Ask a Red III

[ace99]

I'm looking for something that will take me from the start of the Commune, what Germany was up to, the actions of the Communards and how it functioned and why they chose to do certain things and not others, the other Communes in Lyon and such places, the French government's actions and the international reaction and so forth.

If I could find the same type of thing for Anarchist Catalonia that would be good.

 

[Mouthwash]

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.

So you're saying that society will adapt and create a new allocation system? I agree that that's what happens when older institutions become obsolete, but what if direct self-interest is the only way to accomplish that? What reason do you have to believe that it isn't?

 

[aelf]

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).

In the developed capitalist economies, this generation will not be as wealthy as the previous generation. I suppose trends in the developing countries could easily counterbalance that, but then again the degree to which those countries constitute modern capitalist economies is somewhat debatable.

The point is that we are looking at different levels of uncertainty. We don't know what is going to happen 20 years down the road, although we can make 'educated guesses'. No one is claiming that capitalism will be replaced within a few decades. So why is there an expectation that a prediction can be made as to what exactly will replace it? Why do we have to engage in idle speculation if we want to engage in critique? Why must an unreasonable expectation be entertained?

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.

But I asked you how the environmental problems would be solved. You're not answering my question.

 

[Hygro]

Have any of you read Carbon Democracy? It replaces "mode of production" with "mode of fuel" and makes some very interesting arguments about how our political economy and social régulation is immensely tied to the methods we extract, transport, and turn into energy our fuel sources. I have quibbles with the author but over all I think it's a pretty fantastic concept.

 

[luiz]

In the developed capitalist economies, this generation will not be as wealthy as the previous generation. I suppose trends in the developing countries could easily counterbalance that, but then again the degree to which those countries constitute modern capitalist economies is somewhat debatable.

The point is that we are looking at different levels of uncertainty. We don't know what is going to happen 20 years down the road, although we can make 'educated guesses'. No one is claiming that capitalism will be replaced within a few decades. So why is there an expectation that a prediction can be made as to what exactly will replace it? Why do we have to engage in idle speculation if we want to engage in critique? Why must an unreasonable expectation be entertained?

I suppose it's fair enough to say we don't know whether this generation in the first world will be better-off than all previous ones or not. While their per capita income will almost certainly be higher, trends in income inequality and rising debt (and thus taxes) may counterbalance that effect so that it doesn't translate into higher living standards for the median worker.

But of course the vast majority of the human population lives in the so-called developing countries, the biggest ones of which are all experiencing fast growth and rapidly rising living standards for the whole population, with hundreds of millions of people being lifted out of poverty in the last decade and several more expected in the near future. Nothing short of a full blown global catastrophe will reverse this picture in the next 20 years, so it's very safe to say that the average human will be better off.

As for whether or not they're capitalist, well, they're certainly not anything else. And they're getting more capitalist, with few exceptions (but the two big ones, China and India, are definitely getting more capitalistic).

I agree with your last point that there's no sense in engaging in idle speculation, though. I suppose the frustration stems from the fact that while it's fine to criticize our current system, to suggest its entire replacement without knowing exactly what is going to replace it is also fruitless. I think this results in stuff like the Jacobin article that Azale posted, which seems almost... comical in its pointlessness.

But I asked you how the environmental problems would be solved. You're not answering my question.

I don't know, but they don't have to be solved in the next 20 years to make my "prophecy" come true. Even if they continue to get worse at the current pace the average human will still be significantly better off in 2032.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I'm looking for something that will take me from the start of the Commune, what Germany was up to, the actions of the Communards and how it functioned and why they chose to do certain things and not others, the other Communes in Lyon and such places, the French government's actions and the international reaction and so forth.

If I could find the same type of thing for Anarchist Catalonia that would be good.

Anthony Beevor covers the battles and political intrigue in Catalonia pretty well in his book on the Spanish Civil War: " The Battle for Spain," but he doesn't really focus on the social nature of the movement, as it's a book about the civil war, and not Spain in the mid-30s.

 

[aelf]

As for whether or not they're capitalist, well, they're certainly not anything else. And they're getting more capitalist, with few exceptions (but the two big ones, China and India, are definitely getting more capitalistic).

That's only if we broaden the category of modern capitalism enough so they fit easily. I'm getting the sense that there are quite big differences as to how businesses are run in developing economies, including in important things like how capital is raised. Developing economies conform to certain premises present in all capitalist economies, sure, but I'm not sure they are really much like the Western form of modern capitalism. If there can be such variations in our supposedly monolithic economic world, then I don't see why there is no room to question whether things can differ even more should certain conditions be met.

