Communists.

ArphaRima

What is so "fundamentally undemocratic" about this system?

Because if the Communist Party ever won an election outright, then democracy would end. The other political parties wouldnt exist under communism. There isnt a government per se, there is The Party.
As a communist (a real one - not a college hippie) said to me; Communism is a single party democracy. No dissenting views allowed.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So just to be clear then your answer was a sarcastic quip meant to add nothing to the debate. Would you like to try again, this time actually explaining how the transformation from present democracy to future anarchic entity would occur, and what happens those people who don't want that to happen? You know, since you huffed and puffed about mine and other people's answers, I expect you would like the same sort of investigative vigour from posters in opposition to you.

BroomBurner

smegmar wrote: »

Please take note that Communism is a form of economic structure, It is NOT a form of administration. How money moves and how decisions are made are two separate things (although both influence each other).

I would also like to point out that like all systems democracy has it's benefits and it's problems, the larger the democracy the larger the bureaucracy, which slows down everything, and in times when a clear direction and immediate action are required it may not be the best choice in government.

Those two statements are possibly THE most ignorant things I've read in a while on here.

1. Communism is a form of government, which requires administration. How do you have an economic structure in place without the government to support it?

2. How do you think communist governments deal with the a larger population? It takes a lot of fear and control to keep a communist government in power. Would you prefer to live in a world of fear and control, where you're not the one that has the control, but you have all the fear?

The single BEST option for a government is democratic. When it comes to the economic leanings of that government, you may debate on whether capitalism isn't the best option. Perhaps a welfare state would be better. Higher taxes, better provisions. Though that in itself brings problems.

There are NO perfect solutions. Ever. That's just it. Therefore, we must always choose the next best option, and that is democracy. If a country was communist, there would be no more democracy. There would be no freedom. There would just be fear by the many, and control by the few.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

turgon

Now that donegalfella has enlightened us to how an anarchist state is formed, does BriantheBard care to tell us how a communist one evolves?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KINGVictor

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I am sorry,I'll have to disagree with you when you state that the unemployed in Uk get half of waht we get in Ireland...thats simply false...A lot of people unfortunately compare social welfare payments between Ireland and the Uk nominally without putting into consideration that apart from the weekly unemployment payments (which is higher in Ireland undoubtedly)...the UK recipients do not pay a cent towards accomodation-which is a major factor in expences...they are fully paid by the govt under the housing benefit scheme.You mentioned they are still able to hunt for jobs...under comparatively better circumstances in terms of transport etc and far better Job centre facilities(in comparison to the Farce..(sorry)FAS we have in Ireland).

Back to the original thread,I have noticed the amount of pedantic tendencies of most posts...my humble submission is that I would rather stick to a system that works in practice than an ideology that is based on theory at best or practically a failure.I find the references to China and Cuba in terms of Communism as very laughable...Cuba today is practically a failed state (given the opportunity 90% of its citizens would gladly emmigrate to the US).and China as of today is definitely not practising communism AT ALL...and neither do I see them do that in the nearest future.Communism has always being a facade for tyranny.

brianthebard

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Never said it meant chaos, I only asked how you suggested you would downsize the state when others didn't want it. You didn't answer that, so yes it is unclear.

dreamlogic

turgon wrote:

So what is?

I would say these priorities would have to vary depending on the particular organisation we'd be talking about. If it was a factory, I'd imagine they could have a lot of flexi-time and such so that people could work at hours more convenient to them. Hence they'd enjoy their work more, they'd go in and out with a smile on their face. The working environment would be a social meeting place as well as a place of work. It would be more informal and relaxed. I'm just thinking off the top of my head here so...

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I don't know, you seem to be advocating ghettoization here. To a certain extent this happens already in the natural course of settlement and urbanization etc. But your view of the world would exacerbate these disparities it seems to me. Wouldn't that be problematic?

What this means, effectively, is that "true communism" requires every single person on the globe to be part of some Borg-like totalitarian collective.

It's a vicious circle. The more the nanny state intervenes in personal affairs, the more intervention people demand. If they conceive unplanned children, it becomes the state's role to provide for those children. If they smoke and overeat their way to ill-health, it's the state's role to pay for their medical care. If they take out exorbitant mortgages that they can't pay, it's the state's role to make sure they keep their homes. And so on.

