Do you know any Communists?

Jonny7 · 24-02-2014 10:48PM

coolemon wrote: »

With Maslow?

Please explain.

We're stepping into a strange realm here but..

Money to buy food, drink, shelter, (education), books for research, pen and paper to create pyramids and theories..

What you are talking about is a Communist State

Not communism

Different things altogether. Apples and oranges.

Yes one fails in reality, the only works in theory

coolemon · 24-02-2014 10:54PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

Money to buy food, drink, shelter, (education), books for research, pen and paper to create pyramids and theories..

Money is the means of exchange - not the motivation in and of itself.

People are not working for money, but that which money can buy.

And that's why its not on Maslows motivational pyramid.

Yes one fails in reality, the only works in theory

Well, both of those assertions are highly debatable.

Iwasfrozen · 24-02-2014 11:04PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

All oil is basically hundreds of millions of years of stored up energy from the sun - all energy on Earth comes from the sun, in one form or another, and the sun isn't going away for a long time.

No but our oil is, very fast and what do you propose will replace it?

Just because some people have a nihilistic view of our future, doesn't mean we should cement that nihilistic view as reality, by being utterly wreckless with what we've got right now - that's just utterly lazy thinking, which deliberately avoids dealing with any of the problems we are facing as a species, and is used as a weak excuse for justifying actions that generate a lot of short-term profit for some people, while offloading long-term cost onto everyone else.

When did I ever argue otherwise?

benway wrote: »

Safe to assume that from the mid-40s 'till the late 70s / mid-80s Soviet Commisars and apparatchiks were saying exactly the same thing. Except in Russian.

No but the White Russians were, and they were right. The red Russians were saying exactly what Kyuss, Cooleman and Karma_ are saying that human nature can be changed and we're all going to be Soviet Supermen in the bright future living in the worker's paradise.

sin_city · 24-02-2014 11:06PM

coolemon wrote: »

I dont know where you got that idea from.

Marx advocated the abolition of money and its replacement with 'Labour Time Vouchers' in a transition towards a 'free access' society.

Communism has no money, and therefore no system of banking.

As for the OP, yes I know many communists. Me included.

I'll tell you where I got it from...The Manifesto of the Communist Party...Do you know it? Plank 5?

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

You say you're a communist....Do you even know what communism is?

So now, when you say you don't know where I got that idea from...Have I just opened you up to the planks?

Communism has been tried a lot more than Libertarianism, last I checked the USSR died, China had to change and has since benefited from being practically non communist, and even though the USA is turning into a socialist country is it standing after it's libertarianism type revolution of 1775.

Please read some books

sarkozy · 24-02-2014 11:14PM

America is turning into a socialist country? Are you serious? And if you disagree with Obama's reforms, what precisely do you disagree on.

Adam Smith, father of American capitalism was actually a lot less capitalist and a lot more concerned with the negative effects of capitalism than his dogmatic ideologues like people to know.

Please read some books.

SimonLynch · 24-02-2014 11:20PM

Denis, sits down the corner of the Corner House in Windy Arbour and will always welcome a conversation. He's quite interesting when you start naming names/traitors.

Iwasfrozen · 24-02-2014 11:21PM

coolemon wrote: »

Yes, of course there is supply and demand. And scarcity.

But rather than seeing them as a process of individual achievement - they are seen as historical and economic material processes.

The socio-economic structure requires, oh, 10,000 doctors. And therefore the socio-economic production of doctors reflects that. Similarly, society needs 200,000 cleaners - and therefore - a cultural form is shaped to produce people with that class disposition to fill those positions.

So rather than seeing a cleaner as being a cleaner because of some personal failure or attribute - Marxism explains it in material terms - of economic requirements. Not individual achievement or failure.

The job is a commodity on the job market. The position of Doctor is one that is sought after (in high demand) and thus the cost of attaining that commodity is very high (years of education required).

Conversely the position of cleaner is a job in low demand and the cost of attaining that commodity is practically non-existent.

It's all just simple supply and demand. How would you organize the job market to remove scarcity?

In an ideal world. In reality, those who get the job get it for a myriad of complex reasons. Timing (age, economic conditions, seeing the advert before others), their habitus, social connections and so forth.

Academic results are a product of obtaining exclusive cultural capital. Not everybody can obtain that capital, and such capital is actively guarded by the social classes who maintain it.

