Communists.

dreamlogic wrote: »

Well you're the one who formulated the question as "what do you do if you work in a factory". So I answered with a rhetorical question to begin my answer. Please don't try to set it up like I was the one who formulated the question that way! And then change your original question :rolleyes:

Sorry?

The question I posed wasnt to do do with individual workers, more so how communist society would produce products as a whole.

dreamlogic wrote: »

Well again it wouldn't be vastly different from current human motives if you think about it.

So its the same....

dreamlogic wrote: »

Except that the element of greed is deincentivized.

...but completely different.

Look lets face it, most workers go into work not because of some higher theory on the ethics of good work, they want to make bob. By removing the element of "greed," I assume you are removing pay packets. So where does the motivation come from?

In a truly capitalist system thew most profitable companies come to great power, might I remind you the three most profitable goods in the world are Guns, Narcotic Drugs, and Sex, granted you could have a pretty good party with all those but it's not the basis of a good country.

most of the arguments for capitalism look at the poverty of communist countries and proclaim that communism caused it, "because everybody's lazy and poor". You must understand Communism was never given as firm a footing in history as Capitalism. Communism is a relatively recent type of economic thinking.

Capitalism is an evolved form bartering, "one goat for one blanket etc etc"
and it is obvious and simple, by the time thoughts of communism begun to emerge the were already millionaires and countries dependent on the system of exploitation that capitalism requires, and they fought against it. Places like Russia were demonized, (Remember Rocky IV), America gave financial aid to anti Communist parties in Eastern European countries, gave military aid to anyone involved in conflict with communist countries (including the taliban), and all manner of propaganda to make you believe communism doesn't work.

In communism, proper communism, well managed Communism, everyone has a job, education, home, health care, everything you need and self respect. tell that to everyone below the poverty line, or the people who have to pay $20 a pill for lifesaving medicine. What a wonderful capitalism we live in.

Also, answer me this question,

Have you illegally downloaded copyrighted music??

Seems like File SHARING is illegal because it's not profitable.

Pablo Sanchez

Soviet/Russian communism was always going to be up against it. As the system was not global (where each individual area of the world produced to its local strengths) the russians were trying to be all things to all men.

Rapidly urbanising a hugly agrarian society in an effort to compete with industrial power houses like the British and the Germans, at the expense of their farming idustry, was never going to allow a society built on anything but rapidly shifting sand.

smegmar wrote: »

You must understand Communism was never given as firm a footing in history as Capitalism. Communism is a relatively recent type of economic thinking.

It was given 70 years in Russia. If that not adequate, how much time do you want, how much time of poor economics and crap living conditions, before communism can be de-bunked?

smegmar wrote: »

Places like Russia were demonized, (Remember Rocky IV)

And do you really think the Russians didnt demonise the Americans?

smegmar wrote: »

America gave financial aid to anti Communist parties in Eastern European countries, gave military aid to anyone involved in conflict with communist countries (including the taliban), and all manner of propaganda to make you believe communism doesn't work.

And Russia also gave aid and propaganda to Easter Europeans. And look who won. So I'd imagine Russia are more guilty in this regard.

smegmar wrote: »

In communism, proper communism, well managed Communism

And there lies the problem. What is "proper" communism?

And who defines what is "well-managed"? Bearing mind Stalins policies for managing population and dissenters.

smegmar wrote: »

the people who have to pay $20 a pill for lifesaving medicine.

Well its a lot better than communist Russia where there wasnt any medicine.

silverharp

smegmar wrote: »

In communism, proper communism, well managed Communism, everyone has a job, education, home, health care, everything you need and self respect. tell that to everyone below the poverty line, or the people who have to pay $20 a pill for lifesaving medicine. What a wonderful capitalism we live in.

Thats a fantasy , what economic mechanism allows for the system to be well managed?

This post has been deleted.

And that why we've landed with lots of people (led by Joe Higgins) demanding the government provides services such as Transport, Bin Collections, Electricity etc etc even though the government is of times grossly inefficient at managing them.

