Extreme Leftism even for the Extreme Left?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Hi, comrades!

I've been visiting this site frequently for the past month or so. What I've seen is a bunch of hot sports opinions. That's a nice change, but there seems to be some ... additives to what makes someone a Leftist. For example, I've seen some posts that indicate certain comrades can't be socialist/communist/anarchist unless they opposte either all or an assortment of:

- Markets

- Ownership [our car, house, television?]

- Wants [ipods, hamburgers, big televisions].

I'm curious why this is so? Collectively owning the means of production and a car is completely different. ;) With the means of production we each have a stake in what happens, be it either directly as workers or indirectly as consumers. My neighbor's television has no relationship with my life...

[ComradeR]

- Markets
This is a given as Markets are capitalism.

- Wants [ipods, hamburgers, big televisions].
Luxuries (i.e. wants) will still exist, and they will be more available to people. We are not primitivist's.

- Ownership [our car, house, television?]
Addressed below.


I'm curious why this is so? Collectively owning the means of production and a car is completely different. ;) With the means of production we each have a stake in what happens, be it either directly as workers or indirectly as consumers. My neighbor's television has no relationship with my life...
100% correct comrade, what you are describing there is personal property, which is different then private property. When we talk about abolishing private property we are talking about the private ownership of the means of production (factory's, stores etc.), but this is different then personal property (your television, your toothbrush etc.) which we are in no way against.

[Raúl Duke]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 01:44 am

- Markets
This is a given as Markets are capitalism.

- Wants [ipods, hamburgers, big televisions].
Luxuries (i.e. wants) will still exist, and they will be more available to people. We are not primitivist's.

- Ownership [our car, house, television?]
Addressed below.


I'm curious why this is so? Collectively owning the means of production and a car is completely different. ;) With the means of production we each have a stake in what happens, be it either directly as workers or indirectly as consumers. My neighbor's television has no relationship with my life...
100% correct comrade, what you are describing there is personal property, which is different then private property. When we talk about abolishing private property we are talking about the private ownership of the means of production (factory's, stores etc.), but this is different then personal property (your television, your toothbrush etc.) which we are in no way against.
Exactly.

Markets are opposed because it's a feature in capitalism (and maybe even some strands of "socialism"). The rest are only opposed by...I don't know...but whoever they are it isn't really left at all.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 06:44 am

- Markets
This is a given as Markets are capitalism.

- Wants [ipods, hamburgers, big televisions].
Luxuries (i.e. wants) will still exist, and they will be more available to people. We are not primitivist's.

- Ownership [our car, house, television?]
Addressed below.


I'm curious why this is so? Collectively owning the means of production and a car is completely different. ;) With the means of production we each have a stake in what happens, be it either directly as workers or indirectly as consumers. My neighbor's television has no relationship with my life...
100% correct comrade, what you are describing there is personal property, which is different then private property. When we talk about abolishing private property we are talking about the private ownership of the means of production (factory's, stores etc.), but this is different then personal property (your television, your toothbrush etc.) which we are in no way against.
You are mostly correct. It is important to differentiate between private property and personal posesions.

A quiblle about markets however. BE careful not to simply oppose them on the grounds they are capitalism because capitalism can function without them, though perhaps not at their peak. THey are generally to be opposed because labour markets are exploitative and capital markets are the means by which the capitalists make sure they maintain control of the means of production. Markets in Goods and Services are a bit different, but the problem there is they will follow the bourgoisies' interests above everyone elses because they have the money. And of course market failure is a problem

[sanpal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 06:44 am

- Markets
This is a given as Markets are capitalism.

small remark ...

Not only capitalism, but capitalism or socialism.

Markets are founded on capitalist mode of production and what ...ism are depended of political system: whether is it a bourgeois parliament with voting from all people or is it a proletarian parliament with voting from classes (This is Dictatorship of the Proletariat but not Dictatorship of the Communist Party, though Communist Parties have to make the main task for changing bourgeois parliaments to Proletarian parliaments ).

