Europe is Revolting

[Patroklos]

They have, and you too.

I am pretty sure I am better off than the Soviet drones living in cement block houses AKA apartments waiting for my party boss to ration out my ten squares of toilet paper for the week.

[Kidlicious]

I lost a post so don't complain if I don't hit everything like you want.

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

I'm talking about decentralized economic planning, small efficient economic units that don't require bureaucracy.

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

And you didn't read the exchange between Vel and I. 20 years or so of falling asset prices is going to cool people's enthusiasm for owning property.

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.

Competition doesn't lower prices, just wages. Companies don't bid unless they can make a lot of profit. The aren't in it for the nickles and dimes. Workers on the otherhand face stiff competition and have no other choice but to take the wage they are offered. Corporations on the otherhand can just close shop, or not even open it.

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.

Corporations do a great deal of harm to this planet. I do believe that we would all be better off without them.

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.

Where do you think the idea of "nonhuman" comes from. Capitalism is a hierarchial system. It should be no shock to anyone that slavery is possible within a capitalist system.

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?

This is not an exhaustive list

1) You, I and every human being on this planet who has to work and fight in wars is pitted against each other. We're taught that this benefits us, when in fact it benefits the rich.

2) Close to 1). The whole economic system is on the backs of the poor. If there's ever a problem the solution is always to give some "incentive" to corporations.

3) We are fed so much bull**** through our corporations, politicians, the media, internet, families, and school that our brains are ****ed up. Do you know that crazy parents raise crazy children?

4) Economic reasons; unemployment, low wages, business slumps etc... I won't go into those right now.

[chequita guevara]

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.

You're absolutely correct. Thus, the end point of communism is to abolish the state. Obviously, there will still need to be some sort of coordinating body, but without any compulsory power, like cops or soldiers (won't be able to do away entirely with police, I suspect, since crimes of passion will always be with us, I expect).

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=-

I said capitalist nations, actually, although it may be the case that particular communist led societies would adopt such a way of distributing property. One of the things to keep in mind is that we cannot move immediately from capitalism to socialism, that there must be a transitional period. Rapid changes in property forms tends to cause chaos, and chaos in the economy isn't really a good thing. So, it may be that a particular communist led society adopts temporary forms of property relations in order to smooth the transformation of society from capitalism to socialism and from socialism to communism.

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)

You are absolutely correct that if you're forced to sell your labor-power to someone else, regardless of who that is, and even if you have a choice of masters, it is alienating and exploitative. If all we are doing is exchanging a capitalist for a bureaucrat, we're no better off from the standpoint of freedom, although through rationalization of investment, production, and distribution, we'll be less likely to suffer from economic crises.

The point, however, is to create a society in which the workers themselves are in charge of making decisions about investment, production, and distribution. In addition, technological advances should eventually render much productive work by humans unnecessary. In addition, there's the point mentioned earlier by Kidicious, and elaborated on by me, of the enormous amount of unnecessary work. Add to that the number of underemployed and unemployed people, and we could immediately cut the working day in half, probably more.

Ultimately, we'd try and create a society where no one has to work if they don't want to, and will still be able to receive all the benefits society has to give. Under capitalism, that's not going to happen, because any advances in production will simply be used to put more people out of work, where there are either forced into lower wage work or become mired in poverty. Some are able to recover, but it often takes years of pain.

You ask, who would work if they don't have to, and especially when most people are sponging. Automation should take care of most work. But as you yourself should know, people are creative beings. They have a need to interact with their environment in playful, curious, and productive ways. It's hardwired into us, because it's how we survive as a species. If people have a choice between doing meaningful work or doing nothing, many people will choose to work, because not working is boring, even with the interwebs.

It's not insane to believe this is possible. It's happened before, in Paris in 1871 and in Barcelona in 1937. Obviously production wasn't at the point where work could be abolished, but the people, for a brief time before they were crushed, were in charge of their work and continued to work.

We can do it, because we've done it before.

[chequita guevara]

I am pretty sure I am better off than the Soviet drones living in cement block houses AKA apartments waiting for my party boss to ration out my ten squares of toilet paper for the week.

If you aren't going to pay attention to anything I write, but instead beat on strawmen and invent your own definitions, I don't see any point trying to continue to carry a discussion with you.

[onodera]

I am pretty sure I am better off than the Soviet drones living in cement block houses AKA apartments waiting for my party boss to ration out my ten squares of toilet paper for the week.

Where the hell do you get these mental images from?

[Kidlicious]

Also, to Elok or whoever cares, in today's economy companies have monopoly power. This gives them the ability to cut costs, increase the demand for their services, and hire a lot of different types of workers that they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford. As mentioned earlier it's only workers who compete in the capitalist system. Well there's some farmers who have to compete but their mostly poor.

[chequita guevara]

Where the hell do you get these mental images from?

Anti Soviet propaganda. It's really quite surprising what Americans believe/d about life in the USSR.

[Kidlicious]

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?

Don't you rent property? You do know that takes work and money then right?

[Velociryx]

You're absolutely correct. Thus, the end point of communism is to abolish the state. Obviously, there will still need to be some sort of coordinating body, but without any compulsory power, like cops or soldiers (won't be able to do away entirely with police, I suspect, since crimes of passion will always be with us, I expect).

