new capitalism vs communism thread

[curtsibling]

Not need to get upset.

I know you are of a more pragmatic communist type than Mr tripledoc.

But calling my opinion nonsense is not going to get the best of me.

I disagree with communism, but I don't think any less of posters for that.

And you are free to compare me to Ned, whoever he is...?

[Tripledoc]

Spiffor.

I will go through your post on page one then. I need to focus my mind so maybe it will be here tomorrow.

Prepare for a devastating attack.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by curtsibling
But calling my opinion nonsense is not going to get the best of me.

I actually should have called it "willfully uninformed", because you are avoiding to read the interesting posts of this thread, which could teach you quite a few things about communism. Things that go against your current opinion.
I'm not asking you to convert to communism, I'm asking you to get an informed opinion on communists. That's pretty easy, you have to read Azazel's and mine posts in this topic to that effect.

I disagree with communism, but I don't think any less of posters for that.

I just read I had a "silly reputation", and I have just been associated with the advocating of stalinism. I resent the latter. Just like you'd resent me calling you a nazi on grounds of your anticommunism.

And you are free to compare me to Ned, whoever he is...?

The right-wing ideologue, who lives in an fantasy world, and about whom all the right-wingers agree it gives their side a bad name

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Prepare for a devastating attack.

Bring it on

[Az]

Not need to get upset.

What's with the constant mania that you offend everyone?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
BTW, Skywalker, shouldn't you be "Emperor of Schmooism" rather than "Emperor of your Mom". That would make many people intrigues I'd bet

thank you

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
We all know why Communists need large armies, even if they have no enemies.

You attacked us first, second, and third, buddy boy. We've never not had enemies.

[Ned]

Che, what do you mean by US? You have repeatedly said that the USSR is not communism.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I actually should have called it "willfully uninformed", because you are avoiding to read the interesting posts of this thread, which could teach you quite a few things about communism. Things that go against your current opinion.

I'm not asking you to convert to communism, I'm asking you to get an informed opinion on communists. That's pretty easy, you have to read Azazel's and mine posts in this topic to that effect.

Well, perhaps I gave you heavy end of my tirade.
So, in the spirit of good poster relations, accept my apologies for painting you with a wide brush, Spiffor.

I'll look through the posts at length, but don't expect me to go all Trotsky!

Originally posted by Spiffor I
I just read I had a "silly reputation", and I have just been associated with the advocating of stalinism. I resent the latter. Just like you'd resent me calling you a nazi on grounds of your anticommunism.

OK, Point taken!

But being told I am an evil capitalist oppressor by hordes of previous communist posters, makes one perhaps a bit too wary.

Originally posted by Spiffor
The right-wing ideologue, who lives in an fantasy world, and about whom all the right-wingers agree it gives their side a bad name

I believe I know the chap you mean.

[Az]

Originally posted by Ned
Che, what do you mean by US? You have repeatedly said that the USSR is not communism.

But it did try to fullfill that promiss in it's beginning.

[The Andy-Man]

don't you lot ever have enough? Round and Round in circles like idiots. Your all as bad as each other.

[BeBro]

BTW, who's winning currently?

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
don't you lot ever have enough? Round and Round in circles like idiots. Your all as bad as each other.

Actually, this thread is more like a capitalist fortress of fact and logic, that is attacked periodically by hordes of clowns.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by curtsibling
I'll look through the posts at length, but don't expect me to go all Trotsky!

No problem , this is not what I expect. Heck, said posts are not the kind of things I say when I'm in a conversion spree anyway. But it can give you information of the opinions among commies, and that's what matters

But being told I am an evil capitalist oppressor by hordes of previous communist posters, makes one perhaps a bit too wary.

True, but it works both ways. Being called a commie murderer didn't halp me feeling really patient. I tried to keep being polite, hoping you'll decide to get informed. I'm glad it went the right way

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by BeBro
BTW, who's winning currently?

There are two separate threads: A trolling pissfest on the one hand (I don't know who wins), and a polite discussion between Azazel, Skywalker and myself, were each of us present our ideal model for a communist / capitalist society. In this second case, there is no winner so far, as no ideal model has been proven evil.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
don't you lot ever have enough? Round and Round in circles like idiots. Your all as bad as each other.

This is the first Communism vs Capitalism thread where I'm a resident. Hence, I didn't have enough yet

[curtsibling]

Spiffor has displayed that even the communist faction can produce lucid and worthy posters.

