Ask a red

[Masada]

Assuming, of course, that your individual aspiration is not subjugation or exploitation of others.

And if it were?

 

[Newbunkle]

On the contrary; it would empower you to. Assuming, of course, that your individual aspiration is not subjugation or exploitation of others.

So everyone is rewarded in proportion to their ability?

What if I wanted to go travelling? Do you think the government would keep foreign currency to hand out, or does everyone get access to a communal bank account and a credit card?

And if my chosen profession was creative, like writing or something, they wouldn't stop me pursuing that? Since it forces me to be dependant on them for materials like paper, would they still let me do that if my work was critical of the government and the system?

And if my dream was to emigrate and live in a different society, how much cash would I be given to set myself up there?

And if I wanted to vote for a individualist political party, I could do that to?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

And if it were?

So everyone is rewarded in proportion to their ability?

We're getting into individualistic aspects of a society, here, these things are subject to change according to who, where, or when this thing arises.

We also must investigate, however, what does "in proportion to their ability" mean? It suggests a sort of hierarchy of skills, doesn't it? That sounds highly subjective to me. For example, I may consider the writer and the poet to be the most important to society, but you may consider the businessman or the manufacturer or the international diplomat to be. But again, whether these things are in need of being "rewarded" is really subject to the society it arises in and how they feel about it.

What if I wanted to go travelling? Do you think the government would keep foreign currency to hand out, or does everyone get access to a communal bank account and a credit card?

And if my chosen profession was creative, like writing or something, they wouldn't stop me pursuing that? Since it forces me to be dependant on them for materials like paper, would they still let me do that if my work was critical of the government and the system?

And if my dream was to emigrate and live in a different society, how much cash would I be given to set myself up there?

And if I wanted to vote for a individualist political party, I could do that to?

You seem to be functioning on the idea that the government has everything in the universe, and the only way people get it is by their mercy. Why can't people just buy their plane tickets or their paper? After all, that's what businesses are going to have to do anyway. The point of Socialism is to end exploitation of the working class and to force equality of capability on all of society. The rest is all filler.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Would a communist government prevent me from following my own goals and individual aspirations in life?

As Cheezy already stated, both a socialist and a communist society would allow more people to a larger degree to realize their potential and cultivate their talents.

And if it were?

Then you had to either channel your ambitions and talents towards something more constructive or move to a more primitive (read: capitalist) society.

So everyone is rewarded in proportion to their ability?

Everyone would be rewarded according to the quality and quantity of their work.

What if I wanted to go travelling? Do you think the government would keep foreign currency to hand out, or does everyone get access to a communal bank account and a credit card?

If you wanted to travel, buy a ticket at a traveling agency. As for foreign currency, you get that the normal way also, by exchanging your own in an approriate place.

And if my chosen profession was creative, like writing or something, they wouldn't stop me pursuing that?

No. It is a useful occupation.

Since it forces me to be dependant on them for materials like paper, would they still let me do that if my work was critical of the government and the system?

Yes.

And if my dream was to emigrate and live in a different society, how much cash would I be given to set myself up there?

Nothing.

And if I wanted to vote for a individualist political party, I could do that to?

Provided such a party existed, why not?

By the way, I would like to share this article; which both addresses the current crisis as well as drives home some good points regarding capitalism and its destructive nature: http://www.michaelparenti.org/capitalism apocalypse.html
I was intending to open a new thread based on it, but I want to test it out in a relatively yahoo-free environment first...

 

[Huayna Capac357]

What do you think of socialist realism?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I think a lot of people associate Socialist Realism with those drab form-fits-function buildings, like the famous Soviet block apartments. On the contrary, it can be quite beautiful, and in many ways the architectural and sculptural branches of it parallel Art Deco.

The wiki article on it has some nice pictures and examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_realism

Personally, I prefer Constructivist Architecture over Socialist Realism.

