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

[Nebuchanezzar]

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

Damn you democracy!

 

[Enteebee]

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

um... what system are you proposing? World-wide totalitarian dictatorship?

far less than the inefficiency created by a society run by billions of different individuals.

The way (at least from my understanding) communist politics would work sort of starts by the election of local union representatives and then moves its way up.

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

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

I think you're arguing against something that communism never claimed to be. Communism never claimed that people wouldn't receive a greater share of the fruits of society by working harder... It simply wishes to deny control of the means of production to people, no matter how hard they work.

As for people being lazy if u give them what they 'need', would you rather they die?

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

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

How could his right to common property impinge on your right to common property?

Who determines "need"?

Elected officials.

@Zeitgeist:
My understanding of 'property' under communism is that individuals can still for instance earn more money to buy more things if they want, just that they can never buy anything which gives them control over the means of production (i.e. If you work really freaking hard you can have a ferrari, but you can never own your own manufacturing plant).

 

[Zeitgeist308]

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

Government intervention or no government intervention, this is a simple example of the extraction of surplus-labour from a worker.

Of course in the case that the worker does not produce in his day of labour sufficient value to exceed his own wages, he has of course not produced surplus-value and the employer will subsequently change the roster to come into line with the projected sales in order to avoid the loss again.

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

Yeah, ever heard of direct democracy?

Of course I would object in those situations.

How dare you! You are contributing to inefficiency!

Nevertheless, the inefficiency created by my objection is far, far less than the inefficiency created by a society run by billions of different individuals.

O wait, let me get this straight. You are allowed to object if something effects you and contribute to inefficiency and yet no one else is allowed to because if they all did only then would it because a problem?

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

Please read through the notes of alienated labour listed above. The shot answer is: the motivation for this action does not exist. I've been over this already.

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

Whilst the collectivity decides what is to be produced, only the individual can evaluate their own needs and wants.

Your right to common property ownership directly impinges upon my own. By commonly owning property you are in effect restricting my own ability to own property as well.

Enteebee is correct on this point here. My argument is that on the basis of the (bourgeois) logic of liberty and rights, one does not have a "right to own property" because it immediately conflicts with the "right to own property" of others just as the "right to murder" does not exist because it conflicts my "right to life".

So basically what you are arguing is much the same as "Your right to life directly impinges upon my right to murder"...

Not only this but by your right to common property ownership you are able to coerce me under physical necessity to labour so that I may live even if it is at a mere sustenance level necessary for the reproduction of my labour power.

Well no, that's not true. The fact that property is common makes coercion based on ownership v. lack of ownership is made impossible.

NB: Marxists do not argue against private property on the basis of "rights" and "liberty" and "morality", I am doing so however because it is oh so much more effective to argue on your opponents turf.

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

In the case of land, if I do not happen to own my own land I am thus forced to live on your own land for which I must pay rent.

Also, me thinks you may not understand the difference between "private property" and "personal property".

Did you honestly expect anything else when you began?

Your right actually, this board and it's posters are (mostly) awful, racist, sexist, ignorant, annoying, stuck up morons, but hey, who am I to judge...

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

Obviously you have no idea what class is. Grow a brain and try again.

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

In case you didn't notce I did not start this thread. I have been on the defence the entire time against an on slaught of (mostly) piss-weak criticisms. I am not trying to prove anything, I'm trying to set the record straight and defend my political positions.

My understanding of 'property' under communism is that individuals can still for instance earn more money to buy more things if they want, just that they can never buy anything which gives them control over the means of production (i.e. If you work really freaking hard you can have a ferrari, but you can never own your own manufacturing plant).

So, so. You are right in saying that property will no longer exist in the means of production but personal property will still exist (ie. I may own a phone, a television, clothing, food, a car). However, you are mistaken in suggesting that money will exist (atleast in it's current form) and that distribution will be carried out (atleast in the "higher phase of communism") on the basis of "work" ie. from each according to his abilities to each according to his work (which Marx suggested in the Critique of the Gotha Programme may be necessary during the "lower phase of communism" or the "period of transition"

 

[ASNSWR127]

demos kratos - literally "people rule" (democracy)

communism - the owning and running of the system and the state by the people. As a collective rather the individual.

