Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Davidfak]

• Professional Advice: Reco... by Davidfak
  [Today at 04:05:57 AM]
• <a href="https://www.port... by Davidfak
  [Today at 03:21:43 AM]
• <a href="https://www.port... by Antonioair
  [Yesterday at 04:28:57 PM]
• <a href="https://www.port... by Davidfak
  [May 07, 2024, 07:52:26 PM]
• <a href="https://www.port... by Davidfak
  [May 07, 2024, 01:37:16 PM]
• <a href="https://www.port... by Davidfak
  [May 07, 2024, 12:26:58 AM]

Members

• Total Members: 4952
• Latest: WllkeiJocky

Stats

• Total Posts: 129623
• Total Topics: 7186
• Online Today: 152
• Online Ever: 1013
• (January 12, 2023, 01:18:11 AM)

[Vespertine]

Here's topic #1, of my promised three topics.


The political rhetoric is increasing.  I see many opinion pieces, and hear many conversations about how we need to "re-defeat" communism (mostly in relation to Clinton).  I understand the somewhat socialist aspects of some of the ideas out there.  But here's my question.  Communism is viewed as this big, oppressive governmental machine.  That's never been my understanding of communism.  In fact, the most infamous communist governments (China and the USSR), weren't really communist at all; they were/are totalitarian and/or oligarchies. 

So, is it just that most people don't reallu understand communist theory, or are they intentionally ignorant, or are they right?

[BizB]

My take on it is that communism is an end, not a means.  The problem is that there aren't any feasible means to get to that end.  In a true communist society, there would be a very limited very impotent government which, in theory, would be great... If only we could get there.

Socialism was most recently viewed as the best means to get to the end, but it has yet to work.

[pbsaurus]

Re: Is communism misunderstood?

Yes.  In political discourse in the US it is demonized and used to rally the herd to action/inaction depending on the message.

As BizB pointed out it is a utopian ideal where everyone is taken care of and the money motivation is removed.  Thus it is an end.  In practice any means that has been tried or could forethinkably be tried would involve force by an entity such as the state in order to equalize the various groups of constituents.  This will lead to totalitarianism and you get the former USSR, China, etc.

[Crystalmonkey]

Actually, I've heard it said that Communism wasn't exactly the end, that there was something after it. (I'm not sure what. *Shrug*)


Anyway, as far as I know Marx assumed that the natural order to communism (and what lay beyond, I guess) was that we would eventually get to Capitalism, THEN Socialism, THEN Communism. The idea was that after a while, people would realize the rich were simply fucking them over constantly and getting away with it and decide to do something about it, but colonization and globalization seems to have at least delayed this process. (I don't think Marx ever gave a time table, but even if he did he DIDN'T forsee globalization or the effects it would have on his process.

Interestingly, China and Russia both, as far as I know, skipped a few steps and went to "Communism." (I use "" because, for Russia at least, it was Lennon's version of Communism, NOT Marx's)


But yeah, I agree with some socialist ideas, at least partly. Libraries are a nice example. This debate is often ignored because "Commies are bad!"

[Min]

This may be a little off topic, but sometimes I wish that some of the States could be more Socialistic, while some remained Capitalistic.  This would require a very small centralized government, but it would do a world of good. 

What I see happening, of course, is that the people for Socialism and UHC, etc, would find that it really just doesn't work.  No one would have any incentive to work in those states, and there wouldn't be any money.

[Crystalmonkey]

No one would have any incentive to work in those states, and there wouldn't be any money.

Often used as an argument against Socialism and Communism. But I think there's a flaw with it. I'm not sure that Socialism and Communism require that we get rid of money. (Marx might even say explicitly "Get Rid Of Money!", but I'm tweaking his theory a bit, so bear with me please.) Also, I'm not entirely sure we need to use money as an incentive, but that's a separate issue.

What about a sort of hybrid between Capitalism and Communism? (I'm not sure Socialism qualifies...)

Basically, this hybrid would need to perform the following tasks:

1) Protect Personal Property (Central to Capitalism)
2) Provide Motivation For Production
3) Protect The Worker
4) Not Allow Large Concentrations of Wealth (For Anyone, Including Government Workers)
5) Provide Minimal Living Conditions For All


I'm sure there's more/less.


