Ask a Red III

[SS-18 ICBM]

Depends on the good, depends on what we want it do. Healthcare isn't bread isn't education isn't iPods. No reason to adopt a single, universal, eternal mode of distribution, any more than there is in capitalism.

The last one then. How would luxuries be handled by communist distribution?

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm curious what the communist perspective is on gold ownership. Communism purports to be both anti state and anti property. However, if people are capable of accumulating gold in the privacy of their homes, it follows that some pretty extensive financial dynamics will emerge which only an invasion of that privacy could prevent. So it would seem to me that a situation of "anarchy" would have some distinctly capitalistic features. How does communism resolve this contradiction.

I don't really follow- what's special about gold? Why not, say, pickled herring? What you seem to be arguing is that "stuff exists, therefore capitalism", which is pretty much exactly what we're disputing.

The last one then. How would luxuries be handled by communist distribution?

Depends on what's effective at any given point in time. Labour vouchers are the standard solution, but there might be others; I've read some interesting stuff about second-order markets. These things develop organically in any society- capitalism included- and the same is true of communism.

 

[Monsterzuma]

I don't really follow- what's special about gold? Why not, say, pickled herring? What you seem to be arguing is that "stuff exists, therefore capitalism", which is pretty much exactly what we're disputing.

Its not that stuff exists so much that it's really easy to claim possession of the stuff. And given that you can liquidate any possessions into gold and store said gold in secrecy, the ability for a person to amass capital is quite extensive. If communism is opposed to property, this poses a problem, and one that can not be "solved" without recourse to violence and intrusion.

 

[Traitorfish]

Its not that stuff exists so much that it's really easy to claim possession of the stuff. And given that you can liquidate any possessions into gold and store said gold in secrecy, the ability for a person to amass capital is quite extensive. If communism is opposed to property, this poses a problem, and one that can not be "solved" without recourse to violence and intrusion.

Why is gold necessarily property? Sounds to me like it's possession, which is really just a matter of fact rather than a social relationship. If they got hold of it by means which are deemed acceptable by their community, then why would anybody have a problem with it? They want to waste all their time accumulating gold instead of actually living, then more power to them.

 

[Monsterzuma]

Why is gold necessarily property? Sounds to me like it's possession, which is really just a matter of fact rather than a social relationship.

My point is exactly that property is not a social creation but something existing naturally under conditions of anarchy. Natural law, rather than social law, incorporates the defining features of a property system.

If they got hold of it by means which are deemed acceptable by their community, then why would anybody have a problem with it? They want to waste all their time accumulating gold instead of actually living, then more power to them.

I agree on this sentiment to a large extent, but I understand this defines my attitude as non-communist.

 

[Traitorfish]

My point is exactly that property is not a social creation but something existing naturally under conditions of anarchy. Natural law, rather than social law, incorporates the defining features of a property system.

Well, I don't agree, and I think that the preponderance of empirical evidence amassed by anthropologists supports me in this. No simple society has ever been observed that employs a system of private property, which is what your appeal to "natural law" would imply.

I agree on this sentiment to a large extent, but I understand this defines my attitude as non-communist.

I don't see why. Communism doesn't mean that we have to keep everything in a big vault in the middle of town.

 

[Monsterzuma]

Well, I don't agree, and I think that the preponderance of empirical evidence amassed by anthropologists supports me in this. No simple society has ever been observed that employs a system of private property, which is what your appeal to "natural law" would imply.

we have actual case studies of communities developing money prices from scratch: namely, prisoners who end up using cigarettes as the common medium of exchange. The classic work here is Radford's 1945 article, "The Economic Organization of a P.O.W. Camp." There is nothing in Radford's account that conflicts with the standard economists' story about the origin of money. The prisoners certainly weren't giving each other things from their Red Cross kits as gifts or as loans. No, they first were trading (in a state of direct exchange) and cigarettes quickly became the money in their community for all of the reasons that economists typically cite.

http://mises.org/daily/5598/Have-Anthropologists-Overturned-Menger

 

[Traitorfish]

A POW Camp is not a simple society- if anything, it's the very epitome of a complex state-based society- so that doesn't really have anything to do with anything I've said. (Graeber himself makes this point in his reply to Murphy.)

