Ask a Red, Second Edition

[Cheezy the Wiz]

If Karalysia continues here, this thread will go to hell sooner rather than later...

I thought my rebuke of him was sufficient. At any rate I don't take him seriously when he does that. If he is serious, its his fault for crying wolf.

Still love ya Kara.

Fifty and Co. I will try to answer some questions this afternoon. As for now, clogged gutters and long lawns are calling me!

 

[pat4]

I've read most of this thread but not all of it carefully so sorry if these questions have been posted already.

We all know that in your various ism's the profits of a company are split between the workers. But what happens when the company suffers a loss? Do the workers have to pay that loss. If so what happens when a company suffers huge losses ala BP.

Lets say I have three frieds and we decide to start a business run by the four of us. We all invest x amount of money to start the business. However me and two of my friens are scrooges and very spartan in our tastes and have plenty of spare money so at the next agm when what is to be done with the profits is to be decided me and my two friends vote to re-invest it in the business. Now my third friend has a large family and isn't so wise with his money. If he doesn't get his share of the profits his family will go hungry. What is to stop a situation such as this?

Also there could still easily be huge differences in wealth. A small company of programmers could make millions in profit while a large group of miners might not make anywhere near that.
You may say that education is free and anyone can lift themselves (a very capatilist idea), but free education does not stop the rich kids from doing the best in school due to a steady home and access to other education tools.

Again sorry if these have been answered already.

Pat

 

[Tani Coyote]

Most Communists seem to call for anarchy, a lack of hierarchy, and place more and more power in direct democracy.

Direct democracy is a noble ideal, but it lets 50%+1 of the population take away the rights of the others if not kept in check, which a split, diverse system of government arguably does(even if it has its own issues of course).

What do Communists propose to protect individual liberties and freedoms from the tyranny of the majority? What will keep atheists or theists, for example, from imposing their will on the other group? What will prevent Communism from cannibalising itself just like the other systems before itself did, out of greed and selfishness(after all, under unrestrained democracy, 50%+1 can repossess everybody else's wealth for themselves, can they not?)? Is there some mechanic to protect everybody from eachother without a large government apparatus, or is the system hinging on the ideal that humans respect eachother enough by default to not eat eachother alive once the gloves are off?

 

[Karalysia]

nvm delete

 

[Tani Coyote]

Why do you think there wouldn't be a Constitution, minority rights, or checks and balances?

Constitutions, like legislative bodies, are arbitrary restraints on the sovereign power of the people's vote.

Not that I find that bad, but most Communists support a tyranny of the majority... meaning no person or thing should be superior to the voice of the People. That includes a document.

And as you said, your society has a government and therefore is 100% compatible with a constitution; the anarcho-communist society, however, doesn't believe in hierarchy or arbitrary limits. Making this a serious issue it must consider.

 

[GhostWriter16]

And that's the problem with it.

That's why I recall to suggesting, for a hypothetical society, requiring TWO THIRDS to agree to make a law. Less harming minorities that way.

Then again, I'm not communist so, let one of them answer.

 

[Gogf]

Constitutions, like legislative bodies, are arbitrary restraints on the sovereign power of the people's vote.

Not that I find that bad, but most Communists support a tyranny of the majority... meaning no person or thing should be superior to the voice of the People. That includes a document.

And as you said, your society has a government and therefore is 100% compatible with a constitution; the anarcho-communist society, however, doesn't believe in hierarchy or arbitrary limits. Making this a serious issue it must consider.

This has nothing to do with communism. Seriously, reread your post and notice how it says NOTHING particular about communism at all.

Also, you're talking about democratic statism, not anarchism.

 

[Traitorfish]

So, are you essentially saying that the success of socialist economy depends on the degree people are willing to spend their money on non-profit motives (as there would be no mechanism for investors to ever profit from their investment, every investment would be made just "out of good will")?

Not merely "good will", but for political ends; Socialism-as-ideology assumes that the end result is better for everyone, and so a worthy investment even for the sake of self-interest.

