Ask a Red III

[Ondskan]

So is it possible to change at all?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Is it commonly assumed that economic policies of the far left would be more productive than free-market-capitalism, or is it rather so that less productivity is seen as a necessary sacrifice for overall better living quality due to an improved society?
I am asking because while I have profound doubts that there is a model which is better than the soulless menace of free-market competition to increase productivity (while it may profit from different kind of tries to tame it [social market economy], I am intrigued by the latter.

PKH has rather eloquently described one of the answers to the productivity issue, which is the inherent under-productivity of our present system. In addition, it's pretty insulting to humanity to suggest that we are best motivated by other humans coercing us. Besides, the question must be asked: if a small group is motivating us through coercion, are they motivating us for humanity's sake or their own? Since the answer is "profit," it is obviously for their own sake we labor.

Firstly let me congratulate you for correctly pointing out that fascism is an enemy of liberalism as much as it is from communism, and that in fact it draws much of its criticisms of liberalism from the same stuff as communism. I have read many times by Reds, including on CFC, that "fascism is liberalism/capitalism without velvet gloves". Of course that's nonsense, but nonetheless repeated every now and then.

I am in the business of dispelling myths. We have nothing to gain [as a species] from misconceptions and inaccuracies.

Now for the question. The above quote (and some other segments by you on this thread) manifest a belief in the inevitability of communism. Do you really belive in that? It's my understanding that most present communists have abandoned this particular point of marxist thought, not only because of the events of the 20th Century but also because of the rather devastating criticism that historicism suffered from Popper et al. (which I assume you're familiar with). So do you believe in Laws of History and all that?

When I speak of the inevitability of socialism, I don't mean that it's going to come about by accident, or regardless of the efforts of communists. What I mean is that the engine of social change, i.e. class struggle, can only yield socialism from capitalism, and that this struggle will continue, because humans are humans, until it achieves resolution. Thus, the goal of communists is to give this class struggle direction, so that it is not flailing angrily in the wind without goals or understanding, and instead becomes an organized social weapon. We are thus agents of this social engine.

I'm certain that you know my position regarding progressivism and the USSR and PRC. The events of the 20th century, by which I assume you can only mean the "failure" of "socialism," are thus not an issue to me. Most of the socialists and communists I know are of a similar mind. Even if it were an issue, it would just the same be something to learn from. The brutality and troubles of those regimes should serve as an example of policies not to be followed (the most obvious of which is don't start a socialist revolution is a country not economically ready for it) and carry a lesson of temperance; they are not an invalidation of Marx, of the class struggle in capitalism, or of the ethics of mutual cooperation and collective profit.

I'm only somewhat familiar with Popper. I know that he supposedly has a refutation of much of Marxism, and that he was somewhat concerned with the inability to concretely know things. What I have read of him, thanks to the mass-quoting of him by a certain poster, I do not find impressive.

 

[Perfection]

What would you do if you won the powerball? (like a big jackpot, 250 Million)

 

[ParkCungHee]

I am surprised how openly you declare your disregard for feasibility though. Shouldn't public policy be based on its actual consequences rather than moral notions (while those notions should be used to judge those consequences)? I at least like to think so. And as much as I find your moral point of view likable, without the assumption of feasibility, I don't see how it justifies a political stance. But a at least in principle feasible political stance is what I am looking for her.

Only if you imagine the political is something other then the personal writ large.

An anarchist at least to me, seems to reject the idea of a larger force enforcing it's will on the people. So it seems to me I obviously should object to a larger force coming in and enforcing it's will on people. Enforced pacifism is of course an absurd notion. It seems to me that enforced anarchy should be in the same category.

Since I refuse to use my power over others, it seems to me the only way I can implement my political ideas by personal action. How I dispose of my property, people who harm me, and my person. I cannot force the police to stop arresting people, but I can refuse my cooperation in helping them arrest someone who has harmed me. As far as I'm concerned this is the only way to implement anarchism. So the political is personal in that regard.

In the other way, the personal is political. I reject the idea that I have a right to murder someone. I reject the idea that I have a right to buy someone a weapon to murder someone for me. I reject this idea even if that person intends to kill me. This is true if this person is my neighbor.
If this person lives in Afghanistan, this moral law is still true. Thus, politically, I can't accept the existence of armies.
Just as I cannot lock someone in a cage for a few years because they committed fraud against me, and I cannot pay someone to do that, I cannot accept a state that does that for me as legitimate.

Basically, I reject the idea that public policy is a thing. All it is is the personal actions of countless people, and if something is unacceptable from a person, it is unacceptable from a government.