But if we still need police and troops, and an economic governance body, then by definition, Communism is a paradox, as the endpoint is abolishment of the state, and it concedes that certain statist segments are still necessary. So the ultimate endpoint cannot be reached, which makes its pursuit rather akin to chasing the pot of gold at the rainbow's end.

I said capitalist nations, actually, although it may be the case...

Ahh...forgive. That was my mistake then. Too many posts in rapid fire succession yesterday.

You are absolutely correct that if you're forced to sell your labor-power to someone else, regardless of who that is, and even if you have a choice of masters, it is alienating and exploitative.

ONLY if you actually believe that we are currently in the position of automating all productive work (and this doesn't even begin to cover the question of who will build the 100% automated factories, where the money would come from to do such things--state is to be abolished, and taxes along with it, so we can't get the money from the state, work is purely voluntary at existing factories, so unless you can a) envision the need for a new automated factory, b) convince people to voluntarily contribute their money and labor to build it, and c) magically find the raw materials needed to build it, said new automated factory never gets built. Interest is illegal, so you'll never tempt investors to chip in, and the end result is...nothing.

It seems to me that if every member of this utopic society was a small farmer, working his/her own land and growing enough food to sustain himself...this would be your worker's paradise. Tear down the cities and factories and everybody just farms his own little plot of land. Then, no one is a "wage slave" (which is still a term I disagree with, btw, and why I use it in quotation), but of course, doesn't answer to the communist need to abolish private property rights. So we're still not there.....*shakes head* So then the only other solution is to ditch the notion of ever truly abolishing the state and holding all property in trust BY the state, but then that falls short of the communist ideal too. It's no-win.

If all we are doing is exchanging a capitalist for a bureaucrat, we're no better off from the standpoint of freedom, although through rationalization of investment, production, and distribution, we'll be less likely to suffer from economic crises.

Dead right to the first part, but I'd disagree with the second, because an economic governing board isn't going to be as efficient at making production and planning decisions as the market mechanism itself. It never was in the USSR, nor in China, which is ultimately why they began embracing capitalistic principles, so as far as I know, we have a complete lack of evidence suggesting that this benevolent governance and planning board will be better than the market mechanism.

[quote]The point, however, is to create a society in which the workers themselves are in charge of making decisions about investment, production, and distribution. In addition, technological advances should eventually render much productive work by humans unnecessary.[quote]

The current capitalist system has two mechanisms in place already that make this possible. I agree that both need further regulation and strengthening before they could come to full bloom, but workers buying voting stock in the companies they work for could easily give them such a voice, and unions (collective bargaining) give them another avenue. There's little need to dismantle the whole system to accomplish this particular goal, though I get the sense that you've got your heart set on a revolution anyways.

In addition, there's the point mentioned earlier by Kidicious, and elaborated on by me, of the enormous amount of unnecessary work. Add to that the number of underemployed and unemployed people, and we could immediately cut the working day in half, probably more.

Ultimately, we'd try and create a society where no one has to work if they don't want to, and will still be able to receive all the benefits society has to give. Under capitalism, that's not going to happen, because any advances in production will simply be used to put more people out of work, where there are either forced into lower wage work or become mired in poverty. Some are able to recover, but it often takes years of pain.

You ask, who would work if they don't have to, and especially when most people are sponging. Automation should take care of most work. But as you yourself should know, people are creative beings. They have a need to interact with their environment in playful, curious, and productive ways. It's hardwired into us, because it's how we survive as a species. If people have a choice between doing meaningful work or doing nothing, many people will choose to work, because not working is boring, even with the interwebs.

The unnecessary work you mention in para one includes the creative work referenced in para three. So the plan is to do away with the unnecessary work to make it possible to PERFORM the unnecessary work? That seems....odd to me. Or do you specifically reference work such as advertising and marketing that shall be done away with to free people for more creative pursuits?

It's not insane to believe this is possible. It's happened before, in Paris in 1871 and in Barcelona in 1937. Obviously production wasn't at the point where work could be abolished, but the people, for a brief time before they were crushed, were in charge of their work and continued to work.

We can do it, because we've done it before.

I'll absolutely acknowledge that on a small scale, communalism can be made to work...it has never been demonstrably proved that it can be every bit as productive as the capitalist model, but sure, small scale, it has been shown to at least be possible.

There's no evidence that supports the idea that it's in any way scalable, and in fact, based on the major revolutions to date, plenty of evidence to indicate that it isn't.

This, coupled with the paradox contained within the guts of the system seems to my eyes to make it an impossible dream.

I do understand the attraction, but I'm afraid that my brain just can't make the journey with you.

I do appreciate your taking the time to flesh those concepts out for me tho!
-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Don't you rent property? You do know that takes work and money then right?

...

I didn't want you to think I didn't see your post.

I'll happily respond to anything intelligent you have to say.



-=Vel=-

[DinoDoc]

...I'll happily respond to anything intelligent you have to say.



-=Vel=-

You might as well put him on ignore then.

[Kidlicious]

...

I didn't want you to think I didn't see your post.

I'll happily respond to anything intelligent you have to say.



-=Vel=-

What part of "it takes money" is too difficult for you?

[Velociryx]

What part of "it takes money" is too difficult for you?

...

I didn't want you to think I didn't see your post.

I'll happily respond to anything intelligent you have to say.



-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

I love the copy/paste function of keyboards. So efficient!

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

I'll spell it out for you then. It costs money because it costs money.