|
Is Communism good? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
375 | 66.25% |
| No |
|
191 | 33.75% |
| Total: | 523 votes | ||
|
I don't actually think anyone seriously disagrees with Marx's analysis of Capital, they just don't like the implications. I've never actually seen someone try to suggest that ownership doesn't allow the owner to control those who do not own things in exchange for money.
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:49 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't actually think anyone seriously disagrees with Marx's analysis of Capital, they just don't like the implications. I've never actually seen someone try to suggest that ownership doesn't allow the owner to control those who do not own things in exchange for money. And lol that you still don't get why you get compared to goldbug idiots or whatever on the opposite end of the spectrum. The thing that makes you and them dumb isn't that you're wrong about everything, it's that you essentially latch onto a single thing that's right (the fed really can/does x/y/z) and sooth your troubled mind to to sleep at night by believing in a simplistic fantasy where everything good and bad revolves around that single thing. Capital is not important to the exclusion of everything else (like every other form of power).
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Capital is not important to the exclusion of everything else (like every other form of power). Relationship to capital and the means of production is literally one's relationship to what makes life viable and liveable. If I can't eat because I can't get a job or I'm not payed enough, my life is on the line and that's solely due to my relationship to capital, which is the basis of all power relations in human society.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't actually think anyone seriously disagrees with Marx's analysis of Capital, they just don't like the implications. I've never actually seen someone try to suggest that ownership doesn't allow the owner to control those who do not own things in exchange for money. People disagree about whether it would be good to abolish property and put 'the workers' somehow in control of the 'means of production.' History seems to show its bad. Also plenty of disagreement about whether or not the be-all and the end-all of dividing people into groups is 'marxist socioeconomic classes.' Societies obsessed with these categories seem to have bad outcomes. Any right-thinking person would agree that workers should have rights and also that labour should be organized to have some power like collective bargaining and striking. The aim should be to create a balance. Hasn't history shown us over and over that destruction of an imperfect society leads to a worse society than before?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:But hasn't history shown us over and over that destruction of an imperfect society leads to a worse society than before? Figures that you think, for instance, that beating the confederacy and abolishing slavery is a bad outcome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:Relationship to capital and the means of production is literally one's relationship to what makes life viable and liveable. If I can't eat because I can't get a job or I'm not payed enough, my life is on the line and that's solely due to my relationship to capital, which is the basis of all power relations in human society. Yes but if you want a better example of having no power over capital look to the soviets who did a fantastic job preventing the average person from effectively controlling it. Citizens of social democracy have multiple forms of control including states which already tax and distribute between about 30-50% it. Ownership exists. It's not the only form of power and other forms of power can be worse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:Figures that you think, for instance, that beating the confederacy and abolishing slavery is a bad outcome. sounds to me like we need to go back to feudalism and absolute monarchy
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Yes but if you want a better example of having no power over capital look to the soviets who did a fantastic job preventing the average person from effectively controlling it. The problem with the soviets was precisely that the people did not directly, collectively control the means of production. The state did and explained it away with hand-wavey bullshit about being the proxy through which they maintained ownership. Marxism-leninism was bad and poo poo, it does not encompass all possible methods of realising a communist society. Just because marxism-leninism failed does not mean there aren't other ways of realising the objective, which most agree is a desirable one even if they won't concede to its realistic viability.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:And lol that you still don't get why you get compared to goldbug idiots or whatever on the opposite end of the spectrum. I wonder if Marx might have had anything to say about the possibility of there being other forms of power than private ownership of things, and possibly even advocated for them? We will never know I'm sure, it's not like he wrote it down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I wonder if Marx might have had anything to say about the possibility of there being other forms of power than private ownership of things, and possibly even advocated for them? Who cares what marx had to say about anything though? Marx is not a great thinker he is a discredited wretch buried in the ash-heap of history. Like it's not 1917, its 2017. We have had a century to see marxism fully borne out as a blood soaked misery. "I wonder if DR Paul had something to say about this. Maybe Hayek wrote something down about it, HMM? Educate yourself, read infowars."