In our world (not ideal) a person gets the job based on their academic credentials. These academic credentials are a resource that cannot be bought only earned through hard work.

In an ideal world. But the reality is very different. The class system is stable. Social mobility is limited and class reproduction is evident.

http://globalsociology.com/files/2012/01/Comparing-Economic-Mobility-1fhl7b2.png

They clearly aren't stable looking at that chart. Denmark especially is in good shape.

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2010/10-06/05.htm/twp10-06-17.gif

In capitalism, money is the means of exchange - the means of obtaining that which motivates us as humans. So if someone is actively seeking 'social status' - or the reproduction of their social-status-disposition, they will do this by seeking to occupy exclusive social positions [in capitalism]. These positions give monetary reward which are exchanged for that which they seek.

With communism, the system would be self-regulatory (in my view). In communism, people are motivated for the exact same reasons. Social value would be obtained from exclusive social positions. There is less to be gained, for example, by working in a job where social recognition is less than in a position which gives high recognition and status.

Therefore, people would be actively striving to acquire jobs which meet our human motivations. But not everyone can have them, like capitalism.

We're going around in circles so let's cut to the chase. How would the system regulate itself within communism? What if you have 21 firemen and only 3 pressure controllers and water fillers when the demand is for 9 of each? How do you regulate society to satisfy demand? How do you entice those firemen to retrain?

KarlMarks · 24-02-2014 11:23PM

sarkozy wrote: »

America is turning into a socialist country? Are you serious? And if you disagree with Obama's reforms, what precisely do you disagree on.

Adam Smith, father of American capitalism was actually a lot less capitalist and a lot more concerned with the negative effects of capitalism than his dogmatic ideologues like people to know.

Please read some books.

The idea that Smith was a libertarian, especially of the Austrian School type is preposterous.

I wish that those of us on the Left would stop 'lasering in' on the typical Wall Street greed, and using it as the only example of the gross largesse of Capitalism. To stop the blinkers coming down there is a need to offer compelling alternatives at a micro level.

I'd also suggest that we need to come up with compelling arguments as to how we don't always practice what we preach. I've a computer that is made almost exclusively from the results of Chinese and Vietnamese labour. The Capitalist will argue that labour always finds its price, and then to get paid €5 a day in a country where that is above the average wage isn't actually a bad thing. We need to acknowledge this, yet point out what the alternative is.

That's why I think people like KyussBishop are actually doing a disservice to the debate. It's soapboxing without insight. It's the pox of modern Socialist thinking.

coolemon · 24-02-2014 11:25PM

sin_city wrote: »

I'll tell you where I got it from...The Manifesto of the Communist Party...Do you know it? Plank 5?

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

You say you're a communist....Do you even know what communism is?

Wow, don't jump ahead of yourself there.

Those are called "transitional demands" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_demand

These were developed as a stepping stone by Marx at the time towards the conditions for socialism. They are not the attributes of socialism itself, or communism for that matter, as advocated by Marx. As I stated, Marx proposed LTV's for a socialist society.

Communism has been tried a lot more than Libertarianism, last I checked the USSR died, China had to change and has since benefited from being practically non communist, and even though the USA is turning into a socialist country is it standing after it's libertarianism type revolution of 1775.

Please read some books

Like Jonny7, you are confusing "Communist States" with "communism". They are two very different things. The USSR and China had little to nothing to do with Marx or his ideas bar a bit of superficial window dressing.

KarlMarks · 24-02-2014 11:31PM

coolemon wrote: »

Like Jonny7, you are confusing "Communist States" with "communism". They are two very different things. The USSR and China had little to nothing to do with Marx or his ideas bar a bit of superficial window dressing.

Yes, I'd agree. But it's difficult to take the idea of communism and not place it within the bounds of previous (and current communist states). The onus is on the far left to explain that the ideas of Marx were utterly distorted. This also involves not idolising the likes of Cuba, which is a shambolic failure of socialist ideals.

coolemon · 24-02-2014 11:33PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The job is a commodity on the job market. The position of Doctor is one that is sought after (in high demand) and thus the cost of attaining that commodity is very high (years of education required).

Conversely the position of cleaner is a job in low demand and the cost of attaining that commodity is practically non-existent.

It's all just simple supply and demand. How would you organize the job market to remove scarcity?

I never said I could remove scarcity.

In our world (not ideal) a person gets the job based on their academic credentials. These academic credentials are a resource that cannot be bought only earned through hard work.

