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

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Further, because of the scarcity of resources on this planet and the ballooning population,

The population is not only not ballooning, the rate of growth is lowing down. In fact, it is not believed that Earth will reach its peak population (about 9 billion) by 2050, at which point the world's population will begin to drop.

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.=-

A lot of scarcity in capitalism is artificial. We could produce far more of most things we need and want. We don't do it because it would be inefficient as far as capitalism is concerned, because there wouldn't be enough of a return on investment. If the purpose of production is to meet human needs rather than a profit margin, then this is not a problem.

Granted, at this moment, we couldn't reach the level of production required, but we could push down the prices of a lot of things. The world has massive quantited of unused labor, even in the developed world. Once the 3rd world is industrialized, we could start lowering our working hours rather than putting people out of work.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker


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

Culpa mae for being lazy. Adaptation is change, of a sort.

[Kuciwalker]

If we end up not having a scarcity of a product, people will stop making it and start making an entirely new product, which will be scarce at first but will drop in price as they are mass-produced. This will keep happening.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
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".

#1 Capitalism presupposes private ownership of the means of production and private appropraition of the surplus product. In a "market socialist" economy (an oxymoron if you ask me but there are people who argue this), the means of production are socially owned and the surplus product is socially appropriated.

#2 With a centralized bureaucracy, even if it's not a command economy, production can be reoriented without the massive dislocations that capitalism requires. Rather than having the anarchy of the market deciding where resources should be allocated, we can plan to move capital into different ares of production and retool overproducting factories without throwing millions out of work.

#3 Capitalism doesn't guarantee you a fair wage. It only guarantees you what it costs to replace you. If that's not enough to survive on (and in the past and even today in some less labor senseitive societies) you can work fulltime and still not make enough to provide for yourself, let alone a family. Okay, to be fair, in the capitalist system, that is a fair wage. I don't like capitalist ethics.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
If we end up not having a scarcity of a product, people will stop making it and start making an entirely new product, which will be scarce at first but will drop in price as they are mass-produced. This will keep happening.

Why do you assume this? There is no reason to assume necessarily that we wuoldn't want an overabundence and continue to direct social resources towards that goal. It may be that we feel we have a need to direct resources elsewhere, but in all cases it depends on the concrete situation, and not some overarching general rule.

Maybe we want to produce so much food that not even if the whole world was as fat as Americans we couldn't possibly eat it all. On the other hand, maybe we won't think it's such a good idea for everyone to have two SUVs.

Society will make choices and direct resources to facilitate those choices. The difference is, we'll do it democratically instead of chaotically.

[chequita guevara]

Okay, I gotta get back to work. C'ya tomorrow.

[Odin]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Society will make choices and direct resources to facilitate those choices. The difference is, we'll do it democratically instead of chaotically.

This is the best thing said in this entire thread.

I don't want to work 10 hours a day to enrich some corporate Fat Cat eating caviar and drinking expensive wine while I get $7/hr and live off TV dinners, spagettios and frozen pizza just because I am stuck working at Wal-Mart because of our crappy economy.

[notyoueither]

Fundamental human nature and political economy 101:

There will always be people who try to get ahead. They will want to have more things and/or power. Some of them will be very intelligent and perhaps ruthless about getting what they want. They will rise to the top, so to speak.

Under a free market, democratic-capitalist system such people and many others productively excersice their basic nature. As they pursue enterprises of their own choosing, they accumulate wealth and by extention political power. They seek to and often do pass on what they accumulate to their heirs. If not capable, their heirs squander the inheritance. The system cares not, for new 'achievers' are always up and coming. There is no force that assures that one group of people of one family, social group, or affiliation will always 'be on top'.

Under communism as we have ever seen it implemented, such people will be able to satsify themselves only through the party. They will monopolise wealth and place a strangle hold on power. That is what they do by their very nature. Whereas under a democratic-capitalist system there are always competing interests that prevent such a concentration of power, under communism as it has to be at the beginning of the revolution there will be police and an army to ensure that these people will be able to perpetuate themselves once in power. They will perpetuate themselves through the party instead of through family. That is what kills this system. There is no renewal based on merit, or ability. It becomes a bureaucracy renewing itself through the reward of people who can rise through party politics instead of through ability to produce, or to organise the production of others.