But, we're getting off-topic here- the topic being what communists think, not whether or not they are right- so if we're going to continue this discussion, then I suggest a thread that I started a few weeks back.

 

[GamezRule]

Define "capital." I don't see capital as something which can just go away, but rather become communally owned.

 

[Takhisis]

I've always been branded as anti-system lout. How do we settle whether I count as a Red or not?

(scometimes I apparently am more of an anarchist)

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

- What do you think about modern Russian communists (CPRF), their views and political program?

They seem to be of the "bring the USSR back, wasn't it so much better than this?" variety of communists, which I cannot say is a particularly productive one.

Is there any cooperation between American and Russian communists?

No more than there is between American communists and communists from any other country. There were probably fifty communist parties in attendance at the summit in Athens a few months ago, including both CPRF and CPUSA.

- How do you consider Cuban variant of socialism?

Rather Soviet in nature.

As far as I know, living standards there are among the highest in Latin America, despite of embargo.
Thank's in advance

Yes they've done something remarkable there, a real counterpoint to the neo-liberal IMF program of "development" in Latin America. They still have a long way to go, though.

Initial questions:

First, a counter-question. Are these about socialism or communism? Because I would prefer not to give answers about the latter, it is too far off for us to know. So my answers are for socialism, which is of course the process of dismantling capitalism and building communism.

(1.) What individual rewards are there for hard work?

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their contribution." You do more work, you get more out of that work. In a company, you obviously get paid more for working more. This much will not change. As for over-time, that is up to each company to decide.

(2.) How are scarce goods allocated most efficiently in the absence of a (free) price system?
[note: this question is to both market and anti-market communists]

I don't know what a "free price system" is, unless you mean one without price floors and ceilings.

As far as goods are concerned, I don't see why it would operate too much different than now. The issue is distribution of profits, not their existence; though I would argue that much profit is twisted out of the desire for extremely scarce items that could not be excused were they less rare, but that is really a matter of opinion and not of principle. Dictatorial distribution of profits is easily fixable though, by democratization of decision-making. To solve such things as profit-fleecing, we can only ask people to behave more responsibly when setting prices, kind of like the mindset behind fair-trade: no one is forcing them to do it, they just do it because they see it as more moral.

(3.) If there is a market, how can "labor hours" be used as a mechanism to efficiently establish a price for goods?
(a.) How do you account for factors other than labor time, such as scarcity and quality?
(b.) How do you incorporate the cost of capital into the price of finished goods if labor time is used in place of a free price system?

Do you mean if we got rid of money and used labor vouchers instead, which is something that people have talked about? I don't know. I guess it would most likely be a literal hours' worth of work for a literal hours' worth of work. It's hard to imagine trade without money, because we are so used to it as a the universal social interactor in the market. I don't frankly see how labor credits won't devolve into money with a different name. Hopefully the children and grandchildren of the revolutionaries will figure that one out. But for the mean time I think we'll be using money.

(4.) If there is a market, what happens when a business fails?

The same thing as now.

(a.) Who owns the business?

Shareholders, of which the only people to hold would be employees.

(b.) Do the business owners own the physical land upon which the business is situated and if so, what subsequently happens to the land?

Arguable. A decent case can be made for universal renting of land, but also for land which businesses are situated upon as being part of the capital owned by the workers who own the company itself.

(5.) Can residential land be owned and if so, under which circumstances may it be expropriated?

Example: I own a plot of land upon which my house is situated and it has been decided that a shoe factory is going to be built, but my house and the land lie within the proposed factory's building site.

I'm going to say yes, but only in the form of private residence; so, no owning a tenement or apartment building and renting it out to a hundred people. So you could own your apartment or house.