As I see it, these things are part of a symbiotic chain of events inside of the capitalist system rather than purely resting with the individual concerned.

What happens to those who don't want to live under communism?

I would suggest similar to what BtB was saying. Except I would ask you to apply the same question to our current system. If we don't like capitalism, what happens to us? I think therein you might find the answer to your question.

smegmar wrote:

I would also like to point out that like all systems democracy has it's benefits and it's problems, the larger the democracy the larger the bureaucracy, which slows down everything

I think I disagree with your view of democracy here, particularly the bit about slowing down everything. Can you elaborate?

donegalfella wrote:

Every Irish citizen over the age of 18 can vote in all elections—general, local, European, presidential—and referendums pertaining to the governance of their country. Practically anyone who wants to can stand for election.
...
What is so "fundamentally undemocratic" about this system?

People vote to decide who wins X-Factor. I think the govt should have a similar system of consultation in place before they make any decisions that impact on people's lives. Without someone charging for the phonecalls of course.:P
It would make things more democratic. Just a thought.
Other ways of democratizing would happen in the workplace and other social gatherings.

But you can't combine the "withering away of the state" with mandated equality ...

If the state gradually became more decentralized and subdivided, you could imagine perhaps how this would make the state less relevant over time. I can envision this sort of development coming about gradually, within the framework of the current political system. I would be opposed to outright mandated equality myself. That would just be weird. However I could also envision this happening within the current system, perhaps < 50 years from now.

... the state is needed to stop the cream from rising to the top, so to speak.

I see what you mean. Because too much cream is bad for the arteries, so to speak. Also the problem is that cream is not the only thing that rises to the top : /

So do you do support private property ownership, at least of the "basics." But how do you define "extras"? Is a second car an "extra"? A second home? A flat-screen TV?

I don't know why anyone would need a second car. A person can only be in one place at a time. Which doesn't answer your question I know. I'd need to think more and get back to you on it. I am not a communist myself as I said before.
But I do think there has to be a fairer way of deciding things such as property ownership in the absense of a god-figure at the top of the hierarchy imposing order. Well that's my view at least. Now that everything is more secular, there is obviously no god to disobey, so people are more questioning of who owns property and land by right.

Then surely the integrity of the system depends on the electorate never being stupid enough to vote the Communist Party into power.

I think the whole point would be to dismantle the system as it stands. LOL I suspect you're only saying this to add levity to the discussion

That's pretty much the case in our country. Other than a sprinkling of support in local authorities, I don't think the hard left in Ireland has any political traction at all.

Just curious. Who would you include in the hard left in Ireland? Would you include parties who run candidates for election to parliament?

Broomburner wrote:

Communism is a form of government, which requires administration. How do you have an economic structure in place without the government to support it?

The invisible hand?

donegalfella wrote:

I believe that international communism would lead to genocide, enslavement, and environmental depredation.

We already have this under the current system. I am not saying we would not under communism, I'd need to reflect more on this. But the point stands, that we already have this when the market reigns. I think we already covered this earlier though, or attempted to, so I don't want to bring the discussion backwards. It's just that if it was to be no worse than it is now under the current system, then this can't be used as an argument against it.

turgon

dreamlogic wrote: »

I would say these priorities would have to vary depending on the particular organisation we'd be talking about. If it was a factory, I'd imagine they could have a lot of flexi-time and such so that people could work at hours more convenient to them. Hence they'd enjoy their work more, they'd go in and out with a smile on their face. The working environment would be a social meeting place as well as a place of work. It would be more informal and relaxed. I'm just thinking off the top of my head here so...

That sound like a really productive factory.

And I love this idealisation of going out with a smile on their face. Pure farcical nonsense.

dreamlogic wrote: »

If we don't like capitalism, what happens to us? I think therein you might find the answer to your question.

Go setup a commune?

dreamlogic wrote: »

People vote to decide who wins X-Factor. I think the govt should have a similar system of consultation in place before they make any decisions that impact on people's lives.

