Communist (1 Viewer)

[euripidies]

"how do you expect them to wish for national success if they look over their shoulder and see somebody doing half as much work as them but still getting the same rewards?"

wrong, there is an economic side to marxism i have a passage that will sum it up for you.

"After Ricardo the Classical Political Economists agreed that the relative value of two commodities in exchange would be equal to the relative quantities of labor-time embodied in the two commodities. Prices might not always correspond to values (old masters, for example) but values always corresponded to labor. Put a little differently (but not everyone would have put it this way) "labor produces all value." But if labor produces all value, how can there be profits or interest?
Karl Marx was many things -- democratic and socialist revolutionary agitator and leader, journalist, philosopher -- and in his role as an economic theorist, he set out to answer that question. Marx had read Ricardo's ideas, and while Ricardo was no socialist, Marx respected Ricardo's scientific approach. And, as we have seen, Ricardo had found an answer to part of the question. According to Ricardo, landowners would obtain rent without contributing any effort, just because of the workings of the competitive market system and the labor values of products. The landowners were beneficiaries of a surplus-value because they had title to relatively productive land. Marx' idea was that all market payments other than wages -- all profits, interest, and rent -- could be explained in terms of surplus value.

Marx expressed the labor theory of value a little differently, and more precisely, than Ricardo. In Marx's terms, the value of a commodity is the socially necessary labor time embodied in it. This phrase, "socially necessary," takes care of some minor confusions in the theory:

Suppose John is a carpenter, but he is very clumsy, so it takes him twice as long as other carpenters to build a house. Does that mean his houses are worth twice as much?
No, since there are other carpenters who can build the house in half the time, half the time is the "socially necessary" labor time. The time that John wastes doesn't go into the value of the house he builds because it is not "socially necessary."
Thanks to technical progress and the extended division of labor, goods today can be produced with much less labor time than would have been required in Adam Smith's time. Does that mean that goods were worth more then?
In a sense, yes. But technical progress and extended division of labor have reduced the labor time socially necessary to produce goods and services, so it is to be expected that their labor-time value would be less. To the point: value depends on the circumstances of time and place, on history and human development. It would be closer to the truth to say that values at other times and places just are not relevant to, or comparable to, values here and now.
This concept of value -- that the value of a commodity is the socially necessary labor time embodied in it -- is basic to Marxist thinking."

if you want to learn more this is the site http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/prin/txt/marx/ApxToC.html

 

[euripidies]

this is important too.

"So Marx addressed the question: if value is socially necessary labor time, so that labor produces all value, why does the market award incomes to people who do not work? His key insight was:
In a competitive capitalist economy, all commodities are priced at their values.
In a competitive capitalist economy, labor is a commodity.
Therefore, in a competitive capitalist economy, labor is priced at its value.
In other words: the wage paid for a labor-day would be the labor time socially necessary to produce the labor day. Suppose that it takes just half of a labor day to produce a labor day. Then workers will always be available for half a labor-day of pay, and employers, knowing this, will pay no more than half a labor-day of wages per labor-day. Half a labor day is left to the employers. It is "surplus-value" and is the source of profits, interest, and rent. Employers (and landowners and financiers) don't have to do anything to get it -- it is just "left over" after the competitive wage has been paid.
But what does it mean to talk about "producing" a labor-day? Let's put it this way. To attain a certain "standard of living," workers consume a certain amount of goods and services of various kinds. The "cost of production of labor" is the labor cost of producing those goods and services. Clearly, "subsistence" lets a lower limit to the workers' standard of living. Beyond this, what determines the worker's "standard of living?" We shall pass over the controversy surrounding this point.

Since each day of work produces a labor-day of value (under normal conditions) and costs less than a labor-day of value, there is a fraction of a labor-day left over, the surplus-value. Since labor produces all value, but gets only a part of what it produces, surplus-value is exploitation, in the Marxist conception."

 

[George W. Bush]

Originally posted by Comrade nathan
The workers are the state. Communism takes away personal succeses (wich the free trade causes success to come by expliotation) and brings the incentive of nation success.

Wait, wait - why do I care about the nation's success? Surely bettering my own life through getting rich is more of an incentive than seeing Australia progress forward. This is my first objection to communism - by providing no real incentive for those who are gifted at certain areas to succeed, you are slowing the advancement of society.

And euripidies, if you're just going to quote a massive chunk off a website, you're better off providing a link.

