Isn't Communism a little.. Purposeless?

[tooAlive]

Other people who have an interest in designing and producing computers, of course. Production is a social rather than individual phenomenon, even under capitalism.

I think it should also be pointed out that we are capable of producing an incredible amount with very, very little labor these days. With a society that gears production towards meeting need and wants, I'd say it wouldn't be long before the question of "who will make the stuff" is just a minor detail.

But innovation isn't a "need" or a "want."

Innovation is directly proportionate to competition. That's the same reason monopolies stifle growth; because they don't need to.

For example, the electric light. Did people want electric light? No. Did they even know what electric light was? Not even close.

How did they get it then?

Well, a very greedy man by the name of J.P. Morgan decided he wanted to build his own empire. He saw an opportunity with Thomas Edison and pursued it. This involved him investing millions of dollars into this "idea" that nobody really needed or wanted. Why? Because he wanted to make a profit.

The same could be said about almost every single significant example of innovation.

Why did John D. Rockefeller start producing gasoline? Because Morgan forced him to innovate, otherwise his kerosene empire would have crumbled.

Now, you will argue that these men exploited their workers inhumanely. This is true. But that doesn't change the fact that these great innovations we have today are because of the personal incentive present to those that achieved them.

This troll is rubbish. Seems to have no reading comprehension.

The more I read, the less it all seems to make sense.

[Questionable]

But innovation isn't a "need" or a "want."

Innovation is directly proportionate to competition. That's the same reason monopolies stifle growth; because they don't need to.

For example, the electric light. Did people want electric light? No. Did they even know what electric light was? Not even close.

How did they get it then?

Well, a very greedy man by the name of J.P. Morgan decided he wanted to build his own empire. He saw an opportunity with Thomas Edison and pursued it. This involved him investing millions of dollars into this "idea" that nobody really needed or wanted. Why? Because he wanted to make a profit.

The same could be said about almost every single significant example of innovation.

Why did John D. Rockefeller start producing gasoline? Because Morgan forced him to innovate, otherwise his kerosene empire would have crumbled.

Now, you will argue that these men exploited their workers inhumanely. This is true. But that doesn't change the fact that these great innovations we have today are because of the personal incentive present to those that achieved them.

So you only care about the lives of great individuals then, is that right? To hell with the workers who had to deal with actually making their shit, to hell with the millions of people who to this VERY DAY still do not have electricity in their homes (if they own one), all that matters is the precious Morgans and Rockefellers of the world. To hell with the billions of people who don't go after a job because of "innovation" or "creative desire" but because they'll starve if they don't.

I'm sorry if that's not what you're trying to say, but it sure as hell seems like it.

[tooAlive]

So you only care about the lives of great individuals then, is that right? To hell with the workers who had to deal with actually making their shit, to hell with the millions of people who to this VERY DAY still do not have electricity in their homes (if they own one), all that matters is the precious Morgans and Rockefellers of the world. To hell with the billions of people who don't go after a job because of "innovation" or "creative desire" but because they'll starve if they don't.

I'm sorry if that's not what you're trying to say, but it sure as hell seems like it.

And to hell with the thousands of people that were employed, and paid a generous wage by Henry Ford as well, right?

I'm not defending what those men did. Had I been in their place I would have done things differently. I believe Henry Ford came along and did it right.

But what I am saying is that because there is competition and because individuals have a personal incentive to produce, create, and succeed, we have some of the greatest innovations in the world.

[Blake's Baby]

How do you know what innovations people would have come up with had they been free to do so?

[Questionable]

And to hell with the thousands of people that were employed, and paid generous wage by Henry Ford as well, right?

No, I prefer to say to hell with the system that forces them to trade the time of their lives for a wage. But you can continue to lick the boot that kicks you in the first place if you want.

I'm not defending what those men did. Had I been in their place I would have done things differently. I believe Henry Ford came along and did it right.

I'm glad you view that Nazi as a heroic figure, but the fact of the matter is that the aspirations of individuals matter very little in capitalism compared to its own systemic logic.

But what I am saying is that because there is competition and because individuals have a personal incentive to produce, create, and succeed, we have some of the greatest innovations in the world.

Yes, capitalism does a very fine job of meeting its own needs. That's why every factory contains the glorious lighting provided to us by JP Morgan, while things such as a cure to cancer or free housing for all still elude us.

But you're still taking the best examples of capitalism and ignoring all the rest. I'd even say you're being inadvertently racist by assuming that first-world nations such as the USA are enough to excuse capitalism even if the majority of the world is still pretty shitty.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But innovation isn't a "need" or a "want."

