ShineThePath
Revolutionary
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
"Individualism is Parasitism"
Posts: 128
|
Post by ShineThePath on Aug 3, 2004 21:34:13 GMT -5
Well in aspect this whole discussion was not "win people over" but to criticize and question their system, it was more addressed to SoR, and Anarchists a like, and for them to anwser my questions I had about how they would deal with the fundamentals. I was not meaning to "win" over RS2000. These were just my thoughts on the subject, it was not meant to "win over" RS2000, and I don't see that likely to ever happen.
I take criticism fine, but when people make stupid comments upon something serious that is brought up. The example I gave of my mother was an easy example because I knew about that in particular because It was an expierence of mine that thought me much and helped me to develop. His empty sarcastic "warning" was enough to turn my stomach. He could have easy argued for what he was calling for, but he simply said to me, my mother and others like her will have a "short life span" in his warped communist society.
|
|
|
Post by VolPatsyOHaraRIP on Aug 4, 2004 1:53:11 GMT -5
"Well lets skip the kidding and name calling and see why the Proletariat needs to be trained. Simply the Proletariat is not able to just start analyzing situations and epochs of time in order to come to rational conclusions that will advance society, the ever prevelant situation at this moment is the Imperial structure beginning to further under develop their skills. "
As Marx argued, the proletariat are trained by capitalism now. That's (one of the reasons) why capitalism creates the material conditions for revolution.
And BTW, ShinethePath, you owe Michael Parenti a few quid for your first post on this thread. Much of the rhetoric you used was lifted from one of his dull books defending stalinism.
|
|
ShineThePath
Revolutionary
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
"Individualism is Parasitism"
Posts: 128
|
Post by ShineThePath on Aug 4, 2004 2:27:47 GMT -5
Yeah I used the terms of Siege Socialism and that context from that from Parenti, so what?
I never argued that Capitalism does not build up a proletariat, of course they do that is simple. However Capitalism does not build the ability to analyse situation and it will never do so.
|
|
|
Post by unknownguest on Aug 9, 2004 20:23:17 GMT -5
rs2000 wrote: <<With the abolition of wage-labor, money, the market, commodity exchange, and, most basic, the production of commodities for profit, all of the economic characteristics of capitalism are gone.>> I'm interested what would be instead of capitalist economy? How could people exchange commodity without money?
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Aug 9, 2004 21:16:30 GMT -5
unknownguest wrote: I'm interested what would be instead of capitalist economy? How could people exchange commodity without money?
In communist society, people would not "exchange" goods or services at all.
You, as an individual or as part of a collective, would produce whatever you and your collective thought useful and interesting and even enjoyable...and you would give it away!
Everyone else would be doing the same thing.
In the eyes of capitalists and Leninists, of course, this would lead to "chaos"...a "commanding authority" is "required".
In communism, however, people would co-ordinate their work without compulsion. Few would "want" to produce something that no one wanted and many would want to be seen by themselves and others as producing things that were genuinely useful and desirable.
That will be the source of prestige in communist society: to produce something useful and do that with competence.
|
|
ShineThePath
Revolutionary
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
"Individualism is Parasitism"
Posts: 128
|
Post by ShineThePath on Aug 10, 2004 1:43:17 GMT -5
"You, as an individual or as part of a collective, would produce whatever you and your collective thought useful and interesting and even enjoyable...and you would give it away!"
The question I have is how "individual communes" will produce all that is needed to survive? Is the commune so self effcient it can make industrial appliances, clothing, food, and etc., without falling back on the capitalist principles of exchange. Instead of a "capitalist" at every motion of exchange, your just substituting with "collectives" that run this exchange. The exchange would probably be not on the escalated scale of Imperialist Capitalism today, but still there is exchange. So how in fact can you say there will be no exchange? This is a contradiction in your system which leaves the essence of Capitalism alive. Also, this was one of many contradictions in which Socialist Nations tried to deal with, and tried to find solutions. Can you site how these "collectives" will produce ALL of its populace needs, without exchane between other "collectives" or individuals? Leninists don't see "chaos" in your projection of what "communism" would look like, but only the re-establishment of another form of Capitalism. You might say that people in these "collectives" are "giving away" their productions and items, but than another collective is doing the same for you, so there is no "giving away", this is more of a coverup for the exchange happening.