A very notable pacifist once said you must be the change you want to see in the world. I take that very seriously as a political stance. If you wish an end to slavery, you must do so by freeing your slaves. If you wish to see an end to war, you must not become a soldier. If you wish to see an end of violence and state power, you must renounce violence and state power.

It is a moral obligation, but a moral obligation for enough people is what we call politics...oh god I've been rambling, I'll stop now.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

PKH has rather eloquently described one of the answers to the productivity issue, which is the inherent under-productivity of our present system.

He has demonstrated that our current system is far from meaning an ideal allocation and use of resources. Or in short: The imperfectness of this system when it comes to productivity. To realize this and point this out is certainly a first good step. As is every revelation about the nature of something. But it only becomes useful in a political sense, if it leads to an economic concept that not only in theory has a more ideal allocation and use of resources, but where it is also realistic to assume that such a concept could work in practice. Now I am not saying that such a thing would not exist. In deed, I am very eager to get to know such a concept. But sadly, I have not seen such a thing demonstrated so far. So if assuming that you agree with me that it is necessary to do so: What is the concept you support? If you don't agree - why not?

In addition, it's pretty insulting to humanity to suggest that we are best motivated by other humans coercing us.

Well frankly, I don't care how "insulting" something is. I only care about its feasibility. But consider the stressful daily routine job. Think of the cashier who has to mindlessly act like a biological machine, every word and move part of a routine optimized for his or her specific task, performed hours and hours, day after day. This job sucks. It is revolting to the human senses. But people do it anyway, because they are "coerced" to do so. Directly by their employers, but indirectly by the market forces, which in turn directly coerce the employers to coerce you. And this results in remarkable productivity. You are very productive as a cashier. But the experience of doing so so is unfulfilling and knows little human dignity.
This basic mechanism of coercion, by the forces of the free market against the employer and by the employer against you, is troublesome when it comes to the living quality of the employee. But is it not very productive? And when productivity is a result of reduced living quality during production, is it so unreasonable - or insulting - to assume that people are - overall, in the pig picture, exceptions non-withstanding - most productive when coerced to do so?

Besides, the question must be asked: if a small group is motivating us through coercion, are they motivating us for humanity's sake or their own? Since the answer is "profit," it is obviously for their own sake we labor.

Do you find it feasible to have most people do what they do for humanity's sake? An in the end abstract concept? Isn't everything we do in the end born out of the need to satisfy an individual desire? What desire would be satisfied by committing yourself to helping humanity? How would one go about creating such a desire an ensuring its existence?

@ParkCungHee
Well I got so say, that IMO your reluctance to use force in any way makes you just as much a role-model as it makes your stance irrelevant in a political sense. And with political I mean a conceptional idea of how society can be structured as a whole.
edit: I just realized that I kind of only repeated myself here. Sorry for that. Let me add, that your moral point of view is to me self-defeating in its absoluteness. Your desire is that no violence is used, right? And would you not like that to be universally true? If yes, than this is your desired effect of public policy. At the same time, you seem to realize that public policy can not create such a thing. That only all individuals deciding to not use violence can. So you simply reject public policy as a valid concept. Now let's assume that enough people thought like you did, to erode the public monopoly of force. So basically the end of the enforcement of public law. Do you think this would result in more or less violence?

 

[luiz]

I am in the business of dispelling myths. We have nothing to gain [as a species] from misconceptions and inaccuracies.

When I speak of the inevitability of socialism, I don't mean that it's going to come about by accident, or regardless of the efforts of communists. What I mean is that the engine of social change, i.e. class struggle, can only yield socialism from capitalism, and that this struggle will continue, because humans are humans, until it achieves resolution. Thus, the goal of communists is to give this class struggle direction, so that it is not flailing angrily in the wind without goals or understanding, and instead becomes an organized social weapon. We are thus agents of this social engine.

I'm certain that you know my position regarding progressivism and the USSR and PRC. The events of the 20th century, by which I assume you can only mean the "failure" of "socialism," are thus not an issue to me. Most of the socialists and communists I know are of a similar mind. Even if it were an issue, it would just the same be something to learn from. The brutality and troubles of those regimes should serve as an example of policies not to be followed (the most obvious of which is don't start a socialist revolution is a country not economically ready for it) and carry a lesson of temperance; they are not an invalidation of Marx, of the class struggle in capitalism, or of the ethics of mutual cooperation and collective profit.

