Ask a Red, Second Edition

[Traitorfish]

Lack of material scarcity doesn't mean it can solelyexist outside of market relations. Intellectual property is a good example of it: The software itself isn't scarce, the right to use it is. So even a hypothetical post-scarcity society can be subjected to market relations, whether that is necessary or not.

Well, I would argue that intellectual property is actually a very good example of capitalism's inability to deal with abundance. Information was previously held within the terms of the market by the scarcity of the physical media on which it was distributed, but as that scarcity is superseded by the emergence of digital forms of distribution- and we are to all intents and purposes entirely capable of achieving a state of digital abundance tomorrow- then it becomes impossible to contain distribution within a market without the artificial imposition of scarcity by the state, i.e. anti-piracy legislation. Such legislation is an intervention into the market that symbolises its inability to "self-correct" as its more fundamentalist adherents would argue, and, for all that, an ineffective one, because piracy of music, films, etc. becomes increasingly easy and common by the day, meaning that the state, and therefore capital, is fighting a losing battle against its own technological achievements.

And what would happen if a post-scarcity or even a massive surplus society are simply not feasible?

Well, I would suggest that we've already been at the level of sufficient surplus in Western Europe and North America for more than a century now; the tipping point is roughly the point at which the majority of the population of any given society are able to engage in the production of non-agricultural goods or services, which was achieved in much of Europe in the late 19th century, and throughout it and beyond across the course of the 20th century. Post-scarcity is, of course, a more complex matter- not least because exact definitions of "post-scarcity" vary somewhat- but I would say that it's a secondary concern, because it is not a necessary precondition of communism.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I haven't read The Communist Manifesto in a while, but doesn't Marx spend half of the book waxing about how awsome capitalism is and how its abolition of serfdom and other feudal remnants are prep-work for communism? I may be confusing it with Capital though, which I have not read, not even been inclined to see if the local library has it.

Yes, he does. But he notes that, as with all unequal societies, the forces of class conflict will be its undoing. Since capitalism, as feudalism was, is founded upon principles of class conflict and social inequality, it will be its own undoing, especially since social mobility in capitalism is easier than it ever has been before.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Well, I would argue that intellectual property is actually a very good example of capitalism's inability to deal with abundance. Information was previously held within the terms of the market by the scarcity of the physical media on which it was distributed, but as that scarcity is superseded by the emergence of digital forms of distribution- and we are to all intents and purposes entirely capable of achieving a state of digital abundance tomorrow- then it becomes impossible to contain distribution within a market without the artificial imposition of scarcity by the state, i.e. anti-piracy legislation. Such legislation is an intervention into the market that symbolises its inability to "self-correct" as its more fundamentalist adherents would argue, and on the other- and, for all that, an ineffective one, because piracy of music, films, etc. becomes increasingly easy and common by the day, meaning that the state, and therefore capital, is fighting a losing battle against its own technological achievements.

For the question you asked of Fascist Theoreticians, you might like the heterodox American Lawrence Dennis. This sounds a lot like his Theory of Overproduction.

Basically, the problem with Capitalism is that it's perpetually over saturating its own markets, because money that goes into a particular business gets reinvested in this business, leading to a point where one of either two things can happen:
Capitalism creates artificial scarcity, factories shutter, food is scarce despite abundant production, etc. etc.
or
Capitalism expands to new Markets. Imperialism is essentially about bringing finished goods to new markets rather then raw materials to the mother country, as this is the only way Capitalism can continue to sustain increased production.

How much of this gels with Marxist teaching?

 

[Tahuti]

Well, I would suggest that we've already been at the level of sufficient surplus in Western Europe and North America for more than a century now; the tipping point is roughly the point at which the majority of the population of any given society are able to engage in the production of non-agricultural goods or services, which was achieved in much of Europe in the late 19th century, and throughout it and beyond across the course of the 20th century. Post-scarcity is, of course, a more complex matter- not least because exact definitions of "post-scarcity" vary somewhat- but I would say that it's a secondary concern, because it is not a necessary precondition of communism.

But if this surplus production is already achieved, why hasn't it led to a Communist revolution? My guess is that even the working classes are content with the current system, although I'm curious what you have to say to it.

 

[Traitorfish]

For the question you asked of Fascist Theoreticians, you might like the heterodox American Lawrence Dennis. This sounds a lot like his Theory of Overproduction.

Basically, the problem with Capitalism is that it's perpetually over saturating its own markets, because money that goes into a particular business gets reinvested in this business, leading to a point where one of either two things can happen:
Capitalism creates artificial scarcity, factories shutter, food is scarce despite abundant production, etc. etc.
or
Capitalism expands to new Markets. Imperialism is essentially about bringing finished goods to new markets rather then raw materials to the mother country, as this is the only way Capitalism can continue to sustain increased production.

How much of this gels with Marxist teaching?

It's very similar on both points, at least in my admittedly limited understanding. I wonder if that's indirectly derived from Marx, or if he hit upon it himself?

But if this surplus production is already achieved, why hasn't it led to a Communist revolution? My guess is that even the working classes are content with the current system, although I'm curious what you have to say to it.