In short, the Revolution will never get to the Nirvana of the other side. It will always bog down in the totalitarian state that is required as a precursor. But then, how can you blame a couple of 19th century philosophers for not understanding how power really works?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by paiktis22
On the thread subject, I think communism is wishful thinking in every society with a significant amount of GDP and a sensible distribution of it.

For Axi a book reccomendation: "Pote min pas sto tachydromio monos", tou Kouloglou. Autou pou kanei to reportag xoris synora. http://www.greekbooks.gr/books/showb...?BookID=165076

Sorry -- it seems that in countries like United States, wealth is grossly, inequally distributed.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
#3 Capitalism doesn't guarantee you a fair wage. It only guarantees you what it costs to replace you. If that's not enough to survive on (and in the past and even today in some less labor senseitive societies) you can work fulltime and still not make enough to provide for yourself, let alone a family. Okay, to be fair, in the capitalist system, that is a fair wage. I don't like capitalist ethics.

It is the wage produced by market forces, which exist EVEN IN A COMMUNIST SOCIETY. So it is the wage you will end up getting anyway, except you are less likely to be treated fairly, because there is one company with a state-mandated monopoly.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Odin
This is the best thing said in this entire thread.

I don't want to work 10 hours a day to enrich some corporate Fat Cat eating caviar and drinking expensive wine while I get $7/hr and live off TV dinners, spagettios and frozen pizza just because I am stuck working at Wal-Mart because of our crappy economy.

That is what will happen anyway. That is the result of market forces, not capitalism. Market forces are present even in communism - you CANNOT get rid of them. Thus, the end result is the same as the end result of capitalism.

[Kuciwalker]

Sorry -- it seems that in countries like United States, wealth is grossly, inequally distributed.

It seems that it is even MORE grossly, unequally distributed in communism.

Moreover, what exactly is wrong with an unequal distribution of wealth? Shouldn't more capable people be rewarded more?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
That is what will happen anyway. That is the result of market forces, not capitalism.

This is the result of capitalism. In an ideal communist system, the guy who works ten hours a day at Wal-mart doesn't enrich a fat cat, because the distribution of wealth is more fair. In a communist system, there will be people still working at Wal-mart (as what you call "market forces" demand), but their work will be rewarded in a fairer fashion.

[Velociryx]

Here are my problems with the Communist model:

1) Schtzoid property ownership rules/laws: "The Workers Own the Means of Production" - Note that this is allowed in, and frequently the case in Capitalistically based economies. Lots of people can own the means of production. Very inclusive.

But here's where it gets all wiggy. You can't own the means of production, but you can own (or at least I presume you can)...stuff. You can own books. They're yours. No one wandering in off the street can just waltz into your home and grab the ones they like, cos you OWN them....so there must be some nod to private property ownership in the equation, but not for everything. Oh no....some stuff gets catagorized as a "means of production" which means you can't own it.

1a) But someone HAS to own it, and here's why: See, an un-owned thing, whatever it is, has no champion. No one to look after it. No one to take care of it. Imagine if cars were considered public goods. You could not "own" a car, but you could just grab any one not currently in use and take it for as long as you needed it.

Sounds great, huh? Imagine....your PICK of any car out there!

But Tell me this.....if you don't own it....how likely will you be to spend your hard-earned rubles to maintain it? If you hop in the car and the oil light comes on, are you more likely, or less likely to drive it anyway ("oh, I'm just going down the block"), and let the next person worry with the oil change? Or the tires? Or the transmission?

Hell, it's not yours, why should you bear the cost of maintaining it?

You shouldn't, and you won't, and what will happen in the long run will be that the "national fleet" of cars out there will eventually become rattle-trap, barely-functional vehicles, if they work at all.

Ahhhh, but that's when the State steps in! We'll just create a horde of new jobs, see....the People's Vehicular Maintenance Division, whose job it will be to scour the country looking for broken down vehicles to tow back to the People's Repair Shop to get them fixed up. 'cept this is a biiiiiig country with LOTS of cars.....that's a wampum lot of people we'll need for that job alone!

Further, some types of stuff might fall into "swing" categories (computers, for example) - those nasty devices could be the "means of production" for all sorts of stuff...so you prolly couldn't own them outright. God knows (oops sorry, Aethist state) The Party knows, you might try and exploit someone. Property, too. Can't have anyone owning any property, cos it COULD BE used as a means of production....growing food and stuff. Can't have you be responsible for growing your own food. You're too incapable of being left with that responsibility, and besides, if your neighbors didn't have as much food and you didn't pony up, well....we all know what THAT sort of thing leads to! So in the early days of the revolution, we'll need LOTS of bulldozer drivers to come in and knock down all the private homes to make room for some cozy apartments with one bathroom per floor. Community spirit and all, you see?

