Will i still be able to get a sportscar?

[534634634265]

I have, throughout my driving lifetime, bought cars that i could "tune". when the great revolution comes, will i still be able to buy tuners? will corvettes and ferrari's and other "supercars" still exist? or will we all drive der volkswagen, some crappy mass produced car with little to no tuner potential or driveability?

[Bud Struggle]

I have, throughout my driving lifetime, bought cars that i could "tune". when the great revolution comes, will i still be able to buy tuners? will corvettes and ferrari's and other "supercars" still exist? or will we all drive der volkswagen, some crappy mass produced car with little to no tuner potential or driveability?

Marx said: From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. My daughter's going to need a Lotus Elise S next year when she turns 16.

http://www.edmunds.com/media/roadtests/firstdrive/2009/lotus.elise.sc/08.lotus.elise.sc.340.jpg

Seriously, though--who's going to know the difference between Spode and Wedgewood for table service? Murano and Waterford for your glassware? How about silverware? If we all make the same--who'll afford the candles at dinner? Will your spurs be steel or sterling?

Who will make the "better" things if no one has the money to afford them?

[534634634265]

Marx said: From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. My daughter's going to need a Lotus Elise S next year when she turns 16.

http://www.edmunds.com/media/roadtests/firstdrive/2009/lotus.elise.sc/08.lotus.elise.sc.340.jpg
as will i, seeing as i almost cream my pants when i see those in real life.
EDIT: or their new car, the Exige i believe. both will make you shit brix.

[comrade stalin guevara]

going back to your other thread, greed
why would anyone need a sports car when a larda would
get you around the same,
theres laws against speeding so dont even say cos its faster.

[Bud Struggle]

going back to your other thread, greed
why would anyone need a sports car when a larda would
get you around the same,
theres laws against speeding so dont even say cos its faster.

Spoken like a true Communist. :( :)

[534634634265]

going back to your other thread, greed
why would anyone need a sports car when a larda would
get you around the same,
theres laws against speeding so dont even say cos its faster.
post in that thread, don't hijack this one.

and faster is what matters, friend. driving a car should be enjoyable, not a chore. take your lard-o and shove it if it can't handle well or go above 100 mph.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Yeah, you might have to wait a bit, but you should be able to get a sports car. Though it will be electric, dunno if you're attached to that engine hum. But it will go from 0-60 in under 5 seconds.

[Bud Struggle]

Yeah, you might have to wait a bit, but you should be able to get a sports car. Though it will be electric, dunno if you're attached to that engine hum. But it will go from 0-60 in under 5 seconds.

Great! Can I have mine in red. :lol:

Joe, what about all the other expensive stuff--will I still be able to have that, too?

[danyboy27]

Great! Can I have mine in red. :lol:

Joe, what about all the other expensive stuff--will I still be able to have that, too?


i had some thinking about that recently, you know, how this would end for some luxuries commodities.

i am pretty confident that many thing could still avaliable like nice food for exemple.

perhaps a communist regime could havea part of its production dedicated to entertainement, and lend fast car at will to whoever wanna borrow one for a ride or 2.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Great! Can I have mine in red. :lol:

Joe, what about all the other expensive stuff--will I still be able to have that, too?

"expensive" doesn't follow. There is no price system post rev. Define "expensive things."

[Bud Struggle]

"expensive" doesn't follow. There is no price system post rev. Define "expensive things."

Right. Can I have my Murano chandelier and my J Press jackets and my Arabian horses and my Bentley? Will there even be anyone to make these kinds of things after the revolution?

[534634634265]

Yeah, you might have to wait a bit, but you should be able to get a sports car. Though it will be electric, dunno if you're attached to that engine hum. But it will go from 0-60 in under 5 seconds.
i assume you mean the tesla car? i would be happy with that. the tesla roadster is SICK.

for Tomk and others, the concept of "expensive" will change as prices and pay are standardized, right?

EDIT: i am a proponent of socialism only, not a communist revolution.

[danyboy27]

i assume you mean the tesla car? i would be happy with that. the tesla roadster is SICK.

for Tomk and others, the concept of "expensive" will change as prices and pay are standardized, right?

EDIT: i am a proponent of socialism only, not a communist revolution.

well, perhas you can replace expensive by rare in that case.

a lot of car are expensive beccause of the verry fews that are produced, and for really good reason, for exemple, that most of people buy familial car, so only a fews expensive sport car are produced. Some car are expensive only beccause of the brand.

perhaps a socialist/communist society could manufacture a certain number of sport car according to other peoples need, but so far i havnt been verry impressed by what other countries done in that optic, so perhaps another way could be possible.

[534634634265]

i would be a proponent of production of a limited number of sports cars, and those who saved enough or waited long enough would be able to get one. a sports car is a well built machine, so it would last through several generations. plus, you could replace parts with better parts, like larger turbo's or newer suspension. it would depend on the degree of standardization.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Right. Can I have my Murano chandelier and my J Press jackets and my Arabian horses and my Bentley? Will there even be anyone to make these kinds of things after the revolution?

Most of it. Though nobody is gonna give you much help with those horses unless you share them. Prolly will only be able to keep one or two.

Hopefully most goods post rev will all be luxury. Most products under capitalism are deliberately made of poor quality. Shoddy products don't last as long, driving up sales. Products post rev will be built to last as long as possible, and built to be repaired easily, rather than replaced. Kropotkin in Mutual Aid (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html) talks of the cooperative guilds in Middle Ages. How even their muskets were decorated with the utmost craft. This is something we should aim for post rev.

Though there might be a divide between more utilitarian goods, and custom made goods. Custom made goods will ostensibly take longer to receive and may not get produced if materials run scarce. But even the utilitarian goods should do the job well.

[danyboy27]

i would be a proponent of production of a limited number of sports cars, and those who saved enough or waited long enough would be able to get one. a sports car is a well built machine, so it would last through several generations. plus, you could replace parts with better parts, like larger turbo's or newer suspension. it would depend on the degree of standardization.


and what about 1 model of car, massively produced, but specially designed to be able to install its own motor, gear and stuff.

there would be special factories that would build custom frame and such, hard to make stuff would get delay but simple stuff would be manufactured easily.

[534634634265]

not possible to standardize to one vehicle. we need trucks for hauling shit, wagons for people, vans for companies, etc. sports cars would be separate, and only produced in small quantity in my conceptual socialist country.also, all cars would also be backwards compatible for at least 10 yrs in order to facilitate upgrading an older car as opposed to getting in line for a new one.

[pusher robot]

for Tomk and others, the concept of "expensive" will change as prices and pay are standardized, right?

Not really. In a competitive capitalist economy, the price is roughly equal to the cost in labor and resources of production. These consumptions of labor and resources will still be necessary to produce, even if you decline to measure them in dollar figures.

[danyboy27]

not possible to standardize to one vehicle. we need trucks for hauling shit, wagons for people, vans for companies, etc. sports cars would be separate, and only produced in small quantity in my conceptual socialist country.also, all cars would also be backwards compatible for at least 10 yrs in order to facilitate upgrading an older car as opposed to getting in line for a new one.


i like that! i am sold!

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

not possible to standardize to one vehicle. we need trucks for hauling shit, wagons for people, vans for companies, etc. sports cars would be separate, and only produced in small quantity in my conceptual socialist country.also, all cars would also be backwards compatible for at least 10 yrs in order to facilitate upgrading an older car as opposed to getting in line for a new one.

Yes it is. Two words; modular production.

[534634634265]

Yes it is. Two words modular production.
how would you cram a V10 engine into the frame of a family sedan? or do you propose all engines be electric?

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

how would you cram a V10 engine into the frame of a family sedan? or do you propose all engines be electric?

Why not? Better torque, almost no moving parts, more efficient, its a better engine on almost all counts.

[Yes]

No, you can't have a sports car. You can have a Trabant though :thumbup1:

[Lost In Translation]

I have, throughout my driving lifetime, bought cars that i could "tune". when the great revolution comes, will i still be able to buy tuners? will corvettes and ferrari's and other "supercars" still exist? or will we all drive der volkswagen, some crappy mass produced car with little to no tuner potential or driveability?

