Europe is Revolting

[Kidlicious]

so then, let's say you're right and it's a myth...that still doesn't answer the question "what do you propose to do with them" (you know...all the millions of myth-believers). Still dodging, but NM...I have no more patience for you.

I don't have any patience left either.

[Winston]

This thread is revolting.

[chequita guevara]

Have they gotten around to forcibly confiscating everyones property yet? No? Let me know how things go when they start that.

At the moment, the tasks of the revolution in Nepal isn't establishing socialist property relations, but abolishing feudalism. Furthermore, Nepal is completely undeveloped. They don't have the capital to start developing their country, so, most property relations will remain untouched for the moment. In the areas the Maoists militarily control, however, things are different. Property seized during the civil war and turned over to the peasants and workers remains held by them.

The point, however, which you did not miss, because you moved the goal posts, is that it is possible for communists to establish, win, and rule a multiparty democracy.

This isn't to say that there aren't legitimate fears about the intentions of some socialists. If the RCP, as it is currently constituted, happened to win over the masses and overthrew the government here, I'd be telling everyone to get the **** out of the country if they can. They're sick ****ing cult which thinks that whether or not you agree with their leader determines whether or not you are a communist or an enemy. Right now, he's complaining about the masses for not recognizing his obviously superior leadership (even though his thinking is so mechanistic and dogmatic and really bad Marxism).

[chequita guevara]

This thread is revolting.

Enjoy your socialist future, Winnie.

[Elok]

The decision making would be decentralised. But at the same time there would be regulatory bodies to ensure that people who abuse the system are prosecuted.

So when one or more local deciders start accepting (or demanding) bribes, set themselves up as local warlords, etc., there's nothing to stop them? There's also nothing to stop them from sheltering outlaws from the wrath of their more honest neighbors. In fact, a canny robber-baron "decision-maker" could easily use his ill-gotten gains to finance his own army to invade or subvert the neighboring districts. Honest bosses would hardly have the kind of discretionary funds needed to fight off the ones who got involved in organized crime and "skimming." Crime pays very well, at least initially.

This could be stopped by the regulatory body, provided it had enough power. But who watches the watchmen?

No what you need to do is make sure the regulatory agency is not captured by the agencies that they are suppose to regulate. It's the same in a capitalist system. It's not at all clear the distinction you are making with a communist system.

I'm not making a distinction so much as pointing out the lack of a distinction in human motivations under the different systems. All the advantages communism purports to offer would just afford new avenues for exploitation. Particularly the bit about the state controlling the whole economy. No-bid contracts are bad enough; a state where a competitive contract isn't possible would be far worse.

It doesn't work that way. You want selfish regulators?! You can't see how insane that is? What we need is regulators who do their duty.

No, not "selfish regulators," but a system that, when properly maintained, does a good deal of self-regulation by turning people's selfishness to bear on itself. The economy runs as a Mexican standoff, where each is jealous of the others' advantage. It has many weaknesses, yes. But the most profound failures of capitalism come from monopolies, ie when it ceases to be itself and most resembles communism.

[Patroklos]

The point, however, which you did not miss, because you moved the goal posts, is that it is possible for communists to establish, win, and rule a multiparty democracy.

And what you are glossing over is that they are not ruling over a communist state. They haven't had their revolution yet, they are ruling as communists over a proto-capitalist state. We have communists here too, so what?

The point is communists state, post revolution, are not democratic and have never proven to be.

[chequita guevara]

No, not "selfish regulators," but a system that, when properly maintained, does a good deal of self-regulation by turning people's selfishness to bear on itself. The economy runs as a Mexican standoff, where each is jealous of the others' advantage. It has many weaknesses, yes. But the most profound failures of capitalism come from monopolies, ie when it ceases to be itself and most resembles communism.

Except that the economy has never acted as you described. It's a fantasy that capitalism has ever operated that way or could operate that way. Only very strict regulation can overcome capitalists natural instincts to externalize costs and combine to get rid of competition. And those regulations are under attack by the capitalists constantly, which is why we have seen decades of deregulation in the West.

[Kidlicious]

So when one or more local deciders start accepting (or demanding) bribes, set themselves up as local warlords, etc., there's nothing to stop them? There's also nothing to stop them from sheltering outlaws from the wrath of their more honest neighbors. In fact, a canny robber-baron "decision-maker" could easily use his ill-gotten gains to finance his own army to invade or subvert the neighboring districts. Honest bosses would hardly have the kind of discretionary funds needed to fight off the ones who got involved in organized crime and "skimming." Crime pays very well, at least initially.

I don't know where you got the idea that I don't believe in law.

This could be stopped by the regulatory body, provided it had enough power. But who watches the watchmen?

A body of representatives elected by the people. Ever hear of such a thing?