Of course, our wonderful capitalists have proved no less capable of making drab and boring structures themselves...

 

[Wraith23]

Do you still believe in the LTV and the exploitation theory?

Do you support or denounce the CCCP?

Can you prove to me in a scientific manner how to calculate the surplus value?

What is your answer to the calculation problem in socialism?

How does a socialist state "wither" to communism?

Are you for the state or against the state?

Of course I already know the answers but Im interested in reading your responses.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

What does a communist in your style believe about censorship of media not for political but "moral" reasons?

 

[innonimatu]

Do you still believe in the LTV and the exploitation theory?

I'm not the typical red here, but this kind of question may benefit from a slightly non-standard answer, so here goes one:

Everything goes back to labour. Whether or not there are other components to a given price (a price for a certain thing, at a certain time) can be argued about - circumstances distort prices, granted. But for the aggregate production of society, labour is the one source of (trade) value. Everything else which may have use value, notably what is available in nature but requires no labour to obtain (air!), has no trade value. It's not scarcity, it's the difficulty to obtain those things - in other words, the labour necessary - which gives value to things. Scarcity of some well known vales is enforced by making them hard to get at - that's why gold tends to be guarded by people with guns, inside vaults: to make it harder - more labour-intensive - to get.
That's what all property is about. And this isn't even a "red" point of view... go read your Adam Smith, or Ricardo, the great liberal of the 19th century.

There was one, and only one, reason why liberals annouced the death of their own LTV: because a german guy sitting on a library made it politically inconvenient. The "marginalist revolution", standardized with Marshall's works, tried to deny the link between labour and value, only to produce a towering heap of wrong assumptions and dysfunctional theories with no relation with reality whatsoever. Even the apparent local logic of marginal utility (within a theory of the firm it might be of some use) has been made obsolete by the nature of the firm tin the 20th century (the public corporation has goals different from those of the simple private enterprise, as we're seeing from the apparently irrational behavior or many large corporations in recent years).

Look at the way productivity grew, at at the regular disconnect between productivity in quantity or quality, and in value. The first increases constantly as a result of technical improvements (some would call that capital investment, but it's not necessarily always so); the second tends to hold steady - in other words, as we increase production we lower prices. Why? Because the labour involved is the same! Because to close the economic cycle whatever is produced must be bought and costumed, by the very same people doing the production. Capital gets recycled, it's an important local variable, not a global one. Labour is the steady input (the single input, as technology is also a product of labour, but the way it's introduced does causes some jumps) into the economic system.

It's funny that people like Milton Friedman, for example, would establish a link between wages and prices (through inflation) but deliberately ignore the other half of the cycle (the necessity of wages accompanying prices). And that second half is so obvious that economists have even created other ways to measure their fancy "GDP" - the PPP - to account for the fact that wages (which is to say labour) and prices are indissociable.

Of course I already know the answers but Im interested in reading your responses.

Oh, really? A mind reader, are you? I'd like to see you prove your foreknowledge in a scientific manner!


I don't have the time or the inclination to spend pages here demonstrating in detail why the marginalist approach makes no sense. If you wand a quick summary about those theories, with references to follow, go read (for example) Steve Keen's book and web site. Or Sraffa, and what was written about the "Cambridge capital controversy".
If you want to understand why "anarcho-capitalism" is impossible and the state always plays a role, go read Karl Polanyi. If you want to understand the real nature of the current corporation, go read Berle or Galbraith.

Or just read Marx and the other classics with an open mind. Our motives as humans have changed very little, only the methods...

 

[Ondskan]

What does a communist in your style believe about censorship of media not for political but "moral" reasons?

I am someone who advocates as local government as possible and I'd like to see a world federation of many many semi-independent city states/communities.
So they would be quite independent and perhaps some of them would try to sneak through some censorship laws.

I personally dislike it strongly and I belive that all information should be free.
If we have a society in which everyone are able to choose their path in life and work hard for it then I see no point in limiting anything in terms of say pornography or even new and competing ideas.