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
After decades of legislative and private pushes to erase any political power of labor and protect capital with measures that place it above even human life in the current state framework, how can anybody conclude that capital isn't the fundamental operating principle of the current state system of power that methodically usurps all power when given the opportunity (such as when alternative attempts to wrest power e.g. organized labor are defeated) and eliminates all competing factors from positions of access to the government.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:After decades of legislative and private pushes to erase any political power of labor and protect capital with measures that place it above even human life in the current state framework, how can anybody conclude that capital isn't the fundamental operating principle of the current state system of power that methodically usurps all power when given the opportunity (such as when alternative attempts to wrest power e.g. organized labor are defeated) and eliminates all competing factors from positions of access to the government. They've had an easy time of it because they get to be on the right side of a debate that shouldn't even happen, a debate between them and communists. Why argue against sensible center-left labor rights ideas when instead you can pick an argument you know you'll always win, every time, an argument against marxists. It's like you have to run a race for a big prize, and you get to pick between facing off against a strong runner, or some overweight slob with a sprained ankle. If you want to see it happen before your very eyes, turn them to Britain. The latest indignity from that benighted land was just today. A national restaurant chain felt so emboldened by the far-left's undermining of the sane-left that it actually put forth a program to pay its workers in sandwiches. hakimashou fucked around with this message at 04:24 on Mar 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
communism is extremely bad OP
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
Laughing at everyone seriously engaging with a concern troll in this thread
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:They've had an easy time of it because they get to be on the right side of a debate that shouldn't even happen, a debate between them and communists. What, nobody is arguing against marxists in position of power. The battle is against moderate center-left ideas, because even those can be rolled back - in absence of a concerted and dedicated opposition - in the obvious pursuit of the ultimate goal of any recent government, which is the elevation of capital to a position beyond reproach and beyond social responsibility.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:Laughing at everyone seriously engaging with a concern troll in this thread Boredom.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:What, nobody is arguing against marxists in position of power. The battle is against moderate center-left ideas, because even those can be rolled back - in absence of a concerted and dedicated opposition - in the obvious pursuit of the ultimate goal of any recent government, which is the elevation of capital to a position beyond reproach and beyond social responsibility. There is no way that fire can melt steel comrade. A marxist opposition is no opposition at all. See: Britain 2017. Marxists undermine the center-left and leave workers defenseless, because the revolution is never, ever, going to come. Also consider this real thing: Marxist College Kid: "..in the absence of a concerted and dedicated opposition - in the obvious pursuit of the ultimate goal of any recent government, which is the elevation of capital to a position beyond reproach and beyond social responsibility!" Actual Working Class Guy: "uwot m8? immigrants innit" MCK: "immigrants are working class just like you and me, we don't control capital, we live off our labour, solidarity! the bourgeoisie have as their ultimate goal which is the elevation of capital to a position beyond reproach and beyond social responsibility!" AWCG: "taking our jobs and our dole though innit, need rid of em dont we" MCK "no, weren't you listening, shut up about immigrants! the ultimate goal of any recent government, which is the elevation of capital to a position beyond reproach and beyond social responsibility!" AWCG: "fuckoff m8, tories it is." hakimashou fucked around with this message at 05:46 on Mar 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:What, nobody is arguing against marxists in position of power. The battle is against moderate center-left ideas, because even those can be rolled back - in absence of a concerted and dedicated opposition - in the obvious pursuit of the ultimate goal of any recent government, which is the elevation of capital to a position beyond reproach and beyond social responsibility. anyone with any sense in politics is arguing against marxists in positions of power actually
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
yes but I disagree on many ways to get there
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
Marx was right
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 07:41
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:At least communism is good on paper ah, actually this is not true. Communism doesn't work on paper if humans are not equally transformed to a new, completely social identity (cf Marx). Which is also why Marxism is popular with sociologists, who over-socialize actors, and unpopular with economists, who under-socialize actors (cf. Granovetter about Embededdness). In all attempts towards non-capitalism so far, humans did not transform and the predicted result from theory is something like Venezuela. pretty simple which is btw a corollary to what you think the basis of Marx is ("Capital = Power"). If capital is not the determinant, other economic power relations become relevant. All economic allocation problems still have to be solved. Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 12:00 on Mar 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 11:57
|
|
|
literally none of that is true like quote marx saying what you think he says
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 12:00
|
|
|
"Anarchism," if you can be charitable enough to describe the degenerate fever dreams of anarchists with an -ism, is even worse than communism when it comes to relying on people to somehow change their basic dispositions for it to work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 12:15
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:"Anarchism," if you can be charitable enough to describe the degenerate fever dreams of anarchists with an -ism, is even worse than communism when it comes to relying on people to somehow change their basic dispositions for it to work. And at the bottom of the pile of bad ideologies, is everything you believe in, hakimashou.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 12:56