Where is the difference? they go hand in hand and Marx makes it quite clear that you simply must have democracy for socialism/communism to work.

Zeitgeist308 you sound like a most educated and informed human being. Long may we hold out against these neo-con influences! Otherwise the common man is lost!

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

BoS Left unite!

 

[withoutaface]

You sure?

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

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

1. All of that $5 is not profit.
2. The 16 year old has taken no risk by fronting the capital to start the business. No matter which way it goes, he still gets paid. He pays no rent for the outlet, he has not had to work to develop the business, he doesn't have to worry about the state of its finances when he goes home for the day and he hasn't had to spend years learning business management techniques in order to perform his role effectively. I think you'll find that the people who open a franchise really don't earn all that much in the scheme of things.
3. How many burgers would the 16 year old sell if he set up his own premises on the side of the road?

 

[staticsiscool]

7.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

1. All of that $5 is not profit.

What does this mean?

2. The 16 year old has taken no risk by fronting the capital to start the business. No matter which way it goes, he still gets paid. He pays no rent for the outlet, he has not had to work to develop the business, he doesn't have to worry about the state of its finances when he goes home for the day and he hasn't had to spend years learning business management techniques in order to perform his role effectively. I think you'll find that the people who open a franchise really don't earn all that much in the scheme of things.
3. How many burgers would the 16 year old sell if he set up his own premises on the side of the road?

These facts are irrelevant. It does not matter that the employer takes "risks" or has to do "a lot of work". The reality is that the fast food worker produces more value in his time of employment than he is paid in the form of money.

 

[Betty Zhang]

There is no communism in China and there never was.

The Communist Party of China (CPC) (simplified Chinese: *国共产党; traditional Chinese: *國共產黨; pinyin: Zhōngguó Gòngchǎndǎng), also known as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), is the founding and ruling political party of the People's Republic of China and the world's largest political party. Its paramount position as the supreme political authority in China, while not a governing body recognized by the China's constitution[1], the Party is realized as the supreme power through control of all state apparatus and of the legislative process.[2] The Communist Party of China was founded in 1921, and came to rule all of mainland China after defeating its rival the Kuomintang (KMT) in the Chinese Civil War. The party's 70 million members,[3] constitute 5.5% of the total population of mainland China.

Explanation please?

 

[Zeitgeist308]

The Communist Party of China (CPC) (simplified Chinese: �*国共产党; traditional Chinese: �*國共產黨; pinyin: Zhōngguó Gòngchǎndǎng), also known as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), is the founding and ruling political party of the People's Republic of China and the world's largest political party. Its paramount position as the supreme political authority in China, while not a governing body recognized by the China's constitution[1], the Party is realized as the supreme power through control of all state apparatus and of the legislative process.[2] The Communist Party of China was founded in 1921, and came to rule all of mainland China after defeating its rival the Kuomintang (KMT) in the Chinese Civil War. The party's 70 million members,[3] constitute 5.5% of the total population of mainland China.

Explanation please?

Maybe you don't understand the difference between a "Communist State" and communism. The entry in the MIA Encyclopaedia for "communism":

To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability - Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program


"In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. - Marx & Engels, The German Ideology, Private Property and Communism


"From the moment all members of society, or at least the vast majority, have learned to administer the state themselves, have taken this work into their own hands, have organized control over the insignificant capitalist minority, over the gentry who wish to preserve their capitalist habits and over the workers who have been thoroughly corrupted by capitalism — from this moment the need for government of any kind begins to disappear altogether. The more complete the democracy, the nearer the moment when it becomes unnecessary. The more democratic the "state" which consists of the armed workers, and which is "no longer a state in the proper sense of the word", the more rapidly every form of state begins to wither away.