 

[um..]

that.....did not answer my question at all. it explained how labor would be rewarded, but said nothing about what would motivate people to work any harder. can you answer for yourself?

i thought you were an anarchist anyway

edit: for euripidies

 

[euripidies]

it did but ill say this if people dont work then they dont get payed. they get payed by their labour on the scale of "socially necessary time".

now talking about the passage up there the guy talked about how Division of labour means things take less time to create thus cheaper I hope people realise that the person can produce more thus it evens out. just thought i'd point that out cos he didnt.

 

[um..]

i really dont understand what you are saying
how do you quantify how much one "produces," between different professions? For instance how can you compare how much a carpenter builds to how much a teacher teaches? does it take more labour time and effort to build a boat than it does to produce a study on childhood cancer?

quick edit: and say for instance a person has clocked up more "socially necessary" labour time then another, doesn't this mean he is going to get more money, thus perpetuating inequality?
but on the flip side, if he does more work but his extra earnings go back into the state apparatus, like george and i said earlier what motivation will there be to advance the nation and economy?

 

[euripidies]

you want links ok this is a good one- http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/guides/index.htm

but for all marxist stuff good here and have a look around- http://www.marxists.org

a good forum for leftists- www.che-livers.com/forum

 

[*~Dazed~*]

beats me

 

[stamos]

Originally posted by um..
how do you quantify how much one "produces," between different professions? For instance how can you compare how much a carpenter builds to how much a teacher teaches? does it take more labour time and effort to build a boat than it does to produce a study on childhood cancer?

that's a major problem with capitalism- the market doesn't distrubute wages according to the value of a service to society

you have a whole load of spivs who take 100million payouts for sitting in boardrooms while the rest of the population knows that there is no way they'll ever be earning that much, even if they work and study like a maniac

edit: but having said that, i'd be lazy as fuck if i lived in a communist state (and don't tell me there's no such thing- cause there's no such thing as true communism either)

 

[Alexander]

The turn of the century was an exciting time as the industrial revolution was reaching its height, causing all sorts of social problemoes in regards to workers exploitation and productivity. It's understandable that some people saw the bad system and thought 'if we're gonna change anything, we should make it right'. Unfortunatly, russia became communist and spoiled the ideal for everyone. Times have changed, thanks to parties like Labor and unions around the world. Problem over. Communism dead.

If anything, communism was probably an exciting, new, revolutionary thing that young people could personally take part in. being apart of something as it happened...that appeal doesn't seem to be too different today...a radical system that seems attractive to youth as they form their thoughts of the world.
Euripidies, you're obvioulsy youngish and starting to realise the world around you...this is healthy thing, but let us know when you work it out!

 

[um..]

Originally posted by stamos
that's a major problem with capitalism- the market doesn't distrubute wages according to the value of a service to society

you have a whole load of spivs who take 100million payouts for sitting in boardrooms while the rest of the population knows that there is no way they'll ever be earning that much, even if they work and study like a maniac

edit: but having said that, i'd be lazy as fuck if i lived in a communist state (and don't tell me there's no such thing- cause there's no such thing as true communism either)

well er, it was actually supposed to be a criticism of communism. theoretically, free-market capitalism is supposed to be conductive to personal incentive, as it is possible to gain more personal benifit from hard work. but like you said, this doesnt really happen either

 

[George W. Bush]

Society decides what is important to society through their demand. Market forces operate so that the prices of said goods/services reflects the value of the service to society. Of course, this does result in some services e.g. health/education being priced out of the range of some poorer members of society, which is why even the most extreme capitalist acknowledges the need for a government presence, and not pure capitalism.

 

[um..]

then why, as i said earlier, do the IMF and World Bank insist on governments cutting back social spending when they offer them financial assistance? they want full privitisation

 

[euripidies]

that.....did not answer my question at all. it explained how labor would be rewarded, but said nothing about what would motivate people to work any harder. can you answer for yourself?

ill put it this way for you the motivation is the more units your produce of a product the more you get for yourself.

"and say for instance a person has clocked up more "socially necessary" labour time then another, doesn't this mean he is going to get more money, thus perpetuating inequality?"

not really because they can't turn around and use it as monopoly capital. also i dont think physicaly they could get to far ahead.

