Ask a Red, Second Edition

[Alassius]

How precisely do you make collective decisions "dialectically"? All you say is "it's different". "You are not capable of understanding it". Can you actually describe what you will do when you have two equally valid but opposing views? How about less valid views? And counter-revolutionary views? What would you do to the dissidents, besides saying you're "at least as tolerant"? Tolerant how? How much airtime are you giving to the obstinate reactionaries?

 

[aelf]

How about compromise? Isn't that like important to any democratic process? Societies develop and are transformed gradually, not overnight and completely, whether that's achieved by dictation or by some magical democratic consensus. In the end, there may not a perfect or ideal communist society, but at the very least we have presented a strong alternative to the present hegemony and achieved some progress.

Unless you want to construe all attempts at achieving new moral and ethical norms as "evil", there is nothing especially objectionable in this. By that logic, the stigmatisations of outright slavery and racism, for example, would be "evil".

 

[Alassius]

How about compromise? Isn't that like important to any democratic process? Societies develop and are transformed gradually, not overnight and completely, whether that's achieved by dictation or by some magical democratic consensus. In the end, there may not a perfect or ideal communist society, but at the very least we have presented a strong alternative to the present hegemony and achieved some progress.

Unless you want to construe all attempts at achieving new moral and ethical norms as "evil", there is nothing especially objectionable in this. By that logic, the stigmatisations of outright slavery and racism, for example, would be "evil".

Compromise how? In who's favour? What if both sides refuse to compromise? What if one side refuses to? Who gets to decide who represents the synthesis?

There is no magic in liberal democracy to achieve consensus. See America's budget drama for example. Liberal democracy does not pretend to be perfect. Indeed Winston Churchill famously called it the worst. Precisely because of that imperfection, successful democracy comes only with proper limitations of what those in power can do. Perhaps you will want to read my post again. What is your solution in your not so perfect or ideal communist society?


The evilness in the notion of class consciousness is not in proposing a better moral norm. In fact, it would not have been bad if it was meant to be a looser collection of independent will, which would allow exceptions and dissidence. The trouble comes from asserting that people who do not share the consciousness of their class are somehow deceived. "The real motives impelling him remain unknown to him", hence he is not worth listening to. In effect, it deprives an individual of the freedom of thinking, or at least the expression of it, regardless of whether his argument has virtue. In comparison, slavery and racism began as acceptable positions, and went through a plethora of debates until public opinions changed. Public debate is a valid way of changing moral norms, because you are not forcefully imposing your view on your opponent, and the public have a choice in rejecting either you or your opponent. Dismissing your opponent offhand as "dishonest and poorly-informed" is not, particularly if you are in a position to enforce that dismissal.

Which takes us back to...

An ideal communist society is at least as tolerant as contemporary capitalistic societies are. There is as yet no fundamental reason to believe otherwise, unless you somehow believe that hegemony does not presently exist and that everyone simply agrees to disagree and to go about doing things their own way.

Under the present "hegemony" it's perfectly viable - in fact it happens every day on this forum - that "everyone simply agrees to disagree and to go about doing things their own way." What am I going to do now that you don't agree with me? Come to your house with a gun? It's also perfectly viable for a communist to have his opinion heard by a wide audience, or try to persuade his elected representative to do things his way if he can muster enough popular support, or to start a co-op or even a commune himself. Are capitalist holdouts tolerated in the same way in the ideal communist society? How do you make your compromise with them? How much airtime do you give them?

 

[Traitorfish]

Let's assume that communism is implemented on some scale where cooperatives take the place of the present economic system.

Do you as communists support abolishing money as a medium of exchange? If you do, here's a scenario and a question. There is an iron mine and a steel mill. The steel mill needs iron ore, but the iron mine doesn't need steel. If parties are expected to barter in the absence of money, how would a steel mill get iron if the iron mine doesn't want steel?

If you don't support abolishing money, who or what controls the supply of money?

The abolition of money would assume that capitalist social relations- that is, a social formation in which relations of production are based solely on exchange- have been superseded by communist social relations, so the scenario you describe would not occur. If market relations still existed, then we would still be within an essentially capitalistic system,, merely the collectivisation of the means of production that (in some models) enables communist relations to emerge, and so money would, albeit perhaps in some modified form, would most likely still exist.

