Define communism for dum 'ol Lancer

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Agathon
Only Kid bothers with you, and this has happened in the last few com/cap threads you've participated in.

Actually, I'm just leaving it open for decent debate.

[Kidlicious]

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

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.

quote:
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.

quote:
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.

quote:
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.

quote:
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.

quote:
/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.

That's THE argument. That's Marxism. Debate it or don't.

[Velociryx]

You people are fantastic!

You provide an impractical scheme for social improvement (which, btw, if you bothered to look UP the definition of the word utopia, you'd discover resting comfortably on the page), and then cry "strawman" when I call it what it is.

In fact, I've noted that the reds have gotten so touchy and thin skinned that "strawman" has become almost akin to "mercy" - any time you want to concede, that's fine by me. You have no historical basis to believe your theories will work any better than they have in the past, no one seriously believes that the industrialized world will VOTE the reds into power, and all you have to show for all the talk is a lot of sci-fi dreams and a bad track record. Given that, I don't blame you for being overly defensive.

So....call it quits....

-=Vel=-

As to "THE" debate (all caps makes it sound soooo important!)...100% tripe, pure and simple. Substituting the main definition that most folks MEAN when they speak of human consciousness for the definition that points to social consciousness/awareness, and then pretending that the latter leads to the former is a) cheesy, and b) fairly typical of Marxist doubletalk.

In short, nothing to debate.

[Agathon]

If you want to believe that Vel, then fine. You aren't doing yourself any favours. I'd happily debate communism with you if you would actually debate properly instead of repeating the same disputed points over and over again.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
As to "THE" debate (all caps makes it sound soooo important!)...100% tripe, pure and simple. Substituting the main definition that most folks MEAN when they speak of human consciousness for the definition that points to social consciousness/awareness, and then pretending that the latter leads to the former is a) cheesy, and b) fairly typical of Marxist doubletalk.

In short, nothing to debate.

Then you don't have an argument.

[Velociryx]

If you want to believe that Vel, then fine. You aren't doing yourself any favours. I'd happily debate communism with you if you would actually debate properly instead of repeating the same disputed points over and over again.
Not doing myself any favors? Why not? By rejecting an ideology that's got a losing track record, or by not trusting this generation's red-gurus that it'll magically be different.
To quote a popular movie icon, "sorry kid, I don't believe in fairy tales." And I don't believe I'm hurting myself for not doing so. If you think so, rather than just trolling out insubstantial statements, perhaps you'll go out on a limb at some point and tell me why...

then you have no argument.
Dead wrong. My argument is that Marx is really good at bait and switch, and even better at creating his own internal logic, which works just fine till you take it off of the paper and put it into practice in the real world.
Society and production methodologies have no more to do with the state of human consciousness than phlegm globs do, and at least phlegm globs are marginally more interesting than Marx.
To borrow a quote from Ag, If you want to believe that, then fine. You aren't doing yourself any favours though....

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

There's something clearer on what Marx predicted would be the end of capitalism in wikipedia .

When a given style of production relations no longer supports further progress in the productive forces, either further progress is strangled, or 'revolution' must occur.

That means that a crisis will occur within the capitalist system when capital can no longer be accumulated. Capital is accumulated either by expoiting more labor or exploiting labor more. There are many potential contraints to capital accumulation. Some of those constraints are the number of workers, the number of markets and their size, the level of technology, and the amount of other resources needed for production. The crisis with capitalism may occur when one or more of these become a constraint. Financial markets will collapse no matter how much money is pumped into the system. The crisis will create cohesiveness with the working class and a revolution will occur.

[Velociryx]

More tripe, as this assumes that there's some upper limit to innovation (reference the "number of markets" segment in your own text).

If you want an example here in the real world, take a look at the progression of the phonograph:

1) phonograph
2) LP
3) 8-Track
4) Cassette
5) CD

And that's just the tip of the iceberg...along the way there have been spinoff and tangential technologies galore.