Also, an interesting idea my teacher mentioned to me having heard it from someone. If there's no personal property, it's hard to perform acts of charity.

[12AX7]

How do you reconcile numbers  1  and  4 ? And once number  4  is implemented, how do you resolve number  2  ?

[TheJudge]

And once number  4  is implemented, how do you resolve number  2  ?

Whips?

[Agent_Tachyon]

Cue Evonus.

[Crystalmonkey]

I realize that any boundary would be arbitrary, but if you consider the idea that there are people running around with millions and millions of dollars that just sit there and do nothing, while:

35.1 million people—including 12.4 million children—live in households that experience hunger or the risk of hunger. This represents more than one in ten households in the United States (11.0 percent).

Among other facts, of course. Then there's also homelessness, etc...

"They should just get a job."

There is a finite number of jobs, and I think it unethical to treat people like cattle, anyway. People have a basic right to life, and it's not always easy for someone to get a job that provides for them. There are plenty of people that work long hours and make shit for money.

That said, that doesn't mean you have to get rid of money entirely, but you could make a certain cap. (Arbitrary, and perhaps hard to do, but I think SOME values are easily understood to be out of line...)

Also, we put limits on what people can buy all the time, but that doesn't mean that we don't have personal property.

And therefore the motivation would still exist. The cap wouldn't reduce this, if implemented correctly anyway. Perhaps it would scale based upon profession? (With strong checks against government workers or private lobbyists abusing this...)

[BizB]

I realize that any boundary would be arbitrary, but if you consider the idea that there are people running around with millions and millions of dollars that just sit there and do nothing, while:

You don't really believe that people with millions of dollars just have it sitting in their mattress, do you?  If the money is in a bank or investment fund of some sort, it's doing plenty of good for the rest of the nation.

Poor people don't hire other people to work for them.  Rich people do.  The more rich people there are, the more jobs there are.  The more jobs there are, the more it elevates the wealth of the rest of the citizens!.

35.1 million people—including 12.4 million children—live in households that experience hunger or the risk of hunger. This represents more than one in ten households in the United States (11.0 percent).

Source please.  I can't believe that one in 10 people experience the risk of hunger given the myriad social programs already in place in this rotten fucking country that hates poor people.

There is a finite number of jobs, and I think it unethical to treat people like cattle, anyway. People have a basic right to life, and it's not always easy for someone to get a job that provides for them. There are plenty of people that work long hours and make shit for money.

Wrong.  Employment is not a zero sum game.  If it's unethical to treat people like cattle, then surely you'd agree that it's unethical to GIVE people what they need. Of all the places that I've seen people treated like cattle, government programs is probably the primary example.

That said, that doesn't mean you have to get rid of money entirely, but you could make a certain cap. (Arbitrary, and perhaps hard to do, but I think SOME values are easily understood to be out of line...)

If there's a cap and no incentive for a rich person to invest his money in another venture, then you're going to stifle economic growth.  Do you think Howard Hughes would have bought TWA and designed and developed transcontinental aircraft/flights if he couldn't have gained from it?

Also, we put limits on what people can buy all the time, but that doesn't mean that we don't have personal property.

And therefore the motivation would still exist. The cap wouldn't reduce this, if implemented correctly anyway. Perhaps it would scale based upon profession? (With strong checks against government workers or private lobbyists abusing this...)

I'm not sure I follow.  Are you suggesting that your common working man is too rich or has too many assets?  Profession?  At the top end of the scale, I don't think you could define "professions".  What profession is "Rich motherfucker"?

[Crystalmonkey]

You don't really believe that people with millions of dollars just have it sitting in their mattress, do you?  If the money is in a bank or investment fund of some sort, it's doing plenty of good for the rest of the nation.

True, people with a lot of money generally don't just keep it at home. But there are plenty of investments that DON'T help people. Sure, I could invest a million dollars in Microsoft and it would probably generate money for me, and giving them money would help them to pay their workers. (And their management staff...) And that's good, in the sense that it keeps their workers from being poor. But doing that doesn't get food into the hands of people who need it. At least not directly, or without enough speed to matter. And there's only so much money that needs to be invested...

Poor people don't hire other people to work for them.  Rich people do.  The more rich people there are, the more jobs there are.  The more jobs there are, the more it elevates the wealth of the rest of the citizens!.