Ad how do you think they would raise tax with this system? It would be impossible.

dreamlogic wrote: »

But I do think there has to be a fairer way of deciding things such as property ownership in the absense of a god-figure at the top of the hierarchy imposing order

So yuo want to decide property ownership, but you dont want a god figure. Are people going to fall on their knees crying "take my property - take it ALL!"

dreamlogic wrote: »

I think the whole point would be to dismantle the system as it stands.

Oh goody! Nothing like dismantling the system as weve seen in 1910's Russia,1920's Italy, 1930's Germany and Spain. Dismantling the system: the road to equality!

dreamlogic

turgon wrote:

That sound like a really productive factory.
And I love this idealisation of going out with a smile on their face. Pure farcical nonsense.

Excuse me? Did someone get out of the wrong side of the bed today? I did add the qualifier at the end that I was throwing out ideas off the top of my head. It was more an attempt to generate a discussion. In fairness I don't think you have any reason for being so dismissive when I didn't put forward anything to warrant that reaction. If you think that productivity and human happiness are mutually exclusive, then maybe you could simply state that. Your responses are reactionary and predictable at this stage. You come across like someone who is locked in a room and you're being forced into responding.

Go setup a commune?

What are you on about? This has nothing to do with the question I asked. Or is that just a token phrase that you throw around for no particular reason?!

Ad how do you think they would raise tax with this system? It would be impossible.

Why would you say this in response to what I said? That was not the issue being dealt with at all! I was responding to donegalfella's question about the existing system of democracy. I am getting tired of having to repeatedly go back and clarify the context just for you.

So yuo want to decide property ownership, but you dont want a god figure. Are people going to fall on their knees crying "take my property - take it ALL!"

No, obviously my point has gone over your head here.
Also I have no idea what you are saying here anyway Do I dare to ask that you clarify and maybe elaborate on whatever that is?

Oh goody! Nothing like dismantling the system as weve seen in 1910's Russia,1920's Italy, 1930's Germany and Spain. Dismantling the system: the road to equality!

Again, you are misterpreting. I was not advocating this as my own position. The rest doesn't contribute anything.

turgon

dreamlogic wrote: »

Excuse me? Did someone get out of the wrong side of the bed today?

Apologies for my rashness. Its just for all of this thread all weve been hearing about is these ideals. Workers laughing amongst themselves and reading Plato by the riverside on their break. But its all nonsense. Communism isnt going to make anyone happier about going to work. People will only go because they have to.

dreamlogic wrote: »

What are you on about? This has nothing to do with the question I asked. Or is that just a token phrase that you throw around for no particular reason?!

Heres the situation:

In capitalism, a group is entitled to go ff and live the life they want. They can set up a commune if they want and construct a government so that it connects with the economy outside. In other words communism is inside and all excess is then swapped for money with people outside the commune. This money is then used to buy stuff outside the communes.

Whereas in communism you cant go of and set up your own capatilist mini-state. You have to live by communsim. Thats where the coercion starts.

You see Ive no problem with communism as an economic theory. I have a problem with communists who want to take this theory and put it into practise (although God knows how - 23 pages and we still haven't found out). Fine except for the fact they want to focre the rest of us in too.

dreamlogic wrote: »

Why would you say this in response to what I said?

You said the government should consult people on matters that effect their lives. Whsat do you think would be the feedback if they had consulted everyone on the income levies?

dreamlogic wrote: »

Do I dare to ask that you clarify and maybe elaborate on whatever that is?

Not at all, it gives you an opportunity to make another post to up your thanks meter

Your proposal: institute a fair system of property ownership/re-distribution. Constraint: no God figure. So people would have to volunteer to give away property.

brianthebard

Look turgon, if you think that people will only ever work because they have to, or that you can set up an independent government within a capitalist state, then you're either disengenious or deluded. Either way you're never going to come close to agreeing with any posts in this thread on communism so why keep pretending?
And btw, when I worked in the factory I didn't read Plato at lunchtime but I did read Freud.

turgon

Well obviously not a de jure government. But a group that converts the communist produced products into money by selling to outsiders, so as to buy other products that cant be produced.

