Isn't communism too idealistic?

[Tim Cornelis]

Everyone votes on what items they need and want?

Not really. A community decides whether they want a swimming pool or not.

Raw materials that need to be allocated around the world requires an 'international' federation of communes.

Perhaps these are helpful:

Fundamental principles of communist production and distribution

http://libcom.org/library/fundamenta...production-gik

An anarchist FAQ, section I:
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secIcon.html

[Rafiq]

I've already addressed what you have addressed. Religious groups will probably form the biggest resistance to communism, and there is quite some time to go before religion dies off. Religion still persists in even the most educated countries, so I think it will be a slow death.

Religion won't be the biggest resistance, the Bourgeoisie as a whole will be the biggest resistance, and yes, the proletariat will surly purge them.

Yes, of course it will be a slow death, things like this do not happen over night.

[Rafiq]

Rafiq, I am not saying it is impossible, but that it will take time. Witch burnings were around for centuries. I stand by my assertion that religion is one of the biggest barriers to communism, and that it will take some time for religion to die off, whatever the method of extinction.

If you've noticed, I didn't want to bring up whether communism was achievable or not because quite frankly I don't know what the future holds, and I've already admitted that it is theoretically possible. It seems as though that's where you wanted the conversation to go, so that you could ridicule me with large font as to how silly I am for having even the slightest doubt. Congratulations sir.

Or should I say Congratulations sir.

Well sorry if I came off as an asshole, but we here on Revleft have been having a major troll problem and I couldn't help but assume..

[Baseball]

[QUOTE]

Yes, it's about how to plan production and the running of society, through democracy or through the capitalist drive for profits.

They are not analogous. A profit is an observable fact. A democratic decision has to be grounded in some other fact so as to convince people the correctness (or not) of proposed action.

How is it decided now, where to put a supermarket or why to have supermarkets instead of corner stores - who decides that houses should be built miles from where people work and socialize?

People who go to supermarkets and wish to live outside of the city.

Who decides it's a good idea to then drive from those remote areas and sit in traffic for an hour to get to work? All the aspects of how we live are out of our hands and based on profit-considerations. Cheap land means developers want to build in outlying areas, supermarkets make deals with produce providers and have the start-up capital to create larger stores than mom-and-pops so they can have fewer workers covering more customers and more product and therefore can undersell the mom-and-pops, food is grown overseas and shipped even to agricultural areas not because it is more efficient but because it is more profitable in the short-term etc.

Why is it bad to have fewer workers doing the same or completing more work?

CEOs make these decisions now for the most part - or government bureaucrats and the considerations they make are based on what will turn a profit or help the profit-system.

This does not explain why people choose to live in these houses far away from their jobs, or why those opinions would change in a socialist community.

On the other hand, if workers democratically made decisions in their workplaces and communities set up neighborhood and town councils (as happened during the economic crisis in Venezuela at the beginning of the last decade) then they can organize what kinds of materials they need and want and then work it out with people at the production-sites for these things.

What does this mean "work it out"?
And do you really want to hold Venezuala up as the posterchild?

For more complicated decisions or larger infrastructure-building, workers could set up democratic bodies for these decisions too. In capitalism, big plans mean going to banks and investors, in a worker's democracy it would mean going to a regional council or an industry council or whatnot.

Sure. And in the capitalist community, a determination would be made based upon potential for profit. In the socialist one? What's the basis for ITS democratic decision?

Yes, this is why I do not think that the USSR, Cuba, China, or North Korea are "worker's states" even though they wrap themselves in red flags and place "People's" onto every undemocratic institution they have. Again, the problem though is not in policy decisions they made but in that worker's power was erroded

"Worker's power" to do what? To "coordinate" in some unspecified way with each other? How come the workers can't "coordinate" "democratically" with each other and crush those who fail to "coordinate" in those manners which they say?

Again, I don't think it would be up to me to tell people how to democratically run things,

Then why are you declaring USSR et. al. were/are not true socialist communities?

but my personal viewpoint would be that in the phase right after the revolution, people should put together a "bill of rights" of sorts that would grantee freedom of personal behaviors and actions that don't negatively impact other people

All the socialist communities which you dismiss as not being truly socialist had such guarantees.

You are taking me out of context. Sure, 5 workers makeing a democratic decsion about where to eat is not socialism, however, socialism is workers (as a class) collectively making decisions.

