Why I think a communist revolution is a pipe dream in United States.

[chequita guevara]

I don't spend all my time here, you know.

[Kuciwalker]

Ok.

[MattH]

I think the forum is sending us a message:

[Bereta_Eder]

Spontaneous AI creation and it's a leftie too.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Have there been? Wars fought purely for economic reasons? I'm sure there have, but none spring to my mind immediately.

-=Vel=-

Iraq , anyone ?

Or maybe America isn't capitalist ?

[aneeshm]

It seems that everyone here forgot Cuba . A tiny antion nest to the biggest capitalist superpower , with both middle fingers raised , shouting "bring 'em on" at every opportunity , surviving with one leader as long as it did seems successful enough to me .

[Velociryx]

Yep...on the surface of it, Cuba *would* seem to fit the bill for a success.....

....until you start digging into the GDP, per capita income, etc (which has been done on a thread in Poly's OT before).

What you find is that smaller, capitalistic nations with less population and fewer resources beat the SNOT out of Cuba in every measure but health care (as measured by infant mortality rate).

In looking at Soviet Russia's phenominal growth period (and nod to Che, it WAS a strong period of growth), we see that Communist states CAN grow like gangbusters, sure, if they don't mind sacrificing a few tens of millions of their population to the effort (since per capita income numbers are based on the population of a nation, OF COURSE per capita income tends to rise when you lose 20 million or so of your comrades....big surprise, eh?).

-=Vel=-

[aneeshm]

Here , I'm not measuring Cuba's economic growth as a criterion for success . I think it's mere survival is a success in itself . And I don't remember Castro sacrificing millions of people .

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by aneeshm
It seems that everyone here forgot Cuba .

With good reason, commies mostly like to say dictatorships aren't examples of "true" communism. It saves them from dealing with thorny issues like the USSR or Mao's China.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
With good reason, commies mostly like to say dictatorships aren't examples of "true" communism. It saves them from dealing with thorny issues like the USSR or Mao's China.

We have to deal with them anyway. I think a lot of non-Stalinists do cast a "pox on both houses" and throw the socialist baby out with the Stalinist bathwater. If I weren't intellectually lazy, I'd do the research required to really understand the USSR, China, and the capitalist economy and be something of a commie Roland/Adam Smith.

Okay, that's not really fair to me. I at least don't simply dismiss the USSR and China out of hand and do accept their claims to try to be building socialism. I look at them as some kind of transitional economies, about as close to communism as mercantilism is to post-modern capitalism. I also think there were valuable aspects to these attempts that need to be rescued from the Stalinist horrors, unlike many who simply dismiss them out of hand.

Vel, Cuba lost out to Puerto Rico on GDP, number of televisions per household, and things lke that. Cuba, however, wins on employment, health care, and education. It's kinda like comparing Canadian taxes to American taxes. Sure, we pay less taxes, but we get so much less for it.

[Kuciwalker]

You never answered my question che...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
You never answered my question che...

I don't know.

[Kuciwalker]

So you don't know which would happen. Let's look at the possibilities then:

First, the government could break up the strike and bring in other workers who are willing to work for that pay (sound familier?), or they could kill/arrest some of the strikers until the rest go back to work. That type of response would be in direct violation of what you communists stand for, so let's look at the second option.

The second option is simple - give in to the demands of the strikers (or negotiate a compromise). Now, what if people get the idea, and other professionals also strike for more money? You keep doing this, increasing their pay until they think they are being paid fairly. Also, people think that certain commodities cost too much (because they have to cost a certain amount to get enough money to pay those that make them). These are relatively cheap commodities made by relatively unskilled laborers. They boycot those products. You then have to decrease prices until people are willing to pay. You then have less money to pay the unskilled workers with. You could take the money from the salaries of more skilled workers, but they would strike, because they wouldn't think they were being paid the fair value of their labor. You end up with a fundamentally capitalist system. You know why this is? Because the world is a fundamentally capitalist system; that's how it works.

[chequita guevara]

I rather think that's unlikely.

[Kuciwalker]

What part of that do you think is unlikely? That people wouldn't be completely happy with the communist workers paradise?

[chequita guevara]

Your entire scenario.

[Kuciwalker]

Well, my scenario starts with a group of professionals who get angry that they are being paid as much or nearly as much as an unskilled worker. That's not unrealistic.

As regarding the two options the State can take, do you think there is a third? If so, please tell us.

[chequita guevara]

As I said before, socialism and communism do not equal leveling. Pilots will be paid more than unskilled workers. In State and Revolution, Lenin proposes pay differentals as high as five times what the least paid worker is paid. In other words, if minimum wage is $5/hour, maximum wage is $25/hour.

Each society, however, will have to determine its own rules. At best, all I could do is tell you how I would do it.

[Velociryx]

Yes, but does that not invite....exploitation, or the potential for same? After all, if I'm making more than you, then I'm in a better position to do some good ol' fashioned capitalistic exploitation, non?

-=Vel=-

[Kuciwalker]

Ok. What if the pilots decide that they aren't being paid enough? They'd strike, just like they do in any society. Unless of course you are going to pay them the amount of money necessary to keep them from striking in the first place. In this case, how is it any different from capitalism? Market forces are STILL at work.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
Ok. What if the pilots decide that they aren't being paid enough? They'd strike, just like they do in any society.

