|
Is Communism good? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
375 | 66.25% |
| No |
|
191 | 33.75% |
| Total: | 523 votes | ||
|
Social Democracy is the best but it seems to not be surviving immigration and/or pluralistic societies.
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 12:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 15:38 |
|
|
Social Democracy is unworkable in the long term because Social Democratic parties inevitably get coopted by capital and turned into milquetoast liberal parties who proceed to dismantle all the accomplishments of Social Democracy. Communism, on the other hand, is pretty radical.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 12:50
|
|
|
Yeah, capitalism gives huge incentives to the collapse of social democracies if you're wealthy enough to weather the storm and callous enough to let people suffer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Social Democracy is unworkable in the long term because Social Democratic parties inevitably get coopted by capital and turned into milquetoast liberal parties who proceed to dismantle all the accomplishments of Social Democracy. Social democracy really can only exist if capital feels there is a more pressing existential threat to its existence ie the Soviets. Basically, you need radical leftists to take over a major country and at least be some what successful in managing it (not Venezuela). The "goldilocks zone" for social democracy is in the middle of a cold war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Social democracy really can only exist if capital feels there is a more pressing existential threat to its existence ie the Soviets. Basically, you need radical leftists to take over a major country and at least be some what successful in managing it (not Venezuela). Also Social Democracy can only be achieved when labor is in high demand and immobile. Raising any taxes, setting regulations, or demanding (expensive) worker rights is a sure fire way to get your factory or workplace shipped to Eastern Europe, Mexico or Asia. Or to be replaced with migrant workers from those places. Edit: Of course the same migrant workers are also pushed to this by the whims of capitalism. But it does create a conflict of interests which is detrimental.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Social Democracy is unworkable in the long term because Social Democratic parties inevitably get coopted by capital and turned into milquetoast liberal parties who proceed to dismantle all the accomplishments of Social Democracy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 13:52
|
|
|
White Rock posted:Also Social Democracy can only be achieved when labor is in high demand and immobile. Raising any taxes, setting regulations, or demanding (expensive) worker rights is a sure fire way to get your factory or workplace shipped to Eastern Europe, Mexico or Asia. Admittedly, the threat of another ideological rival may limit this (it is arguable) a bit since the threat to the entire system itself is more tangible. Obviously, globalization happened during the Cold War but it could be argued it really became supercharged during the 1990s. Basically, companies have to feel there is a threat to their existence in order to accept change.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Admittedly, the threat of another ideological rival may limit this (it is arguable) a bit since the threat to the entire system itself is more tangible. Obviously, globalization happened during the Cold War but it could be argued it really became supercharged during the 1990s. Indeed, although i believe it is the material conditions more than the ideology that does this. The fact that china/eastern Europe was communist made it not only ideologically but more importantly, materially impossible to create globalization. Even if communism was dead, if the markets remained closed and first world labor was in high demand social democracy could potentially be alive and well. But instead, the 1980 Regan and Thatcher policies of opening up markets, crippling unions and world trade followed by rapid globalization have decimated Social Democracy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 14:09
|
|
|
Cicero posted:People keep saying this is happening in western European countries, does the data bear that out? Like, if that was happening, you'd expect taxes as a % of GDP to be steadily going down, right? Is that occurring? Yes to the first, no to the second. All of western Europe has continuously seen cuts to government programs for decades. As for the second question you can spend tax money on things besides social services and more importantly an aging population will naturally consume more resources when it comes to healthcare and the like, and western Europe is aging fast. Therefore, while tax rates have been lowered the effect is masked by the increase in non-discretionary spending. The right wing is working on that one as we speak, though. This is not a very interesting question, though. In a wider context looking at levels of social spending is a bit myopic because a party's willingness to spend on social programs is not necessarily correlated to said party's professed political ideology, and Social Democracy is ideologically dead as a doornail regardless of tax intake. The only major political figure in western Europe who can be said to still subscribe to it is Corbyn in the U.K: and most of his own party has dedicated the majority of their time to stabbing him in the back because of it. And if we look a bit further back in time, the original mission of Social Democracy as a way to achieve Socialism through gradual reform was pretty universally abandoned back in the seventies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