Wrong. Learn about Bourdieu's three forms of capital - http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/bourdieu-forms-capital.htm

Economic, social and cultural capital are exchanged.

They clearly aren't stable looking at that chart. Denmark especially is in good shape.

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2010/10-06/05.htm/twp10-06-17.gi f

That graph does not show the extent of class reproduction.

And that graph I posted clearly shows the stability of the class system.

We're going around in circles so let's cut to the chase. How would the system regulate itself within communism? What if you have 21 firemen and only 3 pressure controllers and water fillers when the demand is for 9 of each? How do you regulate society to satisfy demand? How do you entice those firemen to retrain?

Because if those firemen are surplus to demand, logically, there will be less status attached. Status in a communist society is achieved significantly through labour tself - rather than material objects in the case with capitalism

coolemon · 24-02-2014 11:34PM

KarlMarks wrote: »

Yes, I'd agree. But it's difficult to take the idea of communism and not place it within the bounds of previous (and current communist states). The onus is on the far left to explain that the ideas of Marx were utterly distorted. This also involves not idolising the likes of Cuba, which is a shambolic failure of socialist ideals.

Yes I completely agree with you.

Jonny7 · 24-02-2014 11:41PM

coolemon wrote: »

People are not working for money, but that which money can buy.

Which is exactly the same, except in a literal semantic translation

Unless you want to start debating cavemen here - or people living on a desert island type hypothesis..

Then I am only going to deal in real world examples

I'm not taking a snipe here, but those who espouse the generally accepted definition of communism seem to intensely dislike real world examples

Which is symptomatic of a theory that does not work in the real world

Well, both of those assertions are highly debatable.

No, because one of them is theory only. Likewise, an absolute pure capitalist system (in a literal definition) sense does not exist either.

Like I said I prefer to debate real world examples, otherwise there's a tendency to head off into the land of Narnia

sarkozy · 24-02-2014 11:43PM

KarlMarks wrote: »

The idea that Smith was a libertarian, especially of the Austrian School type is preposterous.

I wish that those of us on the Left would stop 'lasering in' on the typical Wall Street greed, and using it as the only example of the gross largesse of Capitalism. To stop the blinkers coming down there is a need to offer compelling alternatives at a micro level.

I'd also suggest that we need to come up with compelling arguments as to how we don't always practice what we preach. I've a computer that is made almost exclusively from the results of Chinese and Vietnamese labour. The Capitalist will argue that labour always finds its price, and then to get paid €5 a day in a country where that is above the average wage isn't actually a bad thing. We need to acknowledge this, yet point out what the alternative is.

That's why I think people like KyussBishop are actually doing a disservice to the debate. It's soapboxing without insight. It's the pox of modern Socialist thinking.

Totally agree. I also prefer to refer to 'Marxist' thought as 'marxian' (small M and not quite an ism) to denote that this history of ideas is a kind of tradition, in the same, but alternate sense, to liberalism or libertarianism being a tradition and, therefore, recognise that all the richness and nuance on Marx's writings have been preserved and developed massively by many people over succeeding decades in exact order to provide these kind of answers in all their complexity.

And when people actually read Marx, for example, you find how uncontroversial he was in so many ways. How he was one of many public intellectuals engaging in 'orthodox' classical economics, conversing directly with the likes of David Ricardo, but subjecting it to a different methodology, arriving at much richer, nuanced and, ultimately, moral and explanatory theory of political economy.

KarlMarks · 24-02-2014 11:44PM

For example, I think a viewing of Sander's lectures at http://www.justiceharvard.org/ are a very salient way of expressing that there are alternatives to an all-encompassing belief that markets are always inherently fair (and, yes, I'm aware of the inherent irony is linking to a lecture from a professor teaching in the World's most prestigious and expensive University). Offering an alternative to what has almost become an economic dogma involves placing it within a wider frame of reference.

I believe the writings of Marx do offer an alternative. As a frame of reference. Not as a step-by-step guide.

coolemon · 24-02-2014 11:47PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

Which is exactly the same, except in a literal semantic translation

It is not semantics. There is a big difference between saying someone is motivated by food than by money to buy food as an attribute of human nature.

The latter does not make sense as money is a recent phenomenon, and therefore, it would not explain human nature.

No, because one of them is theory only. Likewise, absolute pure capitalism in society (in a literal definition) sense does not exist either.