As to who controls the money, then, like everything else, it would be controlled by institutions under the supervision of workers' assemblies, or, at a broader level, of assemblies of workers' deputies in a delegative model, just as in liberal democracies it is controlled by institutions under the supervision of representative assemblies appointed by the public (or so the theory goes).

This "more organic view of economics, politics and culture" is but a thinly disguised rephrase of the single, unanimous class consciousness, the most evil idea among all Marxist concepts.

That is not what class consciousness means.

 

[Alassius]

The abolition of money would assume that capitalist social relations- that is, a social formation in which relations of production are based solely on exchange- have been superseded by communist social relations, so the scenario you describe would not occur. If market relations still existed, then we would still be within an essentially capitalistic system,, merely the collectivisation of the means of production that (in some models) enables communist relations to emerge, and so money would, albeit perhaps in some modified form, would most likely still exist.

See here is how you gloss over details. You only say "the scenario you describe would not occur." But does the need to move iron from the mine to the mill gets abolished along with capitalism? If not, who decides how much iron should be moved?

That is not what class consciousness means.

No? Perhaps you can explain where I was wrong this time?

 

[Traitorfish]

See here is how you gloss over details. You only say "the scenario you describe would not occur." But does the need to move iron from the mine to the mill gets abolished along with capitalism? If not, who decides how much iron should be moved?

By appropriate institutions, committees, or what have you, which are established for that purpose, again under the supervision of workers' assemblies. As I have repeatedly stated, Marxism is not a set of blueprints, however desperately you may wish to find some spectre of The Republic in The Communist Manifesto, but a theoretical model.

No? Perhaps you can explain where I was wrong this time?

Class conciousness simply means an awareness of the objective role of ones class within society, and the consequent ability to pursue ones class interests in a concious fashion; the attainment of class conciousness is sometimes described as the transition from a "class-in-itself" to a "class-for-itself", being the transition from a class as a mere assortment of individuals with the same essential relationships to production, to an active political force pursuing its own interest. It does not imply some sort of impersonal hivemind acting as the sole legitimate revolutionary subject, a notion which I can only assume you've received from the debased pseudo-Marxism of the former Eastern Bloc that seems to be the basis of your entire body of knowledge, which was indeed keen to pose the party-state as the sole embodiment of class conciousness and thus the only legitimate political formation, much as fascist regimes are keen to pose their own party-states as the sole embodiment of a national conciousness.

 

[Alassius]

By appropriate institutions, committees, or what have you, which are established for that purpose, again under the supervision of workers' assemblies. As I have repeatedly stated, Marxism is not a set of blueprints, however desperately you may wish to find some spectre of The Republic in The Communist Manifesto, but a theoretical model.

"Supervision" is the problem. How do you expect workers to supervise someone with power to take away their means of living? How do you know the "appropriate institution" will only do what it's established for, and never abuse whatever power they have?

Is it at all possible to find some blueprint that can apply Marxism to reality?

Class conciousness simply means an awareness of the objective role of ones class within society, and the consequent ability to pursue ones class interests in a concious fashion; the attainment of class conciousness is sometimes described as the transition from a "class-in-itself" to a "class-for-itself", being the transition from a class as a mere assortment of individuals with the same essential relationships to production, to an active political force pursuing its own interest. It does not imply some sort of impersonal hivemind acting as the sole legitimate revolutionary subject, a notion which I can only assume you've received from the debased pseudo-Marxism of the former Eastern Bloc that seems to be the basis of your entire body of knowledge, which was indeed keen to pose the party-state as the sole embodiment of class conciousness and thus the only legitimate political formation, much as fascist regimes are keen to pose their own party-states as the sole embodiment of a national conciousness.

"Objective" is not impersonal? Not solely legitimate? Or can you have two conflicting but both objective views of society? Who gets to say what is objective? Who gets to say if someone's opinion conforms to his class consciousness or not?

 

[aelf]

Compromise how? In who's favour? What if both sides refuse to compromise? What if one side refuses to? Who gets to decide who represents the synthesis?

There is no magic in liberal democracy to achieve consensus. See America's budget drama for example. Liberal democracy does not pretend to be perfect. Indeed Winston Churchill famously called it the worst. Precisely because of that imperfection, successful democracy comes only with proper limitations of what those in power can do. Perhaps you will want to read my post again. What is your solution in your not so perfect or ideal communist society?