White Rock posted:Indeed, although i believe it is the material conditions more than the ideology that does this. The fact that china/eastern Europe was communist made it not only ideologically but more importantly, materially impossible to create globalization. Even if communism was dead, if the markets remained closed and first world labor was in high demand social democracy could potentially be alive and well. I don't know if you can ever really separate the two, but obviously globalization happened during the Cold War. The US didn't have a problem with protectionist policy among their allies in Europe and East Asia as long as they remained anti-communist. At the same time, this trade was not yet enough to truly destabilize the material interest of the American middle class (minorities and the white working class felt it either). Detroit's population more or less peaked during the 1950s, and it was clear by the end of the mid 1960s the city was on a downward slant. I don't see a situation where markets remained closed when they were already open (although only to a relatively limited set of countries). The Soviets weakened there was less of a need to worry and by 1985 it was clear the Soviets were no longer a threat. Anyway, if another major leftist country gets a shot they really really really need to back off of price controls for food and consumer goods, they absolutely don't work. One thing a socialist country if it wants to survive if going to have to adopt market pricing of some form. Nationalization and even some form of central planning could work, but not if prices are static.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Anyway, if another major leftist country gets a shot they really really really need to back off of price controls for food and consumer goods, they absolutely don't work. One thing a socialist country if it wants to survive if going to have to adopt market pricing of some form. Nationalization and even some form of central planning could work, but not if prices are static. In a true communism economy prices are set after the production quotas and need, "market" prices are to be avoided. With control over the means of production and the ability to set production levels, prices can be set to reasonable amounts. Failure of price controls stem from not having the controls of the means and materials of production. If you posses the flour and the ovens, you can make as much bread as you like and set whatever price you'd like. What's really needed is transparency and direct democracy through councils, so one can avoid corruption. Otherwise there will be lies of the output amounts leading to inefficiencies, backstabbing to try to increase rank and unscientific methods being promoted. The failure of all communist states is the failure of authoritarianism. (and not waiting for the collapse of capitalism)
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
So to protect workers' rights immigration should be stopped?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:So to protect workers' rights immigration should be stopped? No, immigrants are workers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:So to protect workers' rights immigration should be stopped? What needs to be done is different from observing what is occurring. Capital wants the workers here for cheap labor. Workers in the host country are hurt by this competition, so they want it to stop. Populists wanting to capitalize politically on this wants to align themselves with the workers. Neo liberals wants to align themselves with companies, growth and free trade. ---- For a communist, it also depends on your outlook. If your an internationalist, immigration either does not matter or is a boon. They will twiddle their thumbs until capitalism crashes. If you believe in that are beneficial nation states as a communist, building class conscious means the need for a shared material agenda. Since existing workers and migrant workers are in conflict, the globalist policies such as work immigration and open borders should be closed. Each nation must fight it's own class struggle is their view. Maoism Third Worldism believes that the "third world" will rise up and liberate the rest with minimal purging. Take your pick.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
White Rock posted:In a true communism economy prices are set after the production quotas and need, "market" prices are to be avoided. With control over the means of production and the ability to set production levels, prices can be set to reasonable amounts. Failure of price controls stem from not having the controls of the means and materials of production. If you posses the flour and the ovens, you can make as much bread as you like and set whatever price you'd like. The problem is the state usually wants to keep prices well below market levels which invariably leads to a supply issue since the state company doesn't have a positive feedback mechanism to capture that "profit" and its reinvestment. The issue with "orthodox" central planning is often material inputs, we are still in a world where commodities are not "unlimited." You can control the "means" but material is often still in short supply. You can hope the state somehow figures this out, but this often not the case especially as a supply chain becomes more complex and/or there is a limited ability to supply goods. Transparency, and direct democracy are fine but it doesn't solve the essential issue of a rarity of materials. Your country only produces so much flour and people are buying as many loafs as possible, you can try to ration bread but almost certainly you are going to have a black market. Pricing at least gives you a mechanism to control demand to some extent and gives you up to the minute information on demand. Hopefully you can directly subsidize people in a vulnerable situation so actually starvation doesn't happen. Also as shown by history odds are a revolutionary leftist state is probably going to start off authoritarian because civil wars, invasions and embargoes are pretty loving messy. The question is if authoritarianism can be dismantled after this emergency period passes. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Jan 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
