Hey, Tormented, how would a communistic government have producers?
What do you mean? It has producers in that it has the proletariat as the ruling class, as the majority. That and the very fact that the proletariat also have free access to the means of production with little to no restrictions on entry (no unemployment) would dramatically boost the effectiveness of production. We could also take a look at "what" is produced (goods with an emphasis on their use-value) and "how" they are then distributed (not being shelved for years and then thrown away when they can be actually used). I had explained this more fully in one of my previous posts.
Tormented, can you give me a basic communism reading list? I asked you a while about Kropotkin, but I want something a bit more general.
I would say Kropotkin's "The Conquest of Bread" is essential if you want to learn about communism. If you haven't read it then I suggest you do, it is quite general. It is accessible with easy wording, short (100 or so pages for a book), divided into chapters which deal with each issue (Food, Luxury, Clothing, etc.), and explains communism quite well.
You can find most books online for free, check the links in those threads.You could also read up on debates on forums between tendencies, that's how I started learning.
Agreed, but a little simplistic (in your 3rd point you statethat each commune would be governed by a local federalist system. So in asince, each commune would be considered a separate state)
2) "Human nature" is susceptible andvariable according to socialization.
Im not going to argue this… its lame and irrelevant
3) Communism works on a large-scale thanks to thedivision of society into communes based on a federalist system ofrepresentatives.(Note: Spanish Civil War communes of Aragon, Catalonia, etc.,the Paris Commune, Israeli Kibbutzim, Ukrainian Makhnovistas, and currently theZapatistas)
So if what if each commune has conflicting laws? Wouldn’t that affect howthey interact with each other? Wouldn’t they need some sort of agreement? (foreignpolicy)
4) Explain to me exactly how Communism is impossible, so far I have not metanyone capable of posing an actual argument without referring to the alreadyaddressed issues of "human nature", "spontaneous rise ofleaders" and "Mises' economic calculation problem”.
So far what your explaining here are different countries (communes)… thisisn’t communism either
5) Communism =/= Socialism.
Collective organization =/= central organization 6) Socialism =/= Obama and Welfare States
Agree’d…. Obama is NOT a socialists…. I standcorrected 7) Korea, China, Russia (USSRtoo), Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, et al. are NOT communist and arguably not evenSocialist in the Trotskyist sense.
Agree’d….. but pretty close
8) There are many, many forms and structures of Communism, some include astate, some don't, some are Stalinists, others are not, do not bundle them upall together.
There is only ONE form of Communism… and none of the stated examplesrepresent it
Agreed, but a little simplistic (in your 3rd point you statethat each commune would be governed by a local federalist system. So in asince, each commune would be considered a separate state)
Know the difference between a commune and a statist apparatus. A commune what we refer to as a city or a town, it is not a state. The federalist system is that of the Bakuninist and Kropotkinist Federalism (other tendencies of communism offer other alternatives also), and not one similar to that of the United States'.
2) "Human nature" is susceptible andvariable according to socialization.
Im not going to argue this… its lame and irrelevant
Sure.
3) Communism works on a large-scale thanks to thedivision of society into communes based on a federalist system ofrepresentatives.(Note: Spanish Civil War communes of Aragon, Catalonia, etc.,the Paris Commune, Israeli Kibbutzim, Ukrainian Makhnovistas, and currently theZapatistas)
So if what if each commune has conflicting laws? Wouldn’t that affect howthey interact with each other? Wouldn’t they need some sort of agreement? (foreignpolicy)
Hence the federalist system of organization. We cannot predict the exact workings of such a society, we are not fortunetellers, but we can form up possibilities and alternatives. That is to say, we cannot judge or state exactly how communal relations will take place, how laws will be set, etc. etc. But generally, laws will differ from one commune to another depending on the very citizens in such a commune.
4) Explain to me exactly how Communism is impossible, so far I have not metanyone capable of posing an actual argument without referring to the alreadyaddressed issues of "human nature", "spontaneous rise ofleaders" and "Mises' economic calculation problem”.
So far what your explaining here are different countries (communes)… thisisn’t communism either
Those communes are actual implementations (if limited) of communism.
5) Communism =/= Socialism.
