Communists.

turgon

DadaKopf wrote: »

Differences of opinion are fine if people are willing to explore topics

Such as how thing are made. Its been 2 and a half pages and 27 hours and I still havent found out how things are made in communism. I would rank how things are made as pretty important.

brianthebard wrote: »

What question?

How are things made? How is the amount of these thing decided (so as to avoid an excess).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

asdasd

Growth with finite resources and destruction of the ecosystem being one of these contradictions. Thing is, if the environment cannot support the system we have, then something will have to replace it. This is where this 'discussion' (but really it's people banging their heads off a blood-splattered wall) should be focusing.

The argument to the limit of resources is not one that Marx made. And the solution, which will be naturally driven in certain situations (as the market price of oil increases, alternative energy will become more viable), and needs to be non-Market driven in others - the cost of global warming is an externality so Government needs to intervene.

I can say "Government needs to intervene" because, unlike DF, I am not a market fundamentalist. I do however detest Marxism - which is the demand that ll private property be abolished ( which in practice means taken by the State), and have learned to detest it more since joining this thread.

You accuse us of talking past you. In this thread we have dismissed the labour theory of value with numerous theoretical arguments, asked how the communist state can be equal if it is communes rather than a planned Economy, rubbished your theories of "alienation", or the idea that "alienation causes consumerism".

All you can do is repeat the cant. Late-capitalism. Contradictions.. No answers, just jargon.

Your form of argument, and this is typical of Social Scientists, is to quote from your canonical sources, with its turgid ugly texts. Text which proves nothing. Text, whose self-important difficulty, proves nothing. Medieval scholastic church scholarship was difficult too, but God does not exist nevertheless. Bread is not transformed into the body and blood of Christ even though Aquinas wrote in a very complicated fashion on the subject ( employing the best philosophy of his time). He was complicated, jargonistic, and wrong. So are you.

Even then y'all do not know your sources as well as me. I deliberately misquoted from Marx in the earlier part of this thread, and when referencing work as a "want, not need" straight from Marx, one of the Marxists on this thread called that trite. Trite it is. But from Marx.

contd. ( and then I exit the thread)

asdasd

A good example of the way the Marxists argue on this thread is from this post by BTB.

BrianTheBard wrote:

asdasd wrote:

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.

Communes can't plan?

i leave the two boldified exceprts as a sample to the reader.

I then went on to ask about communes can even make things equal.

Heres a sample

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.

The response was to ask me to go to sources, to the Manifesto . Ths first response I have to that is why should I have to read the sources of a charlatan cult (as it happens I have) A reference to sources by an believer is not an argument. Nobody accepts that an Astrologer can say "Read Nostradamus".

But I have read it, and of course the Communist Manifesto tells us nothing about the questions I asked. It ends in pithy jargoneering about loosing chains, but no details. We've all read it. It reads well, unlike most Marxism, but is wrong.

There's much more, but thats me done. As for the snooty smarter-than-thou Fox News Jibe. I am from a real science background. DF is probably an economist.

We scientists see most social scientists as about on the same intellectual rung as Sun readers. And I have seen little to dispel my ideas on that, here. You ahve no analytical ability, you jargoneer, throw jibes, and avoid answers to simple questions.

In a real science the question, asked by Turgon, still unanswered ( along with plenty of mine) about how things are actually made, and who decides what is made under communism ( given that capitalism produces such "unnecessaries") would either be answered, or the questioned would admit ignorance and try a different tack, or give up.

It hasnt been answered. It wont be. Instead we get quotes from Negri and other Marxists Saints. If they say it, it must be true. No proof needed.

So using the catchphrase from that marvelous show which allows normal people to get capital to participate as entrepeneurs, I must say "I'm out"

Soldie

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And what if, heaven forbid, we want two spatulas? I hope that's okay with the overlords.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

A reminder not to engage in attacks on other posters, or descriptions of them as sophomoric. If you feel that other posters are not to be taken seriously, don't waste your time, and mine, saying so. Slaps on the wrist will be handed out as required to those wielding handbags.

moderately,
Scofflaw

DadaKopf

It hasnt been answered. It wont be. Instead we get quotes from Negri and other Marxists Saints. If they say it, it must be true. No proof needed.

It is a political theory forum, afterall.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

ArphaRima

In a real science the question, asked by Turgon, still unanswered ( along with plenty of mine) about how things are actually made, and who decides what is made under communism ( given that capitalism produces such "unnecessaries") would either be answered, or the questioned would admit ignorance and try a different tack, or give up.

It hasnt been answered. It wont be. Instead we get quotes from Negri and other Marxists Saints. If they say it, it must be true. No proof needed.

I too would be interested to hear how communists believe the industries of this world should be utilised.

Or how this theory can become reality without the oppression of the majority.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

turgon

DadaKopf wrote: »

It is a political theory forum, afterall.

Ye were the ones who stated that ye wanted it put into practice. That is why we probe.


And one comment about BtB's use of past communist states. He stated explicitly at the start here that he did not consider Russia and Cuba communist, and I decided to agree to that.