I'm not making a distinction so much as pointing out the lack of a distinction in human motivations under the different systems. All the advantages communism purports to offer would just afford new avenues for exploitation. Particularly the bit about the state controlling the whole economy. No-bid contracts are bad enough; a state where a competitive contract isn't possible would be far worse.

Capitalism is exploitation by default. I'm not saying exploitation is not possible in a communist system. However, in a democratic system exploitation can be kept in check. The people have the means to eliminate it if they choose to.

No, not "selfish regulators," but a system that, when properly maintained, does a good deal of self-regulation by turning people's selfishness to bear on itself. The economy runs as a Mexican standoff, where each is jealous of the others' advantage. It has many weaknesses, yes. But the most profound failures of capitalism come from monopolies, ie when it ceases to be itself and most resembles communism.

I disagree that the biggest failures of capitalism come from monopolies. Can you develop that idea a bit?

[chequita guevara]

And what you are glossing over is that they are not ruling over a communist state. They haven't had their revolution yet, they are ruling as communists over a proto-capitalist state. We have communists here too, so what?

The point is communists state, post revolution, are not democratic and have never proven to be.

I'm not glossing over it. They were on the verge of winning the revolution militarily, and rather than rule alone, by themselves, they chose another way.

The fact that there are communists here is irrelevant when it comes to Nepal. They're the majority in the Nepali government. We're less than 1% of the population in the U.S.

In any event, you cannot separate the very real external threat to the revolutionary states in the 20th Century from their siege mentality and dictatorial natures.

[Lefty Scaevola]

But who watches the watchmen?

London could use a good scouring by The Comedian right about now.

[Elok]

I don't know where you got the idea that I don't believe in law.

The whole "no centralized control" bit is begging for it. You know about the crazy **** that went down under the Articles of Confederation?

A body of representatives elected by the people. Ever hear of such a thing?

Yes, I just assumed you didn't think people would seriously vote to give up their right to own property. My bad.

Capitalism is exploitation by default. I'm not saying exploitation is not possible in a communist system. However, in a democratic system exploitation can be kept in check. The people have the means to eliminate it if they choose to.

In theory. In practice there are severe limitations. Do you envision a communist democracy wherein The People go over all the government's procurements? Competitive bids, while obviously insufficient and often grotesquely cumbersome, do something to keep the fraud down.

I disagree that the biggest failures of capitalism come from monopolies. Can you develop that idea a bit?

I assume you disagree because you seem to have mentally linked capitalism with starving AK-47-wielding children in Africa. That particular problem, and others like it, has a number of causes, and I don't claim to understand all of them. But I can't imagine that, if the U.S. were communist, we would not have exploited a continent with plenty of oil and minerals and no strong opposition to defend it.

We might not have used slavery as much, just because The Working Man historically viewed slaves as unfair competition. On the other hand, that's only the case within the existing southern-aristocracy framework. I can easily envision a society wherein black "nonhuman" slaves are a public resource just like forests and mines and arable land. Slavery was the result of high demand for labor combined with short supply; it was temporarily more expedient to import slaves and work them to death than to pay the high wages demanded by white workers. If the people could democratically vote to either work in cotton fields all day or ship over some of them darkies to do it for them, I see no reason why communists would behave more morally than capitalists.

But here I'm guessing at the bogeymen you refer to. What problems do you think capitalism has caused where a communist state would not?

Che: I'm not totally laissez-faire--I approve of strict rules, especially on banking and finance institutions (for obvious reasons). If truth be told, I don't know much economics compared to most of the folks here. But I'd rather have a chance at competition than state-run monopolies.

[chequita guevara]

If eternal vigilance is the price to pay to keep corporations from having their way with us, best to abolish them.

[Naked Gents Rut]

I'm sure the corporations have done a great deal to hurt you over the years.

[chequita guevara]

They have, and you too.

[Velociryx]

If eternal vigilance is the price to pay to keep corporations from having their way with us, best to abolish them.

The same could be said of every form of government ever devised, Che. All of them.

So while we're cleaning house and getting rid of those nasty corporations, let's just toss the whole notion of government, law and order out the window too, eh? Cos hey...we've gotta be on guard against them, and it's just not worth it.

Except that it is.

You said something yesterday I wanted to ask you about. That some Communist nations took to rounding up all the property and leasing it back to individuals for use. But "lease" is just a fancy way of saying "rent," and I thought rent was on the Big Red List of No-Nos, so how's that work out, exactly?

-=Vel=-

Edit: The other thing I can't quite get my brain to jump thru the appropriate hoops over is the whole "wage slave" thing. How is it that it's "wage slavery" to sell your labor to a corporation, but to sell that same labor to the government controlled factory is NOT wage slavery? Never could quite wrap my mind around that concept. And how is labor priced out, in the absence of the market mechanism? Do you have to look at what's being charged on the black market to get valuations? (or do we assume that everything's so perfect that no such black market exists)