 |
| |
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Yeah, but what about collective decisions over whether to plow up a field or build a monument to Che on it? That's the sort of problem I meant. |
My disagreement wasn't with this, but on productivity. For a long time, massive amounts of human productivity have been wasted. According to Sweazy and Baran, a study they did in the 1960s found that one half of all human productivity in modern US capitalism was waste. In the 1980s that number had crept up to 55%.
By waste can be meant such activies as all military production as well as the military in and of itself. Also such things as advertising, insurance, trading, market analysis, etc., etc. Take on the unemployed, the underemployed, those wasted by poor education, criminals, etc. and you have a huge untapped pool of potentiall productive people who could be doing something useful with their lives.
The amount of work that each person would have to do would go down while the amount of products would increase, even if we switched to less environmentally destructive methods. Now add in the computer and robotics revolutions that have occured since that time, and the expected increases in technology, I don't think that a world of plenty is in the realm of fantasy.
quote:
I don't mean regular consumer commodities, since curing us of our commodity fetishism will largely get rid of that problem. I'd be terribly disappointed if the comrades spent all day loading up SUV's at a bloody mall. |
Maybe not SUVs, but I'd like for people to have the option. Sure, a lot of stupid useless landfilling crap might go away. Instead of product development being driven by the need to sell something, it would be driven by the thought, does someone actually need this? Would it bring enjoyment to their lives or make their lives easier. Not, maybe if we make it spin and flash they'll be distracted long enough to buy it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
So, Ned...
... now that you've been shown the error of your ways, how's about you join the Young Pioneers?  |
What I see in the United States is a continuing trend to your concept of universal democracy, aka, communism. For example, the ownership of coporations is held by a significant majority of Americans. As this trend continues, the means of production will be democratically owned and controlled by the people.
Most American corporations now include stock options as pay. Thus the workers have a ownership of their own company and a voice in its management as owners.
Vast production continuously lowers the price of things, like TV sets and radios. Everything is becoming so cheap that all, even the nominally poor, can afford practically anything.
I see in the United States to progress to your utopian dream - much more so than I see in nominallly communist countries.
The true communist country is the United States of America!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Yeah, but what about collective decisions over whether to plow up a field or build a monument to Che on it? That's the sort of problem I meant. |
My disagreement wasn't with this, but on productivity. For a long time, massive amounts of human productivity have been wasted. According to Sweazy and Baran, a study they did in the 1960s found that one half of all human productivity in modern US capitalism was waste. In the 1980s that number had crept up to 55%.
By waste can be meant such activies as all military production as well as the military in and of itself. Also such things as advertising, insurance, trading, market analysis, etc., etc. Take on the unemployed, the underemployed, those wasted by poor education, criminals, etc. and you have a huge untapped pool of potentiall productive people who could be doing something useful with their lives.
The amount of work that each person would have to do would go down while the amount of products would increase, even if we switched to less environmentally destructive methods. Now add in the computer and robotics revolutions that have occured since that time, and the expected increases in technology, I don't think that a world of plenty is in the realm of fantasy. |
The US is a nightmare in this respect. It takes them twice as much energy as the Japanese to yield a dollar of GDP. And the Euros only use 2/3.
quote:
quote:
I don't mean regular consumer commodities, since curing us of our commodity fetishism will largely get rid of that problem. I'd be terribly disappointed if the comrades spent all day loading up SUV's at a bloody mall. |
Maybe not SUVs, but I'd like for people to have the option. Sure, a lot of stupid useless landfilling crap might go away. Instead of product development being driven by the need to sell something, it would be driven by the thought, does someone actually need this? Would it bring enjoyment to their lives or make their lives easier. Not, maybe if we make it spin and flash they'll be distracted long enough to buy it. |
I don't know about SUV's. They aren't safe for other drivers.
Other than that, no disagreement.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
Wrong. His logic is that the current trend of 100% of Communist countries being oppressive will continue. Only SOME capitalist countries to date have been oppressive, whereas ALL communist countries to date have been oppressive. |
Nicaragua was not oppressive, and the early Russian Revolution was not oppressive. I could list a few more, but the rest of them collapsed quickly due to outside interference. The trend has historically been, those workers revolts that are non-repressive either are quickly crushed by the capitalists or must become repressive in order to survive. Those that start out repressive survive. |
Well, I don't have much about the early Russian Revolution to go by except Nicholas and Alexandra, which I'm currently reading for school, and from it I feel that the Russian Revolution was ANYTHING but "not oppressive". They overthrew the reforms (including private property ) that had started to bring (relative) prosperity to Russia and even what was (with the abdication of the Tsar) a democratic government and IMMEDIATELY became repressive. The subsequent invasion by America and Britain was entirely justified IMO - the Communists were fighting a democratic government that was the US and Britain's ally.