Wait! Not ALL the houses will get bulldozed tho, cos the party bosses, those guys leading the revolution who only have your best interests at heart? Yeah, well, they'll need some comfortable villas from which to organize the next 5-year plan, you see. They'll be "state run" villas of course, the bosses won't really own them, so it'll be cool. They promise.

1b) And here's where it gets interesting: See, the ultimate expression of Communism is the total absence of the State.....but wait?! Isn't that a contradiction? Cos if we suppress market forces, then SOMEONE has to come up with the 5-year plan, and SOMEONE has to maintain our national defense (or, assuming that we globalize the unworkable system, our inter-planetary defense), and now, SOMEONE has to tell the People's Tow Truck Drivers where to go....which means that the state Can't cease to exist.

2) The revolutionaries who lead the charge will, of course, NEED to establish a central planning authority to maintain control in the early days, and to round up all the capitalist pigdogs. This will require a firm hold on the military, cos when they're not being used to spread the glories of the revolution to other folks who don't want it, they can be turned on our own people....you know, those dissidents who believe that property is property, and if it's okay to own a book, then it's okay to own the press that made it. Real scandalous folks, these. Rabble rousers of the worst sort, you see.

2a) We must accept on face value, too (despite the weight of historical evidence to the contrary), that these bold revolutionaries will be utterly selfless individuals who will not be attracted or drawn by the power they wield over the lives of millions....the sway they hold over the military and such. Nosiree Stalin! When the time comes for the state to dissolve, these enlightened philosophers will quietly step down from their positions of authority and power, willingly and freely and altruistically giving up their power for the good of the People, the Party, and to create the ultimate expression that is Communism.

Uh huh.

-=Vel=-

[Kuciwalker]

This is the result of capitalism. In an ideal communist system, the guy who works ten hours a day at Wal-mart doesn't enrich a fat cat, because the distribution of wealth is more fair. In a communist system, there will be people still working at Wal-mart (as what you call "market forces" demand), but their work will be rewarded in a fairer fashion.

Their work will end up being rewarded with the same amount of money as before, because the market forces work the same. People will only pay a certain price for something, so there is only so much money with which to pay the workers.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
Their work will end up being rewarded with the same amount of money as before, because the market forces work the same. People will only pay a certain price for something, so there is only so much money with which to pay the workers.

Wrong. There is a fundamental difference between a communist company and a capitalist company: the capitalist company is out to maximize profit, to hand it to the shareholder. This is why you have fat cats who get enriched by unrewarded hardworking people. The fact that cashiers are underpaid comes from the willingness to have a profit margin. Unlike what the liberal economists want you to believe, wages and prices don't get adjusted automagically, but they serve a purpose. In capitalism, the purpose is to bring money to the shareholder. In communism, it is to bring money to the worker.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor
There is a fundamental difference between a communist company and a capitalist company: the capitalist company is out to maximize profit

So commies like debt ridden, failing industries?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
So commies like debt ridden, failing industries?

Communist companies are not supposed to look for profit margin, at least not in the meaning of giving them to the shareholder. I don't see why it would make these companies debt ridden.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I don't see why it would make these companies debt ridden.

Loosing money, inefficent, etc.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx Further, because of the scarcity of resources on this planet and the ballooning population,

The population is not only not ballooning, the rate of growth is lowing down. In fact, it is not believed that Earth will reach its peak population (about 9 billion) by 2050, at which point the world's population will begin to drop.

Source please?

IIRC census predictions do not agree with your statements. There is a slow down in China and eventually a plateua in that state but not for the world as a whole, but then again we can thank the police state for the revocation of the right to procreate there can't we?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

Sorry -- it seems that in countries like United States, wealth is grossly, inequally distributed.

It seems that it is even MORE grossly, unequally distributed in communism.

Moreover, what exactly is wrong with an unequal distribution of wealth? Shouldn't more capable people be rewarded more?

Yes -- unequal distribution is part of any system where people earn what they own.

But to what extent is our country's unequal distribution part of the elite manipulating our government, and not as a result of ordinary citizens working an honest day's work for an honest day's pay??

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Source please?