There isn't really a "good" answer to the immigration question because whatever you choose has problems. Personally I would say that immigration should be allowed as much as a country can manage and that the state should invest in its immigrants to help them integrate but that's pretty heavily determined by my belief that there's a humanitarian imperative to do so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
White Rock posted:What needs to be done is different from observing what is occurring. What are internationalists?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:What are internationalists? People who think that the concept of nations is a stupid one, and that workers in all countries share common cause. Well, I mean that should probably be true of all communists but some communists are OK with using nationalism as a unifying ideology to facilitate creating a socialist state, and others will pragmatically use national government because it's what we have. Some commies though think that's moving too far away from the whole "workers of the world, unite" thing and believe that only international co-operation can truly change things for the better and given historical precedent I would probably suggest they're onto something. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Jan 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
There is no communism without internationalism, (and the people who disagree are opportunists and following them is doomed to failure). There's a good reason why the internationale is and has always been the hymn of communism, in every language. Internationalism means recognizing that the international system of nation-states and borders is a construction of the bourgeoisie class and exist only to serve their interests. Nationalism is an ideology that fools the worker into believing that they have some common interest with their national bourgeoisie, up to and including convincing them to die in wars for their benefit, instead of realizing that their comrades are the workers of all the other nations on earth, with whom they have only common cause and no fundamental conflict. Immigrants only bring wages down because they are not offered the same rights as citizens. If they received all the benefits and protections of citizenship, immigration would strengthen the power of the working class in any country, not weaken it. Immigrants also are forced to travel because of the ravages of war and imperialism, and workers should oppose these activities from their government in solidarity with the workers who are suffering at the other end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
It is a mighty strawman you've built to represent social democracy. Oh, how the straws fly when you beat it! For comparisons sake I'll post the demands of an actual social democratic party, back from 1903 (translation mine from Forssan ohjelma): 1) Equal voting rights for everyone who is at least 21 years of age. 2) Non-representational right of the people to directly propose and revoke laws. 3) Full rights to congregate, organize, free speech and freedom of publication. 4) General duty of education. Free education in all schools. Free tools and food for students (books, pencils, etc) at lower levels, at higher levels to those who show the ability for it. 5) Religion must be decreed a private matter in all respects. Separation of church and state. Removal of religion from schools. 6) All personal taxes should be replaced by a single progressive tax percentage. Duty to declare taxable amounts. 7) Free trial and assistance for trial. Reparations to those unjustly charged, imprisoned and declared guilty. 8) Free health care. Free doctors aid. Free burial. 9) Private military must be replaced by a national peoples army. Cause of peace must be actively represented in practical actions. 10) Full equality of woman and man. 11) Prohibition of alcohol. Of these, prohibition has been overturned. The rest have been so deeply ingrained into society that very few parties dare even hint at overturning them. Those that do are in the marginal. It should also be noted that the worst enemy of a communist is not Nazis. It's social democrats. No sane social democrat wants to be called a communist. No social democratic party wants the "aid" of communists. It's better they are kept at the sidelines while we concentrate on bettering the society. Political history of Europe largely sides with me here; the main reason communists were kept out of power was not Nazis or far right, it was social democracy. Small wonder the communists are still bitter about it. As a personal note, I don't believe social democracy means an ever increasing amount of social services. It means a few core services which guarantee survival and opportunities to better your lot in life. The decline of social democratic parties stems largely from their complete and total victory. When all your objectives are completed it takes some work to reinvent yourself and not overreach. This has not succeeded very well, as can be seen from the common misconception that social democracy means a lot of social services.