Reagan said something similar. I believe it was called Trickle Down Economics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

Interesting quote from the article:

The economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted that "trickle-down economics" had been tried before in the United States in the 1890s under the name "horse and sparrow theory": "if you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass through to feed the sparrows."

And also check out the section on Gini index in this post.

Source please.  I can't believe that one in 10 people experience the risk of hunger given the myriad social programs already in place in this rotten fucking country that hates poor people.

I linked it in the author portion of the quote.

Wrong.  Employment is not a zero sum game.  If it's unethical to treat people like cattle, then surely you'd agree that it's unethical to GIVE people what they need. Of all the places that I've seen people treated like cattle, government programs is probably the primary example.

As a practice example for a new analysis technique:
(Note that 'A' means Axiom and 'P' means Proposition.)

A1: There are a finite number of jobs.
A2: There are a finite number of able-bodied workers.
A3: Nothing guarantees that the number of jobs are equal to the number of people.

A4: Humans have a basic set of rights.
A5: Of those basic rights, there is included a right to life. (And Speech, for later purposes.)

A6: Food and Water are essential for life.
A7: Food and Water are procured through the exchange of money and/or goods and/or services, or by harvesting a natural recourses. (I know in the end it's all harvesting, but I refer to a single individual. Also, I understand that force COULD be conceivably exercised to take from others, but this is supposed to be a "peaceful" system.)
A8: Natural Resources are becoming more and more scarce, as they become privatized. In order to reach a natural resource of food/water that hasn't been tapped, travel over great distances can be required.(At least in the US, but also in a broader sense.)

A9: Money is received in exchange for goods/services or as charity.

P1: Travel requires the exchange of money and/or goods and/or services to be feasible over a long distance.

Proof: Travel over a distance requires a supply of food/water, as is evident from A6, A7, and A8. Walking, while possible, is not conducive to long distance travel alone, but A8 stipulates that travel over great distances may be required, so transportation is also needed. Transportation relies on similar conditions as food/water. Because access to food/water may not be available through harvest, we must have money/goods/services. (A7)


P2: Food/Water cannot be harvested naturally in many cases and therefore requires the use of money.

Proof: A7 states that we have 2 ways to get food/water. The first case is money, while the second case is harvesting it. The second case is canceled out by A8 and P1, and we are left requiring money.


P3: Unfairly preventing access to the only means of exercising a right is an infringement on that right.

Proof: If someone were to tell you that you're not allowed allowed to speak, and pointed a gun at your head, it's self-evident that this is infringing on your right to free speech.  It is not said that someone refusing you the use of a typewriting is violating your rights, because you have other legal means of speech and therefore someone's typewriter isn't required. (Perhaps some people don't feel this way. I'm using a safer assumption, because it leads to the same result.)


P4: Not providing food for people is an infringement on their natural right to life.

Proof: If it's fair to refuse to allow someone access to food because they have many other ways of getting it legally, P2 shows that food requires money. Because of A1, A2, and A3, it is sometimes the case that a person will not have access to a job, by definition, as well as by circumstance. (Handicaps, Disabilities, etc...) Therefore, they don't have access to money. Because they don't have access to money, they don't have access to food, legally.



Note: Not entirely done with this experiment yet, but I didn't want it to be lost, so this is a "save" so to speak.

If there's a cap and no incentive for a rich person to invest his money in another venture, then you're going to stifle economic growth.  Do you think Howard Hughes would have bought TWA and designed and developed transcontinental aircraft/flights if he couldn't have gained from it?

Hughes would have plenty to gain, and it would be quite a bit, but it WOULDN'T be like what we have currently, at least if it was done properly.

I'm not sure I follow.  Are you suggesting that your common working man is too rich or has too many assets?

I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. What I was trying to express was that people often jump to the extreme of getting rid of a monetary system entirely, and I was saying that we wouldn't HAVE to do that, we could simply remove, or try to remove, the flaws that are part of the system.

I meant that we could impose limits on personal wealth and property, and it WOULDN'T get rid of people's incentives, which is partly shown because we already limit some of the things that people buy. (Usually for concern about health effects.)


