Communists.

turgon

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Does no one factor in that the type of society a person lives in affects their behaviour and attitude , opinions, beliefs etc.

Ok so tell me how a society based on the government forcing people to adhere one economic and social policy through the use of brute force will affect their behaviour and attitude , opinions, beliefs etc. Especcially when these "behaviour and attitude , opinions, beliefs" are under the strictest scrutiny of the state.

turgon

"Exploitation of wage labour"?

If ye communists were willing to get off of yeer high horses and do some real work instead of hypothesizing about how your economic view can be forcibly transposed onto every human being in your country, ye would quickly realize that creating a situation where you and you alone are the beneficiary of your work (the dirty capitalist word for this is self-employment" ) is quite easy. Ye would discover the capitalist system is far far less constricting than the communist one.

brianthebard

turgon wrote: »

"Exploitation of wage labour"?

If ye communists were willing to get off of yeer high horses and do some real work instead of hypothesizing about how your economic view can be forcibly transposed onto every human being in your country, ye would quickly realize that creating a situation where you and you alone are the beneficiary of your work (the dirty capitalist word for this is self-employment" ) is quite easy. Ye would discover the capitalist system is far far less constricting than the communist one.

firstly, why do you hypothesise that I don't do real work? I've plenty of work experience, not that its any of your business.
Secondly, if you think that the labour of people who are self employed is not similarly exploited by the capitalist mode of production to a wage labourer, then you are seriously deluded.

asdasd

Secondly, if you think that the labour of people who are self employed is not similarly exploited by the capitalist mode of production to a wage labourer, then you are seriously deluded.

I don't think you understand Marxism.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard

asdasd wrote: »

I don't think you understand Marxism.

why do you say that? What I posted fits fine with Baran and Sweezy's Monopoly Capitalism, and its not that hard (if you really really try to think outside your box) to realise that the exploitation of the labour of a self employed individual in a capitalist system (as per turgon's 'wonderful' suggestion) is remarkably similar to the way a factory workers' labour is exploited in the factory. Perhaps its too big a leap for you to make all in one go.

asdasd

What I posted fits fine with Baran and Sweezy's Monopoly Capitalism, and its not that hard (if you really really try to think outside your box)

I think you want me to think inside your box.

Whomever Turgon is, he is talking through his ass. The only form of "expolitation" in Marxism is to employ someone else and make a profit from that person's labour. If small businesses do that they are clearly - by any Marxist definition - exploiting their workers.

(And in fact, small businesses are not all heroes and often do pay bad wages, worse than big bad multinationals).

If Turgon does not understand that he is not a Marxist. Marx mentioned thepetit-bourgeois but thought that they would have disappeared from history by now. In fact there are tens of thousands of startups every year - most doomed to fail, of course, but we love a trier.

The big businesses that now dominate the Fortune 500 were once small businesses. Apple, Microsoft, Google, Skype and others less famous. All recent Chinese industrialists. A few people in a garage is how they started out, that is not a myth. Were they exploited by Capitalism when they were small time capitalists?

the term "monopoly capitalism" is itself ****. In the US the Fortune 500 has about 2-3 industries which were arounf in 1920. It is about to lose General Motors which was top for decades.

brianthebard

Monopoly capitalism doesn't mean just one company that controls an entire industry. Nor does it mean a company or companies that has been in control forever, or 89 years (since you picked that date). You should look up the concept.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

andrew

Do the communists/marxists here actually buy the whole class antagonism and surplus value stuff which Marx said? I can't say I've read up a lot on either concept, but from what I do know they sound quite bull****ty.

Fabio

turgon wrote: »

Ah good 'aul communism. Conveniently putting power into the hands of a small elite who are given the task of "reform". Of course the capitalist things they claim to loathe - the limos, the cigars etc - always become a bit too much of a temptation when, how should I put it, they have coerced by military force every single person in the state. Communism is so good you have to bring it in through the barrel of a gun.

And you say it "wasnt given a good chance". What would you change?

I would certainly change stuff like the Ukraine famine. Heaven forbid, under your regime, my kind comrades in County Cork would refuse to subscribe to your single world view and you would impose a famine on us. Whereas you would only kill 1 or 2 hundred thousand, the Russian communists managed to starve 5 million to death. Thats real equality right there!

