Why has Communism failed everywhere ? A chance for commies to explain

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Flubber
Not only am I aware that Canada is a form of constrained capitalism, I like it that way.

I definately prefer it to unrestrained capitalism. Even the tattered, small safety net we have in the U.S. is better than nothing.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kontiki
You, Kid, Odin, Spiffor and I'm sure many others disagree on what the fundamental tenets of communism are. People like me, Floyd or Flubber and even you have no disagreements on what capitalism is - it's an economic system where private owners of capital produce goods produce goods for exchange-value.

Very recently (maybe even in this thread), Berzerker defined capitalism as a free-market system. This is the reason why he denied that 1980's India was a capitalist system. If you take the definition of capitalism that you provided (and which Che used in that discussion with Berz), you'd agree with Che that 1980's India was capitalistic, and you'd fundamentally disagree with Berz.

Edit: found it. Link #1
Link #2
Link #3

EditEdit: Berz didn't deny the capitalist nature of nazi Germany in this thread (but I'm confident he considers nazi Germany not to be a capitalist system). That was India which he called not capitalist

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
[

2. Reject the use of the term exploitation in the sense of unfairness

It's a loaded term, and some of Marx's terminology from the 19th Century causes problems for people today. Meanings change.

Thank you. Thats why I don't like the term since it reads as "treated unfairly".

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
[

Think it is an idiotic model since it means the fair value for a diamond miner or oil worker of what they produce can be hundreds of thousands of dollars a day while a shop clerk on a slow day may produce neglible value. If the sales clerk makes no sales, does that mean that they should not be paid?

Well, the miner doesn't produce the full value of a finished diamond (and oilmen do get paid quite well, IIRC). The dimond must still be removed from the rock, sorted, transported, cut, ground, mounted, and sold to have value. Even then, the only reason they have such a high price is because of artificial scarcity since DeBeers keeps most diamonds off the market. That's going to change soon as artificial diamonds revolutionize the market.

At each stage of the journey, workers add new value to the product. A salesperson adds value to a product. After all, if you can't buy it, it has no value.

MY problem with the value added concept is that two workers doing similar work . .. one can create great value while another creates ZERO value, in each case through no fault or credit to them. If the worker works for a year on a product that becomes obsolete and has negative value (disposal costs) is that worker entitled to the value of their work. Since its a negative number I assume they pay ther capitalist back for his loss. NO -- ohh thats right-- The capitalist takes the risk of loss but heaven forbid they get the chance of profit

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I definately prefer it to unrestrained capitalism. Even the tattered, small safety net we have in the U.S. is better than nothing.

YUP

I was suprised to learn how scant benefits are generally in the US. One that stood out was maternity.

IN Canada, the parents can share up to a year of unemployment insurance benefits (if you qualify). While this is not a huge amount of money its a help and many employers will pay full salary for a portion of that time.


It just seems to me that Americans on average are just so anti-tax that no one is willing to pay for such things.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Flubber
NO -- ohh thats right-- The capitalist takes the risk of loss but heaven forbid they get the chance of profit

My problem with capitalism is only partly ethical. Within a capitalist system, I agree that capitalists should be rewarded for their risk. The basic rules I have very little problem with. I wouldn't argue that within a feudal system, the King shouldn't be able to rule as he wishes. That's how the system works. I might argue that things should be more fair, less arbitrary, but within a given system there are rules and the way things should work. Reality is, of course, that things tend to fall far from the goal.

On the other hand, I have a problem with capitalists calling out the troops or police to smash strikes, getting their countries to go to war to protect their interests (except in the case of examples like the War of 1812, where the Brits were stopping our shipping and seizing our sailors), polluting without limit, etc. I think there are substantial reforms that can be done to make the capitalist system more humane and liveable.

For Marxists, the problems with capitalism, mainly, is the system's inherent flaw, the periodic crisis of overproduction. In every previous society, famine and economic collapse was caused by a shortage of goods. In capitalism, they are caused by having too many goods, that they can't all be sold, forcing companies to go out of business. People starve because there's too much food. That's insane!

Combined with that is the resultant tendency towards monopoloziation. With each economic crisis, the weaker firms either collapse or are bought out by competitors, resulting in ever greater concentrations of capital, which tends to result in every more disasterous crises.

Now it seems that a Keyenesian model of managing capitalism actually tends to not only minimize the effects of these crises, but also the rivalry between capitalists, such that, in contrast to what Marx argues, it may be possible, with enough proper government interference, that these crises could be a thing of the past. If capitalists could be prevented from always trying to undue the contraints upon them, it may be that the social demcorats, and not the Marxists, were correct after all. Combined with a strong anti-monopoly policy, and maybe I'm obsolete.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If capitalists could be prevented from always trying to undue the contraints upon them, it may be that the social demcorats, and not the Marxists, were correct after all. Combined with a strong anti-monopoly policy, and maybe I'm obsolete.

