Rage against the Machine - Communism Vs. Capitalism (again!)

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Velociryx
So....a comparison of standard of living between failed and current communist systems vs. capitalist-oriented systems seems in order....I'm surprised too, that it hasn't come up before.

There are two points I want to make here. First, this is a strawman, yet again. Secondly, quality of living means different things to different cultures. To USians, it's number of toys you can have. However, it is more about human relations in other ones. So you have to first define what your "quality of living" is and argue why it is the best measuring stick.

Originally posted by Velociryx
Anybody from the red camp wanna take a crack at explaining how, in looking at former and current communist systems in place around the world today are comparing with their counterparts?

You don't have any pure capitalistic society per se. The best thing we could come up with is Victorian England. Are you going to argue that it is better than former USSR?

[Velociryx]

And as a slight aside, I would like to take this opportunity (on our way to 1500 posts on the subject) to thank Albert Speer for starting the thread and topic that has been a TOTAL time suck for me this past week....when I ought to be packing to move into my new house! Albert, love ya buddy, but dayum! Your timing stinks!

-=Vel=-

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lonestar
Communism, especially the Marxist version, is an idea that strips the individual of all property and rights. Ergo, it's bad.

Property is part of rights, and there is no such thing as natural rights.

[Velociryx]

UR: This is already well-covered ground. True, there are no pure capitalist societies, but that doesn't really matter, does it? Because there are also no pure communist societies that have ever existed either!

I'm unconcerned with the theoretical aspects of it all. I don't live in theory, I live in the real world (where you live as well, presumably).

Given that, the best we can do is look at the models IN the world today (or recently departed, in the case of the former USSR) and compare and contrast.

There are widely accepted measuring sticks out there that we can use. GDP, ppp-adjusted income, etc. ....standardized means of measuring economic strength.

Since "quality of life" is a bit amorphous, we can put that on the backburner if it makes you feel better, and focus on the economic fundamentals (trusting that if they are strong, quality of life will generally increase).

-=Vel=-

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Property is part of rights, and there is no such thing as natural rights.

It's the goal of the Human Animal to advance himself and family. Communism, by stripping property and rights, hinders that.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Lonestar


Dr. Strangelove

I know now, I just couldn't figure out "where" Jack D. Ripper came from until he mentioned your sig.

ACK!

[Velociryx]

My understanding might be imperfect here, Lonestar (and I'm not trying to argue for the other side), but I *think* the idea in Communism goes something like this:

By placing societal concerns above your own (and under the assumption that everybody else is doing the same), your well being, and that of your family will increase (theoretically, the well being of you and your family will increase by a factor far greater than your own efforts could have produced).

If that's the gist of it, the problems I have with that line of thinking are these (chiefly):

1) The state (and despite what the theory says, there WILL be a state....has been in every other implementation, and IMO, it is far too much a denial of basic human nature to simply assume one will not exist) has full control. You own nothing. You "get" based on what the state says is best for you.

So...how does the state know what's best for me? And am I not in a superior position to judge that?

2) You own nothing. No matter how hard you strive, no matter how creative, innovative, and awesome you are, you are not allowed to shine as brightly as you could if you were free (and free to own stuff). And, there's not much incentive TO shine, frankly (again, at least not as far as I can see). What's the point? You're gonna be reduced to the lowest common denominator anyway, so why bother? You can't ever count anything you DO achieve as your own anyway (the state will coopt it), you can't own anything, so there is no measuring your progress that way.

So....how does innovation occur spontaneously? As far as I can see...it can't. Sure, you can force it. Put some guys in a lab and order them to create for the good of the state. Is that as effective as pure inspirational creativity? Anywhere close to as effective? Based on the raw numbers of innovations coming from the various communist states vs. those coming from capitalist ones, I would say the evidence is very much in favor of the capitalist side.

3) Lowest common denominator. Everybody (at least to hear Kid tell it) gets the same. Same basic wages (with perhaps marginal improvements for workers doing "more important" work--and without market forces, the people selected for this more important work must be arbitrary as well, no? Much has been said about American cultural imperialism. It is despised for reducing things to the "lowest common denominator." Is that not what is occuring here, but to HUMANS? If so....is that preferable to letting eagles be eagles?

Just some musings late at night....

-=Vel=-

[BeBMan]

Re: Rage against the Machine - Communism Vs. Capitalism (again!)

Originally posted by Velociryx
Well, didn't take long for THAT thread to reach capacity....shall we continue?

I thought it is a rhetoric question....Will you ever start a thread about another topic?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
1) What is the definition of "exploitation" being bandied about these days (precisely, I mean)? I think a thorough understanding of that word, in particular, is pivotal to the debate.

Depends on who you ask. Since you asked me, I'll gve you the classic Marxist definition, since that's the one I use. Exploitation is the process/practice of appropriating the surplus product of laborers. Human labor-power is a unnique commodity, in that it is the only commodity that can create wealth. If you add up the wealth generated by the average worker, subtract the raw materials used in production and the wages necessary to keep the worker and his family alive, what is left is the surplus. This is the $.02 version.

2) You are an active member of a communist group. IS there any solid discussion about what happens when the revolution comes? Ways to avoid the mistakes of the past? Ways to ensure that a dictatorial power doesn't rise up as has happened to every other communist attempt? If so, what are they? What steps are being planned (if any) to prevent it?

