Ask a Red, Second Edition

[Dumanios]

Who do you consider to be the leader to be the worst of a communist nation?

 

[Karalysia]

nvm plz delete

 

[Ajidica]

When you say that, Glorious Chairman Mao revolves with increasing velocity!

I would like to point out that there can be no communist nations as the state no longer exists. If you are looking for worst leader following Communist ideology, I would say Cescau (or however you spell his name. He was the dictator in Romania.)

 

[Karalysia]

nvm delete

 

[Traitorfish]

Who do you consider to be the leader to be the worst of a communist nation?

Well, silliness aside, it really was Saloth Sar or Pol Pot or Darth Saloth or whatever you want to call him. Guy was a fudgingg nutcase. For example, he had a great number of people shot for wearing glasses, because that apparently meant they were intellectuals, and therefore counter-revolutionary. That, my friend, is a very, very special kind of crazy.

 

[civver_764]

Whoops, this kind of got buried.

Well, with capitalism in general you are rewarded handsomely if your risk pans out and not rewarded if it doesn't. This mirrors the nature of the work being done, under the situations where these people would be paid roughly constantly they don't have that big drive to success nor aversion to trying half-baked ideas.

Forgive if I'm wrong since it's been awhile, but are you saying people would be less likely to try out new ideas because there is less risk involved?

The entire coordination task of hiring/firing people, making design decisions, marketing, finding supplies, budgeting, etc. etc. That all has to get done, and it's often very tough!

But it doesn't have to be done by one person.

 

[Karalysia]

nvm delete

 

[amadeus]

Ceausescu's propensity for violence and his ostentatious lifestyle were really no more egregious than many other Eastern bloc leaders; Brezhnev was noted for his love of collecting foreign sports and luxury cars and by the end of his life had nearly 50, including Rolls-Royce, etc.

It was Ceausescu's eccentricities that I think made him one of the more notable tyrants of the 20th century. Probably the most well-known story is him promoting his dog to the rank of Colonel in the Romanian army. Another story is of Ceausescu's first visit to a department store while on a visit to New York City. Upon arrival, he is amazed at how much stuff there is and then asks the Romanian ambassador how long it took for them to "set up" everything for his visit because he didn't believe that a store with that much stuff could exist, much less one in America.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Well, silliness aside, it really was Saloth Sar or Pol Pot or Darth Saloth or whatever you want to call him. Guy was a fudgingg nutcase. For example, he had a great number of people shot for wearing glasses, because that apparently meant they were intellectuals, and therefore counter-revolutionary. That, my friend, is a very, very special kind of crazy.

Didn't he try to restart the calender too?

 

[Traitorfish]

Didn't he try to restart the calender too?

Yeah, but the French beat him to the punch on that one. The real crazy comes when you look at "Year Zero" as an ideological concept.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

I am totally new when it comes to communist theory and am trying to read up on it since my old self was like "lol communism is teh suxxors." So, I guess I have two questions, although they are not related.

1) Good, non-biased (as little as possible, at least) introductions to communism. Any recommendations?

2) What is the role of luxuries in a communist society? Will I be able to, say, walk down to a store and buy/acquire/whatever a couple video games I've been coveting at will? Etc.

I am clueless to this whole thing. I need to at least understand it before I am to engage in debate with it.

Thanks.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Yeah, but the French beat him to the punch on that one.

Really? When?

 

[Traitorfish]

Really? When?

During the revolution, they tried to scrap the Christian count, which they saw as irrevocably tied to the Catholic Church and the Ancien Regime. They planned to introduce a new system counting from 1792 as 1. Needless to say, it didn't last very long.

 

[innonimatu]

I don't know if anyone can post answers in this "ask a...", but as the thread seems anarchic already, I want to answer a previous post:

I'm not talking about overproduction. I'm talking about the lack of overproduction. Marx's idea of overproduction is tied to his adherence to Lassalle's Iron Law of Wages, that is, wages in the long run stay at the minimum amount that barely keeps the worker alive, so anything capitalism produces that're more than the absolute essentials (plus whatever luxuries the capitalists themselves can consume) are overproduced. In other words, capitalism produces more than what the working class could afford. It wasn't made clear whether or how capitalism can produce more than everyone's needs, or even wants, which are more relevant given that the Iron Law is proven wrong in modern times.

More relevant? How so? Under capitalism a company must only produce as much as its customers can afford. If it overproduced it ends up unsold, at a loss to the company. That's what nearly caused the bankruptcy of the major automakers (overproduction of automobiles). That's what nearly caused the bankruptcy of the major banks (overproduction of housing). Despite the fact that people still want more cars, despite the fact that people are still homeless, or in fact being evicted from houses when they cannot pay the mortgages.

Anyway, what do you mean by "his adherence to it"? Marx clearly saw that wages were negotiated in a political process. He encouraged that workers organize to defend their interest within that political process. And it paid: the iron law of wages was indeed wrong during the social-democrat experiment in capitalist countries. Since social democracy has been dumped, which would be the 1970s in the US and late 1980s in Western Europe, the labor share of wealth has been steadily reduced. I could give you the numbers, but there's one much better piece of evidence: the continuous rise of consumer debt. If the working class kept earning enough to consume the economic output of its work, it would not need to borrow. But it has bee borrowing, increasingly so. Obviously such a system is unstable and must end in an "overproduction crisis" followed by cuts on economic output and employment - the cyclic depressions of capitalism are back.

