"Communism is the greatest evil unleashed on humanity" (2 Viewers)

[KFunk]

Fairly interesting discussion on the evolution of the moral consciousness of the left and the right:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html

I love moral psychology. NTB - you should check out the MIT press moral psychology trilogy some time (I recall seeing a number of references to Haidt in volume 1).

A couple random thoughts I had while listening to it:

- Openness has always been my strongest trait on the five factor personality model, which undoubtedly reflects my position towards art, philosophy and morality.

- My family in the US lived in around UVA in Charlottesville for some time and now live near Lynchburg, so I quite enjoyed his geographic stereotypes.

- Moral psychology makes a valuable contribution to the position of a moral relativist. The problem of how to resolve moral conflict reminds me of a Rawls quote (which forms a central concern of his work Political Liberalism): "Now the serious problem is this. A modern democratic society is characterised not simply by a pluralism of comprehensive religious, philosophical and moral doctrines but by a pluralism of incompatible yet reasonable comprehensive doctrines."

 

[Zeitgeist308]

Communism...The idea that everyone will be equal in terms of cash and status is a great idea

Sorry love, that's not communism. We've been over this a million times already in this thread. Please either flick back through the thread and educate yourself.

Communism in China clearly doesn't work, no offence to those who think otherwise. The government is corrupt....certain websites are blocked...news cover the truth, etc. You see what I mean?

There is no communism in China and there never was. Any Maoist will tell you this. They assert that "Socialism" existed during Mao's reign but this was quickly undone thanks to the economic reforms of Deng Xiaoping, with today's China being fully capitalist. I would persoanlly go beyond this and make the arguement (as the Left-Communists have traditionally done demonstrated by Aufheben in their series What was the USSR? which I linked to earlier) that China (as well as all the other "socialist states") never went beyond the capitalist mode of production.

Is it then, perhaps, a revolutionary dialectic which evolves over time within the relevant class?

I think this is a very very good way of putting it (despite some possible apprehensions with the use of the dialectic, but that's another topic entirely).

On the same topic I think it should be made clear that in the writings of Marx himself the term "class-consciousness" appear very rarely, if at all. Engels on the other hand uses the concept more, but it only gained a life of its own as a result of Georg Lukacs' History & Class Consciousness.

I think these excerpts can explain it a little better:

Consciousness is awareness of a person's self, environment, and thought. As a result, it is the fundamental basis for all philosophy, as what exists outside consciousness (Matter) is in one way or another reflected in consciousness.

The most fundamental questions of philosophy, therefore, hinge on the relation between consciousness and the external world. The earliest considerations on the relation of consciousness to matter (See Descatres) raised the question of how it was possible for consciousness to reflect the material world. The solution of this problem has been central to philosophy for 400 years.

The most important development in understanding the nature of consciousness came with Hegel, who took consciousness to be objective, explaining that people gained consciousness through their participation in social relations. In Hegel's system, Consciousness is the middle term in the development of the Subjective Spirit: from Soul (unconscious mental activity) to Consciousness (the forms of which are studied by Phenomenology) to Spirit, the unity of Soul and Consciousness. The stages of Consciousness are Consciousness-as-such, Self-Consciousness and Reason. “Self-consciousness is sparked, however, by the consciousness of life; for as consciousness has an object, as an entity different from itself it is also true in life that the difference is no difference” and “The unity of consciousness and self-consciousness has in the first place individuals existing in contrast to each other as beings for themselves. ... its truth is the unmediated generality subsisting in and for itself and the objectivity of self-consciousness, — Reason”.

In the 1840s, Hegel's view was subject to criticism from different sides. The mainstream of western philosophy rejected Hegel's objective idealism and took a subjective, individualistic, psychological view of consciousness, separated irrevocably from the material world beyond sensation.

Marx, on the other hand, continued Hegel's social-historical conception of consciousness, but instead of regarding forms of consciousness as being the work of some god, Marx held that consciousness was constructed by people's own social practice and environment. - The MIA Enclycopeadia entry on "Consciousness"


In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. - Marx, Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy


Instead of “class-conscious”, which in our circles is an easily understood abbreviation, I would say the following to facilitate universal understanding and translation into foreign languages: “with workers conscious of their class position”, or something like it. - Engels, A Critique of the Draft Social-Democratic Program of 1891

​

What forces do you (or the theorists you favour) suggest restrict the form which such a consciousness may take?

