Communism means of production

Belfast

When Marx came up the the idea that the proletariat should own of the means of production, the means of production was the main way of generating wealth.

Now that branding,marketing and housing price rises seem to be the way wealth is generated today, is the concept of the proletarian ownership of the means of production an out dated concept?

brianthebard

There are a few things to consider here. First is the difference between productive and non productive industries. Non productive are things like advertising, housing market, and other elements like those you mentioned that generate growth without actually contributing anything physical or useful. Would those things still exist in a communist society? I doubt it.
Second is if we look at the global economy rather than national economies individually we can see that production is still a very big part of the economy. So there would still be production for the proletariat to own. Energy production would in my opinion be the most important element for the proletariat to take control of right now.
Third is that growth would not be measured in the same manner in a communist society as in a capitalist one.

af_thefragile

brianthebard wrote: »

There are a few things to consider here. First is the difference between productive and non productive industries. Non productive are things like advertising, housing market, and other elements like those you mentioned that generate growth without actually contributing anything physical or useful. Would those things still exist in a communist society? I doubt it.

I really don't think those industries are that non-productive. Or else they simply wouldn't exist! Capitalism leads to choice. People get to chose between buying a Toyota, VW, BMW or Audi. Marketing is one of the most important aspects of business. Its the way to get your product known to people and its all a part of constructive competition. About housing market too, if you believe people have the right to own property (which i know commies don't believe in), then the housing market is just another commodity. People work to build homes and such.
Choice is a good thing. Whenever I try to imagine a commie society one one color comes to my mind... grey.

Second is if we look at the global economy rather than national economies individually we can see that production is still a very big part of the economy. So there would still be production for the proletariat to own. Energy production would in my opinion be the most important element for the proletariat to take control of right now.

Privatisation of industry?

Third is that growth would not be measured in the same manner in a communist society as in a capitalist one.

So how would it be measured?
The size of its military might?

silverharp

af_thefragile wrote: »

I really don't think those industries are that non-productive. Or else they simply wouldn't exist! Capitalism leads to choice. People get to chose between buying a Toyota, VW, BMW or Audi. Marketing is one of the most important aspects of business. Its the way to get your product known to people and its all a part of constructive competition.

Sometimes I wonder at the rational consumer model when looking at the car industry. Globally there would appear to be far too much resources allocated to product development in a mature industry. That being said, various company bailouts going back to the 70's and national champion policies etc and taxation policies have distorted this industry. Funny how you can go to a computer shop and choose from a range of manufacturers but cars have to be bought through dealer networks

DadaKopf

Non productive are things like advertising, housing market, and other elements like those you mentioned that generate growth without actually contributing anything physical or useful.

I think there's a difference between advertising etc., and the investment of excess profits in things like houses (which do have a use).

I do think that, whether we like it or not, advertising is involved in processes which produce subjectivity and lead to new immaterial forms of both labour and commodities-as-experiences. So these things are useful to people, and if not desirable (that's an ethical judgement), it cannot be denied that they have an effect. And by producing subjectivity, I mean they have an impact on people's sense of themselves. There's a school of thought that we develop our dispositions and habits before we develop values and attitudes about things; this explains why it's so difficult to change one's mind in the face of a constant barrage of directives coming through media and the new service and information economies.

So things have moved on since Marx. Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt have theorised the janus-faced emergence of a global service-based political economy increasingly dominated by 'immaterial-labour':

Hardt & Negri wrote:

“In short, we can distinguish three types of immaterial labor that drive the service sector at the top of the informational economy. The first is involved in an industrial production that has been informationalised and has incorporated communication technologies in a way that transforms the production process itself. Manufacturing is regarded as a service, and the material labour of the production of durable goods mixes with and tends toward immaterial labor. Second is the immaterial labor of analytical and symbolic tasks, which itself breaks down into creative and intelligent manipulation on the one hand and routine symbolic tasks on the other. Finally, a third type of immaterial labor involves the production and manipulation of affect and requires (virtual or actual) human contact, labor in the bodily mode. These are three types of labor that drive the postmodernisation of the global economy.”

Here's something to read.

Joycey

af_thefragile wrote: »

I really don't think those industries are that non-productive. Or else they simply wouldn't exist!

They are not entirely non-productive, perhaps that was too strong a way of phrasing it. They produce imaginary wealth.

I think the point is that were you to compare the benefits to the wellbeing of the people who live in a given society to the amounts of resources which are spent on developing things like marketing, you would find that it is an incredibly wasteful practise, and were we to live in a society where we didnt squander vast amounts of resources in order to help the rich (the owners of the marketing companies and the products being marketed) to get a teensy bit richer, then everyone would be better off.

