Communists.

turgon

S-Murph wrote: »

Capitalism does not reward talent, effort nor hard work. It is totally incapable of measuring these values.

Ok, I work harder and put in more effort (long hours, more productivity) and I get more money.

I have talent I get promoted (or even from my own company) I get more money

How is this not being rewarded?

Joycey wrote: »

I dont think ive ever actually met an Irish communist... Doesnt seem to be too many in this thread either.

They left once they were asked a pragmatic question. Its what usually happens on these threads.

S-Murph

johnathan woss wrote: »

Yes but all these people are very light on fact and detail when explaining how the ideas would actually be translated to the real world.

And I think you have a fair point. Socialists do tend to be very vague and even contradictary in what they describe as socialism.

But maybe thats a good thing. The ideas to restructure and change society will emerge from that struggle to change what is, evidently now, something which does not work and is not sustainable.

The overwhelming majority of the 'proletariat' have no interest in politics, let alone socialism. Yet it is the working class who socialism should be built and organsed by.

The ideas to build socialism emerge from the conditions and struggle of the working class, who at present are not particularly conscious of their position within the system. So it is only reasonable to expect greater detail in what socialism constitutes when greater amounts of workers are organised and involved.

Socialists now are merely 'agitators', propagandists and organisers. People who have a particular ideology, whether right or wrong, who seek resonance with the working class.

S-Murph

turgon wrote: »

Ok, I work harder and put in more effort (long hours, more productivity) and I get more money.

But a person might work much less to achieve the same productivity as yourself. Yet with both of you having the same productivity, the two of you get the same 'money'.

Clearly, capitalism is not capable (o)f resolving this.

I have talent I get promoted (or even from my own company) I get more money

Then you are not getting rewarded for your talent, but merely your market value. For I could be very talented at, oh, say, chewing 10 packs of gum in one go. But I wouldnt get rewarded for that, it has no market use unless I joined a circus, which even that is doubtful.

Capitalism does not reward talent. Talent is very much subjective anyway.

Even now you probably have hundreds of thousands of 'talented' civil engineers without jobs globally. Meanwhile, jobs we now consider less talented, like, say, a cleaner, are filled by people of less talent while earning an income the civil engineers are not.

turgon

So what is your solution?

S-Murph

turgon wrote: »

So what is your solution?

The solution is to change the social and property relations of society so that material wealth and money are not the basis of reward - but rather, replaced by direct social interaction.

It is only direct social interaction which can reward talent, effort and hard work.

And a very simple example are the dynamics within a family. If a young child (High levels of effort and hard work) sweeps the kitchen floor, yet does a crap job of it (low productivity), the family dont say "why did you bother" "its filthy" and other negative comments. No, the family, through their subjective understanding of all considerations relating to the child say "well done", "great job".

If a teenager swept the floor and did the exact same 'job of it' (same productivity) - the reaction would be entirely different.

All the values involved are generally incalculable - yet a system of reward is established through social interaction which takes into account considerations a 'money'/productivity reward system cannot.

Socialism works upon the same principles. Material wealth is not the reward, nor money. Rather, the rewards within socialism bypass these indirect means to attain forms of social recognition. Socialism is more meritocratic and direct - and some could say natural.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

S-Murph

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I answered that question from a socialists perspective, - one for which I have. And if you read my other post I said: "Socialists now are merely 'agitators', propagandists and organisers. People who have a particular ideology, whether right or wrong, who seek resonance with the working class."

That is my view, one which I am fully entitled to, just as you are entitled to assert and defend your views on people's position or consciousness within capitalism.

Your potential view that working class people are "fully aware of their political options" is no more valid than my one. Infact id argue less so, seing as most people dont even know what socialism is - thus one of their political options.

You wont denigrate my position by repeating them.

You think people are going to go out and bust their asses building roads, collecting rubbish, and cleaning sewers for the sake of "social recognition"?

