Best Friends posted:Because unless the socialist society exists with perfect efficiency, there will be profit to be found, and so combating profit seeking will be about as difficult as combating premarital sex. States that have attempted the latter in the modern era require secret police and so I suspect the former will as well. In contrast, a liberal state does not need to crack down on sharing. How are you defining "profit"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 08:02 |
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:You can't be a capitalist when you can't own any capital - private ownership of capital is something that is enforced by the state through various institutions including the legal system and the institutionalized violence of the police and prison system. To prevent capitalism: just don't do that. Someone with a garden selling food out of a stand on the side of the road, a mechanic fixing a neighbors car after hours in exchange for some money or barter, etc. Would these be allowed then? And if not allowed, people are going to do that anyway, because just like an engine can never be perfectly efficient, neither can an economy. There will always be little inefficiencies people can make some money on, and they will unless their needs are perfectly satisfied (see again, no perfect efficiency). Effectronica posted:How are you defining "profit"? Anytime someone gets value in a trade of above their own costs and expenses, including time as expense, would be what I'd go with here. The mechanic values the time spent fixing someone's car after hours less than they value what that someone will give them in money or barter, so they have profited.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 21:52
|
|
Best Friends posted:Someone with a garden selling food out of a stand on the side of the road, a mechanic fixing a neighbors car after hours in exchange for some money or barter, etc. Would these be allowed then? And if not allowed, people are going to do that anyway, because just like an engine can never be perfectly efficient, neither can an economy. There will always be little inefficiencies people can make some money on, and they will unless their needs are perfectly satisfied (see again, no perfect efficiency). Okay, so, that's not prohibited. Making money is perfectly compatible with socialism. Working overtime is also probably fine, but would be ideally discouraged for health reasons, using similar means to those used to encourage it now.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 21:54
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:You don't try to build communism unless you have socialism first. A communist dictatorship is impossible according to the Marxist definition of communism, which includes statelessness. Historical "communist parties" claim to seek to be working towards communism, but do so through socialist economic policies. I think this is a weak statement, and at the very least needs to be expanded upon. Political Marxism as espoused by Karl Marx involves violent overthrow of the system of social relations and then an enforced transitionary period in which private property is abolished. Wikipedia is sufficient to make this point: Karl Marx posted:Long before me, bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this struggle between the classes, as had bourgeois economists their economic anatomy. My own contribution was (1) to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production; (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; [and] (3) that this dictatorship, itself, constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society Wikipedia posted:Marx expanded upon his ideas about the dictatorship of the proletariat in his short 1875 work, Critique of the Gotha Program, a scathing criticism and attack on the principles laid out in the programme of the German Workers' Party (predecessor to the SPD). The programme presented a moderate, evolutionary way to socialism, as opposed to revolutionary, violent approach of the "orthodox" Marxists. As result the latter accused the Gotha program as being "revisionist" and ineffective. The idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat has always been core to subsequent communist movements as a stepping-off point to literal dictatorship, and here Marx deserves at least some criticism. He's always very hazy about the best way to move from the dictatorship step to the communist stateless step, even if he is realistic about the difficulties. Marx's questionable work in this area has provided some of the biggest piles of ammunition for later and more violent thinkers. In a sense the Marxian commune that acts as the dictatorship of the proletariat is democratic socialism (for him the Paris Commune is a good example), but only after the violent overthrow of capitalism shatters it. For Marx this is truly indispensable. You are also working under the assumption that the communist movements believed they were immanentizing the eschaton, which is not necessarily the case. Lenin did not regard the USSR in which he lived as the actualisation of the socialist/communist ideal. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Feb 11, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:You can't be a capitalist when you can't own any capital - private ownership of capital is something that is enforced by the state through various institutions including the legal system and the institutionalized violence of the police and prison system. To prevent capitalism: just don't do that. De facto capital control can exist absent de jure capital control.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 21:57