Instead of people going for privatization we just have more and more candidates promising to "change,"to be more "honest," and "cost-effective." But its all the same as weve had. The irony is the most people who offer change plan to change nothing.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

My biggest problem with communist theory, is that in practice, and with many contemporary rural survivals to illustrate, modes of production have co-existed quite well - Romania for example - primitive communist (by Hindess and Hirsts ideal type) social form, communal labour/joint tenancy, collective appropriation and simple divison of labour, with a concurrent system of capitalistic exchange for surplus commodity sale to generate money.

I dont reflect on it much, but to my mind, this seems like the most viable form, to resolve the recurring issues above of coerscion (the manner in which donegalfella suggested). It is also worth noting that in many instances, the primitive commune was not a result of post-colonial rationalization, but a functional adaptation (including Germany and Russia-disregarding archaic forms for a moment).

Which is why, I must admit I have trouble reconciling contemporary notions of communism with this - the historical form had/has proven its relative stability to a point (I dont think dependency arguments hold water, even under these circumstances), and I just cant see, if I am interpreting it correctly, the need for centalized, planned production on the scale suggested.

Just to ground it historically for a moment - I can qualify the Romanian, German and Russian examples if you wish.

Perhaps others can respond with more contemporary examples, as my own knowledge is limited in this respect

This post has been deleted.

This post has been deleted.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, just to ground it historically - and to make the distinction between modes of production and exchange

Feudal tenure, or primitive communist with capitalist distribution networks in late feudal Ireland for example

Romania, which experienced many forms, with spatial and temporal variation (all concurrent) - Tribal administration, corvée labour, and feudal monied rent - again with developed regional distribution networks and manifold settlement characteristics

Co-existence is absolutely possible - the biggest challenges to interpreting the subsumption of the commune come mainly from dependency theorists who have ignored the above duality, so I dont accept the argument that capitalism inevitably incorporates

dreamlogic

turgon wrote: »

Sorry?

The question I posed ...

"The question you posed" was NOT one single question and it is unfair of you to try and suggest so!

For clarity, here is how "the question you posed" evolved over the course of a few posts:

1 - "Because it seems to me that communism ties people down in their innovation. If Im working in a car factory and I suddenly think up of a new type of engine, what do I do?"

2 - " You dont do anything. You put in work perfecting the idea, patenting it and then licensing it on to manufacturers. Thus being rewarded for your ingenuity."

3 - "...wasnt to do do with individual workers, more so how communist society would produce products as a whole. "

So what you are obviously doing here is changing your question each time; and each time an answer is given, you maintain that it is all one question really, and that the other person is avoiding "the question you posed", which - at last count - had morphed into #3 listed above. They are 3 separate and distinct questions turgon! The first one is about a factory worker. The second is about an individual who may or may not be a worker. The third is - in your own words - about "how communist society would produce products as a whole"!

If you intended to ask only one question, then if you are really interested in exploring the issue, the sensible thing to do would be to retract your original wording and attempt to clarify what you really mean to say. I am sorry for being so blunt here, but you cannot expect people to be mindreaders!

turgon wrote: »

dreamlogic wrote: »

Well again it wouldn't be vastly different from current human motives if you think about it.

So its the same....

turgon wrote: »

dreamlogic wrote: »

Except that the element of greed is deincentivized.

..but completely different.

As you can see I have emphasised the relevant phrases we each employed so that it can be seen how churlish and reactionary your responses are...

turgon wrote: »

Look lets face it, most workers go into work not because of some higher theory on the ethics of good work, they want to make bob.

So where on the list of priorities do you place what you call "ethics of good work"? We've already established that "making bob" is the top priority.
And out of curiousity what do you even mean by "ethics of good work"? Are you referring to quality control, human relationships, ... what ?

turgon wrote: »

By removing the element of "greed," I assume you are removing pay packets.

Well you assume incorrectly.

turgon wrote: »

So where does the motivation come from?

Considering your unwillingness sofar to engage in a fair and openminded debate - even though I have been answering your questions in a fair manner - maybe I could be excused for declining to address this question, (and any further questions you may have, if that's your level of your engaging in debate).
And before you interject to accuse me of declining to answer because there is no answer or it's because you are correct etc, I will hasten to add that if anyone else wants to put those same questions, but who doesn't wish to twist and distort a person's answers in some petty playground-style of oneupmanship(which doesn't get anyone anywhere), I am willing to attempt to provide answers and/or participate in an exchange of views.

dreamlogic wrote: »

"The question you posed" was NOT one single question and it is unfair of you to try and suggest so!

