new capitalism vs communism thread

[Kuciwalker]

It has ALREADY gone on all night

However, I'm slightly disappointed that it has taken three pages to achieve a workable debate

EDIT: four pages

[The Andy-Man]

workable eih? IT seems pointless and repetiviive to me

[Kuciwalker]

wow, where did everyone go?

[joncha]

Wow... I don't check 'poly for 24 hours, and look what happens. Serves me right for ever leaving.

jon.

[Inverse Icarus]

my system would require a very well educated populous (including the basic working class), and a lot of killing.

edit: "exiling" could be substituted for "killing".

[Az]

good morning, precious.

Did you read what I posted? You are assuming that part of the economy is not schmooist.

e.g: the US. It is very close to being a shmooist system, right? but it does trade with other, non-shmooist economies.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Tripledoc:
Don't forget one thing, the people behind the overthrowing of capitalism are very important. If there are no people willing to devote their lives to the overthrowing of capitalism, it will remain in place.

This is one aspect of 'traditional' Communism that has been bothering for a while.

The masses are important, yet how do you mobilize the masses without agitators stiring the pot, so to speak?
The agitators must know how to manipulate the masses to the ends defined by the avantgarde of the revolution, yet for the benefit of the masses. How then do you avoid that the avantgarde will not feel contempt for the ignorant masses?

I think it is safe to say that the people's suport of the capitalist system is not ideological in a strong sense. It is partly based on conservatism, which by default is then supportive of capitalism. Conservatism does not neccesarily have to be supportive of capitalism. In fact conservatism as an ideology can underpin any economic system. The 'support' of capitalism is then also partly based on the lack of awareness of any alternative system.

The objective realities change. However there is a delay in how that reality is registered on the subjective level. Before that change happens one can speak of the socalled 'false consciousness'.

I think then that the agitation for a change in the system must be based on factual discusions of the nature of capitalism in this day and age. This means a move away from pure ideological talk towards showing the factual nature of capitalism.

On example could be pointing to the new phenomenon call centres.

For instance this BBC news article:

UK call centres branded 'satanic'

These call centres are low income jobs which offer frankly inhumane conditions. The important part is that these Jobs are being moved to India. Thus the fact that workers in Europe are able to sell their labour for a high price actually accelerates the new imperialism. The old imperialism was about exporting capital. The new imperialism is about exporting jobs. And this export is now moving into the service sector.

And this is actually what capitalism does to survive. It can stay alive for a long time by continuing to export jobs. However I wonder how capitalism will stay alive when there are no more jobs to export?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
The masses are important, yet how do you mobilize the masses without agitators stiring the pot, so to speak?

I was speaking about the agitators. Without them, no revolution. And the outcome of the revolution, the new system, very much depends on their individuality.
If you assume there will be an "automatic" revolution at some point, with an "automatic" outcome, then you're giving far too much weight to the mechanics of dualist history.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Azazel
good morning, precious.

Quote:

Did you read what I posted? You are assuming that part of the economy is not schmooist.

e.g: the US. It is very close to being a shmooist system, right? but it does trade with other, non-shmooist economies.

Yes. I, personally, would refuse to trade with a country that had slave labor, but I don't know how much of that is schmooism and how much of that is foreign policy. How would communism handle imports or exports from ANY other country?

[Ned]

If the masses supported communism and the overthrow of capitalism, they would vote that way. There is no need to revolt.

The lie is that the masses support communism. They do not.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I was speaking about the agitators. Without them, no revolution. And the outcome of the revolution, the new system, very much depends on their individuality.
If you assume there will be an "automatic" revolution at some point, with an "automatic" outcome, then you're giving far too much weight to the mechanics of dualist history.

Yes but the agitatators are surely in most cases simply riding the wave of history. The greatest revolutions, the one in Russia, and the one in China, were made possible because of the cataclysmic events caused by the respective countries being invaded by imperialist powers. A revolution in the West cannot come from that since for the forseeable future the Western nations are the imperialists.

Will the revoltion then come from the inability of the West to continue its mode of imperialism, and the resultant crisis this must lead to? I don't think so because the pro-imperialist forces are fanatical to say the least, willing to displace everything for that single goal which is the expansion of the market.

This of course will lead to a revolution in the third World. It already has in South America, which has swung to the left in the last decade.

However I fail to see how the revolution can be brought about in the West. I see a possibility of a reactionary revolution.

However it is possible that a deep economic crisis could bring about the conditions for a revolution, or perhaps a severe ecological crisis. Even the Pentagon has now warned that climate change can have a severe impact on the stability of the West.

In my mind there are iron laws of history which the agitators will have to conform to.

[Az]

Yes. I, personally, would refuse to trade with a country that had slave labor, but I don't know how much of that is schmooism and how much of that is foreign policy. How would communism handle imports or exports from ANY other country?

I would agree to trade with a country that has styled similarly to a shmooist country. However, I would also like to influence the people of that country and show them the benefits of our society.

[Az]

Skywalker: Remember my question from the other thread? How would you prevent the public agenda from being taken over by the private media? how would you prevent poverty, And what are the long term goals of your society?

[Ned]

The goal of capitalism is to make everyone rich which necessarily eliminates poverty. The goal of socialism to make everyone equally poor so by definition there is no poverty. Workers, given a choice between being rich, where some are richer than others, and being poor, but equally poor, choose capitalism.

