"Communism is the greatest evil unleashed on humanity" (1 Viewer)

[Nebuchanezzar]

tl;dr

 

[Silver Persian]

tl;dr

Summary: Capitalism is a slutty lady that traps the worker into subservience.

 

[withoutaface]

Trade does not occur. Trade presupposes that the goods to be traded are the property of an individual. In a communist mode of production the goods are not the property of the individual who appropriates them on the basis of their ownership of the means of production and of labour power. Rather they are collective property (and as as such they are in reality not property at all) and are distributed on the basis of need to all members of society.

1. Who decides how these goods should be distributed?
2. What happens if an individual decides they want to keep the fruits of their own labour?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Oh Jesus here he is/

 

[Graney]

Summary: Capitalism is a slutty lady that traps the worker into subservience.

One of the funniest things I've ever read.
It's a pretty valid, sexy parable on the state of modern mans existence

 

[Silver Persian]

1. Who decides how these goods should be distributed?
2. What happens if an individual decides they want to keep the fruits of their own labour?

These things will be decided by the cooks of the future.

 

[withoutaface]

Mmm? I'm just trying to see if this guy actually has a model.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

1. Who decides how these goods should be distributed?

They will be distributed based on the need of the consumer in accordance with the social plan (made democratically by the population itself). If you want to know as to how can can determine "need" and what a store (maybe a "distribution centre" would be a better word) would look like and the process by which one acquires articles of consumption (ie. what do you do at a check out, etc.), again as Silver Persian noted, I am no one to dictate the recipes of the cooks of the future.

2. What happens if an individual decides they want to keep the fruits of their own labour?

Why would anyone want to? Just about the only labour that could be truly yours to appropriate would be the products of some sort of subsistence agriculture or hunting and gathering. This option makes no sense what so ever when you consider that all your needs (and more) could well be satisfied by partaking in and sharing in the product of social labour.

Mmm? I'm just trying to see if this guy actually has a model.

I don't blame you for being curious, however, the fact of the matter is, Marxists are not utopians. We do not dream up perfect alternative realities and try to replicate them in the real world. Rather, we proceed from the real world and by (if one may use the word) "scientific" investigation, conclude as we do about the nature of class struggle in modern capitalist society and it's tendency towards revolution and it's transendence.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

Quick question in the midst of all of this; how is an information economy and a digital economy that doesn't have the limitations of scarcity to be taken as exploitative. It seems somewhat odd.

As I'm no expert in Marxian economics and since the words "digital" and "information economy" are rather vague and I am not certain of what you are speaking of I hope this answers your question:

First of all I believe you are conflating two separate issues: exploitation and artificial scarcity. In the information sector scarcity is not a factor because information can be replicated at no cost. As such to allow for profit to be generated and capital accumulated, artificial scarcity is produced by means of copyright and charging people for information.

Moving on, in Marxian terms, the reason capitalism is exploitive is that it doesn't compensate the workers fully for their labour. So, for instance in the information sector, let's use an example; take all of the employees working for Microsoft that contribute labour to the production of their products, and compare the wages they are paid to the revenues that Microsoft makes off of those products, and they won't be the same.

Hope that answers your question

Errr he still hasn't replied to some of my points.

Sorry, I must have missed them. Is this it:

Exploitation happens in communist society too. Even though someone has an incredibility difficult task they only receive as much as a person who does an easy task.

There are a number of factors we have to consider here.

1. As noted in the extract from the German Ideology posted previously, communism entails the abolition of the social division of labour, this means that no one person or group of people would be forced to perform a particular "job", but rather that, as far as is possible (keeping in mind the necessity of a "technical division of labour") "jobs" would be rotated across the population with no person performing one particular occupation or activity (as in factory line).

2. We can not talk about the "difficulty of a task" objectively. Where I may find writing an essay or article difficult and performing complex mathematical tasks a piece of cake, you may be able to compose fine poetry a pleasure and even simple mathematical problems impossibly frustrating. Another may hate being indoors, cooped into a cubicle, another may hate physical labour and getting their hands dirty. In a communist society where people would be able to perform the labour which they find rewarding and fulfilling we can not compare objectively of the difficulty of a task.