And I think this debate has it's own value.

Hence I don't think we should seek a 'winner' in this thread.

[Tripledoc]

Critique of Spifforism

.................................................. ........................................
2.(Spiffors points are numbered) I advocate more a socialist economy with democratic institutions, rather than the idea of communism as advocated by Marx. I do not believe in any form of invisible hand, and Marx's communism does rely on it.
.................................................. ........................................
A critique of Democracy must neccesarily start with a short presentation of Toqueville's writings. In the chapter'Singular facilities for the establishment of despotism' he presents the following case.

Modern Democracy is characterized by, an 'innumerable multitude of men, all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures which with they glut their lives' And each one of these citizens live in a closed world by his lonely self.

Ruling over these men is, 'an immense and tutelary power which takes upon itself to secure their gratifications...' The final goal is to. 'keep them in perpetual childhood'. They are reduced to 'nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.'

The 'people combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty'.In other words, the people elect leaders and grant them immense powers to subdue them, while the leaders are themselves subdued by power of the electorate. This can only lead ever downwards.

He then goes on and concludes that,'To create a representation of the people in every centralized country is, therefore, to diminish the evil that extreme centraliztion may produce, but not get rid of it'. Meaning that while Democracy is the lesser of all evils, the evil resides unless, either representation is discarded for something else, or centralization is broken. So why not seek an avenue of approach which seeks to overturn
both representation and centralization?

If we now consider what extreme representation and extreme centralization will lead to, the prospects are not good, to put it mildly. The people will through their clamoring give power to those who are most capable of satisfying their ublu material needs. In an age when
imperialism is succumbing to the law of diminishing returns, when the people can be moved through massive propaganda, when politicians feel little or no responsibility towards such basic things as truth and honesty, handing the immense powers of centralization of a socialized state run economy to elected officials will inevitably lead to a most vicious and suicidal kind of fascism.

The most basic avenues of solutions to the problem is therefore to 1) empower each citizen in the productive process in order that he gets a real feel for what it takes to produce what is consumed. 2) this empowerment will only happen when the most basic reason that wealth and subsequently power accumulates in the hands of the few is removed. That reason is the upholding of private property of all kinds. For practical reasons some property will neccesarily stay within the hands of collectives 3) As stated present day democracy has degenerated into a wild scuffle for those who promise most goods at the least expense to the citizen. A solution to this requires some pondering on the issue.
.................................................. .........................................
.................................................. .........................................
3. The main point behind a socialist economy is that the workers are the ones who have power in the company, NOT the shareholder. Basically, it means companies become democratic instead of despotic.
Now, you can have more or less efficient company institutions, differing according to each company's situation (mostly the size).
.................................................. .........................................
In a communist economy there is no place for private property, which must neccesarily leave the shareholder out of the picture. There is no solution in now letting the workers become the capitalists by default by letting them take over the power of the production. A democratization of the factory plant will only mean that the same processes explained in the Toquevillian critique of Democracy will now take place on the sub-level. Furthermore that kind of worker Democracy will neccesarily be subserviant to the national Democracy, or finally the supranational Democracy. In this case how is it then to be avoided that the worker will not by his own accord see the benefit in working harder to satisfy not only his own needs and that of his family(which is communism), but see an impulse to work for the socalled 'greater good'. This creates oversupply, and this again sparks imperialism as the search for new markets is now prioritized.
.................................................. ........................................
.................................................. ........................................
4. Some would advocate a "pure" socialist system, that can also be depicted as "anarcho-syndicalist": every company is held by its employees, and there is no overall economic authority to monitor all that. I oppose such a view that I deem extremistic.
.................................................. ........................................
In a communist society the companies are owned by the collective, which means that ownership has effectively been disbanded. As stated a strong supervisory body of elected representatives is pure centralization. And centralization is dangerous in a Democratic society. Therefore there must be a true imposition of 'communal' rule. I prefer to call this Municipalism.

Under Municipalism the geographic landscape is divided into largely self-sufficient and self-ruling bodies. The revolution in ecolological technology must neccesarily lead to a de-centralization of the sources of power to run the services, the industries, and agriculture (wealth generators). The municipality is like an organic being.
It draws its energy from the immediate surroundings, and the waste it produces is in turn again consumed by the wealth generators, and further wealth is produced. In shorth: Municipalities+Ecology=Communism.