NO LAMBOURGINI FOR YOU! EVERYBODY GETS TATA MOTORS' NEW $2500 MICRO or whatever the hell they call it.

But seriously, I don't see the point of owning a sportscar. I see the luxury car industry folding in a few years (under capitalism, even).

[Plagueround]

Right. Can I have my Murano chandelier and my J Press jackets and my Arabian horses and my Bentley? Will there even be anyone to make these kinds of things after the revolution?

Your moods on this site shifts from genuinely interested to sarcastically haughty...but you're still probably one of the more interesting people here.

My guess on this one would be the "expensive" things would probably be related to those "incentives" many of the people on this site refer to. I honestly wouldn't venture to guess beyond that because it's not really in my realm of expertise.

[Hiero]

It is really a easy question.

No you wont be able to buy sports cars.

In Communism there is no expliotation. In socialism we strive for communism and break down expliotation through primary nationalisation and collectivisation.

For the creation of sports cars and for their to exist people who can afford it requires a expliotative relationship. 1) Expliotation of labour to create sports cars for a minority of the world's population who can afford it 2) The expliotation of labour by the bourgieoise for profit, the expliotation of 3rd world proleteriat for the creation of 1st world citizens (and the world's bourgeiosie) who can afford sports cars.

These questions are really stupid, do people want to be assured that when the worlds proleteriat continue the movement to address the contradictions between explioted and explioter that their parasitic lifestyle will continue? Explioter and oppresor are going to lose big time in this world revolution. People like Tomk will be in gulags. No offence, but I am really not interested in trying to assue anyone of anything or convert you to particular ideology.

This question has nothing to do with greed versus egalitarian morals, it has to do with resources being used to feed the needs of the worlds poor. So no sports cars.

[Plagueround]

It is really a easy question.

No you wont be able to buy sports cars.

In Communism there is no expliotation. In socialism we strive for communism and break down expliotation through primary nationalisation and collectivisation.

For the creation of sports cars and for their to exist people who can afford it requires a expliotative relationship. 1) Expliotation of labour to create sports cars for a minority of the world's population who can afford it 2) The expliotation of labour by the bourgieoise for profit, the expliotation of 3rd world proleteriat for the creation of 1st world citizens and the world's bourgeiosie who can afford sports cars.

These questions are really stupid, do people want to assurd that when the worlds proleteriat continue the movement to address the contradictions between explioted and explioter that their parasitic lifestyle will continue? Explioter and oppresor are going to lose big time in this world revolution. People like Tomk will be in gulags. No offence, but I am not really interestedd in trying to assue of anything or convert you to anything.

This question has nothing to do with greed versus egalitarian morals, it has to do with resources being used to feed the needs of the worlds poor. So no sports cars.

Blunt, but a good answer nonetheless. I suppose a shift in thinking to something more altruistic is key, not wondering how we can find a way to ensure we will have things others will not. Thank you, Hiero.

[534634634265]

i started this mentioning that i tune cars i own, and asked if it was expected that cars after "the revolution" would be tune-able. also, your idea of our goals differs from mine. my goal is realized when we achieve a socialist state, yours i would consider idealistic and more unlikely than mine even. you can create and own a sports car even if your poor as fuck, its where sports cars got its start(liqour smuggling, NASCAR, OMFG). i want a car thats enjoyable to drive, that doesn't make me a capitalist oppressor, so get your ideological shorts out of your ass. to equate the existence of sports cars with the capitalist state is ridiculous.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Agreed, we should be able to provide everyone with kickass cars. This "socialism=everyone getting less" really is never going to appeal to workers and it shouldn't. Post rev should provide cool stuff, not as much physical crap, but cool stuff nonetheless.

[Decolonize The Left]

i started this mentioning that i tune cars i own, and asked if it was expected that cars after "the revolution" would be tune-able. also, your idea of our goals differs from mine. my goal is realized when we achieve a socialist state, yours i would consider idealistic and more unlikely than mine even. you can create and own a sports car even if your poor as fuck, its where sports cars got its start(liqour smuggling, NASCAR, OMFG). i want a car thats enjoyable to drive, that doesn't make me a capitalist oppressor, so get your ideological shorts out of your ass. to equate the existence of sports cars with the capitalist state is ridiculous.

All I read from you is "I want... I want..." *whine* *whine *whine*...

No one cares if you want a sports car. No one cares if you think there should be a sports car after the revolution. No one cares if you like to 'tune' your car.

Speculation about what products might be available after the revolution is not only pointless, but also destructive to the very cause. Your materialism and desire for consumer goods betrays the collective intentions of the left.

We revolutionaries are concerned with the well-being of the majority of the world's population - the proletariat.

We are not concerned with whether you, or anyone else, wants a specific car with a specific speed etc... this is for little whiny people who are too depressed at their own existence to do something with their lives and so have to purchase things to make themselves feel better.

- August

[Plagueround]

Agreed, we should be able to provide everyone with kickass cars. This "socialism=everyone getting less" really is never going to appeal to workers and it shouldn't. Post rev should provide cool stuff, not as much physical crap, but cool stuff nonetheless.

That's not what I felt was implied when I read it. Nowhere in Hiero's (or mine) post did I read anything that people wouldn't have nice cars, just that they wouldn't have cars they could hold over others as their "expensive" sports cars.

[NerdVincent]

Well I think I've got the answer: we'll have an equal pay. You'll be free to do whatever you want with it, as long as you accept privations (smaller tv set...) to buy something as useless as car tuning stuff.
The other question is wether somebody will still produce things as useless as tuning stuff or not. I'd say that yes, but that it will be voluntary craftmen. If it is really a hobby, there will still be some weirdos producing turbos in their garage.
But as a guitarist, I understand you pretty well. I wondered if there would be only one-quality guitar gear or something like that, but I remembered that the best guitars are made by luthiers, not international compagnies like Gibson or Fender...

[mykittyhasaboner]

id think that cars wouldn't even be used as much, as public transportation would be utilized a lot more by the public. i mean, do we really want to use cars as primary transportation? driving is the cause for millions of deaths per year. its really a barbaric method of transportation.

i think roads should just have tracks built over them.

[danyboy27]

well, even in a communist society, entertainement ant thrill should be something that need to be considered. if communism generate the shitload of surplyus its supposed to deliver, has many of you say in your lick ass theory, then why not use that surplus for entertainement?

here in canada, people get together to see fast car running into circle during 3 hour, i think its dumb, but well, somehow that a community thing, that a thrill.

to me stuff like fast car, at a certain extent, would be good.

[NerdVincent]

id think that cars wouldn't even be used as much, as public transportation would be utilized a lot more by the public. i mean, do we really want to use cars as primary transportation? driving is the cause for millions of deaths per year. its really a barbaric method of transportation.

i think roads should just have tracks built over them.
I can't agree more. The development of public transportation should be a priority. For the economical, practical and environmental side.

[NerdVincent]

well, even in a communist society, entertainement ant thrill should be something that need to be considered. if communism generate the shitload of surplus its supposed to deliver, has many of you say in your lick ass theory, then why not use that surplus for entertainement?

here in canada, people get together to see fast car running into circle during 3 hour, i think its dumb, but well, somehow that a community thing, that a thrill.

to me stuff like fast car, at a certain extent, would be good.

Don't worry, as an artist I don't see this cold image of uniformity of entertainment in communism. I think that the only thing that would change would be that music wouldn't be a mere business ruining the artistic side of the thing. Paul LaFargue actually stated that since people would have more free time we would develop art and hobbies on a way bigger scale.
For fast car... well I actually think that it is a bit expensive for a hobby. Dunno for F1, but I think that the personal use of sport car would still be a personal choice. If it entertain you, well good for you. You'll probably be condemned to sleep in your car but it will still be a choice.

[politics student]

going back to your other thread, greed
why would anyone need a sports car when a larda would
get you around the same,
theres laws against speeding so dont even say cos its faster.

Why would we promote the sale of highly fuel inefficient cars when we can build far more fuel efficient cars we also would build up a highly efficient cheap public transport service.

