Do the people want the means of production?

[Robert]

New around here and enjoying the stimulating exchanges I've admired from afar. I am not a leftist, and see zero reason to expect communist revolution in my country, in my lifetime, primarily for two reasons. These may just be the obverse and reverse of the same thing. Here's my problem ...

There are both: 1) more average people in the middle class who aspire themselves to control the means of production, and accumulate the material wealth that goes with it , than communists recognize (or admit); and 2) there are also more average people who do not want to control the means of production than communists seem to recognize.

I won't argue either point, as I simply know and know of far too many average Joes (blokes) who want their own businesses and get rich to believe otherwise, and I also know far too many average Joes who want precisely the opposite. But this latter group is not anti-capitalist in the main; they simply don't want the responsibility, the rewards, or the headaches and frustrations that accompany the responsibility of taking care of or destroying the current system. Thus you have two enormous swaths of the populace who want exactly the opposite of what communists think is best for them. They may be wrong, but it doesn't matter.

Maybe it's different in Europe where some of you live, but I frankly doubt it. The French workers are on strike now demanding maintenance or increase of benefits and less work. Do you think they want to control the means of production in France? They are the left's best and only hope in that country, but they want to work less, not more. That's fine, but revolutions take work. The strikes, by the way, are very unpopular among the average French, or so the polls say.

All this said, I recognize and concede the absurdity and injustice of one man owning billions while his brothers starve and shiver in the streets. I just don't know what to do about it and have no confidence that communism will "work" as I define "work."

Okay, as I admit in another thread, I don't pretend to know how to improve the current system without making it worse. But I hope someone will set me straight.

Thanks for reading the above and your thoughtful comments.

[Raisa]

Most poor people I know would love to have some means of production right now.


Residual income. Thats hot. :wub:

I would love to sit on my ass and make money everytime you put turned the lights on or whatever.
But theres too many of us and not enough different things to own.
So if we had a government who owned the means of production, and we owned the government it would all balance out.
I could get with that.

[Comrade Rage]

RTG, there's nothing new about these two points, they've been existent in most revolutionary situations.

The main question is how to empower those you talked about in #1, while bring over those in #2 (or as a last resort---discrediting them).

[Robert]

I make no claim that either point is original. I do not understand either of the two responses, though I suspect you meant empowering group #2, not #1. Do you agree with my premises as to the average American mind?

[La Comédie Noire]

You're arguments are legitimate. Why would anyone want to own the means of production when they live so comfortably anyways? Well that's what creates a revolutionary situation, a crisis in capitalism.

It's true, when you're starving to death you give more of a shit what goes on in the world around you.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

This is something of a tautology that Marx mentioned in the Communist Manifesto. It is similar to the "human nature" argument. The basic idea is that people now, under this system, want certain things- and thus they want this system. What people "want" under a particular system has a lot to do with the material conditions of that system, and what they must do to survive and succeed under that particular system. Since this system has not been around forever(on the contrary, it is relatively new), we cannot say the kind of values in capitalist society are somehow tied in with human nature.

People want their own businesses primarily because if you don't have your own business, you must work like everyone else, and frankly this sucks in most places. If you live in an exploited country, this means everything from 7-day work weeks to forced prostitution. If you live in an exploiter nation, this means working retail or some other godawful job(luckily I never had to do that).

It is the job of the revolutionary vanguard of a Communist party to show people why Communism is a better route; why these gains mean more than the hypothetical chance of becoming some super-rich businessman(which is extremely remote for most people), why the benefits are more secure, and so on. In some ways this is complicated, and in others extremely simple.

[Dr Mindbender]

the climate of political complacency has been brought about by the material and social conditioning of the beourgioise puppet media and education systems.

We are taught from an early age to 'aim low' and that economics, affairs of state and political discourse are the preserve of the established and priveleged classes.

With this discouragement and precedence in place, it is little wonder the worker finds this environment rather daunting and unwelcoming.


EDIT: typo.

[Robert]

We are taught from an early age to 'aim low' and that economics, affairs of state and political discourse are the preserve of the established and priveleged classes.

Wait a minute ... who is "we"? Do you mean that you are correctly taught this grim philosophy, or that, correct or not, it beat you into a feeling of political and economic hopelessness?

I suspect you mean the latter. At any rate, I never heard such a thing as I was growing up, but this may reflect a fundamental difference in the USA and Europe.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I suppose by your logic the republicans of the 19th century should have just thrown down their arms to the monarchs because the population didn't have a strong want for political power.


They are the left's best and only hope in that country, but they want to work less, not more. That's fine, but revolutions take work. The strikes, by the way, are very unpopular among the average French, or so the polls say.

Going on strike is an action. Communists want less work for everyone, so I really don't see your point, if there is one to begin with.

[Robert]

My friend, my point was evident to reasonable readers from my first post.

It's like this: what you're selling, nobody's buying. What they are buying are bread, circuses and the freedom to make private labor arrangements.