This collective also has to rely as well on Compound Labor skills, which will leave inequality in the "collective" with Compound Labor and Simple Labor. How would you deal with the Doctor in the collective, rather to his "comrades" manufacturing clothing?
|
|
VolPatsyOHara
New Member
Republican Socialist / Syndicalist
Posts: 34
|
Post by VolPatsyOHara on Aug 10, 2004 22:31:45 GMT -5
The question I have is how "individual communes" will produce all that is needed to survive? Is the commune so self effcient it can make industrial appliances, clothing, food, and etc., without falling back on the capitalist principles of exchange.
That's where syndicalism comes in, or some other form of a federal system. The anarchists in Spain had a very large movement and so conveaned congresses to discuss policy, etc.
|
|
|
Post by unknounguest on Aug 14, 2004 16:00:44 GMT -5
rs2000 wrote: <<In communist society, people would not "exchange" goods or services at all.
You, as an individual or as part of a collective, would produce whatever you and your collective thought useful and interesting and even enjoyable...and you would give it away!
Everyone else would be doing the same thing.>>
Altruism .... well! What is the difference between "... you would produce something useful and interesting and give it away and then you get something needed from others ..." and "...to exchange goods or services ..."?
rs2000 wrote: <<In communism, however, people would co-ordinate their work without compulsion. >>
What happen if ... few would "want" to produce potatoes and many would "want" to contrive airplanes? How people would induce not agreeing persons?
|
|
flyby
Revolutionary
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 243
|
Post by flyby on Aug 14, 2004 17:12:25 GMT -5
Of course, people WILL exchange goods. This is objective -- i.e. there will be objective exchange between continents, or between specific industries, or between agricultural and industrial sectors. Groups of people will produce this good or service, not that one.
What will NOT happen -- is that these things will not be exchanged AS COMMODITIES.
I.e. the distribution of goods (and the allocation of human labor power for production) will not be governed by the law of value.
Also, society will be social -- in fact it will be increasingly socialized, as the process of socialist revolution progresses.
In other words, communist society is a network of freely associating human beings. But it is not true that there will not be organized direction (socialized production cannot operate without organization). However that organization will not concentrate class antagonism -- it will not embody and serve the extraction of value from working people, and its alienation for the use by an exploiting class.
|
|
|
Post by unknownguest on Aug 14, 2004 19:11:42 GMT -5
flyby wrote: <<Of course, people WILL exchange goods. This is objective -- i.e. there will be objective exchange between continents, or between specific industries, or between agricultural and industrial sectors. Groups of people will produce this good or service, not that one.
What will NOT happen -- is that these things will not be exchanged AS COMMODITIES.
I.e. the distribution of goods (and the allocation of human labor power for production) will not be governed by the law of value.>>
How many female screwes which you have produced, you must to give away to exchange for one TV-set? How much wheat would be given away by an agricultural collective for a couple of combine harvesters?
It would not have any meaning in the case if it's a great deal of commodity but the resources of the Earth are not unlimited. So all things must be produced only with asking by somebody in an organized way and, so, the production of commodity must be planned.
What to do if you have produced something useful for other people but you aren't in need anything at that moment?
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Aug 14, 2004 21:30:46 GMT -5
ShineThePath wrote: The question I have is how "individual communes" will produce all that is needed to survive?
They won't. They will ask other communes for what they need and the other communes will, except under very unusual circumstances, respond favorably to their request.
No doubt someone will "keep track" of the flow of goods and services...perhaps a "central economic data commission". Perhaps such a commission might make suggestions to different communes -- quit making X because almost no one wants it; start making Y instead.
And should it become widely known that your commune is making crap, the communes that have been giving you your raw materials might quit doing that.
ShineThePath wrote: How would you deal with the doctor in the collective, rather to his "comrades" manufacturing clothing?
The doctor would likely be part of a medical services commune; she would probably travel from commune to commune on an "as needed" basis.
Her needs would be met on the same basis as everyone else's.
unknownguest wrote: What is the difference between "... you would produce something useful and interesting and give it away and then you get something needed from others ..." and "...to exchange goods or services ..."?
Because the "exchange" is based on need and not "value".
unknownguest wrote: What happen if ... few would "want" to produce potatoes and many would "want" to contrive airplanes? How people would induce not agreeing persons?
By persuasion, of course. If too few people are growing potatoes, then potatoes will have to be rationed. Since people like potatoes, farming communes will discuss this shortage and start growing more potatoes.
If too many people want to make airplanes, the communes that supply the raw materials for airplane construction will refuse to sink more effort into something that doesn't need to be done.
