Question for communists . . . .

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lung
Why do communists eagerly invest in shares? Worst of all, why do they treat the working class like lepers? Perceived moral superiority is hardly about social equality, so why do they act that way?

If you ask me, it sounds like gross hipocrisy on their part

It is gross hypocracy. Many communists in the West come from the "middle" class, i.e., the professional classes. I and Theben are no exception, 'cept I grew up poorer than my bro. He was born after we moved out of thr trailer parks. We have, however, associated with working class and poor people our whole lives, never assuming anything. All we knew is that people had different families and kids were kids.

There is an assumption in the US that working people are reactionary and violent and scary, and some of that is true. Most of the people we think of as working class are are a part of the working class. Many of the people we think of as middle class are actually working class, just a different part of it. White collar, pink collar, brown collar are all as working class as blue collar.

Most people tend to know the radicals in their own class and family. If you are "middle" class, it's highly unlikely you know working class radicals. There are actually a lot more of them than you think. A good chunk of union leadership and almost all union activists are red or pink. These comrades don't own race horses and if they have any stock, it's in their pension funds.

When I became a red, I associated with a couple different groups. The group I eventually joined was hard core blue collar, The Spark, the American branch of the French organization Lutte Ouvriere. LO runs in French presidential elections and does quite well, even beating the Communist Party last time. With the exception of me and a couple other students in Chicago, it was all working class (all 50 or so of them). Well liked in their jobs, among the best educated group on the left (autodidacts), and they led some of the few winning strikes in the 1980s in the US.

Another group I hung with was called the International Socialist Organization. They are the American Branch of the British Socialist Workers Party (not to be confused with the US Socialist Workers Party, which has very different politics--they're both cults, though). We always called it the International Student Organization. Their policy, until 1996, was that the US working class was to reactionary to try and bring socialist politics to. They were solely located in the university. Eventually they rediscovered the working class, declaring that the WC had begun to become active again.

Most WC reds keep their politics close to their breasts. You'll almost never know if you're working with a Communist Party member (they haven't forgotten real McCarthyism). Many others will only refer to themselves as socialists or revolutionary socialists, but shy away from being called communist. I don't go waving my flag at work, either. Bosses no that commies are trouble and don't want us around. We're rabble-rousers and organizers. We do things like get the NYC Transit workers to strike. So, despite working with a bunch of liberals, I keep my exact politics a secret. I like having a job.

[Velociryx]

I am simply regurgitating the VERY SAME arguments I have recieved from communists on 'poly in one of the older threads of this type.

The very same stuff (that last bit was taken from a raging debate DuncanK and I had, if you feel like checking).

-=Vel=-

EDIT: So you see...I'm not putting words into your mouth at all...I'm simply using some of the arguments of your Comrades against you....

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by yavoon
both mormons and communists supposedly live idealogically. but the road they use to get their is pretty radically different.

The early Mormon Church was communist, actually. Many US churches in the 19th Century tried to practice communism. Never lasted too long, though. Most fell apart, Mormonism abandoned most of its radicalism as it grew properous.

[Spiffor]

For example, Marx indeed doesn't take services into account when talking about the creation of riches. This is what makes a literal interpretation of Marx badly outdated. But does it mean today's communists don't believe in services as source of wealth ?

Fact is, in the communist creed, WORK is source of wealth, no matter where it is (of course, more or less useful work can result in more or less creation of wealth). The profits of the company, when owned by the workers, are to be shared between all members of the company, as they all contributed to this wealth.

Besides, about the banking system... I may be an utter cretin, but I don't see why the communists are opposed to a banking system as a whole. I see however how we could be opposed to a profit-driven banking system, i.e a banking system which benefits the bankers more than the society. The woncept of wealth is at the core of the communist idea (since communism is an economic system), so I fail to see why we'd oppose the activity of mediating this wealth.
The fact that we don't want banks exactly like they are today, partly because of our opposition to interest rates, doesn't mean we oppose the very idea of banking, i.e mediating money.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oerdin
So you don't see why providing businesses with access to capital is a good thing? Do you at least conceed that the government should be promoting the creation of jobs so as to provide employment? How then do you propose we go about creating those jobs unless we promote business creation?