Collective organization =/= central organization
Huh? Do you even know that Socialism is varied and differs from one tendency to another? Central organization need not be existent in a Socialist transitional period.
6) Socialism =/= Obama and Welfare States
Agree’d…. Obama is NOT a socialists…. I standcorrected
Okay.
7) Korea, China, Russia (USSRtoo), Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, et al. are NOT communist and arguably not evenSocialist in the Trotskyist sense.
Agree’d….. but pretty close
Okay.
8) There are many, many forms and structures of Communism, some include astate, some don't, some are Stalinists, others are not, do not bundle them upall together.
There is only ONE form of Communism… and none of the stated examplesrepresent it
I know you think your right. How? Because I know I think I'm right. So how about we try out our different political systems and see which one works best? .... Oh wait, we already have!..... Lets just agree to disagree and quit trying to impose our beliefs on eachother and find a way to make the different systems co-habitate?... i.e. forign policy... but that wont work either because each side wants something that the other side has... Thats why communism will never work.... each "commune (i call them states) have their own unique resources, services, goods.. etc... thats why we have trade agreements and currancy. Money is only the representation of the trade that you describe in your non-communism example.... But it allows us more freedom because, I pay Notch for Minecraft... he inturn uses the currency that I gave him and purchases something that he wants/needs.
What is your opinion the occupy X movement, does it mean anything? Is it more likely to be just a passing hipster-ish thing, or has revolution just gotten its first spark?
Do you feel that propaganda (e.g Obama is socialist and Fox "News") in the recent days has damaged progress towards the left in the west, and if you do, how much so?
Will capitalism destroy itself or will it be necessary for a revolution to de-construct it?
The abolition of currency (and thus value) would dictate that the macro-economy would function on the basis that it was one internal economy. That is, instead of separating the economy into fragmented sectors and industries, businesses and organisations, that trade with each other based on the profit motive (thus trying to exploit their own labour), a moneyless economy, democratically controlled by the working class - and later controlled by direct workers' control of economic and political councils, would allow the entire economy to function without the need for money.
The other problem with money ng point!) is that currency - as we know it in its fiat form - does not inherently represent value. Thus, whilst it might 'simplify' trade for you, it makes it far easier for the working class to be exploited, since the 'market' can be both in equilibrium (thus providing sales and liquidity for business owners) and be paying workers less than the value of their labour. This is the key point.
no.. money is only a promise that you'll be able to trade this note for something else of equal value that you recieved the note for... Whether that be a good, service,.. or work effort. Anything could be currency.. If I work all day building a fence for someone and they give me a meal at the end of the day for that work... then the meal is now the currency for my effort. But what if i dont want a meal i want Minecraft and the person that I built the fence for doesnt have minecraft... then i'd gladly accept a "promise" note that i could purchas Minecraft with it.
I know you think your right. How? Because I know I think I'm right.
Fun fact: I was an Anarcho-Capitalist at one time. It took a lot of debates and reading for me to turn into a Marxist.
So how about we try out our different political systems and see which one works best? .... Oh wait, we already have!.....
Oh, we have tried out actual communism and socialism before? Awesome! One question though: where?
Lets just agree to disagree and quit trying to impose our beliefs on eachother and find a way to make the different systems co-habitate?
Co-existance is a myth, it is unworkable. (see some of my older posts on this and irreconcilable class antagonisms)
... i.e. forign policy... but that wont work either because each side wants something that the other side has...
There is something called "trade". We use that as it has been used throughout history.
Thats why communism will never work.... each "commune (i call them states) have their own unique resources, services, goods.. etc... thats why we have trade agreements and currancy.
Trade does not require currency at all. See: "Gift economy" and the many economical systems proposed by Leftists such as Labor Vouchers, participatory economics, the Self-Organizing Moneyless Economy, Parecon, etc. etc. etc.
Money is only the representation of the trade that you describe in your non-communism example.... But it allows us more freedom because, I pay Notch for Minecraft... he inturn uses the currency that I gave him and purchases something that he wants/needs.
Marx has written a lot on commodity circulation in Capital. I've only recently (a few days ago) started reading it, it's quite interesting and addresses this very point professionally and in an in-depth matter. I suggest you read it.