No, but innovation is necessary for better meeting needs and wants. If you want or need something, odds are good you'll have to innovate in some fashion in order to get it, because a lot of human-made stuff doesn't simply grow on trees.

Innovation is directly proportionate to competition. That's the same reason monopolies stifle growth; because they don't need to.

Monopolies are a market phenomenon. They don't innovate because they already dominate the market and are making a tidy profit, and innovation could damage that. In a moneyless economy, there is no danger of new products doing that.

For example, the electric light. Did people want electric light? No. Did they even know what electric light was? Not even close.

How did they get it then?

Well, a very greedy man by the name of J.P. Morgan decided he wanted to build his own empire. He saw an opportunity with Thomas Edison and pursued it. This involved him investing millions of dollars into this "idea" that nobody really needed or wanted. Why? Because he wanted to make a profit.

So wait a minute. Are you saying nobody would be interested in safer and more efficient methods of lighting in any kind of society? What you describe is how innovations become widespread under capitalism, not how they come about in the first place. Joseph Swan would have still invented incandescent lighting even if Edison had never even contemplated it.

Now, you will argue that these men exploited their workers inhumanely. This is true. But that doesn't change the fact that these great innovations we have today are because of the personal incentive present to those that achieved them.

Nope.

[tooAlive]

No, I prefer to say to hell with the system that forces them to trade the time of their lives for a wage. But you can continue to lick the boot that kicks you in the first place if you want.

Again, that's simply not true. Nobody is forced to do anything under capitalism.

Heck, there are even many communist communities within the USA, which is a predominantly capitalist country.

If a worker decides to quit his job and go to work for himself, he can do that. It sure as hell isn't easy, but there's no reason it should be a walk in the park either. And some people simple prefer to work for someone else and not have to worry about the responsibilities that the "capitalist" he's selling his labor to has to deal with.

Again, nobody is forced to be a wage slave. Although it's much easier to remain an employee, it's far from mandatory.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Then is socialism the "stepping stone" to achieve this?

You will hear differing views on this, but I argue that socialism and communism can be used interchangeably and that the "stepping stone" to communism is the "dictatorship of the proletariat". Again, views on this differ between various tendencies.

Because you can't expect to enforce communism without a state.

Expand on your reasoning here so we can adequately debate this view. I would argue that you can't expect to enforce capitalism without a state.

Socialism would have a big state, steep progressive taxation, massive wealth redistribution, and then communism would come along and abolish the monetary system as well as de-instate the state. Am I close?

No

Society is broken down, basically, between 2 main and antagonistic classes called the proletariat (or working class) who produces for the bourgeoisie (capitalist class) who own the means of production and exploit the labor of the proletariat.

The state is an organ of class rule. The state came into being to try to hold class antagonisms in check, but because it arose in the conditions of conflict between these classes, it is the state of the dominant class. So, the state has worked in the interests of a certain class against others. In the past, it's worked for feudal lords, in modern times (especially since the French Revolution) it has worked in the interests of the bourgeoisie (or capitalists).

Because the state works in the interests of one class, every state is a dictatorship of one class. Right now, we would argue, we live under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is not synonymous with "one-man dictatorial rule" but can be understood in class terms. The dictatorship of the proletariat is nothing more than the proletariat organizing itself as the ruling class. This part is important, because classes (and therefore the state) do not go away overnight. Elements of the bourgeoisie will (and have) exist after the success of the proletariat. The proletariat needs to defend the gains it made during the revolution.

It should also be remembered that many communists argue that the proletariat should directly administer it's own class dictatorship through various organs of proletarian class rule (such as the soviets, etc.) That is why Marxists, such as Engels, argue that such a society isn't even a state, but a semi-state that is in the process of destroying the basis of the need for a state (class society, generalized commodity production, etc).

EDIT: A big state, progressive taxation, and redistribution can all exist within capitalism. These things are not inherently socialist.

[Questionable]

Again, that's simply not true. Nobody is forced to do anything under capitalism.

Heck, there are even many communist communities within the USA, which is a predominantly capitalist country.

If a worker decides to quit his job and go to work for himself, he can do that. It sure as hell isn't easy, but there's no reason it should be a walk in the park either. And some people simple prefer to work for someone else and not have to worry about the responsibilities that the "capitalist" he's selling his labor to has to deal with.

Again, nobody is forced to be a wage slave. Although it's much easier to remain an employee, it's far from mandatory.

In a society where you need workers creating the products, yes, some people are forced to be wage-slaves. If everyone instantly decided at the same time to start their own business, the economy would come to a standstill.