3. Given that a communist system of distribution is based off of need, if the person who is preforming the more "difficult job" feels as though they are "unjustly compensated" with reference to the needs of others they simply have to withdraw more from the common lot as far as goods are concerned. Remembering that as far as technically possible, communism requires a social abundance of articles of consumption and the means to produce them.

Are we talking about exploitation again?

No, we are talking about the ability of capitalism to retain vestiges of superseded modes of production within itself despite having a tendency to do away with them at the same time.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

UMMMM I was talking about this.

My apologises (How many pages back was it, I didn't see it )

Everyone is different. Not everyone will want to follow communism

Your right, after all, some people want to be exploited...

Did someone say shifting the burdon?!?

Sorry, but that is not what we call shifting the burden of proof. That's what we call dodging the question with a smart-ass remark.

The original question has been answered subsequently.

Please FP, give up. You lost, all your points are hopelessly redundant and all your doing now is rehashing them.

 

[tommykins]

I happen to agree with communism IF and only IF the government in control looks out for the well-being of society. But I guess it is abit hard with the natural human tendencies to expand and exploit power if they possess it.

This is abit like the argument over the World State and the Indian Savage Reserve in the book Brave New World.

Lol @ Zeitgeist308, he's ripping all of you.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

That still isnt a reply.

Your right, hence:"The original question has been answered subsequently."

New ideas come from old ideas. I dont just copy and paste stuff off the internet like you do.

My my, shame on me for actually quoting Marx. In future I will ensure that I misrepresent him and provide no evidence to back up my assertions.

This is inefficient. If people are naturally good at one thing isn't it better to specialise?

Read first, then type (It makes you look less like an idiot)

1. As noted in the extract from the German Ideology posted previously, communism entails the abolition of the social division of labour, this means that no one person or group of people would be forced to perform a particular "job", but rather that, as far as is possible (keeping in mind the necessity of a "technical division of labour") "jobs" would be rotated across the population with no person performing one particular occupation or activity (as in factory line).

*My emphasis added*

Also, if someone does not have knowledge of a particular area this would be totally fail.

Hence, provide education.

e.g. how can you expect a person who knows nothing about being a doctor, to do a good job?

Doctors require long and complex medical training. It would be stupid to allow untrained people to be doctors, hence the necessity of a "technical division of labour". However in a communist society it would be desirable to as far as possible provide this kind of higher level education and specialisation for all those seeking it as part of the "all-round development of the intellectual and physical capacities of the individual", that is to say education would be made an integral part of life, where unlike today it takes on the form of indoctrinated and disciplinary training from 5 - 18 (plus or minus) in preparation for 50 years of alienating labour at the service of others.

Well no wonder we have so many people from China in Australia

*Sigh*, resorting to the old tactics are we. I thought you people learnt not to make straw men arguments by now. Turns out your slower learners than I thought.

BTW, china has been discussed prior in this debate. Flip back and have a look.

I happen to agree with communism IF and only IF the government in control looks out for the well-being of society.

Communism is not benevolent state-capitalism, we established that 10 pages ago...

But I guess it is abit hard with the natural human tendencies to expand and exploit power if they possess it.

This was also exposed to be a falsehood, some pages back. Read the article I posted from the ICC.

Lol @ Zeitgeist308, he's ripping all of you.

Thank you for noticing, it's not like it's hard though.

 

[tommykins]

Communism is not benevolent state-capitalism, we established that 10 pages ago...

I apologise, staretd reading this topic yesterday at 1am and didn't really bother researching it further.

This was also exposed to be a falsehood, some pages back. Read the article I posted from the ICC.

Will do.

Thank you for noticing, it's not like it's hard though.

 

[sam04u]

That's not surprising considering you believe "democratic-socialism" is Marxism and that benevolent state-capitalism is communism. No offence intended.

Irrespective of what I believe, what you believe is an utter failure that will only harden the lives of the people. In order for society to function there must be agencies and regulators in place. Anarchy (correct me if I'm wrong) implies any such body would be abolished. If what you're describing is true Marxism, then I am not a Marxist. But then again, Marxism is one of the most misunderstood ideologies.

