Nebuchanezzar
Banned
tl;dr
Summary: Capitalism is a slutty lady that traps the worker into subservience.Nebuchanezzar said:tl;dr
1. Who decides how these goods should be distributed?Zeitgeist308 said:Trade does not occur. Trade presupposes that the goods to be traded are the property of an individual. In a communist mode of production the goods are not the property of the individual who appropriates them on the basis of their ownership of the means of production and of labour power. Rather they are collective property (and as as such they are in reality not property at all) and are distributed on the basis of need to all members of society.
One of the funniest things I've ever read.Silver Persian said:Summary: Capitalism is a slutty lady that traps the worker into subservience.
These things will be decided by the cooks of the future.withoutaface said:1. Who decides how these goods should be distributed?
2. What happens if an individual decides they want to keep the fruits of their own labour?
They will be distributed based on the need of the consumer in accordance with the social plan (made democratically by the population itself). If you want to know as to how can can determine "need" and what a store (maybe a "distribution centre" would be a better word) would look like and the process by which one acquires articles of consumption (ie. what do you do at a check out, etc.), again as Silver Persian noted, I am no one to dictate the recipes of the cooks of the future.withoutaface said:1. Who decides how these goods should be distributed?
Why would anyone want to? Just about the only labour that could be truly yours to appropriate would be the products of some sort of subsistence agriculture or hunting and gathering. This option makes no sense what so ever when you consider that all your needs (and more) could well be satisfied by partaking in and sharing in the product of social labour.withoutaface said:2. What happens if an individual decides they want to keep the fruits of their own labour?
I don't blame you for being curious, however, the fact of the matter is, Marxists are not utopians. We do not dream up perfect alternative realities and try to replicate them in the real world. Rather, we proceed from the real world and by (if one may use the word) "scientific" investigation, conclude as we do about the nature of class struggle in modern capitalist society and it's tendency towards revolution and it's transendence.withoutaface said:Mmm? I'm just trying to see if this guy actually has a model.
As I'm no expert in Marxian economics and since the words "digital" and "information economy" are rather vague and I am not certain of what you are speaking of I hope this answers your question:youBROKEmyLIFE said:Quick question in the midst of all of this; how is an information economy and a digital economy that doesn't have the limitations of scarcity to be taken as exploitative. It seems somewhat odd.
Sorry, I must have missed them. Is this it:fp said:Errr he still hasn't replied to some of my points.
There are a number of factors we have to consider here.fp said:Exploitation happens in communist society too. Even though someone has an incredibility difficult task they only receive as much as a person who does an easy task.
No, we are talking about the ability of capitalism to retain vestiges of superseded modes of production within itself despite having a tendency to do away with them at the same time.fp said:Are we talking about exploitation again?
My apologises (How many pages back was it, I didn't see it )fOR3V3RPINKKKK said:UMMMM I was talking about this.
Sorry, but that is not what we call shifting the burden of proof. That's what we call dodging the question with a smart-ass remark.fp said:Did someone say shifting the burdon?!?Zeitgeist said:fp said:Everyone is different. Not everyone will want to follow communism
Your right, after all, some people want to be exploited...
Your right, hence:"The original question has been answered subsequently."fOR3V3RPINKKKK said:That still isnt a reply.
My my, shame on me for actually quoting Marx. In future I will ensure that I misrepresent him and provide no evidence to back up my assertions.fp said:New ideas come from old ideas. I dont just copy and paste stuff off the internet like you do.
Read first, then type (It makes you look less like an idiot)fp said:This is inefficient. If people are naturally good at one thing isn't it better to specialise?
*My emphasis added*Zeitgeist said:1. As noted in the extract from the German Ideology posted previously, communism entails the abolition of the social division of labour, this means that no one person or group of people would be forced to perform a particular "job", but rather that, as far as is possible (keeping in mind the necessity of a "technical division of labour") "jobs" would be rotated across the population with no person performing one particular occupation or activity (as in factory line).
Hence, provide education.fp said:Also, if someone does not have knowledge of a particular area this would be totally fail.
Doctors require long and complex medical training. It would be stupid to allow untrained people to be doctors, hence the necessity of a "technical division of labour". However in a communist society it would be desirable to as far as possible provide this kind of higher level education and specialisation for all those seeking it as part of the "all-round development of the intellectual and physical capacities of the individual", that is to say education would be made an integral part of life, where unlike today it takes on the form of indoctrinated and disciplinary training from 5 - 18 (plus or minus) in preparation for 50 years of alienating labour at the service of others.fp said:e.g. how can you expect a person who knows nothing about being a doctor, to do a good job?