Choice is a good thing. Whenever I try to imagine a commie society one one color comes to my mind... grey.

All this proves is the limits of your imagination.

So how would it be measured?
The size of its military might?

In terms of the well being of the population as opposed to how much money the top 5% or so of the population can accrue.

turgon

Joycey wrote: »

They are not entirely non-productive, perhaps that was too strong a way of phrasing it. They produce imaginary wealth.

Define imaginary wealth. I dont see how it can be imaginary. If I have a big car and a nice house, is that imaginary? Will I wake up some day and it will be gone?

Joycey wrote: »

were we to live in a society where we didnt squander vast amounts of resources in order to help the rich (the owners of the marketing companies and the products being marketed) to get a teensy bit richer, then everyone would be better off.

What ye communists fail to understand is that the "rich" isnt some group alienated from the rest of society. It is accessible to all.

I am starting Maths in Uni next year. Its a four year course. One of the people finishing it this year informed me that there is a PhD you can do in America (another 4 years) after which your starting salary is quarter of a million dollars. Were I do do that I would be "rich" instantly. I come from a "lower middle class" family.

From the same course you cans study to be an actuary which typically takes between 2-3 years with a starting salary of €80,000. To me, that is "rich." And yet it is totally accesable.

Joycey wrote: »

In terms of the well being of the population as opposed to how much money the top 5% or so of the population can accrue.

"The well being of the population" is not the issue of the state. As brianthebard said (rightly) to me in another thread, whether or not he was working was none of my buisness. My "well being" is none of your buisness. If I want to get no job and drink all day ****ing up my life that is what I will do and if I die it is only my responsibility. On the other hand if Im ambitious I will be a success.

My "well being" is totally up to myself, not you.

af_thefragile

Joycey wrote: »

They are not entirely non-productive, perhaps that was too strong a way of phrasing it. They produce imaginary wealth.

I think the point is that were you to compare the benefits to the wellbeing of the people who live in a given society to the amounts of resources which are spent on developing things like marketing, you would find that it is an incredibly wasteful practise, and were we to live in a society where we didnt squander vast amounts of resources in order to help the rich (the owners of the marketing companies and the products being marketed) to get a teensy bit richer, then everyone would be better off.

These industries create employment. They give people a way to make use of their creative talent. It gives people something to do. It helps the business grow bigger which in turn benefits the people cuz a better business will produce a better and cheaper product. So its not only benefiting the rich. You know how much businesses spend on marketing each year?

All this proves is the limits of your imagination.

I just don't like the idea of living in a world without choices where i just need to accept the resources some state is proving for me. A world where there is little i can do with my talent and creativity cuz those things are apparently a
"non productive waste of time". Instead I should work all day building community housings and basic commodities for the people. No thanks!

In terms of the well being of the population as opposed to how much money the top 5% or so of the population can accrue.

How are you supposed to measure this well being of the population?
And the problem with modern day capitalism is government intervention which has caused this top 5% of the population to accrue enormous amounts of wealths. If governments wouldn't keep bailing out big businesses the smaller ones would have a better chance of getting anywhere.
In a free market model of capitalism the wealth would be more evenly distributed among the population based on the skills and hard work of the people/businesses.

af_thefragile

turgon wrote: »

What ye communists fail to understand is that the "rich" isnt some group alienated from the rest of society. It is accessible to all.

I am starting Maths in Uni next year. Its a four year course. One of the people finishing it this year informed me that there is a PhD you can do in America (another 4 years) after which your starting salary is quarter of a million dollars. Were I do do that I would be "rich" instantly. I come from a "lower middle class" family.

From the same course you cans study to be an actuary which typically takes between 2-3 years with a starting salary of €80,000. To me, that is "rich." And yet it is totally accesable.

To add to this, i always feel these commies have some sorta inferiority complex and jealousy towards the rich and successful. They don't see them as normal people but as some sorta alien class above us whose only objective is to exploit these - less successful - common people to become more wealthy by leeching off the people who work for them.

I think you people need to open up your eyes and mind a little more and notice these rich fellas are normal people just like us. They have gotten to where they are through their skills and hard work. If you guys stop accusing them and try to model your life the way they did, you could also become of these rich fellas yourself. They don't live in some other dimension which is totally inaccessible to the common/poor folks.
Neither are they all evil greedy bastards who just wanna use them poor folks as slaves to get rich.

Bill Gates gave us easy to use accessible computers. Without him we wouldn't have been having this conversation. So stop accusing him and thank these rich and successful people for making our lives better!