Social recognition would be one of, if not the most important aspect. Self expression would be another important factor.

But to answer your question, Yes, I do. People work to improve their social position in all manner of ways, and beyond bare needs, improving their social position, whether consciosuly or subconsciously, is one of the primary factors for which they work.

Material wealth, for the most part, gains its value from society. People's relation and views of material objects are very much defined by the social value given to them.

Or to hear someone say, "Good job, comrade, well done"? Nonsense.

That. Amongst many others. Even being in contact with, and in participation with other individuals, being social animals, makes us happy. Irrespective if they say anything, or not.

People work for reward—tangible, material reward. Social prestige is the icing on the cake, not the cake itself.

Why must it be tangible?

Certainly hunter gatherer societies do not function to any great degree upon "material reward". Infact friendships, human interaction and families in general do not function in this way either.

What do they gain from this tangible, material reward to which you refer?

asdasd

Clearly, capitalism is not capable (o)f resolving this.

Why would it? Ronaldo may not work as hard as a brick layer, but he creates more money for Manchester United than a brick layer. And so what. So it goes.

I am somewhat sympathethic to the idea that we could have a tax on inheritence. Maybe a 100% tax. It wouldnt matter. The "social relationships" would stay the same. In fact starting from equality now, we would get rich and poor again within a generation as smart, useful, or lucky workers saved, invested, set up their own places, hired others and made profit ( from owning a piece of paper). Or had very useful skills. And that would happen in every generation were we to ensure absolute equality of opportunity. It in fact describes what happened since 1979 in China, Germany from 1945, American from it's beginning.

So the "people inherit" stuff is a red herring.

asdasd

Your potential view that working class people are "fully aware of their political options" is no more valid than my one. Infact id argue less so, seing as most people dont even know what socialism is - thus one of their political options.

nonsense. You are claiming that workers - which includes DF and myself - are "unaware" of yout ideology. Clearly we are aware and think it bollocks. In fact I quoted from MArx on this thread to be accused by a Marxist of pithy use of language. That it was.

Certainly hunter gatherer societies do not function to any great degree upon "material reward". Infact friendships, human interaction and families in general do not function in this way either.

Ah the hunter gatherer "logic". marxists claim that conservatives are reactionary with a their nostagia for a different simpler time - the fifties, Victorians, the old order preior to the Republic.

The Marxists just want to turn New York back into a hunter gatherer paradise.

News to y'all. Hunter gatherers did not have a tradable inheritable surplus: food rots.

They did not however distribute food equally, the best workers got the most meat. The let their old die.

When they could trade for shiny baubles, they traded for shiny baubles - which were all of currency, wealth symbols, and status.

asdasd

By the way would every Marxist please explain why agriculture fails in communes and succeeds as private ownership. And dont say "prove that it fails". Millions of people died because of your ideologies so feel free to look it up.

But to answer your question, Yes, I do. People work to improve their social position in all manner of ways, and beyond bare needs, improving their social position, whether consciosuly or subconsciously, is one of the primary factors for which they w

Thats correct but it is absolutely involved with money. Even Marxist professors who can still have professorial status ( which is not monetary related necessarily) do not take pay cuts to the average industrial wage, nor give their money earned from their firely denounciations of captialism away - that they leave to Bill gates.

Brecht died a millionaire. Eagleton has 3 houses.

S-Murph

asdasd wrote: »

Why would it? Ronaldo may not work as hard as a brick layer, but he creates more money for Manchester United than a brick layer. And so what. So it goes.

Someone said capitalism rewards hard work and effort. I pointed out quite rightfully that it is incapabile of this. So whats your problem?

I am somewhat sympathethic to the idea that we could have a tax on inheritence. Maybe a 100% tax. It wouldnt matter. The "social relationships" would stay the same.

No they wouldnt. You still have an exchage system - currency. I am not proposing a Tax in inheritence. I propose abolishing tax, and money, entirely.