Marx speaks of this very process and addressed your point on money, value, and commodity exchange (and its forms). So no, I cannot explain this perfectly and as such I point you to a professional work: Capital. Anyway, value is not created by money, value can exist without money, even in a non-Capitalist system and economy. Freedom is limited to how much of this capital you own, without capital, you are not free as you would like to think (this is without entering into the process the exploitation of labor and labor power as commodities).
no.. money is only a promise that you'll be able to trade this note for something else of equal value that you recieved the note for... Whether that be a good, service,.. or work effort. Anything could be currency.. If I work all day building a fence for someone and they give me a meal at the end of the day for that work... then the meal is now the currency for my effort. But what if i dont want a meal i want Minecraft and the person that I built the fence for doesnt have minecraft... then i'd gladly accept a "promise" note that i could purchas Minecraft with it.
See Marx in "Capital". That is all fine and dandy, but it fully and completely ignores and avoid the issues of inequality, accumulation of capital, exploitation of labor, the extraction of surplus value, the detrimental effects of capitalism, the creation of conflicting classes, the creation and permission of poverty, illness gone unhealed, starvation, unemployment, homelessness, etc. etc. Currency in and of itself is not "evil", it is the process by which it is implemented and used that is detrimental (among other things of course). Anyway, what you fail to realize here (and seem to take for granted) is actually "where" did this money come from, how did value come to be, how production takes place, and how the capitalist bourgeoisie became as such and why. That is a superficial and limited view.
@Sleeveless:
Hello, Tormented.
What is your opinion the occupy X movement, does it mean anything? Is it more likely to be just a passing hipster-ish thing, or has revolution just gotten its first spark?
Personally: As a Communist/Socialist revolution, I do not have much hope for it beyond its strife for the reformation of the Capitalist system. I talked about this briefly in the other thread: "I do not have much hope for the protests as a revolutionary change, this is the same as any other protest out of thousands in the recent years. The protestors most likely want some more petty reforms that do nothing but pacify the masses. Without a revolutionary movement, there cannot be a viable alternative to the current system, reformation can only do so much within the limitations and confines of Capitalism. This is the very reason why I support a revolutionary Vanguard: to turn the Reformist anger and wishes of the protesters from aims of reform to aims of achieving a full-fledged workers' system. The only option for a viable alternative here would be if the same case as that of Russia (February Revolution and its reformist advances replaced by a Communist revolution by the Bolsheviks) took place in the United States, but this time with a compatible and First-World country instead of a Third-World backwards feudal society that was struggling for its survival and on the brink of collapse. "
Do you feel that propaganda (e.g Obama is socialist and Fox "News") in the recent days has damaged progress towards the left in the west, and if you do, how much so?
The only ones who believe that Obama is a Socialist are those who advocate the Tea Party and any other Capitalist or Right-wing trend. They use it as a derogatory term (whether due to ignorance or genuine intention is beyond me due to "Poe's Law") to refer to any social or economical reforms. Most Democrats generally do not fall for this (at least from what I have seen) or even support it. So anyway, yes it has damaged the mainstream view of the Left, Capitalists are attempting to blame Socialism for the inherent flaws of Capitalism. Now, this is not a new instance, we need to take into consideration the Red Scare, McCarthyism, the Cold War, Nationalism, etc. etc. all of which have already damaged the true definitions and ideologies of the Left. How much? To a degree that people genuinely believe that Obama (a Right-wing Capitalist) is actually a Marxist. That association is dangerous.
Will capitalism destroy itself or will it be necessary for a revolution to de-construct it?
Depends on if you follow Orthodox Marxism or not. Historically (according to Marx) Capitalism can and will "destroy" itself, (see the threads on Globalization on RevLeft) how that will take place is varied from one theoretician to another. Marxism-Leninism and other revolutionary movements simply attempt to "hasten" the revolution or achieve it if they do not believe in Capitalism destroying itself. Personally I prefer hastening the revolution over waiting for it to collapse.
I read a couple pages of this, and it's really interesting to read(although I skipped the last 5 pages of the Great Wall of Text :laugh.gif: )
When you say we should remove the 'monopoly of education' to allow everyone to attend university, wouldn't that force the demand of a professor/teacher to explode? Then instead of doctors being paid 10x more than the average worker, it'd be the professors. Wouldn't the professors become the new upper class due to their increased importance, and be able to exploit others' work in the same way doctors do now with their monopoly of education?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My livestream channel, gonna stream some arma (or other games)!