But forgive me for ignoring everyone else. I mean, Norman Davies estimate for citizens killed under Leninist and Stalinist communism is a cool 54 million, not including the War. Thats one every 20 seconds. Real equality in action.

And hey lets not forget all the others! China Cuba, ahh nothing gets me going more about equality other than the blatant constriction of free speech. I mean, we all know communism is just so perfect, so why should we be allowed talk about it, right? Its so good people shouldn't even be able to read about the alternatives, right?

Communism never worked, even you admitted that. And how will it work? Once you and you corrupt socialist comrades have put everyones lives and the whole country at your own command, your going to what - just give it away??? Oh please, dont treat me so stupidly. As if ye would. As we have seen with all the "heroes" in history - Mao Castro Lenin - all ye are thinking about yeer own back pockets.

But I wouldnt mind too much. Should communism ever be forced upon the country I will have most definitely been killed in the civil war ye started. But at least ye will be rich, right?

The OP only asked were there others who shared her view, she didn't look for a lecture.

Soldie

brianthebard wrote: »

Capitalism is a mode of production, specifically a means of production driven by the need to accumulate surplus, which it does through the exploitation of wage labour. Whether it is state decided or not, if this is how production happens then it is a capitalist enterprise.

You're implying that making a profit is the only identifier for capitalism, and that's not true. The key principles of capitalism are the voluntary participation in the market, and the free play of supply and demand. My initial point was that when the state intervenes to such an extent that it tells the market what to produce, and how much of it to produce, then it's akin to the state owning it, as it's certainly not capitalism. I suppose it's just a huge coincidence that Heinkel, I.G. Farben, Blohm + Voss, Opel, Junkers, MAN, Krupp, etc. contributed towards the war effort in capitalist Nazi Germany.

DadaKopf

Soldie wrote: »

You're implying that making a profit is the only identifier for capitalism, and that's not true. The key principles of capitalism are the voluntary participation in the market, and the free play of supply and demand. My initial point was that when the state intervenes to such an extent that it tells the market what to produce, and how much of it to produce, then it's akin to the state owning it, as it's certainly not capitalism. I suppose it's just a huge coincidence that Heinkel, I.G. Farben, Blohm + Voss, Opel, Junkers, MAN, Krupp, etc. contributed towards the war effort in capitalist Nazi Germany.

You're both right and wrong.

Profit is not the only marker of market of capitalism. Capitalism is marked by the private ownership of the means of producing commodities; the incentive to produce commodities is profit and its accumulation. So Capitalism = (private property + profit).

This formulation is not remotely contentious - both left and right agree on this .This is the analytical abstract form of capitalism. These core features are persistent whatever political regime it is historically situated in. 'Voluntary participation in exchanges' and the 'free-play of supply and demand' may very well be principles of capitalism, and common features, but they're not necessary for its existence.

We don't have to examine private property, but let's look at profit. The profit motive emerges out of a complex mix of things, one is simply being human (creativity, survival/provision, power) but the economic observation is that the expansionism of the capitalist system is driven by the law of diminishing marginal returns (at least in social-scientific terms, this is something that can be measured). Again, this is not remotely contentious. Both left and right agree on this, but what they disagree on are the implications. What is also in disagreement is how late-capitalism is moving beyond this outmoded analysis, but both recognise the problems associated with, for example, non-material commodities (e.g. digital commodities, intellectual property and human experiences as commodities).

Because of the law of diminishing returns, the historical observation is that markets tend towards investment bubbles that are followed by crashes (or crises). It is a way out of profitability problems when those diminishing returns kick in - in capitalism, it is sensible to invest profit (and supernormal profit) in high risk/high return investment markets to offset the loss of profit arising from diminishing returns. Again, this is not contentions, we're living through one of these crashes/crises now. Some firms do this, some don't, but it is the dynamic, the constant tendency within the system and to transform as a consequence of these crashes/crises.