In an age when we are threatened by terrorists, polution, nuclear bombs, satelite televison, nihilist culture, and corporate takeovers, closed off and selfsufficient systems of governance will secure the greatest degree of survivability, while providing the
greatest degree of freedom. A vast system of such entities will present no threat, but will be impossible to defeat.

Still long distance trade cannot be avoided. Especially when it comes to the barren areas of the sub-arctic circle. Yet the present system is furiously ineffecient and wasteful. For instance a horse is sent from Norway to Italy, where it is slaughtered, and then sent to England for consumption. There must be a move towards greater self-sufficiency.
.................................................. ........................................
5. Politics plays an important role in a socialist society. The State should have a strong (if not absolute) directional power in the affairs of general-interest companies. The State should also create economic opportunities for independent companies to use them, and it should avoid resources to be wasted by the private (yet worker-owned) part of the economy.
As a defender of the common interest and major supplier of resources, the State is very important in my model.
.................................................. ........................................
The very fact that politics plays a role in a socialist society is what ultimately renders it reactionary. Under communism politics plays no role at all. Decisions are made on scientific and ethical grounds. Such terms as 'cultural struggle' or 'perpertual war' ultimately have their origins in politics.
.................................................. ........................................
.................................................. ........................................
6. It is extremely important that the State is democratic. I'd pick a democratic capitalism over a despotic communism any day. Since communism or socialism is about giving the power back to the people, such a project is doomed to failure if any concession is made with authoritarianism.
.................................................. .........................................I have already explained my distaste for the Democratic system, and will spare the reader any further thoughts on the issue. Regarding authoritarianism. Just this. Communism is not about giving the power back to the people, unless thereby is meant the power that derives
from economic responsiblity derived from the fact that wages are based on the actual value of the goods sold. The capitalist, or the state, is no longer able to extract the surplus value from the working effort, made possible through the capitalist/state ownership of
capital. This is what gives the people power.

Today when the individual has vast resources at his disposal to keep informed and make his oppinion clear, the revolution will happen by default - if it happens. What is worrying, is the counter-revolution. In effect the rulers of capital are able to hold a gun to the population through its threats of non-compliance, or usurpation of deadly power. A dictatorial intervention by the masses is neccesary as something that can be put on the table, while the expropriation of privately held capital, and the establishment of the new political order, is taking place.

Presently the fact is that the state holds the monopoly of violence, and puts it to service of the owners of capital to maximum effect. If the people have given up all hope of planning for the betterment of the human race, but leaves it in the hands of gunwielding technocrats, that is when we have entered the realms of centralist totalitarianism.
.................................................. ........................................
.................................................. ........................................
7. Personal rights would be protected. People can own watches, fridges, cars, homes. But they can't own production means. The exception to that are monopersonal companies: they should be as free as one can get.
.................................................. ........................................
Regarding the ownership of homes this should be seriously looked into. Now it is so that the housing market is the focus of intense financial speculation and accumulation. This means that the last years, the consumer binge has in large parts been financed through this surge in the value of property. If private ownership of housing, such an important part of
the economy, is allowed to exist under a communist system this will inevitably lead to new class struggles.

Therefore I propose that the ownership of housing is rearranged and collectivized. More specifically this means that apartment blocks, or groups of houses along a street, or in a village, are made into companies owned collectively by the owners. Each unit is revalued, and can only be sold at that price plus inflation and improvements. Improvements must be authorized by the housing council. Each owner gets one vote. Decisions are taken on qualified majorities only.

When it comes to monopersonal companies I see the danger of this current phenomenon called 'outsourcing'. Ten people, each an individual company, may now outsource themselves to man who owns ten shovels, who in turn outsources these shovels to a farmer. This reminds me that the issue of landed property has not even been touched on. To avoid any confusion I
think it better to totally avoid any companies, except on the housing market as stated.
.................................................. ........................................
.................................................. ........................................
8. I don't believe in "to each according to his needs". A strictly flat income is the best way to encourage sloth. OTOH, any sensible socialist State will not only reduce income disparities (since the workers in power will not accept their bosses getting millions while they earn a few dimes), but it should also have a strong safety net. But the extent of the safety net would be dictated by the will of the people.
.................................................. ........................................
Since the amount of goods produced ultimately depends on whether the consumers can afford them at the price it costs for the labourer to produce them, the total amount of goods reflect the total amount of work. Thus people who work more should not be rewarded since this means overproduction, which lessens the value of the goods on the market, and thus makes it easier for those who do not work so hard to afford them. This should be logical, but sadly free marketeers have invented overly complex models to justify the concept of the surplus value handed to the capitalist for free.