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:You can't be a capitalist when you can't own any capital - private ownership of capital is something that is enforced by the state through various institutions including the legal system and the institutionalized violence of the police and prison system. To prevent capitalism: just don't do that. The manner of enforcement of proprietary obligation would change, nothing else. The USSR is the most obvious example of how this thinking can go wrong - the upheaval and chaos it wrought in the form of scarcity and wholly inadequate economic distribution created selfishness where it had not previously existed, as people had to learn how to behave in a utilitarian individualist way to get by much more often. Property is socially constructed, not merely legally constructed. Also, and back on the topic of Marxism (and away from this), Marx only believes in the abolition of private property; he still believes in a concept of personal property. Items that are of uniquely intrinsic value to you, like your family photographs, are considered to be still owned by you.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:The manner of enforcement of proprietary obligation would change, nothing else. The USSR is the most obvious example of how this thinking can go wrong - the upheaval and chaos it wrought in the form of scarcity and wholly inadequate economic distribution created selfishness where it had not previously existed, as people had to learn how to behave in a utilitarian individualist way to get by much more often. What is the control in this sense, Tsarist Russia? I can assure you scarcity and inadequate economic distribution existed in Tsarist Russia to an even greater extent. If you want to say during the 1980s people got more individualistic as the lines grew, fine but then you are comparing the USSR to itself not some time of state before the"upheaval and chaos." If you want historical examples, you need to go in or otherwise it just sounds like empty rhetoric that may fool people who have no knowledge of Russian history but not ones who do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:De facto capital control can exist absent de jure capital control.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Why would it need to be substantially different from a liberal state that needs to maintain capitalism? Well first socialism represents a pretty significant upheaval compared to say the American Revolution. Second, socialism takes all (or a lot) of the power that exists in the bucket labeled "market" and dumps it into the bucket labeled "government". In the soviet model for example the state had sweeping power over every facet of life. Central economies represent centralized power by definition. It's the combination of these two which produce high risks. Nintendo Kid posted:De facto capital control can exist absent de jure capital control. There are always going to be guys controlling vast amounts of capital with incentive to use it for personal gain. Socialism doesn't change this reality, it alters the management structure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 22:14
|
|
asdf32 posted:Well first socialism represents a pretty significant upheaval compared to say the American Revolution. Okay, so you don't do that, and instead rely on things like cooperatives and syndicates and trade unions instead to decentralize matters. Still socialism!
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Okay, so you don't do that, and instead rely on things like cooperatives and syndicates and trade unions instead to decentralize matters. Still socialism! Hell, Marxist-Leninism allowed the opening for private business as well and effectively some type of private property (for a while at least).
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 22:17
|
|
Ardennes posted:If you want to say during the 1980s people got more individualistic as the lines grew, fine but then you are comparing the USSR to itself not some time of state before the"upheaval and chaos." Well one can account for Tsarist Russia by way of its pre-modernity. Additionally, in Tsarist Russia the selfishness is not as much of a paradox with the official ideology of the state, but that would not account for my choice of wording that implies more selfishness as such. The best example of this is indeed the end period of the Soviet Union and then the break period in to severe, dysfunctional and stark crony capitalism. But I think a similar argument could be made for the Stalinist agrarian collectivisation period we have just spoken about. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Feb 11, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I think this is a weak statement, and at the very least needs to be expanded upon. I don't disagree with any of this. My post was just a clarification since I saw posts talking about "communist dictatorships" and equating the USSR with communism. Also in my reading of Marx he comes off as very much pro-democracy ("democracy is the road to socialism" etc). The term "Dictatorship of the proletariat" in contrast to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is also not that complicated to grasp, and is only ever taken to mean "totalitarian state dictatorship" by people who don't understand any of it anyway. Nintendo Kid posted:De facto capital control can exist absent de jure capital control. Disinterested posted:Property is socially constructed, not merely legally constructed. Both these things are true, but it's much, much harder to break a strike and prevent your employees from occupying your factory when you have only "de facto" control over the means of production and don't have a state backing your interests with the threat of violence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Well one can account for Tsarist Russia by way of its pre-modernity. I would say if anything it was in a transitional phase, and failing badly at it. Capitalism simply was not working. quote:Additionally, in Tsarist Russia the selfishness is not as much of a paradox with the official ideology of the state, but that would not account for my choice of wording that implies more selfishness as such. In this sense though, even Tsarist Russia theoretically based on its heavily Christian emphasis was also paradoxical. If there is a comparably more selfishness you would have to show it. quote:
