Communist Education?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Engels wrote that the idea was to be so productive that theft would be a pointless waste of time. Why steal what is free? It's not an easy idea to get your head around as to how it would work practically. Ken MacLeod describes such a society in The Cassini Division, which takes place after Earth has finaly become communist (with little libertarian enclaves).

Yeah, but what about collective decisions over whether to plow up a field or build a monument to Che on it? That's the sort of problem I meant.

I don't mean regular consumer commodities, since curing us of our commodity fetishism will largely get rid of that problem. I'd be terribly disappointed if the comrades spent all day loading up SUV's at a bloody mall.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

I think that is the case, yes.

Either that, or they're losing the plot.


I haven't decided...

[Agathon]

So, Ned...

... now that you've been shown the error of your ways, how's about you join the Young Pioneers?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Agathon
Yeah, but what about collective decisions over whether to plow up a field or build a monument to Che on it? That's the sort of problem I meant.

My disagreement wasn't with this, but on productivity. For a long time, massive amounts of human productivity have been wasted. According to Sweazy and Baran, a study they did in the 1960s found that one half of all human productivity in modern US capitalism was waste. In the 1980s that number had crept up to 55%.

By waste can be meant such activies as all military production as well as the military in and of itself. Also such things as advertising, insurance, trading, market analysis, etc., etc. Take on the unemployed, the underemployed, those wasted by poor education, criminals, etc. and you have a huge untapped pool of potentiall productive people who could be doing something useful with their lives.

The amount of work that each person would have to do would go down while the amount of products would increase, even if we switched to less environmentally destructive methods. Now add in the computer and robotics revolutions that have occured since that time, and the expected increases in technology, I don't think that a world of plenty is in the realm of fantasy.

I don't mean regular consumer commodities, since curing us of our commodity fetishism will largely get rid of that problem. I'd be terribly disappointed if the comrades spent all day loading up SUV's at a bloody mall.

Maybe not SUVs, but I'd like for people to have the option. Sure, a lot of stupid useless landfilling crap might go away. Instead of product development being driven by the need to sell something, it would be driven by the thought, does someone actually need this? Would it bring enjoyment to their lives or make their lives easier. Not, maybe if we make it spin and flash they'll be distracted long enough to buy it.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Agathon
So, Ned...

... now that you've been shown the error of your ways, how's about you join the Young Pioneers?

What I see in the United States is a continuing trend to your concept of universal democracy, aka, communism. For example, the ownership of coporations is held by a significant majority of Americans. As this trend continues, the means of production will be democratically owned and controlled by the people.

Most American corporations now include stock options as pay. Thus the workers have a ownership of their own company and a voice in its management as owners.

Vast production continuously lowers the price of things, like TV sets and radios. Everything is becoming so cheap that all, even the nominally poor, can afford practically anything.

I see in the United States to progress to your utopian dream - much more so than I see in nominallly communist countries.

The true communist country is the United States of America!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Agathon
Yeah, but what about collective decisions over whether to plow up a field or build a monument to Che on it? That's the sort of problem I meant.

My disagreement wasn't with this, but on productivity. For a long time, massive amounts of human productivity have been wasted. According to Sweazy and Baran, a study they did in the 1960s found that one half of all human productivity in modern US capitalism was waste. In the 1980s that number had crept up to 55%.

By waste can be meant such activies as all military production as well as the military in and of itself. Also such things as advertising, insurance, trading, market analysis, etc., etc. Take on the unemployed, the underemployed, those wasted by poor education, criminals, etc. and you have a huge untapped pool of potentiall productive people who could be doing something useful with their lives.

The amount of work that each person would have to do would go down while the amount of products would increase, even if we switched to less environmentally destructive methods. Now add in the computer and robotics revolutions that have occured since that time, and the expected increases in technology, I don't think that a world of plenty is in the realm of fantasy.

The US is a nightmare in this respect. It takes them twice as much energy as the Japanese to yield a dollar of GDP. And the Euros only use 2/3.

I don't mean regular consumer commodities, since curing us of our commodity fetishism will largely get rid of that problem. I'd be terribly disappointed if the comrades spent all day loading up SUV's at a bloody mall.

Maybe not SUVs, but I'd like for people to have the option. Sure, a lot of stupid useless landfilling crap might go away. Instead of product development being driven by the need to sell something, it would be driven by the thought, does someone actually need this? Would it bring enjoyment to their lives or make their lives easier. Not, maybe if we make it spin and flash they'll be distracted long enough to buy it.

I don't know about SUV's. They aren't safe for other drivers.

Other than that, no disagreement.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ned

The true communist country is the United States of America!

Ask the next homeless guy you see for a second opinion.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
For example, the ownership of coporations is held by a significant majority of Americans

The flaw in this logic is that while a majority of people hold stock, the majority of stock is held by a few people.

Edit: I can do that better.

The flaw in this logic is that while a majority of people hold a little bit of stock, a little bit of people hold the majority of stock.

[Ned]

Che, but look at the trend. Be positive. The cup is half full!

[Ned]

The homeless man is the true communist. He has no property, does not work and receives his needs from society!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Che, but look at the trend. Be positive. The cup is half full!

There were those who made that same argument over one hundred years ago. Yeah Berstein, I'm lookin' at you.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ned
The homeless man is the true communist. He has no property, does not work and receives his needs from society!

Yes, in the true communist society haircuts, shaving and bathing will be prohibited, alcoholism/drug use mandatory and everyone will be urinated on by their comrades every day.

[Monk]

Originally posted by Agathon


Yes, in the true communist society haircuts, shaving and bathing will be prohibited, alcoholism/drug use mandatory and everyone will be urinated on by their comrades every day.

Some of those things don't sound too bad. Which drugs will the government offer me?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by skywalker
Wrong. His logic is that the current trend of 100% of Communist countries being oppressive will continue. Only SOME capitalist countries to date have been oppressive, whereas ALL communist countries to date have been oppressive.

Nicaragua was not oppressive, and the early Russian Revolution was not oppressive. I could list a few more, but the rest of them collapsed quickly due to outside interference. The trend has historically been, those workers revolts that are non-repressive either are quickly crushed by the capitalists or must become repressive in order to survive. Those that start out repressive survive.

Well, I don't have much about the early Russian Revolution to go by except Nicholas and Alexandra, which I'm currently reading for school, and from it I feel that the Russian Revolution was ANYTHING but "not oppressive". They overthrew the reforms (including private property ) that had started to bring (relative) prosperity to Russia and even what was (with the abdication of the Tsar) a democratic government and IMMEDIATELY became repressive. The subsequent invasion by America and Britain was entirely justified IMO - the Communists were fighting a democratic government that was the US and Britain's ally.

It does depend on your inital conditions, though, doesn't it. After all, there have been no control version of Communism, i.e., how will communism succeed when half the world isn't trying to destroy it? If I stood behind you whacking you in the head every few minutes while you were doing your SATs, how well do you think you'd do?

Communism has (from my admittedly limited knowledge of history) always STARTED OUT oppressive, even if it was LATER attacked. Also, don't you think people are a bit justified in defending themselves against people who are trying to kill them and take all their property? Also, I'd LOVE to see you make the case that the repression of the various Communist governments was somehow necessary to their survival - any government that needs to be totalitarian to stay in power doesn't DESERVE to stay in power.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
There are in depth, serious cirticism of Marx's work- a lot of it I disagree with- but the level of counter-arguement here is freshman HS, and ignorant freshman HS at that.

Sophomore, dammit, sophomore