The reason there is unemploymnent is that the people who work hard are pushing people out of the job market. Hence under a communist system there will be no need for a social security net, except for those who cannot work. And they create jobs too.

And again I must say that the will of the people in deciding the safety net is not very reassuring. But this is a moot point.

A Municipal type of government is feasable in the post modern world because new advances in information technology and the quick processes of production will make a locally planned economy very efficient. It is precisely thes advances which have rendered the critique of such notable philosophers like Hayek anachronistic.

[Imran Siddiqui]

a polite discussion between Azazel, Skywalker and myself, were each of us present our ideal model for a communist / capitalist society. In this second case, there is no winner so far, as no ideal model has been proven evil.

Dammit, you are supposed to say: "I WON! SKY AND AZ R LUSERS!"

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Dammit, you are supposed to say: "I WON! SKY AND AZ R LUSERS!"

I'm just pretending to keep a low profile. There's no need to arrogantly reaffirm how much I PWNED THEM!!!!!111§!!§!

[Kuciwalker]

I'm still waiting for Spiffor or Azazel to reply to my last OT post

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Spiffor

This is the first Communism vs Capitalism thread where I'm a resident. Hence, I didn't have enough yet

I seem to remember your participation in the "Is Profit Different from Unfair Tax" threads...

[Kuciwalker]

*cough*don'tremindkidicious*cough*

[JohnT]

Naw, you didn't... must be the other Spiffor I'm thinking of.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
Shouldn't or can't? Surely some branch of government elected by the people is able to override the decisions of the workers - otherwise the workers are in complete control of the country, and can do whatever they want.

The laws of the country, as democratically decided by the people at large, are superior to a company's regulation. Much like the internal regulation of a company in today's developed capitalist societies have to be compatible with the Law.

, though that leeway would have to be allowed by the commanders, not encoded in the law (it would be too difficult to legislate what was a "calmer mission").

This is a technical question. But in general, I think we should trust the elected people to jusge what's a "calmer mission" or not. Many military elites strongly dislike the odea of having their authority discussed by base soldiers, and they'll continuingly pretend theey are in an emergency situation even when it's objectively not the case. For example, a peackeeping mission with very low MIA account could easily be deemed a "calmer mission" by the democratic institutions.

I understand that they have leeway - my question is, is this leeway mandated by the constitution or allowed by the government? It seems to me that the company, because it is serving the people, would have to be accountable to them, otherwise it could do whatever the hell it wanted (even if it was given "objectives").

What I meant is that the company has leeway, but the frame is 1) respecting the Law and 2) respecting the objectives. Basically, the leeway is about how work i organized, how to manage the available resources, etc.

My point with all of this is that a top-down hierarchy is necessary in any organization that serves more than itself, so that it is accountable to more than itself. The President gives orders and they are carried out by the people below him, because the President is elected and they are not.

Point taken. I think the State (I wouldn't say the "president", since you can imagine a power-structure that isn't presidential à la the US; besides "the "State" is in charge of preparing the law and executing it, unlike the only person of the president) should be giving objectives, and taking measures if they are not reached. It should give objectives to any public service as well.

The main difference between Azael's model and mine is that mine doesn't define what are "public services" or not. To Azazel, the State should give objectives to any given sector in the industry. I am still undecided to the extent of planification of the economy (but I'm a strong partisan of free one-person companies, unlike Az)

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by JohnT
I seem to remember your participation in the "Is Profit Different from Unfair Tax" threads...

I remember having popped up now and then in these threads, but I can't remember having taking any significant part in them. The Kidicious vs Arrian barrage sure drew me off (or am I mistaking the names? )

[JohnT]

Velocyrix, I think, not Arrian. Though he participated too.

Actually, you didn't appear in either of them. I checked.

[Spiffor]

OK. I feared Alcohol really did ruin my memory

[The Andy-Man]

is that a reference to that very annoying 'is profit the same as unfaur tax' thread, where some very handsome young poster (called Andy i think....) privedthat communism is as described by Kidiscous would be no different from capitalism....

[JohnT]

Why, yes. Yes it was.