I Have A Question About The Dialectic of History According to Marxists

The reason every communist state gas failed is because you have to seize assetsiff people.

Which by default is going to involve killing people on amass scale which destabilizes your regime.

Only way Communism works is small scale communes where every in them Essentially volunteers.

To implement communism large scale by default you need to resort to wide spread violence.

That's it's big flaw.
 
If this is true, would the following also be true:
"Those who are uncomfortable under the current system are not inclined to see its benefits."

It certainly could be true. Interestingly, of course, Marx himself was pretty clear on the benefits of capitalism.

I’d like to suggest that the household is the practice of everyday capitalism, with households effectively structured as a corporation. :mischief:

Which is an interesting argument to make considering that, as you admit in the rest of the post, corporations are in fact devices of economic planning that protect individuals from the vagaries of the market.
To say that, in its interactions with the external world, the household or the corporation is practicing capitalism is simply to observe that we live under capitalism. The question is about the internal dynamics of the organization.

Everyday communism: As opposed to what? Theoretical communism?

Correct. Families (and firms!) hold resources in common. This is communism.

default condition of the human species: What is that? When is that?

The arrangements under which all humans lived for the large majority of the time period in which human species have existed.

Commerce: Trade? Exchange of goods? Money?

The best definition of commerce is probably impersonal exchange, where what matters is the deal and not who I'm making the deal with.


[Sid Meier voice] You have discovered polemic writing.

The reason every communist state gas failed is because you have to seize assetsiff people.

You are posting from an entire country stolen from its native inhabitants by capitalist Europeans.

Anyway, to paraphrase Maggie T, the reason capitalism is going to fail is that sooner or later you run out of other people's coastline to inundate with your carbon emissions.
 
Which is an interesting argument to make considering that, as you admit in the rest of the post, corporations are in fact devices of economic planning that protect individuals from the vagaries of the market.
Getting into the territory of the exceptionally broad, any and every conscious act is planned.

This is not protection from a market, but effectively a market force of time at work; it is possible to quantify every last material object, but we as people function as very good calculators and tend towards a rational allocation of time expended.
 
Getting into the territory of the exceptionally broad, any and every conscious act is planned.

This is not protection from a market, but effectively a market force of time at work; it is possible to quantify every last material object, but we as people function as very good calculators and tend towards a rational allocation of time expended.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_planning#In_capitalism

Meanwhile, I'll just respond to the idea that people "tend towards a rational allocation of time expended" by pointing out that you literally posted this on CFC and I'm replying on CFC. Posting "people tend toward a rational allocation of time expended" on an anonymous internet discussion board is the most literally self-refuting assertion imaginable.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_planning#In_capitalism

Meanwhile, I'll just respond to the idea that people "tend towards a rational allocation of time expended" by pointing out that you literally posted this on CFC and I'm replying on CFC. Posting "people tend toward a rational allocation of time expended" on an anonymous internet discussion board is the most literally self-refuting assertion imaginable.
From my perspective it entirely is a rational allocation of time: I received x units of fun reading and replying to these posts. :)
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_planning#In_capitalism

Meanwhile, I'll just respond to the idea that people "tend towards a rational allocation of time expended" by pointing out that you literally posted this on CFC and I'm replying on CFC. Posting "people tend toward a rational allocation of time expended" on an anonymous internet discussion board is the most literally self-refuting assertion imaginable.
Not really, it's pretty subjective, either self derogatory and/or quite insulting to other posters...

EDIT: just saw @Kyriakos lazy post, so i changed my mind....
 
Last edited:
It certainly could be true. Interestingly, of course, Marx himself was pretty clear on the benefits of capitalism.



Which is an interesting argument to make considering that, as you admit in the rest of the post, corporations are in fact devices of economic planning that protect individuals from the vagaries of the market.
To say that, in its interactions with the external world, the household or the corporation is practicing capitalism is simply to observe that we live under capitalism. The question is about the internal dynamics of the organization.



Correct. Families (and firms!) hold resources in common. This is communism.



The arrangements under which all humans lived for the large majority of the time period in which human species have existed.



The best definition of commerce is probably impersonal exchange, where what matters is the deal and not who I'm making the deal with.



[Sid Meier voice] You have discovered polemic writing.



You are posting from an entire country stolen from its native inhabitants by capitalist Europeans.

Anyway, to paraphrase Maggie T, the reason capitalism is going to fail is that sooner or later you run out of other people's coastline to inundate with your carbon emissions.

Taking land off others doesn't lead to a failed state that's just old fashioned imperialism/conquest.

It's a bit different when you start murdering your own people en masse.
 
Relevant article about Xi and changes in China:

Xi’s ‘Common Prosperity’ Will Be Put to the Test

Investors had, over the past 30 years, grown so accustomed to ignoring rhetoric about communism from nominally communist China that a leader firmly putting equality at the heart of his economic agenda has caused more than a little heartburn. The Oct. 15 release of a fuller transcript of President Xi Jinping’s mid-August remarks on “common prosperity” therefore piqued considerable interest.

The publication in the party’s theoretical journal, “Seeking Truth,” appears partly aimed at reassuring investors and entrepreneurs spooked by novel language about “rationally adjusting” excessive incomes in the original mid-August readout of Mr. Xi’s speech, which came at the height of Beijing’s campaign to rein in its internet giants. The expanded remarks still contain such language, but the tone and structure contain some marked differences. Mr. Xi forcefully addresses entrepreneurship right near the top, saying that “common prosperity depends on hard work” and innovation and that law-abiding entrepreneurs should be particularly encouraged. The newly released remarks also warn about the dangers of “welfarism” and government dependence— language that was absent from the original readout.