I'm only somewhat familiar with Popper. I know that he supposedly has a refutation of much of Marxism, and that he was somewhat concerned with the inability to concretely know things. What I have read of him, thanks to the mass-quoting of him by a certain poster, I do not find impressive.

I wouldn't say Popper disproved Marxism, broadly speaking, but he (and many others) certainly did irreparable damage to the historical determinism that is part of of orthodox Marxist thought.

The first paragraph of your reply is the one where I sense historical determinism. Wouldn't you say human interactions form too complex a system for us to be able to predict a "final outcome"? Conflict is a permanent feature of human societies, it existed when we were communal hunter-gatherers and it exists in our complex capitalist world. Do you think it can be permanently resolved?

 

[Traitorfish]

The first paragraph of your reply is the one where I sense historical determinism. Wouldn't you say human interactions form too complex a system for us to be able to predict a "final outcome"? Conflict is a permanent feature of human societies, it existed when we were communal hunter-gatherers and it exists in our complex capitalist world. Do you think it can be permanently resolved?

There are qualitatively different forms of conflict. What Marx claims will be resolved by the process of communisation is specifically class conflict, material conflict rooted in the social division of labour. He certainly doesn't regard it as an "end of history" scenario- in fact, in a famous rhetorical flourish in the Economic Manuscripts he described class society as "prehistory", a grubby little prelude to the real history of humanity.

 

[luiz]

There are qualitatively different forms of conflict. What Marx claims will be resolved by the process of communisation is specifically class conflict, material conflict rooted in the social division of labour. He certainly doesn't regard it as an "end of history" scenario- in fact, in a famous rhetorical flourish in the Economic Manuscripts he described class society as "prehistory", a grubby little prelude to the real history of humanity.

But even if class conflict is fully resolved, can't the other forms of conflict bring about unpredictable change that could indeed reverse the process of communisation? How can we know for sure the consequences of all other forms of human interaction over the communist society?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Is this historic inevitability even taken serious nowadays? I would think or at least hope that it is just a talking point to get people motivated. Akin to "Paradise awaits you! Only need to reach out for it". So a propaganda tool to inspire confidence in the idea of communism, rather than a sober analysis of what the future can be excepted to bring. Actually quit like the assumption that in free-market-capitalism our societies are bound to get richer and richer.

 

[luiz]

Is this historic inevitability even taken serious nowadays? I would think or at least hope that it is just a talking point to get people motivated. Akin to "Paradise awaits you! Only need to reach out for it". So a propaganda tool to inspire confidence in the idea of communism, rather than a sober analysis of what the future can be excepted to bring. Actually quit like the assumption that in free-market-capitalism our societies are bound to get richer and richer.

That's what I was curious about, if it's a belief held or more of a rhetorical piece.
It was certainly a deeply held belief by early Marxists. Not so much today, it seems.

 

[Traitorfish]

But even if class conflict is fully resolved, can't the other forms of conflict bring about unpredictable change that could indeed reverse the process of communisation? How can we know for sure the consequences of all other forms of human interaction over the communist society?

I don't think that a communised society would see the re-emergence of class relations, no. Class develops from the internal dynamics of a given society, determined in the last analysis by the process of material production (although certainly not reducible to it), and as far as I can see, such dynamics would be absent in a post-property society. However, I certainly agree that it's in no sense inevitable that a post-propertarian society would be eternally and completely libertarian and egalitarian. There is an irresolvable tension in any human society between powers and counterpower, so what would distinguish communism is the fact that in the demolition of property-forms it removes the material basis for power. Domination, in a post-propertarian society, would represent the exception to the rule, born of very particular historical circumstances, a reversal of the last six thousand years of agrarian civilisation.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

What is so unthinkable about people simply seizing material goods, de facto making it their property? Was it is so unthinkable about this amounting to a general trend, eroding the communist society?

 

[Gary Childress]

I have often heard it said that communism is against privately owned property. In a communist society would ALL things be communal or just certain types of things?

 

[Traitorfish]

What is so unthinkable about people simply seizing material goods, de facto making it their property? Was it is so unthinkable about this amounting to a general trend, eroding the communist society?

Why would anybody bother? If your material needs are met, why would you go out and risk getting yourself shot to bits for the benefit of... I don't know, having slightly more bananas than you may otherwise have had? It would just be weird.

I have often heard it said that communism is against privately owned property. In a communist society would ALL things be communal or just certain types of things?