[Dr Mindbender]

technocracy would manufacture these flamboyant cars on the same capacity as regular cars. But with efficient engines.

[Dr Mindbender]

Why would we promote the sale of highly fuel inefficient cars when we can build far more fuel efficient cars we also would build up a highly efficient cheap public transport service.

because people 'value their space'. Which is fair enough to me. Without the price system involved i dont see why everyone cant have a car. On the condition we remove our reliance on the pollutive and wasteful four stroke cycle, of course.

[Killfacer]

the general answer appears to be: "you wont have a nice car, you will have a shitty soviet era peice of junk. Thats because you wont want a nice car".

So can we have any luxuries or are we all gonna drive about in little red cars.

[Bud Struggle]

Agreed, we should be able to provide everyone with kickass cars. This "socialism=everyone getting less" really is never going to appeal to workers and it shouldn't. Post rev should provide cool stuff, not as much physical crap, but cool stuff nonetheless.


Well, here I am agreeing with Joe Hill's Ghost!

They tried that bland "equality" with a heave dose of scarcity in the Soviet Union and people there were more than happy it went away.

You have to make life interesting for people--their curiosity has to be indulged, they have to have a bit of fun or the Counter Revolution will be just around the corner.

At least we can all agree that I'll be in some Gulag. :lol:

[disobey]

In a socialist society with a state, it would be state's responsibility to decide who would be eligible for such items (such as "sports cars") and allocate them accordingly via a waiting list system or similar (as it was East Germany for example). This in itself lends to inequality over time. Therefore such ideas are not proponents of socialism in this case, as nobody can claim to "need" a sports car or other luxury item that others do not have access to.

And surely in a society without a state, the people would act more collectively in that their means of production was not enabled by the state and thus if some wanted sports cars, wouldn't they have manufacture their own?

It has always been my belief that if the state is to provide to each according to his or her need, then this must be on a limited basis - for example it would only include housing, public transport, food, a minimum living wage/welfare benefit (for the transient period between revolution and abolishment of the currency system). The line has to be drawn somewhere - of course the "where" is down to the people.

If we look at the "ratchet effect" of modern global capitalism, year on year, each citizen of a capitalist country not only expects an increase in their personal earnings, but also expects their buying power vs. market prices to increase so that they can purchase a percentage more than they could the previous year. Obviously this is down to the system of perpetual growth that goes with capitalism - but in a socialist society this can no longer be tolerated. Infinitely increasing expectations and consumption in a world of finite energy and resources is impossible and ultimately leads to destruction of the entire biosphere and ecosystem, something which, requiring so much forward planning to avert, capitalism is completely incapable of preventing.

In my own context, I would be more than happy to get rid of my car (which I have downsized several times in the name of efficiency) if there was a decent public transport system to replace it. Currently the way our economy in the UK works, this is not the case -- it's still more cost effective to drive to work, despite being much less efficient.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Infinitely increasing expectations and consumption in a world of finite energy and resources is impossible and ultimately leads to destruction of the entire biosphere and ecosystem, something which, requiring so much forward planning to avert, capitalism is completely incapable of preventing.

An increase in consumption habits is nothing to look down at. Civilizations progress from man's wants. Recycling with a 90%+ turn around and reinvesting in woodland are bigger goals than just cutting back consumption. Arguments like these aren't going to do any good. Nor do I want to give up my car. People rarely take kindly to knowing they'll get less, which is part of the reason capitalists don't (usually) end up being socialist, and the aristocrats favored feudalism.

I imagine it would be quite plausible to get the car of your choice. A lot of material is spent on cars (and toys, and furniture, and certainly food) most people otherwise wouldn't get if given the choice - however, the price system dictates that there must be a market for different income groups. Obviously it's up to the people, but I could see workers' councils setting a 2-3 year waiting period between each car, meaning you can't get a new car until this time frame passes. If your car is totaled by your own recklessness - assuming your drivers' license isn't taken away (if they do exist) - you could pick up an "old" car.

[Dr Mindbender]

An increase in consumption habits is nothing to look down at. Civilizations progress from man's wants. Recycling with 90%+ turn around and reinvesting in woodland are bigger goals than just cutting back consumption. Arguments like these aren't going to do any good. Nor do I want to give up my car. People rarely take kindly to knowing they'll get less, which is part of the reason capitalists don't (usually) end up being socialist, and the aristocrats favored feudalism.



Correctly said.

[disobey]

An increase in consumption habits is nothing to look down at. Civilizations progress from man's wants. Recycling with a 90%+ turn around and reinvesting in woodland are bigger goals than just cutting back consumption. Arguments like these aren't going to do any good. Nor do I want to give up my car. People rarely take kindly to knowing they'll get less, which is part of the reason capitalists don't (usually) end up being socialist, and the aristocrats favored feudalism.

Are you sure this is feasible though with a projected 9+ billion people on the planet by 2030? There are currently 6.7 billion mouths to feed, on a planet which only has permanent the carrying capacity of 250-500 million when you remove fossil fuel inputs from agriculture (such as oil and natural gas).

Maybe I'm just a worrier. :)

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Are you sure this is feasible though with a projected 9+ billion people on the planet by 2030? There are currently 6.7 billion mouths to feed, on a planet which only has permanent the carrying capacity of 250-500 million when you remove fossil fuel inputs from agriculture (such as oil and natural gas).

Maybe I'm just a worrier. :)

Vertical farms and other forms of intensive hydroponics can already produce enough food to feed populations of 15-20 billion. We just haven't invested in it yet properly. Malthus is,was, and always will be wrong.

[Killfacer]

so genecosta, say i wanted a Lotus Elise or a Bugati Veyron they would just make it for me? Or would they have a list of cars you could pick from? Because it would be extremely difficult for people to handmake thousands of sports cars.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

so genecosta, say i wanted a Lotus Elise or a Bugati Veyron they would just make it for me? Or would they have a list of cars you could pick from? Because it would be extremely difficult for people to handmake thousands of sports cars.

Customized automated production isn't out of the question. Like we've been saying, the productive capacity is there, its a matter of wait times. A customized car, which requires a higher level of non automated labor, and atypical materials, could take longer to get through a production queue.

[Led Zeppelin]

Sports cars and other "luxury items" would be created by order, so there would be a waiting-period before the product is finished, since you have to order it first.

However, given the material conditions of a post-scarcity society you wouldn't have to wait long, a lot less than saving up for it under the capitalist system anyway.

[Killfacer]

your telling me that in a global communist society, they are gonna mae everyone fat off lotus elises with huge speakers and customized stuff. Thats bullshit.

[Led Zeppelin]

your telling me that in a global communist society, they are gonna mae everyone fat off lotus elises with huge speakers and customized stuff. Thats bullshit.

Do you know what scarcity means? Now, do you know what post-scarcity means?

Ok, then move on.

[Killfacer]

you have missed the point. It simply isnt going to be possible, even in "a post-scarcity", to make everyone in the world a different sportscar.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

you have missed the point. It simply isnt going to be possible, even in "a post-scarcity", to make everyone in the world a different sportscar.

Does everyone really want a sports car?

We have to look at the material situation here. Most human habitats will be reengineered to eliminate as much unnecessary transit as possible. Ideally we should be able to build communities where home, work, and recreation are all within walking distance. Mass transit, bullet trains, jet planes, and the ever desirous suborbital flight, should take care of most long distance trips. So that leaves little use for passenger driving outside of some mild distance traveling, the odd road trip, mild commutes, and joyriding.

[Killfacer]

so now you have changed your argument to "not everyone will want one".

[Bud Struggle]

Joe, you seem to have glossed over the post where you and I agree.

Just thought I'd mention it. :)

[Bud Struggle]

Do you know what scarcity means? Now, do you know what post-scarcity means?

Ok, then move on.

I've actually seen: been there saw that, scarcity in the Soviet Union and Soviet block countries. I've been to supermarkets with NOTHING in them. Big hulking stores with nothing in the middle and with counters on each wall with nothing in them-people behind the counter saying come back tomorrow.

As far as post scarcity goes--the supermarkets of present day Russia are full.

Is that what you are talking about?