As an aside:

US Gini index is 45.
Canada: 33.1
UK: 36.8

I've included both the source, and an explanation. Suffice it to say, 45 is pretty bad, without comparing it to others. (Scale of 0 - 100, with 0 being the best)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html#Econ
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/notesanddefs.html#2172

Profession?  At the top end of the scale, I don't think you could define "professions".  What profession is "Rich motherfucker"?

It would depend on their source of income.

[reimero]

It looks like most people here generally understand what communism is supposed to be.  (I study political science with a strong emphasis on political theory, and socialism is one area I've done extensive research with.)

The problem with the notion that there ought to be some sort of hybrid between socialism and capitalism is that, at their very roots, the two philosophies are really completely at odds with each other.  Both are economic, rather than political theories.  And the first thing to know about economics is that it is the study of the distribution of limited resources.  If I were to suggest that everyone should have a fundamental human right to a flawless 5-karat diamond, you would (rightfully) think I'm crazy, because there are not 6 billion of them in existence.  Similarly, as much as we like to blame the cost of oil and gas on the Iraq war, in truth, the emergence of a middle consumer class in China has had even more impact: the number of people who have cars, electricity and other "modern conveniences" has grown substantially over the past decade, at a rate few could have foreseen.  Thus, available resources have to be distributed among a much wider group.  The amount of resources available hasn't changed, but the demand has.

Next, we consider the underlying theory of capitalism, which is essentially that "the fruit of my labor is mine."  If I have a great idea and can turn it into a viable business, I should be rewarded appropriately.  Similarly, if I have a particular skill, especially one which requires specialized training, I should be compensated for my ability to supply that skill, especially if acquiring it cost me significantly.  That doctor fresh out of medical school will likely be somewhere on the order of $150,000 to $300,000 in debt upon graduation.  The same is true of lawyers.  Is it unjust that they be paid correspondingly more?

Socialism, on the other hand, is centered around the theory of wealth redistribution in order to minimize the difference between the very poor and the very wealthy.  The problems are obvious: in Europe, for instance, celebrities and wealthy athletes frequently emigrate from their homelands to Monaco or the United States in order to escape taxation which in some cases can exceed 90% of their income.

Socialism looks good on paper, but I have yet to see a practical implementation that is truly fair and unoppressive, encourages economic growth and does not run the risk of driving itself bankrupt.

[Crystalmonkey]

Capitalism is hardly fair, either. The idea is supposed to be "hard work = money" but that doesn't often play out, I think. That, and the system (and those at a given level) often manipulate those underneath to their own benefit without seemingly aware of any ethical concerns.

[reimero]

Capitalism is hardly fair, either. The idea is supposed to be "hard work = money" but that doesn't often play out, I think. That, and the system (and those at a given level) often manipulate those underneath to their own benefit without seemingly aware of any ethical concerns.

Sure.  But the inequity is understood.  Really, the greatest problem with capitalism is that the playing field is not level.  The reason Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto is that wealthy capitalists weren't playing by the rules of capitalism: they refused to treat labor as a commodity and exerted their influence to ensure that the government wouldn't interfere.  Even today, the playing field isn't level, because wealthy industrialists and corporations have undue influence over the political process, protecting their privileged positions.

[ivan]

My take on it is that communism is an end, not a means.  The problem is that there aren't any feasible means to get to that end.  In a true communist society, there would be a very limited very impotent government which, in theory, would be great... If only we could get there.

Socialism was most recently viewed as the best means to get to the end, but it has yet to work.

Re: Is communism misunderstood?

Yes.  In political discourse in the US it is demonized and used to rally the herd to action/inaction depending on the message.

As BizB pointed out it is a utopian ideal where everyone is taken care of and the money motivation is removed.  Thus it is an end.  In practice any means that has been tried or could forethinkably be tried would involve force by an entity such as the state in order to equalize the various groups of constituents.  This will lead to totalitarianism and you get the former USSR, China, etc.

I don't know much about modern communist theory, but the original Marxist view was that communism was an inevitable result of natural societal evolution. Marx collaborated with Engels, who in turn developed an elaborate theory of Dialectics, which Marx applied to socio-economics. In other words, Marx believed that all things in nature changed according to predictable patterns, and that societies were no exceptions. According to these patterns, as societies progress from simple to more complex, conflicts and contradictions periodically arise that cause revolutionary social change. Each new social system is an improvement on the old, but in turn eventually suffers the same fate as yet another new system emerges to take its place. Capitalism was seen as just another socio-economic system that was inevitably doomed to be replaced by something that solves its inherent conflicts and contraditions.