The only thing I'd forbid are lies.
If you post something as *news* or *facts* you'd better be able to source it.
If its proven that you lied with intent then it will be considered slander even if it was not directed at a specific person.

If your article isn't very well researched or more of an opinion then you'd only be forced to write that its an opinionated article or something and then write what ever the hell you want.

 

[Wraith23]

Everything goes back to labour. Whether or not there are other components to a given price (a price for a certain thing, at a certain time) can be argued about - circumstances distort prices, granted. But for the aggregate production of society, labour is the one source of (trade) value.

Everything else which may have use value, notably what is available in nature but requires no labour to obtain (air!), has no trade value. It's not scarcity, it's the difficulty to obtain those things - in other words, the labour necessary - which gives value to things. Scarcity of some well known vales is enforced by making them hard to get at - that's why gold tends to be guarded by people with guns, inside vaults: to make it harder - more labour-intensive - to get.

Thats the same argument I have always read, "more labor, more value", not very convincing, but I admit is difficult to defend the LTV

That's what all property is about. And this isn't even a "red" point of view... go read your Adam Smith, or Ricardo, the great liberal of the 19th century.

Classical economics are not very popular right now in mainstream economics at least for the last 150 years, I would prefer to read neoclassical economists.

Not only because Smith was brilliant in some areas it means that every word he said was correct.

There was one, and only one, reason why liberals annouced the death of their own LTV: because a german guy sitting on a library made it politically inconvenient. The "marginalist revolution", standardized with Marshall's works, tried to deny the link between labour and value, only to produce a towering heap of wrong assumptions and dysfunctional theories with no relation with reality whatsoever.

You have any proof of that?
As I understand it Menger's work came up about the same time Marx was finishing Das Kapital so the very known theory of "bourgeois conspiracy" doesnt really hold up.

Even the apparent local logic of marginal utility (within a theory of the firm it might be of some use) has been made obsolete by the nature of the firm tin the 20th century (the public corporation has goals different from those of the simple private enterprise, as we're seeing from the apparently irrational behavior or many large corporations in recent years).

Examples?

Look at the way productivity grew, at at the regular disconnect between productivity in quantity or quality, and in value. The first increases constantly as a result of technical improvements (some would call that capital investment, but it's not necessarily always so); the second tends to hold steady - in other words, as we increase production we lower prices. Why? Because the labour involved is the same! Because to close the economic cycle whatever is produced must be bought and costumed, by the very same people doing the production. Capital gets recycled, it's an important local variable, not a global one. Labour is the steady input (the single input, as technology is also a product of labour, but the way it's introduced does causes some jumps) into the economic system.

So the value determined by utility doesnt improve over time?...... OK
And also you only make a connection between production and prices, what about the modeling of supply and demand? arent those important factors too?

Specially seeing how demands relates directly with utility.

It's funny that people like Milton Friedman, for example, would establish a link between wages and prices (through inflation) but deliberately ignore the other half of the cycle (the necessity of wages accompanying prices). And that second half is so obvious that economists have even created other ways to measure their fancy "GDP" - the PPP - to account for the fact that wages (which is to say labour) and prices are indissociable.

Maybe you could expand that idea?
I dont see the connection between labor and prices other than the one establish by the market.

Oh, really? A mind reader, are you? I'd like to see you prove your foreknowledge in a scientific manner!

This thread was allegedly created for us free-market thinkers to ask questions to socialists like you.

I dont need to prove your own theories.

 

[Wraith23]

I don't have the time or the inclination to spend pages here demonstrating

Thats pretty much what I expected

 

[innonimatu]

1) as I said, I'm not one of the "reds" answering the questions here, you may receive answers form someone else. I was only trying to get you to broaden your worldview. But...