As outlined by Marx in the quote above, the most fundametnal "restriction" if you will, on the formation of social consciousness, that is the existing material condition and social relations of society. The exact form this consciousness takes and the process by which it comes about is constrained by the material conditions of society and the relations between the classes (that is to say, the level of class struggle and the form it takes).

Hope that answers your questions. If you have any more, please, don't hestitate to ask.

 

[lolokay]

Some questions I have (you don't need to answer them separately, or in great detail, or anything, and a couple of them have probably been answered already - I haven't read the whole thread, and find it a bit hard to read through the quoted sections, and other parts with political terminology):

How exactly would a communist society work? Is it necessary that it is anarchist/what degree of leadership would it have? How big would the society be?
Have there been communist societies in the past? Does a commune (wiki definition: "A small community, often rural, whose members share in the ownership of property, and in the division of labour") operate under communism?
To what degree do you see (/think is realistic for) communism being implemented (or what ever other word you wish to use here) in the (relatively near) future? How would communism come about - what process, actions taken by people etc.?

 

[Zeitgeist308]

a couple of them have probably been answered already - I haven't read the whole thread

Indeed, a lot of them (and more) have been discussed previously, though the serious discussion and real questions have be fragmented and swamped by stupidity. I suppose that's the nature of what we are discussing.

find it a bit hard to read through the quoted sections, and other parts with political terminology

That's perfectly understandable, but to a degree an inevitability. I will try my best to avoid the jargon in this reply (also If you have any other questions or want to chat these issues over in a more social atmosphere, feel free to PM me and we can chat via MSN.)

How exactly would a communist society work?

We can not plan out and describe in detail how such a society would look like an operate. Marxism is not creating utopias and trying to apply them in the "real world". Marxism begins from the real world, from society and the class struggle within it and from this experience comes to an understanding of the interest of the working class does not lie in the continuation of capitalism, which is a system which exploits them and leads to war, poverty and environmental degradation. But despite the fact that we Marxists are not utopians and do not like to sketch out alternative worlds in fiction, we still are able to have a basic grasp of what a communist society may look like.

In a communist society the "means of production" (that is the tools, machines, equipment, buildings, infrastructure, natural resources etc.) will no longer be the property of either individuals or the state, but rather the collective property of all of society. Classes, thus, will no longer exist as no group of individuals will have the power (by their ownership and control of the means of production) to force others to work for their own benefit.

Here people will labour freely and not in exchange for a money wage. Instead, all their needs will be provided for by drawing upon the "common pot" of social use-values (goods and services). All production will be planned to meet human needs with the plan being made democratically by the producers (society) as a whole

The state (in it's current form including parliamentary government, the armed forces, police, law courts etc.) will no longer exist. In their place will step the common "administration of things" (where the capitalist state is said to be the "administration of men") by the people as a whole.

Is it necessary that it is anarchist/what degree of leadership would it have?

In a communist society (which is in reality no different from an "Anarchist" society) class will not and can not exist. Leadership on the other hand is not synonymous with class. Leadership is not an evil in and of itself, even relations of authority are inevitable (to a degree) in all human relationships (ie. when my shoe is in need of repair I submit to the authority of a cobbler who is knowledgeable and skilled where I am not in the craft of shoe repair.

How big would the society be?

In answer to your question I will give the answer Marxists always have: Communism must be international. This is an inevitable result of the international nature of capitalism itself. Capitalism through its development required its self-expansion to the point where capitalist relations can not be found the world over, wih the world market linking every nation of the earth.

The other reason contributing to the necessarily international character of communism is of course physical necessity. By this we mean that you can not establish a society where abundance is a pre-condition and where all members can have a free access to all their needs within say a single a town, or a single nation.

Have there been communist societies in the past?

No. (Although Marxists do call primitive hunter gatherer societies "primitive communism" due to the absence of classes or of the state and distribution based on the need of each of the members of society.

Does a commune (wiki definition: "A small community, often rural, whose members share in the ownership of property, and in the division of labour") operate under communism?

Marx on the Paris Commune:

The Commune, was to be a working, not a parliamentary, body, executive and legislative at the same time...Instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to represent and repress the people in parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people constituted in communes, as individual suffrage serves every other employer in the search for workers, foremen and accountants for his business.