I hope you are

Good post by the way. Its nice to see a communist that can acknowledege that capitalism has adapted

[Whaleboy]

It isn't of an object. Specific objects, however, such as commodites, however, have value inherent in them. If they didn't have value inherent in them, they wouldn't be commodities. It would be like saying money has no inherent value. If it didn't it wouldn't be possible to use it as a medium of exchange. A factory or a machine are just as much commodities as a pencil or a banana.

But money has no inherent value. It relies upon context for its value. If you're dumped on a desert island with no hope of rescue, on your own with a million pounds in 20's in a briefcase, all you have is a briefcase and 50'000 bits of toilet paper. I assume also you're familiar with hyperinflation in the German Weimar Republic?

Incorrect. Value |= price. Price tends to follow value, but not always. Supply and demand can distort the price away from the value of an object, such as in the afore mentioned case of diamonds.

Value = price if you assume the demand market has can affect the demand... i.e., certain wildcards that affect demand (and so value), and price then = value.

You assume some absolute essentialist value but you fail to provide for how it works.

Labor is the only common element that has gone into every item that people use (with the exception of air). It is the only basis for a comparison of the relative values of all commodities.

But how can that possibly apply to value? My little brother might draw me a picture that takes him 20 seconds, so not much labour has gone into it, and yet I value it more (I have a greater demand for it in my context) than, say, *looks around for poster on wall* Eschers "Relativity", into which went an awful lot more labour.

Either value is, as I said, relative and a function of supply and demand, or it is meaningless and useless in economics.

[Whaleboy]

My problem with capitalism is only partly ethical.

Define your ethics.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

On the other hand, I have a problem with capitalists calling out the troops or police to smash strikes, getting their countries to go to war to protect their interests (except in the case of examples like the War of 1812, where the Brits were stopping our shipping and seizing our sailors), polluting without limit, etc. I think there are substantial reforms that can be done to make the capitalist system more humane and liveable.

I agree (and would agree even more if I lived in the US) that reforms can be made but I will say this. Troops or police to smash strikes seems to be rare in the modern capitalist countries . In fact my sister just went through a 5 month strike ( she's a manager) where the most the police would get involved would be to drop by after several hours to escort them past the picketers blocking their access to the workplace. The police were obviously pro-striker.

Also while countries will go to war to protect their interests, I think its rarely about capitalism any more. If the capitalist wants the assets of another country, they just go there and buy them

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
But money has no inherent value.

Nothing has an inherent value. Things only have value in relation to human beings. Value is thus socially determined (at least the type of value we are discussing). Thus when we say that money and other commodities have an inherent value, we assume human society is part of the equation. Without a social system, things cease to be commodities. On a desert island with no contact with other humans, nothing has an exchangable value, as there is no one to exchange anything with.

Value = price if you assume the demand market has can affect the demand... i.e., certain wildcards that affect demand (and so value), and price then = value.

No, value is separate from price. Prices can rise or fall above an item's "real" value, in which case you will see an abnormality in the market, either a run on underpriced goods or people ceasing to buy overpriced ones.

You assume some absolute essentialist value but you fail to provide for how it works.

No, I don't. I just don't see any point in stating certain basic assumptions, like human beings have to exist or exchange is a precondition. A commodity is an item created for the purpose of exchange, hence I shouldn't have to explain certain simple basics.

My little brother might draw me a picture that takes him 20 seconds, so not much labour has gone into it, and yet I value it more (I have a greater demand for it in my context) than, say, *looks around for poster on wall* Eschers "Relativity", into which went an awful lot more labour.

And for what could you exchange it? Social value, exchange value, is not the same thing as emotional value. You're too smart to play semantic games.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Define your ethics.

Be excellent to each other.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Flubber
In fact my sister just went through a 5 month strike ( she's a manager) where the most the police would get involved would be to drop by after several hours to escort them past the picketers blocking their access to the workplace. The police were obviously pro-striker.

You forget that compared to us, you live in a communist country.

Also while countries will go to war to protect their interests, I think its rarely about capitalism any more. If the capitalist wants the assets of another country, they just go there and buy them

At a certain level, it's all about capitalism. Why are the terrorists attacking us? Because we prevoiusly engaged in certain activities in order to ensure a steady and cheap supply of oil. There are all sorts of ancillary reasons, but one of the root causes of our current troubles is capitalism. Why'd we attack Iraqi in GW I? Because we were (supposedly) afraid he'd be able to seize control of most of the ME's oil. Why'd we invade Panama? Because (supposedly) their dictator was engaged in the drug trade? The root causes of the fight in Afganistan hail back to the Cold War, which was definately about capitalism.