Constitutions, like legislative bodies, are arbitrary restraints on the sovereign power of the people's vote.

That's not at all the case. A constitution can be a series of mutually agreed upon ground rules, not merely an arbitrary imposition from on high- indeed, most democratic constitutions are, at least in theory, just that.

And that's the problem with it.

That's why I recall to suggesting, for a hypothetical society, requiring TWO THIRDS to agree to make a law. Less harming minorities that way.

That is possible. Dennis, certainly, sees some use for such an idea:


Link to video.

 

[Ajidica]

Question on class conciousness.
How I understand it, class conciousness is generaly the proletariat understanding their role in production and wishing to rectify it.
Let us suppose that there is a large-scale grassroots movement looking to implement socialism. Somewhere down the line they decide to try capitalism again. Did the proletariat ever have class conciousness? Additionally, once the proletariat has class conciousness, is it possible for them to 'lose it'?

Separate question:
What exactly separates Communism from Primitive Communism besides and understanding of the means of production? ie: What stops Communism from becoming cyclical and defaulting back to feudalism or capitalism?

I think my question fell off the page.

 

[Alassius]

The same way that it works now, although perhaps more thorough in the democratisation of larger entities.

Socialism: It's a sneaky one!

The John Lewis Partnership, which includes the department stores chain John Lewis and the supermarket chain Waitrose, had a turnover of £7.42 billion, and a net income of £389 million in 2009. The number of employees was 68,430 in 2008. Marks & Spencer, a similarly upmarket clothing and food retailer which employs 77,864 people, had a turnover of £9 billion and a net income of £506.8 million. While you can argue that co-operatives work, you cannot argue co-operatives work significantly better than wholly privately-owned businesses, particularly not in Marx's sense of better relations of production dialectically promoting productive forces, in the scale of the Industrial Revolution. So my questions remains: where can either of you find the extra productive forces to make an abundance of iPhones and Lamborghinis, apart from dialectical voodoo magic?

The same people who determine it now: corporate committees.

Again, do you suppose in your society these committees would do a better job than they do in a capitalist economy? If so, why?

Money.

I believe in legislation limiting the highest and lowest paid wages within a company to X times the other, but otherwise such things would be up to the workers themselves to decide. Its their money, after all.

Hold on - this is extremely important. Why do you need money? If you need money, you probably would have prices for goods, right? I'm assuming you are not talking about giving everyone plenty of money to buy everything they need - otherwise money would be meaningless. But in that case, are you saying that your society would not provide everyone "according to his need"? Instead it'd be more like "according to his contribution"? Does that mean someone contributing more would receive more than someone contributing less? Is it possible that some people would get more than they need, whereas some other people would get less than they need?

I'm not going to waste my time with your leading questions, but I will leave you with the parting thought that perhaps socialists aren't that interested in a formally planned economy.

Is it that you don't want to waste your time, or is it that you don't like the answers you are forced to give?

The analogy I use is like baking bread. When you bake a loaf of bread, you must first give the yeast time to rise, else you get flat bread. Its still bread, but its not really very good bread.

The problem is that you can actually find well-baked bread, whereas you cannot find successful communist society. The analogy should be more like this: Marx made up a recipe that tells you to bake a yeast dough at 1000F. You tried it, you get charcoal out, then you say "look, the bread is too tough and too dry, so it must be that I have not given it enough time to rise." But flat bread and charcoal are two things. For your theory to stand you need to explain why more yeasting can make the dough survive the 1000F. Can you tell me why your system wouldn't turn into Stalinism simply if you build your system from a richer country?

If people are as self-interested as capitalists think they are, then capitalism's fate is more sealed than even Marxists think it is. What reason is there to respect someone else's private property and other rights, if it interferes with your self-interest? Respecting private property and the laws that make our society cohesive are as "unnatural" as socialist proposals. That's just part of the Social Contract.

There are sound, mathematical reasons to believe self-interested people can be fair to each other purely out of selfishness. Please read up on iterated prisoner's dilemma.