I'm going to read more literature (as to be honest, I've only read selected excerpts from various texts).

 

[melanieeeee.]

there is nothing to debate or argue. communism works. karl marx tells us so. therefore it is true.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

Everyone is different. Not everyone will want to follow communism

1. You do not "follow" communism, just as you do not "follow" capitalism. Both are modes of production who's foundations lie in the level of development of the productive forces are are defined above all by the social relations of production. You don't choose your social relations, they are forced on you by material conditions.

In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. - Preface of A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy
​

2. If we are to interpret your criticism as "people won't want to work" or "they will produce for themselves only" this has been answered as follows:

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.

We have considered the act of estrangement of practical human activity, of labour, from two aspects:

(1) the relationship of the worker to the product of labour as an alien object that has power over him. The relationship is, at the same time, the relationship to the sensuous external world, to natural objects, as an alien world confronting him, in hostile opposition.

(2) The relationship of labour to the act of production within labour. This relationship is the relationship of the worker to his own activity as something which is alien and does not belong to him, activity as passivity, power as impotence, procreation as emasculation, the worker’s own physical and mental energy, his personal life – for what is life but activity? – as an activity directed against himself, which is independent of him and does not belong to him. Self-estrangement, as compared with the estrangement of the object mentioned above.

[...]

In the same way as estranged labour reduces spontaneous and free activity to a means, it makes man’s species-life a means of his physical existence.

Consciousness, which man has from his species, is transformed through estrangement so that species-life becomes a means for him.

(3) Estranged labour, therefore, turns man’s species-being – both nature and his intellectual species-power – into a being alien to him and a means of his individual existence. It estranges man from his own body, from nature as it exists outside him, from his spiritual essence, his human existence.

(4) An immediate consequence of man’s estrangement from the product of his labour, his life activity, his species-being, is the estrangement of man from man. When man confront himself, he also confronts other men. What is true of man’s relationship to his labour, to the product of his labour, and to himself, is also true of his relationship to other men, and to the labour and the object of the labour of other men. - Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844

​

When the alienating nature of labour is cast off, labour will no longer be a coerced activity of degradation and slavery. Then and only then does labour then become "life's prime want", that is, a positive expression of man's "species being" (or human nature if you will).

2. What happens if an individual decides they want to keep the fruits of their own labour?

Why would anyone want to? Just about the only labour that could be truly yours to appropriate would be the products of some sort of subsistence agriculture or hunting and gathering. This option makes no sense what so ever when you consider that all your needs (and more) could well be satisfied by partaking in and sharing in the product of social labour.

I hope that answers the question. There are also minor fragments throughout the thread earlier which may also help to answer your question if this does not suffice.

you are making the assumption that everything that marx says is right.

That's not true. I am posting what I believe Marx is correct in regard to. If you see something wrong with the excerpts I've posted by all means critique them.

he makes alot of assertions himself you know.

So you criticise Marx for making assertions by making baseless assertions yourself. Genius!

it is unrealistic to train everyone for every job properly due to time constraints.

This is correct (to a degree), hence why a technical division of labour would still be necessary.

One more question: has communism ever been applied irl?

You don't "apply" communism. If you mean to ask, has there existed a society where the communist mode of production has operated the answer is no. Whilst there have been proletarian revolutions (ie. The Paris Commune, The Russian Revolution etc.) these have not even lead to the establishment of what we may call "socialist" relations of production for various reasons (including isolation, the lack of the proper material conditions, the youth of the proletariat etc.)

Irrespective of what I believe, what you believe is an utter failure that will only harden the lives of the people. In order for society to function there must be agencies and regulators in place. Anarchy (correct me if I'm wrong) implies any such body would be abolished.

Both Anarchists and Marxists argue for the self-regulation of society by the producers themselves (which in a communist society would be humanity as a whole).

I'm going to read more literature (as to be honest, I've only read selected excerpts from various texts).