In fact, that's a general question relating to all work in communist society: does this need to be done?
That's a decision that will no longer rest with capital or with a hypothetical socialist elite...but with the people who actually do the work.
There will be many vehement disagreements and struggles over what "really needs to be done"...and they won't take place in a bank or a luxury hotel!
unknownguest wrote: What to do if you have produced something useful for other people but you aren't in need anything at that moment?
Exactly the same as if you did need something; give what you produced away to people who needed it. At a later time, you would have needs...and they would be met for the asking.
I am always willing, I should add, to yield to the temptation to discuss the "details" of communist society and how it might work in actual practice.
But people should remember that we are discussing things that may take a half-century or longer to materialize...and the specific historical circumstances of that era will have the decisive voice on what is possible and how quickly it may be implemented.
In my opinion, the revolutionary proletariat will try to introduce communism very rapidly after the revolution...but how successfully things will go remains to be seen.
Matters could get "pretty hairy" for a while.
|
|
|
Post by ship of fools on Aug 28, 2004 1:18:32 GMT -5
my advice is that instead of trying so hard to assert you opinion to others you sould try and figure out what you your self are trying to say.Another good idea would be to try to be more open minded instead of just pushing forward even after you've been proven wrong.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Aug 28, 2004 7:46:34 GMT -5
ship of fools wrote: My advice is that instead of trying so hard to assert your opinion to others, you sould try and figure out what you yourself are trying to say. Another good idea would be to try to be more open minded instead of just pushing forward even after you've been proven wrong.
Good advice, I suppose, but too abstract to be very useful.
Coherence is always desirable, no doubt about it.
But opinions about who has been "proven wrong" are often pretty subjective.
|
|
|
Post by unknownguest on Aug 31, 2004 18:20:09 GMT -5
redstar2000 wrote: <<They won't. They will ask other communes for what they need and the other communes will, except under very unusual circumstances, respond favorably to their request. No doubt someone will "keep track" of the flow of goods and services...perhaps a "central economic data commission". Perhaps such a commission might make suggestions to different communes -- quit making X because almost no one wants it; start making Y instead.>> ShineThePath wrote: <<"You, as an individual or as part of a collective, would produce whatever you and your collective thought useful and interesting and even enjoyable...and you would give it away!">> flyby wrote: <<.. ..the distribution of goods (and the allocation of human labor power for production) will not be governed by the law of value.>> Not to sound "the play of words" only, tell us (who are all over the world:-), pls. how people in communism will be planning productions of goods not to get overproduction or shortage that or others goods (as you know in capitalism this thing is regulated with enrichment of ones producers and ruin others)? How needs of people will be uncovered ?(as you know in capitalism the producers are looking for "needs" by themselves and exert influence on market by liquidate a part of goods to rise the prices or use advertizing ). How people will distribute goods? Someone could take many goods and another one nothing because he is late? I suppose this is the most important question which has not been solved in the XX century. Tell us specifically but not as bubbles ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png)
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Aug 31, 2004 23:30:36 GMT -5
1. How people in communism will be planning productions of goods not to get overproduction or shortage...?
To be honest, I think overproduction/underproduction are inevitable.
There's no apparent way to "perfectly match" needs and production in any system.
In capitalism, when goods are overproduced, the prices are lowered to attract more purchasers...and sometimes stocks of goods are simply destroyed. When goods are underproduced, prices are increased...so even if you "need" that good, you can't buy it because it's too expensive. That is, capitalism rations by price.
Communist society would "ration by need" in the event of underproduction. Everyone would be entitled to a "small slice" of that "too-small pie".
When the pie got bigger, then rationing would be discontinued.
Overproduction would be much less of a potential problem in communist society -- its source is the capitalist's relentless need to increase profit. That won't be a motivating factor under communism.
2. How needs of people will be uncovered?
By asking, of course. Many corporations do that now -- they call it "market research".
There's no reason why we can't do it too.
3. Someone could take many goods and another one nothing because he is late?
Well, there are obvious physical limitations. How much "stuff" can you "carry"?
Beyond this, I'm assuming that we'll be using some advanced version of current "smart-card" technology that will tell us what people are taking to fill their "needs"...and the central data bank will tell us quickly who is being a "hog".
We could de-activate their card...but I suspect if we simply inform their neighbors and co-workers, that will probably solve the problem; e.g., "What do you need four computers for, dammit!"
I hope this was not too "bubbly".
|
|