In fact starting from equality now

Communism is not equality.

we would get rich and poor again within a generation as smart, useful, or lucky workers saved, invested, set up their own places, hired others and made profit ( from owning a piece of paper). Or had very useful skills. And that would happen in every generation were we to ensure absolute equality of opportunity.

It would if you have money as an exchange and forms of property ownership. Abolish both and your some way to removing material wealth accumilation and the desire to accumilate it.

It in fact describes what happened since 1979 in China, Germany from 1945, American from it's beginning.

So the "people inherit" stuff is a red herring.

China and Germany are nothing to do with socialism. They were totalitarian state capitalist regimes. Class systems.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

S-Murph

asdasd wrote: »

nonsense. You are claiming that workers - which includes DF and myself - are "unaware" of yout ideology. Clearly we are aware and think it bollocks. In fact I quoted from MArx on this thread to be accused by a Marxist of pithy use of language. That it was.

You dont share my ideology, nor do most workers. I am saying that, in my view, you are not acting in your class interests, as understood and defined in my ideology.

There's nothing revelatory about this.

Ah the hunter gatherer "logic". marxists claim that conservatives are reactionary with a their nostagia for a different simpler time - the fifties, Victorians, the old order preior to the Republic.

The Marxists just want to turn New York back into a hunter gatherer paradise.

I know yeah. We yearn for it.

News to y'all. Hunter gatherers did not have a tradable inheritable surplus: food rots.

They did not however distribute food equally, the best workers got the most meat. The let their old die.

Have you a source for this assertion please?

Is it in general or are you referring to specific hunter gatherer societies? I wasnt aware of it myself.

When they could trade for shiny baubles, they traded for shiny baubles - which were all of currency, wealth symbols, and status.

What did they trade? was there property?

Have you any sources for this 'wealth symbology' within hunter gatherer societies. I wasnt aware of it to any significant degree myself.

asdasd

China and Germany are nothing to do with socialism. They were totalitarian state capitalist regimes. Class systems.

I am pointing out that they started from nothing in 1945 and after the war and the cultural revolution.

No they wouldnt. You still have an exchage system - currency. I am not proposing a Tax in inheritence. I propose abolishing tax, and money, entirely.

Hilarious. That goes even beyond Marxism. I think Pol Potism is the closest example.

Try and talk us through how exactly anything is produced if it is not exchanged for some type of currency. Include in your answers references to any civilization - which propert definition means an organisation as complex as a city or larger - has survived without money. Include also the statistics on Chinese agriculture from 1960, when agriculture was communialised and then let free again ( by Deng), and then made more communist again (under Mao). mention the millions who died. Explain why?

Also explain exactly how anything is bought. How modern corporations - like Apple, Microsoft etc. - will function, if they will, how you are going to expropriate my earnings - saved as cash - without violence. ( and I can assure you any attempt on may savings and I will buy a gun).

S-Murph

asdasd wrote: »

By the way would every Marxist please explain why agriculture fails in communes and succeeds as private ownership. And dont say "prove that it fails". Millions of people died because of your ideologies so feel free to look it up.

It wasnt my ideology. Ill leave it up to someone else to answer.

Thats correct but it is absolutely involved with money. Even Marxist professors who can still have professorial status ( which is not monetary related necessarily) do not take pay cuts to the average industrial wage, nor give their money earned from their firely denounciations of captialism away - that they leave to Bill gates.

Brecht died a millionaire. Eagleton has 3 houses.

Referring to how people relate to society now does not prove that they must behave that way in their nature.

asdasd

I think that's a huge assumption. I'm much more inclined to believe that most people do know what socialism is.

You would think the billions who lived under communism would know the theories backwards, but on the first chance of getting rid of the system ( and that merely took Gorbechev saying he was not going to send in the troops. It fell).

An economist poll from last week ( which is behind a fire wall) shows that the Chinese people are 80% sure that life if better under free markets - higher than the US figure.