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:It is a mighty strawman you've built to represent social democracy. Oh, how the straws fly when you beat it! The freedom to organize and protest has already been thrown completely out the window in my country, and many others (permanent "state of emergency" in france, anyone?), where riot police systematically crack down on any protest they do not approve of. Public education is also being underfunded, dismantled, and privatized. Religion is very much present in school, including crucifixes on the walls and stickers about "evolution is just a theory" in textbooks. Progressive taxes are dead and taxes are effectively regressive, with mega corporations like apple or oil companies paying negative taxes or getting subsidies, while you and I pay more than they do. The justice system is a joke and most people can't afford a trial when they are being abused by employers or landlords and will just resign themselves to accept the treatment. Most countries with free healthcare have underfunded it to the point that it functions very poorly and are in the process of privatizing it, or will soon be. Private military is alive and well with for-profit mercenary armies like blackwater and other private military contracts getting hired by governments and private corporations. Men and women are not equal in any society on earth today lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Immigrants only bring wages down because they are not offered the same rights as citizens. If they received all the benefits and protections of citizenship, immigration would strengthen the power of the working class in any country, not weaken it. Immigrants also are forced to travel because of the ravages of war and imperialism, and workers should oppose these activities from their government in solidarity with the workers who are suffering at the other end. Class consciousnesses is built on shared interest. At the moment, we in the first world are acting as a sort of global bourgeoisie. It's in the self interest of first world wage workers of country to resist immigration. As the bourgeoisie will not give up their wealth voluntary so too will the workers of the first world not give up theirs voluntary. If there was a global equalization, the working class in first world countries would be losing a lot of their current privileges. When again they are on the bottom tier of exploitation, they will have a common goal with all workers across the globe. The fact that our everyday lives right now is built on exploitation, and that first world workers buying shoes made by sweat shop workers. This prevents a global class consciousness from forming, and is something one has to deal with. Thus either you accept that the third world must lead the revolution and wait patiently, or you believe that nation states themselves can prepare individually. If nationalism is a useful tool then use it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
White Rock posted:Class consciousnesses is built on shared interest. There are good arguments for what you are saying, and I am often inclined to agree. If first world middle class workers really are a "labor aristocracy" who have an objective class interest in fascism, though, then I am happy to be a traitor to my class and to stand in solidarity with immigrant workers and the majority of the world's oppressed proletariat, and against this petite bourgeoisie, until conditions change.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:Of these, prohibition has been overturned. The rest have been so deeply ingrained into society that very few parties dare even hint at overturning them. Those that do are in the marginal. Policy and ideology are different. The fact that the rotten out husk of social democracy is still standing does not mean that there is any future in social democracy. Slowly but surely the insides of welfare programs, job security and Hob_Gadling posted:No sane social democrat wants to be called a communist. No social democratic party wants the "aid" of communists. You know that the goal of every social democracy was to bring socialism to life through reform right? That they splintered from the revolutionary communists? It was written in their party programs up until everyone went third way socialist in the 90's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
White Rock posted:Class consciousnesses is built on shared interest. Considering how rough of a shape workers in the first world already have it, that seems to be a recipe for assuring fascism triumphs completely. If you tell people they have to accept an even crappy quality of life then already have they are going to revolt. If the focus is individual nation states fine, but in the end "internationalism" is going to run into a finite amount of resources in the first world including housing. If your population doesn't feel like their lives are getting better under you, it doesn't matter what ideology you have. You could argue that a better redistribution of resource would allow you to handle immigration better but it still wouldn't be infinite. Also yeah there has been a lot of back tracking on that program from 1903, maybe we haven't rolled back completely yet but I wouldn't take too much for granted. (Oh yeah and the distinction between First and Third World is pretty blurry at this point, what does Thailand count as? How about Detroit? Where is the dividing line between the two? Do you just take humanity and split it down the middle?) Ardennes fucked around with this message at 16:14 on Jan 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Considering how rough of a shape workers in the first world already have it, that seems to be a recipe for assuring fascism triumphs completely. If you tell people they have to accept an even crappy quality of life then already have they are going to revolt. Oh don't misunderstand me, i am for a nation based approach. I believe that individual nations can create strong bases for socialism, and that each nation must fight their own class struggle. The current wage migration is also elongates the suffering under capitalism. . We are heading towards a ecological and material crisis, and as such a global approach will be chaotic anarchy of hundreds of revolutions. One can build a movement in one country to resist fascist capitalism that will emerge and try to prevent as many deaths as possible when the globalist supply chain finally falters and the trains of food from half a continent away stops rolling in. Redefining a nations values to socialist ones is a effective banner to rally people under. When i pitch my politics, number one thing i hear when i get past peoples defenses is "I don't want to suffer like the third world suffers.". it is not a tactic to win hearts and minds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