Communism doesn't mean Market at all and DotP should organize non-market (communist) sector of economy beside market (socialist&capitalist) sector of economy without mixing.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

On the subject of markets, I think it's just a disagreement over definitions. I see markets as being exchange between two parties, which has existed for a long time and will continue to exist until labor is reduced to bare minimum and scarcity becomes a foreign concept.

[grove street]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 01:23 am
On the subject of markets, I think it's just a disagreement over definitions. I see markets as being exchange between two parties, which has existed for a long time and will continue to exist until labor is reduced to bare minimum and scarcity becomes a foreign concept.
Trade will always be around

Batering will still exist but on a more smaller scale between individuals instead of between blod sucking Corporations>

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 01:23 am
On the subject of markets, I think it's just a disagreement over definitions. I see markets as being exchange between two parties, which has existed for a long time and will continue to exist until labor is reduced to bare minimum and scarcity becomes a foreign concept.
You are almost correct. Markets are a mechanism for distribution based on a rate of exchange, usually a price where there is a money commodity. They will be around for so long as the damage they do is outweighed by the good they do (and they do a lot of good)......ignoring the transitional period when they do more harm than good but have not been overthrown. They will probably disappear significantly before labour is minimised and scarcity eliminated because there should be a point where the damage they do outweighs the benefits although there is still scarcity. However, after the seizure of the state by the working class, it shall be used to regulate and constrain markets in order to minimise the negative effects (thus, actually prolonging the existence of markets).

[RedKnight]

There still were markets in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_th...c_of_Yugoslavia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Socialist_Federal_Republic_of_Yugos lavia). This economic system is refered to as "market socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism)".

[co-op]

I would like to distance myself from those here who propose 'market socialism' (an oxymoron) and the idea that they are anything other than the antitheses of collective production and workers control/liberation. If socialism is, as I see it, workers and communities controling their futures, where does a market fit in to that model? What possible place can it have? A market by definition means workers have to be robbed of surplus value and control over their workplaces and produce. A market is not an innocent place where freely aquired goods are swapped. Its a place where the stolen labour of the proletariat is sold and it has to have an ruling class and state to benifit and enforce their power.


However, after the seizure of the state by the working class, it shall be used to regulate and constrain markets in order to minimise the negative effects (thus, actually prolonging the existence of markets).

What tired out pointless rubbish. You are either proposing capitalism lite or gradual state capitalism. Niether care about the interests of the proletariat and what you are basically saying is that workers should spill their blood to achieve nothing in their interests.

[gilhyle]

No workers should spill their blood to take control of the State and do what can be done. I dont presume to know the pace of transition. But I know this - there are things the market can do that a non-market planned economy cannot do as well. To give those functionalities up, you have to live in a society that can pay the price and that depends on how rich that society is. How rich society is at the point of revolution determines how long markets will last. Only a an unthinking utopian thinks that political revolution leads immediately and fully to a completly planned economy. Apply a bit of Marx, apply a bit of Lenin and thats the conclusion you get

BTW I have no time for Market socialism and since the term 'State Capitalism' has about five different meanings...who know what that refers to when used in your post .

[sanpal]

One more remark:

Communism is the society of free workers, the society of freedom. It could mean only the point that noone could be moved to communist society by violence. The freedom means the choice, so working people must have the free choice of what condition they will choose to work under whether would it be a communist (non-market) economic sector or would it be a capitalist (market ) economic sector which includes State capitalist and traditional capitalist sector under controlling by Proletariat with political mechanism - DotP.

such three-sectors economy would have 1)State property 2)private property and 3)common property (communist sector) of means of production

In the result of competition of two economic modes of reproduction in the borders of one State in the case if communist sector of economy turned out more attractive for working people, so proletariat will spill over to this sector, and communist sector will grow and grow up and capitalist sector (State and private) will become smaller and smaller.
The State will wither away naturally.


It is the dialectic approach to a problem.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by gilhyle+September 08, 2007 02:19 pm--> (gilhyle @ September 08, 2007 02:19 pm) I dont presume to know the pace of transition. But I know this - there are things the market can do that a non-market planned economy cannot do as well.

BTW I have no time for Market socialism and since the term 'State Capitalism' has about five different meanings...who know what that refers to when used in your post . [/b]

Your premise only works for sectors of the economy that aren't socialized in their business model (I'm thinking of niches in back from my "revolutionary stamocap" (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65240&view=findpost&p=1292295858) stuff).