*Sigh*, resorting to the old tactics are we. I thought you people learnt not to make straw men arguments by now. Turns out your slower learners than I thought.fp said:Well no wonder we have so many people from China in Australia
Communism is not benevolent state-capitalism, we established that 10 pages ago...tommykins said:I happen to agree with communism IF and only IF the government in control looks out for the well-being of society.
This was also exposed to be a falsehood, some pages back. Read the article I posted from the ICC.tommykins said:But I guess it is abit hard with the natural human tendencies to expand and exploit power if they possess it.
Thank you for noticing, it's not like it's hard though.Lol @ Zeitgeist308, he's ripping all of you.
I apologise, staretd reading this topic yesterday at 1am and didn't really bother researching it further.Zeitgeist308 said:Communism is not benevolent state-capitalism, we established that 10 pages ago...
Will do.Zeitgeist308 said:This was also exposed to be a falsehood, some pages back. Read the article I posted from the ICC.
Zeitgeist308 said:Thank you for noticing, it's not like it's hard though.
Irrespective of what I believe, what you believe is an utter failure that will only harden the lives of the people. In order for society to function there must be agencies and regulators in place. Anarchy (correct me if I'm wrong) implies any such body would be abolished. If what you're describing is true Marxism, then I am not a Marxist. But then again, Marxism is one of the most misunderstood ideologies.Zeitgeist308 said:That's not surprising considering you believe "democratic-socialism" is Marxism and that benevolent state-capitalism is communism. No offence intended.
1. You do not "follow" communism, just as you do not "follow" capitalism. Both are modes of production who's foundations lie in the level of development of the productive forces are are defined above all by the social relations of production. You don't choose your social relations, they are forced on you by material conditions.fOR3V3RPINKKKK said:Everyone is different. Not everyone will want to follow communism
Zeitgeist said:What constitutes the alienation of labour?When the alienating nature of labour is cast off, labour will no longer be a coerced activity of degradation and slavery. Then and only then does labour then become "life's prime want", that is, a positive expression of man's "species being" (or human nature if you will).
Firstly, the fact that labour is external to the worker – i.e., does not belong to his essential being; that he, therefore, does not confirm himself in his work, but denies himself, feels miserable and not happy, does not develop free mental and physical energy, but mortifies his flesh and ruins his mind. Hence, the worker feels himself only when he is not working; when he is working, he does not feel himself. He is at home when he is not working, and not at home when he is working. His labour is, therefore, not voluntary but forced, it is forced labour. It is, therefore, not the satisfaction of a need but a mere means to satisfy needs outside itself. Its alien character is clearly demonstrated by the fact that as soon as no physical or other compulsion exists, it is shunned like the plague. External labour, labour in which man alienates himself, is a labour of self-sacrifice, of mortification. Finally, the external character of labour for the worker is demonstrated by the fact that it belongs not to him but to another, and that in it he belongs not to himself but to another. Just as in religion the spontaneous activity of the human imagination, the human brain, and the human heart, detaches itself from the individual and reappears as the alien activity of a god or of a devil, so the activity of the worker is not his own spontaneous activity. It belongs to another, it is a loss of his self.
The result is that man (the worker) feels that he is acting freely only in his animal functions – eating, drinking, and procreating, or at most in his dwelling and adornment – while in his human functions, he is nothing more than animal.
It is true that eating, drinking, and procreating, etc., are also genuine human functions. However, when abstracted from other aspects of human activity, and turned into final and exclusive ends, they are animal.
We have considered the act of estrangement of practical human activity, of labour, from two aspects:
(1) the relationship of the worker to the product of labour as an alien object that has power over him. The relationship is, at the same time, the relationship to the sensuous external world, to natural objects, as an alien world confronting him, in hostile opposition.
(2) The relationship of labour to the act of production within labour. This relationship is the relationship of the worker to his own activity as something which is alien and does not belong to him, activity as passivity, power as impotence, procreation as emasculation, the worker’s own physical and mental energy, his personal life – for what is life but activity? – as an activity directed against himself, which is independent of him and does not belong to him. Self-estrangement, as compared with the estrangement of the object mentioned above.
[...]
