Need some help in my arguments...

[supernaltempest]

First off, I'd like to say hi to everyone here on RevLeft. I'm new here. I've been browsing the boards for the past few days and decided to join.

So far I've read The Communist Manifesto and currently reading RS2K's articles.

Now to move on with the topic. I've been trying to teach others about communism and hit some snags due to my currently limited knowledge of communism. I was hoping you could help a comrade out.

One person has brought up some points which I've tried to explain but is obviously not satisfied with my answers. I quote:


You don't have a way to keep people from developing lazy work habits (or abandoning work habits altogether), you haven't found a way to let everyone do what they want but make sure that everything still gets done, you haven't created any motivation to keep people working consistently, and you haven't found a way to create this mindset in people where they'd want the group to succeed and advance rather than just flow on an even, stagnating level.

You have a lot of problems to solve, but all you have to offer is an assurance that it'd all work out if people just gave it a shot.

I honestly don't know what to do at this point. Maybe you guys can offer some suggestions to help me answer his points?

[Comrade Nadezhda]

This should help with most everything: http://www.marxists.org

I don't know how familiar you are with marxism but for a start, try reading Marx's Economic & Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/preface.htm)

I would consider that probably a good start, beyond The Communist Manifesto.

Read Marx's Value, Price & Profit (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/index.htm)
Then, this will take you a while to read (so will the above) but this too: Marx's
Capital Vol. 1 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/index.htm)

After you familiarize yourself with Vol. 1, there's vol. 2 and 3, but I would suggest reading that first considering that is a lot of reading already.



I think that once you have a good grasp for marxism you will be able to respond to that quite well. It's a classic argument made. Read what I linked above and I'm sure you'll figure it out- how to respond to arguments opposing marxism.

[supernaltempest]

Alright, I'll take your word for it and start reading. Learning will help me.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 01:08 am
Alright, I'll take your word for it and start reading. Learning will help me.
It'll keep you quite busy. ;)

If you have any further questions, feel free to ask.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

supernaltempest:


You don't have a way to keep people from developing lazy work habits (or abandoning work habits altogether), you haven't found a way to let everyone do what they want but make sure that everything still gets done, you haven't created any motivation to keep people working consistently, and you haven't found a way to create this mindset in people where they'd want the group to succeed and advance rather than just flow on an even, stagnating level.

Under socialism the incentive to work harder will be motivated by the fact that increased production will lead to the shortening of the working week, for no loss of pay.

But, since much of this work will be done by machines, the phrase "work harder" will not really apply, in many cases.

Anyone who shirks will be disciplined by other workers, since lazy workers threaten the above process. This will be done collectively, not to boost profit, but to put pressure on work time.

As Marx put in Volume Three of Das Kapital:


“Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must civilised man, ... With his development this realm of physical necessity expands as a result of his wants; but, at the same time, the forces of production which satisfy these wants also increase. Freedom in this field can only consist in socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature. But it nonetheless still remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human energy which is an end in itself, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only with this realm of necessity as its basis. The shortening of the working-day is its basic prerequisite.”

This provides us with a materialist, not an idealist, incentive.

[mikelepore]

I think the problem is to get people to go to work in the first place, not to find reasons for them to work well once they get there. People need a (1) personal, (2) short term, (3) material incentive to choose work instead of vacationing perpetually. Once they show up at the workplace, they will usually do their best to perform the work intelligently and creatively -- if they are permitted to do so, that is, if we have a system of workers' self-management. Therefore I am chiefly concerned with knowing the reason why anyone would return from vacation and show up at a workplace, and that reason must be already known to be reliable before a socialist management system can be implemented. My suggestion is: all workers should be paid personal incomes that are directly proportional to their choice of total work hours, multiplied by factors to give greater hourly compensation for work that is more stressful or uncomfortable. These personal incomes should be redeemed at stores for consumer goods. I reject "to each according to his needs" (which, by the way, came from Louis Blanc, not Marx, and Marx only wrote that phrase it in criticism of it) as a completely impractical suggestion that would quickly make production levels disasterously collapse.