The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at any time. The majority of its members were naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class.... The police, which until then had been the instrument of the Government, was at once stripped of its political attributes, and turned into the responsible, and at all times revocable, agent of the Commune. So were the officials of all other branches of the administration. From the members of the Commune downwards, the public service had to be done at workmen's wages. The privileges and the representation allowances of the high dignitaries of state disappeared along with the high dignitaries themselves.... Having once got rid of the standing army and the police, the instruments of physical force of the old government, the Commune proceeded at once to break the instrument of spiritual suppression, the power of the priests.... The judicial functionaries lost that sham independence... they were thenceforward to be elective, responsible, and revocable.
​

Now whilst a lot of this still serves for Marxists as a model of the form the Dictatorship of the Proletariat will take, this has to an extent been superseded with the subsequent experience of the class. Today (at least in the Left-Communist current in which I identify) it is no longer the commune which serves as the basis of the dictatorship of the proletariat but the workers council.

To what degree do you see (/think is realistic for) communism being implemented (or what ever other word you wish to use here) in the (relatively near) future?

I believe that in the very near furture we will be seeing the upwell of the class struggle once again, following it's downturn in the 90's after the "death of communism" and the "end of hsitory". I think this upwell of struggle will inevitably bring with it revolutionary sentiment, the question of whether this will become materialised or lead to another deafeat for the class is aother question enitrely, one which we will only be able to answer in due time.

How would communism come about - what process, actions taken by people etc.

This is a very big and complex question and as such needs to be broken down if further discussion is to be had.


Communism can only come about by a political revolution. Parliament (which is an organ of bourgeois rule) can not be used by communists to bring about a fundamental change in the relations of production peacefully. For communism to “come about” a political revolution is required where by the proletariat, through their democratic organs of class rule, seize political power and systematically suppress reactionary and counter-revolutionary elements and expropriate the means of production from the ruling class and turning them into the collective property of the workers as a whole, transforming the economy away from the law of value and towards the rational and conscious management of society as a whole.


Now again I reiterate, this is a broad and complex question and my thoughts on this matter here are generalised and only in passing.


Hope that answers your questions!

 

[withoutaface]

There is no communism in China and there never was. Any Maoist will tell you this. They assert that "Socialism" existed during Mao's reign but this was quickly undone thanks to the economic reforms of Deng Xiaoping, with today's China being fully capitalist. I would persoanlly go beyond this and make the arguement (as the Left-Communists have traditionally done demonstrated by Aufheben in their series What was the USSR? which I linked to earlier) that China (as well as all the other "socialist states") never went beyond the capitalist mode of production.

China is not capitalist, nor is any other country in the world today. Pure capitalism implies a society where transactions are unregulated and property rights are upheld in the absolute.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

China is not capitalist, nor is any other country in the world today. Pure capitalism implies a society where transactions are unregulated and property rights are upheld in the absolute.

If you want to define capitalism as laissez-faire economic policy that is your own business and it has no bearing on the debate [even though I think you will find very, very few people (except Libertarians) who will claim that capitalism no longer exists ].

I am employing the term "Capitalism" as done by Marxists to refer to a historic mode of production characterised by private property in the means of production, the exploitation of the proletariat by means of wage-labour as the source surplus-labour and of value and the predominance of the "Law of Value".

BTW, in case you haven't noticed, you haven't replied to my post. Not of course that you have to though.

 

[CyanideChrist]

Zeitgeist, I also have a few questions and misunderstandings:

I'm confused as to who will run a communist country. You say that it will be run by society as a whole, but isn't that incredibly impractical? Theres enough red tape with the ammount of politicians we have now, but if the entire country was to be involved in its affairs, then wouldn't decisions take forever? There must be some kind of group that knows what they're doing to regulate and organise the country. This group will most likely end up abusing their power, as they become corrupted by it.

Also, I don't understand the incentive for working in a communist society. If I know I'm going to receive what I need, why bother working? I may as well lay around all day and let the others in society work for me (this would create classes, I suppose-those who work and those who do not).