quote:
It does depend on your inital conditions, though, doesn't it. After all, there have been no control version of Communism, i.e., how will communism succeed when half the world isn't trying to destroy it? If I stood behind you whacking you in the head every few minutes while you were doing your SATs, how well do you think you'd do? |
Communism has (from my admittedly limited knowledge of history) always STARTED OUT oppressive, even if it was LATER attacked. Also, don't you think people are a bit justified in defending themselves against people who are trying to kill them and take all their property? Also, I'd LOVE to see you make the case that the repression of the various Communist governments was somehow necessary to their survival - any government that needs to be totalitarian to stay in power doesn't DESERVE to stay in power.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
Well, I don't have much about the early Russian Revolution to go by except Nicholas and Alexandra, which I'm currently reading for school, and from it I feel that the Russian Revolution was ANYTHING but "not oppressive". |
You shouldn't base your opinion on one book. Anyway, the early revolution allowed mutliple nationalitiies to cecede from it, made marriage and divorce legal, legalized homsexuality, provided free news print and printers for all political parties (that weren't in active revolt), and included multiple parties.
quote:
They overthrew the reforms (including private property ) that had started to bring (relative) prosperity to Russia and even what was (with the abdication of the Tsar) a democratic government and IMMEDIATELY became repressive. |
There is little true in this statemen. Private property existed before the February Revolution. What reforms there were that made life more bearable for the people of Russia were orderd by the Soviets (which existed along side the provisional government). And the Soviet government did not become repressive until the Civil War.
quote:
The subsequent invasion by America and Britain was entirely justified IMO - the Communists were fighting a democratic government that was the US and Britain's ally. |
By democratic you mean the unelected Provisional government not the elected Soviets which were attacked by the the US, Britain, France, Japan, etc. Furthermore, at the point of the invasions, the Provisional government had ceased to exist. The invaders fought on the side of the White Generals, who were elected by no one and did not seek to re-establish the Provisional government but to make themselves dicators.
quote:
Also, don't you think people are a bit justified in defending themselves against people who are trying to kill them and take all their property? |
We didn't start out trying to kill capitalists. That has become a matter of self defense. Ever time were overthrow them and let them live, they start a civil war. If they succeed in winning, they slaughter the revolutions' supporters. That's like saying you have a right to kill a guy because he'd try and kill you if you were trying to murder him.
quote:
Also, I'd LOVE to see you make the case that the repression of the various Communist governments was somehow necessary to their survival |
Why is there no democracy in the military? Also, do you not justify the repression of the Israelis against the Palestinians based on the fact that the Palestinians want to destroy them?
[q]any government that needs to be totalitarian to stay in power doesn't DESERVE to stay in power. [/QUOTE]
That may be a fair argument, however, when you are under seige, you may think certain ways of doing things are more condusive to staying alive and forget about such niceties as democracy and manners.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
|
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
3. Capitalism is an unsustainable economic system which relies on fostering expectations among the majority which can never ultimately be realized. It will destroy itself (or us) since it ignores certain fundamentals, like the limits of the environment, in order to sustain economic growth (on which the system depends to sustain itself). It also contains the seeds of its own destruction since the technologies it develops and spreads (such as IT and automated production) tend to undercut any stake the workers have in the system. In the one case by providing them with the capacity to effectively organize and share information outside of the control of the ruling class, in the other by rendering their labour superfluous and destroying their stake in the system. |
You've missed something critical - such improvements in efficiency and so on DON'T undercut the system - they free up labor that can now produce entirely new products. The vast increases in efficiency since the turn of the century haven't increased the unemployment rate - because people now produce new things such as computers. And wrt the environment, I have yet to see "protecting the environment" as a key part of a communist economy
quote:
4. Capitalism tends to encourage people to live off capital rather than by working. In a sense it penalizes those who produce the goods we enjoy by rewarding people who do not work at all by means of an imaginary social convention called money. People who live off investments or rents do not contribute anything real to the economy and rewarding them is essentially giving them something for nothing. |
Wrong. I, by giving you a loan, provide you with the means by which you can produce goods and make money. I had to do some work originally to make that money that I loan you, and I have to have some skill to choose who to give loans to to make the most profits.