|
|
|
rudatron posted:literally none of that is true It's literally all true. Marx though that the Proletariat had to get rid of Capitalism to develop their social potential in the exact same way that the citizens had to break with the religious class earlier to develop the bourgeoisie. He literally writes that the pure, developed human is a social being who attributes the same weight to society and is indeed fulfilled by it and hence all the issues of communism are resolved ex-ante. Just as the religious class surpressed the citizens, capital makes it impossible for workers to achieve their "true human"way. If the social conditions were achieved, the human would naturally be free to be the social beings they are. I can source the quote, but it's a very basic tenet of all his writings around the time in Paris and Cologne and underlies, in my opinon, all his ideas about the concrete organization of communism. You know that Marx wrote more than just a critique of capitalism duder
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 13:06
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:And at the bottom of the pile of bad ideologies, is everything you believe in, hakimashou. This is legit great.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 13:09
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:And at the bottom of the pile of bad ideologies, is everything you believe in, hakimashou. He doesn't actually believe in anything though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 13:19
|
|
|
Here are quotes from the 1844 manuscripts, but you will find this stuff elsewhere if you wanna look "In general, the statement that man is alienated from his species-being means that one man is alienated from another as each of them is alienated from the human essence" "Since human nature is man's true communal nature, men create and develop their communal nature by their natural action; they develop their social being which is no abstract, universal power as opposed to single individuals, but the nature of each individual, his own activity [...] but so long as man has not recognized himself as man and has not organized the world in a human way, this communal nature appears in form of alienation" "Communism is the positive abolition of private property and thus human self-alienation and therefore the real appropriation of the human essence by and for man [...] as the conscious return of man - conserving all the riches of previous development [..] as a social, ie. human, being. Communism as completed naturalism is humanism [..] It is the genuine resolution of antagonism between man and nature and between man and man. [...] The positive abolition of private property is therefore the positive abolition of all alientation, thus the return of man out of religion, family, state etc. into is human, ie. SOCIAL being.[...] The supersession of private property is therefore the complete emancipation of human senses and qualities, but it is this emancipations precisely in that these senses and qualities have become human, both subjectively and objectively. The eye has become a human eye WHEN its object has become a social, human object [...]. Need and enjoyment have thus lost their egoistic nature and nature has lost its mere utility in that its utility has become human, that is social, utility." He also states how this communal being works (and why communism would work without money and poo poo) I am to lazy to quote directly but essentially production objectifies human essence and this would be enjoyable for the person. Furthermore "in your enjoyment or use of my product I would have had the direct enjoyment of realizing that by my work I had both satisfied a human need and also objectified the human essence". The producer would be "acknowledged as a completion of ones own essence" and would thereby realize that he was "confirmed both in your thought and in your love". "My work would be a free expression of my life, and therefore a free enjoyment of my life.", "Work would thus be genuine, active property". Communism works on paper exactly when you believe that human nature is communal, that humans will realize the social needs as their own and get free and genuine expression and enjoyment by doing their work for other human beings. If this is your principle axiom, then communism works on paper. This implies that we have to change from our "alienated self", in which I for example would not be happy to clean your toilets for free (and free here means REALLY free. Free of status, free of position, free of power!), to a social self in which my utility transcends as social utility and I realize your enjoyment of a clean toilet, directly, as my enjoyment and my expression of my human essence and vice-versa. This is literally what Marx writes (except toilet cleaning). So that's the extend to how communism works on paper. If you deny that it does not involve a substantial transformation of humans to a higher, social being, you are not reading Marx right. steinrokkan posted:It says that an atomized society is a dysfunctional, diseased society. Is that controversial? Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 13:48 on Mar 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
It says that an atomized society is a dysfunctional, diseased society. Is that controversial?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
You made a claim about Marx advocating 'transforming' people, and you failed to back it up. The quotes you have are dealing with alienation and freedom from oppression, not a magical utopian transition of people into a new and different kind of people. You have no idea what you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
rudatron posted:You made a claim about Marx advocating 'transforming' people, and you failed to back it up. The quotes you have are dealing with alienation and freedom from oppression, not a magical utopian transition of people into a new and different kind of people. The quotes and the stuff below show what I was saying. End of alienation MEANS the transformation into a social being, described in detail. It says it LITERALLY right in the quotes you did not read. I am not going to copy down thousands of words, but there is a boatload of this sentiment in his writings and I am baffled that this is news to you. You either did not read those quotes, did not read the manuscripts, or any of Marx's works for that matter, or are trolling. Marx is very specific that about true human communal nature and it is a basic requirement for his third-form communism. Marx was cool&good but he was a man of his time and this was exactly the state of the art conclusion of his line of philosophical thinking at the time. I am sorry to critique your religion I guess, but maybe you wanna go ahead and read a bit more or something I dunno
