Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Says the guy who didn't answer the "but what do you think?" at the end.
Ask a Red III
- Thread starter Cheezy the Wiz
- Start date
- Status
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
No need to get personal. While Mouthwash got flippant, he is correct that his primary question - "What would replace it?" - got ignored in favor of criticizing current paradigms. That is, Traitorfish questioned the paradigm of having one general and abstract principle of how the division of labor is supposed to be managed (money). While such questioning of said principle may be valid - it in any case poses no answer to Mouthwash's question.
Yeah, amadeus asked the same thing at the beginning of the thread and Traitor did the same thing. I'm not even trying to refute communism, I'm actually curious as to what they postulate to solving the problem. The only answer I can make out is something like "as society evolves toward socialism new systems will emerge that will allocate everything efficiently," which isn't a concession, but still not a real answer.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Moutwash, giving a straightforward answer to your question means accepting the assumptions in which it is couched. I reject those assumptions, so I can't answer your question. As SiLL says, it's a matter of paradigms. You may as well ask me "Why is the sky green?"; it's not simply that I refuse to give you an answer, it's that I cannot, because I regard the entire question as based on spurious premises.
Now, I could, for purposes of argument, accept your assumptions, and try to answer your question within those terms. But then you wouldn't actually be asking me the question, would you? You'd be asking a construct who holds opinions superficially similar to mine. And why should I, or anybody else, want to help you with anything so futile as that?]
So, you're right enough that I don't have a rebuttal to your question, but it's not obvious to me that I should have one. I don't have an answer to the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?", either, and nobody would expect me to. So why here? Not all questions are created equal.
Now, I could, for purposes of argument, accept your assumptions, and try to answer your question within those terms. But then you wouldn't actually be asking me the question, would you? You'd be asking a construct who holds opinions superficially similar to mine. And why should I, or anybody else, want to help you with anything so futile as that?]
So, you're right enough that I don't have a rebuttal to your question, but it's not obvious to me that I should have one. I don't have an answer to the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?", either, and nobody would expect me to. So why here? Not all questions are created equal.
aelf
Ashen One
So basically people are expected to be able to tell the future now?
In that case, tell me, what will happen to modern capitalism 20 years from now? Will we be wealthier than all previous generations? How about our environmental problems? How would they be solved?
Can't tell me? Well, then you suck.
In that case, tell me, what will happen to modern capitalism 20 years from now? Will we be wealthier than all previous generations? How about our environmental problems? How would they be solved?
Can't tell me? Well, then you suck.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
Woah, where'd you get that? Who cares about "efficiency?" Efficient how?
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
You have come to a thread where you ask people who want to overthrow the existing political system questions, and you expect honor out of them? Pull the other one!
The average human will be wealthier than in all previous generations, unless a major catastrophe happens, like a nuclear war, which is very unlikely. Even another financial crisis won't change this.
Environmental problems will persist.
And I'm more than willing to bet vast sums on either statement.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
I am afraid it hasn't gotten through yet.
You made quit clear that you reject Mouthwash's paradigm. Then you go on to ridicule his paradigm by comparing it to things like the color of the sky, from there conclude that it is not worth the time and you hence could just only say as an answer: I reject your paradigm.
So just leaving some spurious assumptions on your part aside - and accepting all premises of yours - this still is only an explanation for why you shouldn't answer Mouthwash based on his paradigms. It does not explain why you shouldn't answer him based on your paradigms - whatever that may be.
His question was - what would replace it?
That it will be replaced is the assumption, this whole discussion turns around. This is a premise shared. So you may just as well apply your paradigms instead of his - and actually answer the simple literal question. If you have no answer - what do you have?
Perhaps we also expect too much. But when one digs eagerly deeper it always seems to get messy.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I've already told you, I don't know how a communist society would be organised. I've been saying that for the last forty pages, Mouthwash is just too... Mouthwash to go back and see what's already been said. My contention is that this does not, as Mouthwash claims, represent a weakness in communist thought, because the paradigm we're working with doesn't suggest that we should be able to make such a prediction.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
That actually looks pretty interesting, I'll give it a read later.