If there truly is a difference in class interest between the middle class white citizen and the undocumented immigrant worker, but you decide to side with the former against the latter, then as a communist I must consider you my political opponent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:If there truly is a difference in class interest between the middle class white citizen and the undocumented immigrant worker, but you decide to side with the former against the latter, then as a communist I must consider you my political opponent. I hope not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Communism is a hellish meatgrinder of evil. Capitalism is a hellish meat grinder of evil. My spellcheck is better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:If there truly is a difference in class interest between the middle class white citizen and the undocumented immigrant worker, but you decide to side with the former against the latter, then as a communist I must consider you my political opponent. Who said middle class? Working class in first world countries have a different short term material interest then undocumented immigrants. If Jaun mops the floor at the McDonalds for money under the table that removes job opportunity from the working class and creates conflict of interests. Go on, try to build a movement on that. The levering power of the proletariat is that they are the majority. Undocumented immigrants are not. I am not making a moral point here, i am just stating facts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:If there truly is a difference in class interest between the middle class white citizen and the undocumented immigrant worker, but you decide to side with the former against the latter, then as a communist I must consider you my political opponent. How about the white working class guy making 12 dollars an hour?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Capitalism will never die or be diminished. Communism is almost entirely eradicated from the world already, tick tock tovarish. My household begs a differ.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
White Rock posted:I am not making a moral point here, i am just stating facts. I understand this, which is why I'm actually engaging with your arguments and considering them seriously. Call it "middle class", "labour aristocracy", "petite bourgeoisie", or "first world proletariat", I'm not sure - but the argument is that this constitutes a separate class with distinct and conflicting interests from those of the third world proletariat and migrant workers, correct? Then if that is the case, it might very well be that a communist movement defending the interests of the latter is impossible to build in the first world, the material conditions are just not right. However, I'm afraid that the movement which protects the interest of the former category against the latter is potentially a fascist one or at least one which leads to fascism. It might very well be that this is just what the conditions are and that a fascist takeover is inevitable in the first world. It certainly seems to be what is happening in the US and Europe right now. If this is what is going on then I will never align myself with it, and I will resist it despite the odds, doing my best to stand in solidarity with migrant workers, and oppose my own government in its imperialism, until conditions change. Ardennes posted:How about the white working class guy making 12 dollars an hour? I don't think this guy should have any problems or conflicts with migrant workers. He is being fooled by bourgeois media and politicians into believing that he does, in which case he should be assisted in his struggle and develop class consciousness. If however, he actually does have objective interests which conflict with those of the migrant worker, as some people might argue, then personally I will stand in solidarity with the migrant worker against him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:I understand this, which is why I'm actually engaging with your arguments and considering them seriously. Call it "middle class", "labour aristocracy", "petite bourgeoisie", or "first world proletariat", I'm not sure - but the argument is that this constitutes a separate class with distinct and conflicting interests from those of the third world proletariat and migrant workers, correct? Will your stand of solidarity consist of posting in D&D and eating falafel? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:I understand this, which is why I'm actually engaging with your arguments and considering them seriously. Call it "middle class", "labour aristocracy", "petite bourgeoisie", or "first world proletariat", I'm not sure - but the argument is that this constitutes a separate class with distinct and conflicting interests from those of the third world proletariat and migrant workers, correct? The current populist movements are split down the middle whether they go right wing (UKIP, Trump etc) and populist left wing (Podemos, Five Star, Corbyn(who incidentally just came out as for increased border control)). These show that we are a at a divergence in the road, not a singular turn towards the right. As capitalism collapses we need to be ready, and the way to build a movement has always been to engage in nations people. From the french to the american to the USSR, nations are the groundwork of revolution. The alternative so far has been a USSR like expansion, a sort of forced revolution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
