Define communism for dum 'ol Lancer

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
Now this where we are headed under today's advanced capitalistic/welfare states. Nothing radical needs to be done to fundamentally alter their trajectories in order to achieve the projected nirvana.

We're headed in that direction. That doesn't mean we will ever get there. That being said there are particular problems on the way there in a capitalist system. For instance, how will we get from here to there while increasing profits, wages, and decreasing working hours.

Is there a fundamental problem with this future vision (achieved by the invisible hand and not by coercision) which is almost identical with the vision promoted by Marx, et al.?

If the working class revolts in favor of a communist system I would hardly call that coercion.

[Velociryx]

Like I said...ultimately, not much to discuss. I'll continue to celebrate the power of the individual and the unprecedented power of the market, and you'll continue to wish it weren't so, crying "strawman" to avoid a fight, and crying foul when we bring up any of the historically based reasons we mistrust another try.

In other words, business as usual for team red...

-=Vel=-

PS to Kid....when the working class sees YOUR utopia, I highly doubt they'll run anywhere but AWAY from it, as fast and as hard as they can....

-v.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Like I said...ultimately, not much to discuss. I'll continue to celebrate the power of the individual and the unprecedented power of the market, and you'll continue to wish it weren't so, crying "strawman" to avoid a fight, and crying foul when we bring up any of the historically based reasons we mistrust another try.

In other words, business as usual for team red...

-=Vel=-

PS to Kid....when the working class sees YOUR utopia, I highly doubt they'll run anywhere but AWAY from it, as fast and as hard as they can....

-v.

The problem is that you aren't willing to discuss the present or the future, only how capitalism has worked for you in the past. That's irrelevent.

[Kontiki]

If both of you have nothing to discuss, could it please mean the end of these stupid threads?

[Velociryx]

If you mean that I'm unwilling to discuss your wildly fictional, post-apocalyptic version of the future, you're right. Since it bears so little resemblence to reality, and your plans and schemes bear a spooky resemblence to the failures of the past (even tho you don't like it when we point that out), no...I can't really see a lot of value in channeling the discussion in that direction.

Or perhaps you mean when you quote moth-eaten Marx, about the evils of Capitalism, describing economic conditions that existed in the 1880's and trying to overlay that onto a modern economy? Nahhh...I'll pass on that too, since what you're really after is finding the worst case scenario and then using it to justify your own attrocities and make them seem more palatable.

And if the discussion doesn't run along those lines, then all that's left is to cry foul and whine that we're just not LISTENING....yeah, I've participated in a few of these threads...

-=Vel=-

[Agathon]

Did this pass for argument at your college Vel?

[Kidlicious]

I was going to ask if he went to college.

[Sandman]

Have any of the commies here ever used the term 'utopia' in a serious way, Vel?

[Kidlicious]

Well if anyone else wants to discuss the actual theories of Marxism instead of Vel's exploits in capitalism here's a good website to base our dicsussion on.

Historical Materialism

This is what Historical Materialism is. Social existence determines man's consciousness, not the other way around.

Historical Materialism is the application of Marxist science to historical development. The fundamental proposition of historical materialism can be summed up in a sentence: "it is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, their social existence that determines their consciousness." (Marx, in the Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.)

Society goes through stages of development where production relationships change. People's consciousness is determined by these various production relationships.

To each stage in the development of the productive forces corresponds a certain set of production relations. Production relation means the way people organise themselves to gain their daily bread. Production relations are thus the skeleton of every form of society. They provide the conditions of social existence that determine human consciousness.

This one is for Che. "Necessary labor" is that which the workers recieve compensation. It is mutually exclusive with "surplus labor," which is that which the workers are not compensated for. Every worker in the capitalist system does both "necessary" and "surplus" labor. It's not either or, and it's black and white.

Thus the worker's daily work is divided into "necessary labour" and "surplus labour''. The worker performs "necessary labour'' during that part of the day spent in producing value which, when sold, will cover the cost of the wages. The worker performs "surplus labour'' during the remainder of the working day, producing value which, when sold, will cover the rent, interest and profit which goes to the capitalist class.

The working class is not like the peasant class. The peasant class does not have the cohesion that the working class does, and are not capable of revolution. Neither do the have a cohesive bond with the working class.

The working class is unlike any other exploited class in history. We have seen how the three-sided class struggle within slave society necessarily led to the "common ruin of the contending classes". We have seen how the feudal peasantry were for hundreds of years incapable of formulating a coherent revolutionary alternative to the system that exploited them.

So feudal societies are not ready for communism. They must completely go through the stage of capitalism.

Marx predicted that capitalism will progress until a certain point has been reached, and that communism was not possible before that point. Communism can not occur before the process of capitalism is complete, just like the other stages of development could not occur before the stages before it were complete.

/Nor is the modern working class left to vegetate at a modest but constant standard of living. Insecurity is a condition of their existence.