quote:
5. Capitalism tends to produce massive inequalities because the working class have only their labour to sell and this is treated like any other commodity. The market does not care whether or not people starve to death or die young as long as there is labour to buy. The corrective mechanism for oversupply is obviously the elimination of workers by either death or reduced fertility. |
Actually, the usual corrective method for oversupply is the price going down and companies producing less or going out of business - why should people be paid for making things that are worthless because no one wants them?
quote:
6. A communist system would attempt to correct for these failures of the market as best as possible - mainly by making decisions about the allocation of resources much more responsive to democratic decision making than private capital. |
So you trust the government to be efficient and nonpolitical in this allocation of resources? 
quote:
7. An social/economic system which treats people as commodities rather than ends in themselves, is by definition morally wrong. Democracy treats people as ends in themselves, capitalism as commodities since capitalism only recognizes workers as labour. |
People are not treated as commodities - we have a constitutional amendment specifically enumerating that. Someone's LABOR is a commodity, which he or she is free to sell.
quote:
At some point in the development of capitalism the system will collapse under its own weight, just as previous forms of economic organization have done. At that point the rules will change since people will realize that the norms of the old system won't work. If you want to understand what this will be like consider how hard it was for Europeans to convince native peoples to regard land as a commodity and how natural it seems to us. If the point holds then there will come a time where people will regard the capitalist system as governed by superstition and will marvel at how people could have been so dumb. That is why the arguments that communism goes against human nature are flawed, since they fail to recognize that a great deal of what is natural to us is due to class consciousness (see 2.) If it is possible for pre-capitalist peoples to change their ways so radically, there is good reason to believe that capitalism can be overcome. |
Because all previous systems have collapsed, this one will too? That's like arguing that since all previous scientific facts have been disproven, we must assume that the ones we believe now are false too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
Well, we "don't really need" computers, or cars, or televisions, or for that matter the wheel! You know what, all I REALLY need is some food and shelter.
The fact is, people WANT these things, and they enjoy their lives more (or think they do) with them. Why NOT let them have those things? |
Why lest people starve so others could have SUV's?
People want a lot of things- people want free time to spend with thier families, but if they also want an SUV, tough luck, buddy, cause you have to earn the money to buy the SUV that you will use only to drive to wrk, and maybe your 2 weeks of vacation.
The question is the allocation of resources.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
|
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You shouldn't base your opinion on one book. Anyway, the early revolution allowed mutliple nationalitiies to cecede from it, made marriage and divorce legal, legalized homsexuality, provided free news print and printers for all political parties (that weren't in active revolt), and included multiple parties. |
Umm... I'm pretty sure gays in the Soviet Union were sent to the Gulag (forgot where I found that out), and I know that divorce was ALREADY legal. And they provided free newsprinting for parties "that weren't in active revolt"? So, basically all the ones that disagreed with them
quote:
There is little true in this statemen. Private property existed before the February Revolution. What reforms there were that made life more bearable for the people of Russia were orderd by the Soviets (which existed along side the provisional government). And the Soviet government did not become repressive until the Civil War. |
Private property was instated IIRC with the Second Duma, and it IMMEDIATELY caused significant increases in food production and decreased famine
quote:
By democratic you mean the unelected Provisional government not the elected Soviets which were attacked by the the US, Britain, France, Japan, etc. Furthermore, at the point of the invasions, the Provisional government had ceased to exist. The invaders fought on the side of the White Generals, who were elected by no one and did not seek to re-establish the Provisional government but to make themselves dicators. |
The Provisional Government was elected - it was IIRC the Fourth Duma. The Soviet was "elected" by the Communists.
quote:
Also, don't you think people are a bit justified in defending themselves against people who are trying to kill them and take all their property? |
quote:
We didn't start out trying to kill capitalists. That has become a matter of self defense. Ever time were overthrow them and let them live, they start a civil war. If they succeed in winning, they slaughter the revolutions' supporters. That's like saying you have a right to kill a guy because he'd try and kill you if you were trying to murder him. |
Hmmm... my take from the book was that it was the Communists who shot first
quote:
Why is there no democracy in the military? Also, do you not justify the repression of the Israelis against the Palestinians based on the fact that the Palestinians want to destroy them? |
The military IS democratic - it is ultimately ruled by the people. That doesn't mean that it is ruled by those it its employ and the Israelis aren't "repressive" against the Palestinians in the same way that the Soviet Union was represssive.
quote:
That may be a fair argument, however, when you are under seige, you may think certain ways of doing things are more condusive to staying alive and forget about such niceties as democracy and manners. |
Wait - so they had to defend themselves against their own people? At our worst point, with the internment camps in WWII, we at least pretended that we were only interning our enemies, and the "free press" that was forbidden was that which talked about critical military information.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-01-2004 05:19
|