[Led Zeppelin]

so now you have changed your argument to "not everyone will want one".

Actually I never said that, and neither did Joe Hill.

He was merely saying that the change in environment would lessen the need and desire for things, such as sports cars in this case.

For example, I don't want a sports car. I might want to drive around in one for a while to see what it's like, but I don't care about owning one. I'm sure that there are many others like me, and I'm also sure that there are many others who actually do want a sports car.

What is the solution to their desire in capitalism? Work, get money, or tough luck.

Well, work, that's a good answer, it just sucks if you work a job that only pays minimum wage and you have a family to feed. There goes the dream of owning a sports car.

And let's be honest, the vast majority of people living under capitalist systems cannot afford sports cars.

In a communist society, people have access to public transportion, they aren't brought up in a commercialistic bullshit consumer society which tells them that the more things you have the happier you should be, and there are many other factors that contribute to the change in perception on owning a sports car.

But what if a person does want a sports car? Well, fine, we'll make one for you, but you'll have to wait until it's finished. Given the fact that technology has advanced to such a great extent and the vast majority of the world is "industrialized", or even "post-industrialized", you could say that it would not take long or cost much in terms of human labor and resources.

Seems fair enough to me, a lot better than never being able to have one because you can't afford it.


I've actually seen: been there saw that, scarcity in the Soviet Union and Soviet block countries. I've been to supermarkets with NOTHING in them. Big hulking stores with nothing in the middle and with counters on each wall with nothing in them-people behind the counter saying come back tomorrow.

Why are you using examples of Stalinist states when we are talking about communism, which implies a post-scarcity society?

The USSR didn't even claim to be communist, so what the hell are you talking about?



As far as post scarcity goes--the supermarkets of present day Russia are full.

They're full, but a lot less people have access to them.

I wonder why.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

so now you have changed your argument to "not everyone will want one".

Not everyone wants one now, under capitalism, and long distance commutes. If we eliminated the material cause of most driving, why would that number go up? Ostensibly many people might all share a joyriding car, since well, how many joyrides can you take? Car enthusiasts can certainly have their own customized super cars. But most people aren't car enthusiasts. Its a matter of choice and ability. If you choose to have one, you have the ability to easily procure it. But most don't want one in the first place.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Joe, you seem to have glossed over the post where you and I agree.

Just thought I'd mention it. :)
Give a monkey a typewriter and it's bound to write hamlet sometime.

[Bud Struggle]

Give a monkey a typewriter and it's bound to write hamlet sometime.

Kiss my ass--we agreed. :lol:

[Bud Struggle]

Why are you using examples of Stalinist states when we are talking about communism, which implies a post-scarcity society?

The USSR didn't even claim to be communist, so what the hell are you talking about? YES, they claimed to be Communist, I've been there done that--trust me on that one. (You really can't be serious, can you?)




They're full, but a lot less people have access to them.

I wonder why. There's details to be worked out.

You guys aren't much interested, but I can give you horror stories of the Soviet Union 20 years ago. Not Gulag stuff--but the daily humiliations of buying food, and getting deceived with bad or rotten produce. Bad coffee--I was staying with some people and they thought they scored some COFFEE beans. They seemed green--so we tried roasting them---anyway, no way to live a life.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

YES, they claimed to be Communist, I've been there done that--trust me on that one. (You really can't be serious, can you?)



There's details to be worked out.

You guys aren't much interested, but I can give you horror stories of the Soviet Union 20 years ago. Not Gulag stuff--but the daily humiliations of buying food, and getting deceived with bad or rotten produce. Bad coffee--I was staying with some people and they thought they scored some COFFEE beans. They seemed green--so we tried roasting them---anyway, no way to live a life.

Your point? USSR circa 1988 was pretty much a capitalist regime with bureacrats for owners.

[Led Zeppelin]

YES, they claimed to be Communist, I've been there done that--trust me on that one. (You really can't be serious, can you?)

Are you fucking kidding me?

If you don't know this stuff already you should really stop wasting my time and go read something.

Do you even know what USSR stands for? Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

There's a difference between a socialist and communist society and the USSR never claimed to be communist, that would be moronic because a communist society implies a post-scarcity stateless society.


There's details to be worked out.

You guys aren't much interested, but I can give you horror stories of the Soviet Union 20 years ago. Not Gulag stuff--but the daily humiliations of buying food, and getting deceived with bad or rotten produce. Bad coffee--I was staying with some people and they thought they scored some COFFEE beans. They seemed green--so we tried roasting them---anyway, no way to live a life.

Stalinism sucks, sure, but I've been to Moscow in 2005, and I can tell some horror stories too.

The difference is that there are a lot more of them to be told now.

Watch the documentary The Death of A Nation - Russia or go read a book or something.

[Bud Struggle]

Are you fucking kidding me?

If you don't know this stuff already you should really stop wasting my time and go read something.

Do you even know what USSR stands for? Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

There's a difference between a socialist and communist society and the USSR never claimed to be communist, that would be moronic because a communist society implies a post-scarcity stateless society.



Stalinism sucks, sure, but I've been to Moscow in 2005, and I can tell some horror stories too.

The difference is that there are a lot more of them to be told now.

Watch the documentary The Death of A Nation - Russia or go read a book or something.

Yea, in a psot Soviet world--it's easy to say "they ain't us!" but that's what Communism was for the longest time--the entire CPUSA for 50 years was built around obedience to the USSR.

Easy to dismiss it all, but for lots pf people around our world to think of communism is to think of Stalin and Mao.

Time to forget the past and build a new type of Communism.

[Led Zeppelin]

Yea, in a psot Soviet world--it's easy to say "they ain't us!" but that's what Communism was for the longest time--the entire CPUSA for 50 years was built around obedience to the USSR.

Easy to dismiss it all, but for lots pf people around our world to think of communism is to think of Stalin and Mao.

Time to forget the past and build a new type of Communism.

Well you can start by writing it without a capital c because that actually refers to the official Soviet "Communism" line.

The fact of the matter is that you have not read anything about socialist or communist theory, because if you had done this, you would have known that there is a difference between a socialist and a communist society. It is a common misconception that "the USSR was communist", hell, I believed that myself when I was 14 and just got into the revolutionary leftist movement.

However, our job is not to indulge in such misconceptions, it is to alleviate people of them, right?

So, I suggest that you start reading some books on the matter before you write about it.

I can suggest the basic works of Marx and Engels, then moving on to other works.

Or you can just skip all that and go straight to State and Revolution by Lenin which is a pretty good summary of communist theory, and even some anarchists like it: The State and Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm)

[Bud Struggle]

Well you can start by writing it without a capital c because that actually refers to the official Soviet "Communism" line.

The fact of the matter is that you have not read anything about socialist or communist theory, because if you had done this, you would have known that there is a difference between a socialist and a communist society. It is a common misconception that "the USSR was communist", hell, I believed that myself when I was 14 and just got into the revolutionary leftist movement.

However, our job is not to indulge in such misconceptions, it is to alleviate people of them, right?

So, I suggest that you start reading some books on the matter before you write about it.

I can suggest the basic works of Marx and Engels, then moving on to other works.

Or you can just skip all that and go straight to State and Revolution by Lenin which is a pretty good summary of communist theory, and even some anarchists like it: The State and Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm)

EXACTLY wrong.

I've seen what practioners of Marx and Engles have done. I've seen the world they've created. I've been to the SU and I've been to China and I've seen it all.

It's up to YOU to say how you are different, not me to disavow what I've seen. I've seen Communism--why the heck should I think you are any different than all the other Communist totalitarian bastards that came before you?

I don't want to read some book--I want to know why I should trust you, when so many Communists have failed in their trust to humanity before?

I'm doing something--you it seems are just talking trash, like so many communist before.

[Led Zeppelin]

EXACTLY wrong.

I've seen what practioners of Marx and Engles have done. I've seen the world they've created. I've been to the SU and I've been to China and I've seen it all.

It's up to YOU to say how you are different, not me to disavow what I've seen. I've seen Communism--why the heck should I think you are any different than all the other Communist totalitarian bastards that came before you?