IIRC census predictions do not agree with your statements. There is a slow down in China and eventually a plateua in that state but not for the world as a whole, but then again we can thank the police state for the revocation of the right to procreate there can't we?

The UN is the most commonly cited source for global population data, not the US Census department. The most recent update to their projections (a word the UN is now de-emphasizing in favor of "scenario" or "working hypothesis") can be found here. Note that UN projections are divided into High, Medium, and Low. Most sources quote the Medium forecasts, while those with agendas quote the High or the Low, depending upon their point.

Che is saying what the UN has been saying for well over half a decade now, that the medium hypothesis has the global population growth rate declining except in your most severely impoverished and corrupt countries (Botswana and the like), and can go as far to bare replacement levels by 2050, 2085 at the latest. By then some countries will still be over the replacement level, but the majority will not.

However the above report suggests the possibility that after a country goes through a period of stagnant birth rates (I think they said 95 years), historical data suggests* that fertility rates will creep upward to slightly over the 2.1 children per couple replacement level. I would also like to note that the UN does not assume any major paradigm shifts in world civilization - i.e., they're assuming we don't learn how to colonize the seas by the tens of millions, they're not assuming any new, devastating diseases and wars, etc.

*Only "suggests," mind you, as the historical data for this scenario is rather paltry.

[JohnT]

Here's the home page to the UN population division: http://www.un.org/esa/population/unpop.htm

[Az]

Good discussion but lots of mudslinging, too.

Now what I am about to do is present my socialist model, and the way it will adress the problems that various socialist attempts have suffered from. Both various socialists and capitalists, feel free to attack my views, as long as we all strive to the same goal, to make as many people as happy as possible, i.e. no libertarian arguments.



My model will be a model of a mix of a presidential and parliamentary republic, a la France. It will be backed up by a strong socialist constitution, that will ensure that the economy will be run as the decisions of the entire public will like it to be, as well as civil rights.

The press will be independent from the government.

The economy will also have companies, managers, etc. but they'll work together. Salaries WILL vary, and vary quite a lot, but not as much as they do in the current world. Managers will still be responsible for the running of the economy. Everything will be under oversight, though, such as the State Auditor, in Israel.

This is it, in short.

[JohnT]

And it is quotes like this that both attract and repel me from these conversations...

A lot of scarcity in capitalism is artificial. We could produce far more of most things we need and want. We don't do it because it would be inefficient as far as capitalism is concerned, because there wouldn't be enough of a return on investment. If the purpose of production is to meet human needs rather than a profit margin, then this is not a problem.

Che, are you really telling me that the 7% average ROI that investors have historically demanded is the cause of human poverty and scarcity in todays world? I argue that the demand for that 7% ROI is what is causing the needs and desires of billions to be met and without it, instead of a world with 2 billion chronically poor we would have a world with 6 billion chronically poor - at least right before the Die Off, that is.

I also like this:

Rather than having the anarchy of the market deciding where resources should be allocated, we can plan to move capital into different ares of production and retool overproducting factories without throwing millions out of work.

Because we just know two years in advance to move people from the making of Scooby Doo crap to making SpongeBob SquarePants crap because the tastes of the Nations 7 year olds are so scientifically known they can be plotted before they happen.

Shiite, Che, if you know what is going to be the hot electronic item 3 years down the road, let us in on your secret. I, as well as your Apolyton brethren, can stand a little early retirement.

[Giancarlo]

The number one question I got to confront the commies around here is...

Is your system really going to function? Afterall paying everybody a similar shitty wage will not work. In the Soviet Union, accomplishment meant nothing. I am sorry but your idea of a revolution can be saved for some third world shithole and not the United States. First off, it cannot and will not happen because the conditions are not for it. Secondly, the people in the United States tend to be of either center-right to center-left political affiliation. Finally, though the cold war is over there is still a hatred for socialist or communist ideals in the United States.

Also how can a system function when private ownership does not exist?

Lets face it.. the commies are not going to ever gain power because their own belief system is nonsense and fallacious.

[MrFun]

You provide no evidence, and yet you want to destroy communism!! You evil capitalist!!

[Giancarlo]

Hey my post was more than one sentence and looked very informative...

[Az]

Is your system really going to function? Afterall paying everybody a similar shitty wage will not work.

IT HAS BEEN STATED NUMEROUS TIMES THAT THIS IS NOT THE CASE.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Fez
Hey my post was more than one sentence and looked very informative...

Until you read it.