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 14:15
|
|
|
The transformation is simply the recognition of one's unfulfilled potential and the structures preventing its realization. It is a major step as a social phenomenon, but not some transcendental jump as far as the individual is concerned.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Dude, if you can't answer the question just stop. Cerebral Bore posted:This is a pretty weird claim to make when arguing against the idea that the workers should own the means of production, and even stranger because this is literally what happens under Capitalism and people are somehow still managing to produce stuff. White Rock posted:Why are you currently working hard for a job that does not give you a % of the profit? Companies give their workers a portion of the company's revenue in the form of wages. Getting a portion of revenue is better than profit, because you still have a contractual right to be paid by the company even if they didn't turn a profit from the business cycle. Employers can only weasel out of that obligation by declaring bankruptcy, and if they're liquidated in bankruptcy then workers are basically first in line to get paid ahead of other potential creditors like governments, banks, and shareholders. You can receive a portion of a company's profits by being a shareholder in a company which pays out dividends. Even The Great Satan Walmart offers stock to their employees at a discounted rate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
Employees do not get portion of revenue, they get portion of rent from production factors they sink into value creation. Unlike employers and owners who get the full rent of their factors AND the remaining portion of the employees' rent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The transformation is simply the recognition of one's unfulfilled potential and the structures preventing its realization. It is a major step as a social phenomenon, but not some transcendental jump as far as the individual is concerned. wow, it's enraging how dishonest you are. He describes exactly the thought process when "utility has become human, that is social, utility.". The "return of man out of religion, family, state etc. into is human, ie. SOCIAL being." is a substantial change in the human condition in that "the eye has become a human eye WHEN its object has become a social, human object". As soon as this occurs, humans act completely different. Their utility, in four steps, derives through social action. Both society and man are defined through the conditions of the system. Marx could NOT be more specific on this: It is the HUMAN that changes in communism. In context, it is the same reason that humanism can and could not develop and be developed by people alienated by religion. This was a mental transformation of specific human beings that Marx saw as exact parallel to end of alienation through capital. He literally writes how people in communism would think differently and would act differently than people under capitalism and this is one of the pillars of communism by Marx. ugh
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
Wages come from revenue, its one of the main costs subtracted from revenue in order to arrive at profit. This is basic addition/subtraction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:wow, it's enraging how dishonest you are. He describes exactly the thought process when "utility has become human, that is social, utility.". The "return of man out of religion, family, state etc. into is human, ie. SOCIAL being." is a substantial change in the human condition in that "the eye has become a human eye WHEN its object has become a social, human object". As soon as this occurs, humans act completely different. Their utility, in four steps, derives through social action. Both society and man are defined through the conditions of the system. Marx could NOT be more specific on this: It is the HUMAN that changes in communism. I don't see how this is some unsurmountable problem that you make it to be. A critical social change of the same magnitude happened in the transition from feudalism to industrial society, and nobody bats an eye at that. The transformation comes from realization of the latent human aspects, not from the creation of some additional faculties currently lacking in humans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
OtherworldlyInvader posted:Wages come from revenue, its one of the main costs subtracted from revenue in order to arrive at profit. This is basic addition/subtraction. If your only point of reference is merchant arithmetic, then yes. But in that case you should be taking your theories to a thread about accounting, not about political economy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:If your only point of reference is merchant arithmetic, then yes. But in that case you should be taking your theories to a thread about accounting, not about political economy. I'm going to take your custom title at face value. Edit: On the off chance you're not disingenuous: A discussion about economic theory which rejects basic accounting isn't discussing economics, its discussing religion. OtherworldlyInvader fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Mar 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:49 |
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I don't see how this is some unsurmountable problem that you make it to be. A critical social change of the same magnitude happened in the transition from feudalism to industrial society, and nobody bats an eye at that. The transformation comes from realization of the latent human aspects, not from the creation of some additional faculties currently lacking in humans. So? This is immaterial to the fact that it is a transformation, just as Marx said, and furthermore that the belief in these latent human aspects is a critical pillar of communist theory, as stated by Marx: the true human being is a social being. And social means acting and feeling, and enjoying and even loving in accordance with the societal wellbeing. In terms of theory it is the idea that humans become social optimizers, which they are not under private property, which Marx also writes. And certainly not now. So this change is important, and whether it is true nature, as Marx writes, or not, it is a transformation, as he also writes. You can argue all you want about this, but it is absolutely clear from Marx' works that he envisioned the end of alienation simultaneously as end of men vs. men problems of all kind (he wrote this literally). So if this does not occur as predicted, then communism can not be successful. And this is exactly the degree to which it works on paper. Do you believe that the true human nature is social?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 14:43
|
|