It's okay. (Don't one word post you'll get banned)
Just read everything in this thread. You will learn so many new things, that if your views don't change I'll be a monkey's uncle wearing a three foot muffin as a skirt while dancing with John Lennon in studio 54.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A man paints with his brains and not with his hands."
Michelangelo
Mod edit: Shairn used lock!
It's super effective!
Pointless thread has fainted!
I read a couple pages of this, and it's really interesting to read(although I skipped the last 5 pages of the Great Wall of Text :laugh.gif: )
When you say we should remove the 'monopoly of education' to allow everyone to attend university, wouldn't that force the demand of a professor/teacher to explode? Then instead of doctors being paid 10x more than the average worker, it'd be the professors. Wouldn't the professors become the new upper class due to their increased importance, and be able to exploit others' work in the same way doctors do now with their monopoly of education?
Interesting question. Yes, by removing the restriction on education we cannot fully see to the equalization of all jobs and labor supply, that can never happen. But what we can do is increase the labor force in certain sectors which were previously "closed off" or limited for many. We can never fully disintegrate the inequality of the division of labor, but we can certainly minimize the impact and the difference between each sector. Doctors will not be common as say a construction worker, but they will be found more commonly than before. The same goes for professors.
They cannot become a new upper class (in the sense of the bourgeoisie) because they cannot own the means of production (private property), and thus, they cannot exploit labor or labor power for their own interests (which is the main thing that we oppose). They can be entitled to higher wages in a Socialist transitional phase but that is only because they deserve it in order to redeem their efforts and to increase the supply of these skilled workers.
...
They cannot become a new upper class (in the sense of the bourgeoisie) because they cannot own the means of production (private property), and thus, they cannot exploit labor or labor power for their own interests (which is the main thing that we oppose). They can be entitled to higher wages in a Socialist transitional phase but that is only because they deserve it in order to redeem their efforts and to increase the supply of these skilled workers.
Wouldn't they be able to collectively decide to not teach anyone until they get what they want?(like unscrupulous teachers' unions demanding high pay, and extra benefits)
if so can you tell me where to get a cosplay girlfriend i am white and have money please reply asap
You've got a brain, ****ing use it.
The first part is true. All previous attempts at a communist society failed because no one did it properly.
What do you mean? It has producers in that it has the proletariat as the ruling class, as the majority. That and the very fact that the proletariat also have free access to the means of production with little to no restrictions on entry (no unemployment) would dramatically boost the effectiveness of production. We could also take a look at "what" is produced (goods with an emphasis on their use-value) and "how" they are then distributed (not being shelved for years and then thrown away when they can be actually used). I had explained this more fully in one of my previous posts.
I would say Kropotkin's "The Conquest of Bread" is essential if you want to learn about communism. If you haven't read it then I suggest you do, it is quite general. It is accessible with easy wording, short (100 or so pages for a book), divided into chapters which deal with each issue (Food, Luxury, Clothing, etc.), and explains communism quite well.
Check out Engels' "Principles of Communism" which is in a FAQ form: http://www.revleft.c...3569/index.html
And this FAQ: http://thisiscommunism.org/pdf/FAQ.pdf
For a pretty good list see these:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/reading-list-t160940/index2.html
http://www.revleft.c...1001/index.html
http://www.revleft.c...3793/index.html
http://www.revleft.c...2628/index.html
You can find most books online for free, check the links in those threads.You could also read up on debates on forums between tendencies, that's how I started learning.
As you wish.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumAgreed, but a little simplistic (in your 3rd point you statethat each commune would be governed by a local federalist system. So in asince, each commune would be considered a separate state)
2) "Human nature" is susceptible andvariable according to socialization.