[Kitskits]

Let's not get Socialism in a salad with the highest level, Communism.

Socialism has no "...according to their needs" stuff. In socialism, workers can be paid according to their level of work (wether it is measured in hours, minutes, production etc etc, or perhaps a combination of these factors) a bonus for exceeding a certain level, and up to this level, work should be compulsory. Of course in socialism this level would be much less than in the capitali$t society. Some officials, being paid the average wage of a worker should evaluate the workers with objective criteria and show them publicly in the factories in some diagrams on the walls, so that no one will be able to doubt them. These officials should be circulated from factory to factory every let's say 3 months so that their objectivity to the workers will be kept to a maximum.

[smoy]

I just want to reply kitskits About paying workers according to how many hours they work. It can't really happen the only way to truly create a classles society is to abolish money because over time if those who work more continue to do so they will earn more money than those who choose to do the minimal, over time classes would re-emerge and we would be right back where we started

[Random_Guy]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26, 2007 02:42 pm

Anyone who shirks will be disciplined by other workers, since lazy workers threaten the above process. This will be done collectively, not to boost profit, but to put pressure on work
What would be the punishment? I always wanted to know that.

[Kitskits]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 02:44 am
I just want to reply kitskits About paying workers according to how many hours they work. It can't really happen the only way to truly create a classles society is to abolish money because over time if those who work more continue to do so they will earn more money than those who choose to do the minimal, over time classes would re-emerge and we would be right back where we started
Yeah, but if constitutionally you can't buy private property, even if you get more money than others, the only way you will be able to use your money would be in exchange with some usable objects, storing money would be useless as the only use of money would be for the present, of course the workers shouldn't be allowed to do something like buy means of production in another country which is capitalist and grant income from there or anything like this. Classes are determined by owning the means of production, right? Why would new classes be created by this?

But even if the socialist states see that this doesn't go as planned they can make work compulsory up to a level the economy will skyrocket. And probably the level will be less than the infinite work hours a week during capitalism. As science and economy progresses during the years, decades etc less and less labor would be required for similar growth. Right?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

You don't have a way to keep people from developing lazy work habits (or abandoning work habits altogether), you haven't found a way to let everyone do what they want but make sure that everything still gets done, you haven't created any motivation to keep people working consistently, and you haven't found a way to create this mindset in people where they'd want the group to succeed and advance rather than just flow on an even, stagnating level.

You have a lot of problems to solve, but all you have to offer is an assurance that it'd all work out if people just gave it a shot.

Lazy work habits, understood to mean a scenario where an employee performs his duties without satisfying productivity, is wide scale under a capitalist system of production. The myth that capitalism maximizes productivity simply refers to the fact that it's outpaced all previous systems. Cashiers, security officers, janitors, telecommunication experts, paper pushers, stockers, and office workers contribute to an overwhelming part of the work force and statistical numbers show that all are willing (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2005/07/11/wastingtime.TMP) to goof off when their bosses aren't watching. Why? Those jobs are terribly dissatisfying, most of the time because of the expected tasks, but also the worsening working conditions. It should be written in every high school textbook that the 40-hour work week is dead. Most of the work force now devotes 50 hours (http://www.homepages.indiana.edu/040904/text/workweek.shtml) to their employer, negating the principle "8 hours work, 8 hours leisure, 8 hours sleep."

How would communism answer these problems where capitalism has only managed to succeed through industrialization? For one thing, most of the above listed jobs/professions, among many others, would be eliminated. Without money all professions devoted to collecting, managing, and protecting capital would be nonexistent. That frees up a little over a third of the work force. Maybe closer to half if you consider the wasteful employment schemes and having a million-man military.

Secondly, you would be free to pursue what interested you and not what the market has to offer. Work places would be built around the people and not the other way around . The necessary jobs, if not already automated, would have socially enjoyable benefits. Stockers, for example, could have first dibs on what is shipped in. Truckers could have a road system set aside just for themselves with guaranteed living spaces of exceptionally fine qualities at every stop. Stockers would be allowed to listen to their Mp3 players when filling up the storage facilities. Under these conditions, unheard of under capitalism, workers would have no [i]reason to feel that they should be doing something else.