Also to note Marx came up with this theory back in the days when there were the aristocrats and slave labor. Those days are long gone so people need to open their eyes and start living in the present world!

Joycey

af_thefragile wrote: »

To add to this, i always feel these commies have some sorta inferiority complex and jealousy towards the rich and successful. They don't see them as normal people but as some sorta alien class above us whose only objective is to exploit these - less successful - common people to become more wealthy by leeching off the people who work for them.

I think you people need to open up your eyes and mind a little more and notice these rich fellas are normal people just like us. They have gotten to where they are through their skills and hard work. If you guys stop accusing them and try to model your life the way they did, you could also become of these rich fellas yourself. They don't live in some other dimension which is totally inaccessible to the common/poor folks.
Neither are they all evil greedy bastards who just wanna use them poor folks as slaves to get rich.

The sentiment of this post is actually bang on (even if some of the details are rediculous), I really need to stop attacking rich people in my posts, it does no one any good and it creates the illusion that this "inferiority complex" exists. I have no desire to become massively rich, a reasonably comfortable existence would be perfectly adequate thanks.

Truth be told, I dont really blame the individuals who have profited from the unjust system which has allowed the acretion of their wealth, and if I do then I shouldnt. The capitalist system is one which corrupts those who are a part of it, conditioning people to believe that what is most important and desirable in life is the acquisition of wealth, which couldnt be more wrong. It facilitates the creation of a climate whereby individuals are encouraged to compete with eachother, and essentially to take from others whatever it is in their power to take.

Here's an interesting article I came across the other day about how consumerism f*cks everyones mental health over, written by a psychologist:
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/viewArticle/20446

af_thefragile

Joycey wrote: »

The sentiment of this post is actually bang on (even if some of the details are rediculous), I really need to stop attacking rich people in my posts, it does no one any good and it creates the illusion that this "inferiority complex" exists. I have no desire to become massively rich, a reasonably comfortable existence would be perfectly adequate thanks.

Truth be told, I dont really blame the individuals who have profited from the unjust system which has allowed the acretion of their wealth, and if I do then I shouldnt. The capitalist system is one which corrupts those who are a part of it, conditioning people to believe that what is most important and desirable in life is the acquisition of wealth, which couldnt be more wrong. It facilitates the creation of a climate whereby individuals are encouraged to compete with eachother, and essentially to take from others whatever it is in their power to take.

Here's an interesting article I came across the other day about how consumerism f*cks everyones mental health over, written by a psychologist:
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/viewArticle/20446

This is why people are the main focus of us libertarians. We need people to step up to businesses that are taking them for a ride/ripping them off. We need people to become smarter and take responsibility for his actions. And this can only happen when a person is left alone to think for himself. Only then will the person be forced to think things through and make more rational decisions for himself.

Groupthink results in people making hasty, irrational decisions. And also the social welfare and security safety net we've got in the society today also makes people too comfortable to think things through properly, resulting in the person making impulsive and irrational decisions again.

We want people to grow and think for themselves. What's best for them and their community. Rather than acting on impulsive decisions under the influence of someone trying to sell you something.

Now consumerism is not totally a bad thing. Consumer demand causes business to keep working hard on creating the better and cheaper product. Without the consumer we wouldn't have all these things we cherish today.
But people need to get smart to think and buy only what they need and can afford rather than acting impulsively like some sorta corporate sheep.

silverharp

af_thefragile wrote: »

This is why people are the main focus of us libertarians. We need people to step up to businesses that are taking them for a ride/ripping them off. We need people to become smarter and take responsibility for his actions. And this can only happen when a person is left alone to think for himself. Only then will the person be forced to think things through and make more rational decisions for himself.

Groupthink results in people making hasty, irrational decisions. And also the social welfare and security safety net we've got in the society today also makes people too comfortable to think things through properly, resulting in the person making impulsive and irrational decisions again.

We want people to grow and think for themselves. What's best for them and their community. Rather than acting on impulsive decisions under the influence of someone trying to sell you something.

Now consumerism is not totally a bad thing. Consumer demand causes business to keep working hard on creating the better and cheaper product. Without the consumer we wouldn't have all these things we cherish today.
But people need to get smart to think and buy only what they need and can afford rather than acting impulsively like some sorta corporate sheep.

excellent post, just to add that generally Hard money types that have a Libertarian position will argue that the centrally run currency system is a huge part of the problem, gov. inflation and abnormal access to cheap debt is corrupting to the values of the population.

turgon

Joycey wrote: »

I have no desire to become massively rich, a reasonably comfortable existence would be perfectly adequate thanks.