Stark crony capitalism itself was a designed system, it wasn't simply a result of the Soviet experience. American advisers were over there helping "design" the transition and rubber stamping it. I think you largely have a largely ahistorical understanding of Russian history and that is feeding your ideological viewpoint (or vice-versa). This thread is basically a Russian history thread, so it better be done right. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Feb 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 22:23
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:I don't disagree with any of this. My post was just a clarification since I saw posts talking about "communist dictatorships" and equating the USSR with communism. Also in my reading of Marx he comes off as very much pro-democracy ("democracy is the road to socialism" etc). The term "Dictatorship of the proletariat" in contrast to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is also not that complicated to grasp, and is only ever taken to mean "totalitarian state dictatorship" by people who don't understand any of it anyway. No, I think you have to some degree failed to internalise the harshness of Marx's message even if you get it in general. You are also probably looking at Marx too uncritically. Firstly, democracy as road to socialism is a sentiment in Marx that could be interpreted in a more teleological sense to yours - namely, that democracy is a contingent event for the creation and development of the tensions that will violently give birth to communism. One has to consider that in the context of his utter contempt for non-revolutionary socialists and Fabians. His contempt for anarchists of the Bakuninite tradition can be accounted for in a similar way (they want to abolish the state prior to the revolution, which for Marx is utterly unscientific and wrong). A democracy dominated by a single class installed by force (even if that's what you already have in bourgeois society) is quite a complicated thing to try to justify in its own terms. Violence as an expression of democracy is very difficult to reconcile with ideas about the right of the individual (including individuals in the revolutionary movement) - and I think to describe this as merely a form of bourgeois political conception is a patronising hand-wave even when it appears in Marx (which is sometimes but not always)). Bob le Moche posted:Both these things are true, but it's much, much harder to break a strike and prevent your employees from occupying your factory when you have only "de facto" control over the means of production and don't have a state backing your interests with the threat of violence. It's very difficult to tell a story about how a society so constituted will practically function, which is probably one of the reasons why Marx doesn't really try that hard at it. His answer would be, I think, that we are too constrained by our present form of false consciousness.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
tonberrytoby posted:I don't think it can exist without breaking the state's monopoly on force. So you think capitalism prevents states from having a monopoly on force? That's... interesting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 22:36
|
|
Ardennes: I think it is more that you are reading unintended things in to what I am saying. I'd be curious to know what you think my ideological viewpoint is. Although if you have a totally non-ideological version of history to offer, I am all ears.Ardennes posted:I would say if anything it was in a transitional phase, and failing badly at it. Capitalism simply was not working. I don't disagree with this. Ardennes posted:In this sense though, even Tsarist Russia theoretically based on its heavily Christian emphasis was also paradoxical. If there is a comparably more selfishness you would have to show it. I did consider this, but I don't think the emphasis was quite the same. The promise of Marxist-Leninism is, after all, the eventual abolition of all private property and bourgeois individualist conceptions. In any event, my second sentence highlights the troublesome nature of my own choice of phrasing: 'but that would not account for my choice of wording that implies more selfishness as such.' Which I think was probably the foundational mistake in the first post of mine, which was too much of a drive-by. Ardennes posted:Stark crony capitalism itself was a designed system, it wasn't simply a result of the Soviet experience. American advisers were over there helping "design" the transition and rubber stamping it. I am entirely aware of this and don't discount it at all. Ardennes posted:I think you largely have a largely ahistorical understanding of Russian history and that is feeding your ideological viewpoint (or vice-versa). This thread is basically a Russian history thread, so it better be done right. Well then, feel free to put forward an alternative account. Do you think that the Soviet Union made people more unselfish, in general? I have already accepted the proposition that that phenomenon may vary with period and place. Ardennes posted:Hell, Marxist-Leninism allowed the opening for private business as well and effectively some type of private property (for a while at least). And, indeed, it was intended on a transitional