Actually, I'm a member of two different parties, neither of them communist (although some would say they both are): the Labor Party and the Socialist Party. The later claims to be a revolutionary group, but what they mean by that depends on which individual in the party you ask. Again, you asked me, so:

If the revolution comes (there are no guarantees), anything can happen. Revolutions are messy, chaotic things. It really depends on the weakness of the government, the strength of the leading revolutionary group, and the political development of the revolutionary masses. I assume you want a nice pat answer, but the truth is it could go either way.

There are four main factors, IMO, that have caused the rise of dictatorships in all previous Communist governments.
1) The level of development in the countries overthrown was too low to support a sizable working class.
2) The leadership of the revolutions weren't adequate to the task at hand.
3) Imperialist interference.
4) A low level of political development of the classes which supported the revolution.

In the West, #1 isn't a problem. We already have large working classes and enough economic development to provide an excellent standard of living for all.

#2 requires that we revolutionaries educate the hell out of ourselves, and not simply from revolutionary sources. Marx and Lenin did primary research in their economic studies. They read all sorts of philosophies, not merely ones with which they agreed. I don't think there is any single Marxist alive today who could fit in Lenin, Trotsky, Marx, or Engel's shoes. Oh well, we'll have to make do.

#3 There's no way around this. We're gonna be messed with, if not by our own military, then by everyone else who has an interest in crushing the revolution and/or kicking the US while it's down.

#4 This is an interesting factor. People have the capacity to change and educate themselves very rapidly. During periods of social upheaval, the demand to understand the world is very strong, and peple readily devour information. Unfortunately, most sources of information in the US are in the hands of people who stand the most to lose by revolution.

Which is a long way of saying, anything can happen.

3) It seems to me (admittedly, someone who has read Marx and blew it off, and someone who has never had a communist affiliation of any kind), it seems to me that the whole theory is starry-eyed and not very realistic (relying on man's good nature to do what's best for society as a whole, seeming to ignore human greed and thirst for power). Is this accurate, and if not, WHY not?

This is based on a misunderstand both of Marx and of human nature. Human self-interest doesn't necessarily mean selfishness. Altruism can be self-interested. When an entire community gathers to strengthen the dikes around a flooding river, that's both altruism and self-interest. Game theory seems to indicate that cooperation gets better results than individual striving. This is why we have factories, instead of skilled craftsman. This is why companies have to be prohibited from collusion and forming cartels and trusts, because working together is more efficient than working seperately or in competition (depending on your goals).

By and large, humans prefer to engage in behavior which we call good. This is because humans are by genetic nature, social creatures. We need a group to survive. Actitions which help strengthen the bonds between members of the group are generally what we call good. Actions that do the opposite are what we call bad. We tend to remember the bad stuff more, because it is rather abnormal. We don't suffer from crime daily (at least most of us don't, some unfortunates do). Most of our day is spent working and engaging in behaviors that reinforce social bonds. It's normal, and easily forgotten.

The other factor which is overlooked is that a large amount of human nature is adaptable. If you live in a society that promotes competition, then people will adapt and become good competitors. We are good at adapting ourselves to our environments, including the environments we create. So we look around, see humans that have adapted to capitalism and say, humans are natural capitalists. But we've only been this way for a few hundred years, at best. We've been good at fuedalism, slavery, even socialism, if you understand the perimeters.

Marx never said we were inherently good and that we would strive together becuase it was instintive. Marx wrote that humans make themselves and their world. We created capitalism and adapted ourselves to it and we are already in the process of creating socialism in the belly of capitalism (because every society contains the seeds of the next society within it) and we will adapt to that as well.

Marx also wrote (though never published) that capitalism was a profoundly alienating system, because man did not control the prdocuts of his own hand, but rather was controled by them, via the invisibile hand. We made the market, why should the market control us? Why shouldn't we control the market, democratically? When Marx was writing, democracy was still a new and untested experiement. The American Civil War hadn't even happaned yet, so no one really knew what the limits and weaknesses of democracy was. Marx assumed that since some democracy was good, more was better. Instead of limiting democracy to the sphere of politics, expand it to our whole lives. No more being dominated by bosses, priests, teachers, parents, and husbands. In the future we will all have a say in every aspect of our lives.

I'm getting sleepy now, and I'll start to ramble if I continue, so what say Ijust stop here for now. You can pick apart my answers and we'll go from there.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is why companies have to be prohibited from collusion and forming cartels and trusts, because working together is more efficient than working seperately or in competition (depending on your goals).

Not true. Working together is better for the 'companies', but not for the industry. It is better because the companies don't HAVE to become more efficient in order to make money! Competition is more efficient for the industry and the companies. Companies will attempt to gain efficiency if they are pushed. If they are not they get complacent and things stagnate. Witness US automakers in the 1970s.

[chequita guevara]

Hence my caveat. If your goal is to make money, and let's face it, that what every company's goal is ("USX is not in the business of making steel. USX is in the business of making money."), then cartels are what you want to have.

[The Vagabond]

A partial success of the Soviet Union in modernizing the country (I hope, it is undisputed that such a success took place) was a result of a kind of all-out supereffort. Ordinarily, it's not easy to force a country into making such a supereffort. In the case of the USSR, there were essentially two factors that made it possible: i) Communism, which provided a powerful core ideology, inspired the dream of a society based on social justice, without the evils of capitalism; ii) Stalin, who was able to push the strategy through with an iron fist. However, one can't stand the strain forever, the initial inspiration (if any) fades away, and the system needs to work under more regular circumstances too. This is where Communism fails (or at least we the Russkies failed to find a way for it to work, sorry commies ).

[chequita guevara]

At leat you apologized . . . just now.

[The Vagabond]

That was a sincere apology, Che.

[The Vagabond]

Besides, better late than never.