And you want to force this desire on everyone else.

I am ambitious and I desire lots of money, so stop trying to design a system where Im kept down just because your personally not bothered.

DadaKopf

af_thefragile wrote:

They have gotten to where they are through their skills and hard work. If you guys stop accusing them and try to model your life the way they did, you could also become of these rich fellas yourself. They don't live in some other dimension which is totally inaccessible to the common/poor folks.

If 'they' have got to the top through hard work, can you tell me why the 'others' - one-third of the world's population - continue live in extreme poverty? Why billions more 'others' are among the working poor? Do you think it's sheer laziness?

turgon

DadaKopf wrote: »

Do you think it's sheer laziness?

It probably to do with the fact that European Civilization advanced at a much faster rate than African civilization in the 200 years. The only reason we judge Africa by the same yardstick is because of the failed imperialistic polices of some of our European fellows in the past. If Europe hadnt intervened Africa would have developed more normally. Which would have meant less population and the same kind of hunter gatherer/farmer society of Europe in the past.

I would not blame Africa's problems on the system of capitalism. I would blame it on the system of imperialism.

And as for the "working poor" in countries like Ireland, they have the opportunities like education they just dont take them because their parents ignored their responsibilities and they decided not to get involved.

af_thefragile

DadaKopf wrote: »

If 'they' have got to the top through hard work, can you tell me why the 'others' - one-third of the world's population - continue live in extreme poverty? Why billions more 'others' are among the working poor? Do you think it's sheer laziness?

Cuz back in the colonial days imperialist countries like Britan, France, Portugal etc. decided to go and rape these countries with abundant natural resources that have now become the "third-world".

Mentioned it earlier that socialism/communism will not solve the problems in Africa.
What africa needs is foreign entrepreneurs/businesses to go there and start up an industry utilizing the natural resources of Africa. One that could immediately be put to use is the unlimited amount of solar energy that can be tapped in that land. Only the best of the independent/private businesses have the time, money and will to go to such a desolate place and set up such a high risk project, which if successful could bring enormous amount of wealth and development to the nation.

There are many lower risk, smaller businesses people could set up in Africa too. Give the local people some employment and a source of income. Just someone needs to do it. Probably a business that could be able to get across all of those legal and government barriers across the nations. And one that is more focused on long term goals than the "I came, I saw, I raped and I left" kind of big corpocracies. Businesses who have the high degree of government infiltration, backed by the government are free to exploit cheap third-world labor as much as they want.

Mike 1972

I think there's a difference between advertising etc., and the investment of excess profits in things like houses (which do have a use).

perhaps excess is the key word here. Houses do indeed have a use (just like designer clothes or branded trainers) its when their market value is based on factors other than simple utility or realistic notions of supply/demand that their contributipn to anything physical or useful comes into question.

things like ...housing market, and other elements ...that generate growth without actually contributing anything physical or useful

I dont see the housing market generating much growth at the moment. (Then again if in the long run if people are putting less of their income into housing it may mean they have more to spend on other things ?)

brianthebard

af_thefragile wrote: »

Cuz back in the colonial days imperialist countries like Britan, France, Portugal etc. decided to go and rape these countries with abundant natural resources that have now become the "third-world".

Mentioned it earlier that socialism/communism will not solve the problems in Africa.
What africa needs is foreign entrepreneurs/businesses to go there and start up an industry utilizing the natural resources of Africa.

We call this neo-colonialism, you should look into it. Since you are so disgusted by the imperialist rape of Britain, France, Portugal, etc, you should realise that continuing this rape is not the right answer.

af_thefragile

brianthebard wrote: »

We call this neo-colonialism, you should look into it. Since you are so disgusted by the imperialist rape of Britain, France, Portugal, etc, you should realise that continuing this rape is not the right answer.

I am aware of neo-colonialism, which is why i mentioned the corpocracy.
You can look into IMF's role into the neo-slavery of workers in Jamaica and Indonesia who labour to produce goods for brands like Nike, Tommy, DKNY and all at pays that can barely sustain them.

Yes, the corporations (Nike, Tommy, DKNY...) are at fault here but you can't ignore the fact that this couldn't have been made possible without the intervention of american government through the help of the IMF.

Did you hear of Fair Trade mate?

brianthebard

Yes I think its ineffectual.

af_thefragile

brianthebard wrote: »

Yes I think its ineffectual.

Its a start. Better than anything communism bought to Africa.