Capitalism has produced many wonders inconceivable hitherto. It has also produced social disasters inconceivable under previous forms of society - crises taking the form of overproduction.

In pre-capitalist societies, the subsistence of the toilers was only interrupted by famine - physical shortage of necessities. Primitive people's minds may well have been clogged with all sorts of superstition, but the spectacle of people starving, while sitting idly in front of the tools necessary to make the things they need, is a unique product of our society.

Capitalism is social production. It is social in two ways. Firstly, it ties the whole world up into one economic unit through the world market, a worldwide division of labour. Everybody is dependent on everyone else for the things they need.

Again. Social existence determines man's consciousness, not the other way around.

[Velociryx]

Let me see if I understand correctly:
It was established on page one that the state (or the workers in communes, depending on your flavor of choice) would own all the major means of production once you take power.

Now...having established that up front, we rule out a lot of areas of discussion, because it's impolite to ask how this will be accomplished (osmosis, I guess, since a vote is out of the question and you get offended if we dare make the sugesstion of violence...which is rather amusing, especially coupled with your persistent complaints that you've "been under siege from day one" and that's why you've sometimes had to do things in non-optimal ways....not because your plan doesn't WORK, but just because you're under pressure....well, here's a newsflash...you call yourselves a REVOLUTION, get it? By definition, this means that you're for dismantling the established order. Further, for your "revolution" to exist must mean that in your minds at least, the war has already begun...so...where's the mystery here? You're at war with the established system, and you cry foul when they fight back, claiming that they're "attacking you"? Ummm...no. YOU are the revolutionaries, 'member, comrade? That means that you're attacking them (and losing). Oops...another thing we're not allowed to discuss...sorry.

So...since we immediately establish collective ownership of the major means of production, it would seem that there's not a lot to talk about, unless...oh! I know! Unless we look to what's left....generally to be found in the realm of individuals and their interaction in your glorious utopia.

But you don't wanna talk about that, so it's out.

Let's see...oh! I know! We could talk about how evil and corrupt capitalism has been through the ages....but let's NOT do a historical analysis of communism. That makes you reds uncomfy, and "isn't fair" to compare your kinder, gentler modus operandi with the hideous failures of your forefathers (note that this bears close relation to the strategy of claiming that the previous failures "weren't really communism at all" and then ascribe a cutsy term, usually by taking the leader of the failed experiment, and adding the letters "ism" to the end of it, thereby distancing yourself safely from the monsters in your own closet...which would work if we didn't see right through it.

We could talk about economic theory, except your Father, Son and Holy Ghost is a moth-eaten old man a century out of date, and rather than looking around and seeing how things really are, you quote corrupted definitions of words and savor his every page like it was fine wine. That's fine too if that's your choice, but still precious little to talk about since you refuse to hear anything but how awful capital is.

So what else is left?

The only conclusion I can reach, given the above is that you want a "debate" where we lay prostrate before you and apologize for the worst case scenario, join you in glossing over the atrocities and holes in your own system, and sing the praises of Marx.

Is that the debate and discourse you need?

-=Vel=-

Edit to Sandman: Inasmuch as communism itself is a utopian society where everyone magically has plenty and there is no scarcity...ummm...yes. Every time they bring it up.

[Sandman]

Edit to Sandman: Inasmuch as communism itself is a utopian society where everyone magically has plenty and there is no scarcity...ummm...yes. Every time they bring it up.

Well, I don't think that's what they're suggesting at all. Just a better society.

[Velociryx]

umm....ok. So as not to step on any toes, we can ban the use of the term "utopia" as well. Don't want our revolutionary brothers to be uncomfortable...

[Agathon]

Why don't you stop making irrelevant points if you want a decent argument? Only Kid bothers with you, and this has happened in the last few com/cap threads you've participated in.

Here's a clue: it isn't because of your supposed superior debating skills.

[Velociryx]

I dunno, Ag...haven't seen a decent argument yet, from team red.

Here's a clue...since your side is framing the debate, if you don't like what the debators are saying, mayhaps it has more to do with the framework of the debate or the blinders you're wearing.

Of course, it's easy (and typical) to try and lay the blame elsewhere.

I understand.

Tell me....even when you manage to look past the failed experiments of your forefathers, don't you ever get a chill down your spin with the thought that maybe the glorious revolution is....oh...I dunno...just plain wrong?

I would.

Guess that means I'll never really be communist material.

*sigh*

-=Vel=-

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Velociryx
umm....ok. So as not to step on any toes, we can ban the use of the term "utopia" as well. Don't want our revolutionary brothers to be uncomfortable...

Pretending that I'm demanding the 'banning' of the word utopia is just another silly smokescreen. I'm just drawing attention to a specific strawman, one of your favourites.

And you can't resist throwing in another strawman, can you? Many of the commies here have decided that violent revolution isn't the answer. One would never know this reading your posts.