Well if you didnt saunter on to the thread at page 21, you would realise there was one question that being how does communism produce products. The examples I used were kitchen utensils and musical instruments, specifically spatulas. Please read the rest of the thread if your going to be throwing allegations like above.

How does communism produce goods based on need? Define "need."

dreamlogic wrote: »

I am sorry for being so blunt here, but you cannot expect people to be mindreaders!

Reading the discussion so far, as you have failed to do, does not constitute mind reading.

dreamlogic wrote: »

We've already established that "making bob" is the top priority.

Are you saying it isnt?

dreamlogic wrote: »

And out of curiousity what do you even mean by "ethics of good work"?

I am referring to the way some people, like my teaching father, go to work and work to the best of their ability for no other benefit other than a feeling he has a moral obligation to. He oft times works overtime in school and at home on his laptop. He goes way beyond the required standard accepted of primary teachers, and gets no reward for this. He sees working way over what is expected to be ethical.

dreamlogic wrote: »

And before you interject to accuse me of declining to answer because there is no answer or it's because you are correct etc, I will hasten to add that if anyone else wants to put those same questions, but who doesn't wish to twist and distort a person's answers in some petty playground-style of oneupmanship(which doesn't get anyone anywhere), I am willing to attempt to provide answers and/or participate in an exchange of views.

For the third time, read the thread. Both Donegalfella and asdasd were asking the exact same question before you joined in.

BroomBurner

I've been following this thread for a while and I know I'm coming in late, but I've just recently finished reading Stasiland (great book, btw) and have read previously on Russia, the Gulags and also about communism, including Plato's ideal of Communism.

I think the idea of it can be a sound one, providing it is within a small group of people that are all of the same mind, have the same wishes and are free to leave if they wish.

Unfortunately, this does not happen when it comes to running an entire country. Communism is quite a suppressive regime. In order for it to work, you can't have detractors.

I would agree with Turgon, Donegalfella et al that if people on here would like to be part of a communist society, that they should either pack their bags and move to Russia, Korea or China, or find their own little space of land that they can set up their own mini-commune.

As for government, democracy trumps all. There is no better alternative.

This post has been deleted.

BroomBurner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well, that depends on the type of socialist government they vote in. If it's a social democratic/welfare state, then it can work, providing they have a lot of natural resources and the ability to raise funds in the old fashioned way of selling. I'm thinking along the lines of Nordic countries with this in mind.

As for socialist nationalist, then it's time to leave the country while you can.

BroomBurner wrote: »

As for government, democracy trumps all. There is no better alternative.

Please take note that Communism is a form of economic structure, It is NOT a form of administration. How money moves and how decisions are made are two separate things (although both influence each other).

I would also like to point out that like all systems democracy has it's benefits and it's problems, the larger the democracy the larger the bureaucracy, which slows down everything, and in times when a clear direction and immediate action are required it may not be the best choice in government.

smegmar wrote: »

Please take note that Communism is a form of economic structure, It is NOT a form of administration.

What?

Of course it is, a very specific form of which much of this thread has spent examining

brianthebard

turgon wrote: »

So when DF was proposing his completely anarchist state he made the valid point that a group could voluntarily get together and set up a communist state. Rather than forcing us all to join against our will.

What happens the people who don't want to live in an anarchist state?

efla wrote: »

What?

Of course it is, a very specific form of which much of this thread has spent examining

see this is why we need to educate people on what communism actually is. People who don't really understand how it evolved, the logic used and the exact inner workings start to preach against it because this capitalistic world is all they know.

brianthebard wrote: »

What happens the people who don't want to live in an anarchist state?

What kind of state do they want to live in? Surely they can create it themselves voluntarily?

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard

turgon wrote: »

What kind of state do they want to live in? Surely they can create it themselves voluntarily?

The state that already exists. What happens those people?