We will get some cant about that not being real socialism - but botht these groups have learnt their Marx since kindergarten, and the first chance they get - off go the chains of socialism

asdasd

Referring to how people relate to society now does not prove that they must behave that way in their nature.

It doesnt prove the opposite either. However the conciousness is created by society - a claim designed to be unfalsifable - is clearly untrue. Otherwise the creation of Soviet Man would have worked - whether that is precisely your ideology, or not - the Soviets should be born communists.

They arent. They are now capitalists.

S-Murph

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Really?

All I hear are referrals to the tryannical totalitarianism of the USSR and China.

So much so that even advocates of socialism themselves refer to Cuba and the likes.

I hear opposition to socialism all the time, and it usually has nothing to do with socialism.

It might be "one of the primary factors," but there are other important factors too—such as economic security for oneself and one's family, and the pursuit of pleasure and happiness.

And so whats your point here? How does it differ from my position?

Or are you conveniently saying all of those must exist for people to be motivated to work?. That would be evidently wrong anyway.

I don't see that we need to embrace socialism in other to be in contact with other individuals.

I dont see why we must embrace capitalism, private property and monetary reward to make interaction with society. We certainly dont need it elsewhere in our lives.

So what? We no longer live in a primitive hunter-gatherer society, and its modes of economic organization just don't scale up.

You mentioned that people seek "tangible material reward" within capitalism. Right, so what?

That does not have much bearing on whether people would do the same in socialism.

True. But so what? Again, socialism is not necessary in order to have a relationship with one's family.

I never said it did. But its an example of a particular type of social relationship. A socialist one. There is no exchange, no capitalist market, no wage.

They gain tangible benefits that contribute to their health, happiness, security, well-being, and sense of fulfillment.

None of which need material wealth to satisfy - in the sense that i am using it.

These would go under 'needs' and 'comfort'. The four motivational catagories I use are Needs, comfort, self expression and social recognition. All of which overlap in various ways.

There is no "material wealth" in there. Ie, objects obtained for their social value. (as opposed to their utilitarian value).

S-Murph

asdasd wrote: »

You would think the billions who lived under communism would know the theories backwards, but on the first chance of getting rid of the system ( and that merely took Gorbechev saying he was not going to send in the troops. It fell).

An economist poll from last week ( which is behind a fire wall) shows that the Chinese people are 80% sure that life if better under free markets - higher than the US figure.

We will get some cant about that not being real socialism - but botht these groups have learnt their Marx since kindergarten, and the first chance they get - off go the chains of socialism

:eek:

And then you claim to know what my ideology is.

Read up there. You arnt referring to communism. Thats a "Communist State" your talking about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state

Nothing to do with me. Move along.

S-Murph

asdasd wrote: »

It doesnt prove the opposite either. However the conciousness is created by society - a claim designed to be unfalsifable - is clearly untrue. Otherwise the creation of Soviet Man would have worked - whether that is precisely your ideology, or not - the Soviets should be born communists.

They arent. They are now capitalists.

Soviet Man has nothing to do with me or my ideology. Irrelevent.

asdasd

Soviet Man has nothing to do with me or my ideology. Irrelevent.

I was of course refuting the claim that the proletiariat did not know about socialism - or communism, by pointing that where it was universaly known it was universaly discarded. You deliberately missed that point

Feel Free to read the title of the thread. Then look at the wiki you directed me to. We are dicussing communism, the "scientific" works of Karl Marx. We are not discussing "Wot I think is socialism, innit: unique vision of internet nerd S-Murph Imagine a world where nobody has any money and everybody lives like hunter gatherers".


If you want that thread start it up. Try "The moneyless society". This thread is about the works of Karl Marx.


I, for one, am tired with mole whacking on this thread. We whack a Marxist mole, and up comes a different mole with his own unique type of socialism, unrelated to the last, or any that has ever been tried.

