Opression - Where is it?

[Curiouscapitalist]

I don't know much about Communism, so I'd like to learn some stuff from you folks. First, I understand that the cause which you fight for is to liberate the worker from opression, now, I'd just like to know where this opression is? You accuse opression of coming from a worker's authorty, a boss, or employing company. How is employment opressive? Is there no authority figure in a production facility in Communism.

Another question: is there money in Communism?

Last question: How can you claim Marx's prediction of being truthful, if they didn't actualy end up happening. To my understanding, as the wealthy grew in wealth, so did the peasants and workers.

Another question: are you supportive of North Korea's leader, Kim Jung Il? Is he a true Socialist?

[redstar2000]

For your first question, please see

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=13&topic=485 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=485)

For your second question, please see

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=13&topic=755 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=755)

For your third question, try this one...

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...m=22&topic=2199 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=2199)

Finally, for your last question, there are many threads to pick from...

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...m=22&topic=1723 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=1723)

What may strike you as you read through all this material is that there are really "no fixed answers" to your questions or those of others.

With the end of the "first generation" of communist societies, a huge number of things that were once thought "settled" have been re-opened as questions to be discussed and debated.

The more you read from the threads on this site, the more you will realize that 21st century communism is going to look very different from its 20th century ancestors.

:cool:

[Ymir]

Communism is supposed to be the system of an ideal society, where everything is shared communally for the good of the people as a whole.

Oppression is not such a good word as exploitation to describe the Communist's complaint. The exploitation comes from the classes above the Proletariat (those who have only their labour to give).

In the final stage of Communism, I doubt people would need money. In the transitional periods before it money would probably still be around.


There are still many millions (maybe billions) of exploited poor workers worldwide. Many of them are in China

I have not researched North Korea, and I am unsure if I could find truthful sources. I hear he is very much socialist.

Another good issue to explore is why do you support Capitalism? Do you know anything about it?

[hazard]

i don't know if redstars links will say this, but you seem a little confused ymir.

it is not OPPRESSION, technically, that communists hope to liberate the working class from. it is EXPLOITATION. you might not think there is much of a difference, but there is.

on that, while exploitation is obviously oppresive, using oppresion as the key term has likely lead to your confusion.

[Curiouscapitalist]

Thanks for all the excellent responses.

I read the threda that said taht we must get rid of money, I see how it may have many pros. It still does not tell me how trading of products is going to take place. If not with money, is there going to be a barder system? Are people going to get stuck with whatever is given to them and not be able to buy what they wish with, perhaps, an equal amount of money, or the deserving amount of money, as it is in capitalism.

On the subject of oppression, which is in fact derrived from exploitation, I now know: where does the exploitation come from? How is having an authority figure present exploitative?

Another question: do Communists seek to reform the school system? If so, how? Will students be free from "oppression" as the workers will be?

[redstar2000]

In a board as "young" as this one, education is a "hot button" issue. See...

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...pic=770&start=0 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=770&start=0)

There are two links in that thread where education is discussed at tremendous length from varying communist viewpoints.

:cool:

[Ymir]

What am I confused about?

[Som]

I read the threda that said taht we must get rid of money, I see how it may have many pros. It still does not tell me how trading of products is going to take place. If not with money, is there going to be a barder system?

No, the communist abolition of money doesn't create a barter system, it creates a gift economy.

Most marxists won't go to far in predicting the actual nature of this society, prefer to leave it up to the future when its in reach. the anarchist communists though, do go a bit more indepth with it, usually using a form of participatory economics, where production, distribution, and so on are organized by radically democratic councils and commitees.

On the subject of oppression, which is in fact derrived from exploitation, I now know: where does the exploitation come from? How is having an authority figure present exploitative?

If a worker produces $20 worth of something, thats the value of his labor, the owner or employer will pay him his wage of say $5 and pocket the other $15.
This is exploitation, the owner gets $15 he didn't work for, not only this, but he is using his employee not as another person to work with, but as a rentable commodity.

Renting human beings is exploitation.

[Curiouscapitalist]

If a worker produces $20 worth of something, thats the value of his labor, the owner or employer will pay him his wage of say $5 and pocket the other $15.
This is exploitation, the owner gets $15 he didn't work for, not only this, but he is using his employee not as another person to work with, but as a rentable commodity.

Renting human beings is exploitation.

So...the Communist maner of fixing this up is to remove the monetary value of the workers product and simply make it a "gift"? Is that right? Please explain this "gift economy", it sounds a bit strange, nothing I've ever heard of before.

[synthesis]

Quote: from Curiouscapitalist on 5:13 am on May 3, 2003

If a worker produces $20 worth of something, thats the value of his labor, the owner or employer will pay him his wage of say $5 and pocket the other $15.
This is exploitation, the owner gets $15 he didn't work for, not only this, but he is using his employee not as another person to work with, but as a rentable commodity.

Renting human beings is exploitation.

So...the Communist maner of fixing this up is to remove the monetary value of the workers product and simply make it a "gift"? Is that right? Please explain this "gift economy", it sounds a bit strange, nothing I've ever heard of before.Not at all. The point of socialism is to eliminate the necessity of the "middle-man", so to speak. The entire philosophy behind socialism is democratic control of the means of production by the people operating them.

The means of production, by the way, simply translates to anything capable of producing wealth. This equates to factories, harbors, mines, and other such important capital-producers.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I've never heard of a "gift economy", care to explain?

(Edited by Victorcommie at 1:10 pm on May 3, 2003)

[redstar2000]

http://leninism.org/some/

This is the first mention that I'm aware of concerning the "gift economy" -- the idea that all transactions will be in the form of "free gifts" between people.

Ben Seattle, the fellow that wrote this stuff, is a "funny" kind of "Leninist"...he's much less of one than he thinks he is.

Since his "day job" is in information technology, his sites are always especially hard to find your way around in...but you may well find it worth your effort.

:cool:

[Som]

So...the Communist maner of fixing this up is to remove the monetary value of the workers product and simply make it a "gift"? Is that right? Please explain this "gift economy", it sounds a bit strange, nothing I've ever heard of before.

Thats not really the way to 'fix it up', its more of a goal for the future, whether distant or immediate.
In monetary socialist societies, the worker will either recieve a pure value of his money, or the money that doesn't go to his set wage, goes into the democratic control of society of a whole, to be spent on things for everyone, though in a planned economy i'd guess the 'value of labor' would get a bit fuzzier, and this wouldn't be the same manner of exploitation as with a capitalist. In either version, wages, values, and production become part of a democratic process.


The gift economy is what i've read used to describe the anarchist communism of kropotkin and the like, with communism being specifically an economic system without money in that context. Generally production and 'work' in general are decided by radically democratic councils, committes, and the like to get whats needed cooperatively. Since theres no money involved, no markets and no barter, everything under this system is essentially a gift.