Thats pretty much what I expected

... it would be bad if you expected to be spoon-fed the information. Do your own home work, I even provided the links to the book shop. Sorry but that brilliant little invention rolleyes of imaginary property called copyright doesn't allow me to offer you a copy of those, and I'm not going to "reinvent the wheel" (rewrite those books) just for you.

 

[Richard Cribb]

What do you think of socialist realism?

As for other art movements, it depends of the quality.
There are quite a lot of excellent films and novels, and even in paitning and architeture you can find quality work.

Do you still believe in the LTV and the exploitation theory? Yes.

Do you support or denounce the CCCP? Support.

Can you prove to me in a scientific manner how to calculate the surplus value? No.

What is your answer to the calculation problem in socialism? It is irrelevant.

How does a socialist state "wither" to communism? I don't know.

Are you for the state or against the state? It depends on the situation.

Of course I already know the answers but Im interested in reading your responses.Why?

You might want to work on your attitude.

What does a communist in your style believe about censorship of media not for political but "moral" reasons?

I don't believe in censorship at all, I just see it as a necessary means in certain situations.
And I have difficulties in seeing when censorship should be used for "moral" reasons.

By the way, since it has come to my attention that a certain mod is not comfortable with the house rules of this thread, I am considering to ask for it to be closed. But i will await the forthcoming events a bit before going to such a step.

 

[Munch]

I hope it doesn't come to closure; for a more 'fair' 'discussion, one can always start a thread of their own. My questions to all who may respond: if you had taken power in the US on Jan 20th, what steps would you have taken (both immediate and longer term) to facilitate social change and economic prosperity? Would you expect popular support? Which of Obama's steps do you support, if any?

 

[Munch]

Sorry for the double post, I'm writing on my phone and there is a character limit. What do you think of the following: 1. Bailouts for the populace rather than businesses. The people could then save, allowing the banks to lend etc. 2. Nationalising the banks and introducing some kind of 'super premium bonds' for savings. PS sorry if these are daft questions, i am no economist!

 

[amadeus]

On the contrary; it would empower you to. Assuming, of course, that your individual aspiration is not subjugation or exploitation of others.

So if I decide to become a programmer and write a revolutionary new word processing program and sell it for $20 apiece, I get to keep all that money?

 

[Richard Cribb]

I hope it doesn't come to closure; for a more 'fair' 'discussion, one can always start a thread of their own.

If it only was that simple...
Sorry, but my activity on this thread is finished.
If Cheezy and others want to continue it, they are free to do so, otherwise I will request it closed.

 

[Alassius]

If it only was that simple...
Sorry, but my activity on this thread is finished.
If Cheezy and others want to continue it, they are free to do so, otherwise I will request it closed.

Hold on - I have a long post that I might finish this weekend or so. It'd be lovely to hear what you say about some more difficult questions.


Here's a teaser:

What is your opinion on the idea of abundance, or the condition in which it is possible to allocate goods "to each according to his need"? Do you think it is possible? What is the reason that it has not been achieved yet?

Don't take this question lightly - it will require more than a few sentences to merely reveal its depth. It has profound effect on the basis of the validity of the entire communist utopia. It was one of the central assumptions made by Karl Marx that failed to materialise, thereby making it necessary to have a government - something Marx wanted to abolish - that eventually became too powerful, corrupt, and abusive. In short, without abundance, communism will fail.

Now, can you demonstrate that abundance is indeed possible, or would you like to refute my reasoning above?

 

[ainwood]

Curiouser and curioser.
Now we even have a silk thug who are unable to distinguish between a board and a thread. If he had bothered to read the OP he would have seen that it is exactly my bloody, exclusive right to decide who answers in this particular thread.
I just guess some countries have worse educational systems than others...
It is a real pleasure to report this one.

Moderator Action: Just to make this VERY clear to people here:

OPs have no more "rights" over a thread than anybody else. It is NOT anybody's right to decide who is allowed to post in a thread and who is not. No matter what 'rules' anyone sets in their OPs.