"It sure as hell isn't easy" is quite an understatement when statistics show that close to half of small businesses (Maybe even more, it's been a while since I've looked) have gone bankrupt in America in recent years.

What are these "communist communities" that exist within America that you're referring to?

And again all this talk of people starting their own business is still exclusive to first-world nations such as America.

[Ele'ill]

I don't think people naturally gravitate towards competition. I think that people gravitate towards problem solving. Given the system we live in, competition is solving a problem that we've been given by a very few rich folks and it works only to their advantage. That is a route though, but it just reciprocates poverty via wage and that illusive ladder that so few people actually get far climbing. There is another route, a more social route. In the capitalist system we live in, with all the other issues of authority and hierarchical power structures providing immense hurdles in our lives the darkest and hardest times are only momentarily remedied through more social acts of outreach and solidarity and such networks we construct ourselves, even if in some situations they only serve a momentary purpose.

As for where we will get our materials it's the same answer as where we get them now. We mine them, refine them, ship them, receive them. People can create and alter and improve things on their own without monetary incentive. This is especially true for basic needs, we can make it happen. If for some reason, post revolution, nobody wants to produce something, then perhaps the need isn't there. If people want something produced or need something produced, I think it's feasible to think that it will be produced, or it won't and that's the world we'll live in until someone does.

[Ravachol]

I believe inventions would be very different without capital.

True enough. Can you define Capital though?

Where would you get the materials for your inventions?

Inventions rarely require materials outside of thought. Goods do and I presume the materials would be fetched where they are located, given the process of getting them there is feasible and sustainable.

And more importantly than that, where is the need to innovate?

You seem to think that innovation for the sake of innovation is some transcendent good. Why?

As for if new things will come around, humans figure stuff out to solve their problems, the incentive being the problem. A practical example would be primitive communism and its highly influential invention of flintknapping.

Computers have come a long way since they were created. Processors are getting faster and better every few months. Why? Because of competition.

Can you substantiate why this is this case and, more importantly, why this is 'good' in and of itself?

If Intel releases a faster processor than AMD, AMD would have to innovate other wise they'd go out of business. Hence, we get innovation.

Hardly. The market for processors is very diverse and pure processor speed is but one aspect in which to specialize. The idea that 'compete or sink' rules markets in an instant is quite naive.

Under communism, why would they feel the need to innovate further? And if they did, how would they fund their innovation?

Why is funding a necessary component of creating a product? In eras where Capital did not yet dominate class society (ie. Feudalism, Slave societies, 'asiatic despotism') goods were produced without Capital being a significant factor (or a factor at all), never mind primitive communism's subsistence non-economy. Goods get made because people want to see them made. Even in this day and age where Capital rules everything around us, there's tons of goods (material and immaterial) which come into being without 'funding', from open source software to art or other such things.

Henry Ford for example redefined the auto industry and how automobiles were made. How would he have accomplished that under communism?

Not and that would be a good thing. The world would look so radically different under communism that its bullshit to speculate what an instance of capital's development would look like under communism.

It seems to me as though communism is a very primitive idea, and can only truly exist without technology, things that require complex innovation, and human's natural tendency for competition.

How is this tendency natural? A species with so few physical qualities, so dependent upon its mental faculties which are fostered in a social context and so dependent upon collective social facilities as our own has, even in the face of a radically divisive class society, relied more, historically speaking, on collaboration than upon inter-individual competition. In fact, individual competition is a rather minor footnote in all of evolutionary history as the individual, however grand he or she might deem him or herself, is largely irrelevant to the species.

[tooAlive]

I think this is where we'll ultimately always disagree.

You see "wage labor" as something immoral. I don't see anything wrong with it.

I believe that if someone works harder and smarter than others, he should be compensated accordingly. If someone is unwilling to work or produce, he or she should be allowed to starve, as cruel as it may sound.

I suppose you'll argue that many CEOs don't produce anything and simply profit off the labor of others. Again, I see nothing wrong with that. He's responsible for providing jobs that keep people off the street. And not everyone knows how to (nor wants to) run a company, which is why they shouldn't receive the same compensation as a CEO.

Again, these are just the things we won't agree on, so ultimately our beliefs will be different, although I understand what your objective ultimately is.

Also, I don't see how removing the monetary system would solve anything. What's to stop someone from hoarding apple pies, logs, or other things that would give him or her an advantage over his or her neighbors?

It seems as though eliminating currency is merely symbolic, because people will ultimately trade something, making whatever they trade effectively "currency."