Ostrom

brianthebard wrote: »

We call this neo-colonialism, you should look into it. Since you are so disgusted by the imperialist rape of Britain, France, Portugal, etc, you should realise that continuing this rape is not the right answer.

Warwick Murray wrote an interesting paper on neo-feudalism, particularly re-incorporation and control of production by food processing corporations over Latin American peasants. 2006, Journal of Peasant Studies Vol.2 (I think...)

Conceptual nit-picking or productive debate-you decide

brianthebard

af_thefragile wrote: »

Its a start. Better than anything communism bought to Africa.

Your opinion, with nothing to back it up.

asdasd

one-third of the world's population - continue live in extreme poverty?

Ph, I think most of them lived under communism. The system which is actually masively raising the living stanards of most of the world - the the Extent that Europe is going to be a 4th rate power ( after China, the US, and India in that order is Capitalism).

What kept the two non-Western powers from realising their full potential was communism, and fabian styled socialism and autarky.

asdasd

Your opinion, with nothing to back it up.

Living stadards are better under capitalism than communism. Feel free to look that up, It really isnt that hard.

Ostrom

Belfast wrote: »

When Marx came up the the idea that the proletariat should own of the means of production, the means of production was the main way of generating wealth.

Now that branding,marketing and housing price rises seem to be the way wealth is generated today, is the concept of the proletarian ownership of the means of production an out dated concept?

An interesting window into his thought on the problem of communal ownership can be found in his later works on Ethnology. Marx became quite interested in evolutionary anthropology in his later years, (particularly Morgan's paradigm which correlated closely with his own historical materialist conception of human development), and wrote extensively on earlier forms of primitive communism - The Russian Mir, and German Mark in particular.

He made the point that (particularly relevant to the AH debate on the Irish famine) commodity production as it tended to occur under communal social forms, tended to undermine the essential collectivity of the commune as a whole, which is why under each form we see a clear system of management, which again took different forms in particular contexts.

As to your question of today, I dont know, nor do I consider there to be any closely comparable case. As Brainthebard mentioned, 'wealth' is an arbitrary concept unless situated within particular social relations, so with this in mind, and with a quick historical glance, it seems entirely valid, if not purely theoretical.

af_thefragile

brianthebard wrote: »

Your opinion, with nothing to back it up.

You didn't give me the better answer of how communism would solve the problem of Africa.

brianthebard

It would bring an end to neo-colonialism for a start.

af_thefragile

brianthebard wrote: »

It would bring an end to neo-colonialism for a start.

How is this going to happen considering the amount of debt these 3rd world countries owe to the IMF and World Bank...?

Saying that i do like what Hugo Chavez is doing in Venezuela. He is a good leader, unlike most socialist leaders out there... From what i've learnt about him so far...

asdasd

one-third of the world's population - continue live in extreme poverty?

By the that it seems that Marxists are abandoning their idea of a global "abundance" - the one which happens mysteriously after the immiseration of the proletariat in the West.

Now it is about equalising world wages. with the end to non-productive industries like (um) marketing, financials, service economics, real estate agencies, modelling, and so on most of the Western proletariat seems fit to lose it's jobs. Cant really see tha catching on with any real working class. The Chinese have taken to Capitalism quite strongly too. Whats left for Marxism, lumpen proles, undergraduates, and tenured parasites.

Let's name a non-productive parasitical industiry. I call University Marxism unproductive, as useful as a bike with flippers, and surplus to requirements.

The Marxist industry also lives on the surplus value created by productive workers ( and capitalists) in the private sector in the form of Tax. Furthermore the non-priductive parasites ( to use a word favoured by Marxists) in the universities who espose Marxism not only earn more than the average industrial wage - the hyprocritical oafs - but , unlike capitalists who engage in the non-zero sum game of creating wealth, create no goods, service, or industry of any use whatsoever.

I am more productive before 8:30 in the morning than a Marxist professor will be all his life. The parasite. So is the capitalist who "expolits" me by selling me my breakfast.

The purveyors of rehashed 19th century theory are more useless than pretty much anybody else on the planet, of far less utility than most of their university colleagues ( particularly in the sciences).

Mostly, this parasitical group hails from the Upper Middle classes, and live off my ( and other proletarians) surplus which is taken from us by force. in their idiotic literature they ever mention that piece of ruling class theft. ( For ruling class they most certainly are - State employees of no worth, or use to society, demanding the extension of their State, which is a mechanism for taking income from workers)/

So lets not get rid of the industries the Marxist academic finds redundant.

Lets, firstly, get rid of the Marxists.

asdasd

It would bring an end to neo-colonialism for a start.

neo-colonialism is ****.