Communism III

[amadeus]

I started two other Communism threads in the past (Communism and Communism II, of course...)

Not to undermine Communism, but to better understand it, I've written up a series of questions. Hopefully, the socialist gurus of this site will be able to "enlighten" me concerning these affairs.

Question One: Single or multi-party state?

Under a system of "democratic" Communism advocated by major Communist parties today, would political parties that favor private investment be allowed to run for offices?

Question Two: Centrally-planned economy?

How would supply and demand be recognized by the government? Let's say Jimmy Farmer grows 10 corn, but the demand is ony for 6 corn. What will happen to the surplus corn? Will it drive the price down, causing Jimmy the Farmer to be able to support himself less, or will it be kept at the higher price and be wasted? Corn may be a minor issue, but what about houses?

It's not smart to waste houses.

How would those kinds of transactions take place?

Question Three: Transitions between Capitalism and Communism?

If the transition were to take place today, how would you make the current "rich" (anyone earning above the state maximum) be able to pay off his or her loans for a nice house, car, etc. Would these objects be confiscated by the government?

Question Four: Private investment overseas?

Would citizens of the country be able to invest their money in overseas ventures, ones that aren't inside of the current practicing socialist country, or would you restrict investment to government-controlled firms?

Question Five: Would wages be distributed by the work completed, or the hours that the worker works?

If someone works twice as fast as someone else, will they need to put in the same hours as the person that works at a slower speed, or is it determined by a production requirement?

Would overtime be paid to workers that do more than they're requested to do?

---------

Okay, I may add some more questions later...I think these five cover just about everything in my mind as of now.

 

[CurtSibling]

I just want to be the first to post on what is fated to be a long and 'exciting' thread!

Could it be the rmsharpe is being temped by the lure of maximum productivity and socialism?

I'll leave the answering of the questions to those who still put faith in that defunct government form...

 

[Zarn]

A Federal Republic is the only waty to go.

 

[CurtSibling]

I tend to agree...

 

[amadeus]

Curt, I'm hardly one to ever consider socialism, but what I don't understand, is why some people believe in it.

There seems to be so many cracks and flaws that can't be solved.

 

[HotDog Fish]

Well before you ask these question read the Das Kapital...I know it's long and boring but it's worth it

 

[amadeus]

You don't have to read "Mein Kampf" to ask questions about World War II.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Curt, I'm hardly one to ever consider socialism, but what I don't understand, is why some people believe in it.

There seems to be so many cracks and flaws that can't be solved.

To celebrate the fact that you have actually answered my post for the first time,
I will declare that I completely agree!

The US-style senatorial system is quite sound.

 

[HotDog Fish]

Mein Kampt was Hitler's diary, the Das Kapital is an overview of (original) marixism, there's a diffrence

 

[amadeus]

Yes, but they're both books. I can't ask a question to a book.

 

[Fez_Monk]

The only way a communal society can work is if membership is voluntary and authority minimized. Not that I want to live in a commune, but that is the only way ''communism'' will work. Government sponsered communism will either end up as

A. A brutal dictatorship, because subversives will eventually undermine the entire system;therefore a dictatorship is necessary for the survival of the commune.

or

B. Heavily regulated capitalism


Now, read this:

The Two Socialisms

''There are two Socialisms
One is communistic, the other solidaritarian.
One is dictatorial, the other libertarian.
One is metaphysical, the other positive.
One is dogmatic, the other scientific.
One is emotional, the other reflective.
One is destrucive, the other constructive.
Both are in the pursuit of the greatest possible welfare for all.
One aims to establish happiness for all, the other to enable each to be happy in his own way.
The first regards the State as a society sui generis, of an especial essence, the product of a sort of divine right outside of and above all society,
with special rights and able to exact special obediences; the second considers the State as an association like any other, generally managed worse than others.
The first proclaims the sovereignty of the State, the second recognizes no sort of sovereign.
One wishes all monopolies to be held by the State; the other wishes the abolition of all monopolies.
One wishes the governed class to become the governing class; the other wishes the dissapearence of classes.
Both declare that the existing state of things cannot last.
The first considers revolutions as the indespensible agent of evolutions; the second teaches that repression alone turns evolutions into revolution.
The first has faith in a cataclysm.
The second knows that social progress will result from free play of individual efforts.
Both understand we are entering upon a new historic phase.
One wishes that there be none but proletaires.
The other wishes that there should be no more proletaires.
The first wishes everything should be taken away from everybody.
The second wishes to leave each in possession of its own.
The one wishes to expropriate everybody.
The second wishes everybody to be a proprietor.
The first says: 'Do as the government wishes'.
The second says: 'Do as you wish yourself'.
The former threatens with despotism.
The latter promises liberty.
The former makes the citizen the subject of the State.
The latter makes the State the employee of the citizen.
One proclaims that labor pains will be necessary to the birth of a new world; the other declares that real progress will not cause suffering to any one.
The first has confidence in a social war.
The other believes only in the works of peace.
One aspires to command, to regulate, to legislate.
The other wishes to attain the minimum of command, of regulation, of legislation.
One would be followed by the most atrocious of reactions.
The other opens unlimited horizens to progress.
The first will fail; the other will suceed.
Both desire equality.
One by lowering heads that are too high.
The other by raising heads that are too low.
One sees equality under a common yoke.
The other will secure equality in complete liberty.
One is intolerant, the other tolerant.
One frightens, the other reassures.
The first wishes to instruct everybody.
The second wishes everybody to instruct himself.
The first wishes to support everybody.
The second wishes to enable everybody to support himself.