Like I said I prefer to debate real world examples, otherwise there's a tendency to head off into the land of Narnia

It is not theory only to suggest that the bulk of human activity operates outside of capitalist commodification. I am talking to you now on a non-commodified basis.

Communism is the abolition of commodity production.

Ulysses Gaze · 24-02-2014 11:57PM

RonnieRocket wrote: »

I was filling in a form for an American visa recently and they had the usual list of security questions e.g. Have you ever unlawfully distributed or sold a controlled substance? Have you ever participated in genocide etc. Most people don't waste time reading them and just tick "no" all the way down the list (as if a drug mule would actually confess on the form) but one question caught my eye: " are you a Communist?

I thought it was a strange question. The Cold War is over. Capitalism won and Communism is now broadly seen as the laughing stock ideology for the gullible and uneducated. Are Commies still seen as a threat? It's a bit totalitarian to ban a political ideology in my opinion. Do you know any Commies? Somebody out there is voting for Joe Higgins...

There are people in the USA who think Obama is a communist.....

"Reds under the Bed" has not left the US psyche completely!

KarlMarks · 25-02-2014 12:07AM

coolemon wrote: »

Communism is the abolition of commodity production.

This. It's very difficult to explain that not everything has to have an ulterior profit motive from a strictly monetary prospective. Yet, there is an almost dogmatic belief that the ideas of Marxism (I'll use the Capitalisation if you don't mind) somehow signal a return to a feudalistic or barter based society. Until we break that assumption the Left is doomed to failure. Waffling on about water charges and various social justice issues isn't going to work. Socialism is a true alternative. It won't suit everyone. It involves fundamental change. Breaking decades of cognitive biases so pervasive in the media. That needs to be communicated. It's why I have so little time for 'Pinkos' who think that commenting on The Guardian and proclaiming they are a liberal somehow gives them kudos.

Communism is a strong and forceful economic ideology with big ideas. Anything else is fudging the issue.

Jonny7 · 25-02-2014 12:11AM

coolemon wrote: »

The latter does not make sense as money is a recent phenomenon, and therefore, it would not explain human nature.

Money (no semantic definition) has been around a lot longer than the wikipedia definition of "communism"

Money, the distribution of, the lack of, the excess of - was a huge factor in the growth and debate of this theory

Right now, in for example, Ireland, your definition of communism will never work because it's "stateless"..

Therefore every country must adopt it

This will never happen - therefore it's very difficult to debate such an existentialist proposal

Hence the real world examples - which unfortunately point to any human attempt at communism as a failure, which will invariably lead supporters back to the theory and claim in each example that the adopted version was not "true" communism

It's circular and I've made my point several times over by now

sin_city · 25-02-2014 12:15AM

coolemon wrote: »

Like Jonny7, you are confusing "Communist States" with "communism". They are two very different things. The USSR and China had little to nothing to do with Marx or his ideas bar a bit of superficial window dressing.

You can dress this up any way you like. People get up and leave their homes to work in free countries.

People have risked their lives to live in free countries...Give me examples of people risking it all to enter a communist country.....and before you start saying I am confusing "Communist States" with "communism"..........People base their expectations mostly on history and just because one so called communist (you) says it will work if done correctly doesn't mean we care....We've seen many communists before and they leave in their wake millions of dead bodies....Thanks but no thanks, I prefer freedom.

sarkozy wrote: »

America is turning into a socialist country? Are you serious?

Yes America has been moving towards socialism since the 1930s with FDR New Deal and worse still with LBJ great society.

The Ponzi scheme of social security will go bust sometime in the next 15 to 20 years but I expect the US as a whole to collapse like the USSR before that.

sarkozy wrote: »

And if you disagree with Obama's reforms, what precisely do you disagree on.

Well increasing the minimum wage is one thing, his health cover plan which has caused great increases for most working people
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/11/04/49-state-analysis-obamacare-to-increase-individual-market-premiums-by-avg-of-41-subsidies-flow-to-elderly/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2013/11/02/obamacare-will-raise-average-health-insurance-premiums-by-32-for-21-million-people/

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obamacare-raising-health-costs-for-most-poll-finds-2013-12-23

and overall his general involvement of government into people's lives...Off topic I also don't like his drone program which kills large numbers of civilians though amazingly remains unreported.

sarkozy wrote: »

Adam Smith, father of American capitalism was actually a lot less capitalist and a lot more concerned with the negative effects of capitalism than his dogmatic ideologues like people to know.