Thirdly, the average time required to "work" would be reduced to 3-4 hours a day [though not necessarily enforced]. This would be just enough time to satisfy human boredom while not exhausting the vast majority of persons. Such a low number has numerous explanations, including but not limited to 1.) automation (at the moment science is devoted to frivolous technology like war machines) 2.) the elimination of the work force devoted to capital, as explained above 3.) the ability for mothers to take care of their kids and work 4.) the young and elderly being able to contribute 1-2 hours instead of staying out of the production process because employers expect a minimum of 20 hours a week.

Your friend asked how people would be motivated to do something. I'd like to ask if anyone can testify to not catching oneself thinking/stating, "I'm bored?" Nobody. And this is after taking care of the kids and putting up with 40/50/60 hours of work, most likely in an environment that does not respect you (office oligarchies aren't any funner than their state brothers). But we're so exhausted that all we can do is sit in front of the television, or read, or listen to music. All that is fine but it doesn't satisfy mankind's desire to act. I know some of the biggest book worms in the world and although unemployed they work online as freelancers. They don't have to; their of the age that it doesn't matter and their parents/mates pay for almost anything they want. It's about the thrill of making and not profit.

Innovations and improvements don't require a profit motive. If I don't have to worry about losing money by spending time improving on something I have an interest in, then it's only logical innovations will increase. You can use google to find thousands of examples where people have improved/created goods.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally posted by Random_Guy+December 27, 2007 03:02 am--> (Random_Guy @ December 27, 2007 03:02 am)
Rosa [email protected] 26, 2007 02:42 pm

Anyone who shirks will be disciplined by other workers, since lazy workers threaten the above process. This will be done collectively, not to boost profit, but to put pressure on work
What would be the punishment? I always wanted to know that. [/b]
There are multiple actions that can be taken.

If it's a simple thing, verbal criticism is enough to set most people straight.
If the worker is more aggressive than your usual person, the workers' could ask their colleague to go home for the day.
If it becomes a bigger problem, that worker could be refused a place in the particular building through a democratic process, negating any benefits enjoyed by working there.

Social consequences would also help the system operate [thus why socialism deserves its name]. Family members and friends would look down at capable sloths. "Leeching" in fact would be quite rarer than it currently is. As I stated earlier, humans are primarily focused on doing. Those few who are fine wasting their lives away can expect social scorn. We can see that right now. Think of how people who leech off of welfare are looked at by their peers. Even those workers on food stamps [and this is unfortunate] feel the pressure of society.

The problem of leeching is in fact exaggerated by a system based around capital than one without. The job market is filled with so much trash on the bottom and middle that many people would rather be bored and live minimally than work. Others endanger their own health by selling hard drugs, illegal weapons, and [arguably saddest of all] themselves.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Maybe so, but it is integral to the revolution that the working class tranforms itself, and this will also affect those who at present are considered 'lazy'. You only have to think about how ordinary people throw their shoulders to the wheel (even under capitalism) when they need to (in war, or in natural disasters, and accidents). This will be even more so in a society they have helped initiate, and have built, and in which they will have a genuine say.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Random Guy:


What would be the punishment? I always wanted to know that.

That is not for us to say; it will be up to the workers/local community involved.

[Zurdito]

Once someone has based their outlook on the need to punish "lazy" people I don't think there is much you can do for them. That's calvinist moralism, it's only really found among the conservative middle classes.

Britain works the longest hours in Europe and yet has one of the lowest productivity rates. France works the shortest (I think) and has one of the highest. In poor countries, there is no welfare state, and people are forced to work much harder, and yet those countries are still dirt poor and getting POORER as "incentives to work" (ie welfare cuts) are INCREASED. While the richest people in the world tend to be the laziest - how many hours do most corporate execs work? In fact I have had many jobs (I was a temp), and the ones which made me come home MOST tired were the ones I got paid LEAST for.