The number of markets has no end in sight, rendering the pivot-point for revolution equally open-ended (and therefore, not likely to occur).

Good try tho.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
More tripe, as this assumes that there's some upper limit to innovation (reference the "number of markets" segment in your own text).

Technology is only one possible constraint.

The number of markets has no end in sight, rendering the pivot-point for revolution equally open-ended (and therefore, not likely to occur).

I see you believe in infinity also. The number of markets is finite, and the number of workers will decrease before the year 2050. It really only takes one contraint. The other factors have to make up for the contraints. Maybe you think the rate of technological development will increase, but I don't. It's likely to decrease, although there probabaly will always be some development.

[Sandman]

You provide an impractical scheme for social improvement (which, btw, if you bothered to look UP the definition of the word utopia, you'd discover resting comfortably on the page), and then cry "strawman" when I call it what it is.

Before, you thought that utopia meant economic paradise:

"Inasmuch as communism itself is a utopian society where everyone magically has plenty."

It doesn't say that at dictionary.com, does it? It emphasises the social aspects.

1. An ideally perfect place, especially in its social, political, and moral aspects.
2. An impractical, idealistic scheme for social and political reform.

The second meaning, nearly the opposite of the first, has only come about because people like yourself have used the first meaning in a strawman-creating manner. You had no idea of the second meaning before you glanced at dictionary.com, as evidenced by your earlier attempt at a definition.

[Velociryx]

I see you believe in infinity also. The number of markets is finite, and the number of workers will decrease before the year 2050. It really only takes one contraint. The other factors have to make up for the contraints. Maybe you think the rate of technological development will increase, but I don't. It's likely to decrease, although there probabaly will always be some development.

Define the upper limit of the imagination. Can you?

Nope....no one can.

Same with the number of markets, which rely on human ingenuity for their creation.

Innovation is occuring more rapidly now than at any point in human history, and it shows signs of continued excelleration, not deceleration, but if you wish to arbitrarily believe that innovation will suddenly slow to a crawl, there's certainly nothing stopping you from adopting that belief (although this is another case-in-point of wishing doesn't make it so....now you have another excuse to cry "strawman" if you desire...

Sandman: For the record, I didn't go to dictionary.com, but thanks for bearing it out for me...I appreciate that.

You are aware, I presume, that many words carry more than one meaning?

The beauty of debating you folks is that you take every word the opposition says literally, but when we try to do the same with you...Oh my ever-living Lord, out come the crying towels.

In any case, since you seem to require it, I shall explain fully. Will that make you happy?

Yes. Communism is an ideology steeped in the notion of plenty for everyone and of COMMUNAL (or state, which they'll tell you amounts to the same thing) ownership. This implies a number of things, best summed up by the phrase "each according to his ability, and each according to his needs" Which is the mantra for many, if not most communists here.

The phrase in and of itself IS utopic in the good sense of the word. There is simply no escaping it (rather like there's no esacping that Marx is an idiot, although some here will no doubt disagree).

However, for the rest of us, who see your social plans as just so much flim-flam, the "other" definition certainly holds true.

Get it? Or was that still too complex? (mutters under breath about the delightful double standard that team red seems to desire to hold the discussion under)

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Define the upper limit of the imagination. Can you?

I wasn't refering to your imaginary world.

Same with the number of markets, which rely on human ingenuity for their creation.

Actually by "markets" I was refering to places to sell goods and services which are currently produced. This is reaching constraint rapidly with globalization. After globalization has run its course there is sure to be problems.

Innovation is occuring more rapidly now than at any point in human history, and it shows signs of continued excelleration, not deceleration

It doesn't matter how fast the rate is increasing right now. The rate will increase and decrease. You can't count on a constant or constantly increasing rate of relevent technological innovation.

[Velociryx]

I wasn't refering to your imaginary world.


Ha ha....nice attempt at a dodge, too.