I'm not against creating new businesses and yes the govt should be promoting job growth, but the interests of capitalists is to maintain a reserve army of the unemployed and keep wages low. A communist is only hypocritical if he or she supports the interests of the capitalists by voting for their political candidates.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Cruddy


Then why are people starving?

The world already produces enough food to feed everyone - it's the distribution that sucks.

The distribution sucks because prices are too low where people are suffering. If you get rid of the price system distribution will no longer be a problem. The system right now has so much potential. It would be amazing really to see the current system produce at full capacity.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Are you sure you know what it means to be a communist? It might be a good idea to learn before you profess to be one.

Good advice. Why don't you take it?

A communist believes that everyone should have there minimal survival needs meet then the remaining wealth should be evenly distributed among all the human beings in society or ideally on Earth.

Wrong.

A communist is someone who believes that production and distribution of goods and services should be handled socially. Right now, almost all goods and services are produced socially, so we have half of it down. Distribution is handled anarchicly, however, and the appropriation of surplus is handled privately by a tiny minority. Both should also be socialized and governed democratically. It's that last part we have a problem with, but given the fact that we have been under seige since day one, it's a small surprise that we haven't made it work. The capitalists have zero interest in letting us alone and seeing if we succeed, and every interest in doing whatever is necessary to either overthrow us and make conditions necessary for us to get all defensive and Israeli-like.

[Giancarlo]

Unacceptable, chegitz. That is in total violation of the laws of supply and demand. You cannot control demand.

You cannot succeed, there are too many people who hate your beliefs to its core including me. Go and have your revolution in some third world nation in Africa, but never in the United States because you are not messing with the future of millions.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The problem with communist dogma is that labor is the holy grail.

Specifically...physical labor. Sweat.

Nothing else counts.

If I touch the shoe and glue the sole on, my labor that went into the shoe is precious, and should rightly count as more of a contribution than the effort and ingenuity that went into arranging the factory's creation in the first place (that ain't work, you see....).

That's so BS. Marx wrote that nature is equally a source of wealth. He also wrote that not just any labor produces value, but socially-necessary labor. In other words, if your labor ain't necessary, it produces no value. The labor of a slow worker is less necessary than the work of a faster worker, which is why the products have the same value. This is why a fast worker creates more value than a slow worker.

Furthermore, mental labor is just as much a part of labor as physical labor. If you'd read any Marx you'd know this. It's just a lot harder to measure, but that doesn't mean it isn't a source of value or that it shouldn't be rewarded.

[Dinner]

he: I admite I've only read Engles & Marx and I took a few polisci classes in college but I still stand by what I said earlier. That was how communism was invisioned by it's creator.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Spiffor
For example, Marx indeed doesn't take services into account when talking about the creation of riches

That's not true, comrade. I suggest you read Das Kapital.

[Nubclear]

You got one small problem, I am not a fascist. So be quiet you communist.

You say that, yet......

Everyone knows your a facist, as everyone knows I'm a communist. Please spare me the "No i'm not!!! Really!!!" routine

I do listen and I do understand but I won't accept or consider.

Yep. Thats closed-mindedness.

It's not nearly so easy to actually live it

That's true. I mean, when your surrounded by capitalist products, capitalists, capitalist ideology.....And then you move to ANY other country which is either in anarchy or capitalist....

It's pretty hard to BE a communist.

Of course, the Commies will be quick to say that it (Communism) never really got a fair shake, on account of all the dictators who co-opted their perfect little world (Stalin-ism, Mao-ism, insertyourfavoritetinpotdictatorhere-ism),

They fell under capitalist influences and capitalist greed, and shorchanged the people. As far as I'm concerned....They aren't communists, but capitalists
Though a flavour of communism has been practiced in scandanavia for many years....

without acknowledging that flaws in the system (or as they prefer to say, flaws in humanity)

There are flaws in everything....Capitalism, communism, and yes Vel, even HUMANITY

Even better, they'll tell you that the reason it hasn't worked so far is because it was designed to be a global system, and if we'd all just try it out, magically, everything would fall into place

Hmm.....I haven't quite heard a sensable communist say this. What we really need to do is embrace SOCIALISM as Scandanavia has done.