Actually, I don't see why liberal democracy, at least in principle, is incompatible with a communistic society. I have already stressed that I don't believe there is a political solution, so to speak, for instituting communism. I have also said that a 'perfect' or 'ideal' communist society is not the be-all-end-all. There are some things I'm not willing to trade for such perfection (such as the essential freedom to hold different views). Like Rawls, I believe societies can choose to uphold capitalistic or socialistic principles for distributing resources and be democratic (though I do think the latter would actually further democracy by removing potential concentrations of influence).

As such, your questions might as well be directed towards anyone who believes in democratic processes. What if people disagree? What if they refuse to compromise? Who gets to decide who represents the synthesis?

The evilness in the notion of class consciousness is not in proposing a better moral norm. In fact, it would not have been bad if it was meant to be a looser collection of independent will, which would allow exceptions and dissidence. The trouble comes from asserting that people who do not share the consciousness of their class are somehow deceived. "The real motives impelling him remain unknown to him", hence he is not worth listening to. In effect, it deprives an individual of the freedom of thinking, or at least the expression of it, regardless of whether his argument has virtue. In comparison, slavery and racism began as acceptable positions, and went through a plethora of debates until public opinions changed. Public debate is a valid way of changing moral norms, because you are not forcefully imposing your view on your opponent, and the public have a choice in rejecting either you or your opponent.

Anything to suggest that I've not in fact been supportive of such a process? I mean, why did I go on about discourses and such?

Dismissing your opponent offhand as "dishonest and poorly-informed" is not, particularly if you are in a position to enforce that dismissal.

I didn't say you were dishonest. I said you have no notion of what Marxism really is. If anything, I'm dismissing your dismissal of Marxism as an "evil" and totalitarian ideology.

Which takes us back to...

Under the present "hegemony" it's perfectly viable - in fact it happens every day on this forum - that "everyone simply agrees to disagree and to go about doing things their own way." What am I going to do now that you don't agree with me? Come to your house with a gun? It's also perfectly viable for a communist to have his opinion heard by a wide audience, or try to persuade his elected representative to do things his way if he can muster enough popular support, or to start a co-op or even a commune himself. Are capitalist holdouts tolerated in the same way in the ideal communist society? How do you make your compromise with them? How much airtime do you give them?

Of course people are not simply free to disagree and go about doing things their own way. If I didn't agree under the present labour market conditions to sell my labour for whatever price is determined by employers, with only the freedom to look for other potential employers to try and negotiate with, all the while facing the pressure to earn some income before things take a turn for the worse, then I simply won't be able to support myself. In the end, I'd have to subject myself to the same process anyway. If someone wants to kill somebody else he hates, society and him are not going to agree to disagree and let him do the deed. He will be prevented or, failing that, punished if it's known. In fact, the police will come to him with a gun if he didn't agree to face punishment.

So it seems that it comes down to fact that you, for some reason, don't think hegemony exists presently; that people are perfectly free as they are, which will somehow not be the case in a communist society (because you cannot imagine that a great number of people could have a radically different worldview from you). Well, I can't say that you are uniquely misinformed in this, as it conforms to a typically libertarian dogma. I simply note, as I did, that you are living in your own corner of a fantasy world, in which case you really shouldn't be casting stones at people you think are living in an 'ideal' fantasy world.

 

[amadeus]

The abolition of money would assume that capitalist social relations- that is, a social formation in which relations of production are based solely on exchange- have been superseded by communist social relations, so the scenario you describe would not occur. If market relations still existed, then we would still be within an essentially capitalistic system,, merely the collectivisation of the means of production that (in some models) enables communist relations to emerge, and so money would, albeit perhaps in some modified form, would most likely still exist.

You talk about abolishing exchange, but without exchange, how can you justify the continued existence of the iron mine? Let's say instead of an iron mine, we have an artists' cooperative and they all produce crummy paintings nobody wants. If there's no exchange, there's no mechanism to tell these people to stop making crummy paintings.

 

[Traitorfish]

"Supervision" is the problem. How do you expect workers to supervise someone with power to take away their means of living?

They do?

How do you know the "appropriate institution" will only do what it's established for, and never abuse whatever power they have?

In what sense is that an issue unique to communism, exactly?

Is it at all possible to find some blueprint that can apply Marxism to reality?