Im not going to argue this… its lame and irrelevant
3) Communism works on a large-scale thanks to thedivision of society into communes based on a federalist system ofrepresentatives.(Note: Spanish Civil War communes of Aragon, Catalonia, etc.,the Paris Commune, Israeli Kibbutzim, Ukrainian Makhnovistas, and currently theZapatistas)
So if what if each commune has conflicting laws? Wouldn’t that affect howthey interact with each other? Wouldn’t they need some sort of agreement? (foreignpolicy)
4) Explain to me exactly how Communism is impossible, so far I have not metanyone capable of posing an actual argument without referring to the alreadyaddressed issues of "human nature", "spontaneous rise ofleaders" and "Mises' economic calculation problem”.
So far what your explaining here are different countries (communes)… thisisn’t communism either
5) Communism =/= Socialism.
Collective organization =/= central organization
6) Socialism =/= Obama and Welfare States
Agree’d…. Obama is NOT a socialists…. I standcorrected
7) Korea, China, Russia (USSRtoo), Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, et al. are NOT communist and arguably not evenSocialist in the Trotskyist sense.
Agree’d….. but pretty close
8) There are many, many forms and structures of Communism, some include astate, some don't, some are Stalinists, others are not, do not bundle them upall together.
There is only ONE form of Communism… and none of the stated examplesrepresent it
Know the difference between a commune and a statist apparatus. A commune what we refer to as a city or a town, it is not a state. The federalist system is that of the Bakuninist and Kropotkinist Federalism (other tendencies of communism offer other alternatives also), and not one similar to that of the United States'.
Sure.
Hence the federalist system of organization. We cannot predict the exact workings of such a society, we are not fortunetellers, but we can form up possibilities and alternatives. That is to say, we cannot judge or state exactly how communal relations will take place, how laws will be set, etc. etc. But generally, laws will differ from one commune to another depending on the very citizens in such a commune.
Those communes are actual implementations (if limited) of communism.
Huh? Do you even know that Socialism is varied and differs from one tendency to another? Central organization need not be existent in a Socialist transitional period.
Okay.
Okay.
Lol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#Marxist_schools_of_communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#Non-Marxist_schools_of_communism
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumWhat is your opinion the occupy X movement, does it mean anything? Is it more likely to be just a passing hipster-ish thing, or has revolution just gotten its first spark?
Do you feel that propaganda (e.g Obama is socialist and Fox "News") in the recent days has damaged progress towards the left in the west, and if you do, how much so?
Will capitalism destroy itself or will it be necessary for a revolution to de-construct it?
And as a side note, this is interesting: http://www.alternet.org/economy/152601/5_facts_you_should_know_about_the_wealthiest_one_percent_of_americans/?page=entire
Michelangelo
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse Premiumno.. money is only a promise that you'll be able to trade this note for something else of equal value that you recieved the note for... Whether that be a good, service,.. or work effort. Anything could be currency.. If I work all day building a fence for someone and they give me a meal at the end of the day for that work... then the meal is now the currency for my effort. But what if i dont want a meal i want Minecraft and the person that I built the fence for doesnt have minecraft... then i'd gladly accept a "promise" note that i could purchas Minecraft with it.
Fun fact: I was an Anarcho-Capitalist at one time. It took a lot of debates and reading for me to turn into a Marxist.
Oh, we have tried out actual communism and socialism before? Awesome! One question though: where?
Co-existance is a myth, it is unworkable. (see some of my older posts on this and irreconcilable class antagonisms)
There is something called "trade". We use that as it has been used throughout history.
Trade does not require currency at all. See: "Gift economy" and the many economical systems proposed by Leftists such as Labor Vouchers, participatory economics, the Self-Organizing Moneyless Economy, Parecon, etc. etc. etc.
Marx has written a lot on commodity circulation in Capital. I've only recently (a few days ago) started reading it, it's quite interesting and addresses this very point professionally and in an in-depth matter. I suggest you read it.
Marx speaks of this very process and addressed your point on money, value, and commodity exchange (and its forms). So no, I cannot explain this perfectly and as such I point you to a professional work: Capital. Anyway, value is not created by money, value can exist without money, even in a non-Capitalist system and economy. Freedom is limited to how much of this capital you own, without capital, you are not free as you would like to think (this is without entering into the process the exploitation of labor and labor power as commodities).