That level of surplus is the precondition of communism, but isn't an assurance of it. Communism comes about as the culmination of class struggle- and it's true that, right now, the majority of the working class are "content" with the current system insofar as they not actually seeking to overthrow it- the surplus merely provides the terrain on which for class struggle to escalate to the necessary degree. The class struggle is still being waged, and at this point labour is in something of a rut. Recent events may lead to a reversal of that state of affairs, although there's no way of knowing that. (Some more pessimistic communists suggest that what will finally tip things will be external as well as internal developments, in the form of ecological deterioration forcing the escalation of class struggle. I can't say that I agree unconditionally with that, but it's certainly something that I find myself looking nervously over my shoulder towards. I want us to achieve communism, but not like that... )

 

[Lone Wolf]

There is a certain distance into the future, beyond which speculation is snake-oil selling, and all this about the intricacies of the socialist economy, much less those about a communist one, are impossible to know. How many of us have seen a post-commodity society? I know that I can barely even imagine it. Besides, we make a grave error by positing these predictions: by deciding beforehand how society will be, how are we any less foolish than the Utopians?

Doesn't this kind of thinking lets itself open to the dangers of Communism becoming a pure negativist program, with few exact things to promise the people - only undefined Utopian-like future? "Yeah, the current system has many bad things at its core, but with what exactly are you going to replace it? Vague promises of Heaven on Earth"?

 

[Linkman226]

Hmmm... I don't exactly want to dig through 40 pages to see if my question is answered, so:

What type of red are each of you official question answerers?

 

[Traitorfish]

Hmmm... I don't exactly want to dig through 40 pages to see if my question is answered, so:

What type of red are each of you official question answerers?

"Council communist" would probably be the most accurate label for my views, although I'm not particularly doctrinaire in them.

 

[Smellincoffee]

Hmmm... I don't exactly want to dig through 40 pages to see if my question is answered, so:

What type of red are each of you official question answerers?

Anarcho-communist.

 

[ParkCungHee]

It's very similar on both points, at least in my admittedly limited understanding. I wonder if that's indirectly derived from Marx, or if he hit upon it himself?

Marx definitely was an influence, and he certainly read Marx, but he mainly saw this as a problem to be solved, as he saw it as the cause of the Boom-Bust cycle, which leads me to my next question:
How much attention is paid to the boom-bust cycle in Marxian Economics.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Is reactionary, as opposed to progressive, anti-capitalism possible?
Are there any noticeable movements today that espouse it or use it for their own means?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Hmmm... I don't exactly want to dig through 40 pages to see if my question is answered, so:

What type of red are each of you official question answerers?

I don't like dogmatism. Every socialist "school" has its merits and shortcomings. Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Kautsky, Gramsci, Lassalle, Luxembourg, Tito. If I had to pick any one trough to drink from it would be Lenin's, but pretty much all of these schools are from the first few decades of the 20th century or earlier, and thus in need of serious updating.

Is reactionary, as opposed to progressive, anti-capitalism possible?
Are there any noticeable movements today that espouse it or use it for their own means?

Monarchists and other people who reject liberalism but are not leftist or fascist(gogf comes to mind).

 

[Dean.]

I don't like dogmatism. Every socialist "school" has its merits and shortcomings. Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Kautsky, Gramsci, Lassalle, Luxembourg, Tito. If I had to pick any one trough to drink from it would be Lenin's, but pretty much all of these schools are from the first few decades of the 20th century or earlier, and thus in need of serious updating.

I don't think this is universal. Gramsci's, and Marx's interpretations do not seem very dated at all. A lot of the grand assumptions of Leninism are approached more cautiously in their writings, and the relevance of Gramsci's social theory is certainly strong even today.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I didn't say they were irrelevant or outdated, I said they were a bit dated. There have been developments in capitalism and society since they wrote that none of them talk about, things that change the game a bit.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Monarchists and other people who reject liberalism but are not leftist or fascist(gogf comes to mind).

Why the qualifier of "not fascist"? Every fascistoid ideology likes "anti-capitalist" rhetoric - especially before it actually gains political power. And fascism is sure reactionary.

 

[ParkCungHee]

And fascism is sure reactionary.

I'll uh, leave this to the Red here, but Fascism isn't reactionary. It's the defining feature of Fascism, a nationalism rooted not in an idealized past, but an idealized future, that the nation must achieve.

 

[Lone Wolf]

but Fascism isn't reactionary. It's the defining feature of Fascism, a nationalism rooted not in an idealized past, but an idealized future, that the nation must achieve.

Depends on how you define "reactionary", I guess. According to your definition, I think it's safe to say that Fascism is both "reactionary" and "not reactionary".

So, another question: Is Fascism reactionary, progressive, static, or what?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Depends on hhttp://forums.civfanatics.com/images/editor/menupop.gifow you define "reactionary", I guess. According to your definition, I think it's safe to say that Fascism is both "reactionary" and "not reactionary".

I wouldn't say that. I'd say Fascism is most definitely not-reactionary, and any signs of reaction is an indication that the movement is stillborn and appropriated by others (such as in Spain). Fascism most definitely is not opposed to the accumulation of capital, in fact, one of the primary complaints it has about capitalism is that it's inefficient at doing so.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Considering all the complaints about the international (often Jewish) finance, the oppression of the little man by the banking systems, etc. by the local fascistoids, I have my doubts. Demagoguery against financial capital is nothing alien to fascism. Industrial capital gets off much lighter and is often even praised.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Considering all the complaints about the international (often Jewish) finance, the oppression of the little man by the banking systems, etc. by the local fascistoids, I have my doubts.

Yes, but do they wish to see the solution in reinforcing the existing power-structure, or turning back the clock (Okay, the Nas-Bols do, but they're hardly indicative)?
They see the solution to these problems not in the breaking up of the financial system and a reversion to the pre-modern patterns of life, but to bring about a new system that would seize control of the system of finance, usually under the direction of a single leader, and use it for the development of the nation-state.