Yeah, under communism we will all suck rocks...we will be human moss.
Results 1 to 20 of 22
Do communists seek to abolish supply and demand?
Im just wondering.
Yeah, under communism we will all suck rocks...we will be human moss.
Listen to the worm of doubt for it speaks truth.
The Redstar2000 Papers
Also see this NEW SITE:@nti-dialectics
There's your typical intelligent answer, Right.Originally posted by redstar2000@Feb 23 2005, 12:32 AM
Yeah, under communism we will all suck rocks...we will be human moss.
I have met neither a religious fanatic nor a hard-core leftist whose arguments did not make me laugh.
The reason is that their arguments are actually one and the same: "it'll work because I believe in it, even though all available evidence is to the contrary."
No, the only difference will be that capital will be abolished and labor power will be the main factor in the economy. Which would change accordingly to different sectors of output when it becomes nessecary
However, there is a interesting theory Ludwig von Mises came out with; economic caculation and how it is impossible in Socialism. Luckly, lately theorists have realized that the internet and computers could very well fix this problem.
Also the arguement only assumes that the decision would be in the centralization of decision making, and cannot nessecarily be applied to decentralized Socialist systems.
There are a few more arguements against it, it was a real grudge for us Socialists to bear, but it seems that this arguement might no longer be valid since of technology.
The Economic Calculation Problem
Oh no, what have I done?
How ironic, that a tool created by capitalism can fix socialism's problem.
How sad, that irony will be lost on pretty much everyone here.
I have met neither a religious fanatic nor a hard-core leftist whose arguments did not make me laugh.
The reason is that their arguments are actually one and the same: "it'll work because I believe in it, even though all available evidence is to the contrary."
Absolutely irrelevant.Originally posted by t_wolves_fan@Feb 23 2005, 03:42 PM
How ironic, that a tool created by capitalism can fix socialism's problem.
How sad, that irony will be lost on pretty much everyone here.
Are you implying that socialists should discard all technological innovations since the development of capitalism in order to start "fresh"?
If so, what would be the practical benefit of such an approach?
Also, "capitalism" did not develop computers. "Capitalism" was merely the economic arrangement during the development of such technology. You seem to be implying that creativity and innovation are absent under any other system.
Thus, you are correct: the irony is lost on us.
Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain - and since some labor is pain in itself - it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.
When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.
It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect collective ownership and punish plunder. - Brederic Fastiat
Its not complicated. The people will demand it, the people will supply it, and the people will recive it.
"<span style=\'color:red\'>Born and bleed red</span>"
I am over 4,000 years old. So I have been here and there, done this and that. So, people, I know a thing or two.
*My political compass
Economic Left/Right: <span style=\'color:red\'>-9.00</span>
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: <span style=\'color:red\'>-5.59</span>
"<span style=\'color:red\'>So much time has passed, so little knowledge has been gained.</span>" reflection on the world
"<span style=\'color:red\'>I am a revolutionary and you are going to have to keep on saying that. You going to have to say I am a proletariat. I am the people. I am not the pig.</span>" Fred Hampton
"<span style=\'color:red\'>A revolution is not a dinnerparty</span>" Mao Zedong
"<span style=\'color:red\'>Fuck ballots! Cast bullets!</span>"
"<span style=\'color:red\'>The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.</span>" Ch1 Manifesto of the Communist Party
That doesn't make any difference. Even if socialism did "work" and it was "practical", it still involves the violation of individual rights.Originally posted by t_wolves_fan@Feb 23 2005, 03:42 PM
How ironic, that a tool created by capitalism can fix socialism's problem.
How sad, that irony will be lost on pretty much everyone here.
Depending on what type of economic Anarchist/communist you ask, you wouldn't nessarly have to abolish supply and demand persay. But what is needed is stop rewarding unfair supply and demand relationships. Where there is demand, you would still need supply. That much is simple, but the problem is making your wages based on supply and demand.
Let's take for example NHL hockey players. They make millions for playing a mere game everyday, while average joe construction-worker makes peanuts for working backbreaking 12 hour shifts. How is that fair? Both work hard, yet one makes 20xs as much as the other, because there is more market demand for the one job. Shouldn't wages be handed out in proportion to how much effort you put into your work, opposed to how much market demand there is for your line of work?
In my personal vision of an Anarchist society, the NHL would act as a syndicate, and each players wage would be either divided equally or atleast decided by their fellow workers who would judge the amount of effort the player puts into his work. The entire syndicate's income would either decided and regulated by other fellow syndicates. If the NHL syndicate is making too much money out of proportion to what it produces, then the other syndicates could use numerous methods, such as boycott, either force the NHL to lower prices to decrease player wages and increase fellow syndicate members consumation spending, or to share it's profits with fellow syndicates to equal out the playing field.
How ironic that the inventions made under feudalism made capitalism possible.Originally posted by t_wolves_fan@Feb 23 2005, 03:42 PM
How ironic, that a tool created by capitalism can fix socialism's problem.