As far as what could potentially happen to it, I think eminent domain works fine now more or less. I mean, yeah, it sucks to have your house torn down, or a highway run through your backyard, and I think that people potentially affected by a project should be consulted on it and have their voices heard before the State gives the go-ahead, but if it comes down to it and it's either that the project goes there or nowhere, then I think the needs of many outweigh the needs of the few. Those dislocated people absolutely have the right to a new place, and it's our obligation to find it for them fairly since we have deprived them of their house.

(6.) What happens if I choose to reject the communist system and issue currency not tied to labor hours? (or, in the case of an anti-market communism, what happens if I try to establish market relations?)

The same thing that happens now when you do such a thing.

are there any contemporary "red" thinkers you recommend reading up on?

Chomsky is a decent fellow, but not someone to be strictly adhered to. I've recently discovered Slavoj Zizek, and he's very fun, from the other end of the Red spectrum (Chomsky is an anarchist or libertarian socialist, and TF described Zizek best as "social democracy, but, like, angrier," I think the best path lies between the two).

So how will a Classless, Stateless society function? (tell me if this is too broad).

No idea. Smoothly? None of us will be alive to ever see it.

Can I become a communist, I'm not ignorant when it comes to sociology, history, politics, and so on, in fact I'm good at it. What makes you communist, is it you just say I'm Communist or do you have to believe in certain "policies"?

To quote one of my favorite men, "the only virtue of a communist is that he struggles for communism." So it is with qualification for the mantle, comrade.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Define "capital." I don't see capital as something which can just go away, but rather become communally owned.

Capital is the tools of production. Land, buildings, machines, investment money, and labor (meaning, its obtainment for use in production). Capital doesn't go away unless you destroy it, and that, my friend, would be stupid. The issue is who owns it.

 

[GamezRule]

Then why does a certain member of your number talk about the abolition of capital or something to that degree?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Then why does a certain member of your number talk about the abolition of capital or something to that degree?

I'm certain that whoever it was misspoke, or you misread them. I often speak of the abolition of private capital, though, which refers to a concept and not a physical thing.

 

[red_elk]

They seem to be of the "bring the USSR back, wasn't it so much better than this?" variety of communists, which I cannot say is a particularly productive one.

That's right of course. Bringing USSR back in its old form today would be crazy action.
On the other hand, there are lots of people, nostalgic for "good old times", so I can understand why CPRF would want to play this card to get more popular support. Don't know much details about their political program though.

 

[aelf]

Then why does a certain member of your number talk about the abolition of capital or something to that degree?

You mean the abolition of capitalism? A totally different thing.

 

[Traitorfish]

Define "capital." I don't see capital as something which can just go away, but rather become communally owned.

Capital is the tools of production. Land, buildings, machines, investment money, and labor (meaning, its obtainment for use in production). Capital doesn't go away unless you destroy it, and that, my friend, would be stupid. The issue is who owns it.

Then why does a certain member of your number talk about the abolition of capital or something to that degree?

I'm certain that whoever it was misspoke, or you misread them. I often speak of the abolition of private capital, though, which refers to a concept and not a physical thing.

You mean the abolition of capitalism? A totally different thing.

Actually, I think this is down to some terminological variation within Marxism, rather than to GamezRule having misread anyone. Leftcoms (like ma' guid seil) tend to talk about "capital and labour" rather than "bourgeoisie and proletariat" when talking in general, abstract terms; it's a way of distinguishing between capital labour in general, as social relations, and the bourgeoisie and proletariat as historically specific populations existing within those relationships. This means that we talk about things like the "abolition of capital", referring to the abolition of capital as a form of social mediation and control, in which the overthrow of capitalism, of the organisation of society under capital, and capitalists, those who administer it, are understood to be implicit.

 

[JohannaK]

Is socialdemocracy an acceptable alternative to communism?

 

[Traitorfish]

I would say that it is not. Social democracy ameliorates the condition of labour under capital, but it does not address the fact that labour is subordinate to capital in the first place, and so it does nothing to address the fact that the overwhelming majority of people are obliged by the threat of starvation to spend their life doing hard, menial work for the sake of others. It is simply does not an emancipatory project.

 

[JohannaK]

But can social democracy be considered a step towards communism?