Ask a Red III

[Tahuti]

I'm familiar with the idea, yes, but that doesn't mean that I think it holds true, or at least not universally so. As you say, it rests on the contentious- and I would say blatantly ideological- assumption of man as the rationally self-interested atom, so it 's certainly not something I'm willing to take as axiomatic!

Me neither. And while many humans and simply self-interest as an important driving factor, many also are too incompetent to know what is in their self-interest. Which opens up a lot of possibilities for democracy to make shortterm decisions.

You're confusing the appeal of an analogy for the validity of an analogy. Yes, we can compare societies to bodies. It may even serve to illustrate certain points. But that doesn't mean that the comparison is instructive, and certainly not that what is a rule for one is a rule for the other. All we can really say is that both bodies and societies reproduce themselves, but, so what? That's so abstract an observation as to tell us nothing about the specifics of either.

I think the similarities between societies and organic bodies are that important to the point that comparing the two produces much more than just an analogy. However, I would probably hijack the purpose of this thread if I were to discuss this at length, if I'm not doing this already.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I didn't say we weren't in trouble.

Yes, but we've got bigger problems than self-discipline. Does our society even have a spleen?

 

[Traitorfish]

I think the similarities between societies and organic bodies are that important to the point that comparing the two produces much more than just an analogy. However, I would probably hijack the purpose of this thread if I were to discuss this at length, if I'm not doing this already.

Well, even if we accept that there's a substantial analogy to be made between human societies and organic bodies, it doesn't follow that the analogy is to a human body. Perhaps human society is more like a fungus. (Or perhaps it isn't, but should be?) And even if we accept that the appropriate analogy is to the human body, it's not self-evident how the human body actually works in relation to the mind (and it seems to be that, rather than the body as a simple biological system, which you're getting at).

 

[Azale]

Have any of you Reds read Seth Ackerman's recent article in Jacobin?

It's worth reading, but what are your thoughts on some of his assertions? Especially on the efficiency of planned economies and the utter failure of a hypothetical economy under anarchism?

 

[ace99]

A communist suicide bomber, it's been awhile hasn't it? http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...responsibility-for-us-embassy-attack#comments

The Turkish far-left group DHKP-C claimed responsibility for a suicide bomb attack on the U.S. Embassy in Ankara, according to a statement on a website linked to the group, news agencies reported.

The statement posted Saturday on "The People's Cry" website said Ecevit Sanli carried out "an act of self-sacrifice on Feb. 1, 2013, by entering the Ankara embassy of the United States, murderer of the peoples of the world," according to Reuters and The Associated Press.

The DHKP-C's statement also called Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan a U.S. "puppet," according to Reuters.

"Murderer America! You will not run away from people's rage," the statement read, warning Erdogan that he was also a target.

I usually don't associate communists with suicide bombings. Though I guess Red Army Faction in West Germany and Japan did sort of stuff like that.

 

[Mouthwash]

Also, if you do a quick rundown of everything on that list, I think you get a value of about...
$1,550?

Not all that much, yeah?

You are missing the point, which was that the fundamental needs of the lower class have been more than entirely fulfilled by technological and economic growth (direct labor costs have fallen massively over the past decades; there are some examples somewhere, but I can't find them). While power-disparities remain between the classes, you cannot say even as a communist that the situation remains the same as it was in Russia or China.

It was in reply to Cheezy's argument from ignorance about the likelihood of revolution. Obviously we cannot predict when and where revolution will happen because they are created by arbitrary factors (like the protesting Tunisian man who set off the Arab Spring). What we can analyze is the risk factor. We know that many of the Middle Eastern countries are, as I said, artificial poor states with radical elements which are held together under dictators, and this obviously puts them at high risk. It's like a spark setting off a keg of barrels; you can't predict precisely when it will be.

Obviously this cannot apply to developed nations in the Western world as we don't have much of a precedent for it (when was the last time one had a communist revolution?) and every trend suggests that they are stable. That's why I pointed out that workers were no longer actively suffering, because that's what triggered the Russian Revolution. You seem to have conceded this entire point anyway, as you suggest socialism would be slowly introduced until a "revolution" finishes off the last vestige of capitalism.

Another question: Would you rather have lived in the Soviet Union or in capitalist America?

 

[Hygro]

You are missing the point, which was that the fundamental needs of the lower class have been more than entirely fulfilled by technological and economic growth

Oh, well if that's your point, then your own list showed how that wasn't true with the sheer amount of hunger, homelessness, etc., and also didn't show the important things that your "the point" requires to be true. In fact, I believe we already went over all of that a couple days ago.

Also, please read Amartya Sen's Development as Freedom. He's a nobel prize economist so he's nowhere close to a marxist. It addresses your claims entirely.

 

[Mouthwash]

Oh, well if that's your point, then your own list showed how that wasn't true with the sheer amount of hunger, homelessness, etc., and also didn't show the important things that your "the point" requires to be true. In fact, I believe we already went over all of that a couple days ago.