In the same way as estranged labour reduces spontaneous and free activity to a means, it makes man’s species-life a means of his physical existence.
Consciousness, which man has from his species, is transformed through estrangement so that species-life becomes a means for him.
(3) Estranged labour, therefore, turns man’s species-being – both nature and his intellectual species-power – into a being alien to him and a means of his individual existence. It estranges man from his own body, from nature as it exists outside him, from his spiritual essence, his human existence.
(4) An immediate consequence of man’s estrangement from the product of his labour, his life activity, his species-being, is the estrangement of man from man. When man confront himself, he also confronts other men. What is true of man’s relationship to his labour, to the product of his labour, and to himself, is also true of his relationship to other men, and to the labour and the object of the labour of other men. - Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844
Zeitgeist said:withoutaface said:2. What happens if an individual decides they want to keep the fruits of their own labour?
Why would anyone want to? Just about the only labour that could be truly yours to appropriate would be the products of some sort of subsistence agriculture or hunting and gathering. This option makes no sense what so ever when you consider that all your needs (and more) could well be satisfied by partaking in and sharing in the product of social labour.
That's not true. I am posting what I believe Marx is correct in regard to. If you see something wrong with the excerpts I've posted by all means critique them.fp said:you are making the assumption that everything that marx says is right.
So you criticise Marx for making assertions by making baseless assertions yourself. Genius!fp said:he makes alot of assertions himself you know.
This is correct (to a degree), hence why a technical division of labour would still be necessary.it is unrealistic to train everyone for every job properly due to time constraints.
You don't "apply" communism. If you mean to ask, has there existed a society where the communist mode of production has operated the answer is no. Whilst there have been proletarian revolutions (ie. The Paris Commune, The Russian Revolution etc.) these have not even lead to the establishment of what we may call "socialist" relations of production for various reasons (including isolation, the lack of the proper material conditions, the youth of the proletariat etc.)fp said:One more question: has communism ever been applied irl?
Both Anarchists and Marxists argue for the self-regulation of society by the producers themselves (which in a communist society would be humanity as a whole).Sam04u said:Irrespective of what I believe, what you believe is an utter failure that will only harden the lives of the people. In order for society to function there must be agencies and regulators in place. Anarchy (correct me if I'm wrong) implies any such body would be abolished.
If I may make a recommendation, I suggest you pick up a copy of the Marx-Engles Readerby Robert C. Tucker. It is a selection of Marx and Engels essential works from their treatises to private letters of interest and everything in between. If of course you do not want to buy a hard copy you can always read the most important texts online including:Sam04u said:I'm going to read more literature (as to be honest, I've only read selected excerpts from various texts).
............................................________melanieeeee. said:there is nothing to debate or argue. communism works. karl marx tells us so. therefore it is true.
There is no such thing as a "communist government" or "communist state". The very term itself is internally contradictory as communism is by definition stateless.Empyrean444 said:Alright. If communism works, give me practical and physical proof of a pure communist government in the world
Marxism is not an "ideology" which you put into practice. Marxism is the theoretical expression of the class struggle and communism (the political movement) its practical expression.Empyrean said:It's not like it is a new ideology - it has had time to potentially "work".
Capitalism is not the embodiment of greed, greed is the embodiment of capitalism. Capitalism is not some perfect, functioning, efficient mode of production that works because it harnesses some key universal human trait (which according to yourself is "greed"). "Human nature" is not some universal and natural set of traits which are stamped in the human genome, it is a reflection of the relations of production in which men produce and reproduce themselves.Human greed is evident everywhere. Capitalism is a physical embodiment of it.
1. This is a lie. Show me in Marx (or Engels, or Lenin, or Luxemburg, or Gramsci, or another other Marxist) where it is claimed that in a communist mode of production all men will be "equal".empyrean said:It prevents communist because the latter requires everyone to be equal.
Why does the desire to be rich (that is to raise ones own living standard) entail the need to "have more ... than others"?empyrean said:Avarice is trying to get as much wealth as possible - to be rich, to have more money/wealth than others.
Proof for this assertion please? (If you flip back to my original reply to your post I make the argument that, on the contrary, "human nature" has changed significantly.empyrean said:since human nature hasn't changed much throughout history,
It does, I am living proof.empyrean said:marxism therefore cannot exist.
Yes I did indeed. Flick back a (quite) a few pages and you will find it. Matter of fact I believe most of these questions you asked above were answered there.empyrean said:have u responded to my other post?