No economy in history ever failed because of "laziness".

In communal societies in the past or in those that still exist, people didn't/don't just stop working. The whole doctrine is just crap. Humanity easily produces enough of a surplus for us all to live comfortably. Justifying misallocation of resources because without fear of poverty the lazy bastards just wouldn't work is outright prejudice against the working class, bred on irrational moralism, and swallowed up by uptight right-wing turds.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


Once someone has based their outlook on the need to punish "lazy" people I don't think there is much you can do for them. That's calvinist moralism, it's only really found among the conservative middle classes.

Well done for misreading me once again (if the above is aimed at yours truly).

What I wrote was this:


Anyone who shirks will be disciplined by other workers, since lazy workers threaten the above process. This will be done collectively, not to boost profit, but to put pressure on work time.

Notice, no mention of 'punishment'. And I put "lazy" in quotes since it is not a word I would want to use.

Of course, if you think everything will be hunky dory the day after the revolution, then you are worse than a calvinist; you are a naive idealist. It will take many generations for the negative effects of capitalism to be ironed out by workers themselves, some of which effects will doubtless emerge as 'shirking'.

No moralism either; just an emphasis on efficiency.

[Zurdito]

Well done for misreading me once again (if the above is aimed at yours truly).

erm, no, it wasn't. it's aimed at the kind of people the OP would be arguing with. I've got no problem with you Rosa.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

OK, then my apologies are owed to you! :blush:

[supernaltempest]

OK, some more problems now.

1. Trade is against communism. If there's trade, then it becomes capitalist.

2. Communism is utopian. (I said it wasn't but he keeps insisting it is and said something about 'workers paradise')

3. A communist state (i.e. USSR) is all communism was, is, and will ever be. Everyone saying that communist state is inaccurate or wrong stop commenting on political science. Just stop. You're embarrassing yourselves. You're completely and totally ignorant of not only the subject, but to how the world actually operates outside of theory.

4. There aren't an unlimited amount of resources to satisfy everyone's needs especially when the number of people is limitless.

5. The economy of a communist society is inefficient and wasteful, requires a beauracracy, and is against free enterprise. It also doesn't account for harder work (doctor and painter).

6. Marx is wrong because he thinks the bourgeoisie are like the aristocracy which they aren't. They don't own the means of production, they make it. The bourgeoisie are like Bill Gates in which they start from nothing and become rich through hard work. The means of production only apply to feudal agrarian societies where the lords owned the land. Today farmers own their own land.

7. Communism is closer to feudalism in its limits to market enterprise.

8. Communism is the removal of individual freedom and 'class struggle' is the construct of a crazy German man.

9. Standard of living has gotten much better for everyone. Workers don't suffer, etc.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

1. Trade is against communism. If there's trade, then it becomes capitalist.

Well trade isn't necessarily capitalist. If you use money to buy something, and then you sell what you have bought for more money, then it is capitalist. But, for communists, trading can be exchanging things for mutual benefit, and exchange can be done so that both parties receive the same value in the items they are trading.


Communism is utopian.


Talking about what is it going to be like is utopian. But, capitalism would seem utopian to people living in the medieval era. But ,really if he doesn't think that you can develop the productive forces so everyone can have all their needs met, then he's totally stupid. Even capitalists were saying this in the 1950's.


A communist state (i.e. USSR) is all communism was, is, and will ever be. Everyone saying that communist state is inaccurate or wrong stop commenting on political science. Just stop. You're embarrassing yourselves. You're completely and totally ignorant of not only the subject, but to how the world actually operates outside of theory.

For Marxists, communism essentially means a classless world. It is stateless BECAUSE it is classless, and the state only exists in order to a class in power.

But, political scientists use the term "communist state" correctly, in their own terminology, because they invented the terms meaning. They presumably mean a one party state with a nationalised economy (to varying degrees).