There are other ways to reward people besides money.

Market forces are STILL at work.

For a while, probably yes. But instead of, as in capitalist society, for the benefit of the capitalists, it will be heavily regulated for the benefit of the workers.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Yes, but does that not invite....exploitation, or the potential for same? After all, if I'm making more than you, then I'm in a better position to do some good ol' fashioned capitalistic exploitation, non?

-=Vel=-

In order to exploit, you must own some means of production If all means of production are socially owned (with the exception of very small businesses which would employ the owner and his/her immediate family), then the fact that you make more doesn't necessitate exploitation.

[Kuciwalker]

There are other ways to reward people besides money.

Not really. Whatever you give them will COST money, so it has the same effect.

For a while, probably yes. But instead of, as in capitalist society, for the benefit of the capitalists, it will be heavily regulated for the benefit of the workers.

The market forces will ALWAYS be at work, and they don't work any differently under communism than under capitalism. Except now, there is ONE employer, who has a monopoly on EVERYTHING. THAT often leads to exploitation.

[axi]

You make the point against your own argument.

I know I do. However my gut feeling is leaning towards the opposite. Coexistance with capitalism is a dead-end for socialism. It either has to corrupt and die, or grow and prevail.

Market forces will not be absent from the first stages of socialism. The pilots will strike if they have to and the political system at that stage will provide a solution, any solution to the problem. The key is that, as socialism progresses, the pilots will have no reason to strike, as the materialistic motives will slowly be abolished.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

There are other ways to reward people besides money.

Not really. Whatever you give them will COST money, so it has the same effect.

Social recognition, preferential treatment, etc. Doesn't cost money.

Quote:

For a while, probably yes. But instead of, as in capitalist society, for the benefit of the capitalists, it will be heavily regulated for the benefit of the workers.

The market forces will ALWAYS be at work, and they don't work any differently under communism than under capitalism. Except now, there is ONE employer, who has a monopoly on EVERYTHING. THAT often leads to exploitation.

Market forces will only be at work as long as there is a market. The point of socialism is to abolish the market altogether, to reach a level of production where it is silly even to think about charging for things.

As for there only being one employer, you're stuck on thinking about the USSR. It's true, perhaps, that some societies may choose to have a large democratic centralized government which owns everything. On the other hand, it's possible that everything is owned by worker collectives, who make their own decisions about how to run things on an micro level while they get requests from a macro bureaucracy. You don't want to limit possibilities by creating a blue print ahead of time. The people who have the revolution will know better what they need than we do in the past.

[Kuciwalker]

Market forces will not be absent from the first stages of socialism. The pilots will strike if they have to and the political system at that stage will provide a solution, any solution to the problem. The key is that, as socialism progresses, the pilots will have no reason to strike, as the materialistic motives will slowly be abolished.

You mean fundament human nature will change?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
You mean fundament human nature will change?

Fundimental human nature is change. Humans are not fundimentally materialistic. We merely happen to live in a society which encourages it and brings it out in people. Many previous human societies have been somewhat anti-materialistic, if not entirely then to a large extent.

[Velociryx]

Vel, Cuba lost out to Puerto Rico on GDP, number of televisions per household, and things lke that. Cuba, however, wins on employment, health care, and education. It's kinda like comparing Canadian taxes to American taxes. Sure, we pay less taxes, but we get so much less for it.

Che, Cuba also lost out in # of miles of paved roads, # of airstrips, internet providers, # of radios, etc. In short, EVERYTHING essential for the thriving of a modern economy. You shoot your own argument in the foot here.

Further, because of the scarcity of resources on this planet and the ballooning population, there will NEVER be, barring some magical replicator machine a la Star Trek, a time when the level of production reaches such a vast point that it becomes silly to charge for goods. By stating that as a pre-requiste for your communist utopia, you relegate the whole theory to science fiction in the world as we know it today. IF we ever have Star Trek-style replicators, then yes, you're quite right, no fundamental shift in basic human instinct will be required, but unless you know of such a technology on the drawing board, the only alternative is to change the nature of the human animal. Barring those two, Communism IS a pipe dream.

-=Vel=-

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Fundimental human nature is change. Humans are not fundimentally materialistic. We merely happen to live in a society which encourages it and brings it out in people. Many previous human societies have been somewhat anti-materialistic, if not entirely then to a large extent.

Fundamental human nature is ADAPTATION. It, however, does not change. Anything else is wishful thinking.

[Kuciwalker]

Market forces will only be at work as long as there is a market. The point of socialism is to abolish the market altogether, to reach a level of production where it is silly even to think about charging for things.

As for there only being one employer, you're stuck on thinking about the USSR. It's true, perhaps, that some societies may choose to have a large democratic centralized government which owns everything. On the other hand, it's possible that everything is owned by worker collectives, who make their own decisions about how to run things on an micro level while they get requests from a macro bureaucracy. You don't want to limit possibilities by creating a blue print ahead of time. The people who have the revolution will know better what they need than we do in the past.

If there is going to be competition, then how is this different from capitalism?

Capitalism is inevitable, because it is the ONLY system that GUARANTEES you will be paid a "fair wage".