'Market capitalism' is the above whereby the 'market' (an abstracting metaphor) is the mechanism of the distribution of resources and commodities subject to, we are told, supply and demand, which also theoretically governs the price of a commodity. So here we have four terms: market, supply, demand, price. We can easily imagine each of these to happen in ways different ways to how they do today. Let's take 'price'; we are used to think of price in terms of 'money', but price could also be conceived in terms of a barter situation, e.g. one cow = four sheep, one bicycle = an amazing CD collection (I'm not endorsing we return to barter). This is what went in place of money when gold and silver became universal stand-ins for 'price' from the Romans onwards. Where Marx differed was on the source of 'value', a more fundamental principle than 'price'. He believed that economists of his day and practicing capitalists obscured the complexity of how we ascribe 'value' to commodities. However, none of this paragraph changes what is fundamental to capitalism as a form of 'social relation', a system which influences how human beings relate to each other (again, different from how, say, feudalism influenced how people related to each other).

So, my point: capitalism can exist under a liberal democratic or authoritarian regime so long as private ownership of the means of production and private profit can be made. In Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, this was indeed the case, however the relationship between state, market and society was different to liberal democracies at the time. Corporate welfare, as exercised in the USA, is another topic worth discussing in this context.

What I've tried to do here is to be analytical about the issue. To boil down things to their bare components to ground the discussion. I hope it can.

turgon

asdasd wrote: »

Whomever Turgon is, he is talking through his ass.

asdasd wrote: »

If Turgon does not understand that he is not a Marxist.

I certainly do not understand that, and I certainly am not a Marxist.

I just dont see how any self-employed person is being exploited.

asdasd

Because of the law of diminishing returns,

You keep inventing laws that dont exist. The idea of diminishing returns is easily falsified, and could have been in the 19th century. And it has, in fact, been falsified by the increase in productivity and wages in the 20th. Since Marx thought that value was only proportional to labour input he thought that increases in non-organic (non-human) capital costs would decrease profits, giving no thought to faster machinery, or better practice, or better inputs ( i.e. more productive soil, fertilizer or seeds for agriculture). This is both wrong, and stupid. Post the equation for a laugh. I need a laugh.

He believed that economists of his day and practicing capitalists obscured the complexity of how we ascribe 'value' to commodities.

And he was wrong. The value of commodities is set by their scarcity, not by the labour input into extracting them. Which is clear to anybody who imagines the hard work put into extracting gold from a mine the day before a huge seam of gold is found elsewhere.


Next day the price of gold falls, the labour input into the extracted gold remains the same.

There is no intrinsic value to the gold.

Commodities ( or products) have no intrinsic value. Clearly gold is valueless to a dolphins. That is, unless we (humans) agree to the value.

What I've tried to do here is to be analytical about the issue. To boil down things to their bare components to ground the discussion. I hope it can.

What you have done is engaged in 20th century social science academic jargon - which is as distinguishable from real analysis a medieval scholasticism is from science. Real science would have moved on by now.


But you have at least put one fallacy of your less articulate colleagues to rest -

So Capitalism = (private property + profit).

Quite. So lets cut out the silliness about "State Capitalism".

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

Soldie wrote: »

Focusing indeed - was this done by the free market, or coercively by the government? State intervention in the economy (i.e. telling it what to produce) has little to do with capitalism, and a lot to do with communism.

Government intervention does not equal socialism (which is an entire political ideology) It'd be a bit like saying Pinochet's government was libertarian because he favored privatisation.


Because an aspect of state intervention was present does not mean that it was communist at all. Hitler was an authoritarian above all else.

af_thefragile

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Government intervention does not equal socialism (which is an entire political ideology) It'd be a bit like saying Pinochet's government was libertarian because he favored privatisation.


Because an aspect of state intervention was present does not mean that it was communist at all. Hitler was an authoritarian above all else.

It's a step towards socialism.

Apparently the punishment for carrying a knife now is 5 years in prison. Another step towards socialism. Disarmament of the public.

Not gonna go into Hitler debate but you need to realise at the end of the day Hitler's Germany was not much different from Stalin's Russia. Both totalitarian states. And totalitarianism is just a more extreme form of socialism.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

We both enjoy history and so I think it's fairly safe to say that historians constantly contradict one another.

I find that excerpt slightly odd given that it relies on Hitler's views in private (rather than publicly) and his views told to a few people in conversation.