How sad, that irony will be lost on pretty much everyone here.
Same thing.
That's what we already have.
I have met neither a religious fanatic nor a hard-core leftist whose arguments did not make me laugh.
The reason is that their arguments are actually one and the same: "it'll work because I believe in it, even though all available evidence is to the contrary."
The problem is, pretty much anyone can do construction; very few can play in the NHL.
That sounds shockingly inefficient. It would require massive central government involvement. Eventually we'll all be stuck living in ugly cement high-rises.
:P
Your theory has already been proven wrong. Fans were royally pissed at major league baseball players for whining about the millions they made. Not only did they not boycott, they soon came back in record numbers.
I have met neither a religious fanatic nor a hard-core leftist whose arguments did not make me laugh.
The reason is that their arguments are actually one and the same: "it'll work because I believe in it, even though all available evidence is to the contrary."
Yep, as the USSR, Cuba, China and North Korea have all proven, it is easy to gauge demand and supply the right amount of goods without any stupid free market getting in the way.
yep, as the USSR, Cuba, China, and N Korea are were never communist.
"<span style=\'color:red\'>Born and bleed red</span>"
I am over 4,000 years old. So I have been here and there, done this and that. So, people, I know a thing or two.
*My political compass
Economic Left/Right: <span style=\'color:red\'>-9.00</span>
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: <span style=\'color:red\'>-5.59</span>
"<span style=\'color:red\'>So much time has passed, so little knowledge has been gained.</span>" reflection on the world
"<span style=\'color:red\'>I am a revolutionary and you are going to have to keep on saying that. You going to have to say I am a proletariat. I am the people. I am not the pig.</span>" Fred Hampton
"<span style=\'color:red\'>A revolution is not a dinnerparty</span>" Mao Zedong
"<span style=\'color:red\'>Fuck ballots! Cast bullets!</span>"
"<span style=\'color:red\'>The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.</span>" Ch1 Manifesto of the Communist Party
They all removed the free market, this is the key feature of Capitalism, therefore they were not Capitalist. They did however all model themselves on Marx's theory and attempt to put it into practice, that's about as Communist as you can get. Don't agree with how they attempted it? Too bad, I don't agree with the practice of large American corporations, doesn't mean I think they're not Capitalist though.
I know, I already explained that there is more market demand for NHL players. But that doesn't mean they work harder than average Joe, they are just born lucky and focused on developing their talents.
Perhaps some central organization between syndicates (Syndicate of syndicates) would be needed. But it would be implaced on a purely syndicate and individual level.
Were the fans organized in a system of syndicates and lived in a society that based wages on effort instead of market demand? No.
Until people stop putting value on market demand, we aren't going to see any change in supply and demand. It's that simple. I think the difference between me and you it seems is that I just like to think that people can one day over come such thinking and put value on what should be valued
I have never and will never support central planning. I just would rather have syndicate and worker communes in charge of the economy instead of Corperations.
What about consumers?
Either they would get paid wages from their syndicate so that they can purchase items from other syndicates (Yes, I know, most anarchists are against money) or their syndicate or federation of syndicates does away with money and provides you with your means.
But they put their talents to work instead of wasting them, which negates luck.
Uhhhh....can you repeat this in English?
Wouldn't syndicates and central sydicates of syndicates be just another word for governments?
What if the NHL syndicate paid its players $7 mil a year while the construction syndicates paid its workers $40K a year?
Ummm, yes. Every baseball fan knows that Major League Baseball players get paid a huge amount of money to play a game. Their number one complaint was that they couldn't possibly work hard enough to complain over that much money.
And I think your last sentence indicates you think you should get to decide who gets paid what based on criteria of your own choosing. That further says to me your passion for deciding who gets paid what is all about control and power.
On what basis would the syndicated communes decide how much of what to produce? Because it sounds like a good idea at the time?
What if nobody wants what they produce? What if nobody produces what everybody wants?
I have met neither a religious fanatic nor a hard-core leftist whose arguments did not make me laugh.
The reason is that their arguments are actually one and the same: "it'll work because I believe in it, even though all available evidence is to the contrary."
They were still lucky to be born with such talents. I have been playing hockey for about 10 years now and I praticed just as much as some Tier 1 players yet play Tier 2, and on the flip side there are plenty of tier 3 players that have praticed far more than I have and yet play tier 3.
No. It would be a "meeting table" for the different worker communes to work out issues. And it would be purely volentary.
Really? I must of missed all of these syndicates on my way in...
I don't even know why I'm replying to this, but I have already stated that I place value on effort and need, and not on market demand or natural talents. Of course I think everyone should based on that criteria, because to me it's the only logical criteria. This isn't about me wanting power or control, I want neither, I want everyone to get what they deserve and need. Unless you wish to try and provide a logical reason why I should place value on market demand, I won't place value on market demand.
Same way companies decide on how much to produce. Demand. You produce in proportion to demand.