"if he does more work but his extra earnings go back into the state apparatus, like george and i said earlier what motivation will there be to advance the nation and economy?"

he would get taxed for sure, but he'd still end up with more money or credit.

just a note on useing the word state to talk about communism is wrong you guys no that now dont you?

and umm.. it sounds to me like you want to know more, to work out which system is best or which bit of the system should be put together to work best, to under stand Marxist economics you should read das kapital or capital by Karl Marx

 

[euripidies]

lets introduces you to the idea of Historical materialism or dialectical materialism (what ever you want to call it). its a bit hard to explain the idea in a few lines so heres a link- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism - http://www.marxist.com/Theory/study_guide1.html

 

[euripidies]

"then why, as i said earlier, do the IMF and World Bank insist on governments cutting back social spending when they offer them financial assistance? they want full privitisation"

becauses the system is changeing it can go two ways 1) Corporate feudalism 2) Socialism.

i wrote something about this along time ago so ill copy stuff in "

" The direction in which the system is headed is very disappointing this system of capitalism is undermining human rights by following the almighty dollar and passing of responsibilities that should be publicly run to corporations. Such privatisations such as the US incarceration system, US health care, telecommunications the list goes on. Most people might not see telecommunications being privatised as a problem. But it is in this way that capitalist democracy works making little changes so that people do not see the trends till it is too late. In Australia health insurance has been pushed by the current right wing government so that they can slowly take away Medicare. Though this trend has not been completed I foresee it will.

This transition of responsibilities or power is leading to a system of corporatism. This means corporations have more power then government's this is already happening with the degeneration of unions leading to corporations choosing wage rates for workers so on. Also with the practice of globalisation Trans national corporations (TNC) are almost above the law because if something is illegal in one country they simply move to a different country. This has also happened in the taxing of TNC's because if a country wishes to tax at a higher rate they simply move their operation overseas. This has lead to higher taxing of the middle class of 49% (In Australia). These trends are leading as towards corporatism which is a very worrying sign you could call it neo-feudalism. "

 

[Comrade nathan]

Originally posted by Alexander
The turn of the century was an exciting time as the industrial revolution was reaching its height, causing all sorts of social problemoes in regards to workers exploitation and productivity. It's understandable that some people saw the bad system and thought 'if we're gonna change anything, we should make it right'. Unfortunatly, russia became communist and spoiled the ideal for everyone. Times have changed, thanks to parties like Labor and unions around the world. Problem over. Communism dead.

If anything, communism was probably an exciting, new, revolutionary thing that young people could personally take part in. being apart of something as it happened...that appeal doesn't seem to be too different today...a radical system that seems attractive to youth as they form their thoughts of the world.
Euripidies, you're obvioulsy youngish and starting to realise the world around you...this is healthy thing, but let us know when you work it out!

So your saying that when marx, engels and others started to see that when methods of production had change and this cause expliotation and that history has shwon uprising of explioted people that the only logicaly thing would next be in history would be communism they were just young idealistics.

Then when mature aged workers read marxist works and revolted and made the foundations for worker state's (Cuba, Russia etc) they were just young idealist.

So you can stop trying to act like the older mature "man" figure and think that we are going to take any notice to your words, becuase i doubt that in 5 years if i gave up my communist ideals or just tone them down it would be because i think capitalism is right, that the third world would be better if it just let coporations make factories there and the population wasnt lazy, that wars are for what they say they are for not the essence of capitalism imperilism. It wont be for any of this reason it will be because of lack of heart.

Originally posted by George W. Bush
by providing no real incentive for those who are gifted at certain areas to succeed, you are slowing the advancement of society.

Workers have no reall incentive to work now other then for survival and the old saying they bourgeis uses "working hard will get you places", this is a straight out lie workers such as garbage people,cleaners etc can work as hard as the want but this does not mean they will get rich. Communism rewards thoose who work more for the better fo soceity, so some one working harder at there job will get rewards.

 

[euripidies]

i just like to ask no one here is far right wring?

 

[euripidies]

Originally posted by ...
Homer: In theory..communism works!

i was thinking about this i think the guy who made the Simpsons was a commie because homer say it after Marge make a perfectly good comment and homer all like "and in theory communism works" so homer being stupid and all i think he meant it does work.

 

[um..]

i think you're reading into it a bit too much
in relation to our earlier discussion, i still dont understand what would motivate people to work harder under a communist system, because first you said

Originally posted by euripidies
not really because they can't turn around and use it as monopoly capital. also i dont think physicaly they could get to far ahead.

implying that people cant use their capital for personal gain. but then you said

Originally posted by euripidies
he would get taxed for sure, but he'd still end up with more money or credit.

which to me implies that people can receive personal gain, or "credit"

so basically, my question is: can you or can you not in a communist society "earn" more than others? because if you can it would go against the very grain of a classless egalitarian society; but on the other hand if you cannot it removes the personal incentive for advancement