And yet is this not the same person who two months ago was praising Cuba and arguing all the good things about it? Arguing that the health care was good only because of the political make-up of the state. But if Cuba wasnt communist, what does this prove about BtB politics

And then he mentions the life expentancy dropping under "free market Russia." But surely if the USSR wasnt communist as he said then this point is completely redundant.


If you want to treat USSR as communist, you can claim the higher life expectancy. But you also have to claim the Ukraine Famine and the other millions of people who died.

On the other hand if you want to stay with there being no previous communist system in the world before you will have to start answering the practical questions we pose about this hypothetical system. Given the history of this movement, the onus is on you to prove it would work.

brianthebard

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

USA: Slaughter of native americans, war with Mexico, expansion into Latin America, forced entry into Japanese market and compromise of their administration. Slavery until after the civil war, after which the black population was exploited under another title.
Britain: Ireland, Latin America, Scramble for Africa, Misrule in India, Gunboat diplomacy in China. Support for the USA's slavery. Guano wars.

Do any of these things ring a bell with you? You're happy with your answer are you? Well I'm not.

brianthebard

turgon wrote: »

Ye were the ones who stated that ye wanted it put into practice. That is why we probe.


And one comment about BtB's use of past communist states. He stated explicitly at the start here that he did not consider Russia and Cuba communist, and I decided to agree to that.

And yet is this not the same person who two months ago was praising Cuba and arguing all the good things about it? Arguing that the health care was good only because of the political make-up of the state. But if Cuba wasnt communist, what does this prove about BtB politics.

What does it prove turgon? I'm sick of these personal attacks and petty sniping.

turgon

It proves that your defense lacks coherency. And you still havent answered the question about how things are made.

brianthebard

In a factory Turgon. There's no lack of coherency unless you saying by your rules I'm not allowed admire the improvements in Cuba if its not a completely communist state? That's just stupid.

asdasd wrote: »

A good example of the way the Marxists argue on this thread is from this post by BTB.



i leave the two boldified exceprts as a sample to the reader.

I don't know what your boldified (so they don't teach scientists how to spell do they?) text is supposed to show, but my question was rhetorical. While we are on the topic of responses, I notice that you had no reply to my explanation of the theory of labour value, where I soundly proved it true and you slunk away. Now you're back throwing more insults. Well done on proclaiming yourself out, wow you really took the high road there. :rolleyes:

turgon

And you still havent answered the question about how things are made.

brianthebard

In a factory turgon. Let me repeat; I said we should minimise waste, not that there can never be any waste ever.

turgon

But how would you decide what is to made and how much is to be made? This is what I really meant.

brianthebard

Is that what you really meant? How unfortunate that I might take you up wrong and answer in a facetious manner. Oh my.

sceptre

Guys, when you're veering towards ad hominem attacks, turn the steering wheel the other way. Or else I'll have to withdraw your access to the road. A few of you are doing it. None of you will continue to.

ArphaRima

This was an interesting debate until the debating stopped.

turgon

Ok, 42 hours and 58 posts after first posing my question and not getting any response (except "in a factory," well gee I would never have guessed), and keeping in mind this thread has gone to crap, I am resigning from this debate.

Never let it be said that I didnt try and engage with ye. I tried to get from ye some inkling of how communism would work in practical terms but either ye dont know or for some reason this information is top secret. Im guessing the former.

Apologies to the mods for pissing ye off.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Joycey

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think there might have been the eency weenciest bit of sarcasm in there, but of course I could be wrong :rolleyes:

Fair play to the man for telling the media what they want to hear.

I especially like this one:

What is the most important lesson life has taught you?

That life is a stupid, meaningless thing that has nothing to teach you.

Joycey

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The following are my answers to your questions, I dont speak for any of the others.

1. The workers.
2. The workers.
3. The profits which are accumulated as a result of their labour.
4. They produce as many as are needed without excessive waste (exactly as is the case now).
5. The workers gain more profit, however, unless the workers decide they want to operate their factory in such a way, more spatulas and for cheaper does not come with a correlative degredation of working conditions in the factory.
6. 7 and a half...... The same way they do now, if a spatula factory is not up to par then the workers will not be profitting from their labour. Of course even were the factory to have to shut down due to returns not covering expenses then the workers will be assured a minimum standard of living, after all we dont want to see anyone dying now do we DF? Even if it does mean big bad "coersive" taxation will be an institution :eek:
7. They will be distributed in an egalitarian manner among the people who contributed to the production of the spatulas. Profits will corelate with the danger/disgust which accords to the labour, the length of time spent working and how hard the workers worked. What will not be remunerated is sitting on your ass with a piece of paper which "entitles" you to money for nothing.

brianthebard

You have much more patience than me Joycey.