I disagree with this statement: "no group of individuals will have the power (by their ownership and control of the means of production) to force others to work for their own benefit." This implies that a group of individuals (presumably the upper-class, who run big business and provide goods and services for the lower classes) somehow force others to work. This is not true. If you so chose, you do not have to work. However, you will only receive a very small income (government welfare), because you do not contribute anything to the process of production.

One last thing: what in the hell gives you the right to take, own and use something that somebody else worked hard for? Why should the people with higher skills support those with lower skills? Why should you be able to take somebodies land away from them when they legitimately earned enough money to buy it?

Please try and limit political jargon.

 

[_dhj_]

Fairly interesting discussion on the evolution of the moral consciousness of the left and the right:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html

Interesting. Great that he went through the experimental economics findings of Fehr & Gachter.

 

[sam04u]

One last thing: what in the hell gives you the right to take, own and use something that somebody else worked hard for?

You just made the case for communism right there. Good job.

Your other points however were somewhat in the right direction. A society simply can not work without a method by which decisions which effect the majority of people, can be made by a centralised figure or authority with a spokesperson. The problem with this is that authority needs to be with the people otherwise they can not control their decisions, moreso, those decisions need to benefit all people.

Legislation, Criminal and Civil Precedents, Order.

All these things steal from the individuals freedom in order to mantain society. With perfect freedom, society would not work. With perfect control, society is not worth working. Hence why there needs to be an intermediate. A society whereby executive decisions which favour all the people can be made, and at the same time must be dictated by the people through a centralised figure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_republic

 

[JaredR]

Terrorists target ill-advised ideological teenagers to use as mules detonating bombs in crowded markets, buses and schools.

 

[CyanideChrist]

You just made the case for communism right there. Good job.

? The case for communism is taking something that you do not deserve or have a right to take? Explain...

 

[TacoTerrorist]

^ The entire concept of capitalism is making as much money as you can with the least amount of risk and/or labour. You think rich CEOs get rich from hard work? Fuck off, they get rich from exploitation.

 

[zstar]

In a communist society the "means of production" (that is the tools,machines, equipment, buildings, infrastructure, natural resources etc.)will no longer be the property of either individuals or the state, butrather the collective property of all of society. Classes, thus, willno longer exist as no group of individuals will have the power (bytheir ownership and control of the means of production) to force othersto work for their own benefit.

Here people will labour freely and not in exchange for a money wage.Instead, all their needs will be provided for by drawing upon the"common pot" of social use-values(goods and services). All production will be planned to meet humanneeds with the plan being made democratically by the producers(society) as a whole

The state (in it's current form including parliamentary government, thearmed forces, police, law courts etc.) will no longer exist. In theirplace will step the common "administration of things" (where thecapitalist state is said to be the "administration of men") by thepeople as a whole.

People will not labour freely.

People need a reason, a motivation, an incentive to work otherwise nothing will run. The average person will not go the extra mile to study 4 yrs in a university if he/she knows that he/she will get the same amount as somebody who did far less work thus a classless society is not possible because then you have to give that person who is better educated more and so he/she becomes part of an upper class anyway.

It is a load of nonsense to say that factories and other things can function as a "collective", Once again that's Marxist utopian bullcrap that cannot see past reality that the reason why Marxism cannot work is because humans are greedy by nature.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

I'm confused as to who will run a communist country.

To clarify, the term "communist country" is a contradiction in terms. Communism must be international and is by definition stateless.

You say that it will be run by society as a whole, but isn't that incredibly impractical?

Potentially. However we could equally claim that capitalism is impractical and that communism presents massive gains in efficiency (ie. the destruction of the finance sector, the liberation of workers from arms manufacturing etc.)

Theres enough red tape with the ammount of politicians we have now, but if the entire country was to be involved in its affairs, then wouldn't decisions take forever?

So the solution is absolutist autocracy?

There must be some kind of group that knows what they're doing to regulate and organise the country. This group will most likely end up abusing their power, as they become corrupted by it.

If this is the case we must admit we are doomed. From now you are to recieve an education, find yourself a career in which to work for the next 40 years of your life, raise a family, retire, and then die all without raising an objection to your employer or to your government. Unless you do so your adding to the inefficiency, after all your boss and your dictator care for you and will look after your interests...