Its hard because political science (bourgeois variety) and Marxism discuss the same subject, terminology overlaps, but the definitions don't overlap.



There aren't an unlimited amount of resources to satisfy everyone's needs especially when the number of people is limitless.

But, without the inefficient economy of capitalism , peoples needs could be met through much shorter work days, and increased technology, which doesn't provide a problem for socialism, but causes problems for capitalism.



The economy of a communist society is inefficient and wasteful, requires a beauracracy, and is against free enterprise. It also doesn't account for harder work (doctor and painter).

well, you need to get him to clarify this. Because the communist states that did exists, did have economic problems and were certainly very bureaucratic. But, many Marxists would the deny that those societies are worthy or replication.

And, poor pay, poor conditions only leads to harder work because of the workers are forced to in order to survive.



Marx is wrong because he thinks the bourgeoisie are like the aristocracy which they aren't. They don't own the means of production, they make it. The bourgeoisie are like Bill Gates in which they start from nothing and become rich through hard work. The means of production only apply to feudal agrarian societies where the lords owned the land. Today farmers own their own land.

Marx doesn't think the bourgeoisie is like the aristocracy. He liked the bourgeoisie much more that the aristocracy! But, what about the Rockefeller's? They and what about bill gates' children? will they be denied private education and free access to cash?

Also, this kind of says, if you are not rich, its because you haven't worked hard!! Does he really believe those outside of the bourgeoisie do not work hard!

And his argument is breaking down!! because he was critical of communism for not giving people the incentive to work hard, and then says under capitalism if you work hard be turn out like bill gates, so surely since most people have very modest income, they in fact are lazy and so his criticism of communism is in fact an invalid one!

Ask him to clarify that point, because he clearly doesn't understand anything.



Communism is closer to feudalism in its limits to market enterprise.

No, communism just rejects the market has a use in a society of abundance. But, ask him when the US government plan pensions for millions of people, if it is a feudalism? because planning pensions is a rejection of the logic of the market.




Communism is the removal of individual freedom and 'class struggle' is the construct of a crazy German man.

since he uses a capital C, not a small c, he must be talking about the USSR not a hypothetical communist society, so yeah he is right about the freedom thing. at least, for all but the early part of the USSR.

But, class struggle does exist. Capitalists get their profit from paying workers less than the value of their days work, so the capitalist has an incentive not to give the workers a rise. The workers have the incentive to increase their pay, and reduce their exploitation. So, clearly they are at odds. IF not, workers would never work together to get more pay, and capitalist would always give out more pay.



Standard of living has gotten much better for everyone. Workers don't suffer,
etc.

Look at people on public transport at 7am. or again at 6pm, or look at the people in sweatshops all over the planet or the amount of people who kill themselves, or all the people who take medication like prozacc or go to their place of work and shoot the place up. The list is endless. Workers do suffer, but we see it everyday so because anaesthetised to it.

[Psy]

Originally posted by supernaltempest+December 28, 2007 12:58 am--> (supernaltempest @ December 28, 2007 12:58 am)OK, some more problems now.

1. Trade is against communism. If there's trade, then it becomes capitalist.
[/b]
No, only trade to accumulate capital is against communism. The occupied workplaces of revolutionary Spain (and Paris 1968 and recently Buenos Aires) traded with each other, the difference being the trade was to help comrades produce.


Originally posted by supernaltempest+--> (supernaltempest)
2. Communism is utopian. (I said it wasn't but he keeps insisting it is and said something about 'workers paradise')
[/b]
Capitalism is utopian, it is based on endless growth in a finite world, meaning eventually capitalism will be impossible as growth would be impossible.


Originally posted by supernaltempest

3. A communist state (i.e. USSR) is all communism was, is, and will ever be. Everyone saying that communist state is inaccurate or wrong stop commenting on political science. Just stop. You're embarrassing yourselves. You're completely and totally ignorant of not only the subject, but to how the world actually operates outside of theory.

Marxists debated the Bolshevik's since the Russian revolution but one thing is for sure is that a revolution in a modern industrial nation would not have the same failing as the Russian revolution simply due to modern industrial nations having educated workers instead of illiterate peasants like Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba.


