the "tyrannical despotic states" you mention.
Do you think that the harbingers of revolution could give their power up to the "mases" whose memories do not go furtherr back than the previosyu institutions? It is the way dictatorshoip of the proletarian will elad to 99 out of a 100 times, to dictatorship of a man period. History proves it, though history has not been long in the making as it deals with communism.



True, the socialist phase is a time of great upheval and instability. But it paves the way to something a hell of a lot better than capitalism.

As for your parentheses: capitalism is ownership in the hands of the few (the bourgeoisie), socialism is ownership in the hands of the many (the proletariat).
w00t I got all the qutoe es right on the first tires. Anyways: would ou all the soviet union socialism? Wjhat would you call thje european states like sweden which at least form the US point of view appear as socialist?

[Ahura Mazda]

oh dear lord

[Random Precision]

The thing about making a revolution gradual is that you can make this gradual as well, and conseqajuewntly less violwnbt a]s it turns out in the real world. This i why I cannot advocate a revolution--by making the prpcess gradual you also make it easier to deal with for virtually everyone, and those that are fucked over by it would be fucked over by it anyw3ays.

I get the gist of what you're saying, but I don't fully understand your point. If you're sober when you respond, could you clear that up? Thanks.


Do you think that the harbingers of revolution could give their power up to the "mases" whose memories do not go furtherr back than the previosyu institutions? It is the way dictatorshoip of the proletarian will elad to 99 out of a 100 times, to dictatorship of a man period. History proves it, though history has not been long in the making as it deals with communism.

Marx called for the proletarian class to seize power themselves. What Lenin added on to that approach is that the vanguard of the proletariat can seize power on their behalf. I believe that this approach is correct, as long as the vanguard does not lose contact with the proletariat, as happened during the Stalinist period of the USSR. As long as this vanguard party has a strong base in the proletariat, and is accountable directly to the proletariat, there should be no problems in the handing over of power directly to them. See my post here: http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=70177.

To be sure, this is a simplification of matters, but that is the best answer I have right now to your general question.


w00t I got all the qutoe es right on the first tires. Anyways: would ou all the soviet union socialism?

I would call the Soviet Union socialist up to about 1923, when Stalin and the bureaucratic class began to exert their control. To be sure, it maintained some characteristics of socialism during Stalin's reign, but after 1923 was when the gains of the revolution began to be eroded. If you'd like to know more about why that happened, see this excellent pamphlet (http://www.marxists.de/statecap/harman/revlost.htm).


Wjhat would you call thje european states like sweden which at least form the US point of view appear as socialist?

Very briefly (I don't have much time now), Sweden and its fellow Nordic states would be called "social democratic". This is because they have some elements of a socialist society, most notably a strong social security net, excellent healthcare systems, and so on, but have never undergone a revolution or started the socialist period of transition that follows. Therefore they maintain the apparatus of the bourgeois state and remain capitalist, with a few adjustments. They are not to be called socialist because of that.

[CrazyMode]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 03:37 pm
In all you OI-ers opinions, why will communism never work?
I don't think it will never work, but I think it will be a very long, long time.

So why then? Because so many people disagree with the methods of communists and so many communists disagree with eachother.

And the second you start shooting everyone who disagrees with you, even if you have a majority, it is no longer a system worth supporting.