Marx's socialism is completely incompatible with nationalism, especially the extreme form peddled by Hitler. I'd say the term was really used to try and siphon off potential communist support, in the same way Bismarck had done previously (himself an arch-conservative)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You're deliberately misrepresenting my position, yet again. I never suggested that the USSR was an example of socialism done right, in fact quite the opposite. I already pointed out that if the mode of production stays the same then a country is not communist, despite saying otherwise. This is backed up by Braverman who agrees that it takes more than state control of production to make a country communist. But you'd rather deliberately twist my argument, make petty jibes and stereotypes and avoid actually dealing with the topic at hand. Btw, where did you get your Ayn Rand t-shirt?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

asdasd

BrianTheBard. You think that Cuba is communist do you not? And you are a fan.

And can Marxists not agree on anything? Daakopf said that Capitalism was private property and profit. You seem to think that State control is not enough. So what?

Are we in the fantastical realms of the make believe stateless socialism which magically appears after a while, again?

How would you transform the system as it now stands. Do we nationalise property or not.

brianthebard

asdasd wrote: »

BrianTheBard. You think that Cuba is communist do you not? And you are a fan.

And can Marxists not agree on anything? Daakopf said that Capitalism was private property and profit. You seem to think that State control is not enough. So what?

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. However I agree with pretty much all of what Dadakopf said. I think you don't really understand what I mean about state control. State control itself does not decide that a country is socialist. That does not contradict what Dadakopf said, nor does what he said about private property and profit necessarily contradict what I said, he/she just seems to have way more patience than me when it comes to explaining things to you.

asdasd

he/she just seems to have way more patience than me when it comes to explaining things to you.

Oh I think thoise of us who have rubbished your worn out theories and have had no response are the ones with patience. I notice that when I totally demolish such absurdities as the labour theory of value you resort to name calling, or ignoring the issue.

you have just ignored this simple question ( though you quoted it)

How would you transform the system as it now stands. Do we nationalise property or not.

That is not science.

OK. Lets tease this out. We are going to be scientific and I want answers, not gobblydook.

1) Is Cuba Communist or not?
2) If it is , then why wasn't the USSR communist?
3) "I think you don't really understand what I mean about state control. State control itself does not decide that a country is socialist". However it is a precondition to it? Or is it not?
4) If it is not then how does communism start. How do we end capitalism?
5) Does the Market exist in communism or not?
6) If I want to run a business - to own my labour and means of production - how can I do that in the communist system? If I like bikes I can start a bike shop under capitalism - making work a want, not a need. How do I do that under communism?
6) If State control is not enough to determine communism, but is a precondition, then what is enough?
7) How does the State wither away in the later stages of socialism? Does jesus come with the Angels and whittle it away? Or is it Moses?
8) If the labour theory of value is correct why is a gold nugget found on the ground not less expensive than one mined for hours?
9) Is communism planned or not (The term communism and "planned economies" were synonymous for generations.). If so, how? How does it remain planned when the State withers away?

and finally - to make it 10 out of 10.

10) Who lives in Kiliney in the communist society?

brianthebard

asdasd wrote: »

Oh I think thoise of us who have rubbished your worn out theories and have had no response are the ones with patience. I notice that when I totally demolish such absurdities as the labour theory of value you resort to name calling, or ignoring the issue.

you have just ignored this simple question ( though you quoted it)

Yes you're very good at rubbishing them, less good at actually dealing with the theory head on. You'd rather talk about how communism leads to genocide than an actual discussion of the merits or lack of in communist/marxian theory. I've never seen you demolish any theory. I will however entertain your questions, though I'm sure you have pre-prepared "demolitions" in place.

That is not science.

OK. Lets tease this out. We are going to be scientific and I want answers, not gobblydook.

1) Is Cuba Communist or not?
2) If it is , then why wasn't the USSR communist?
3) "I think you don't really understand what I mean about state control. State control itself does not decide that a country is socialist". However it is a precondition to it? Or is it not?
4) If it is not then how does communism start. How do we end capitalism?
5) Does the Market exist in communism or not?
6) If I want to run a business - to own my labour and means of production - how can I do that in the communist system? If I like bikes I can start a bike shop under capitalism - making work a want, not a need. How do I do that under communism?
6) If State control is not enough to determine communism, but is a precondition, then what is enough?
7) How does the State wither away in the later stages of socialism? Does jesus come with the Angels and whittle it away? Or is it Moses?
8) If the labour theory of value is correct why is a gold nugget found on the ground not less expensive than one mined for hours?
9) Is communism planned or not (The term communism and "planned economies" were synonymous for generations.). If so, how? How does it remain planned when the State withers away?

and finally - to make it 10 out of 10.