Tbh brianthebard, Im just trying to learn about communism. Ive read some of the history but as you rightly said Russia is not theoretical communism in practise. So I want to learn how a communist society would work in practise.

brianthebard

That's not how it looks, its a little late to pull the interested student now. We talked about alienation ages ago and you pish poshed that, now you're still saying people only work because they have to. The two topics are obviously related but you've made no attempt to interact with the former, and you've already made up your mind on the latter. If you were genuinely interested in communism, even just as a theory you oppose, you should've been open to discussion and not berated everyone who attempted to clarify marxian theory.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dreamlogic

turgon wrote: »

Not at all, it gives you an opportunity to make another post to up your thanks meter

That's interesting isn't it, that you'd value a thanks meter so much
The idea of having a reward system that doesn't involve financial remuneration is a good one, don't you think? Or have you got something going on the side yourself turgon? :P

Your proposal: institute a fair system of property ownership/re-distribution. Constraint: no God figure. So people would have to volunteer to give away property.

The observation I made was that we now live in a secular society anyway. Hence why property ownership etc has come to be questioned as a right. Way back when, people usually did not question the class they were born into, they prayed instead. The pope and church hierarchy kept social order. That was the point I was making. We can't really turn back the clock on this.

donegalfella wrote:

Assuming capitalism were to be swept into the sea overnight, we'd like to know how your communist state would begin operations in the morning.

I'm not in favour of drastic change like this myself. My ideal for replacing capitalism would be gradual and from the ground up. As I see it, the leadership at the top can't be trusted, for various reasons. So to answer your question, the sort of change I would envision would not "begin operations in the morning" as you say. Just as changes in the capitalist system have not evolved overnight either. For example we're already moving towards world government. Most of the population are not aware of this. The sort of change I'm talking about is not the sort of change you'd usually be reading about in the morning newspaper.

we'd like some assurance of how your new version of communism would avoid some of the pitfalls...

A good way of avoiding pitfalls or minimizing them IMO would be to have a democratic system of consultation in place. Most of the trouble starts when a balance of power is weighted in favour of one particular group etc.

... the mass slaughter and enslavement of hundreds of millions of people;

I really don't see this. The idea is to free people and make their lives matter. It is a people-centred philosophy IMO. Whereas capitalists will "cut corners" when it suits them.

chronic shortages of food, medicine, and other essentials;

I wouldn't see this being an issue if people were willing participants in their work.

devastation of the natural environment;

I don't see why you're necessarily equating this with an alternative system to capitalism. Capitalism is what causes this to happen because of the drive to cut custs.

military aggression towards other nations;

Personally I would be strongly in favour of abolishing the massive waste of human resources and energy that is the arms industry. In a stateless world we wouldn't need it anyway. Not that we need it now either; it's part of the system though it seems.

technological and economic stagnation;

Things might slow down in pace a little. But this would be a good thing. It would encourage quality of goods over quantity. Also with the arms industry defunct, human expertise could be channelled into human-centred technologies as a priority. So this would more than make up for the shortfall that perhaps you imagine.. I would also be in favour of a significant downsizing of the pharmaceuticals industry.

vicious persecution of artists, writers, and composers

A non-issue IMO. Unless you can explain why they would be bad for a system...?

turgon

dreamlogic wrote: »

I really don't see this. The idea is to free people and make their lives matter. It is a people-centred philosophy IMO. Whereas capitalists will "cuts corners" when it suits them.

dreamlogic wrote: »

A non-issue IMO. Unless you can explain why they would be bad for a system...?

The issue is that communists like Stalin and Mao felt that to make people truly free it was necessary to slaughter millions and millions of people who rebelled (or didnt) against their system.

Going back to your happy factories. They sound grossly inefficient as people wont be working as hard and as long hours. How then are we to make enough supplies for the world?

For example my understanding of alienation is partly that workers have to be directly involved in a finished product so they be proud of their achievements. Thats fine if your building £250,000 Bentlys.

But in reality efficiency is achieved by having a factory of 1000 workers doing small jobs that all contribute to the overall product. Computing being an example of this. You see the screen shots of the computers going through a belt and workers making on change at a time.