Again, Marxism is a theoretical framework, not a program, so this isn't even a functional sentence.

"Objective" is not impersonal? Not solely legitimate? Or can you have two conflicting but both objective views of society? Who gets to say what is objective? Who gets to say if someone's opinion conforms to his class consciousness or not?

What on earth are you talking about?

You talk about abolishing exchange, but without exchange, how can you justify the continued existence of the iron mine? Let's say instead of an iron mine, we have an artists' cooperative and they all produce crummy paintings nobody wants. If there's no exchange, there's no mechanism to tell these people to stop making crummy paintings.

How so? It seems to me that the burden is on you, rather than me, to demonstrate such an unobvious claim. Personally, I would've though that "Nobody wants your crummy paintings; stop it" would suffice, give or take the details.

 

[Alassius]

Actually, I don't see why liberal democracy, at least in principle, is incompatible with a communistic society. I have already stressed that I don't believe there is a political solution, so to speak, for instituting communism. I have also said that a 'perfect' or 'ideal' communist society is not the be-all-end-all. There are some things I'm not willing to trade for such perfection (such as the essential freedom to hold different views). Like Rawls, I believe societies can choose to uphold capitalistic or socialistic principles for distributing resources and be democratic (though I do think the latter would actually further democracy by removing potential concentrations of influence).

As such, your questions might as well be directed towards anyone who believes in democratic processes. What if people disagree? What if they refuse to compromise? Who gets to decide who represents the synthesis?

Like I elaborated in the earlier post, private property is the foundation of liberal democracy institutions. By the very fact that communism tries to abolish private property, it leaves liberty undefended from bureaucrats who gain control over how much food you can put on your table. And democracy dies without liberty.

Moderate socialism, as in welfare capitalism, can indeed reduce concentrations of influence. Hardcore communism tries to abolish influence itself. But that's not possible, so you end up with some people having more influence than the most powerful capitalists. In a liberal democracy an uncompromising party gets punished in the polls. In communism, the uncompromising powerful can afford to punish their opponents forcefully enough to preclude retaliation. This unchallenged, unlimited power is the problem.

Of course people are not simply free to disagree and go about doing things their own way. If I didn't agree under the present labour market conditions to sell my labour for whatever price is determined by employers, with only the freedom to look for other potential employers to try and negotiate with, all the while facing the pressure to earn some income before things take a turn for the worse, then I simply won't be able to support myself. In the end, I'd have to subject myself to the same process anyway. If someone wants to kill somebody else he hates, society and him are not going to agree to disagree and let him do the deed. He will be prevented or, failing that, punished if it's known. In fact, the police will come to him with a gun if he didn't agree to face punishment.

So it seems that it comes down to fact that you, for some reason, don't think hegemony exists presently; that people are perfectly free as they are, which will somehow not be the case in a communist society (because you cannot imagine that a great number of people could have a radically different worldview from you). Well, I can't say that you are uniquely misinformed in this, as it conforms to a typically libertarian dogma. I simply note, as I did, that you are living in your own corner of a fantasy world, in which case you really shouldn't be casting stones at people you think are living in an 'ideal' fantasy world.

And here you are mystifying the social relations like the video linked earlier. Can you actually have more freedom under communism? If you don't agree with the communist labour relations, would you be able to support yourself? Or would you have to follow whatever instructions from the workers' assemblies? If you kill someone in a communist society, would you not also be punished accordingly? What exactly is better under communism?

They do?

Who decides how much sausages I can take home today? Surely not myself? Surely the decision must be made by someone?

In what sense is that an issue unique to communism, exactly?

In the sense that liberal democracy is based on the idea of limited government, whereas communism is not.

Again, Marxism is a theoretical framework, not a program, so this isn't even a functional sentence.

Are you saying it doesn't even make sense to talk about the practicality of Marxism?

What on earth are you talking about?

You said "[c]lass conciousness simply means an awareness of the objective role". I'm asking who gets to say what that objective role is. Suppose we both work for capitalists. I say my objective role is to be a good worker, earn enough money and enjoy life. You say my objective role is to overthrow the capitalist class. Are we both objective? If not which one of us is? How do you know?

 

[amadeus]

How so? It seems to me that the burden is on you, rather than me, to demonstrate such an unobvious claim. Personally, I would've though that "Nobody wants your crummy paintings; stop it" would suffice, give or take the details.