How much conviction can you really PUT into something with the kind of track record that Communism has?

Vel, usually your posts are quite intelligent but this one seems.....Well, it seems like your angry and your just trying to vent it out in the form of this post. Likewise, your just taking cheap shots at Communism (and communists) without providing supporting evidence.

And likewise, a HORRIBLE troll

but ultimately, not much of a troll.

A communist believes

Who are you to say what a communist believes? Ignoring the fact that your completly wrong, your a CAPITALIST!!! You HARDLY know what a communist is.

Communism is more of a system where the wealth is DISTRIBUTED, not where its just given up!!! It's where the lower class is elevated to at least the middle class, but it's not a "Take from the rich, give to the poor" type system.

"Communists are against....interest.....I don't blame them for investing their money."

Two words and one smiley. Very intelligent post, Vel

. When we say we mean to abolish capitalism we don't mean to tear it down. We mean to abolish it the same way an adult abolishes the child, by growing up.

You usually have good comments, but in this thread, you are a bit like the Iraqi Information Minister

Spiffor....Always the diplomat

I am simply regurgitating the VERY SAME arguments I have recieved from communists on 'poly in one of the older threads of this type.

Well then they are wrong. It is just that simple.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


That's not true, comrade. I suggest you read Das Kapital.

Can you give us a quote? I agree with Spiffor. Service was considered unproductive labor during the time period.

[Maniac]

Velociryx:

but opportunity itself abounds, and is not limited to those with means. It is entirely possible (and in fact, desireable) to create your own opportunities. It's not a matter of luck or birth, it's a matter of determination and hunting for undiscovered opportunity.

Here you seem to see opportunity as something immaterial and metaphysical, something people can pull out of their individual arses... I use your own words of a few posts back: to me your idea of opportunity seems just as much a fiction of your mind as to you the theories of many communists seem a fiction unrelated to the actual world.
My logic goes more economical like: more means/money => more opportunities. Just like a firm needs a starting capital of cash to create a succesful enterprise, so does an individual need a starting capital of opportunities to create a succesful life and career. And the biggest your starting capital is, the higher your chances on succes, the lower the chances of failure.

and I am saying that capitalism does not guarantee (nor should it) equal opportunity for everyone

I see a meritocratic society as my ideal: each gets what he gets depending on his talents and his efforts. The best method for that seems a social-democracy to me. What's your "ultimate idea" behind your political and economical ideas? Obviously not meritocracy if you are not in favour of equal opportunities. What then? I ask because I don't really mind when people have other political-economical ideals than I have, and as a consequence another pol-eco ideology & method to reach those ideals. After all there probably are no absolute truths or values IMHO. What does bother me terribly are people who have certain ideals, and believe in a method to reach that ideal, despite that there is plenty of scientific or empirical proof saying that method doesn't lead to that ideal. Such people are ignorant morons without any wisdom IMO. An example are people who have as goal the welfare of all people, but who believe in the method of communism or laisser-faire free market to reach that goal.
So what is your political-economical ideal? I need to know before I can decide if I should think of you as an intelligent person or an ignorant bastard.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
he: I admite I've only read Engles & Marx and I took a few polisci classes in college but I still stand by what I said earlier. That was how communism was invisioned by it's creator.

I'm willing to wager I've read more of Marx and Engles than you. Neither Marx, nor Engles (nor for that matter, Lenin) believe in universal poverty or that everything should be distributed equally, at least not until the 2nd stage of communism, when production has been increased to the point that there is more than enough for anyone. Engles talks about abolishing theft by making it silly to engage in theft, because everything will be free and in such quantities that hording will do you no good.

In the 1st stage of communism, Marx writes about rewarding those who are better workers or who do more important work (such as doctors) better than others. So we're still not talking about universal poverty.
The goal of communism is to make everyone rich.