DF are you now endorsing Engels, after mocking that particular quote and thus everything associated with it?

dreamlogic

turgon wrote: »

dreamlogic wrote: »

"The question you posed" was NOT one single question and it is unfair of you to try and suggest so!

Well if you didnt saunter on to the thread at page 21, you would realise there was one question that being how does communism produce products.

I did read the entire thread turgon. In fact I never enter into a discussion without reading the thread beforehand. That would be kind of rude. May I ask where in any of my posts did I say I didn't read the thread; or where did I indicate somehow that I had not read the thread?
And how does one "saunter" on an internet forum I'd like to know :pac:

As to your question about "producing products", what does that even mean? The word "product" derives from the word "produce". One is a noun. One is a verb. This is not primary school though.
I would suggest that if you are looking for the answer to a question, give the question you want to ask a little bit of thought beforehand and then we might get somewhere...

turgon wrote: »

The examples I used were kitchen utensils and musical instruments, specifically spatulas.

Perfectly valid examples. No argument there. What about them though?

turgon wrote: »

Please read the rest of the thread if your going to be throwing allegations like above.

Again asking me to read the thread? I'm telling you for the second time that I already read the thread before joining in.

"Throwing allegations" ? Riggghht :cool:

turgon wrote: »

dreamlogic wrote: »

I am sorry for being so blunt here, but you cannot expect people to be mindreaders!

Reading the discussion so far, as you have failed to do, does not constitute mind reading.

Again about reading the thread? That's 3 times you've said it now over the course of a short few sentences.

turgon wrote: »

dreamlogic wrote: »

We've already established that "making bob" is the top priority.

Are you saying it isnt?

Obviously that's what I'm saying. I have said this at least twice already. Clearly and in plain English too. Others earlier in the thread have also pointed out that wealth accumulation is not a top priority. How many times do you need this repeated to you before you are able to accept it as an answer and stop repeating yourself? If you disagree with this, then logically go on from there to state why you disagree, and ask another question leading on from that.

turgon wrote: »

dreamlogic wrote: »

And out of curiousity what do you even mean by "ethics of good work"?

I am referring to the way some people, like my teaching father, go to work and work to the best of their ability for no other benefit other than a feeling he has a moral obligation to. He oft times works overtime in school and at home on his laptop. He goes way beyond the required standard accepted of primary teachers, and gets no reward for this. He sees working way over what is expected to be ethical.

Has it not occurred to you that maybe he enjoys his job, and that job satisfaction is its own reward? Many teachers enjoy their job and see it as a vocation. My sister is in the same profession and she loves it.

turgon wrote: »

For the third time, read the thread.

Nah that's 4 times you've actually said it now :P You're still wrong though, even after saying the same thing 4 times. Maybe if you say it a 5th time, that might do the trick.

turgon wrote: »

Both Donegalfella and asdasd were asking the exact same question before you joined in.

So are you saying I'm not welcome to join in the discussion? If that's the case then why don't you start your own private discussion forum and discuss this issue in a closed environment with a "no trespassers" sign on the front?

dreamlogic wrote: »

As to your question about "producing products", what does that even mean?

Playstation is a product. Sony produces Playstation. Sony produces a product. Is that ok? Or would you like to send more time on semantics rather than the topic?

dreamlogic wrote: »

Perfectly valid examples. No argument there. What about them though?

You see this is what we were talking about on the thread. BtB made a criticism of capitalism in that a surplus is produced. Also the others said it was ridiculous that we had 20 manufacturers making cars. Also they want people "de-alienated" from their work.

So bearing in mind these are the problems to be solved, how does supply work in communism. How do we know how many of what to make? If people are to be de-alienated, does that mean they must see the finish product? Surely this will reduce efficiency? etc etc.

dreamlogic wrote: »

Others earlier in the thread have also pointed out that wealth accumulation is not a top priority.

So what is?

dreamlogic wrote: »

Has it not occurred to you that maybe he enjoys his job, and that job satisfaction is its own reward?

Let me be the judge of the man I have lived with since I was born.

dreamlogic wrote: »

So are you saying I'm not welcome to join in the discussion?