One says:
The land to the State
The mine to the State
The tool to the State
The product to the State

The other says:
The land to the cultivator.
The mine to the miner.
The tool to the laborer.
The product to the producer.
There are only these two Socialisms.*
One is the infancy of Socialism; the other is its manhood.
One is already the past; the other is the future.
One will give place to the other.''

- Ernest Lesigne

In case your wondering, the second Socialism is anarchism, or more specifically, Libertarian Socialism, Individualist Anarchism or Boston Anarchism.


*I disagree with that statement; there are thousands of socialisms. This was written about a hundred years ago.

 

[Damien]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
I started two other Communism threads in the past (Communism and Communism II, of course...)

Not to undermine Communism, but to better understand it, I've written up a series of questions. Hopefully, the socialist gurus of this site will be able to "enlighten" me concerning these affairs.

Question One: Single or multi-party state?

Under a system of "democratic" Communism advocated by major Communist parties today, would political parties that favor private investment be allowed to run for offices?
///No political party at all.Associations lead the debate and people vote on votation days.

Question Two: Centrally-planned economy?

How would supply and demand be recognized by the government? Let's say Jimmy Farmer grows 10 corn, but the demand is ony for 6 corn. What will happen to the surplus corn? Will it drive the price down, causing Jimmy the Farmer to be able to support himself less, or will it be kept at the higher price and be wasted? Corn may be a minor issue, but what about houses?

It's not smart to waste houses.

How would those kinds of transactions take place?
////Let's take the problem with the right way.If people need 7 corns,jimmy will produce seven corns.

Question Three: Transitions between Capitalism and Communism?

If the transition were to take place today, how would you make the current "rich" (anyone earning above the state maximum) be able to pay off his or her loans for a nice house, car, etc. Would these objects be confiscated by the government?
////No ownership.everything controlled by the state,which is controlled by people.

Question Four: Private investment overseas?

Would citizens of the country be able to invest their money in overseas ventures, ones that aren't inside of the current practicing socialist country, or would you restrict investment to government-controlled firms?
////No investment in other countries by citizens.By the state ok.

Question Five: Would wages be distributed by the work completed, or the hours that the worker works?
Wage distributed by the work completed.

If someone works twice as fast as someone else, will they need to put in the same hours as the person that works at a slower speed, or is it determined by a production requirement?
///When his required production is finished,the guy can choose to do whatever he wants or to work for more money.

Would overtime be paid to workers that do more than they're requested to do?
///Yes,of course.

---------

Okay, I may add some more questions later...I think these five cover just about everything in my mind as of now.

////Citizens gotta have the power and be aware and involved in the different issues.For areas asking competition,a 2 state-owned companies system could be set(for military issues for example)

 

[Vrylakas]

O man, every time one of these threads pops up Cornmaster and I lock horns. Ah, but our beloved Corn has wandered off.

Hotdog Fish wrote:

Mein Kampt was Hitler's diary, the Das Kapital is an overview of (original) marixism, there's a diffrence.

Mein Kampf ("My Struggle") was a rambling testimony of Hitler's ideas. It wasn't a diary, it was a very juvenile attempt at political and cultural theory, dictated by Hitler when he was in prison after the failed Kapp Putsch. Some speculate that there may have been a ghost writer as well, perhaps Hess himself (who took Hitler's dictation) but I don't see the point in speculating because the final product was a pathetic mess anyway. It's famous because of what its author did later, not for its own impact.

Das Kapital was an exhaustive critique of 19th century English industrial society, from which Marx and Engels extrapolated universally-applicable laws that are supposed to be relevant today. (Please note my sarcasm.) Ironically, Marx eventually claimed that Britain and the U.S. would never see a communist revolution, instead reforming themselves to the wonderful communist utopia.

 

[amadeus]

Damien, you're not exactly winning many over with the authoritarian government control over the economy. It'd help if you stated whether you are for or against this kind of system.