To illustrate this difference, consider again the iPhones. Suppose Steve Jobs sold iPhones in Britain in 1800. All he would need to reach overproduction were probably a few thousand handsets, given that only the aristocracy could afford it. These days, an average British worker can easily afford an iPhone. Overproduction would require many millions of the said phone. While a thousandfold increase in productivity is not impossible, you cannot assume it will always happen. As a matter of fact, Mr Jobs did not overproduce iPhones, which were notoriously undersupplied at the times of a new release.

Oh, please! Demand management, anyone?

It's a mathematical reasoning - not proof - of why your self-interest can make you "respect someone else's private property and other rights", and why "respecting private property and the laws that make our society cohesive" are in fact quite natural. You should read it.

Mathematical reasoning can be used to "prove" - you can deny it, but that was your intention - anything. It all depends on your axioms. And it so happens that the "prisoner's dilemma" is not representative of all human experience. In fact I dare say that none of us posting here find ourselves in a "prisoner's dilemma" situation frequently. It is very telling that you need to choose such specific, outlandish starting conditions (two criminals bargaining...) in order to "prove" selfishness to be good! It's a recurring feature of neoclassical economics: simplistic metaphors disguising unrealistically starting conditions, used as foundations for mathematical models which "prove" whatever is politically expedient.

Ironically, that's your usual complaint about marxism - that it has a political agenda and doesn't actually prove its claims. Well, I think that we can easily establish that, regarding those criticisms, modern economics is in no way better. But Marx at least had the decency of actually recognizing that he was doing politics.

 

[Joecoolyo]

During the revolution, they tried to scrap the Christian count, which they saw as irrevocably tied to the Catholic Church and the Ancien Regime. They planned to introduce a new system counting from 1792 as 1. Needless to say, it didn't last very long.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that.

 

[amadeus]

More relevant? How so? Under capitalism a company must only produce as much as its customers can afford. If it overproduced it ends up unsold, at a loss to the company.

It isn't as simple as that; the company can cut the price and maybe, depending on the product and price, take a smaller profit on more units sold or take a loss after having to sell it to a discount retailer, etc.

That's what nearly caused the bankruptcy of the major automakers (overproduction of automobiles).

As you say yourself, there's plenty of demand for cars -- just not the ones that GM and Chrysler were making.

That's what nearly caused the bankruptcy of the major banks (overproduction of housing).

No, if we're to put it as simply as possible, it was a problem of the houses being overvalued, not overproduced.

Despite the fact that people still want more cars, despite the fact that people are still homeless, or in fact being evicted from houses when they cannot pay the mortgages.

Sorry, but a house and a car aren't things that are entitled to anybody. If you say that they are, then you are saying that you aren't entitled to a house, you're entitled to the time and resources of somebody else.

 

[innonimatu]

It isn't as simple as that; the company can cut the price and maybe, depending on the product and price, take a smaller profit on more units sold or take a loss after having to sell it to a discount retailer, etc.

Sure, it can reduce its losses. But my point about capitalism management stands: the goal is to sell at the target price, and certainly to make a profit. Having to lower prices carries at least an opportunity cost (the money should have been invested in some other product instead) and is something to avoid.

As you say yourself, there's plenty of demand for cars -- just not the ones that GM and Chrysler were making.

All automakers had problems of excess production. Even the germans and the french organized "cash for clunkers" programs in Europe to bail out their automakers.

No, if we're to put it as simply as possible, it was a problem of the houses being overvalued, not overproduced.

Then why hasn't the price fallen enough to clear the market yet?

Sorry, but a house and a car aren't things that are entitled to anybody. If you say that they are, then you are saying that you aren't entitled to a house, you're entitled to the time and resources of somebody else.

Nor was I arguing that they were. Only that there is pent-up demand for it, but not - no longer - the ability to match the market prices. And no one can deny that the withdrawal of consumer credit (which served as a clutch to disguise falling wages) was the immediate cause for the sudden fall in demand since 2008.

 

[Masada]

For example, he had a great number of people shot for wearing glasses, because that apparently meant they were intellectuals, and therefore counter-revolutionary.

To be fair, glasses were expensive items and cost as much as a few years wages for the average peasant.

 

[Karalysia]

nvm delete

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

It's a mathematical reasoning - not proof - of why your self-interest can make you "respect someone else's private property and other rights", and why "respecting private property and the laws that make our society cohesive" are in fact quite natural. You should read it.

There is no such thing as "mathematical reasoning," least of all is it present in that link, which I did read. Stop trying to sound technical and scientific by using such language as this. It might work on half-wits but there are none of those here.

Right, so how do you deal with selfish people? Do you suppose their selfishness would magically go away? Or are you going to lock them up?

The system shall be crafted in such a way that their selfishness will not be rewarded where it is expensive to others' interests. The best way to ensure this is by democracy.