But more importantly, as I have said before, capitalism doesn't require people to be selfish. Selfless people can do rather well under capitalism. Can selfish people live as well under your version of communism?

 

[Traitorfish]

The John Lewis Partnership, which includes the department stores chain John Lewis and the supermarket chain Waitrose, had a turnover of £7.42 billion, and a net income of £389 million in 2009. The number of employees was 68,430 in 2008. Marks & Spencer, a similarly upmarket clothing and food retailer which employs 77,864 people, had a turnover of £9 billion and a net income of £506.8 million. While you can argue that co-operatives work, you cannot argue co-operatives work significantly better than wholly privately-owned businesses, particularly not in Marx's sense of better relations of production dialectically promoting productive forces, in the scale of the Industrial Revolution.

It was merely a prominent example of an effective Worker's Cooperative; my intent was merely to validate the model, not to demonstrate it as more effective than all private alternatives- if, indeed, the capitalist understanding of what constitutes an "effective" model is even of relevance. Maximisation of profit may be what drives a privately owned company, but a Worker's Cooperative is a more nuanced affair.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

My sincerest apologies, folks. I took the weekend off for some personal time and have been working extra-long hours to make up for it.

This may have been asked before, and forgive/correct me if this is the case, but anyways...

What are the best examples of the particular communist/socialist ideology which you subscribe to working and in motion in the past? If there are any at all.

The Paris Commune is probably the best example.

Re: communists; what do communists think about non-communist socialists? Would you accept a socialist state in place?

I assume by "socialist" you mean social democrat. It would be nice, a great step forward, but it would not be enough.

I am not going to ask anything about theory or morals because I think I know your answers and I don't like them. I am however very curious about some tangent issues:

1)You and Traitorfish write as if you really believe that socialism / communism will come. Are you writing this way merely as a rhetorical tool or do you really believe that? Do you expect to see a serious movement towards socialism in our lifetimes? What evidence is there to suggest such thing is even remotely likely?

It is certainly true that Marx saw the evolution to socialism as inevitable. However, I believe we will have a choice: we can continue down the present path of letting corporations and corporate interests run our world, and devolve into a type of corporate feudalism mixed with fascist tendencies, or we can destroy that power and corruption and create a democratic system of associative producers. Its ours to lose.

2)A good deal of your posts (particularly Traitorfish's) have touched the issue of how growing "consciousness" among the masses would lead to socialism. But how do you reconcile that with the fact that as societies progressed and got more educated in the 20th century they increasingly rejected socialist ideals? In the US, the communist/socialist ideology reached a peak of popularity in the 30's and has since declined. I suppose you'll answer that that was due to Cold War propaganda, social conditioning and brain washing.

Brain washing is a harsh word used for social conditioning that someone doesn't like. But I would say that the West learned a great deal about propaganda during the First World War.

But what to say of neutral countries such as Finland or Sweden? They have a highly educated (and thus, one would expect, "conscious") population, the masses there have had a decent exposure to socialist ideology, and yet they overwhelmingly vote for capitalist social-democratic parties, rejecting actuall socialists. It seems that the masses have no interest in communism. How do you explain that?

Its not a virus that infects people simply through exposure.

I would say that Swedes have a great deal more interest in socialism than Americans do. At least they can see the virtue of universal programs like education and health care.

Rough-around-the-edges is a bit of understatement. =/

Hardly.

1) Anarchists are not utopians.

Of course they are.

2) Why don't humans have the ability to govern themselves? And if not why do we have to have a socialist state for them to learn how to do so?

Because social systems are constructed by humans. You can't just wish away peoples' understanding of the world and their place in it.

Thanks for the answers, Cheezy!

Always a pleasure.

New ones:

What are (in your opinion) the best arguments that a socialist might give that socialism is better than communism or anarchism?

Socialism meaning, social democracy, like Western Europe? Or someone who would just want to stop at a dictatorship of the proletariat, and never progress towards the stateless society?

I suppose an argument similar to Hobbes' might be produced. That complete democracy is chaos and society requires a guiding hand, like a child requires a parent.