Concerning the corn scenario, what happens if there are bad storms or something interferes with the crop production? Does that mean some people don't eat for a month?

 

[Baleog]

Isn't question 5 irrelevant to this thread? Surely the same queestion can be asked and anwsered similarily in all government forms?

It's just you've worded the question to make it fit your opinion of communism.

Simlilarily someone could ask of capitalism

"Question Five: Would wages be "payed" by the work completed, or the hours that the worker works?

If someone works twice as fast as someone else, will they need to put in the same hours as the person that works at a slower speed, or is it determined by a production requirement? "

Note that the only difference in the communist question and the capitalist question is the use of the word distributed/payed.

Does that make sense?

 

[Fez_Monk]

I want to hear what the die hard commies, like ComradeDavo and Corn have to say, before I pass my final judgement on ''democratic communism''.

 

[Damien]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Damien, you're not exactly winning many over with the authoritarian government control over the economy. It'd help if you stated whether you are for or against this kind of system.

Concerning the corn scenario, what happens if there are bad storms or something interferes with the crop production? Does that mean some people don't eat for a month?

I don't call it undemocratic,benefits would be retristributed depending on what one would have produced.
And if there's a bad recolt on alllll the country,let's raise more taxes to buy foreign food.

 

[Fez_Monk]

Originally posted by Damien


I don't call it undemocratic,benefits would be retristributed depending on what one would have produced.
And if there's a bad recolt on alllll the country,let's raise more taxes to buy foreign food.

It might be democratic, but you can't change my mind about taxes, which are theft.

Besides, democracy doesn't = good. The United States is a democracy(influenced by the Swiss system too), and for a time, many of its inhabitants were legally slaves.

 

[Damien]

I found ur threads com1 n com2 y didn't re-launch com1 instead of launching com2 and then com3?

 

[dannyevilcat]

Well, after reading this, I went to the Communist Party of Canada webpage and browsed through their Party program. Here's what I found reguarding your questions:

Question One: Single or multi-party state?

Our party advocates the formation of a multi-party government of those political forces that agree on the achievement and building of a socialist society. In such a multi-party government, all parties willing to participate in building socialism would make their contribution, and opposition parties too could make a positive contribution providing they abide by the laws and the socialist constitution

Question Two: Centrally-planned economy?

The socialist government will enact the social ownership of the economy’s financial and industrial sectors, lands and resources and transportation and communications.

The functioning of the economy will require that small and medium non-monopoly businesses continue to operate for some time as part of the overall economic plan, under a variety of forms of property and of production, under conditions established by the socialist government. In addition to state enterprises and private enterprise, there will be producers’ and consumers’ cooperatives and, where conditions warrant, joint state-and-private enterprises

The individual ownership by working people of personal possessions, homes and cottages, pensions, savings and insurance policies will be guaranteed. The Canadian people themselves will decide, in the light of circumstances, on any compensation for the expropriated property of big capitalists.

By removing the heavy toll exacted by the capitalist class in the form of profit, rent and interest, and parasitic speculation, and by eliminating the tremendous waste caused by military production and wars, economic crises, overproduction, planned obsolescence of consumer goods, unemployment, cut-throat rivalry, and competitive advertising, the socialist state will place at the disposal of society huge amounts of previously wasted resources.

Under socialism, the creation of social wealth has only one objective - to further the interests of the people, by raising living standards, improving and extending social services and unleashing the cultural forces now stifled by corporate domination.

Question Three: Transitions between Capitalism and Communism?

Ample historical evidence testifies to the fact that reactionary capitalist forces will not give up their power and privilege voluntarily. They will try to halt the democratic process. The danger will inevitably arise of capitalist violence against the socialist state and the expressed will of the majority of the people. This cannot be overlooked except at severe cost. The working class and its allies, when they achieve socialist power, will be justified in using the power and authority of the state to protect the democratic will of the majority against the minority, who will strive to restore their lost positions. The nature of the laws and measures enacted to protect working class power will depend on the amount of resistance that the reactionary capitalist elements offer to socialist law and order.

The peaceful transition to socialism, which is desirable, depends not only on the wishes of the people but on the relationship of forces at the time. The maximum unity and single-minded purpose of the people, the united participation of the widest masses of the working class in political struggle and the forging of unity with the small producers (farmers, fishers and artisans) and with the middle strata of the population will be crucial to withstand and paralyze capitalist violence and political reaction. The working class must be ready to use all forms of struggle to combat capital’s inevitable resistance to social progress.

Question Four: Private investment overseas?

dannyevilcat: Nothing specific that I could find, but I do know they want no part of NAFTA, WTO, etc.

Question Five: Would wages be distributed by the work completed, or the hours that the worker works?

dannyevilcat: Again, couldn't find anything.