Also!, that reminds me, somebody posted another Jacobin article a while back which I never got round to commenting on. I'll see if I can cobble together a reply to him as well.
Also!, that reminds me, somebody posted another Jacobin article a while back which I never got round to commenting on. I'll see if I can cobble together a reply to him as well.
That was probably me! I didn't know the magazine existed until last month so now I'm scrambling to digest all the back issues and subjecting the internet to my pleas to PLEASE RD AND COMMENT THNX K
Sorry about that
aelf
Ashen One
I don't agree with your assessment. You don't know, and I'm asking about just 20 years down the road. And you didn't answer all the questions either. How would our environmental problems be solved?
Well, it's too bad you don't agree. I'm willing to bet 100K USD (or whatever sum, really) that global per capita income on real terms will be higher in 2032 than in 2012. I don't know this for a fact, of course. There is no historical inevitability at play here. It's merely a fact of looking where things are going, and 20 years is a fairly short time span for such a broad "prediction". Given the economic dynamics already at play in China, India and large parts of Africa, it's pretty much guaranteed that my "prediction" will come true (it's of course not "my prediction", but rather that of everybody that matters).
Environmental problems won't be solved, as I said. If anything I suppose they'll get a bit worse, especially in regions of Africa. But I don't have a big degree of confidence here. I do have a very large degree of confidence that even if they do get fairly worse, in 20 years time they won't be able to reverse the current trend of a rapidly rising global per capita income.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
For communism to work as we can imagine it today will have a price economy. It will require much more accurate pricing though. To prevent constant war, equality will be necessary, and to prevent inequality we will have to be at the environmental limit at all times, given that moment's technology. For one, we'll need maximal available resources to maintain the end of labor as we keep expanding our technology, interests, and use energy (even if it's all solar). The other, is that if we're at the limit, the system is effectively self regulating. The only flaw in this view is where do you prevent those who wish to bring everyone down by seeking profit above others (as it is inherently self defeating)? I think the answer lies in a non-economic sphere: once economic domination no longer runs the world, psychologically people will no longer aspire to economic domination, except in rare cases that will resemble lone gunman school shootings than an armed warlordist takeover. After all, you can't win in the profit wars without a lot of people directly supporting you. And why would anyone? Their needs would be met, including their needs to be able to do cool things and enjoy utilizable luxury.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
The problem is not capitalism. Perhaps this is too simple, since I have only dabbled in economics. The problem is using capitalism in a socialistic economy. Capitalism only works in a loosely regulated and for lack of a better term, unsocial economy. The government is still there to uphold the laws, but today's capitalism is an understudy in bending all laws. Trying to force people to only use goods that are manufactured in a socially responsible manner is putting the cart before the horse. Capitalist make the mistake of being unsocial because there are no consequences. The government misused capitalism by enabling unsocial practices. What should have happened is the people should have risen up without governmental interfrence thus self-regulating the market. Capitalism only works if it is self regulated.
It seems to me that communism would be even harder to self regulate. However the ability of abuse would be greater on the enforcers (government) even more than the corporations in capitalism. If one could get enough likeminded anarchist and communist who can put other peoples needs before their own, perhaps such a society would flourish. Of course captialism would work the same if every one put other's needs before their own needs, but people have been so offput by it's recent failures, that they cannot see things that way.
It seems to me that communism would be even harder to self regulate. However the ability of abuse would be greater on the enforcers (government) even more than the corporations in capitalism. If one could get enough likeminded anarchist and communist who can put other peoples needs before their own, perhaps such a society would flourish. Of course captialism would work the same if every one put other's needs before their own needs, but people have been so offput by it's recent failures, that they cannot see things that way.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
This is not a discussion thread or soap box thread, this is an Ask an X thread, so let's try to return to that paradigm, please.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
The only book I know about the Paris Commune is The Paris Commune by Karl Marx and V. I. Lenin. It is a compilation, which includes both Marx's initial published response to the Commune, as well as Lenin's commentary on the lessons of the Commune, and how they apply to the Russian situation. Both are political analyses of the Commune, though, not histories of it.
- Status