What are (in your opinion) the best arguments that a communist might give that communism is better than socialism or anarchism?

The Marxist conception of communism is of a society that has passed through socialism, and destroyed the capitalist myths and ideas in people. Anarchists are generally regarded as bourgeois in nature by Marxist communists, because they have an insufficient understanding of political class. They see the injustice of undemocratic hierarchy, but think that simply removing the state will remove political class. The Marxist communist understands that the only way for anarchism to work is to destroy political classes, by abolishing private enterprise and absorbing the capitalists into the proletarian class. What is missing is the necessity of force. The capitalists are proud, they will resent and resist being made to work like the people they employed, to be paid as much as they, to have equal say in things as they. Anarchists seem to think they will do so willingly if only that stupid state were removed.

Socialists (assuming you mean social democrats), in their eyes, simply don't go far enough. Their system is still fundamentally capitalist, as there are private means of production and political privilege.

What are (in your opinion) the best arguments that an anarchist might give that anarchism is better than communism or socialism?

See civver's responses to my arguments in this thread.

I ask because its so often construed as a battle of socialism/communism/anarchism vs capitalism, I wonder what socialists, anarchists, and communists would argue about amongst themselves.

Even more amusing it watching Trots and Leninists fight.

Doesn't that risk over-simplification? After all, one could similarly characterise Left Communism, yet it most certainly takes the Marxist view of history into account.

Perhaps.

1. What are the primary differences between Socialism and Communism?

Socialism is the process that builds communism. Socialism has a strong (but not necessarily undemocratic) state and political classes still exist. Communism is a stateless society where political class has dissipated.

2. Is there a marked difference between Socialists and your typical Social Democrats?

Social democrats are, at their heart, capitalist proponents. They would more aptly be described as welfare capitalists.

3. How can Socialism & Communism benefit the average American (as opposed to Capitalism), especially with regard to health, safety, and education, and in general, with regard to our overall standard of living?

This is a graph of disposable income by fifths of the population.

Now imagine the red and yellow lines averaged with the blue ones.

Then, think about not having to pay for health care and education.

After that, think about how much crime and drug usage is driven by poverty.

And finally, imagine how you would feel if you had an actual say in how things are run in your company. Not happy with your wages? Vote for higher ones! Not happy with your working conditions? See if your coworkers agree and effing change it! No more strikes, no more worrying about getting fired if you complain. And no more bosses' favorites, no more favoritism, no more privilege, just a business, and thus a society, built upon merit, where your hard work directly translates into a better life, and the peace of mind that comes from a security net to catch you if you fall. And the justice that comes from knowing that those who can work and do not will not live off of your hard work.

And you will then have some idea of what socialism can do for the average man or woman.

4. What questions would I have to ask myself if I thought I were turning into a socialist and wanted to know for sure?

Do you believe that cooperative business operation without bosses is moral?

Question on class conciousness.
How I understand it, class conciousness is generaly the proletariat understanding their role in production and wishing to rectify it.
Let us suppose that there is a large-scale grassroots movement looking to implement socialism. Somewhere down the line they decide to try capitalism again. Did the proletariat ever have class conciousness? Additionally, once the proletariat has class conciousness, is it possible for them to 'lose it'?

Your understanding of class consciousness is correct.

However, it would be fundamentally impossible for them to "return" to capitalism. It would require them to be masochists. Imagine Blacks deciding to return to slavery, because they didn't like freedom.

Separate question:
What exactly separates Communism from Primitive Communism besides and understanding of the means of production?

It will stem from a society in which social relations take place through the exchange of commodities, and the possibility of plenty exists. Neither is true of "primitive" communism.