If I know I'm going to receive what I need, why bother working? I may as well lay around all day and let the others in society work for me

I think the possibility of the world descending into morbid laziness is a highly unlikely scenario. The fact of the matter is people labour for the mutual benefit of themselves and the society in which they live. Today, as Marx notes however, the idea that labour can be a fulfilling activity is rather foreign, an inevitable result of the "alienating" and "dehumanising" nature of labour.

What constitutes the alienation of labour?


Firstly, the fact that labour is external to the worker – i.e., does not belong to his essential being; that he, therefore, does not confirm himself in his work, but denies himself, feels miserable and not happy, does not develop free mental and physical energy, but mortifies his flesh and ruins his mind. Hence, the worker feels himself only when he is not working; when he is working, he does not feel himself. He is at home when he is not working, and not at home when he is working. His labour is, therefore, not voluntary but forced, it is forced labour. It is, therefore, not the satisfaction of a need but a mere means to satisfy needs outside itself. Its alien character is clearly demonstrated by the fact that as soon as no physical or other compulsion exists, it is shunned like the plague.


External labour, labour in which man alienates himself, is a labour of self-sacrifice, of mortification. Finally, the external character of labour for the worker is demonstrated by the fact that it belongs not to him but to another, and that in it he belongs not to himself but to another. Just as in religion the spontaneous activity of the human imagination, the human brain, and the human heart, detaches itself from the individual and reappears as the alien activity of a god or of a devil, so the activity of the worker is not his own spontaneous activity. It belongs to another, it is a loss of his self.


The result is that man (the worker) feels that he is acting freely only in his animal functions – eating, drinking, and procreating, or at most in his dwelling and adornment – while in his human functions, he is nothing more than animal.

It is true that eating, drinking, and procreating, etc., are also genuine human functions. However, when abstracted from other aspects of human activity, and turned into final and exclusive ends, they are animal. - Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844


​

However, when labour is transformed from the subjugation and enslavement of the individual to the fulfilment of his physical and intellectual capacities, there is not reason to suggest that labour will not be freely engaged in.

If you so chose, you do not have to work. However, you will only receive a very small income (government welfare)

Unless you wish to maintain that this is a practical alternative for the majority of the population (especially those this family to support etc.), the point is invalid.

However, I would like to go further than this by taking the very same arguement you put to me above: What if everyone decides not to work? What if everyone tommorow, decides to keep the product of their own labour and not forfeit it to their boss? I wonder if the populace would be motivated to live at a subsistence level all to avoid work and how government welfare will be handed out to the entire population until the resovior runs try...

Please, there are serious arguements to be made, but these are not them. Here are the answers (albeit some of them in an unsatisfactory form as a result of their already being answered in this thread prior to now), please do not ask me these sort of questions again.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

One last thing: what in the hell gives you the right to take, own and use something that somebody else worked hard for?

For fuck's sake, we aren't arguing that what somebody worked hard for should be taken away! Capitalism is a system based exactly on that, the appropriation of the labour of the working class in the form of surplus value (to put it in terms you will understand; "profit"). Capitalism is the organised robbery of the labour of the working class.

Why should the people with higher skills support those with lower skills?

Because they benefit from it. They have interest in collective labour and the freedom of disposing that labour as they wish as opposed to it being coerced and used to benefit alien powers.

Why should you be able to take somebodies land away from them when they legitimately earned enough money to buy it?

There is no such thing as legitimately acquired property. Property is theft

To Sam, I'm not interest in relying to this rubbish. I thought you were actually getting somewhere. Please read my recommendations.

Terrorists target ill-advised ideological teenagers to use as mules detonating bombs in crowded markets, buses and schools.

What does this have to do with the the topic at hand?

The case for communism is taking something that you do not deserve or have a right to take

No, this is a lie. This is the case for Capitalism. Please read my prior posts.

Zstar, as before I will be ignoring your post. Read a book and quit the ignorant bullshit.

 

[CyanideChrist]

^ The entire concept of capitalism is making as much money as you can with the least amount of risk and/or labour. You think rich CEOs get rich from hard work? Fuck off, they get rich from exploitation.

How do you think they got into the position of CEO in the first place? By sitting on their ass? Please...

Besides, exploitation is hard work.

To clarify, the term "communist country" is a contradiction in terms. Communism must be international and is by definition stateless.

Fine. You dodged the question. Who will run the communist world?

Potentially. However we could equally claim that capitalism is impractical and that communism presents massive gains in efficiency (ie. the destruction of the finance sector, the liberation of workers from arms manufacturing etc.)