Communists want less work for everyone? I'll take your word for it. I also appreciate their solicitude. I'd prefer, however, to decide for myself how much I should work. If I concede that decision to the state, the state may decide one day (without consulting me) that I need to work more than I want. Maybe a whole lot more.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 17, 2007 06:19 am
It's like this: what you're selling, nobody's buying. What they are buying are bread, circuses and the freedom to make private labor arrangements.
Congratulations for pointing out the obvious: Most people support the status quo most of the time.

That is true in every kind of society; indeed, it is practically true by definition - the status quo can only maintain itself while it is socially acceptable, so there should be no surprise that the current status quo is socially acceptable.

Or, to put it another way: It is impossible to maintain a socio-economic system in the long term against the wishes of the majority of the people. Of course most workers are not communists - if they were, we'd have a revolution tomorrow.

The entire goal of the communist movement is to persuade a large enough number of workers to become communists, so that we may have a revolution. Obviously we have not achieved that goal yet. That's why we're still working on it. If most workers were communists, our task would be complete.

Your argument seems to be that just because most workers are not communists now, they will never be communists in the future. Unless you have a crystal ball, that is a complete fallacy.

[Robert]

Congratulations for pointing out the obvious

Thank you, and you're welcome.

Pass the cookies, comrade.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 17, 2007 02:26 am

We are taught from an early age to 'aim low' and that economics, affairs of state and political discourse are the preserve of the established and priveleged classes.

Wait a minute ... who is "we"? Do you mean that you are correctly taught this grim philosophy, or that, correct or not, it beat you into a feeling of political and economic hopelessness?

I suspect you mean the latter. At any rate, I never heard such a thing as I was growing up, but this may reflect a fundamental difference in the USA and Europe.
by we i mean the proletarian in general, but specifically the working class. No they never said ''aim low'' in such unsubtle terms but that precedence and insinuation is always set.
Take the typical careers advice class against the working class background for example. Seldomly will you hear words like ''solicitor'' ''doctor'' ''surgeon'' etc.
In my school for example, we were forever bombarded by visiting prospective employers and trainers from apprentice establishments or the military, specialising in building trades, car maintainance and other classist stereotyping bullshit.

[graffic]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 17, 2007 07:35 am
Your argument seems to be that just because most workers are not communists now, they will never be communists in the future. Unless you have a crystal ball, that is a complete fallacy.

Your argument seems to be that just because most workers are not communists now, they will never be communists in the future. Unless you have a crystal ball, that is a complete fallacy.

You don't need a crystal ball to see into the future, its called looking at trends, estimations, and observations.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 17, 2007 04:19 am
I'd prefer, however, to decide for myself how much I should work.
Then welcome to the communist movement.

[Robert]

Knock it off, Gene, you know better than that.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Edric O+November 17, 2007 07:34 am--> (Edric O @ November 17, 2007 07:34 am)
Robert the [email protected] 17, 2007 06:19 am
It's like this: what you're selling, nobody's buying. What they are buying are bread, circuses and the freedom to make private labor arrangements.
Congratulations for pointing out the obvious: Most people support the status quo most of the time.

That is true in every kind of society; indeed, it is practically true by definition - the status quo can only maintain itself while it is socially acceptable, so there should be no surprise that the current status quo is socially acceptable.

Or, to put it another way: It is impossible to maintain a socio-economic system in the long term against the wishes of the majority of the people. Of course most workers are not communists - if they were, we'd have a revolution tomorrow.

The entire goal of the communist movement is to persuade a large enough number of workers to become communists, so that we may have a revolution. Obviously we have not achieved that goal yet. That's why we're still working on it. If most workers were communists, our task would be complete.

Your argument seems to be that just because most workers are not communists now, they will never be communists in the future. Unless you have a crystal ball, that is a complete fallacy. [/b]
Yes, it is the objective of the communists to convince the workers that communism is in thur best interest. At least this puts the communist into the position of having to actually argue that communism is in the workers best interest. As opposed to mindlessly declaring its "inevitability" as a substitute to thought.

[Robert]

Take the typical careers advice class against the working class background for example. Seldomly will you hear words like ''solicitor'' ''doctor'' ''surgeon'' etc.

Well, that is very depressing and it strikes me as wrong. But don't you have labour MP's who grow up hard and poor?

In the interest of full disclosure, I just talked to my 18 year old, who is a Freshman at university and headed for medical school. According to her, she had no doctors or lawyers coming to the school to encourage or discourage any particular trade or profession. But I admit I never lived in an impoverished neighborhood, so maybe there are subtle pressures there to aim low that I don't know about.

You know, sometimes I think Europe is simply more stratified than the USA, socially, economically, and culturally, and it warps our exchanges on the board. When Americans say "middle class" here, we're mostly talking about income. But the middle class kids, hell, even the kids from the ghetto, can go to the finest schools if they have the grades and the brains. Money is a problem, of course, but not an insuperable one, what with grants and loans.

Now that I think about it, I rarely hear "upper class" in the sense of social milieu, school, or social circles. All kinds of rich kids belong to the country clubs and go to fine schools after daddy got rich hustling for oil or selling air conditioners or owning a small commercial plumbing firm.

Do the Americans here know what I'm talking about? I think it's fundamentally different in Europe.

Again my question though. Aren't there ministers of parliament from poor districts all over Europe who managed to go to university?