See Marx in "Capital". That is all fine and dandy, but it fully and completely ignores and avoid the issues of inequality, accumulation of capital, exploitation of labor, the extraction of surplus value, the detrimental effects of capitalism, the creation of conflicting classes, the creation and permission of poverty, illness gone unhealed, starvation, unemployment, homelessness, etc. etc. Currency in and of itself is not "evil", it is the process by which it is implemented and used that is detrimental (among other things of course). Anyway, what you fail to realize here (and seem to take for granted) is actually "where" did this money come from, how did value come to be, how production takes place, and how the capitalist bourgeoisie became as such and why. That is a superficial and limited view.
@Sleeveless:
Personally: As a Communist/Socialist revolution, I do not have much hope for it beyond its strife for the reformation of the Capitalist system. I talked about this briefly in the other thread: "I do not have much hope for the protests as a revolutionary change, this is the same as any other protest out of thousands in the recent years. The protestors most likely want some more petty reforms that do nothing but pacify the masses. Without a revolutionary movement, there cannot be a viable alternative to the current system, reformation can only do so much within the limitations and confines of Capitalism. This is the very reason why I support a revolutionary Vanguard: to turn the Reformist anger and wishes of the protesters from aims of reform to aims of achieving a full-fledged workers' system. The only option for a viable alternative here would be if the same case as that of Russia (February Revolution and its reformist advances replaced by a Communist revolution by the Bolsheviks) took place in the United States, but this time with a compatible and First-World country instead of a Third-World backwards feudal society that was struggling for its survival and on the brink of collapse. "
The only ones who believe that Obama is a Socialist are those who advocate the Tea Party and any other Capitalist or Right-wing trend. They use it as a derogatory term (whether due to ignorance or genuine intention is beyond me due to "Poe's Law") to refer to any social or economical reforms. Most Democrats generally do not fall for this (at least from what I have seen) or even support it. So anyway, yes it has damaged the mainstream view of the Left, Capitalists are attempting to blame Socialism for the inherent flaws of Capitalism. Now, this is not a new instance, we need to take into consideration the Red Scare, McCarthyism, the Cold War, Nationalism, etc. etc. all of which have already damaged the true definitions and ideologies of the Left. How much? To a degree that people genuinely believe that Obama (a Right-wing Capitalist) is actually a Marxist. That association is dangerous.
Depends on if you follow Orthodox Marxism or not. Historically (according to Marx) Capitalism can and will "destroy" itself, (see the threads on Globalization on RevLeft) how that will take place is varied from one theoretician to another. Marxism-Leninism and other revolutionary movements simply attempt to "hasten" the revolution or achieve it if they do not believe in Capitalism destroying itself. Personally I prefer hastening the revolution over waiting for it to collapse.
When you say we should remove the 'monopoly of education' to allow everyone to attend university, wouldn't that force the demand of a professor/teacher to explode? Then instead of doctors being paid 10x more than the average worker, it'd be the professors. Wouldn't the professors become the new upper class due to their increased importance, and be able to exploit others' work in the same way doctors do now with their monopoly of education?
Urgh... I mean... Ugh...
Please read the first frigging post before making remarks that have been made over a quantillion times.
Michelangelo
It's okay. (Don't one word post you'll get banned)
Just read everything in this thread. You will learn so many new things, that if your views don't change I'll be a monkey's uncle wearing a three foot muffin as a skirt while dancing with John Lennon in studio 54.
Michelangelo
Interesting question. Yes, by removing the restriction on education we cannot fully see to the equalization of all jobs and labor supply, that can never happen. But what we can do is increase the labor force in certain sectors which were previously "closed off" or limited for many. We can never fully disintegrate the inequality of the division of labor, but we can certainly minimize the impact and the difference between each sector. Doctors will not be common as say a construction worker, but they will be found more commonly than before. The same goes for professors.
They cannot become a new upper class (in the sense of the bourgeoisie) because they cannot own the means of production (private property), and thus, they cannot exploit labor or labor power for their own interests (which is the main thing that we oppose). They can be entitled to higher wages in a Socialist transitional phase but that is only because they deserve it in order to redeem their efforts and to increase the supply of these skilled workers.
@TheNardCake
Just edit or delete your previous post.
Wouldn't they be able to collectively decide to not teach anyone until they get what they want?(like unscrupulous teachers' unions demanding high pay, and extra benefits)