But if you want to get rid of this we wont be able to make as many computers. Civilisation will be stunted.

DadaKopf

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

More specifically, I'd like some assurance of how your version of capitalism would avoid some of the pitfalls—including the mass slaughter and enslavement of hundreds of millions of people; chronic shortages of food, medicine, and other essentials; devastation of the natural environment; military aggression towards other nations; technological and economic stagnation; and vicious persecution of artists, writers, and composers—that have accompanied capitalism in the past. And continues to do so.

turgon

Dadakopf, the thread title, and thus the thread topic, is "Communists", not "Capitalists". That is why were are probing the Communists" for answers.

brianthebard

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This is an obvious example of posting by someone who is only in this thread to berate others. Alienation is a core part of Marxism and a lot of the theory develops out from this. But rather than take it seriously you say I am 'feeding you Marxist clichés'-well when you put it like that, obviously I am going to want to facilitate you in every way possible and really believe you are interested in an adult conversation on Marxism. :rolleyes:

More specifically, we'd like some assurance of how your new version of communism would avoid some of the pitfalls—including the mass slaughter and enslavement of hundreds of millions of people; chronic shortages of food, medicine, and other essentials; devastation of the natural environment; military aggression towards other nations; technological and economic stagnation; and vicious persecution of artists, writers, and composers—that have accompanied communism in the past.

More specifically we already agreed that the USSR was not an example of communism, but you insist on throwing it in my face as the only possible system that could come out of communist theory. You aren't interested in debate but insults, and its been painfully obvious for a long time. I only persist in this thread because I hate the idea of you being able to spread your slurs and propaganda without being challenged.

turgon

Yes we know about "alienation" etc etc. We can head over to Wikipedia, or I can pull down my edition of The Communist Manifesto off the shelf if we want to know the theory.

What we want to know is the practice. As DF said, how does communism ensure a supply of basic goods and services.

brianthebard

We're permitted to talk about theory in the political theory forum you know. And as I said if you dismiss the theory what point is there in going further, you won't listen to posts on practical topics either. Dreamlogic has done a very good job at looking at how communism might be enacted and you've done nothing but dismiss their position.

turgon

Did he? I have re read all his posts in this thread and I still havent come across anything that remotely describes the chain of production in communism.

If I remember right someone did say something about 7 1/2 factory's and how about workers would be remunerated according to their input and how unproductive factories would be closed. I dont see how this differs to the system Joycey unearthed, which is based within a capatilist framework. It was more like capitalism than communism anyway.

But seems as I cant find any post describing communism in practice I will start to do it. To start we have the criticisms of capitalism

1. Too much is produced (we dont need all the cars produced)
2. Too many companies making the same thing (BMW, Toyota, Honda etc etc)
3. People alienated from their work. Someone said more democracy would be in place for them to be de-alienated. Also they have to feel proud that theyve created something.

1

So too much is produced. In communism apparently we make only what we need, or something in or around that. As BtB said, one cant get this exactly. So we have to quantify need.

We have 4.5 million people in Ireland. Some things are easy to quantify. For example everyone gets one bed, couples get on double bed. One car to every two adult drivers in a family. One computer per family, plus one computer per worker that needs it.

Now food. How do we decide how much people get to eat? We have to take into account that some eat more than others. Up to puberty I would imagine its easy to predict: most babies eat the same. But after this some boys grow tall, some girls stay tiny. I eat about double what my girlfriend does. But remember we cant ask people to tell us how much they want, because thats a going to be abused. So we ill have to come up with a formula that takes into account height, weight, gender, amount of exercise, nutritional issues etc etc. Sounds like a lot of bureaucracy.

Now musical instruments. Once again you cant merely send out a form asking people what instruments they want. Because not only would fill in ones they play they would fill in ones they think they might do in the future. So I would apply for a piano and a guitar, but also a bango and drum kit because I would like to play them.

The only solution appears to give the same amount to everyone. Except 60% of my household plays instruments, whereas very few of my friends families do. So maybe we have to find out what they do play without asking them directly (lest we it gets abused as above). But I have never gotten lessons in piano or guitar so I would fall through in that I dont officially play. Its merely a pastime.

