Discourse and Discussion - Cap/Com

[Agathon]

I'll steal his home.

I'll send him to one of our holiday camps until he learns how to behave.

[Velociryx]

Che tells me to stop assuming. He tells me that he's not going to steal my home....unless of course I have more than one....cos I don't NEED more than one.

So....in the absence of ANY substance from team red regarding a tangible, solid PLAN for how the revolution will play out (other than "trust us...we'll learn from our mistakes and get it right next time."), I'm not allowed to draw on actual historical references regarding property ownership (a big no-no under Red Theory), but somehow, as if by magic, it's okay for Che to tell me what I do and do not need (because of course, he, as the author of one version of the infinitely benevolent and all-knowing state, he is obviously in a better position to know my needs than I am).

MmmmHmmm.

I begin to see the light.

Oh...and the "allowing several commie states to come up with their own implementation"....won't work.

Why?

Because the GOAL of communism is global implementation.

It is self defeating to have several disparate states, each in control of only a portion of global resources, because this would, by definition, lead to market dynamics...a thing we must avoid at all costs!

Therefore, the inescapable conclusion is that all resources much be controlled from and by a singular point.

There will BE no mass conglomeration of red states, because there can be no such beast under the paradigm. It would lead to that dreaded and awful creature called "competition" and THAT in turn, could lead to exploitation. Can't have that.

The reason that communal/utopic living works on a small (tribal) scale is THE VERY SAME reason that it falls apart at the macro level. There's no such thing as a "classless" society. If you remove economic incentive, it will simply manifest itself in other ways. You can't escape the beast, so there's not much need to try. It is a fundamental waste of time and effort.

That effort is FAR better spent in working on ways of minimizing those differences by providing and creating an environment filled with opportunity, NOT by pandering to the lowest common denominator.

There's just not a plainer way to say it.

-=Vel=-

[Agathon]

I don't see it that way. Either we have a largely planned economy or we'll all end up dead.

The aim of capitalism is to externalize your costs onto others. It will always generate competing interests who will then use their relative financial power to subvert any regulatory mechanism imposed on them.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx


Che tells me to stop assuming. He tells me that he's not going to steal my home....unless of course I have more than one....cos I don't NEED more than one.

Actually if you go on a vacation (hopefully not permanent), you won't need any of your houses.

Seriously Vel, you don't seem to understand that we won't feel sorry for you if you can't exploit us anymore.

[Urban Ranger]

@ Az

Originally posted by Velociryx
Let us start with the Big Red Mantra that Labor is precious. Labor is all there is. The Alpha and the Omega. Labor is precious.

That's not it. There are a lot of parts missing from what communism is.

Originally posted by Velociryx
Which is why, I suppose, on the day of the Revolution, men with guns will come to remove me from my home.

MY home.

That's an interesting strawman. That just means you are grasping at straws, Vel.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Agathon
I don't see it that way. Either we have a largely planned economy or we'll all end up dead.

The aim of capitalism is to externalize your costs onto others. It will always generate competing interests who will then use their relative financial power to subvert any regulatory mechanism imposed on them.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Because the GOAL of communism is global implementation.

That's not it, either. Keep trying.

Originally posted by Velociryx
There will BE no mass conglomeration of red states, because there can be no such beast under the paradigm. It would lead to that dreaded and awful creature called "competition" and THAT in turn, could lead to exploitation. Can't have that.

Competition does not lead to exploitation. Making money off other people's labour does.

[Velociryx]

So tell me, Kid, when, precisely, have I exploited you?

Please fill me in, cos to my knowledge, you and I have never met?

Do you have any evidence that I have EVER exploited another human being for gain or profit, or are you just assuming so, because to assume otherwise makes me not quite the monster I guess you secretly hope that I am?

As to strawmen. You're right, of course. No previous implementations of the Big Red Machine have EVER stripped private property from individuals. Collective farms were a myth, right?

But yes...I'm grasping at straws, because land is not, and cannot be used as a "means of production", so of course there's no fear that my home will be taken from me, right?

Pick one. Decide. Stick with it.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Planned economy = salvation?