Sheer amount of hunger? Yeah, OK. The starving people of America will rise up and revolt. Also, the homeless will too.

What, pray tell, are the "important things" that my point requires to be true?

Also, please read Amartya Sen's Development as Freedom. He's a nobel prize economist so he's nowhere close to a marxist. It addresses your claims entirely.

Sorry, the "debate by recommending literature" approach may work for Crezth, but you'll have put in the effort to actually think up your own argument here. I know, I'm demanding.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Have any of you Reds read Seth Ackerman's recent article in Jacobin?

It's worth reading, but what are your thoughts on some of his assertions? Especially on the efficiency of planned economies and the utter failure of a hypothetical economy under anarchism?

I have never heard of it. Will have to follow this link sometime soon.

Interestingly, I found an argument for planned economies in Galbraith's The New Industrial State, though I don't know if he meant to put it there.

A communist suicide bomber, it's been awhile hasn't it? http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...responsibility-for-us-embassy-attack#comments


I usually don't associate communists with suicide bombings. Though I guess Red Army Faction in West Germany and Japan did sort of stuff like that.

There have always been people of all political stripes who have been motivated to terrorism.

<snip>

Is there a point to any of this line of questioning, or are you just bored and having fun?

Maybe I should clarify something: this thread is "ask a red [to gain more information about reds and redness], not "badger a red."

It's also worth thinking about that maybe communists aren't expecting a revolution tomorrow, and that we understand that it's something that must be built from below. We aren't marching to the state house with guns in hand any time soon.

Another question: Would you rather have lived in the Soviet Union or in capitalist America?

Soviet Union.

Sheer amount of hunger? Yeah, OK. The starving people of America will rise up and revolt. Also, the homeless will too.

Perhaps, if it gets to that point. But I think people can be motivated by other things as well. The present political and economic situations are doing a great of discrediting themselves already. When Americans choose socialism is may very well be because they realize that capitalism no longer works for them, and not out of any particular desperation like Russians experienced in 1917.

What, pray tell, are the "important things" that my point requires to be true?

That "the fundamental needs of the lower class have been more than entirely fulfilled by technological and economic growth." VCRs and microwaves are nice technological goodies, but oppressed peoples have never been motivated to revolt out of desire for material possessions. The Americans in 1776, for example, could not be said to be poor or lacking in material goods, and yet saw fit to make enormous sacrifice and throw off the British yoke. Nor the Portuguese, or the Irish, or the Mexicans, or the Peruvians, or the Egyptians, or the Iranians...

Sorry, the "debate by recommending literature" approach may work for Crezth, but you'll have put in the effort to actually think up your own argument here. I know, I'm demanding.

I think his suggestion was a fine one. You're clearly ignorant on the subject, and we are not being paid to teach you.

 

[aelf]

Did you ever read Mark Fisher's pamphlet/essay/short book/whatever Capitalist Realism? It talks about a lot of this stuff, well worth a look.

Interesting. Thanks!

Sheer amount of hunger? Yeah, OK. The starving people of America will rise up and revolt. Also, the homeless will too.

What, pray tell, are the "important things" that my point requires to be true?

Wait, are you disputing that there are many hungry and homeless people in the USA or that having no food and shelter is enough to cause people to become revolutionaries? Because you're phrasing your post like you're saying the latter but as a reply to Hygro's post only the former makes sense. The former would be an extremely ignorant thing to do, while the latter would just amount to a non sequitur.

 

[Hygro]

Sheer amount of hunger? Yeah, OK. The starving people of America will rise up and revolt. Also, the homeless will too.

What, pray tell, are the "important things" that my point requires to be true?



Sorry, the "debate by recommending literature" approach may work for Crezth, but you'll have put in the effort to actually think up your own argument here. I know, I'm demanding.

If you read the thread at all since you posted that asinine list you wouldn't be asking me to reiterate what I've already written that you've completely ignored. So You aren't worth my time if you're going to ask me to repeat myself when all you have to do is scroll up.

Also, sorry I gave you a suggestion to better your own education. I won't bother doing that again.

 

[innonimatu]

Hell, I don't even think they bother with that anymore these days. The contemporary narrative is for the need to face a new 'reality', which is that you need to work work work because you've been lazy and living on borrowed money.

Don't stress too much, some day people will wake up to the obvious question: where is the money? Who are these lenders and how have they become such wealthy lenders...

You are missing the point, which was that the fundamental needs of the lower class have been more than entirely fulfilled by technological and economic growth

But they haven't. And you know why? Because capitalist economy rests on creating ever more "fundamental needs". Capitalism was always about making a profit from the production of commodities by means of commodities (And now I'm borrowing from Sraffa). In order for that to work capitalism needs a market. And in order to expand it needs to drive up demand on that market. Thus, commercial advertisement. Which everyone must agree has been steadily gaining in importance, economically, to the point that now huge businesses are sustained upon a solely "advertising" model.