I don't want to read some book--I want to know why I should trust you, when so many Communists have failed in their trust to humanity before?

Well if you read those books you would know that the USSR and China were never communist to begin with, and if you read some more books you would know why.

But fine, stay ignorant, I have nothing to gain from you either way.


I'm doing something--you it seems are just talking trash, like so many communist before.

I'm the one who's talking trash? You just said that the USSR and China were communist, you're a fucking jester.

Dance some more for my amusement.

[Bud Struggle]

the one who's talking trash? You just said that the USSR and China were communist, you're a fucking jester.

Dance some more for my amusement.

No they were Communist. To think otherwise is just a dreamworld. I've been there--they would have said they were Communist.

[freakazoid]

why would anyone need a sports car when a larda would
get you around the same,

Fun to drive, nice interier, looks nice, drives nice, because its fast, because it is different, fun to tinker with, because I fucking feel like it, etc...


theres laws against speeding so dont even say cos its faster.

You do realise that there are tracks you can go to to race right? Also have you ever heard of the autobahn? Also, some people have there own land to go as fast as they want. Also, while there may be a top speed, different cars accelerate at different speeds which isn't illegal. And finally, fuck the speed laws.


For the creation of sports cars and for their to exist people who can afford it requires a expliotative relationship. 1) Expliotation of labour to create sports cars for a minority of the world's population who can afford it 2) The expliotation of labour by the bourgieoise for profit, the expliotation of 3rd world proleteriat for the creation of 1st world citizens (and the world's bourgeiosie) who can afford sports cars.

Couldn't that be said of all vehicles? So are we going to ban all vehicles now?


No one cares if you want a sports car. No one cares if you think there should be a sports car after the revolution. No one cares if you like to 'tune' your car.

You must of not read a single word on this thread because apparently people do care.


Speculation about what products might be available after the revolution is not only pointless, but also destructive to the very cause. Your materialism and desire for consumer goods betrays the collective intentions of the left.

The point of the intentions is to have a better fullfilling life, and some people enjoy having a hobby, one of which is fast cars.


this is for little whiny people who are too depressed at their own existence to do something with their lives and so have to purchase things to make themselves feel better.

Well fuck you too, :cursing: Do you not know what a hobby is? Do you have one? If you do have a hobby then you are a big fucking hypocrite.

[disobey]

I don't want to deprive anyone of their hobbies.

Although, alluding to one of my earlier posts - what if I was a model train enthusiast? Would I still have friends?

[Green Dragon]

I imagine it would be quite plausible to get the car of your choice. A lot of material is spent on cars (and toys, and furniture, and certainly food) most people otherwise wouldn't get if given the choice - however, the price system dictates that there must be a market for different income groups. Obviously it's up to the people, but I could see workers' councils setting a 2-3 year waiting period between each car,

A suggestion such as this certainly cannot be applied to automobiles alone, and is why you guys keep having to deal with the old 'USSR" argument. Because waiting lists were the standard in such countries. WHY should the "people" have to accept any sort of official waiting list by whatever organisation issues it?

[MadMoney]

Post Revolution Sports Car
http://www.momandpopstoys.com/newest_toys/jaguar_sports_car.jpg

Of course, they will all come in the standard color of red.

[Bud Struggle]

I gotta say, you Communists don't paint to appealing of a picture of post Revolutionary society.

I think, things have to change to become more fair to more people--but if you think most people are going to go along with a blah utilitarian world, you are going to have the Counter-Revolution nipping at your heels.

[Incendiarism]

Who says you'll live to see our society, Tom? Huh?!

[Led Zeppelin]

No they were Communist. To think otherwise is just a dreamworld.

Yeah, you're totally right.

The people who actually invented the concept of communist and socialist society were all wrong, it is actually you who knows the truth, because you know so much about Marxist theory.

Give me a break, you're a joke.

Here's a bit of knowledge for you; just because you believe something and keep repeating it doesn't make it true.

Didn't your teacher tell you this at high-school? I should be getting paid for this shit.

Unlike you I have evidence to back up my claim....the people who actually invented the concept of socialism/communism and even the Stalinists in the USSR and China are sufficient proof of my position, which makes it an objective fact:


The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible because it will be impossible to seize the means of production--the factories, machines, land, etc.--and make them private property.

Continuing, Marx says:

"But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged, after prolonged birth pangs, from capitalist society. Law can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby."

And so, in the first phase of communist society (usually called socialism) "bourgeois law" is not abolished in its entirety, but only in part, only in proportion to the economic revolution so far attained, i.e., only in respect of the means of production. "Bourgeois law" recognizes them as the private property of individuals. Socialism converts them into common property. To that extent--and to that extent alone--"bourgeois law" disappears.

This is a “defect”, says Marx, but it is unavoidable in the first phase of communism; for if we are not to indulge in utopianism, we must not think that having overthrown capitalism people will at once learn to work for society without any rules of law. Besides, the abolition of capitalism does not immediately create the economic prerequisites for such a change.

The state withers away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, any classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed.
But the state has not yet completely withered away, since the still remains the safeguarding of "bourgeois law", which sanctifies actual inequality.

For the state to wither away completely, complete communism is necessary.

Marx continues:

"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and with it also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished, after labor has become not only a livelihood but life's prime want, after the productive forces have increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly--only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois law be left behind in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

Only now can we fully appreciate the correctness of Engels' remarks mercilessly ridiculing the absurdity of combining the words “freedom” and “state”. So long as the state exists there is no freedom. When there is freedom, there will be no state.

The economic basis for the complete withering away of the state is such a high state of development of communism at which the antithesis between mental and physical labor disappears, at which there consequently disappears one of the principal sources of modern social inequality--a source, moreover, which cannot on any account be removed immediately by the mere conversion of the means of production into public property, by the mere expropriation of the capitalists.
Excerpt from The State and Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s3)

To sum up, Marx coined the phrase the first, or lower, and higher phases of communism. The first, or lower, phase of communism was then called socialism by practically everyone. This is why the USSR was called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Not even the Stalinists claimed that they had achieved "the higher phase of communism", or communism (as opposed to socialism), because that implies a stateless society, and since you claim to have been to the USSR (which is odd since you weren't even born when it existed, but I'll indulge you with this) you would know that it was far from a stateless society, or a society described by Marx and Lenin above in that quote.

It's really quite hilarious how this basic fact flies straight over your head, and you expect us to believe you're some 40 year old factory-owner.

Nah, that shit would've gone bankrupt due to your stupidity long ago.

[danyboy27]

Who says you'll live to see our society, Tom? Huh?!

humm, look like a threat.

i love this shit, you know when armchair commando are expecting you to disapear during the revolution and stuff, yea great.

[Incendiarism]

How exactly do you know how I spend my time? I believe I spend it rather judiciously, thank you.

My comment was facetious.

[Bud Struggle]

Nah, that shit would've gone bankrupt due to your stupidity long ago.

LZ, I'm not saying there aren't "theories" out there about what Communism should look like. I'm sure there millions of theories about all kinds ways Communism might look. I have theories of my own about how Communism should look--anybody could make up theories.

But unfortunately, the USSR is the way Communism DOES (or did) look like. Communist China is the way Communism DOES look like. The Soviet block is the way Communism DOES (did) look like. North Korea is the way Communism DOES look like. Cambodia is the way Communism DOES (and did) look like. How come none of these placs ever went to the "higher phase? The USSR had plenty of time, for China the higher phase is "Capitalism" (though with a twist.)

You see a pattern here? I do. How come nobody could get it right? How come nobody that actually DID Communism to the higher phase? Maybe it's because it really doesn't work in real life.

Real life is the USSR. The real second phase of Communism--from empirical evidence--seems to be Chicago School Capitalism.

I'd be happy to see some empirical evidence for the existance of the "mythical second phase" of Communism. You or Marx or anyone else just SAYING it might happen if we all hold our breath and cross our fingers and wish really really hard is just nonsense. :)

[disobey]

Vertical farms and other forms of intensive hydroponics can already produce enough food to feed populations of 15-20 billion. We just haven't invested in it yet properly. Malthus is,was, and always will be wrong.