"Then the door will be thrown wide open for the transition from the first phase of communist society [Socialism] to its higher phase [Communism], and with it the complete withering away of the state. - Vladimir Lenin, The State and Revolution, Chpt 5. The higher phase of Communist Society


Communism is the positive supersession of private property as human self-estrangement [alienation], and hence the true appropriation of the human essence through and for man. It is the complete restoration of man to himself as a social — i.e., human — being, a restoration which has become conscious and which takes place within the entire wealth of previous periods of development. This communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature, and between man and man, the true resolution of the conflict between existence and being, between objectification and self-affirmation, between freedom and necessity, between individual and species. It is the solution of the riddle of history and knows itself to be the solution. - Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts


This "alienation" [caused by private property] can, of course, only be abolished given two practical premises. For it to become an "intolerable" power, i.e. a power against which men make a revolution, it must necessarily have rendered the great mass of humanity "propertyless", and produced, at the same time, the contradiction of an existing world of wealth and culture, both of which conditions presuppose a great increase in productive power, a high degree of its development. And, on the other hand, this development of productive forces (which itself implies the actual empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced; and furthermore, because only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal intercourse between men established, which produces in all nations simultaneously the phenomenon of the "propertyless" mass (universal competition), makes each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others, and finally has put world-historical, empirically universal individuals in place of local ones.

Without this:

(1) communism could only exist as a local event;
(2) the forces of intercourse themselves could not have developed as universal, hence intolerable powers: they would have remained home-bred conditions surrounded by superstition; and
(3) each extension of intercourse would abolish local communism.
Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples "all at once" and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with communism. Moreover, the mass of propertyless workers — the utterly precarious position of labour — power on a mass scale cut off from capital or from even a limited satisfaction and, therefore, no longer merely temporarily deprived of work itself as a secure source of life — presupposes the world market through competition. The proletariat can thus only exist world-historically, just as communism, its activity, can only have a "world-historical" existence. World-historical existence of individuals means existence of individuals which is directly linked up with world history.

"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence. - Marx & Engels, The German Ideology


"Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

"In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. - Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, The Communist Manifesto
Proletarians and Communists
​

Now, just in case you didn't understand all that, the simplest way I can put it is:

Communism refers to a future mode of production characterised by statelessness, classlessness and common property in the means of production where distribution is organised on the principle of "to each according to his needs".

Hope that helps!

 

[Betty Zhang]

Communism refers to a future mode of production characterised by statelessness, classlessness and common property in the means of production where distribution is organised on the principle of "to each according to his needs".

thx. so... the core of communism = equality? correct me if im wrong.

 

[Silver Persian]

thx. so... the core of communism = equality? correct me if im wrong.

Well it depends how you define equality. Equality of what?

Communism (Marxist style) =/= equality of income

 

[Zeitgeist308]

Well it depends how you define equality. Equality of what?

Communism (Marxist style) =/= equality of income

Bingo

BTW, where you satisfied with the reply I gave to your criticisms all those pages back. I think I was the last to address them directly, so I assume you are satisfied with my counter-"arguement" [I don't think your opinions are too disagreeable, this can be seen in the fact that some of your criticisms where more like (valuable) commentary].

 

[Silver Persian]

Bingo

BTW, where you satisfied with the reply I gave to your criticisms all those pages back. I think I was the last to address them directly, so I assume you are satisfied with my counter-"arguement" [I don't think your opinions are too disagreeable, this can be seen in the fact that some of your criticisms where more like (valuable) commentary].

I'm still not convinced that class conflict and economic relations of production are necessarily at the heart of history. I understand that Marx has often been misinterpreted as being a complete economic determinist with references to the base/superstructure model of society - and that he is willining to give some degree of autonomy to culture, politics, religion, gender etc. Despite this flexibility, it still seems that historical materialism (by definition) puts the economy + class at the centre of history, whereas I would suggest that the question of what "moves" history is contingent and changes over time. As you said, this disagreement reflects the influence of my New Left sociology lecturers coming through

I'm also a bit uncertain about the whole, "what communism looks like is to be determined by the cooks of the future" line. What if Marxist-communism comes to pass, and it ends up being awful? Surely we need some idea about the how system will function...

I have learnt a lot about Marxist theory reading your posts

 

[withoutaface]

What does this mean?



These facts are irrelevant. It does not matter that the employer takes "risks" or has to do "a lot of work". The reality is that the fast food worker produces more value in his time of employment than he is paid in the form of money.

You're now talking LTV, which you've already said pages ago is irrelevant to your system of government. The business owner is better off having the unskilled labour of the sixteen year old because he/she can focus on the area where they have a comparative advantage, and the teenager is better off because he is earning more than he would making hamburgers on the side of the road. Ergo, both benefit from the transaction, or it would not occur,

The rest of your arguments are tautological. "If everyone suddenly decided to believe x, y and z, and that giving to the community was a more noble goal than achieving personal goals, then a society where people relied on each other for support and didn't pursue personal goals would be the result."