Fair enough. The workers at a particular factory will not have the right to collectively decide their production, but rather the workers as a whole in the community will have that right.

But to this new point about decisions in a workplace, yes one factory as a co-op doesn't change anything ultimately because they still are subject to paying rent to capitalists, buying their goods to capitalists and dealing with capitalist banks and so on. That's why society must be reorganized along democratic lines by workers.

Yes. Which continues to require further analysis than people will "coordinate" with each other.

I'd assume that lettuce farmers collectives would want water to grow the crops, want electricity and maybe farming equipment... unless they decide to build all these things themselves, they are going to coordinate things with other groups of workers and so therefore, coordination is necessary. It happens in capitalism too but is mediated by the profit-system

And what mediates the coordination in the socialist one?

As to requests by food distribution hubs or stores or whatnot for lettuce, would make their requests for how much they need (just as store managers or chin purchasers do today)

Correct. Except that the socialist community cannot fall back upon what "purchasers do today"

and there would be a negotiation.

Yep. In the capitalist community a price is given (which includes profits) which can be accepted or not.

If not enough lettuce is being produced, then people would have to organize and figure out ways to bring in some more workers or set aside more land for growing, etc.

Yep. And what might guide the socialist community in making such decisions?

Industrial society is already a collective effort, the problem is that this effort is controlled and organized by a tiny minority.

No, the "problem" (from the socialist angle) is that it is organized as per capitalist principles. As the stated objective is a total restructuring of a community, the socialist cannot fall back upon the structures already established by the capitalist.

[Baseball]

[

QUOTE=#FF0000;2199089]They sure can, actually. And the extra benefit (whatever that might be) would be for a job that's particularly unpleasant, especially if it's a job that requires a lot of specialized training.

A particularly unpleasant, or specialized job may not be more valuable to the community than an easier, pleasanter job.

Can we have an example of what kind of highly technical, highly specialized job we're talking about, please?

Whichever you want.

What do you mean?

I mean that just because a job is particularly nasty doesn't mean that its labor is more valuable to the community than an easier job.

That's a given, actually.

In the capitalist community, yes. The sociaist one? Not so much.

[#FF0000]

Whichever you want.

Nah, someone throw an example out here.

A particularly unpleasant, or specialized job may not be more valuable to the community than an easier, pleasanter job.

I mean that just because a job is particularly nasty doesn't mean that its labor is more valuable to the community than an easier job.

If it needs to be done and no one wants to do it?

In the capitalist community, yes. The sociaist one? Not so much.

No. The goal of communism is common abundance and the freedom to do what you want, rather than to ever be stuck with pointless work just to survive.

[spens]

Can we have an example of what kind of highly technical, highly specialized job we're talking about, please?

Someone who designs and optimizes reactive distillation columns. Just a random, non-obvious one. I could list dozens. Brain surgeon. Programmer for the automation of manufacturing line. Oil well wireline operator.

There are many examples of highly technical and specialized jobs in modern manufacturing (and in research). This makes eliminating the division of labor difficult without a regression in modern manufacturing.

[Jimmie Higgins]

People who go to supermarkets and wish to live outside of the city.

Bullshit. People constantly complain and lament the "death of small town America" - rich yuppies communities are built to re-create "small-town" atmospheres within gentrified urban areas - many people grow up hating suburban life. Why is a car such a symbol of freedom for suburban teenagers? Because nothing is fucking walkable in sprawling suburbs.

No, people did not elect to live in these ways, they choose this as an affordable way to have a decent home to live in given available options offered by this society; but that's only people choosing a glass of dirty water over a glass of mud. Suburbs were developed out of a general desire for more affordable housing, but the form that this took was not to satisfy consumers who needed homes, but because it was profitable. Rich people don't choose to live this way, they live in remote areas away from neighbors and develop their own personal infrastructure and private services like maids, laundry, food delivery and preparation. The urban upper middle class that has means and choices to live in suburbs either choose to live in gated communities which are a lot like "campuses" in that they have community facilities and services (though Private obviously) or they live in gentrified little boutique neighborhoods in cities. So I think it's pretty clear that people choose to live in suburbs not out of a pure abstract desire, but because it's affordable for many workers while not being in slums. The trade-off is that suburban life is unpleasant for a lot of people with long commutes, constant errands to run, etc.