Damn you're good. Now I am at a loss for a witty retort as well.

[Led Zeppelin]

LZ, I'm not saying there aren't "theories" out there about what Communism should look like. I'm sure there millions of theories about all kinds ways Communism might look. I have theories of my own about how Communism should look--anybody could make up theories.

The difference is that I, nor anyone else, gives a shit about your theories.

We do give a shit about the theories of Marx though, who came up with the concept of communism, and backed it up with scientific evidence.

This is why I, and everyone else, don't care about what you think, but do care about what he thought.


How come none of these placs ever went to the "higher phase? The USSR had plenty of time, for China the higher phase is "Capitalism" (though with a twist.)


Because socialism can never fully develop in a single nation that is backward. It has to be global for it to develop into a communist (or higher phase of communism) society, for the reasons mentioned in the quote I provided; law can never be higher than the material conditions of society, and the USSR could not develop its material conditions sufficiently alone.

Look, these are all basic questions you are asking me, if I wanted to answer such things I would spend my time in the Learning forum.

Please read something about what you're trying to refute, because it's quite an ugly sight.

[Bud Struggle]

Because socialism can never fully develop in a single nation that is backward. It has to be global for it to develop into a communist (or higher phase of communism) society, for the reasons mentioned in the quote I provided; law can never be higher than the material conditions of society, and the USSR could not develop its material conditions sufficiently alone.

Look, these are all basic questions you are asking me, if I wanted to answer such things I would spend my time in the Learning forum.

Please read something about what you're trying to refute, because it's quite an ugly sight.

Maybe the "Learning Forum" should be called the "Excuses Forum." :lol:

Believe me, I've read all the "excuses" I just don't believe any of them. Now, I DO think Communism will succeed--just not in the ways that have obviously shown themselves to be a failure. It's time to discard the 19th Century Marxist claptrap and design a new Communism for the 21st Century.

Got any more 150 year old texts that you think I should read?

[Bud Struggle]

Who says you'll live to see our society, Tom? Huh?!

I may not--I may be like Moses leading his people to the Promised Land but not being allowed to enter. :lol::lol::lol:

[RedAnarchist]

I may not--I may be like Moses leading his people to the Promised Land but not being allowed to enter. :lol::lol::lol:

If it was the "Promised Land", wouldn't it be a capitalist society and not a post-revolutionary society?

[pusher robot]

The difference is that I, nor anyone else, gives a shit about your theories.

We do give a shit about the theories of Marx though, who came up with the concept of communism, and backed it up with scientific evidence.

This is why I, and everyone else, don't care about what you think, but do care about what he thought.

And you sound like the kind of crap "scientist" that never lets go of his pet theory, and instead dismisses every contrary experiment as "inconclusive," adding caveats and conditions to his theory to prevent it from being contradicted. Tell me, if Marxism is so scientific, what would it take to falsify it? What experimental results would be sufficient to undermine the theory's validity?

[Led Zeppelin]

What experimental results would be sufficient to undermine the theory's validity?

Pretty simple, no revolution, or degeneration of a revolution in a advanced capitalist nation, and the inability of it to spread.

That would prove that proletarian revolution/socialism/communism is not possible, and we should move on if that is the case.

[Bud Struggle]

If it was the "Promised Land", wouldn't it be a capitalist society and not a post-revolutionary society?

Well, that was a joke, but I believe that the future will be a Socialized Communist society, I just don't believe all that Marxist nonsense about first phase and second phase--it sounds like a housing development in Florida.

I don't think there will be a "Revolution". I don't believe in "class" or there is a such a thing as class warfare--there are just richer and pooer people.

I think change will come, but I think that it's rather foolish to look for it through the lens of a failed 19th Contury Economist.

[Bud Struggle]

Pretty simple, no revolution, or degeneration of a revolution in a advanced capitalist nation, and the inability of it to spread.

That would prove that proletarian revolution/socialism/communism is not possible, and we should move on if that is the case.


On that I agree. Time to move on, 'cause the Revolution done come and gone! Time to buld the Communism of the 21st Century not the 19th Century. :)

[Led Zeppelin]

Dude, shut up, no one thinks you're a communist, you're not going to get unrestricted.

[Bud Struggle]

Dude, shut up, no one thinks you're a communist, you're not going to get unrestricted.

I have no aspirations to get unrestricted--all I want to do is let you know your doctrinaire enthusiasm for a 150 year old Socio-Economic model is screwing up Communism.

Ego vox clamantis in deserto. :)

[Led Zeppelin]

You mean a 150 year old Socio-Economic model like...capitalism? :lol:

[RedAnarchist]

I have no aspirations to get unrestricted--all I want to do is let you know your doctrinaire enthusiasm for a 150 year old Socio-Economic model is screwing up Communism.

Ego vox clamantis in deserto. :)

Yet you seem to cling onto a language thats been dead for centuries:lol:

[Bud Struggle]

You mean a 150 year old Socio-Economic model like...capitalism? :lol:

No. Capitalism keeps evolving. No one's quoting Adam Smith as the rule on how Capitalist societies should behave.

Communist might have evolved too if Economic Neanderthals weren't constantly draging it back into 19th Century Marxism. LZ, you and your ilk are the reason Communism has been such a failure.

Capitalism isn't Communism's greatest enemy--you are.

[Bud Struggle]

Yet you seem to cling onto a language thats been dead for centuries:lol:

Not bad for a 14 year old. :)

Do you know what it says?

[Led Zeppelin]

No. Capitalism keeps evolving. No one's quoting Adam Smith as the rule on how Capitalist societies should behave.

Don't be a moron, Marx never specified how a communist or socialist society would function to the greatest detail in terms of socio-economics. Only the general stages of the development of society is specified, in accordance with the development of the material conditions. This is like saying that Sudan is not an advanced capitalist nation with an advanced bourgeois-democracy, but that it has to develop to become one if it was to ever become dominated by finance capital. That is just a fact.

In other words, Marxism is a science, it is based on a certain set of principles like the development of society, things that can change and do change even though the analysis of that change remains valid.

That's the whole point of Marxism, something which you missed, like so many other things.

You're not being witty or smart with the "OMGZ BUT MARX LIVED 150 YEARS AGO" crap, that is no replacement for the fact that you are an idiot and have not read anything about Marxism, not just by the founders of Marxism, but by modern Marxists as well.

Seriously, you're not presenting an argument, you're just making yourself look like a total fool. Imagine if someone said "OMGZ BUT DARWIN LIVED OVER 100 YEARS AGO SO EVOLUTION IS FALSE", totally ignoring the fact that the basic theory of evolution is as valid today as it was in Darwin's time, it is an objective analysis of something, it is a fact.

Now stop wasting my time with your horseshit.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ QFT. :)

As long as both wage labour and the possibility of capital formation exist, there can be no "communism of the 21st century" or whatever utopian-socialist horseshit the resident philanthropic petit-bourgeois businessman (perhaps a closet Owenite, but at least that's a step forward from his neo-con crap) wants to coin up.

[RedAnarchist]

Not bad for a 14 year old. :)

Do you know what it says?

No, although its probably something religious.

[Captain Morgan]

No, although its probably something religious.

"I am the voice that cries in the wilderness". Book of Isaiah, 40:3.

[pusher robot]

Pretty simple, no revolution, or degeneration of a revolution in a advanced capitalist nation, and the inability of it to spread.

That would prove that proletarian revolution/socialism/communism is not possible, and we should move on if that is the case.

Well, um, no revolution has happened in an advanced capitalist nation and does not appear likely to happen any time soon, so I would say that by your own criteria your theory has been invalidated.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm out of the discussion: LZ's quoting Marx like a Holly Roller quoting the Bible at a tent revival meeting. Me, I just want to see some of the fabeled Marxist "science" in real life situations.

Faith and empericism don't mix.

[534634634265]

ok guys, i opened this thread,and now i'd like to close it. this quote is from Animal Farm. it answers my question, and should give pause for thought to anyone else hoping to start a "will (blank) exist after the revolution?" thread.