10) Who lives in Kiliney in the communist society?

1-No.
3-Only if the ownership is with the people. So no.
5-dunno. Obviously there will be a market, how else would people trade goods? It just won't be a capitalist market. silly question.
6-Communism is about allowing everyone control their own labour, without the exploitation of anothers. What you describe is perfectly feasible under communism, provided it is not used as a means of surplus accumulation for the purpose of profiting at others expense. "want not need" silly wordplay there. Pointless.
7-You want science, not gooblygook? Then you shouldn't have asked a stupid question like this, with a sarcastic add on.
8-More sillyness. Both the found nugget and the mined nugget require hours of work if they are to be repeated tasks of labour. The real proof of the labour theory of value is of course the fact that either gold nugget is worth less than one which is fashioned into an object of consumption.
9-Communism is planned by communes.
10- why the hell would I care?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

asdasd

"want not need" silly wordplay there. Pointless.

it's from Marx. :-)

asdasd

Not very good answers BTB

6-Communism is about allowing everyone control their own labour, without the exploitation of anothers.

which means that your communist society allows private enterprise unless the guy employs someone. He better not get too succesful ( but then, where would he get the capital to expand?)

What does "controlling your own labour mean" exactly? Does it mean everybody is self employed? What exactly? Communes will control people.

7-You want science, not gooblygook? Then you shouldn't have asked a stupid question like this, with a sarcastic add on.

Why was the question stupid? As a trained scientist I asked how the early State owned dictatorship of the proletariariat cedes to the Stateless society you claim to be true Communism.

8-More sillyness. Both the found nugget and the mined nugget require hours of work if they are to be repeated tasks of labour. The real proof of the labour theory of value is of course the fact that either gold nugget is worth less than one which is fashioned into an object of consumption.

The gold is valuable on its own. I am not asking a question about Jewellery, but gold. Which has market value in it's raw state unrelated to the labour cost of production ( mining, or finding).

Let me be clear. The labour theory of value is utter bunk. It is the stupidest theory in economic history ( and I know Marx is not the only believer). Work - which is a scientific term - can destroy value. Equal amounts of work gets unequal results. Madonna will work for two weeks in a recording studio and make millions, and someone else work for the same amount of time,spend the same amount of energy and make nothing.

Communism is planned by communes.

Really? Most Marxists were wrong for generations then. ALl Marxists in the early 20th century belived in planned economies.

All that communes can plan, of course, is the build and production of whatever product they hope to manufacture or sell. In fact a co-operative (which works within capitalism) is a commune. I dont recall Marxists historically spending too much time demanding the rise of the co-operative movement, rather the demand was for the increasing involvement of the State - the taking of the means of production into Public ( i.e. State) ownership.

I am also unsure about how we all get our needs taken care of in a society of communes only, how wealth is transfered "according to need" and from ability. You would need a State for that. To do the transfers.

And how do modern co-operations fit in? Or are they out? Do we live in victorian American type communes ( iike the religious communities - Amish, Shaker etc.), or do we control factories as communes. If the factories - or companies - that already exist become communes and workers are no longer exploited by the profiters then Microsoft Employees will get richer ( temporarily) and WalMart emplyees stay about the same, since the profit margin in WalMart is tiny, and MS makes huge profits per employee. The system becomes more unequal without a State to balance things up.

(temporarily because as capital dries up the whole system collapses)

How this makes us all "equal" is beyond me, as is how we run a pensions system, or make the needy get paid more than the able. Cant do that without a State.

10- why the hell would I care?

The question is not whether you care. If you are asking for the dissolution of private property it matters who lives where. Some places are more desirable than others, some are bigger. Anybody who lives in the best areas, or the biggest houses will the real elite of the new society. How is this decided? Lottery? By need?


Epic Fail.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.