 

[Zeitgeist308]

I'm still not convinced that class conflict and economic relations of production are necessarily at the heart of history. I understand that Marx has often been misinterpreted as being a complete economic determinist with references to the base/superstructure model of society - and that he is willining to give some degree of autonomy to culture, politics, religion, gender etc. Despite this flexibility, it still seems that historical materialism (by definition) puts the economy + class at the centre of history, whereas I would suggest that the question of what "moves" history is contingent and changes over time. As you said, this disagreement reflects the influence of my New Left sociology lecturers coming through

I understand this opposition perfectly well, however, if you are interested further in the subject I am quite happy to recommend some reading material (on the methodology, it's application and it's strengths/value)

What if Marxist-communism comes to pass, and it ends up being awful?

If that be case I'm sure it would be superseded.

Surely we need some idea about the how system will function...

I thought I had been fairly coherent it describing the functioning of the mode of production, however, vagueness is inevitable unless one wants to come out a utopian.

I have learnt a lot about Marxist theory reading your posts

I'm glad (and to a degree surprised) to hear that! If you have any further questions feel free to PM me or post them here.

You're now talking LTV, which you've already said pages ago is irrelevant to your system of government.

I'm afraid I have no idea what you are saying here, we aren't discussing a "system of government". Also could you please provide a quote.

The business owner is better off having the unskilled labour of the sixteen year old because he/she can focus on the area where they have a comparative advantage, and the teenager is better off because he is earning more than he would making hamburgers on the side of the road.

Yes, yes we've all heard this arguement before (especially in debates between Libertarians and Social-Democrats on sweat-shop labour). You are correct in stating that both parties (the employee and employer) benefit, sure the workers are better off employed than on the street or trying to produce the same goods without the productive property possessed by the capitalist. However you ignore the reality of exploitation. Yes, the 16 year old is better off being paid $45 for an 8-hour day than having no income at all, but irrelevant of this, in the former case he is being exploited.

Ergo, both benefit from the transaction, or it would not occur,

Would you care to explain the predominance of chattel slave relations in ancient societies or it's continued existence even up to the present day?

Bosses and workers do not exist just because of the way individuals choose to act,these roles exist externally to the individuals who carry them out. It is not just rational self-interest driving each component part of the system, but rather the needs of the system driving the actors.

The rest of your arguments are tautological.

Again, would you care to quote me on that?

"If everyone suddenly decided to believe x, y and z,

Maybe you missed historical materialism 101:

In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. - Marx, Preface to the Critique of Political Economy
​

Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking. - Marx, German Ideology
​

and that giving to the community was a more noble goal than achieving personal goals, then a society where people relied on each other for support and didn't pursue personal goals would be the result."

Is this supposed to be some witty caricature?

You are either misrepresenting my views or ignoring the post in which I addressed the issue of "sef-interest", "greed", "altruism" etc.

Please, pull it together and reply when you have something useful to say

 

[Olympus15]

Anybody really making the argument that communism is evil is too busy arguing many wrongdoings attributed to regimes such as those of Stalin and Pol Pot. Rather, I believe people should examine communism as an ideology, and what its it about at its core, which to me is a beautiful, harmonious society. I would tend to believe that greater evils have been exorcised on the part of Religion, however, i do not confuse such atrocious acts with a religious belief, but to crazed individuals who perform them.

 

[Cooma2504]

communism is a fantastic idea in theory, but we all know it's not going to work in a practical situation

 

[tommykins]

Anybody really making the argument that communism is evil is too busy arguing many wrongdoings attributed to regimes such as those of Stalin and Pol Pot. Rather, I believe people should examine communism as an ideology, and what its it about at its core, which to me is a beautiful, harmonious society. I would tend to believe that greater evils have been exorcised on the part of Religion, however, i do not confuse such atrocious acts with a religious belief, but to crazed individuals who perform them.

Zeitgeist pretty much showed me this ideology.

 

[bigboyjames]

communism is a fantastic idea in theory, but we all know it's not going to work in a practical situation

what a cliche. go do your HSC boi.