"The stupidest questions of all were asked by Mollie, the white mare. The very first question she asked Snowball:"Will there still be sugar after the Rebellion?"
"No," said Snowball firmly. "We have no means of making sugar on this farm. Besides, you do not need sugar. You will have all the oats and hay you want."

[Led Zeppelin]

Well, um, no revolution has happened in an advanced capitalist nation and does not appear likely to happen any time soon, so I would say that by your own criteria your theory has been invalidated.

It may not seem likely to you now, but we'll see.

I don't believe in the permanent stability of the capitalist system, and anyone who has been following the news lately shouldn't either.


I'm out of the discussion

Boy, you were out of it before it started.

[pusher robot]

It may not seem likely to you now, but we'll see.

I don't believe in the permanent stability of the capitalist system, and anyone who has been following the news lately shouldn't either.


Oh, come on. Your ilk has been saying this exact same thing for well over a century. "Oh, you may not think it's coming, but just you wait! Any day now...look at $topicalBadNews, you'll see..." Well, in all this time, as Shatner put it, "It hasn't happened yet. It hasn't happened yet. It hasn't happened." Is there in your mind ever any point at which it becomes evident that it won't happen? Another 20 years? 50? There has to be, if this theory is falsifiable.

[Led Zeppelin]

Oh, come on. Your ilk has been saying this exact same thing for well over a century. "Oh, you may not think it's coming, but just you wait! Any day now...look at $topicalBadNews, you'll see..." Well, in all this time, as Shatner put it, "It hasn't happened yet. It hasn't happened yet. It hasn't happened." Is there in your mind ever any point at which it becomes evident that it won't happen? Another 20 years? 50? There has to be, if this theory is falsifiable.

Don't be a moron, obviously capitalism is already a failed system if you look at it from a global perspective instead of a upper middle-class white suburbian perspective, like you are doing.

[Bud Struggle]

Boy, you were out of it before it started.

LZ, all you do is go around insulting people that don't agree with you. If that's how you wan to be, fine--but to you everyone's ignorant, a fool or incompetent.

I guess you job around here is to take Kronos's place while he's in jail. Those are big shoes to fill, but you're doing just fine. :)

[Bud Struggle]

Don't be a moron, obviously capitalism is already a failed system if you look at it from a global perspective instead of a upper middle-class white suburbian perspective, like you are doing.

How about skipping all the moralizing and name calling and just give us a date.;)

[comrade stalin guevara]

LZ, all you do is go around insulting people that don't agree with you. If that's how you wan to be, fine--but to you everyone's ignorant, a fool or incompetent.

I guess you job around here is to take Kronos's place while he's in jail. Those are big shoes to fill, but you're doing just fine. :)

LZ just finished doing that to me,
i thought stalinist were eliteist but the troting comrade LZ takes that medal.

[Bud Struggle]

I saw that CSG--you know, it's because of know-it-all-guys like him that Communism is languishing in the unhappy state of affairs that it's in.

[comrade stalin guevara]

Theres some truth to your statement,
ie; a guy like him ruined the soviet union.

[Bud Struggle]

Theres some truth to your statement,
ie; a guy like him ruined the soviet union.

I'll agree with you about that--where we would disagree is WHICH guy. :laugh:

[comrade stalin guevara]

Dont say stalin,
i was beginning to like you capitolist you.

[Bud Struggle]

Dont say stalin,
i was beginning to like you capitolist you.

I'm thinking Trotsky. :thumbup1:

[comrade stalin guevara]

Yeah....,
i was thinking gorby,
who i will add stalin would of purged.

[pusher robot]

Don't be a moron, obviously capitalism is already a failed system if you look at it from a global perspective instead of a upper middle-class white suburbian perspective, like you are doing.

Irrelevant. The opposite of "capitalism fails" is not "communism wins."

[danyboy27]

Irrelevant. The opposite of "capitalism fails" is not "communism wins."

i could not agree more.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Oh, come on. Your ilk has been saying this exact same thing for well over a century. "Oh, you may not think it's coming, but just you wait! Any day now...look at $topicalBadNews, you'll see..." Well, in all this time, as Shatner put it, "It hasn't happened yet. It hasn't happened yet. It hasn't happened." Is there in your mind ever any point at which it becomes evident that it won't happen? Another 20 years? 50? There has to be, if this theory is falsifiable.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1909/power/ch01.htm

To be sure, actual evolution has taken the road foretold by Marx and Engels. And the triumphant progress of Socialism is due, next to the extension of capitalism and therewith of the proletarian class struggle, above all to the keen analysis of the conditions and problems of this struggle supplied by the work of Marx and Engels.

In ONE point they were in error. THEY EXPECTED THE REVOLUTION TOO SOON.

...

This expectation was not fulfilled, and up to the present time the expected revolution has not arrived.

Why was this? Was the Marxian method, upon which this expectation was based, false? In no way. But there was one factor in the calculation that was valued altogether too highly. Ten years ago I said concerning these very prophecies: “Both times the revolutionary and oppositional power of the capitalist class was overestimated.”

[pusher robot]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1909/power/ch01.htm

To be sure, actual evolution has taken the road foretold by Marx and Engels. And the triumphant progress of Socialism is due, next to the extension of capitalism and therewith of the proletarian class struggle, above all to the keen analysis of the conditions and problems of this struggle supplied by the work of Marx and Engels.

In ONE point they were in error. THEY EXPECTED THE REVOLUTION TOO SOON.

...

This expectation was not fulfilled, and up to the present time the expected revolution has not arrived.

Why was this? Was the Marxian method, upon which this expectation was based, false? In no way. But there was one factor in the calculation that was valued altogether too highly. Ten years ago I said concerning these very prophecies: “Both times the revolutionary and oppositional power of the capitalist class was overestimated.”

So says a written work from 99 years ago. I honestly cannot tell whether you are supporting my point or trying to argue it. From the same piece:

It is certain that we are entering upon a period of universal unrest, of shifting of power, and that whatever form this may take, or how long it may continue, a condition of permanent stability will not be reached until the proletariat shall have gained the power to expropriate politically and economically the capitalist class and thereby to inaugurate a new era in the world’s history.So it was said in 1909. Here you are, still waiting, still believing.

It hasn't happened yet. It hasn't happened yet. It hasn't happened.

[bcbm]

So it was said in 1909. Here you are, still waiting, still believing.

It hasn't happened yet. It hasn't happened yet. It hasn't happened.

I don't think you could really argue that what you quoted hasn't happened at all. There has certainly been a great deal of unrest, instability and power shifting in the past century, no? It also isn't calling for an inevitable revolution soon, but simply saying that there will continue to be unrest and instability until the working class takes control.

As for it not happening yet, that doesn't really prove anything. The feudal system lasted what, a couple of thousand years before being displaced by capitalism? And many changes and variations occurred within that time, to keep the system functioning. Why should the transition from one mode of production to another only happen in a few hundred years? Not that I buy into the idea that its inevitable or that Marxism is a "science" in any meaningful sense. It just seems silly to use it not happening yet as proof it won't, especially in a scientific sense.

[black magick hustla]

man all this "in a socialist society could i have......." shit is really empty and stupid. we dont really know, it depends on many things. communism is a movement - it has very little to do with planning a blueprint for a future society.

[pusher robot]

I don't think you could really argue that what you quoted hasn't happened at all. There has certainly been a great deal of unrest, instability and power shifting in the past century, no? It also isn't calling for an inevitable revolution soon, but simply saying that there will continue to be unrest and instability until the working class takes control.

Well that's not really an insightful prediction, since there has been unrest, instability, and power shifting since pretty much the beginning of civilization.


As for it not happening yet, that doesn't really prove anything.It does prove one thing: all the theories which predicted that the rise of communism was imminent were wrong.
The feudal system lasted what, a couple of thousand years before being displaced by capitalism? And many changes and variations occurred within that time, to keep the system functioning. Why should the transition from one mode of production to another only happen in a few hundred years?Two reasons: first, that's what the theory predicted. Second, the quickening, ever-accelerating pace of social change.
Not that I buy into the idea that its inevitable or that Marxism is a "science" in any meaningful sense. It just seems silly to use it not happening yet as proof it won't, especially in a scientific sense.It's not scientific, that's my whole point. I'm trying to disabuse proponents of the notion that the "scientific" nature of their theories means they can summarily dismiss the real world results of attempting to put those theories in to practice. There is no "technical" or "official" communism, that only exists as a platonic ideal. There is only communism as carried out by fallible humans, with its dismal track record to date.