Originally posted by supernaltempest

4. There aren't an unlimited amount of resources to satisfy everyone's needs especially when the number of people is limitless.

But capitalism requires unlimited growth thus capitalism can't work. Also capitalism has already exceeded the capacity to provide everyone needs, this is why capitalism has periods of over-production where the market is saturated.


Originally posted by supernaltempest

5. The economy of a communist society is inefficient and wasteful, requires a beauracracy, and is against free enterprise. It also doesn't account for harder work (doctor and painter).

The economy of a capitalist society is inefficient and wasteful. Farmers are paid not to grow and food is destroyed to avoid over production. Products are made to have short life spans to create artificial demands. New demands are created through advertising to increase consumption.


[email protected]

6. Marx is wrong because he thinks the bourgeoisie are like the aristocracy which they aren't. They don't own the means of production, they make it. The bourgeoisie are like Bill Gates in which they start from nothing and become rich through hard work. The means of production only apply to feudal agrarian societies where the lords owned the land. Today farmers own their own land.

Bill Gates didn't get rich through making the means of production, he got rich through owning his port of BASIC from there he simply bought ownership and got profits simply by being the owner (while workers did the actually hard work). As for farmers, today most don't own their own land due to large factory farms putting them out of business.




supernaltempest

9. Standard of living has gotten much better for everyone. Workers don't suffer, etc.
That was during the long boom, living standards have not significantly risen since the 70's.

[Rasmus]

1. Trade is against communism. If there's trade, then it becomes capitalist.

Not neccasarily. Exchange of good (i.e. trade) isn't something that is unique to capitalism. Feudalism had trading, same as, strictly speaking, communist economic system will be, since, the wares you produce buys you other wares (In the communit case, the wares you produce are just always equal in price to the material needs you have).


2. Communism is utopian. (I said it wasn't but he keeps insisting it is and said something about 'workers paradise')

Simply wrong. I can imagine feudalists using the same argument, prior to the capitalist revolution, and they were proved wrong. Tell him to come up with evidence that proves that it is utopian (And if he responds with "It's against human nature! :huh: " tell him there is no such thing since that changes radically with the terms we live under).


3. A communist state (i.e. USSR) is all communism was, is, and will ever be. Everyone saying that communist state is inaccurate or wrong stop commenting on political science. Just stop. You're embarrassing yourselves. You're completely and totally ignorant of not only the subject, but to how the world actually operates outside of theory.

Well, there can't be a communist state, since communism is the stateless and classless society that arrises post-socialism. There can, however, be a socialist state, but I disagree that it can only exist on a state level. If executed correctly (This includes internally in the new socialist state aswell as with the education of workers outside of the socialist state), the workers of other countries will watch standard of living improving and join the revolution.


4. There aren't an unlimited amount of resources to satisfy everyone's needs especially when the number of people is limitless.

There isn't an unlimited number of people. There isn't an unlimited amount of resources. However.

Amount of resources > Amount of people.

Currently, more food is produced than the entire population of the world can eat, and that's been the situation since the industrial revolution. So, that's just wrong.


5. The economy of a communist society is inefficient and wasteful, requires a beauracracy, and is against free enterprise. It also doesn't account for harder work (doctor and painter).

In socialism there'd no longer be any restrictions on choice of education, so, people would be free to pursue the future they want to pursue; not the one that there is greatest demand for. If I wanted to be a doctor, it most likely would not change if I'd be payed the same for being a plummer as opposed to being a doctor. Even if I got payed for sitting on my butt, I'd still go be a doctor. You know why? Because people want to create. They want to act. They don't want to sit on their fat butt and be fed (Unless they're bourgesie, in which case they don't just sit still, they socialize with other bourgesie people).

And a capitalist saying an economy is wasteful? How hypocritical. Where are all those million tons of food that could have fed the third world then? They're sold in the first world to generate profit. -That- is waste.