basis (but not as transitional as it turned out). Ed: To clarify, a better version of my remark probably would have been: 'It can be the unfortunate tendency of Really Existing Communism to unwittingly encourage the kind of individualism it abhors, as people are forced to look to themselves for assistance in times of scarcity or adversity.' Here one could just as easily be talking about the opportunistic use of accusations of sedition to satisfy personal vendettas or well-documented incidences of cannibalism during famines in Ukraine or North Korea, or the incredible number of informants in the GDR. It is not my argument that this is particular to communism, it is just a stark irony that this is the kind of thing that communism has aspired to abolish for good. I think this POV is principally borrowed from Zizek, though I can't seem to remember where he says it. Or something like that. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Feb 11, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:So you think capitalism prevents states from having a monopoly on force? That's... interesting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Well then, feel free to put forward an alternative account. Do you think that the Soviet Union made people more unselfish, in general? I have already accepted the proposition that that phenomenon may vary with period and place. Depends on what period and context you are using, if we are talking about the early Soviet period versus September 1917, I think it did simply by providing some type of basic stability for the most part. Otherwise, we need to get into a counter-factual discussion of what Tsarist Russia would look like in 1980 (if it some how existed) in comparison. I don't think the Soviets ever got close to their ideological aspirations at any point, but at the same time I really only look at the Soviet Union in context to its alternatives. quote:And, indeed, it was intended on a transitional basis (but not as transitional as it turned out). Yes, and that is a honest failure of those regimes. There is something to take away from their experience but at same time, boxing in Marx for them seems short-sighted (as with any other ideology).
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 23:11
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yes, and that is a honest failure of those regimes. There is something to take away from their experience but at same time, boxing in Marx for them seems short-sighted (as with any other ideology). I'm not sure what you mean about 'boxing in Marx for them'.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
tonberrytoby posted:I think you can't have capital (in Marx sense) without state support or the state's permission to enforce your ownership using force. Then I would say that Marx's sense is defective in describing the 20th century, much less the 21st.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 23:26
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Then I would say that Marx's sense is defective in describing the 20th century, much less the 21st. It doesn't really account for the very real situation of the corporation turning in to your para-state, as for example with United Fruit. To just go down one route.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I'm not sure what you mean about 'boxing in Marx for them'. How much of Marx's critique of capitalism actually impacted by the events of the Russian Civil War?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 01:34
|
|
Ardennes posted:How much of Marx's critique of capitalism actually impacted by the events of the Russian Civil War? I still don't get the question (possibly because it's grammatically broken?).
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Then I would say that Marx's sense is defective in describing the 20th century, much less the 21st.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I still don't get the question (possibly because it's grammatically broken?). I think I am being pretty clear here, how much is Marx responsible for the failures of the Soviet Union? Considering that, how does that "responsibility" impact his critique of capitalism? Is Marx responsible for the fact that during the Russian Civil War, Bolsheviks routinely broken into the houses of peasants searching for grain? Ardennes fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Feb 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
tonberrytoby posted:I don't get what you mean here. That if his reading of marx is right, marx must be wrong. Many enterprises in the Soviet Union, as one example, ended up clearly being capital property of several high ranking owners despite not being de jure owned by them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
tonberrytoby posted:I think you can't have capital (in Marx sense) without state support or the state's permission to enforce your ownership using force. You can have capital in basically any situation other than one in which the state is able and willing to stop you enforcing your ownership using force. If the state won't enforce property rights capitalists can spend more on security (respect my property rights or get gooned). Society as a whole will be poorer because security isn't productive, and life for almost everyone is going to be more brutal and dangerous, but it'll still work. A state that enforces strong property rights is really better for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:That if his reading of marx is right, marx must be wrong. Many enterprises in the Soviet Union, as one example, ended up clearly being capital property of several high ranking owners despite not being de jure owned by them. So those capital ownership was somehow enforced without the state helping, and without the state allowing ( be it by laws or by ignoring existing laws) the owner to use force to enforce his claims directly?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