Do people choose and like sitting in rush-hour traffic because of the ways the suburbs and cities have been developed? Did people choose to live in polluted areas or did they move to where there were jobs and possible houses to live in.

Real demand and profitable demand are two totally different things and even capitalist economists know this basis truth.

Why is it bad to have fewer workers doing the same or completing more work?

Increases in production and the ability to produce aren't bad in the abstract, they are bad in capitalism for the worker and even ultimately for capitalism itself because increase productive ability for the work means redundencies or lay-offs and if they keep their position it means their labor is making multiple times more profit for the company while they are seeing the same wages. For capitalism it's bad because it leads to a situation where the rate of profit falls because the atomized machinery and production techniques mean higher overhead.

This does not explain why people choose to live in these houses far away from their jobs, or why those opinions would change in a socialist community.

I think if people had the ability to make decisions about community planning in a democratic way, then they would not choose to live far away from the passtimes they like or the jobs they do in atomized homes. They would also not "choose" to live crammed into houses or in substandard homes.

I also think that if people were democratically planning these things then communities would be designed around making out lives easier like having a neighborhood that surrounds a communal area with a few different eating options, maybe a community rec area with a movie screen or bar, communal laundry facilities and so on. Rather than capitalism where working parents spend many hours each week driving around to the supermarket and then to this and that appointment and then to the laundry mat and the mechanic and so on, I think people, given the choice would find ways to make our daily necessities come to us, rather than us having to run all over town and drive on freeways to get to it. Maybe people won't do it in the "campus-style" I described above, but I'm sure they would make neighborhoods that are less alienated and more fitting to our needs.

What does this mean "work it out"?

It's a phrase that means negotiate, it's pretty common in north america, I'm surprised you've never heard it.

And do you really want to hold Venezuala up as the posterchild?

If you mean Chavez, no, I don't support that reformer's supposed "socialism". And at any rate, I misspoke, I was thinking of Argentina after the bank crisis, not Venezuela.

Sure. And in the capitalist community, a determination would be made based upon potential for profit. In the socialist one? What's the basis for ITS democratic decision?

Democracy. It's despotism of capital or democracy of workers, that's the choice.

"Worker's power" to do what? To "coordinate" in some unspecified way with each other? How come the workers can't "coordinate" "democratically" with each other and crush those who fail to "coordinate" in those manners which they say?

So you're against democracy.

Then why are you declaring USSR et. al. were/are not true socialist communities?

Because of a lack of worker's power. It's the same way that I know that the United Kingdom isn't really run by a monarchy even though "kingdom" is in it's name. The same way that I know that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea isn't really any of those things (other than Korea that is).

All the socialist communities which you dismiss as not being truly socialist had such guarantees.

As do capitalist countries: "All men are created equal... except blacks and Indians and debtors". Written rights don't really mean anything if there is no social force to ensure them. Never the less, written rights do have the ability to just help people rally around common goals or be on the same page so to speak. People in Russia didn't loose ground because there was something wrong with the rights, they lost these rights because the working class was stripped of any meaningful social or governmental power. That's why the defining feature of socialism is not X, Y, Z, policies or structures, but what class is really in power in society.

Yes. Which continues to require further analysis than people will "coordinate" with each other.

Look, IMO there's no secret to coordination and negotiation, workers do that as it is and there's nothing that a group of CEOs can do that a democratic body of workers couldn't also do because most of that "work" is just making decisions and trying to figure out where things stand as far as the workplace needs and requirements (labor, supplies, demand etc). The more complicated difficulties IMO would be how workers win over non-workers and deal with specialized skills. A lot of that would have to depend on the condition of the revolution - where it happens, how educated people are already, what kind of priorities are needed etc.

[spens]

With these two core characteristics of a communist society - free access to goods and services plus volunteer labour - there can be no political leverage that anyone or any group could exercise over anyone else. The material basis of class power would have completely dissolved. What we would be left with is simply human beings being free to express their fundamentally social and coooperative nature

Well this is one of the problems with division of labor. If you do a job related to X, then you know more about X than another person. When you are democratically deciding what to do about X, you will most likely have more influence than a person whose job is unrelated to X.

[Impulse97]

Well this is one of the problems with division of labor. If you do a job related to X, then you know more about X than another person. When you are democratically deciding what to do about X, you will most likely have more influence than a person whose job is unrelated to X.