6. Marx is wrong because he thinks the bourgeoisie are like the aristocracy which they aren't. They don't own the means of production, they make it. The bourgeoisie are like Bill Gates in which they start from nothing and become rich through hard work. The means of production only apply to feudal agrarian societies where the lords owned the land. Today farmers own their own land.

That's just wrong. Think of Henry Ford, he was bourgesie. He owned all of his factories, forcing other people to sell their work to him (Ofcourse, he only owned them, because the police and army said so). Same thing goes for Bill Gates. Bill Gates owns the means of production for creating software, generic software developer 001 doesn't, so he has to sell his work to Bill Gates in return for money that he can go out and consume for to further some other bourgesie rich person's immense abundance.
Bob, a guy with 60 hours work week, 3 kids and a wife to feed, doesn't become rich off of his hard work. I wonder why? Perhaps because hard work doesn't give great profit under capitalism? Luck does. The luck of being born into an aristocratic family, or, the luck of being the first to have the money to create microsoft, doesn't matter, it's the same thing.


7. Communism is closer to feudalism in its limits to market enterprise.

Is it bad to limit the havoc wrought by the market forces? Yes. We can't settle on limiting, we have to completely eradicate them.
Feudalism is not a limitation of it though. I like to think of the feudalist system as something that rose from non-industrialized capitalism. Market forces allowed the aristocrats to accumulate wealth, and the peasants then sold their work to the aristocrats. It's capitalism all over again, from my point of view.


8. Communism is the removal of individual freedom and 'class struggle' is the construct of a crazy German man.

Communism is not neccasarily the removal of individual freedom (It depends what kind we're talking about, from my view point, stalinists for instance haven't shown great support of it, although I have never read any of Stalins works, so I can only judge by how the Soviet Union functioned then). For instance, I would prefer the removal of state as known under capitalism, and the implementation of a worker self-management to govern things.

And the second is just silly and a sign of desperation, since Marx was not crazy.


9. Standard of living has gotten much better for everyone. Workers don't suffer, etc.

Hear that, third world worker? Your life is much better than it would have been if the bourgesie shared their abundance with you!

That, and the reason the standard of living is increasing, is an increase of technology in this sector. That, and the counter revolutionary ideology of Social Democracy, where the bourgesie settle with minor losses of capital, for (immediate) protection from revolution. This doesn't change, in my view, that capitalism is progressive, and competition will eventually drive the bourgesie to ruin the security system they made (Social Democracy), since it'll get cheaper. Then the revolution commences and everybody are happy.

Anyone want to correct me? :unsure:

[Tatarin]

3. A communist state (i.e. USSR) is all communism was, is, and will ever be. Everyone saying that communist state is inaccurate or wrong stop commenting on political science. Just stop. You're embarrassing yourselves. You're completely and totally ignorant of not only the subject, but to how the world actually operates outside of theory.

In that case, democracy and freedom has also failed, and anyone trying to debate that is wrong. Democracy and freedom has, for example, killed 500 000 people in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we can clearly see the horrible results (in Iraq and Afghanistan) of what it means to be free and democratic.

[Rasmus]

I'd argue that the situation in Iraq has not been caused by freedom, rather, faction 1 attempting to force faction 2 into being like faction 1. The situation is thus created from the lack of freedom given to faction 2.

Neo-conservatism is not an ideology that emphasizes freedom in any way. They want to take away freedom from their enemies and force them to submit to the dictatorship of the capital. I don't see the freedom in that.

So, I don't think freedom failed. I think Imperialism and Neo-conservatism aren't a manifestation of freedom, rather the drive for profit overshadowing the need to take care of other people.

[supernaltempest]

OK this guy just won't give up. He keeps insisting that what happened in the 20th century is what communism will ever amount to, that theoretical communism will never happen, that it is a fantasy.

No matter how many times I insist that what happened in the 20th century was not communism and that it bears no proof to anything, he's being stubborn as hell.

What to do in this situation?