You can make claims all day, but that won't improve the efficiency of a system run by billions of people.

So the solution is absolutist autocracy?

Nope, but the solution sure ain't a system run by billions of people...

However, when labour is transformed from the subjugation and enslavement of the individual to the fulfilment of his physical and intellectual capacities, there is not reason to suggest that labour will not be freely engaged in.

Fair enough. Nonetheless, I still think a reward proportional to effort is an important factor is persuading people to work.

Unless you wish to maintain that this is a practical alternative for the majority of the population (especially those this family to support etc.), the point is invalid.

I was making the point that labour is not forced to work. You make it sound as though employers are driving employees with whips!

However, I would like to go further than this by taking the very same arguement you put to me above: What if everyone decides not to work? What if everyone tommorow, decides to keep the product of their own labour and not forfeit it to their boss? I wonder if the populace would be motivated to live at a subsistence level all to avoid work and how government welfare will be handed out to the entire population until the resovior runs try...

They won't, because of the reward they receive from their labour. If they work harder, they receive a greater income, unlike in a communist system. Also, they (most likely) wouldn't create a product by witholding their labour, as other factors of production (capital, natural resources and enterprise) are necessary to create goods and services.

Please, there are serious arguements to be made, but these are not them. Here are the answers (albeit some of them in an unsatisfactory form as a result of their already being answered in this thread prior to now), please do not ask me these sort of questions again.

What are those arguments, pray tell? I'm not going to read through 20 pages (yet), so you could link me to some of the highlights/important points, if you want.

For fuck's sake, we aren't arguing that what somebody worked hard for should be taken away! Capitalism is a system based exactly on that, the appropriation of the labour of the working class in the form of surplus value

The working class are compensated for their labour in the form of wages.

(to put it in terms you will understand; "profit")

Don't be condescending.

Because they benefit from it. They have interest in collective labour and the freedom of disposing that labour as they wish as opposed to it being coerced and used to benefit alien powers.

So they benefit from their wealth being taken away from them and given to those who work less hard?

There is no such thing as legitimately acquired property. Property is theft

I assume you are talking about the fact that most (if not all) land originally belonged to indigenous people? Nonetheless, taking property from a thief is still stealing if you don't give it back to the rightful owner.

No, this is a lie. This is the case for Capitalism.

I'm afraid I don't quite understand. In what way is this the case for Capitalism? Employers take the labour offered by employees, turn it into something useful, and give wages as compensation. Communism, on the other hand, takes the land and means of production without compensation (this is theft, no?). It also takes the varying amounts of labour given by individuals and compensates them all equally, even if they did not contribute equal amounts of work.

 

[untouchablecuz]

The working class are compensated for their labour in the form of wages.

You sure?

Take your average 16 year old. Lets say he works at Hungry Jacks and earns nine dollars per hour. During busy periods he may make up to 60 burgers per hour (at least one burger per minute). Each of these burgers is sold at, lets assume, five dollars. This amounts to 300 dollars per hour. This child however, reaps only 3% of what he has produced.

Tell me now, is he truly compensated for his labour?

 

[ASNSWR127]

Communism (or rather the threat of it) has led to most of the things we as humans now take as sacred to our being (women in the workforce, good conditions etc etc) so to say it is "evil" is simply preposterous.

The over throw of the ruling elite in all facets of life is never a bad thing.

The cruel perversion of the original socialist/communist ideas as practised in the USSR is a shame however the basic premise is no different from that of the beacon of capatilism.

"that all men are created equal"

 

[Zeitgeist308]

How do you think they got into the position of CEO in the first place? By sitting on their ass? Please..

Quite frankly I don't give a shit how anyone got anywhere or how hard there job is, that does not justify my, or my fellow workers exploitation!

Fine. You dodged the question. Who will run the communist world?

No I didn't dodge the question. It has been answered, you yourself are repeating the answer. The world will be "run" by the working people themselves.

You can make claims all day, but that won't improve the efficiency of a system run by billions of people.

Likewise, you can criticise an immaterial world all day, calling it efficient or unworkable or whatever you like, but that doesn't stop the class struggle or it's inevitable (if one may use the word) outcomes.

Nope, but the solution sure ain't a system run by billions of people...