[bcbm]

Well that's not really an insightful prediction, since there has been unrest, instability, and power shifting since pretty much the beginning of civilization.

Yeah, I had mentioned that in my post initially but it didn't really flow with the rest of it so I cut it out. I'm just saying it wasn't inaccurate, not that it was some brilliant prophecy.


It's not scientific, that's my whole point. I'm trying to disabuse proponents of the notion that the "scientific" nature of their theories means they can summarily dismiss the real world results of attempting to put those theories in to practice. There is no "technical" or "official" communism, that only exists as a platonic ideal. There is only communism as carried out by fallible humans, with its dismal track record to date.

Sure, but that doesn't mean the things "official communism" calls for have no value or that there are no other approaches to try and reach those goals. Certainly a lot of communists need to be a bit more pragmatic in their approach, but they're not flat-out wrong.

[Bud Struggle]

Sure, but that doesn't mean the things "official communism" calls for have no value or that there are no other approaches to try and reach those goals. Certainly a lot of communists need to be a bit more pragmatic in their approach, but they're not flat-out wrong.

One certainly could make the case that the Marxists--by their dogged adherence to a strained and faulty dogma that poses "revolution" and confrontation as a solution to the problems of Capitalism instead of a smooth transition--actually POSTPONE the advent of a more open and benevolent world.

Marxists seem to miss the purpose of Economic and Political advancement. It is to make a BETTER WORLD for as m,any people as possible--it's not to just advance some sectarian cause to the belittlement of all others.

The dialectic after all is thesis, antithesis, synthesis--not antithesis above all.

[bcbm]

One certainly could make the case that the Marxists--by their dogged adherence to a strained and faulty dogma that poses "revolution" and confrontation as a solution to the problems of Capitalism instead of a smooth transition--actually POSTPONE the advent of a more open and benevolent world.

Marxists seem to miss the purpose of Economic and Political advancement. It is to make a BETTER WORLD for as m,any people as possible--it's not to just advance some sectarian cause to the belittlement of all others.

The dialectic after all is thesis, antithesis, synthesis--not antithesis above all.

I think, at least for some, the term revolution can mean a variety of ways of transition. Ideally we can build numbers and just start whether they like it or not- they won't have the power to stop us. But I also doubt the capitalist class will cede power peacefully and so we need to be prepared for that as well.

I think the adherence to dogma, period, it problematic though and generally limits what we are able to do. The people who seem most success in actually organizing working people aren't the ones quoting Trotsky every other second and arguing about shit that happened 70 years ago.

[black magick hustla]

I think the adherence to dogma, period, it problematic though and generally limits what we are able to do. The people who seem most success in actually organizing working people aren't the ones quoting Trotsky every other second and arguing about shit that happened 70 years ago.

well, as i said before about other of your assertions, that is because you live in the US. trade unions in many areas, for example europe, have a strong link to hard left "marxist" parties. these parties are reformist, but their cadre certainly do adhere to a "dogma".

honestly, i sometimes don't get your tirade against theoretical framework, because certainly you atleast adhere to some of them, even when you deny it. the situs also loved to claim they werent ideological, but i think they were because all of them held very similar positions that follow an ideological pattern.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't think you could really argue that what you quoted hasn't happened at all. There has certainly been a great deal of unrest, instability and power shifting in the past century, no? It also isn't calling for an inevitable revolution soon, but simply saying that there will continue to be unrest and instability until the working class takes control.

As for it not happening yet, that doesn't really prove anything. The feudal system lasted what, a couple of thousand years before being displaced by capitalism? And many changes and variations occurred within that time, to keep the system functioning. Why should the transition from one mode of production to another only happen in a few hundred years? Not that I buy into the idea that its inevitable or that Marxism is a "science" in any meaningful sense. It just seems silly to use it not happening yet as proof it won't, especially in a scientific sense.

And given the food crisis, the fresh water crisis, the oil crisis, etc. - a great deal of unrest is still coming. Furthermore, feudalism probably existed much longer than it should have, even while lasting much shorter than slave relations.


Well that's not really an insightful prediction, since there has been unrest, instability, and power shifting since pretty much the beginning of civilization.

It does prove one thing: all the theories which predicted that the rise of communism was imminent were wrong. Two reasons: first, that's what the theory predicted. Second, the quickening, ever-accelerating pace of social change.It's not scientific, that's my whole point. I'm trying to disabuse proponents of the notion that the "scientific" nature of their theories means they can summarily dismiss the real world results of attempting to put those theories in to practice. There is no "technical" or "official" communism, that only exists as a platonic ideal. There is only communism as carried out by fallible humans, with its dismal track record to date.

So whatever happened to the DELAYED Enlightenment and the colonial adventures resulting from it (not to mention today's lingering side-effects)? :rolleyes:

[Bud Struggle]

I think, at least for some, the term revolution can mean a variety of ways of transition. Ideally we can build numbers and just start whether they like it or not- they won't have the power to stop us. But I also doubt the capitalist class will cede power peacefully and so we need to be prepared for that as well.Well said--many of these pseudo-Communists (Marxsists) think of barricades and guns and flags and bear brested women wih a banner leading the faithful over the hill--a la Revleft's Commie Club :rolleyes:. The Revolution--if any sane person will believe in it's existance---will happen in time an in space. Organic rather than dynamic.


I think the adherence to dogma, period, it problematic and generally limits what Communists are able to do. The people who seem be most success in actually organizing working people aren't the ones quoting Trotsky every other second and arguing about shit that happened 70 years ago.
The people that want the betterment of humanity aren't the dogmatist or the rule makers. They aren't some Trotskyists. They are the humanitarians that fight for the betterment of humanity now and in the future not some crappy philosophy of 100 years ago.

It's time to invent a Communism of the future--not repeat the mistakes of the past. Marxism is a religion of death, literally and figuratively.
Marxism killed Communism before. The ruins of former Communist states litter the world with their evil debris--let's not give Marxists a chance to kill Communism again.

[bcbm]

well, as i said before about other of your assertions, that is because you live in the US. trade unions in many areas, for example europe, have a strong link to hard left "marxist" parties. these parties are reformist, but their cadre certainly do adhere to a "dogma".

And how's that going for them?

And what does some unions, etc attaching themselves to parties with dogma have to do with my saying that adhering to dogma can limit what we do and how we move forward?


honestly, i sometimes don't get your tirade against theoretical framework, because certainly you atleast adhere to some of them, even when you deny it.

I'm not against theory and I suppose I work within something of a theoretical framework, but its a reflection of what I see and how I understand it, not the other way around- that's dogma.

[black magick hustla]

I'm not against theory and I suppose I work within something of a theoretical framework, but its a reflection of what I see and how I understand it, not the other way around- that's dogma.

fair enough.

however i get the impression that you are basically trying to say what the situs said 40 years ago - namely that identifying as an ism is bad. honestly, a lot of people identify with isms because of practicality, and to form centers of organizations with like minded people. there is a "situationism" even if a few artists decry me for saying so. i identify as a left communist, for example, mainly because of internationalism. maybe i misuderstood you - and if so i am sorry.

honestly, from your posts you seem pretty "ism" to me, namely that you adhere to very "post-leftist" "anti-organizational" politics that roam in american anarchist politics. you may deny it, but honestly, you sound a lot like a lot of american anarchist folk i have talked to.


And how's that going for them?

And what does some unions, etc attaching themselves to parties with dogma have to do with my saying that adhering to dogma can limit what we do and how we move forward?

i never said dogma is good, i interpreted your post in context with your other posts - namely that you think any ism is bad. i was merely pointing out that workplace organization a lot of the timse is dominated by unions and organizations led by hard left marxists because you said marxists aren't very good at organizing workers today. whether the monopoly of workplace organization is subdued to reformist "marxist" parties and unions is a good thing - that is a question all together.