Originally posted by [email protected]
Meanwhile, the niche businesses within the economy - and there are more and more of those by the day due to the "shrinking middle" - would remain private; they generally don't have more than 100 employees or so. They wouldn't be able to corner bigger markets - because of "Gossnab 2.0," the law, and economic disincentives (immediate nationalization upon being big enough to be deemed part of the "commanding heights").

"The production of articles for consumption has another character. To be sure we have here the gigantic industries (sugar factories and breweries), but as a general thing the little industry is still generally dominant. Here it is necessary to satisfy the individual needs of the market, and the small industry can do this better than the large. The number of productive plants is here large and would not ordinarily be capable of reduction as in the production of means of production. Here also production for the open market still rules. But because of the greater number of consumers this is much more difficult to supervise than is production for production. The number of operators’ agreements is fewer here. The organization of the production and circulation of all articles of consumption accordingly offers much greater difficulties than that of the means of production." (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1902/socrev/pt2-2.htm#s6) (Kautsky)

Even then, as explained below, it should ideally follow the premise of "local" collective ownership (owned and managed by the workers at such niche enterprises, but as I said above, the existence of private firms under the proper DOTP is a very strong possibility under my stated constraints). This market "socialism" should be limited to the niches at all costs, as history has proven.


sanpal
such three-sectors economy would have 1)State property 2)private property and 3)common property (communist sector) of means of production

...

In the result of competition of two economic modes of reproduction in the borders of one State in the case if communist sector of economy turned out more attractive for working people, so proletariat will spill over to this sector, and communist sector will grow and grow up and capitalist sector (State and private) will become smaller and smaller.
The State will wither away naturally.

Sorry to disappoint you, but look at the founding of Israel and its stated "balance." <_<

[rouchambeau]

grove street:
Trade will always be around

Batering will still exist but on a more smaller scale between individuals instead of between blod sucking Corporations>
A very dubious claim. Not only is that undesirable (as it necessarily means people are alienated from their means of existence), but also incompatable with the elimination of the Commodity.

co-op:
I would like to distance myself from those here who propose &#39;market socialism&#39; (an oxymoron) and the idea that they are anything other than the antitheses of collective production and workers control/liberation. If socialism is, as I see it, workers and communities controling their futures, where does a market fit in to that model? What possible place can it have? A market by definition means workers have to be robbed of surplus value and control over their workplaces and produce. A market is not an innocent place where freely aquired goods are swapped. Its a place where the stolen labour of the proletariat is sold and it has to have an ruling class and state to benifit and enforce their power.
This is really a fantastic comment on what should be. Anyone who has read enough Marx should know that capitalism is built on the commodity, and you cannot abolish capitalism without abolishing the commodity in every aspect.

sanpal:
Communism is the society of free workers, the society of freedom. It could mean only the point that noone could be moved to communist society by violence.
That doesn&#39;t follow.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 01:18 am
Anyone who has read enough Marx should know that capitalism is built on the commodity, and you cannot abolish capitalism without abolishing the commodity in every aspect.


Dont quite follow the logic of this. Apply it to another example:

Landmines are built from explosives, therefore you cannot abolish landmines without abolishing explosives - it is not a valid logic of a concept of abolition that that on which the abolished thing is based must also be abolished.....particularly that its base must be simultaneously abolished (though you did not say that).

Capitalism is a system where capital circulates for profit independent of labour. Abolish that and you have abolished capitalism. Granted, that it will constantly tend to recur as long as there is significant trade in commodities - that, in part, is what the DoTP is for in the transition period.

thus you are correct that the abolition of capitalism cannot be consolidated and completed without also abolishing the exchange of things AS COMMODITIES.....but in that process of completion and consolidation of the abolition of capitalism generations may well turn out to live and die.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 06:44 am
This is a given as Markets are capitalism.
This is untrue.

Markets are much, much older than capitalism; there have been markets in feudal societies and in slavery-based societies.

So let&#39;s put that very clear:

Markets are not necessarily capitalist.

Luís Henrique