Communism III

[Graeme the mad]

Just a minor point vryklas
'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'

Hitler was put in prison after the kapp putsch but not because of it - the Kapp putsch was led by wolfgang Kapp and was by the freikorp. Hitler was jailed because of the Munich Putsch

I dont think communism can work part from on a small scale (kabutz or however you spell it)

 

[Pongui]

What I do, in my puny way, about

"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?"

is to simply do no business with people whom I think are grossly profiting at the expense of others. If they're selling, I buy elsewhere. If I decide a potential client is capitalist-at-heart, then I work elsewhere. People who's aspiration in life is to control more wealth should be noted and ostrasized by the people who are focussed on work as an end in itself. Of course that's easier when a worker can't keep up with demand, and doesn't want to hypocritically raise prices.

Another thing I do is to lower my price or work harder for people I respect, and people who haven't much money.

I don't know if that's the path to communism. I like to think so, though I can't say why, since my understanding of communism is vague. Anyway, getting there is half the fun.

 

[ComradeDavo]

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?

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.

1) In a truely democratic society there is no need for political parties. This is type of of Utopian idea I hope one day to see.

2)from each according to their ability, to each according there need.

example of my Utopian ideal: say I worked in a shoe shop, making shoes. In return for making these shows I would get everything I need, from luxury goods (such as the latest copy of civ for example ) to food.

3)The transaction can not take place today, I, as a communist, belive that this transaction will take hundreds of years. Marx himself set to timescale for such transaction, he merly stated that it would happen. The transaction would be gradual, issues such as you highlighted would be no longer relevant after a couple of genrations. As for the rich.....well, the bourgeoius (spelling?) as a class would cease to exist. Marx say there would be a peroid of 'working-class' dictatorship by the prolotelriant (spelling?).....think Cuba, to resist invetiable counter reveloution from the bourgeoius. This can be intrprted in many different ways, most poeple think of the Soviet union when it comes to communist reveloution, where the communists were actually split between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. I myself would have fallen into the Menshevik catorgary......whilst it is the Bolsheviks who took power. personally I dislike the Bolshevik's style and hate the idea of a communist dictator (think Stalin). With Cuba today I can understand why Castro rules has he does because of the sheer proximity to the USA.

4) there is no need for private investment in a Utopian society

5)yet again, from each according to their ability, to each according there need.

there is no need for wages in a utopian society

Of course, I do not see such an society existing any time soon, but as a communist I do wish to help put the first steps to such society in motion.

heh, you know one day i'm going to have to sort out my crazy commie logic and get it down on paper properly so I can answer these such questions efficently rather than with this rambling mess you see here!!!

 

[Fez_Monk]

But why will the ''dictatorship(or the dictatorship over the proletariat) of the proletariat'' give up its power when the time comes?

 

[ComradeDavo]

Originally posted by Fez_Monk
But why will the ''dictatorship(or the dictatorship over the proletariat) of the proletariat'' give up its power when the time comes?

You misunderstand. When i say dictatorship I am not talking in terms of 'dicators', you must remember Marx lived in the 19th century so did not know of the likes of Stalin and Hitler and Saddam.

When I say 'dictatorship of the proletariat' I am not talking in bolshevik terms of a small select group, I am talking about the Menshevik principal of workers councils ect. The dictatorship, so siad, is to resist the bourgeoius counter reveloutionaries. Ideally this would not last long, but modern day terms (as we have seen with Cuba) outside influence (the USA) means that this is not possible and we end up with situation of a Dicator

The ideal of such dictatorship would be that the working - classes in power whilst the principals of class divison are broken down.

I am strongly oppoised to the soviet style of rule.

hard to explaiin how I interpret this Marxist principle, but I can can tell you my interpretations of Marx are very different to those of people such as Lenin, as I have said, the whole Bolshevik - Menshevik thing is a prime example of how communists differer from each other.

 

[knowltok2]

To those who give the worker extra for working harder or longer, isn't that the start of capitalism? Are there laws against loaning out that extra and charging for it? Comradedavo handles this appropriately with the no wages thing, from a communist perspective.

I however say this to the comrade: "We have determined that your job as a shoemaker and your position of being single with no kids does not generate the required stress to qualify for the latest release of CIV4. We thank you for your production according to your ability, but have determined that you only need a used copy of Age of Empires. Sincerely, The Workers' Council on Luxury Items.

 

[amadeus]

ComradeDavo, your "utopian" society has flaws. What if someone lives on a farm 25 miles from the nearest marketplace? Will he have to give up some luxuries in order to survive?

Second, there would be a need for politics and a head of state, an individual state must have a government body to recognize, and a national defense to maintain a standard of living. How do you propose you do that?

Third, how would you regulate production to "one's needs?" If someone produces twice as many crops, and offers the crops at a lower "price" (exchange) for goods, isn't that farmer more likely to get more exchanges for better goods?

Communism, Davo, under your system sounds like the East German system. Keep prices at artificial rates, regardless of one's production. This ultimately hurts the consumer.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
ComradeDavo, your "utopian" society has flaws. What if someone lives on a farm 25 miles from the nearest marketplace? Will he have to give up some luxuries in order to survive?

Second, there would be a need for politics and a head of state, an individual state must have a government body to recognize, and a national defense to maintain a standard of living. How do you propose you do that?

Third, how would you regulate production to "one's needs?" If someone produces twice as many crops, and offers the crops at a lower "price" (exchange) for goods, isn't that farmer more likely to get more exchanges for better goods?

Communism, Davo, under your system sounds like the East German system. Keep prices at artificial rates, regardless of one's production. This ultimately hurts the consumer.

If they live on a farm 25 miles from a fireplace then they can have a car to go to the marketpalce.......