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 10:34 pm
OK this guy just won't give up. He keeps insisting that what happened in the 20th century is what communism will ever amount to, that theoretical communism will never happen, that it is a fantasy.

No matter how many times I insist that what happened in the 20th century was not communism and that it bears no proof to anything, he's being stubborn as hell.

What to do in this situation?
I think he is right...

Through bolchevism their true communism can never be acheived, this can only happen with the imediate abolition of the bourguoise state.

[Rasmus]

Well, I usually point out that there's more than one way of realising communism, and so far there's only been very few of them tested.

Personally, I believe that part of the reason that communism in Russia desolved into collapse, was that it tried to keep up with USA in an arms race with it's modest industrial capacity, instead of trying to eradicate hunger and so on. And while things in the Soviet Union were better than in old Russia, they were just not as good as they could have been. That, and I believe that an important part of communism is very quickly post-revolution to bring the people in general into the matter of governing the state. Work place self-management and workers councils in the communes to distribute food for instance, while representatives from these councils then distribute resources between communes as needed.

Centrally we have the ordinary person's right to decide how he wants his life. Everyone must, ofcourse, have the possibility to study and have a home and so on. Secondly, people should decide what working conditions should be like. That's democracy, and if that is quickly instituted, people wont care about not being able to choose a new person every four years.

[supernaltempest]

OK now the guys says that we communists are ignorant about the fact of societal evolution. He says that even if this communist society succeeds that a government will reform.

He admits that humanity cannot function without a state.

[Rasmus]

Wrong. Just...wrong.

The state is the tool of one class to suppress another. If there is only one class, there can't be a state. A government in some form may exist though.

[Tatarin]

I'd argue that the situation in Iraq has not been caused by freedom, rather, faction 1 attempting to force faction 2 into being like faction 1. The situation is thus created from the lack of freedom given to faction 2.

Yes. My argument was from the perspective of the media, so to say, as they call the former Soviet Union communist, it would be just like saying that freedom caused the mess that's in Iraq today. Thus an argument against those who thinks communism will be what the Soviet Union was.


Well, I usually point out that there's more than one way of realising communism, and so far there's only been very few of them tested.

Theoretically, I would say there is two ways. One is communism, that is, overthrowing the bourgeois, establish a democratic state ruled by the proletariat, distribute the wealth and creating the path towards a free society, and finally dismantle the state.

The other one is anarchism, which is skipping the middle step of socialism, and instead going directly for a class- and stateless society.

Personally, after all this time I haven't really figured either one. In the former, there is always risk for corruption, or even a return to capitalism. I kind-of lean towards this option.

In anarchism, if there is no "set of policies" in place, then what is there to stop independent "non-progressive" states/nations/regions to be formed? In other words, if a great catalyst hit the planet tomorrow, wouldn't people simply return to the system we have now?


OK now the guys says that we communists are ignorant about the fact of societal evolution. He says that even if this communist society succeeds that a government will reform.

I would say that a form of government will be in place, sure. A form of council. But that "government" will be controlled by the people, it will always be possible to change it. Communism is on a much smaller level, it won't be the huge federal government that controls a whole continent like now, blind to the needs of the local people - but communities.

Think of it as a network of communities, all over the world.


He admits that humanity cannot function without a state.

That depends on his meaning of state. Can we live without the kind of states we have today? Yes, we can. People have been living in small communities for most hundreds of years, all who were self sustaining most of the time. While their ideologies may not have been communist, it at least shows that people do not need huge states to control them.

Besides, if taking the path of communism, it is the mission of socialism to end the state.

[kromando33]

supernaltempest, the more you study Marxism-Leninism the more cynical you become and the harder it is to change your mind, as opposed to the left-liberal garbage which which you can see through at a moments glance.

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 10:34 pm
What to do in this situation?
Once it's clear that he won't be convinced, he becomes a prop on your stage. If it's a public forum, the other readers, including an unknown number of anonymous readers, are all who matter. Cite him as an example of what some illogical arguments tend to look like. Summarize your evidence with a brief outline, and declare confidently that your case has been proven.