That doesn't necessarily mean political leverage. If someone knows alot about X or whatever then obviously, they would be chosen to do the job. It's not like they're using it to gain office and then even if they did, they'd be instantly re-callable if they start effing up.

[spens]

That doesn't necessarily mean political leverage. If someone knows alot about X or whatever then obviously, they would be chosen to do the job. It's not like they're using it to gain office and then even if they did, they'd be instantly re-callable if they start effing up.

What exactly is political leverage? If everyone gets their say, and everyone gets their vote, the guy who I presume has the most knowledge on the subject will probably sway my opinion the most. This can be considered political leverage, in my opinion.

[#FF0000]

What exactly is political leverage? If everyone gets their say, and everyone gets their vote, the guy who I presume has the most knowledge on the subject will probably sway my opinion the most. This can be considered political leverage, in my opinion.

That's a-okay, though. That's what is called "legitimate authority" -- someone with knowledge of a subject giving advice which people pay particular attention to

[spens]

That's a-okay, though. That's what is called "legitimate authority" -- someone with knowledge of a subject giving advice which people pay particular attention to

Isn't this the beginning of separate classes? Some people having more influence (and potentially access to material goods) than others in the same society.

[RGacky3]

No because there is no innate power involved, there is no institution of power, its just someone having more influence over an issue because they know about an issue.

When you go to the doctor he has much more influence over your medical needs, but thats because you give him that authority, its legitimate authority, there is no unjust or innate power in that situation.

[Blake's Baby]

And that's not a class question. Doctors don't rule as part of the medical class, cobblers don't rule as part of the footwear-mending class.

Classes come from different access to the means of production (ie property). If someone owns something and you use it at thir permission, that is a class relationship. If you both own it, but they know how to use it and you don't, let them f******* use it - no classes necessary.

[Baseball]

Look, IMO there's no secret to coordination and negotiation, workers do that as it is and there's nothing that a group of CEOs can do that a democratic body of workers couldn't also do because most of that "work" is just making decisions and trying to figure out where things stand as far as the workplace needs and requirements (labor, supplies, demand etc).

Yet again, that body of CEO's are making those decisions regarding "labor, supplies demand ect" based upon the needs and reasonings of capitalism. You can certainly disagree with the justifications for their decisions, but that is how it comes about.

But the body of workers are making their decisions regarding "labor, supplies, demand ect" based upon the needs and reasonings of socialism. But what are those reasonings? What is it they are trying to "figure out?" How do they justify their actions? The only rationale given is "coordination" or "democracy" which answers nothing.

The more complicated difficulties IMO would be how workers win over non-workers and deal with specialized skills.

Why? What would be different for non- workers and for those with specialised skills? How would socialism explain and justify their proposed actions to them? Democracy (But which would simply mean that because we (the workers) are in the majority, we decide and you have to simply accept and do what we say. Which can be certainly a reasonable way for socialists to support "coordination" but it can certainly be reasonable for non-socialists to question the temperment of such a community)?
That is what I am asking.

[spens]

And that's not a class question. Doctors don't rule as part of the medical class, cobblers don't rule as part of the footwear-mending class.

But if your town is voting on a decision having to do with medicine, you are going to trust the doctor's opinion more than the cobbler's opinion. When everyone gets a say, and everyone gets a vote, this is political leverage. Unless of course the doctor keep his opinion to himself.

Classes come from different access to the means of production (ie property). If someone owns something and you use it at thir permission, that is a class relationship. If you both own it, but they know how to use it and you don't, let them f******* use it - no classes necessary.

If one person knows how to produce something and another doesn't, then the person who knows how to produce something has unequal access to the means of production.... himself.

[Impulse97]

If one person knows how to produce something and another doesn't, then the person who knows how to produce something has unequal access to the means of production.... himself.

[Chris]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

Who decides what your ability or need is? It would take some sort of position of power to determine who is in need and who has ability. I am in the belief that power naturally corrupts and tends to find ways to increase and consolidate power. After time, you are left with those who have consolidated power to abuse, and those who don't.

I always figured it was about creating a society where everyone's needs could be filled, both socially and technologically.

[#FF0000]

If one person knows how to produce something and another doesn't, then the person who knows how to produce something has unequal access to the means of production.... himself.

No.

Anyway the point you're struggling to make here was adressed by Bakunin himself when he said "yeah sure whatever if I wanna know about boots i'll talk to a boot maker or some shit who cares"