By what mechanism, if not exchange, would people employed in unproductive efforts be deprived of their livelihoods? It isn't an immoral concept, it's an amoral and totally necessary function of the economy to direct resources to where they are used most productively. You say that "stop it" would suffice, but your words would carry no weight to them, for you have no means of preventing them from doing what they're doing.

If someone can continually be employed in an unproductive effort, an effort for which there exists no demand, the system will fail almost instantly. Very few people actually want to be farmers, miners, or work in factories for 8 or 10 hours a day, but they do because it's an economic necessity for themselves. If they're guaranteed the same standard of living engaged in something else, whether there exists a demand for it or not, people will switch to doing those things instead.

 

[aelf]

Like I elaborated in the earlier post, private property is the foundation of liberal democracy institutions. By the very fact that communism tries to abolish private property, it leaves liberty undefended from bureaucrats who gain control over how much food you can put on your table. And democracy dies without liberty.

There are enough major theories on democracy that do not hold private property as fundamental (in fact, I'm not sure which other conceptions of democracy hold that it is, other than rationalisations of existing privileges - Lockean?) that I do not think this can be asserted as a universally accepted axiom. I'm aware that this is by and large Hayek's argument, but I'm unconvinced. So far liberal democracies have shown a capacity for regulating and otherwise reducing the preponderance of private property without becoming less democratic. In fact, there are those who wish to do away with private property in certain markets, and they are hardly Marxist or authoritarian.

In any case, I think the debate on private property is not the central point. It might have been in the past and still is to some, but the logic of capital is where I'd want cultural critiques to be aimed at - basically the idea that profit (or money; but it's more of profit, really) is some kind of necessary currency for subjective ends and is therefore an objective good. I think this approach is consistent with the more Aristotelian bent of late Marx, who wished to see a diversification of the pursuit of subjective ends that is inhibited by the profit-oriented capitalist relations of production.

And here you are mystifying the social relations like the video linked earlier. Can you actually have more freedom under communism? If you don't agree with the communist labour relations, would you be able to support yourself? Or would you have to follow whatever instructions from the workers' assemblies? If you kill someone in a communist society, would you not also be punished accordingly? What exactly is better under communism?

Yes, I think the average person can have more freedom in a communistic society, if only because one is no longer facing heavy pressure to 'perform' according to the specifications dictated by a capitalistic market. This would entail quite a radical cultural shift and might mean some paring down of the levels of consumption we are seeing today, but the latter seems necessary for other practical reasons as well.

In so-called communist labour relations (I say this because I don't profess to speak for anyone else), compulsion is no longer as convenient because the worker will have more flexibility in terms of accepting the kind of role he/she is offered. This sounds like it might require a generous welfare state, and I don't deny that. It might be difficult to achieve and not necessarily realisable to its full extent, but that is the direction in which I think we should be heading. In other words, I don't think absolute increases in wealth should be the goal, with the hope (or not) that it will trickle down. Rather, we should go for general improvements in well-being, including psychological well-being, even if it comes at some cost to the rate at which wealth grows.

In the sense that liberal democracy is based on the idea of limited government, whereas communism is not.

Not actually true, unless you're denying that any form of 'big government' is liberal or democratic, which does not seem true when we look at the real world. How limited is limited anyway? The limits seem to be actively negotiated all the time.

 

[Traitorfish]

Who decides how much sausages I can take home today? Surely not myself? Surely the decision must be made by someone?

Yourself, along with whatever other individuals are effected by the decision. "Association of free individuals" and all that.

In the sense that liberal democracy is based on the idea of limited government, whereas communism is not.

What do you mean by "government", in this sense?

Are you saying it doesn't even make sense to talk about the practicality of Marxism?

On a semantic level, yes. Marxism does not connote any given vision of society, or a body of praxis for bringing that society about, so you can't discuss it in this manner. Presumably, you are yet again conflating "Marxism" with "Marxism-Leninism".

You said "[c]lass conciousness simply means an awareness of the objective role". I'm asking who gets to say what that objective role is. Suppose we both work for capitalists. I say my objective role is to be a good worker, earn enough money and enjoy life. You say my objective role is to overthrow the capitalist class. Are we both objective? If not which one of us is? How do you know?