S-Murph

asdasd wrote: »

I was of course refuting the claim that the proletiariat did not know about socialism - or communism, by pointing that where it was universaly known it was universaly discarded. You deliberately missed that point

Feel Free to read the title of the thread. Then look at the wiki you directed me to. We are dicussing communism, the "scientific" works of Karl Marx. We are not discussing "socialism the unique vision of internet nerd S-Murph where nobody has any money and everybodu lives like hunter gatherers".


If you want that thread start it up. Try "The moneyless society". This thread is about the works of Karl Marx.

Karl Marx advocated socialism and communism.

What you are talking about is totalitarianism and Communist states.

Start a thread about totalitarianism. This is a thread about Karl Marx and communism - a classless, stateless, 'moneyless' society.

You are the one misplaced.

----

You are the perfect example of how people dont know what socialism is, or what it advocates. Your refuting yourself lol.

asdasd

This is a thread about Karl Marx and communism - a classless, stateless, 'moneyless' society.

which is impossible without a totalitarian state. we know this in theory, because the surplus I have created in my time as worker has to be taken from me, and you dont get to do that without a totalitarian state taking it from me.

And in practice. Because all communist states - fully recongnised by worldwide communists, marxists, and fellow travellers as Marxist - were totalitarian. Because you need to have totalitarian States to have a commuinist society.

We have been whacking that mole too.

Without the freedom to sell my labour as a commodity to whom I want ( which means I can move on from job to job), to create a surplus, to choose where to eat, and what to buy I am unfree.

The "moneyless" society will possibly feed me, if it can get any workers to produce food, but it cant have restaurants because they would need money, or tokens of transaction. No wine because why produce wine? Which is "socially unnecessary" anyway (or if any is produced then why produce good wine since the wine workers get the same anyway).

Everything would be sh*te under socialism.We know that in theory anyway, and it was clear in practice.

( Not that the communist States were as bad as the kind of hellhole you want. They allowed money, and had some small private enterprise - Poland had 300,000 people working in private enterprise under communism). That allowed restaruants, farmers, and local producers. It was still hell They queued for days for the simplest items.

Your monelyess society would force us all to be slaves of the political classes who determine whether we get whatever inedible food they offer on that day, depending on whether we were "good workers" or not. A political decision.

The most obvious states that tended towards this Utopian ideal - and they all tried in different ways - were the Chinese cultural revolutionaries and Pol Pot.

Pol Potism is exactly what you get with a moneyless surplus less society.

There is no other way. So less of the cant about "we don't want a totalitarian State".

Of course you do. You cant have a moneyless communist state without one.

S-Murph

asdasd wrote: »

which is impossible without a totalitarian state. we know this in theory, because the surplus I have created in my time as worker has to be taken from me, and you dont get to do that without a totalitarian state taking it from me.

Hunter gatherer societies are not totalitarian. They are stateless.

Besides, I havnt a notion what your babbling on about. Maybe you could rewrite it in a more comprehensible way, with all due respects.

And in practice. Because all communist states - fully recongnised by worldwide communists, marxists, and fellow travellers as Marxist - were totalitarian. Because you need to have totalitarian States to have a commuinist society.

But totalitarianism has nothing what-so-ever to do with communism. Your talking crap.

Without the freedom to sell my labout as a commodity to whom I want ( which means I can move on from job to job), to create a suplus, to choose where to eat and buy I am unfree.

Communism is a society of free labour. You can work if you want to work and consume what you want to consume. More free than capitalism.

The "moneyless" society will feed me, if it can get any workers to produce food, fut it cant have restaurants because they would need money, or tokens of transaction. So I would be feed plastic tofu from a centralized state. No thanks.

There is no state in communism.

asdasd

You are the perfect example of how people dont know what socialism is, or what it advocates. Your refuting yourself lol.

I have read most of Marx. Assume that me and DF have read most of Marx. This loses out this "gnostic" position of being close to knowledge not available to most.