I don't know, but they don't have to be solved in the next 20 years to make my "prophecy" come true. Even if they continue to get worse at the current pace the average human will still be significantly better off in 2032.

The point is that that's the kind of loaded question that's being asked repeatedly in this thread. You don't agree with the premise of the question, so naturally you can't answer it.

 

[Borachio]

http://jacobinmag.com/2011/12/four-futures/

There, read that

That's interesting.

So, there's four possible scenarios based on the dichotomies of scarcity/abundance and equality/hierarchy.

 

[plarq]

That's only if we broaden the category of modern capitalism enough so they fit easily. I'm getting the sense that there are quite big differences as to how businesses are run in developing economies, including in important things like how capital is raised. Developing economies conform to certain premises present in all capitalist economies, sure, but I'm not sure they are really much like the Western form of modern capitalism. If there can be such variations in our supposedly monolithic economic world, then I don't see why there is no room to question whether things can differ even more should certain conditions be met.



The point is that that's the kind of loaded question that's being asked repeatedly in this thread. You don't agree with the premise of the question, so naturally you can't answer it.

It is capitalism in the sense of "anti-welfare" but not "free market", but these words are abused as well.

 

[aelf]

It is capitalism in the sense of "anti-welfare" but not "free market", but these words are abused as well.

19th century English capitalism is also capitalism; a game of Monopoly may be considered a representation of capitalism. These forms of capitalism are very different from modern (Western) capitalism. I'm saying that the capitalist economies of developing countries are different as well.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Are communists against the idea of banking?

 

[Tahuti]

19th century English capitalism is also capitalism; a game of Monopoly may be considered a representation of capitalism. These forms of capitalism are very different from modern (Western) capitalism. I'm saying that the capitalist economies of developing countries are different as well.

What would be included in your definition of modern capitalism then?

Capitalism (without the modern adjective before it), in its broadest definition, includes unregulated free markets, Catholic and Fascist corporatism and Mercantilism, all simultaneously. I guess Modern Capitalism would include Fiat currency, minimal regulatory inhibitions on the formation of businesses, Welfare programs and a focus on the financial industries, but I wonder how you would put it.

 

[Tommy Vercetti]

Do you like being on the side of evil?

Moderator Action: Trolling. This is the Chamber, please read the guidelines for this subforum.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[timtofly]

Do you like being on the side of evil?

I don't think that communism takes sides.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Do you like being on the side of evil?

Certainly. My organic tofu with bourgeoisie baby head puree dip smoothie that was served to me by my welfare queen significant other before my Morning Redistribution in a 0,5 L cup was excellent. Would you like some? In equal portions with the rest of us, of course.

 

[innonimatu]

What would be included in your definition of modern capitalism then?

Capitalism (without the modern adjective before it), in its broadest definition, includes unregulated free markets, Catholic and Fascist corporatism and Mercantilism, all simultaneously.

Capitalism in its broadest definition is just the accumulation of capital as the goal of economic activity, regardless of the methods involved. Which can be many.

Contemporary capitalism is very much, at least in the so-called western countries, financial capitalism. Capital is accumulated primarily trough lending and interest. It does rely on fiat currency, but not on minimal regulatory inhibition, quite the opposite in fact. Minimal regulation would lead these financial accumulation schemes to swift collapse (through not preclude its reappearance). The best example of that was the US banking systems for much of the 19th century and into the early 20th, especially in the west.
No, contemporary financial capitalism is entirely dependant on regulation and state intervention to exist.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I thought you guys might enjoy this:

 

[Tahuti]

It does rely on fiat currency, but not on minimal regulatory inhibition, quite the opposite in fact. Minimal regulation would lead these financial accumulation schemes to swift collapse (through not preclude its reappearance). The best example of that was the US banking systems for much of the 19th century and into the early 20th, especially in the west.
No, contemporary financial capitalism is entirely dependant on regulation and state intervention to exist.

Indeed I should have placed exception markers for financial industries. But would the collapse of contemporary financial capitalism lead to socialism or to gilded age capitalism? Or something else entirely?

 

[ParkCungHee]

I thought you guys might enjoy this:

You don't know the power of the Hegelian side of the Dialectic.

 

[aelf]

Indeed I should have placed exception markers for financial industries. But would the collapse of contemporary financial capitalism lead to socialism or to gilded age capitalism? Or something else entirely?

Is this rhetorical or really asking for some kind of prediction?