Your very welcome. The more communists on the thread the higher the probability for some answers about the practicalities of communsim.

dreamlogic

turgon wrote: »

Playstation is a product. Sony produces Playstation. Sony produces a product. Is that ok? Or would you like to send more time on semantics rather than the topic?

Fair enough. I get that. I still think we need to be more specific about what we're asking though..

turgon wrote: »

Your very welcome. The more communists on the thread the higher the probability for some answers about the practicalities of communsim.

turgon wrote: »

BtB made a criticism of capitalism in that a surplus is produced. Also the others said it was ridiculous that we had 20 manufacturers making cars. Also they want people "de-alienated" from their work.

turgon wrote: »

If people are to be de-alienated, does that mean they must see the finish product?

Well first of all let me say that I'd hesitate to identify myself as a communist. I am a critic of the capitalist system because of the fact that it is fundamentally undemocratic. What I mean by that is that it is hierarchical and people do not have power(financial, moral etc) commensurate with the actual work that they put into what is produced. Which should be at equivalent(or almost) to the bosses power IMO. I am against concentration of power in one individual, or one entity(central government for example). I think that society would be a far better(nicer) and more productive place if power was distributed rather than only being the preserve of the few. This is the crux of alienation - people not having a say basically.

It is a whole attitude about how things should be done in capitalism. It's almost as if the people at the top are afraid of people who are further down in the hierarchy. And vice versa. This attitude is contagious and propagates distrust and suspicion of each others motives. Thus people who are alienated will also see the world as "each man for himself". After all you can hardly expect them not to start thinking this way, if their leaders and mentors behave in this way, they have been educated this way since childhood etc. People are told everywhere you look in the business world that it's dog-eat-dog and that if you can't be greedier than the next person, someone will trample over you to get ahead; that all this is inevitable.

Many people would have you believe that unless you are super-greedy, you can't be "a success" in life. If you think about it, there is something very wrong with this message. I admit that a certain amount of greed up to a certain point is natural and healthy. We all need the basics as well as what could be called extras(non-essentials).. And we all need to be fairly remunerated for the work that we contribute. Capitalism goes beyond and actually distorts and manipulates this natural human element of greed for its own ends. In my opinion anyway. If other aspects of what makes us human were incentivized, and the emphasis was removed from the element of greed, our whole consciousness as a race would change too.

In what I've just said I've told you more or less what I think about alienation. It is a very important concept that deserves discussion and ought not be glossed over.

Actually the biggest problem with this discussion - and this nothing at all to do with the participants themselves - is that the topic is way too large and there are so many questions to be asked and each question deserves a thread of its own. Maybe someone - if they want to disuss this more - could start a new thread on say "alienation", or any other topic that warrants discussion in its own right... Another topic that could be a whole thread(or series of threads) would be along the lines of market abolitionism(or aspects of this) which Joycey was talking about earlier. The topic "Communism" is simply too large a topic to do justice to each concept without taking from the topic as a whole. Anyway I am pressed for time here... Turgon I will get back to the rest of the questions you raise later. (Also I have to go back and read the last couple of pages of what other people wrote..) Or - if someone wants to start a new thread on those topics - I'll continue in that new thread.

asdasd

Has it not occurred to you that maybe he enjoys his job, and that job satisfaction is its own reward? Many teachers enjoy their job and see it as a vocation. My sister is in the same profession and she loves it.

Teachers enjoy their job so much they demand to be paid a multiple of the common man's salary. You communists want an egalitarian society? To do that in the private sector would take massive coerion and expropriation of resources, taking the property of the farmer, the businessman, the pension holder.

So lets do in the Public Service.

Too big a challenge? Lets do it for teachers and Academics only. All teachers and lecturers get

1) The industrial wage regardless of time served.
2) Same wages as the cleaners and other workers emplyed in the school/college.
3) Standard State pension.

All communists on this thread to start a website to demand communism for teachers, and academics.

I mean, that bit - one little profession in the PS - should be the easy testpool for communism..And can we really see a Marxist academic complain?

smegmar wrote: »

see this is why we need to educate people on what communism actually is. People who don't really understand how it evolved, the logic used and the exact inner workings start to preach against it because this capitalistic world is all they know.

Sounds lovely