The John Lewis Partnership, which includes the department stores chain John Lewis and the supermarket chain Waitrose, had a turnover of £7.42 billion, and a net income of £389 million in 2009. The number of employees was 68,430 in 2008. Marks & Spencer, a similarly upmarket clothing and food retailer which employs 77,864 people, had a turnover of £9 billion and a net income of £506.8 million. While you can argue that co-operatives work, you cannot argue co-operatives work significantly better than wholly privately-owned businesses, particularly not in Marx's sense of better relations of production dialectically promoting productive forces, in the scale of the Industrial Revolution. So my questions remains: where can either of you find the extra productive forces to make an abundance of iPhones and Lamborghinis, apart from dialectical voodoo magic?

Your sarcastic tone is not appreciated.

I see no reason why the forces that overproduce now could not overproduce in a socialist system. But I wouldn't expect you to think of something quite so obvious as that, given your trite obsession with the "socialist" command economy.

Again, do you suppose in your society these committees would do a better job than they do in a capitalist economy? If so, why?

I suppose they will do the same job they do now. Because they "believe" in the mission statements of their organization, and understand that its financial success is their financial success.

Hold on - this is extremely important. Why do you need money?

Because it provides a universal medium of exchange.

If you need money, you probably would have prices for goods, right? I'm assuming you are not talking about giving everyone plenty of money to buy everything they need - otherwise money would be meaningless. But in that case, are you saying that your society would not provide everyone "according to his need"? Instead it'd be more like "according to his contribution"? Does that mean someone contributing more would receive more than someone contributing less? Is it possible that some people would get more than they need, whereas some other people would get less than they need?

Of course it is.

Is it that you don't want to waste your time, or is it that you don't like the answers you are forced to give?

You are certainly aware of what a leading question is. I will not play your game. Take it elsewhere or you will be ignored.

The problem is that you can actually find well-baked bread, whereas you cannot find successful communist society.

Oh Lord, not this again.

The analogy should be more like this: Marx made up a recipe that tells you to bake a yeast dough at 1000F. You tried it, you get charcoal out, then you say "look, the bread is too tough and too dry, so it must be that I have not given it enough time to rise." But flat bread and charcoal are two things. For your theory to stand you need to explain why more yeasting can make the dough survive the 1000F.

You aren't paying attention, then. Your loss.

Can you tell me why your system wouldn't turn into Stalinism simply if you build your system from a richer country?

As I have told you before, do not waste my time with this Marxism=Stalinism nonsense. We have dealt with it enough times in enough places.

I would be curious to see why Marxism is so destined to create Stalinism. Perhaps you can provide me with a mathematical proof for that as well. But not in this thread.

There are sound, mathematical reasons to believe self-interested people can be fair to each other purely out of selfishness. Please read up on iterated prisoner's dilemma.

A mathematical proof of the virtue of selfishness! Take your snake-oil elsewhere.

But more importantly, as I have said before, capitalism doesn't require people to be selfish. Selfless people can do rather well under capitalism. Can selfish people live as well under your version of communism?

No, as they should not.

 

[Ajidica]

Socialism meaning, social democracy, like Western Europe? Or someone who would just want to stop at a dictatorship of the proletariat, and never progress towards the stateless society?

I suppose an argument similar to Hobbes' might be produced. That complete democracy is chaos and society requires a guiding hand, like a child requires a parent.

Couldn't you use the argument put forth by Lassalle in that the state is the best instrument to facilitate the triumph of the proletariat?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Probably. But I am not so familiar with Lassalle, so I did not use him.

 

[Traitorfish]

Anarchists are generally regarded as bourgeois in nature by Marxist communists, because they have an insufficient understanding of political class. They see the injustice of undemocratic hierarchy, but think that simply removing the state will remove political class.

I think you do Anarchism a disservice by conflating it exclusively with the Kropotkinite/Makhnovist approach (which, I agree, has more than a few flaws), considering that the most prominent form of Anarchism in the last century has been the altogether more pragmatic Anarcho-Syndicalist movement. The latter is heavily committed to the goal of developing and politicising class conciousness, does not entertain the same revolutionary romances as traditional Anarcho-Communism, and has historically cooperated fairly effectively with non-authoritarian communists of the Syndicalist, Left, Council and on occasion even Leninist varieties. I honestly don't intend to have us become embroiled in some sectarian squabbling here- not least because I'm far from committed to Anarchism myself- but it seems preferable to avoid such generalisations when they can result in significant mischaracterisations.