And this is your opinion???

sarkozy wrote: »

Please read some books.

We've tried Marx....what a joke that was however not for the millions that died.

Keynes experiment is coming to an end.

Let's give Hayek a go and set the human race free

Karl Stein · 25-02-2014 12:19AM

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

There are people in the USA who think Obama is a communist.....

"Reds under the Bed" has not left the US psyche completely!

OP was, surprise-surprise, permanently banned.

coolemon · 25-02-2014 12:19AM

Jonny7 wrote: »

Money (no semantic definition) has been around a lot longer than the wikipedia definition of "communism"

Money, the distribution of, the lack of, the excess of - was a huge factor in the growth and debate of this theory

Right now, in for example, Ireland, your definition of communism will never work because it's "stateless"..

Therefore every country must adopt it

This will never happen - therefore it's very difficult to debate such an existentialist proposal

Hence the real world examples - which unfortunately point to any human attempt at communism as a failure, which will invariably lead supporters back to the theory and claim in each example that the adopted version was not "true" communism

It's circular and I've made my point several times over by now

I don't fully understand your point. All I am saying is that it is easy to perceive capitalism [todays society] as very different than communism.

When, in actuality, the operations of communism are before our eyes in the bulk of non-commodified human activity.

Capitalism imposes commodification upon those social activities which would already occur.

Anyway. It is extremely dubious to say capitalism is the 'natural order' of things. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

I don't want to keep going around in circles

coolemon · 25-02-2014 12:22AM

sin_city wrote: »

People have risked their lives to live in free countries...Give me examples of people risking it all to enter a communist country.....and before you start saying I am confusing "Communist States" with "communism"..........People base their expectations mostly on history and just because one so called communist (you) says it will work if done correctly doesn't mean we care....We've seen many communists before and they leave in their wake millions of dead bodies....Thanks but no thanks, I prefer freedom.

Communist country is an oxymoron. But certainly people have died for the socialist cause. That can be without dispute.

sin_city · 25-02-2014 12:27AM

coolemon wrote: »

I don't fully understand your point. All I am saying is that it is easy to perceive capitalism [todays society] as very different than communism.

We don't have capitalism today...since the US dollar was de-linked from gold growth has been driven not by capital being saved and invested, but by credit and the borrowing of an ever inflated currency.

If you think we have capitalism today then its clear why you appear to be so confused about what capitalism is.

coolemon · 25-02-2014 12:30AM

sin_city wrote: »

We don't have capitalism today...since the US dollar was de-linked from gold growth has been driven not by capital being saved and invested, but by credit and the borrowing of an ever inflated currency.

If you think we have capitalism today then its clear why you appear to be so confused about what capitalism is.

Capitalism - as in - the capitalist mode of production - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_of_production

Yes. It exists.

sin_city · 25-02-2014 12:31AM

sin_city · 25-02-2014 12:34AM

coolemon wrote: »

Capitalism - as in - the capitalist mode of production - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_of_production

Yes. It exists.

Until you understand the difference between the saving of money as an investment versus the use of inflated(printed) currency through credit as investment, you just won't understand the situation we are in today.

coolemon · 25-02-2014 12:38AM

sin_city wrote: »

Until you understand the difference between the saving of money as an investment versus the use of inflated(printed) currency through credit as investment, you just won't understand the situation we are in today.

Lol

Your in the wrong thread mate.

Have a read of Marx with an open mind. You will understand society and economics more.

sin_city · 25-02-2014 12:42AM

coolemon wrote: »

Lol

Your in the wrong thread mate.

Have a read of Marx with an open mind. You will understand society and economics more.

Please watch the video and tell me what you disagree with.

Yes I have read Marx.

Have you read Hayek?

Btw, does your lol mean you don't understand what I mean about savings versus credit?

coolemon · 25-02-2014 12:47AM

sin_city wrote: »

Please watch the video and tell me what you disagree with.

Yes I have read Marx.

Have you read Hayek?

I have been watching the video. Pretty boring to be frank. Talking about how Marx didn't pay his servant and rode her, how we should focus on the individual if we are understand things. Nonsense like that.

Want to repeat one or two of his arguments here because 40 minutes listening to him is a bit much?

I have never read Hayek, no. But I have debated with people who use his ideas.

Do you know any Communists?

Comments