Why is it important? Why does anyone need to "say" what's what one way or the other? It's just an item of theory.

By what mechanism, if not exchange, would people employed in unproductive efforts be deprived of their livelihoods? It isn't an immoral concept, it's an amoral and totally necessary function of the economy to direct resources to where they are used most productively. You say that "stop it" would suffice, but your words would carry no weight to them, for you have no means of preventing them from doing what they're doing.

Wait, I'm confused; you think that the lack of a market means that people will have the output of others heaped unconditionally upon them? Where on earth did you get that idea?

If someone can continually be employed in an unproductive effort, an effort for which there exists no demand, the system will fail almost instantly. Very few people actually want to be farmers, miners, or work in factories for 8 or 10 hours a day, but they do because it's an economic necessity for themselves. If they're guaranteed the same standard of living engaged in something else, whether there exists a demand for it or not, people will switch to doing those things instead.

Under capitalism, certainly. But communism isn't capitalism, so you're going to have to do a bit more to prove these assertions than just stating them. Before anything else, it's demonstrably false to assert that all human societies have entertained market economies, let alone generalised markets, as anyone with even a passing understanding of anthropology will be aware.

 

[amadeus]

Wait, I'm confused; you think that the lack of a market means that people will have the output of others heaped unconditionally upon them? Where on earth did you get that idea?

It was a reasonable deduction. How else would someone producing nothing of value be able to get goods to satisfy their wants and needs? You didn't offer an alternative.

Under capitalism, certainly. But communism isn't capitalism, so you're going to have to do a bit more to prove these assertions than just stating them. Before anything else, it's demonstrably false to assert that all human societies have entertained market economies, let alone generalised markets, as anyone with even a passing understanding of anthropology will be aware.

Like the above, I was asking for a definition of how it would work. Your response boiled down to that it would work differently. That doesn't answer the question.

If we're talking about human civilizations, what societies without a market have ever existed that allowed people to not work (or produce anything of value, labor though they may) and subsidize their existence?

 

[Traitorfish]

It was a reasonable deduction. How else would someone producing nothing of value be able to get goods to satisfy their wants and needs? You didn't offer an alternative.

Like the above, I was asking for a definition of how it would work. Your response boiled down to that it would work differently. That doesn't answer the question.

If we're talking about human civilizations, what societies without a market have ever existed that allowed people to not work (or produce anything of value, labor though they may) and subsidize their existence?

I'm not sure what this assumption is based on. The rest seems to rely on it.

 

[amadeus]

Okay, let's say that I do some kind of occupation. Blacksmith, farmer, whatever. There is no demand for what I do/produce. How do I get what I need to survive if there is no demand for what I do/produce?

 

[Traitorfish]

Okay, let's say that I do some kind of occupation. Blacksmith, farmer, whatever. There is no demand for what I do/produce. How do I get what I need to survive if there is no demand for what I do/produce?

Presumably you would do something else. There's always going to be something useful that you can do. The whole point of communism, remember, is that this logic of commodity exchange would no longer be of relevance- no need to lash yourself to one occupation because it is your sole livelihood- but that society would apply its collective resources, material and human, in response to the determined needs of its constituents.

 

[Defiant47]

Presumably you would do something else. There's always going to be something useful that you can do. The whole point of communism, remember, is that this logic of commodity exchange would no longer be of relevance- no need to lash yourself to one occupation because it is your sole livelihood- but that society would apply its collective resources, material and human, in response to the determined needs of its constituents.

OK, then please explain exactly how people would obtain goods (for their needs and wants), and how this method is affected by their production (goods that they themselves create).

I.e. I am an artist. I require food - how do I obtain it? How does the fact that I am an artist affect my ability to obtain food? How would the fact that I am a miner affect my ability to obtain food differently?

 

[amadeus]

Presumably you would do something else. There's always going to be something useful that you can do. The whole point of communism, remember, is that this logic of commodity exchange would no longer be of relevance- no need to lash yourself to one occupation because it is your sole livelihood- but that society would apply its collective resources, material and human, in response to the determined needs of its constituents.

By eliminating the necessity of some kind of exchange at all, there is no mechanism by which to send that signal that an activity is or isn't in demand.

In a market system, nobody would buy the aforementioned ugly art and the artist would need to change occupations in order to maintain his livelihood. In communism, what happens?