Actually by "markets" I was refering to places to sell goods and services which are currently produced. This is reaching constraint rapidly with globalization. After globalization has run its course there is sure to be problems.


Well then, this is a bit incomplete, don't you imagine? I mean, a market is more than just a place to sell stuff, but should also include the people needed to manufacture the stuff sold, transportation folks, advertising....in short, both the production AND consumption side that create a market, in addition to its physical location. By solely focusing on the physical location, its true that it helps to support your position, but is also disengenuous in the extreme, dontchathink?

It doesn't matter how fast the rate is increasing right now. The rate will increase and decrease. You can't count on a constant or constantly increasing rate of relevent technological innovation.

History is about the only guide we HAVE. I recognize that this is not a guide that communists are particularly FOND of using (on account of the...shall we say...spotty track record?)...however, in the absence of anything else, what would you PROPOSE that we use? Magic 8-ball??

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I wasn't refering to your imaginary world.


Ha ha....nice attempt at a dodge, too.

No attempt made. People come up with ideas for products all the time. That doesn't mean that they are good ideas. Corporations are paying more and more for product development and marketing and starting to get diminishing returns. These ideas are getting expensive, especially when they are bad ideas like New Coke.

Actually by "markets" I was refering to places to sell goods and services which are currently produced. This is reaching constraint rapidly with globalization. After globalization has run its course there is sure to be problems.


Well then, this is a bit incomplete, don't you imagine? I mean, a market is more than just a place to sell stuff, but should also include the people needed to manufacture the stuff sold, transportation folks, advertising....in short, both the production AND consumption side that create a market, in addition to its physical location. By solely focusing on the physical location, its true that it helps to support your position, but is also disengenuous in the extreme, dontchathink?

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Of course the workers are part of the market. The market in the domestic economy is already saturated though. That's one reason why globalization is increasing profits. The other reason is the increased exploitation of workers.

It doesn't matter how fast the rate is increasing right now. The rate will increase and decrease. You can't count on a constant or constantly increasing rate of relevent technological innovation.

History is about the only guide we HAVE. I recognize that this is not a guide that communists are particularly FOND of using (on account of the...shall we say...spotty track record?)...however, in the absence of anything else, what would you PROPOSE that we use? Magic 8-ball??

Ok, what was the rate of successful product development during the Great Depression?

[Velociryx]

No attempt made. People come up with ideas for products all the time. That doesn't mean that they are good ideas. Corporations are paying more and more for product development and marketing and starting to get diminishing returns. These ideas are getting expensive, especially when they are bad ideas like New Coke.

Something we agree on! THAT rocked, Kid!

I agree that ideas can be varying degrees of successful, but I have seen no evidence that there are "fewer ideas" out there, or that they're coming at a slower pace. Do you have a source, or just sorta....winging it?

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Of course the workers are part of the market. The market in the domestic economy is already saturated though. That's one reason why globalization is increasing profits. The other reason is the increased exploitation of workers.


What I'm getting at is that what you said initially (Actually by "markets" I was refering to places to sell goods and services which are currently produced.) isn't what you said just now (which is a re-phrasing of what I pointed out). Nor is there any particular evidence that the "domestic market" is saturated. Signs that this were true would be a dramatic slowdown of new construction of market-devices here (new car dealerships, malls, ext...) but this is not what is occuring. Again....do you have a source, or just using it cos it sounds good and supports your position?

Ok, what was the rate of successful product development during the Great Depression?

I have no idea, nor do I consider it to be important. Everyone who studies economics knows that an economy is a cyclical beast, and during the bad times, innovation can be expected to drop.

This in no way changes the fact that the general trend, over time, has been a dramatic increase in innovation, nor does it offer even a shred of evidence that the rate of innovation has reached a peak and is on the verge of decline.

-=Vel=-

EDIT: Note that despite more than one opportunity to do so, I did NOT weep into my crying towel and cry "strawman!"....something that a few others on Kid's side of the fence ought to take a closer look at....unless they just enjoy looking like pansy girlymen...