[Az]

This has been a message from our resident spambot. We now return to our regularly scheduled programming.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Ned
The goal of capitalism is to make everyone rich which necessarily eliminates poverty. The goal of socialism to make everyone equally poor so by definition there is no poverty. Workers, given a choice between being rich, where some are richer than others, and being poor, but equally poor, choose capitalism.

Maybe, but then you are thinking within the confines of a single nation. Remember that imperialism is the highest form of capitalism. We are currently in that stage. Perhaps the end of that stage as a matter of fact.

It is imperialism, not capitalism itself (that is the creation of profit from selling goods) which secures the modern worker his or hers living standard.

The communist accepts the temporary objective strengths of capitalism, but sees communism as the natural extension of a historical process. Or agitates for communism to counter the worst excess of imperialism and the atrocities it inflicts on other nations.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ned
The goal of capitalism is to make everyone rich which necessarily eliminates poverty. The goal of socialism to make everyone equally poor so by definition there is no poverty. Workers, given a choice between being rich, where some are richer than others, and being poor, but equally poor, choose capitalism.

Unfortunately we'ld like to think so.

But you underestmate the greed factor of the common stiff.

Interesting group exercise that has been done time and again and shown to be very repeatable.

Go to a class room, take someone's wallet or purse and place it in the front of the room. Announce to the class that this is property and we are going to decide on its disposition. Two options

a) we return it to the person or
b) we divide it equally amongst the class.

Which one do you think gets chosen?

[Spiffor]

How could you guys take Ned's troll seriously?

[Spiffor]

So, Og, are you arguing that private property is definitely unnatural for us human? Property values have to be taught?

Then, I suppose you're not buying the idea of natural rights.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor
How could you guys take Ned's troll seriously?

Well he is pointing to a common misconception.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

No I'm pointing out that due to the inherently selfish manner of man he will take advantage and abuse others rights. But I don't plan to get sucked into another nature of man contrary to communism debate.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
No I'm pointing out that due to the inherently selfish manner of man he will take advantage and abuse others rights.

You're using the example of children precisely because they haven't assimilated property as being a "right". Wouldn't it mean, then, that property is precisely an "unnatural" right?

But I don't plan to get sucked into another nature of man contrary to communism debate.

Why not? It's obvious mankind's selfish nature makes it impossible to have a full-scale voluntary communism. This is the very reason why communism has to be either small-scale (Kibbutsim), totalitarian, or "impure"

[Az]

This is actually a very interesting thought. What if you don't teach kids about property?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Spiffor

You're using the example of children precisely because they haven't assimilated property as being a "right". Wouldn't it mean, then, that property is precisely an "unnatural" right?

No the examples are done with college students typically (but the exercise has been replicated with various groups of adults). Now one may argue that college students are not properly educated who full well understand property but choose to ignore it.

Why not? It's obvious mankind's selfish nature makes it impossible to have a full-scale voluntary communism. This is the very reason why communism has to be either small-scale (Kibbutsim), totalitarian, or "impure"

I agree and to the extent that it becomes bastardized to totalitarinsim I reject it immediately on those grounds.
Although I'm sure others here will argue vehemently that his is not the true nature of man and have done so before. I don't plan to get into another pissing contest as to what the true nature of man is.

[Tripledoc]

It is not the fact that property exists that is the problem. Communism allows for property. It is SELLING of property which is the problem. Usually children are on the recieving end. They don't sell property. And they don't have the conception of market value of goods. To them attachment to property is of a personal or sentimental nature, and not a means to earn a profit through selling it.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Azazel
This is actually a very interesting thought. What if you don't teach kids about property?

Wouldn't be a good idea unless you also changed the laws. Theft would be rampant, looting, etc. Youcouldn't do it within the context of an exisitng society wherein property is respected/upheld.

[chequita guevara]

Respecting rights. It's interesting that one of the first rights that people will disrespect is property. We don't see people murdering each other willy-nilly, nor raping each other, nor trying to keep each other from thinking what they will, but the right to property seems one we're very willing to violate. Cant be all that ingrained then.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Respecting rights. It's interesting that one of the first rights that people will disrespect is property. We don't see people murdering each other willy-nilly, nor raping each other, nor trying to keep each other from thinking what they will, but the right to property seems one we're very willing to violate. Cant be all that ingrained then.

Read the paper lately?

[JohnT]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Respecting rights. It's interesting that one of the first rights that people will disrespect is property. We don't see people murdering each other willy-nilly, nor raping each other, nor trying to keep each other from thinking what they will, but the right to property seems one we're very willing to violate. Cant be all that ingrained then.

Uh... sure, Che. Tell that little girl and her parents in Sarasota that the right to life is so sancrosact that people don't kill random strangers "willy-nilly."

[Spiffor]

Actually, I agree with Ogie that the reaction he depicts has more to do with egoism than with communitarism. You can be sure that the same people would defend their wallet as being "MINE MINE MINE" if they fell victim to the trick themselves. And even (especially?) if those people are three.

A spirit of communitarization can only exist if people see the obvious returns of communitarizing goods. Example: my roommates/classmates and me always ate together. We decided to pool our food, because it was clearly cheaper. OTOH, had we not been eating together, we'd have never done so, because there would be no apparent and obvious return to that.