The thing with advertisement, and its vehicles through communication networks ("mass media" is getting kind of outdated as an expression) it that it keeps creating new needs. That's its sole purpose. People naturally try to "keep up with the Joneses". They try to keep up with what they see as their peers. There is an aversion to appearing relatively poor. The material basis for resentment will just never disappear in a capitalist society because the pressure of competition for sales requires advertisement, and advertisement must create new needs and fuel among people the competition for status based on material goods...

This is not to say that inequality always will cause, shall we say, #revolutionary feelings" on that majority that variably gets the short end of the deal. In some societies people have been skilfully shepherded into separate classes within an apparently stable system. Britain pre-1960s is perhaps the most striking example: the working class there accepted that it had to made do with far less that "their betters". But even as trade unions were being broken in Britain, so was the idea of working class being dissolved. The think that enabled that break was the promise - and the apparent practice - of the dissolution of class divisions. Apparent, because they were just made more subtle, american style. Power and influence is still reserved to a privileged class, social mobility remains an empty promise. I'm reading through that piece about the american "elite university system" linked too in another thread, noting surprising so far... But the thing in britain was: what enabled the break, what delivered that promise of an end to class divisions, was the modern lifestyle imported from the US and continental Europe! The competitive commercial pressure, and associated advertisement, that resulted from the end of the Empire played a big role in that.

 

[berkut]

Is free will and hence, democracy compatible with the historical materialism that marx advocate?

Are ethics determined by the means of production?

And if so there is a place for the existing religions in a communist society?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Is free will and hence, democracy compatible with the historical materialism that marx advocate?

I'll let someone with a better grasp on Marx handle that, but Free Will is not a necessary belief for Democracy. Scotland seems to get by fine.

 

[Cryopyre]

How does one become approved to answer questions here? I'd love to help educate others. I'm a libertarian socialist.

 

[Mouthwash]

Soviet Union.

Stalin era?

I think his suggestion was a fine one. You're clearly ignorant on the subject, and we are not being paid to teach you.

Where was he when I made my "I want to become a Marxist" thread?

But they haven't. And you know why? Because capitalist economy rests on creating ever more "fundamental needs". Capitalism was always about making a profit from the production of commodities by means of commodities (And now I'm borrowing from Sraffa). In order for that to work capitalism needs a market. And in order to expand it needs to drive up demand on that market. Thus, commercial advertisement. Which everyone must agree has been steadily gaining in importance, economically, to the point that now huge businesses are sustained upon a solely "advertising" model.

Luxuries become necessities. That's how things develop in all societies.

 

[Hygro]

Luxuries become necessities. That's how things develop in all societies.

Not sure if trolling

 

[WindFish]

Not sure if trolling

Doesn't he have a point though?

100 years ago, cars were seen as a fad and a luxury, now our societies are built around it

 

[Hygro]

Stalin era?



Where was he when I made my "I want to become a Marxist" thread?



Luxuries become necessities. That's how things develop in all societies.

Doesn't he have a point though?

100 years ago, cars were seen as a fad and a luxury, now our societies are built around it

That is the point. Either it's a tautology statement that means its so inherent that the 100,000 years of human existence prior to civilization was also a quest to normalize past luxuries in necessities. Such luxuries as being able to proclaim constellations, snuggle more affectionately, or live long enough to have your very own kids. In which case capitalism itself has no more universal logic of why its expansion isn't special, when it very clearly is. Because other cultures' "expansions" in this logic can be anything and so are therefore equally proving, in their cyclical stable societies that they are a full representation of their necessities-growth.

Or it is simply a silly and wrong thing to say. Not all societies have been expanding their necessities in any secular way like we do. And so therefore it can't justify capitalism as just any expression of the very same expansion. A justification that also means it is the only true expression of human civilization, and is thus somehow superior because the other systems are therefore impossible and against human nature.

So yes, not sure if trolling because even someone who thinks our current system is the right one could easily see why it wasn't true if taking a second to think about it.

 

[Mouthwash]

That is the point. Either it's a tautology statement that means its so inherent that the 100,000 years of human existence prior to civilization was also a quest to normalize past luxuries in necessities. Such luxuries as being able to proclaim constellations, snuggle more affectionately, or live long enough to have your very own kids. In which case capitalism itself has no more universal logic of why its expansion isn't special, when it very clearly is. Because other cultures' "expansions" in this logic can be anything and so are therefore equally proving, in their cyclical stable societies that they are a full representation of their necessities-growth.

Or it is simply a silly and wrong thing to say. Not all societies have been expanding their necessities in any secular way like we do. And so therefore it can't justify capitalism as just any expression of the very same expansion. A justification that also means it is the only true expression of human civilization, and is thus somehow superior because the other systems are therefore impossible and against human nature.

So yes, not sure if trolling because even someone who thinks our current system is the right one could easily see why it wasn't true if taking a second to think about it.

You might find <snip> informative.

Moderator Action: Not informative at all. Please don't spam this thread.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889