Well CC, I want you to do something for me. Please, take your obsession with efficiency and carry it to it's logical conclusion. Whenever you have a problem with your teacher, do not object as you will be creating inefficiency. When you are working and your boss forces you to perform dangerous and illegal work, do not object because you will be creating inefficiency. When the government decides to go to war and reintroduce conscription and you are called up to die, do not object because you will be creating inefficiency.

I on the other hand, do not give a fuck how much inefficiency I create for my boss or "my" government. I want a say and I will have it at any cost.

Fair enough. Nonetheless, I still think a reward proportional to effort is an important factor is persuading people to work.

The incentive will lie in improvements in their own life, improvements in their own living conditions and the living conditions of others achievable through collective, free participatory labour.

I was making the point that labour is not forced to work. You make it sound as though employers are driving employees with whips!

Which is not far from the reality considering practices such as intimidation, physical abuse, forced overtime, lay-off and other threats to whistle blowers and organisers. When you have a family to feed and need work, tell me then what is and isn't forced labour.

They won't, because of the reward they receive from their labour. If they work harder, they receive a greater income, unlike in a communist system.

You have no idea do you? Does it not occur to you that if everyone where to lay down in a communist society the social pool of consumption would try up. People would be compelled to work for their own good and the good of society.

What are those arguments, pray tell? I'm not going to read through 20 pages (yet), so you could link me to some of the highlights/important points, if you want.

Or you could just look for them yourself. I've answered these same questions before and I am not sifting through pages of stupidity in order to find the interesting titbits for you.

The working class are compensated for their labour in the form of wages.

Please refer to "Untouchablecuz'" reply to this above. He has presents a very simplified example to disprove this.

Don't be condescending.

I'm not. You asked for no jargon and that's what I'm giving. Most people aren't familiar with the terms "surplus-value" and "surplus-labour". Chris, you try to do the decent thing and people are never happy...

So they benefit from their wealth being taken away from them and given to those who work less hard?

You sound surprised! This is the argument made by libertarians and anarcho-capitalists in favour of sweat-shops .

In all seriousness, yes and no. To put it very simply, collective, social labour is very efficient. By engaging in it people are able to raise overall productivity, providing more not only from themselves but also the entire community. It's a win-win situation (Just like for example when moose will form a circle to protect against wolfs. You might argue that the individual moose might not want to form the circle, but it benefits himself and the herd as a whole to do so for their own protection).

I assume you are talking about the fact that most (if not all) land originally belonged to indigenous people?

No I'm not actually. Matter of fact you will find many indigenous people from across the world knew no concept of ownership or property (particularly of land), as demonstrated in the excerpt from Rosa Luxemburg a few pages back.

Nonetheless, taking property from a thief is still stealing if you don't give it back to the rightful owner.

And what if I recognise no concept of a "rightful owner"?

For your sake I will repost and argument here I made in another thread:

Your right to property ownership directly impinges upon my own. By owning property you are in effect restricting my own ability to own property as well. Not only this but by your right to property ownership you are able to coerce me under physical necessity to labour for your own profit so that I may live even if it is at a mere sustenance level necessary for the reproduction of my labour power. Property is theft.

Employers take the labour offered by employees, turn it into something useful, and give wages as compensation.

By giving wages to their employees the employer is "short-selling" the worker. Note the example above. This is the origin of profit, that is, the under-compensation in the form of wages of the labour-power sold to the employee.

Communism, on the other hand, takes the land and means of production without compensation (this is theft, no?).

It is theft in so far as you continue to recognise bourgeois "property rights"

It also takes the varying amounts of labour given by individuals and compensates them all equally, even if they did not contribute equal amounts of work.

1. This is a misrepresentation, distribution will be based on "need" and not on equality for the sake of equality

2. Meanwhile, capitalist distribution may pay me $20 less for an 8hr shift than a 19 year old because I am a cheaper commodity (see labour-power) despite the fact that I may labour with greater intensity or be more productive.


Now, let me say this once and for all: I am at the end of my tether with these questions. I have made 60 posts in this thread alone and it has run on in the form of a 20 v 1 pissing contest for 21 pages. I think I have been polite enough with my answering of these same juvenile questions posed again and again in an aggressive and couldn't-care-less manner. If any one has serious questions and discussion (such as KFunk and yBmL) I will be delighted to answer them, however everyone else you wants to maintain these childish non-sense questions, please flick back through the thread, get you answers and if they aren't satisfying please remember the point I have been emphasising that we do not and can not work out every detail of the "workability" of communism. I am not interested in dictating the recipes for the cooks of tomorrow!