It is hardly difficult to read him. He was a total charlatan and a totally unexceptional thinker, and wrong about mostly everything. You cant even tell us what he wanted, because he didnt tell you.

S-Murph

asdasd wrote: »

which is impossible without a totalitarian state. we know this in theory, because the surplus I have created in my time as worker has to be taken from me, and you dont get to do that without a totalitarian state taking it from me.

And in practice. Because all communist states - fully recongnised by worldwide communists, marxists, and fellow travellers as Marxist - were totalitarian. Because you need to have totalitarian States to have a commuinist society.

We have been whacking that mole too.

Without the freedom to sell my labout as a commodity to whom I want ( which means I can move on from job to job), to create a surplus, to choose where to eat, and what to buy I am unfree.

The "moneyless" society will possibly feed me, if it can get any workers to produce food, but it cant have restaurants because they would need money, or tokens of transaction. No wine because why produce wine? Which is "socially unnecessary" anyway (or if any is produced then why produce good wine since the wine workers get the same anyway).

Everything would be sh*te under socialism.We know that in theory anyway, and it was clear in practice.

( Not that the communist States were as bad as the kind of hellhole you want. They allowed money, and had some small private enterprise - Poland had 300,000 people working in private enterprise under communism). That allowed restaruants, farmers, and local producers. It was still hell They queued for days for the simplest items.

Your monelyess society would force us all to be slaves of the political classes who determine whether we get whatever unedible food they offer on that day, depending on whether we were good :wokers" or not. A political decision.

The most obvious states that tended towards this utopian ideal - and they all tried in diffrerent ways - were the Chinese cultural revolutionaries and Pol Pot.

Pol Potism is exactyl what you get with a moneyless surplus less society.

There is no other way. So liess of the want about "we dont want a totalitarian State".

Of course you do. You cant have a moneyless communist state without one.

Yeah, babble away to yourself. You havnt a notion of what your talking about or the subject at hand.

S-Murph

asdasd wrote: »

I have read most of Marx.

Well I suggest you read it again. You obviously did a Johnny 5 on it because your talking total crap.

asdasd

But totalitarianism has nothing what-so-ever to do with communism. Your talking crap.

That would be you're. good man. ( I think I see why you may not be able to read clear English).

Every single communist State was totalitarian. To make everybody equal clearly demands a state deciding wages because otherwise the different "communes" would pay different rates.

But you believe in a moneyless society of course.

So lets get down to brass tacks. A restaurant. We know how it works under capitalism. A lot of producers, mostly self-employed - grow, or farm food. The better they are the more they can charge. Some farmers make their own secondary produce - cheese, or meat - and garner a reputation as good quality producers. Others sell it to privately owned butchers, or cheesemakers.

A restaurant owner comes along and buys the best produce, meat, vegetables, fish from these producers and gives them money. The restaurant is good, and I go. Spending money. Which I earned from work I have yet to complete ( a half completed software job).

How would any of this work under communism without money.

asdasd

Yeah, babble away to yourself. You havnt a notion of what your talking about or the subject at hand.

That would be you're again, old boy.

Gosh when the totalitarian mind is challenged it gets very very angry.

S-Murph

asdasd wrote: »

That would be you're. good man. ( I think I see why you may not be able to read clear English).

Every single communist State was totalitarian. To make everybody equal clearly demands a state deciding wages because otherwise the different "communes" would pay different rates.

But you believe in a moneyless society of course.

So lets get down to brass tacks. A restaurant. We know how it works under capitalism. A lot of producers, mostly self-employed - grow, or farm food. The better they are the more they can charge. Some farmers make their own secondary produce - cheese, or meat - and garner a reputation as goo dquality producers. Others sell it to privately owner butchers, or cheesmakers. A restuarant owner comes along and buys the best produce, meat, vegetables, fish from producers and gives them money. The restaurant is good, and I go. Spending money.

How would any of this work under communism without money.

Communist state is an oxymoron.

Start a new thread if you want to talk about totalitarianism.