If I may make a recommendation, I suggest you pick up a copy of the Marx-Engles Readerby Robert C. Tucker. It is a selection of Marx and Engels essential works from their treatises to private letters of interest and everything in between. If of course you do not want to buy a hard copy you can always read the most important texts online including:

I would recommend the following:

• A Ruthless Criticism of Everything Existing (Letter to Ruge)
• Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 (only the chapters: Estranged Labour and Private Property and Communism
• Contribution to a Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right: Introduction (This is one of my all time favourites, Marx's writing at it's best)
• Society and Economy in History (Letter to Annenkov)
• These on Feuerbach
• German Ideology: Part One
• Wage Labour and Capital
• Manifesto of the Communist Party
• Principle of Communism
• Critique of the Gotha Program
• Marx debates Bakunin's Statism and Anarchy
• Civil War in France (specifically the chapter: The Paris Commune)
• Socialism Utopian and Scientific
• On Authority
• Historical Materialism (Letter to Bloch and Letter to Starkenburg)

 

[untouchablecuz]

there is nothing to debate or argue. communism works. karl marx tells us so. therefore it is true.

............................................________
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,?......................................................\,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:”........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,...........................`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\

 

[Empyrean444]

Alright. If communism works, give me practical and physical proof of a pure communist government in the world: most governments that are labelled "communist" are really just despotic or are murderous and oppressive oligarchies. It's not like it is a new ideology - it has had time to potentially "work".

Human greed is evident everywhere. Capitalism is a physical embodiment of it. Corporations are an example of it. Ancient Rome is an example of it. It exists. It prevents communist because the latter requires everyone to be equal. Avarice is trying to get as much wealth as possible - to be rich, to have more money/wealth than others. It is therefore an expression of inequality. Hence it cannot coexist with marxism, and since human nature hasn't changed much throughout history, marxism therefore cannot exist.

have u responded to my other post?

 

[Zeitgeist308]

Alright. If communism works, give me practical and physical proof of a pure communist government in the world

There is no such thing as a "communist government" or "communist state". The very term itself is internally contradictory as communism is by definition stateless.

It's not like it is a new ideology - it has had time to potentially "work".

Marxism is not an "ideology" which you put into practice. Marxism is the theoretical expression of the class struggle and communism (the political movement) its practical expression.

Human greed is evident everywhere. Capitalism is a physical embodiment of it.

Capitalism is not the embodiment of greed, greed is the embodiment of capitalism. Capitalism is not some perfect, functioning, efficient mode of production that works because it harnesses some key universal human trait (which according to yourself is "greed"). "Human nature" is not some universal and natural set of traits which are stamped in the human genome, it is a reflection of the relations of production in which men produce and reproduce themselves.

It prevents communist because the latter requires everyone to be equal.

1. This is a lie. Show me in Marx (or Engels, or Lenin, or Luxemburg, or Gramsci, or another other Marxist) where it is claimed that in a communist mode of production all men will be "equal".

2. In what sense do you use the word "equal"?

3. Humans are never equal. They possess different traits, different physical and/or intellectual capacities, different likes and dislikes, different needs and wants etc. etc.

4. Humans can be made to be equal economically or materially, but this is not the "goal" (if one can use the word) of communism. In a communist mode of production, distribution would be carried out on the basis of need (note, no distinction is necessarily made between "needs"" and "wants" as both are subjective). When we take into account point number 3 above, that human needs are not equal, it would be stupid to then claim that despite distribution being based on need, articles of consumption would be distributed equally.

Avarice is trying to get as much wealth as possible - to be rich, to have more money/wealth than others.

Why does the desire to be rich (that is to raise ones own living standard) entail the need to "have more ... than others"?

since human nature hasn't changed much throughout history,

Proof for this assertion please? (If you flip back to my original reply to your post I make the argument that, on the contrary, "human nature" has changed significantly.

marxism therefore cannot exist.

It does, I am living proof.

have u responded to my other post?

Yes I did indeed. Flick back a (quite) a few pages and you will find it. Matter of fact I believe most of these questions you asked above were answered there.

 

[HNAKXR]

humans are intrinsically selfish, and competitive. Mankind basically worships power.

Therefore there will always be a ruling class, Caste or nomenklatura that hold more wealth and power than the rest.

you can not resolve this with any political philosophy.