I'm curious about this point, because what we have seen thus far is that planned economies cannot even provide the BASICS for the people they claim to serve (witness the long breadlines in Russia, and the THRIVING "black market" for goods and services).

Planned economies have certainly not shown themselves to be more ecologically sensitive (witness the near destruction of the Aral sea), so that can't be a selling point either.

So what's left? We get just as much pollution, greater ineffiencies, less aggregate production and no mechanism for accurately gaging demand.

THIS is to be our salvation? Not without a top-to-bottom overhaul of the system. A total redesign would be required.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Competition does not lead to exploitation. Making money off other people's labour does.

This one is truly a rare gem.

So it's exploitation to make money off of other people's labor, but it's "for the glory of the revolution" to take it by force?

WONDERFUL way to justify it!!! Props!

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

One thing your "exploitation" model misses, by the way, UR, is the fact that without some one, or some group of someone to BUILD the factory or other implements of production, there would BE no jobs, or rather, there would be a collection of in-home shops which are grossly more inefficient and do not lend themselves to economies of scale.

Thus, those who build the plants and factories and places where all the lovely stuff we are using RIGHT NOW to even HOLD this conversation in the first place are, I repeat ARE entitled to some form of gain for expending THEIR labor (expressed in dollars spent, as dollars are a portable store of accumulated labor, among other things) in return for the expenditure.

To do anything less than grant them a boon for enabling the jobs in the first would be an exploitation of THEM and their labor, and we can't have that either.

Time value of money isn't a myth. If you believe it to be so, please empty your bank account immediately and send me a check.

I'll pay you back....eventually...and with no interest.

Sound like a good deal to you? NO? Why not?

-=Vel=-

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Velociryx
As to strawmen. You're right, of course. No previous implementations of the Big Red Machine have EVER stripped private property from individuals. Collective farms were a myth, right?

For your information, Vel, land reforms did not take land from poor peasants, who, in fact, had no land to begin with.

Land was taken from landlords who fattened themselves on the labours of tenant farmers.

Originally posted by Velociryx
But yes...I'm grasping at straws, because land is not, and cannot be used as a "means of production", so of course there's no fear that my home will be taken from me, right?

Yes, in fact, you're attacking strawman again.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Velociryx
So it's exploitation to make money off of other people's labor, but it's "for the glory of the revolution" to take it by force?

So have you decided to be Mr Pot or Mr Kettle yet?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Velociryx
One thing your "exploitation" model misses, by the way, UR, is the fact that without some one, or some group of someone to BUILD the factory or other implements of production, there would BE no jobs, or rather, there would be a collection of in-home shops which are grossly more inefficient and do not lend themselves to economies of scale.

Missed what? You don't think a workers' collective or a state can build factories?

Originally posted by Velociryx
Thus, those who build the plants and factories and places where all the lovely stuff we are using RIGHT NOW to even HOLD this conversation in the first place are, I repeat ARE entitled to some form of gain for expending THEIR labor (expressed in dollars spent, as dollars are a portable store of accumulated labor, among other things) in return for the expenditure.

How did you get from point A to point B again? From where did this "right" come?

Originally posted by Velociryx
To do anything less than grant them a boon for enabling the jobs in the first would be an exploitation of THEM and their labor, and we can't have that either.

Somehow capitalists have the rights to gain -- not just recoup -- from their expenditure of capital, so therefore they are allowed to exploit workers for this gain.

It appears that something is missing in this unassailable piece of logic.

Originally posted by Velociryx
Time value of money isn't a myth. If you believe it to be so, please empty your bank account immediately and send me a check.

I'll pay you back....eventually...and with no interest.

Sound like a good deal to you? NO? Why not?

Again, a worthless piece of fallacy. Asking people to lend you what the can afford, even without interest, is one thing. Asking them to empty their bank accounts is a completely different matter.

I am sure you know this.

[aneeshm]

UR , you fail to take into account the fact that the association of the employer and workers is voluntary under capitalism . Nobody forces of coerces the work out of the worker . Thus , if the worker thinks that he is being exploited , he can cease being exploited by simply terminating his contract . He can also attempt to negotiate what he thinks is a non-exploitative contract .

Don't like what you think is exploitation - fint then , don't be exploited . Simple , isn't it ?