It's not always about seizing assets, especially in the Post War era. Sometimes its about protecting the market. Sometimes its about trying to control the market. Sometimes its about access to resources. It's a mistake to think that we commies have a one-dimensional view of capitalists, their actions, and their motives, even if we're often resposible for that with our slogans.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Very recently (maybe even in this thread), Berzerker defined capitalism as a free-market system. This is the reason why he denied that 1980's India was a capitalist system. If you take the definition of capitalism that you provided (and which Che used in that discussion with Berz), you'd agree with Che that 1980's India was capitalistic, and you'd fundamentally disagree with Berz.

Edit: found it. Link #1
Link #2
Link #3

EditEdit: Berz didn't deny the capitalist nature of nazi Germany in this thread (but I'm confident he considers nazi Germany not to be a capitalist system). That was India which he called not capitalist

An interesting take on it, because I read what Berz said in those three posts and agree with him. Where we differ with Che is that if the government owns the means of production and dictates output, I wouldn't call it capitalism. I'm not entirely familiar with the history of the Indian economy, so I'm not going to weigh in on whether or not that was actually the case in 1980s India. Furthermore, Berz provided his definition of capitalism further down in the thread. I don't recall him saying anything about a complete lack of government regulations being necessary.

Capitalism IS fundamentally a free market system. However, you can put a certain number of restraints on the free market and still have the essence of capitalism - private ownership of capital and production for exchange-value. But what is the essence of communism besides not capitalism? State ownership? Worker ownership? No ownership? State mandated prices and production? Still a free market driving demand? Equal wages? Wage disparity based on task complexity? Effort? Performance? What?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kontiki
An interesting take on it, because I read what Berz said in those three posts and agree with him.

I've tussled with Berz many times, and I've known libertarians at least since 1988, so I've got a decent handle on their ideology.

Where we differ with Che is that if the government owns the means of production and dictates output, I wouldn't call it capitalism.

It depends on how and why that ownership is carried out. For example, in the USSR, the state owned all of the industry and most of the land. Production was primarily for the purpose of meeting needs and not for the purpose of selling things to extract surplus value. In Norway, on the other hand, the state owns the oil industry, and sees it as a means of producing revenue, i.e., extracting surplus value. The later case, despite the lack of private ownership, would be an example of state capitalism. You had a lot of both going on in India, but most Indians were engaged in private economic activity for profit. That's why I say it was capitalist.

Capitalism IS fundamentally a free market system.

I disagree with the use of the term fundimental. Unless you are using it to be synonomous with generally, if something is fundimental, it is necessary. Capitalism has existed without a free market under fascist regimes, as well as both democratic and monarchal systems during the World Wars. There was still private property and profit, but the markets were tightly controlled.

However, you can put a certain number of restraints on the free market and still have the essence of capitalism - private ownership of capital and production for exchange-value.

I don't disagree, but someone folowing the liberarian philosophy would disagree. Remember the argument about the garbage and the vat of wine. For a libertarian, any state interference is socialism (which, if one applies that as a universal, renders the insane conclusion that feudalism was socialism, since the state, in the person of the king, owned everything)

But what is the essence of communism besides not capitalism?

Social ownership of the means of production. Distribution based on need. The abolition of class society. Rational allocation of the resources of society. Communal/social decision making in more spheres of life (work, school, etc.)

[Xin Yu]

Originally posted by Flubber
Hmmm-- I think the requirement that NOBODY be greedy is unrealistic.

Agreed. However it is required for ANY ideal society that excessive greedy must be controlled. Let me repeat: you have to have it or your society is not an ideal one. I would like to loose the condition to 'nobody can be extremely greedy' (meaning anybody who is extremely greedy would not be able to survive in such a society). That should still work, provided that the other condition holds.

Originally posted by Flubber
But even if all houses are identical, the one downwind of the chemical factory is less desirable than the one backing on the park

That will not be the issue if technology is very advanced. Computers can create 'virtue view's for a house, for example, to make every house attractive. It will be so nice that if you are not extremely greedy you should be satisfied.

You can argue that these are not possible to achieve, and hence discard the idea. However if you want an ideal society, then these two are actually the minimum conditions for it: you have to have good people and good living conditions for a good society, right?

So, unless you believe that there will never be an ideal society (if so, why live?), you have to believe that communism is possible. That is why I'm not against communism -- I want to believe that there will be an ideal society in the future, but other than a communist one I cannot think of any other form for it.