 

[Tani Coyote]

This has nothing to do with communism. Seriously, reread your post and notice how it says NOTHING particular about communism at all.

Much of the Communist movement advocates for anarchy and tyranny of the majority. Direct democracy isn't "communist" in itself, but it is relevant to discussion of anarcho-communism.

No need to be so aggressive.

A constitution can be a series of mutually agreed upon ground rules, not merely an arbitrary imposition from on high- indeed, most democratic constitutions are, at least in theory, just that.

Well of course, the first layout of a Constitution indeed is popularly-supported(generally).

But for later processes...

What if 50%+1 decide the Constitution needs to give more privilege to one group of people over another? With so much human diversity, people could easily be selfish and do such a thing. We as a species have a reputation for cannibalising eachother.

And anarcho-communism, if it truly rejects hierarchy, can't stop this, otherwise they'd be creating a hierarchy, only where a text is superior to the majority's voices.

Are we running on people instinctively not being jerks to eachother for anarcho-communism to work, or is there some solution to this issue?

---

While those who don't mind the state such as Karalysia and (I think, please forgive me if I'm wrong) Cheezy need not worry about this, for anarchists like Civver, preventing majoritarian abuse is certainly a big issue.

 

[Yeekim]

A mathematical proof of the virtue of selfishness! Take your snake-oil elsewhere.

You obviously didn't check the link, did you? Perhaps you should have.
After all, it seems to hint at the viability of cooperativism, if anything.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

You obviously didn't check the link, did you? Perhaps you should have.
After all, it seems to hint at the viability of cooperativism, if anything.

Guilty as charged.

 

[Traitorfish]

You obviously didn't check the link, did you? Perhaps you should have.
After all, it seems to hint at the viability of cooperativism, if anything.

Not an entirely unprecedented association to make, either- Kropotkin expressed just such an opinion in his 1902 book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, which, based partially on Kropotkin's own field work, makes an argument against the Social Darwinism which was so popular at the time.

 

[Alassius]

Your sarcastic tone is not appreciated.

I see no reason why the forces that overproduce now could not overproduce in a socialist system. But I wouldn't expect you to think of something quite so obvious as that, given your trite obsession with the "socialist" command economy.

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. Nor was it clear how the dialectical advancement of productivity brought by communism can ensure an abundance of everyone's need. Marx himself spent very little effort writing about this issue. When he did, he tended to simply evoke the, yes, dialectical voodoo magic.

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.

So my question remains: do you argue that your economy can produce everything in abundance, when even modern capitalism can't?

Of course it is.

"Of course" what? That your economy can't distribute "according to his need"? That some people will not get everything they need? That some will be richer than others in your economy?

You are certainly aware of what a leading question is. I will not play your game. Take it elsewhere or you will be ignored.

No, I don't know what a leading question is. Do you mean the kind of questions that are hard to answer, that were given horrible answers by Stalinists, but because you are in an ivory tower, you can ignore them and pretend they don't apply?

Oh Lord, not this again.

As I have told you before, do not waste my time with this Marxism=Stalinism nonsense. We have dealt with it enough times in enough places.

I would be curious to see why Marxism is so destined to create Stalinism. Perhaps you can provide me with a mathematical proof for that as well. But not in this thread.

Enough times? It seems to me that you've had not enough time to show a convincing argument on why your Marxism will not turn out like Stalinism. Given that Stalinism actually happened, the burden is on you to explain why it will be different next time. So far, you've only said it will be different, without substantiating that claim. The answers I saw have either been "I've explained it before", but when questioned you've not been able to come up with a link. Or it can be simply "I don't want to talk about it", such as this one.

But anyway, see my post here for an argument on how Marxism can turn into Stalinism.

A mathematical proof of the virtue of selfishness! Take your snake-oil elsewhere.

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.

No, as they should not.

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?