In theory, there is a fair amount for investors to like here: most important, it shows that Mr. Xi understands the importance of incentives— and that the rapidly escalating regulatory campaign over the past year risks damaging entrepreneurship. The speech also fits with Beijing’s long standing skepticism about big outlays for social services, as opposed to infrastructure or carrots for businesses like cheap land. Notably, China’s countercyclical policy in the initial months of the coronavirus out- break focused on loan forbearance for businesses rather than direct income support for households, as in the West.

The overall message appears to be that the policy pendulum will move more toward equality: higher taxes and more pressure to donate for high-income individuals, moderately higher spending on social programs and education and tougher antimonopoly enforcement in some areas. But that isn’t the same as a huge expansion of China’s welfare state or confiscatory economic policies.

The problem, of course, is that this is all happening in the lead-up to the 20th Party Congress next fall. Mr. Xi’s bid for an unprecedented third term at China’s helm would presumably be strengthened by showing he has solutions to festering problems such as inequality, unaffordable housing and the high cost of child-rearing. The capricious manner in which certain industries and companies have been treated also has a strong political flavor.

While there had been warning signs about the private tutoring industry for some time, the virtual decapitation of the sector overnight— and its overseas listed companies— still sent a very strong signal of uncertainty and vulnerability. Likewise, despite some legitimate criticisms of Ant Group’s business model, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the company’s abrupt fall from grace was related to Jack Ma’s very public criticism of some of Mr. Xi’s signature policies.

It is often said that the U.S. stock market prefers a divided government because, although inertia and ossification cause problems, it is at least predictable—and better than unchecked regulatory overreach. Likewise China’s consensus-based model of elite governance ushered in by Deng Xiaoping created many problems—among them pollution and corruption—but was also reasonably predictable and responsive to different economic interest groups.

For better or worse, those days are over. Whether that change will result in the common prosperity that Mr. Xi envisions remains to be seen.

—Nathaniel Taplin The overall message appears to be that the policy pendulum will move toward equality.
 
It certainly could be true. Interestingly, of course, Marx himself was pretty clear on the benefits of capitalism.
To add, Marx was quite an admirer of capitalism; remarking on multiple occasions that we had 2000 years of feudalism, but a mere century of capitalism gave us the streetcar and electric lighting. It was just to him the accumulative part of capitalism was unsustainable and effectively unreformable.
 
Relevant article about Xi and changes in China:

Xi’s ‘Common Prosperity’ Will Be Put to the Test

He will have convenient targets to blame if the wheels fall off. Inequality is huge problem in China along with potential economic collapse from their real estate scam I mean Ponzi scheme, I mean sector.
 
Getting into the territory of the exceptionally broad, any and every conscious act is planned.

This is not protection from a market, but effectively a market force of time at work; it is possible to quantify every last material object, but we as people function as very good calculators and tend towards a rational allocation of time expended.
A limited stock corporation, as opposed to other organisational structures, is totally to protect the owners from liability while allowing them to extract profit.
 
If the true costs of emitting CO2 were properly borne by the emitters, we would be living in a pre-industrial world because no one would ever have invested in a coal-powered engine in the first place.

So what would Communism's solution be? To return us to a pre-industrial world, or take the time and capital to make long term technological investments that change industry to have net zero carbon emissions?
 
A limited stock corporation, as opposed to other organisational structures, is totally to protect the owners from liability while allowing them to extract profit.
True, but I think that’s a separate animal from what I was talking about with not quantifying every single transaction.

What I mean is that seemingly non-market transactions still happen within the context of markets; the calculations performed as such, we determine that it simply isn’t worth it to try and assess these things because of their minuscule impacts. These could be fractions of fractions of pennies—for instance, I still pay the same price for groceries at the store even when I don’t use a shopping cart, but the carts need to be maintained and the wheels might scuff the floor, and so on. Could the store give me a discount for using less of their resources? Could they charge a premium on people who use the carts? Yes, but the costs are greater than any potential benefit.

That these things are not quantified in the marketplace doesn’t mean to me that it could be upscaled to all levels of production and distribution.
 
So what would Communism's solution be?

That's a good question. My solution, and I have no idea whether it's "Communism's" or not, is to have the federal government make large investments in green energy, mass transit, building energy efficiency, and so on.

What I mean is that seemingly non-market transactions still happen within the context of markets; the calculations performed as such, we determine that it simply isn’t worth it to try and assess these things because of their minuscule impacts.

Except, of course, the items distributed in firms include not just staplers and pencils but expensive machines, computers, and other things that are absolutely not "minuscule" in their impacts.

Similarly with a family: all the food required to keep a child alive for eighteen years or more is not a trivial impact.
 
Except, of course, the items distributed in firms include not just staplers and pencils but expensive machines, computers, and other things that are absolutely not "minuscule" in their impacts.
Yes. I thought I'd mentioned it yesterday, that some items will be budgeted individually and others only in aggregate, but apparently I didn't. Oversight! :)
 
That's a good question. My solution, and I have no idea whether it's "Communism's" or not, is to have the federal government make large investments in green energy, mass transit, building energy efficiency, and so on.
But is that communism, or even socialism? I stopped considering myself a 'socialist' when I finally realized that funding healthcare and schools, a cradle-to-grave safety net, financial regulation, and a national economic and industrial policy is not necessarily 'socialism'. (At the very least, it would make much of the post-war European right socialists, which would definitely be a shock to them!)
 
But is that communism, or even socialism?
Problems like climate change, which require global coordinated effort, should be easier to solve in society not divided by multiple states.
A lot of resources which are currently spent on military, could be put to better use elsewhere.
 
Top Bottom