-there are no states in my ideal Utopian society

-Your thinking of capatilism with the farmer thing

-there are no prices in 'my' sytstem.

-East german..hehehe you are joking right?

rmsharp, the reason you will never understand communism is because you are a capatilist. To put it bluntly. you are looking at it in all the wrong ways, you are going by past examples of communism....my communism is based on my interpretations of Marx and, most importantly of all, my own views.

however say this to the comrade: "We have determined that your job as a shoemaker and your position of being single with no kids does not generate the required stress to qualify for the latest release of CIV4. We thank you for your production according to your ability, but have determined that you only need a used copy of Age of Empires. Sincerely, The Workers' Council on Luxury Items.

In 'my' utopian society, if you work a reasonable amount, and as long as you don't go round commiting crime, then you would qualify for whatever luxury item you wanted, be it civ 4 or a nice holiday.

besides, in 400 years time tchonology will have come on alot, and i reckojn this will will greatly reduce the need for work (machines doing it and all) so people will, say, only have to work half as much as they do now, so they get alot more time to enjoy lifes goodness. hey it's 'my' Utopia, I get to choose what goes on!! j/k

 

[Fez_Monk]

Originally posted by ComradeDavo


besides, in 400 years time tchonology will have come on alot, and i reckojn this will will greatly reduce the need for work (machines doing it and all) so people will, say, only have to work half as much as they do now, so they get alot more time to enjoy lifes goodness. hey it's 'my' Utopia, I get to choose what goes on!! j/k

You sound a helluva lot like an anarcho-communist

 

[ComradeDavo]

Originally posted by Fez_Monk



You sound a helluva lot like an anarcho-communist

I got board of all these labels recently, i just go for the nice and simple 'communist' at the moment. I'm an idealist youth
I gues i am kinda a anarcho-communist though

 

[Graeme the mad]

'then you would qualify for whatever luxury item you wanted, be it civ 4 or a nice holiday. '

Not quite sure how this would work - surely people have to make these luxury items therefore the amount is limited.
therefore How many luxuries does each person get - or are luxuries assigned a value on a points system (say 500 points for a holiday, 20 points for a copy of civ4) and each person given a set number of points.
I cant think of anyother way it would work

 

[ComradeDavo]

Originally posted by Graeme the mad
'then you would qualify for whatever luxury item you wanted, be it civ 4 or a nice holiday. '

Not quite sure how this would work - surely people have to make these luxury items therefore the amount is limited.
therefore How many luxuries does each person get - or are luxuries assigned a value on a points system (say 500 points for a holiday, 20 points for a copy of civ4) and each person given a set number of points.
I cant think of anyother way it would work

as I have said, this communist utopia I invision would take many years to bring about, i'm sure in 200-300 years time technological advancements would make issues such as the amount being produced irrelavant. When I think about communism I think in the long, long term!!!

As for the point system - if there was a shortage of luxurie items for soem reason then everyone would get an equal number of points to spend, though perhaps those in very stressfull jobs (I will not go as far as to mention any in particular) would get preference when it comes to holidays, meaning they would get longer off of work.

 

[amadeus]

Sounds like state-controlled capitalism, Davo.

"If you have job X, we'll give you this."

 

[ComradeDavo]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Sounds like state-controlled capitalism, Davo.

"If you have job X, we'll give you this."

Ummm...not really....

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by ComradeDavo
...perhaps those in very stressfull jobs (I will not go as far as to mention any in particular) would get preference when it comes to holidays, meaning they would get longer off of work.

...? I fail to see how I'm wrong here.

 

[Switch625]

Originally posted by ComradeDavo


Ummm...not really....

Yeah, really. If you deviate at all from everyone being absolutely equal, do you not invalidate your ideals?

 

[Graeme the mad]

Comrade davo you are talking about a time when there is no economic problem - scarcity is no longer an issue and therefore capitalism (or communism) is unessecary, however this situation does not exist and shows no sign of existing soon.
How will all this work right now?

 

[ComradeDavo]

Originally posted by Graeme the mad
Comrade davo you are talking about a time when there is no economic problem - scarcity is no longer an issue and therefore capitalism (or communism) is unessecary, however this situation does not exist and shows no sign of existing soon.
How will all this work right now?

It wouldn't. I've siad it before and i'll say it agian, marx himself gave no specific timescale for this and as i said earlier 'The transaction can not take place today, I, as a communist, believe that this transaction will take hundreds of years. ' what i mean is that I am thinking in the ling, long, LONG!! term!

rmsharpe you are clutching at straws!!! it is nothing like capatilism at all!!

If you deviate at all from everyone being absolutely equal, do you not invalidate your ideals?

I fail to see where I deviated......perhaps you misunderstood....stress levels have nothing to do with equality

'from each accroding to their ability, to each according to their need'

people with high stress levels need time off work to relax to keep their lifes unstressfull so they can do their job to the best of their ability!

 

[amadeus]

What if someone has a chemical imbalance, where jobs that may seem mundane to you and I, and could easily be performed by us, are not eas easily performed by someone else?

Does that mean that the disadvantaged McDonald's worker gets more time off than his co-workers?

 

[ComradeDavo]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
What if someone has a chemical imbalance, where jobs that may seem mundane to you and I, and could easily be performed by us, are not eas easily performed by someone else?

Does that mean that the disadvantaged McDonald's worker gets more time off than his co-workers?

errr.....i don't understand that first sentance..you worded strange!

Chemical imbalanced workers...did you nerve staple them or something??

There is no McDonalds in my ideal communist society

umm...if the worker had a legitimate reason, then yeah sure they get more time off, coz they need it.

'from each accroding to their ability, to each according to their need' and all that