White Rock posted:Serious question, do you consider Cuba a facist state? I absolutely do not, in fact I consider Cuba to be one of the most successful examples of a socialist revolution in history. The difference is that Cuba was a third-world colony before its revolution, not a first world imperialist power in the way that Europe and the US are. Cuban citizens do not benefit from imperialism abroad and the super-exploitation of the third world proletariat in the way that first-world consumers might, for example. In fact they actually have an interest in supporting other anti-imperialist struggles abroad. I should have added that I don't think internationalists have any problem with anticolonialist national liberation struggles. All communists except maybe some weird sects support national liberation movements in the third world. You can absolutely recognize that the nationstate system serves the class enemy while also recognizing that there are things you can do within those constraints that still help. My problem with first-world nationalism is that if you recognize that people in the first world benefit from imperialist exploitation, and do not challenge your own government on that, you end up siding with the capitalist exploitation of third-world workers, and against refugees and migrants. If however, you start from a position of opposing your own government's imperialist practices, then this also assists the third world in their own resistance to capital, and thus help create the conditions where first-world consumers are no longer bribed by the superprofits of imperialism, and can see the point of building socialism. White Rock posted:The current populist movements are split down the middle whether they go right wing (UKIP, Trump etc) and populist left wing (Podemos, Five Star, Corbyn(who incidentally just came out as for increased border control)). These show that we are a at a divergence in the road, not a singular turn towards the right. As capitalism collapses we need to be ready, and the way to build a movement has always been to engage in nations people. From the french to the american to the USSR, nations are the groundwork of revolution. The alternative so far has been a USSR like expansion, a sort of forced revolution. For the same reason that I support anti-imperialist national liberation struggles, I would have been in favor of a "Lexit" socialist withdrawal of the UK from the European Union (itself a nationalist and imperialist project). Unfortuantely that's not quite what happened. Similarly, I think the best we can hope for in a place like Quebec is a leftist separation from Canada with Quebec Solidaire. In all these cases, I do not believe that building such a movement should ever be done at the expense of migrant workers, who should be included, represented, and protected. I very much condemn Corbyn for his recent capitulation on this, but am not that surprised because social democrats gonna social democrat. I will also add that there are strategic reasons behind what I'm advocating for. If we are serious about the "fork in the road" and want to avoid things to go down towards fascism (my top priority at the moment), then trying to construct a contradiction-laden compromise by paying lip-service to nationalist and anti-immigrant rethoric in an attempt to bring people over from the right will only have the opposite effect. It will only lead to your "left" alternative being perceived as consistently weaker on these issues, hypocritical, more neurotic and repressed. I genuinely believe that the only way to effectively oppose facsim is to reject the very framing the right is imposing on political discourse, and to propose a principled and uncompromising alternative to it. Reject the terms that the right is setting, because they will always beat the left on them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
White Rock posted:In a true communism economy prices are set after the production quotas and need, "market" prices are to be avoided. With control over the means of production and the ability to set production levels, prices can be set to reasonable amounts. Failure of price controls stem from not having the controls of the means and materials of production. If you posses the flour and the ovens, you can make as much bread as you like and set whatever price you'd like. What are "reasonable amounts" for prices, and what consumer goods are being priced unreasonably? From a nearby big box store I can buy a dozen eggs for $1.08, 5lbs of flour for $2.65, a gallon of milk for $2.74, a shirt for $2.88, a pair of tennis shoes for $10.00, a pair of jeans for $16.77, and a 55" 1080p LED TV for $378.00. Are these prices reasonable? If you (I assume "you" is the communist state) own the ovens and the flour (I assume this means the entire chain from growing, processing, production, distribution, and sale), what happens when you set your price below how much it cost you to make? If you set your price above what it costs to make, what are you doing with the surplus money? What happens if you don't have the material, labor, or knowledge resources needed to meet the production level you've set?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
OtherworldlyInvader posted:What are "reasonable amounts" for prices, and what consumer goods are being priced unreasonably? From a nearby big box store I can buy a dozen eggs for $1.08, 5lbs of flour for $2.65, a gallon of milk for $2.74, a shirt for $2.88, a pair of tennis shoes for $10.00, a pair of jeans for $16.77, and a 55" 1080p LED TV for $378.00. Are these prices reasonable? Was there any consumer product (no, AK-47s were not consumer products in USSR, only here) that the USSR or any other worker's paradise made better and more efficiently than in the west?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
it's hella good OP
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 15:38 |
|
|
gobbagool posted:Was there any consumer product (no, AK-47s were not consumer products in USSR, only here) that the USSR or any other worker's paradise made better and more efficiently than in the west? vodka
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 21:28
|
|