ArphaRima

Quote:
Originally Posted by donegalfella
1) Who builds and/or owns the factory?
2) Who works in the factory?
3) What reward does the factory worker receive for his or her labour?
4) How does the factory know how many spatulas to produce?
5) What incentive does the factory have to produce better spatulas at a lower cost?
6) How many spatula factories will there be? Will they compete with one another? How?
7) Are any profits generated in the production of spatulas? If so, how will those profits be used or distributed?

The following are my answers to your questions, I dont speak for any of the others.

1. The workers.
2. The workers.
3. The profits which are accumulated as a result of their labour.
4. They produce as many as are needed without excessive waste (exactly as is the case now).
5. The workers gain more profit, however, unless the workers decide they want to operate their factory in such a way, more spatulas and for cheaper does not come with a correlative degredation of working conditions in the factory.
6. 7 and a half...... The same way they do now, if a spatula factory is not up to par then the workers will not be profitting from their labour. Of course even were the factory to have to shut down due to returns not covering expenses then the workers will be assured a minimum standard of living, after all we dont want to see anyone dying now do we DF? Even if it does mean big bad "coersive" taxation will be an institution
7. They will be distributed in an egalitarian manner among the people who contributed to the production of the spatulas. Profits will corelate with the danger/disgust which accords to the labour, the length of time spent working and how hard the workers worked. What will not be remunerated is sitting on your ass with a piece of paper which "entitles" you to money for nothing.

1. Where would the average worker get the capital required to fund this enterprise?
2. So all of the workers who paid to set up the company will work in said company. How do they replace retired workers? Do they buy themselves in? Do those retiring get their money back out? Is it a requirement to be a shareholder? Are all shareholders equal? Are all positions renumerated equally? If not how is it dictated? How is hard work rewarded?
3. What do they do when they've produced enough produce? Do they switch the production run? Who dictates the product which is to be made? What if another company makes better higher quality products? Do they receive the same money per item as the other company?
4. Waste? A successful profit driven company has little waste. Profit is predicated on it. Ipods do not go to waste.
5. Workers decide how many spatulas and for how much they can be sold. But if each factory decides, then is it not a free market like we have now? Or do you propose price controls? What is the advantage to your system over the current system?
6. So you want good social welfare.
7. Yet you dont agree with social welfare. Or the equal splitting of profits. Or that everyone should be renumerated equally.

I'm finding it hard to see what it is that you believe.

Can you please explain to me how if you lived in a communist regime.. ahem.. sorry society, how would lets say a college graduate begin his life in industry? As lets say an industrial designer specialised in specialised spatulas.
How would his career progress? What monies will he have to pay? Who will be his boss? How much will he earn as a percentage of his colleagues?

I'm genuinely interested to hear how you think this should work. Its unlikely to persuade me, but thats not the point of debate.

Running Bing

Lady Luck wrote: »

Are there any Marxists here? I myself am a commy and proud. Although it has been shown to be "flawed" in practice,

x x x

Im sure its already been said but its completely flawed in theory as well.


A shockingly short sighted system totally at odds with human nature and economic progress.

Pablo Sanchez

New to the thread but somthing i have thought about many times....

The capitalist system is built on greed, its normal to want the new thing, the most fashionable/ most expensive thing as it marks you out from others.

When you think about it all the 'stuff' in the world is just a pass time to distract you between when you are born and when you die.

Realistically do we need twenty different car manufacturers/ fasion lables etc. Does it really make a difference to your life after you atained all these things you lusted after. On your death bed your unlikly to be thinking 'i am so happy i bought that new car in 2009, that really made my life worthwhile'. No, the things you will be thinking about are the truly important things, friends, family experiences, these are the things that life is made of (despite what the advertisers want you to believe).

Naturally communism failed in every form it has achieved, by their very nature humans are curious and will always focus on the things they dont have. If you lived in east Germany and looked over the wall at the Mercedes that your neighbour was driving, naturally this luxury product would be the 'exotic', the exciting thing that makes you look at your current situation, while you wait 10 years for a Trabant.

Im sure that same person, who moved to the west would quickly tire of the Merc once he got it............aka buyers remorse.

This will always be the case when inequities exist in society. A communist country will always struggle to suppress their citizens natural (and fully understandable) reaction to their situation.

However, theoretically, if every country accepted a worldwide communist syatem on a given day, then the whole world would be working twords a commen goal, the good of everyone by everyone.

The supply of goods and services would be shared and therefore just like in the current system, the correct country will produce the correct products. Ie Ireland would be a agriculture 'superpower' and Japan/Germany would continue producing their excellent manufactured goods etc etc etc, however without the duplication and waste.

The persuit of scientific/medical advances would be a focus for all and the best and brightest would work togeather to push humankind forward.

Workers no matter what position/Industry will always be recognised for excellence in their particular field. Their success's will no longer just be based on balance sheet, they will be judged on true excellence and promoted as such.

This inequitable world is not only inequitable but it is also immoral. The fact that we in the west waste the resources we are blessed with should be an embarressment to us when we consider how the rest of the world live.

I would venture to say that (True worldwide) Communism is not only a political theory but a virtue to be aimed at by all right thinking people with a conscious.