In fact, looking back at history you'll notice that currency was implemented to make trading easier. Removing it (in my opinion) would only make things harder, as we'd simply use other things as "currency."

[Ravachol]

Anyway discussions like these show why i'm usually not interested in 'convincing' people about 'the cause' or other bullshit. If someone has no quarrel with capital and domination, fine, do whatever you want, I sure as hell won't be stopped by arguments to the contrary. But don't come whining about when you get shit in the face, at that point, come around again and talk.

[tooAlive]

Anyway discussions like these show why i'm usually not interested in 'convincing' people about 'the cause' or other bullshit. If someone has no quarrel with capital and domination, fine, do whatever you want, I sure as hell won't be stopped by arguments to the contrary. But don't come whining about when you get shit in the face, at that point, come around again and talk.

I'm actually glad I came, as I have a better understanding of what "true communism" really is. Not what I believed it was before (Cuba, ect..)

I probably won't stay too long, as I didn't come here to convince anyone; just to get a better understanding of what the radical left is all about, since everyone seems to have a different view. I respect everyone's beliefs and opinions, even though I don't agree with them.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

By that definition, communism sounds a lot like anarchy.

I'm sorry, it's just that I've never been able to see the link between communism and personal freedom.

For example; what if I wanted to travel the world? How could I afford to do so if I had no money? Would the entire world have to be communist as well, and my entire trip around the world be totally free?

Again, this is all very new to me.

I also see you have capitalism associated with wage slavery. Why?

Why is a person a wage slave, if not by his or her own choice? For example; I've worked a job where I busted my behind and felt exploited. So I quit. I was only a wage slave if I chose to be. Everyone has that choice. In fact, I know many people that choose to be wage slaves, and don't mind it at all. But nobody is forced to continue that "slavery."

Yeah, they can just die, right? No bother about paying the rent and feeding the kids, we are all "Free!"...
The Proletariat, the working class of Capitalism, do not own anything but their labor and are forced to sell it to those who do own.
The point of Communism is to get rid of all the Parasites who have caused so much immeasurable suffering to countless humans and who have sent billions into their deaths in their crusades, their colonial exploits, world wars and imperialist interventions: the Patriarch, the Slave Masters, the Kings, the Barons, the owners of Industry, the Usurers, and to create a society where everyone does work and is equally in control over the distribution of the surplus, the 'profits', his toil produced.
But the only thing standing between humankind and true freedom - where rising productivity of Labor is not used to fill the insatiable want of the Capitalists but to get rid toil, where the social is political: when homelessness, Hunger, unemployment, addiction, insecurity and other thousand year old social ills are combated instead of produced, where the class which rules and controls and drives all of society is the common man! - is the Class Enemy.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I believe that if someone works harder and smarter than others, he should be compensated accordingly.

People aren't dogs. They are capable of doing things without expecting to be rewarded for it. The Free Software movement is an example.

If someone is unwilling to work or produce, he or she should be allowed to starve, as cruel as it may sound.

Sounds? It is cruel. Doing nothing is sometimes better than doing anything.

I suppose you'll argue that many CEOs don't produce anything and simply profit off the labor of others. Again, I see nothing wrong with that. He's responsible for providing jobs that keep people off the street. And not everyone knows how to (nor wants to) run a company, which is why they shouldn't receive the same compensation as a CEO.

Industries are made up people. Why can't those people dispense with the parasitical managerial types and run things collectively?

Again, these are just the things we won't agree on, so ultimately our beliefs will be different, although I understand what your objective ultimately is.

So why do you have these opinions? How do you think the current socioeconomic arrangement benefits you? What makes you certain you wouldn't be better off in a more egalitarian society?

Also, I don't see how removing the monetary system would solve anything. What's to stop someone from hoarding apple pies, logs, or other things that would give him or her an advantage over his or her neighbors?

You still need to answer the question of why anyone would do that in the first place. What good is hoarding more apples than one could ever possibly eat, if everyone else can just go down to the nearest collective store and pick up an apple for themselves?

It seems as though eliminating currency is merely symbolic, because people will ultimately trade something, making whatever they trade effectively "currency."

Exchange would occur, but it would be for the purposes of ensuring that needs and wants are met, not for profits.

In fact, looking back at history you'll notice that currency was implemented to make trading easier. Removing it (in my opinion) would only make things harder, as we'd simply use other things as "currency."

Just because something is invented at one point doesn't mean it can't become obsolete latter. For example, millstones or waterwheels for grinding wheat have been made obsolete by electrical machine that do the job faster and more effectively.