 

[CyanideChrist]

You sure?

Take your average 16 year old. Lets say he works at Hungry Jacks and earns nine dollars per hour. During busy periods he may make up to 60 burgers per hour (at least one burger per minute). Each of these burgers is sold at, lets assume, five dollars. This amounts to 300 dollars per hour. This child however, reaps only 3% of what he has produced.

Tell me now, is he truly compensated for his labour?

It depends how hard it is to make the burger. Also, he would still be paid nine dollars an hour if he made no burgers during that hour, in which case he is overcompensated for his labour. Obviously, the system isn't perfect, and never will be, bu government intervention can help to lower unfair compensation (minimum wage, etc).

No I didn't dodge the question. It has been answered, you yourself are repeating the answer. The world will be "run" by the working people themselves.

Yeah, that'll work. A system run by billions of people, all with different ideas and values.

Well CC, I want you to do something for me. Please, take your obsession with efficiency and carry it to it's logical conclusion. Whenever you have a problem with your teacher, do not object as you will be creating inefficiency. When you are working and your boss forces you to perform dangerous and illegal work, do not object because you will be creating inefficiency. When the government decides to go to war and reintroduce conscription and you are called up to die, do not object because you will be creating inefficiency.

Of course I would object in those situations. Nevertheless, the inefficiency created by my objection is far, far less than the inefficiency created by a society run by billions of different individuals.

You have no idea do you? Does it not occur to you that if everyone where to lay down in a communist society the social pool of consumption would try up. People would be compelled to work for their own good and the good of society.

Some, or most people would, no doubt, but some would take advantage of the system and do nothing, while still receiving "what they need".

Also, who decides what people "need". The working class as a whole? A select few (hence creating a 'class')? The individual person?

I'm not. You asked for no jargon and that's what I'm giving. Most people aren't familiar with the terms "surplus-value" and "surplus-labour". Chris, you try to do the decent thing and people are never happy...

You unnecessarily added "to put it in terms you will understand". This implies that I did not understand what you had previously typed (I did, for the record ). But never mind, it doesn't really matter.

And what if I recognise no concept of a "rightful owner"?

For your sake I will repost and argument here I made in another thread:

Your right to property ownership directly impinges upon my own. By owning property you are in effect restricting my own ability to own property as well. Not only this but by your right to property ownership you are able to coerce me under physical necessity to labour for your own profit so that I may live even if it is at a mere sustenance level necessary for the reproduction of my labour power. Property is theft.

And what if I recognise no concept of "common ownership"?

Your right to common property ownership directly impinges upon my own. By commonly owning property you are in effect restricting my own ability to own property as well. Not only this but by your right to common property ownership you are able to coerce me under physical necessity to labour so that I may live even if it is at a mere sustenance level necessary for the reproduction of my labour power. Communism is theft.

c wat i did thar?

Furthermore, in what way does me owning the land my house is on "coerce [you] under physical necessity to labour for [my] profit so that [you] may live even if it is at a mere sustenance level necessary for the reproduction of [your] labour power"?

1. This is a misrepresentation, distribution will be based on "need" and not on equality for the sake of equality

Who determines "need"?

I have made 60 posts in this thread alone and it has run on in the form of a 20 v 1 pissing contest for 21 pages.

Did you honestly expect anything else when you began?

I think I have been polite enough with my answering of these same juvenile questions posed again and again in an aggressive and couldn't-care-less manner. If any one has serious questions and discussion (such as KFunk and yBmL) I will be delighted to answer them, however everyone else you wants to maintain these childish non-sense questions, please flick back through the thread, get you answers and if they aren't satisfying please remember the point I have been emphasising that we do not and can not work out every detail of the "workability" of communism. I am not interested in dictating the recipes for the cooks of tomorrow!

What's that Lassie? Did Zeitgeist just create a class division?

If we're not trying to work out the workability of communism, what are we trying to work out? What's the point of discussing the theory of communism if it will never work? What the fuck do you want to discuss?