Marx saw governments and wealth as a problem. As long as societies were structured in such a way that power and wealth were weilded by some over others, then you have inherent conflict. Each successive socio-economic system is an attempt to more successfully resolve this basic conflict. But in Marx' view, that conflict could only be eliminated in a society where wealth and power are meaningless. That Communistic society is difficult to imagine, but Marx did not think it was necessary to imagine it -- it was inevitable. The whole point is not whether such a society is possible, but rather when and how it will be achieved.

One thing was overwhelmingly clear to Marx: Capitalism was doomed. It would be torn apart by the conflicts and contradictions plagueing it. What were these conflicts and contradicitons? Well, in Marx' time, capitalism sucked. The working class was hardly more than slave labor. Rich capitalists were only interested in aquiring yet more wealth. Governments with their legal and military machines were completely dedicated to self-preservation and the interests of the wealthy. It really, really was teh suck. Capitalism was clearly broken, but as long as the governments and the capitalists colluded to keep things going on the backs of the working masses, there wasn't much hope for fixing it. So clearly, at some point, the natural dialectic should kick in and a new social order should sweep away the contradictions of the old. What were the contradictions? Very simple: wealth was produced by the masses, but the masses kept none of it; the wealthy produced nothing, but kept all the wealth; governments protected the interests of the few at the expense of the masses. The new social order would solve these contradictions by dismantling the government of the wealthy and replacing it with a government of the people. Wealth will be produced by everyone, and shared by everyone in society. Socialism.

But Socialism is still not Communism. The most important difference between the two is that Socialism still requires a government. It's the government of the people, but it's still a government, which means that some people hold power over others. So Socialism is just as doomed as Capitalism, but Marx believed that the transition from Socialism to Communism would be gradual and non-violent (as opposed to the transition from Capitalism to Socialism, which almost certainly requires a violent overthrow). He called it the whithering away of the state. Those words are still beautiful.

One thing that is sometimes overlooked is that marxists felt a moral imperative to act. Things were pretty bad. If Communism was an inevitability, then hurrying it along became a matter of urgency. Marxists really did believe that by dismantling the Russian tsarist regime and instituting socialism in its place, they would be putting Russia on a swift path towards the communistic ideal. A little bit of cargo cultism, it seems in hindsight, but a lot of them thought they were being historically correct. The end, after all, was indisputably good. The means... well, that was a problem.

Anyway, the funny thing about all this is that here in the US, we figured out a way to fix Capitalism well enough that the moral imperative to overthrow the system is gone. It works pretty well for almost everyone, and the fact that a lot of wealth is concentrated in a few hands is not such a big deal. The richest geek in the world started out with no more advantages than any other college student, and people that work for him prosper. A little socialistic flavoring here and there takes care of most of our elderly and provides for a decent education and lots of help for the needy. Of course we have problems and we have people falling through the safety net, but these are not seen as problems that could only be solved by a revolution.

So my guess is that the inevitable emergence of Communism has been slightly postponed.

[ivan]

Even today, the playing field isn't level, because wealthy industrialists and corporations have undue influence over the political process, protecting their privileged positions.

But certainly not as eggregious as in Marx' time. We view the problem as a matter of ethical breaches, rather than a non-viable socio-economic system that must be overthown.

[reimero]

But certainly not as eggregious as in Marx' time. We view the problem as a matter of ethical breaches, rather than a non-viable socio-economic system that must be overthown.

You are correct, sir.  The system we have now offers hope.  It may be a false hope or a fool's hope, but we don't face an endless, dreary, hopeless existence.

[ivan]

You are correct, sir.  The system we have now offers hope.  It may be a false hope or a fool's hope, but we don't face an endless, dreary, hopeless existence.

Exactly. I took out some fanciful stuff from my earlier post, stuff like "A hundred years ago, starving working people would huddle against the cold, sharing their last crust of moldy bread and dream of a bright communist future for their children... Today, my stomach is full and I dream of sending my son to MIT."

The big conflict today is not between classes in our society, but between our society and the Third World.