Anyway discussions like these show why i'm usually not interested in 'convincing' people about 'the cause' or other bullshit. If someone has no quarrel with capital and domination, fine, do whatever you want, I sure as hell won't be stopped by arguments to the contrary. But don't come whining about when you get shit in the face, at that point, come around again and talk.

These discussions take place in public. While the person you are debating with is unlikely to be swayed in the course of a single debate, there is still the audience to consider.

[Le Socialiste]

I also see you have capitalism associated with wage slavery. Why?

Why is a person a wage slave, if not by his or her own choice? For example; I've worked a job where I busted my behind and felt exploited. So I quit. I was only a wage slave if I chose to be. Everyone has that choice. In fact, I know many people that choose to be wage slaves, and don't mind it at all. But nobody is forced to continue that "slavery."

I think you're misunderstanding what we mean when we use the term wage slavery. Wage slavery is an integral aspect of capitalism, therefore it exists at just about every level of society. It's not a matter of quitting your job and - boom! - you're no longer a wage slave. As far as I can tell, you still must sell your labor power to someone in order to afford even the basic necessities - food, clothing, a roof over your head. Furthermore, you don't even see the full result of that labor, much less receive it; you're reduced to a mere fraction of the wealth you've generated, the rest going to line the pockets of the people or person in charge.

Wage slavery is an instrument of exploitation and a tool of social stratification, constraining one in what they can do. If you're just trying to stay afloat or keep your home, your entire livelihood will depend on the wages you receive as a result of your labor power (however meager). Within capitalism, wage slavery has naturally arisen due to the existence of private property and its concentration into a few hands. Similarly, capitalism produces what Marx and others identified as labor's 'reserve army', or the unemployed. Their existence further cements the necessity of selling one's labor power in order to compete with others for a job. If your in a precarious job position you'll be less willing to organize for better wages or benefits, even workplace safety. To use a present day example, warehouse workers indirectly employed by Walmart in southern California and Illinois walked out last year against what they called unsafe working conditions:

The Illinois workers share many of the same complaints as their counterparts in California: They contend that they work in dangerously hot shipping containers and that they have to use broken and unsafe equipment, according to Leah Fried, a spokeswoman for Warehouse Workers for Justice. Many of them are temporary employees earning close to the minimum wage without regular schedules, she said.

This resistance didn't build overnight. These workers have suffered in these conditions for years, but were afraid of speaking out because of Walmart's retaliatory policies that punish or fire workers for protesting. These were people who didn't even have homes to go back to after work:

New details emerged Thursday about the living conditions endured by workers at a Walmart support warehouse in Elwood, Ill. who went on strike last month to protest their poor working conditions and alleged retaliation by management.

In a new piece by The Guardian, warehouse worker Phillip Bailey explains how he sleeps in a Catholic hostel in Joliet, Ill., after a long day of loading and unloading hundreds of boxes bound for Walmart stores.

Another worker, Mike Compton, says he regularly sleeps in foreclosed homes, explaining, "I found one abandoned house that had working electricity still. And a fridge."

A third warehouse worker, Bailey said, was forced to live in the woods. "He just set up a tent in there for a few weeks." Temperatures in Northern Illinois during the winter average 22 degrees Farenheidt, making situations like these potentially deadly.

The dire conditions in which the workers live are compounded by the fact that their jobs working for the logistics company Roadlink Workforce Solutions, moving goods on their way to Walmarts nationwide, are physically taxing, perpetually part-time, and often pay near minimum wage. Compton told the Guardian that if he were to work every single week of the year, he might expect to make about $15,000. "It is not easy to get by," he added.

This is what wage slavery looks like. It's a vital aspect of capitalism, wherein workers must compete to sell their labor for a job as dehumanizing as what I quoted above. Under capitalism, we have no choice but to do this. Without steady wages, we are unable to purchase or afford even the simplest necessities. Without wages, we find ourselves tossed out into the sea of the unemployed, the homeless and the vulnerable. But the conditions of wage slavery can also force people to organize, spurring them to resist and fight those who sit above and behind the laborer, who take their share of the profits without contributing to its basic production.

[Manic Impressive]

I think this is where we'll ultimately always disagree.

You see "wage labor" as something immoral. I don't see anything wrong with it.

I believe that if someone works harder and smarter than others, he should be compensated accordingly. If someone is unwilling to work or produce, he or she should be allowed to starve, as cruel as it may sound.

If that were the case then these kids should be billionaires.

[Ocean Seal]

Man those are my favorite videos... They aren't pointless.

[tooAlive]

If that were the case then these kids should be billionaires.

Perhaps one day they'll come to America and become just that.