2

Too many car companies making the same thing. If they all pooled their resources they could make super cars. Or would they?

Think about where a lot of car innovation comes from: Formula One. This is a direct embodiment of capitalist competition: the manufacturers are literally racing against each other. So the onus is on them to better their competitors. But we have no competitors, so how do we innovate? Will we have the motivation?

Well motivation in communism is apparently derived from happiness with what one produces and general warm fuzzy feeling inside from socializing in work. But no matter how hard or little we work, within certain parameters, we are not going to be rewarded/penalized. So say I might explore the workings of an engine with a view to reducing car emissions. But at the end of the day, all my mental strain wouldnt get me any tangible reward, instead id simply feel good about having helped. Is this really motivation enough.

So we would probably have a group of dedicated designers. We have to decide whos lucky enough to get the office job designing, and whos unlucky enough to have to truck it out in a factory all day. Ambition might be the way to decide. Ambition to avoid crap work. So already your creating gaps between workers. Because in the end, the designer of the car is "above" the one who simply tighten screws.

3

I dont know the ins an outs of alienation so ill address democratization and feeling good about your work.

Im all for the democratization of the factory. The workers own the factory. They appoint a manager to oversee and make sure every teeny decision does not come before a huge meeting of the workers. But supposing said manager wants to introduce a computerized packaging system leaving the whole packaging department to go elsewhere. Obviously the workers will come together and prevent this. So will workers solidarity effectively mean the managers cant innovate when said innovation removes workers?

So consider the capitalist computer supply chain. Intel makes chips in Ireland; Western Digital makes hard drives in Germany and they are all sent to Poland to be packaged by dell. Within these factories each worker does one small thing; one guyt might by the person who screws the cover on the hard drive.

So at the end of the day when he looks at a dell computer he wont really feel pride that he screwed on the cover of one of the components that is installed in there.

The alternative appears to be to get the worker to produce the whole component himself. But this obviously breeds inefficiency. The reason the system above was created was because the computer companies wanted to make most products for as little labour. But given your reducing this ratio, and theres is only a certain amount of labour, can we really produce as much as is now produced? Will we all be able to have our home computer?

Other questions -
Supply chain - one factory produces a product and just gives it away. In return the workers get stuff like computers back that are made in other places. Effectively property re-distribution.

asdasd

This is an obvious example of posting by someone who is only in this thread to berate others. Alienation is a core part of Marxism and a lot of the theory develops out from this.

And the idea of systems having memory is a core component of Homeopathy. A lot of the theory devleops out of this.

It is still bollocks, though, but to be fair to them they are not trying to transform the entire world based on their nonsense.

The lack of scientific disipline here is obvious. The Marxist cult claims to be scientific, but when question or asked about its core theories, it throws a wobby and directs us back to source. Because the idea is core to the theory it must be true, the nasty bourgeois commentators must have not read Marx, or get a vulger understanding of it.

But do we really need to read Homeopathic literature - some of which must be articulate and jargoneering enough - to dismiss Homeopathy?

No, we dont.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Joycey

Sorry for the aside, havent had time to be reading the thread over the last couple of days, actual study has been getting in the way . Hopefully will catch up on it soon.

But heres a link to a thread I just made in the philosophy forum which links to a really short book which gave me a lot of my ideas about self organisation and non-heirarchical structures. Sorry for the seemingly irrelevant post, but I think that were we to take the non-heirarchical structure your man proposes and get his theory into dialogue with some of Marx's (or anyone elses, like Mises, if he critiques capitalism, I dont know) insights into how we can produce the stuff we need (and want) more humanely, then it would lead to better discourse then it seems we have on this thread at the moment :pac:

Here ye go:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055574501

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

asdasd

More specifically, _I'd_ like some assurance of how your version of _capitalism_ would avoid some of the pitfalls—including the mass slaughter and enslavement of hundreds of millions of people; chronic shortages of food, medicine, and other essentials; devastation of the natural environment; military aggression towards other nations; technological and economic stagnation; and vicious persecution of artists, writers, and composers—that have accompanied _capitalism_ in the past. _And continues to do so._

He's cracking me up.