tonberrytoby posted:I don't remember what Marx directly said on the subject. They were able to directly manipulate said capital in a conventional sense as soon as the communist state disappeared, as well as controlling it for sometimes decades prior. Don't know where you think force comes into it, who was going to be able to challenge the guy in charge of each factory? The police would have kicked out people trying to attack.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:They were able to directly manipulate said capital in a conventional sense as soon as the communist state disappeared, as well as controlling it for sometimes decades prior.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
tonberrytoby posted:If the workers decided that they can just keep the parts of the profits that otherwise were going to the owners what would have happened? Workers were not entitled to do so under the Soviet system though? How did you think a tractor factory worker, for example, would keep more of the profits of their labor then they were being paid?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
What the gently caress "profits" were to be had in stalingrad tractor plant? Like, the actual tractors they were making?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:What the gently caress "profits" were to be had in stalingrad tractor plant? Plenty if you could hold it until 1992 if you wanted it in cash. Control of labor and ability to hold back some parts or even whole units and the like to trade around for certain lifestyle bonuses during the Soviet era proper. Ongoing benefits for being in charge. Surely you're not so stupid as to be unaware of the fact you could be economically and privlege-wise rewarded during the soviet era? That favors were a thing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
That's quite a bit different from "profits of your labour" in the sense most people would think of: actual cashmoney profits generated by it. Certainly the relationship between actual money wealth generated by factory floor workers in a capitalist economy doesn't line up with the privileges afforded to the bosses of a soviet factory. I mean your factory could be absolute dogshit at getting anything useful done but you're still The Boss of the Factory, with the mighty privilege of a single bed apartment and a Volga. A capitalist factory's profitability is a direct influence on if the boss can afford a Yacht. HorseLord fucked around with this message at 05:20 on Feb 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:That's quite a bit different from "profits of your labour" in the sense most people would think of: actual cashmoney profits generated by it. No poo poo sherlock. It's almost like profit from capital takes different forms under different societies! Marx would be ashamed of you. HorseLord posted:If a capitalist factory is dogshit it's going bust. Interesting seeing you buy right into a capitalist myth there buddy. You sure you aren't just a liberal?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:No poo poo sherlock. It's almost like profit from capital takes different forms under different societies! Nah, he wouldn't. Because the only "profit" in this situation is social status. I don't think Marx would be quite as upset about factory workers not getting cool titles as he was about them living in poverty. Nintendo Kid posted:Interesting seeing you buy right into a capitalist myth there buddy. You sure you aren't just a liberal? Nah, the only thing that makes a business dogshit in capitalism is being unprofitable. Doesn't say if their products are any good or even show up on time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:Nah, he wouldn't. Because the only "profit" in this situation is social status. I don't think Marx would be quite as upset about factory workers not getting cool titles as he was about them living in poverty. If you think it's only social status, than clearly you know nothing of the soviet union. This is something you just made up, and regardless it still isn't true even under your bizarre criteria.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:If you think it's only social status, than clearly you know nothing of the soviet union. I've already talked about the amazing prestige of a saloon car with vinyl seats and modest improvement in housing (equal to something someone living on 12 grand a year in england could afford! wow!). Let's also add getting to queue skip stuff. Happy now? You could, if you wanted, bring up that there were a handful of high payed people. They didn't earn a fraction of what their equivalents in capitalism earn, so I'm not really bothered. Nintendo Kid posted:This is something you just made up, and regardless it still isn't true even under your bizarre criteria. What is something I just made up? That capitalist businesses have to make a profit to survive? HorseLord fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Feb 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 08:02 |
|
|
HorseLord posted:I've already talked about the amazing prestige of a saloon car with vinyl seats and modest improvement in housing (equal to something someone living on 12 grand a year in england could afford! wow!). Let's also add getting to queue skip stuff. Happy now? That's a pretty significant material gain buddy. I'm sorry if you're so bourgeois that you don't view that as real profit. Capitalist businesses don't have to make a profit to survive. Unless you only consider The True Free Market Libertopia to be be capitalism, and not, say, the United States.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 05:32
|
|