Yes and yes, in different senses. Communism can't just be understood as a matter of transforming private property into public property, but of a dissolution of property relations as such, that is, the end to all absolute claims to disposal, be it on behalf of an individual or a collective. Rather, what would we see is that the distribution of all material things becomes consciously negotiated (and renegotiated), and agreement arrived at by the concerned parties to use a given physical quantity in the manner that seems best to them. This as true of a toothbrush as it is of a factory, it's simply that nobody is likely to want your toothbrush but you, while a factory actually requires the direct and indirect cooperation of a great many individuals to function.

 

[Leoreth]

Why would anybody bother? If your material needs are met, why would you go out and risk getting yourself shot to bits for the benefit of... I don't know, having slightly more bananas than you may otherwise have had? It would just be weird.

... shot to bits?

 

[luiz]

Why would anybody bother? If your material needs are met, why would you go out and risk getting yourself shot to bits for the benefit of... I don't know, having slightly more bananas than you may otherwise have had? It would just be weird.

Is it unthinkable that say, the people of a region/province sitting on mineral wealth or even a water source that supplies other regions would try to "seize" said resources, in the sense of using them to improve their power relation regarding their neighbors? Even in a communist society some people would be better off than others, even if all have their material needs met. So I think it could happen that a group could be tempted to exploit resources at their hand in order to better their relative standing. I'm not saying such thing would necessarily happen, but I find it hard to argue it could never happen. I can imagine many scenarios in which a classless, "post-property" society would again develop and enforce the concept of property. I don't think History is marching on any direction.

 

[Traitorfish]

... shot to bits?

Well, yeah, if you go around threatening people with violence, they're going to defend themselves. "Shot to bits" is obviously an exaggeration, but if we're talking about the sort of systematic violence implied in his scenario, then who's to say it wouldn't come to that?

Is it unthinkable that say, the people of a region/province sitting on mineral wealth or even a water source that supplies other regions would try to "seize" said resources, in the sense of using them to improve their power relation regarding their neighbors? Even in a communist society some people would be better off than others, even if all have their material needs met. So I think it could happen that a group could be tempted to exploit resources at their hand in order to better their relative standing. I'm not saying such thing would necessarily happen, but I find it hard to argue it could never happen. I can imagine many scenarios in which a classless, "post-property" society would again develop and enforce the concept of property. I don't think History is marching on any direction.

Who constitutes this "group"? How is it organised? How would it "exploit" these resources? How would this develop into something that we could understand as a property-relation? You're assuming each of these details, when it's by no means apparent that we can.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Why would anybody bother? If your material needs are met, why would you go out and risk getting yourself shot to bits for the benefit of... I don't know, having slightly more bananas than you may otherwise have had? It would just be weird.

However the by you mentioned negations were to take place, they are bound to leave people disadvantaged. Due to the simple in-feasibility of catering to all individual interests. At some point, the majority of a given negotiation will have to enforce their will unto a minority. And that is not just material needs. That is also who does what work. Who gets to fill what position. Etc.
Which means, that a constant state of negotiation is also a constant source of unsolvable conflict. Why the assumption that such conflict may not turn violent? And once you have that, you have seizure of material goods.

And agreed with Luiz.

 

[Leoreth]

Well, yeah, if you go around threatening people with violence, they're going to defend themselves. "Shot to bits" is obviously an exaggeration, but if we're talking about the sort of systematic violence implied in his scenario, then who's to say it wouldn't come to that?

I'm just surprised that you of all people would invoke threat of violence as a way to defend communal property.

 

[Traitorfish]

However the by you mentioned negations were to take place, they are bound to leave people disadvantaged. Due to the simple in-feasibility of catering to all individual interests. At some point, the majority of a given negotiation will have to enforce their will unto a minority. And that is not just material needs. That is also who does what work. Who gets to fill what position. Etc.
Which means, that a constant state of negotiation is also a constant source of unsolvable conflict. Why the assumption that such conflict may not turn violent? And once you have that, you have seizure of material goods.

Historically speaking, communal systems have proven more stable and less prone to violence than propertarian systems, so I'm not convinced that these claims actually have a sound empirical basis.

At any rate, you're making a logic jump from "seizure of material goods" to "property" which I don't think is actually present. I could walk into a shop and "seize" a can of coke, but that doesn't mean that I have established a property relation between myself and the rest of society, it just means that I am at that moment holding onto a can of coke. "Property" is a structure that we give to our collective material reproduction, which is more complex than merely "seizing" something that takes your fancy and clinging on to it.

I'm just surprised that you of all people would invoke threat of violence as a way to defend communal property.

I'm not, I'm suggesting that people threatened with violence will defend themselves.