A communisim parodox

I was wondering if someone could explain what makes communism communism. I understand that the goverment owns all land but beyond that I have no clue.

Axl.

 

Ideally, in communism, there is no government. Read The Disposessed by Ursula K. LeGuin.

 

Yes, what the above person said is right.

 

It isn't a paradox. It means that the people themselves share property.

 

In the simplest terms:

Communism is the final expression of society; where the dialectics of class antagonism end, creating a classless, equal, anarchstic society.

I say that it is the final expression as it is the end of a natural chain of societies (expressed through their classes):

- Prehistoric Societies, which where egalitarian ("primitive communism" - Engels), replaced by:

- "Ancient Asiatic" Societies: rulers of centralised states exploited peasants (e.g., ancient China), replaced by:

- Feudalism: Lords exploited peasants (e.g., Medieval England), replaced by:

- Modern Capitalism: capitalists exploit workers, replaced by:

- Socialist: a proletarian (working-class) dictatorship, as the instruments of the state and the means of production are brought to be owned by the community, to wither away and be replaced by:

- Communism. A classless society with no Government.

This process occurs because one stage of history moves to another when the econmic base of technology and economic relationships change (e.g., the Industrial Revolution). This leads to a change in the superstructure of society (beliefs, the law, family, the state). Revolutions have been the driving force of history. This theory of historical change is called 'historical materialism.'

I could go into the reasons why this change has to, and must occur, but consider the following a communist society:

A society whereby there is no Government, for one. The populace control, in common, the means of production (factories, farms, offices), and there is no such thing as private property (except, of course, for personal items). The best way to imagine it is in terms of a glass of water (bear with me).

The glass of water represents the global society.

It can be broken down into atoms, which represent all the different nations (the concept of which would disappear under communism). These atoms will not fall into conflict, as there is no Government with which to lead them into it, nor any reason to (as all property is held in common). These atoms are not ruled over by Governments.

These atoms can further be broken down into particles. These represent communities, which can vary in size depending on how many people live there. They control, in common, the means of production. Some communities will do different things, and communities will trade with one another to create an economy. Things like welfare, social security and so on will be handled by the community as a whole, and families in particular (communism will encourage strong families). Each community will create a militia of some kind, consisting of the people within it. It may also choose to democratically elect a council of some kind to oversee trade, the militia and welfare, but there would be certain rules (enforced by the other communities on dissenting ones), preventing Governments from being created.

Just a few things:

- Communism is not against human nature. It doesn't require people to work for the common good, or any of that idealistic crap. That's just propaganda.

- Communism is about equality of opportunity and ownership, NOT equality of income. Income directly relates to how much you earn.

- Communism has never been properly instituted, for many reasons. So, don't consider the USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam etc., Communist.

Does that answer your questions?

- Scarlet.

 

- Modern Capitalism: capitalists exploit workers



I'm sorry ... that just killed me.

 

I'm sorry ... that just killed me.

Shame you're only joking.

Would you care to explain why? I can tell you quite clearly how the capitalists exploit the workers, as a systemic part of capitalism, but I'd be interested to see how you think they don't.

It's actually quite humourous to see this immature behaviour. Even most of the staunchest capitalists I've had the pleasure to argue with have confessed capitalism to be, in its nature, systemically exploitative (even if they quantify this by stating reasons why it is less exploitative than any other system, or how the exploitation is necessary).

- Scarlet.

 

Shame you're only joking.

Oooh. Ouch. You're on fire today.

I'm not denying that the free market force which forms the basis for capitalism has led to the exploitation of workers, but your implication that capitalism is by nature exploitive is insupportable. The entire basis of capitalism is one of win-win propositions, not win-lose (exploitation).

 

I'm not denying that the free market force which forms the basis for capitalism has led to the exploitation of workers, but your implication that capitalism is by nature exploitive is insupportable. The entire basis of capitalism is one of win-win propositions, not win-lose (exploitation).

No, no. Exploitation is systemic. In several ways. Take this example:

The capitalists own the means of production. The working-class sell their labour in order to earn a wage. The process happens like this:

i. The workers put in their work into the means of production,
ii. Which may produce a profit.
iii. The capitalists give the workers the same portion of that profit (i.e., a salary), irregardless of how much profit their actual work generated.
iv. The capitalists pocket the rest (the surplus value).

So, by nature, capitalism is systemically exploitative. This may not sound like a terrible form of exploitation, but by taking the surplus value - i.e., the produce of the workers labour - the capitalists are profitting off the labour of the workers. Thus, exploitation.

The entire basis of capitalism is win-lose, where the winners are the capitalists, and the losers are the workers. A worker never truly wins in the capitalist system unless he or she becomes a capitalist himself or herself.

- Scarlet.

 

Ever heard of Lincoln Electric SB? Everyone who works there is a shareholder. They own it. This is a growing trend in some areas of the US.

Ever read Michael Harrington's works? He had a pretty radical, or controversial, idea of why a socialist movement never took off in the US.

I know you're well-read in Marx and he also commented on this and he and Engles came to a similiar conclusion to that of Harrington's.

Really interesting.

 

Ever heard of Lincoln Electric SB? Everyone who works there is a shareholder. They own it.

This, in a way, is close to common ownership. However, your share of the pie is dependent on how much money you have, which, again, puts capitalists at an advantage.

And no, I haven't read him. I shall look into it , though. Thanks for the reference!

- Scarlet.

 

Ummm ... wow? Twisted.

Everybody is a capitalist in the capitalist system, not just the employers.

I work for a doctor, making charts, filing charts, scheduling appointments, etc. I'm paid $8.50 to do this. Of course, I obviously create more money than my salary totals--otherwise it wouldn't make sense for him to hire me. And obviously, the doctor makes more money than me. His salary is based on the number of patients he sees, while mine is not. But that's insignificant.

Capitalism is a win-win proposition because both the doctor and I are exchanging our goods (immaterial and material) for mutual benefit. I'm leasing out my arms, legs, and intellect in exchange for $8.50 an hour. I win in that sense, because I'm exchanging something of lesser value to me (my time) for something of greater value to me (his money).
The doctor wins because he values more what I value less--my skills. He gives me what he values less (money) in exchange for what he values more (my time).

I want money--and I get it. He wants my skills--and he gets it. Win-win.

Yes, there are CEOs who make ludicrous amounts of money. I don't like it either. The employees would obviously be much better off if a chunk of that money was re-apportioned among them. But they are already better of (by simple virtue of free exchange), just not much better off.

Exploitation is win-lose, by definition. Capitalism is win-win. In some cases, it's more like WIN(WOOOO! money money money )-win, but both parties still benefit. It's still technically win-win.

 

Ummm ... wow? Twisted.

Here comes another one who thinks he/she can argue with 200 years of commonly-accepted logic.

Everybody is a capitalist in the capitalist system, not just the employers.

We're not using the theories-adherents way of terming them. By capitalist we mean those who control the means of production.

I work for a doctor, making charts, filing charts, scheduling appointments, etc. I'm paid $8.50 to do this. Of course, I obviously create more money than my salary totals-- otherwise it wouldn't make sense for him to hire me. And obviously, the doctor makes more money than me. His salary is based on the number of patients he sees, while mine is not. But that's insignificant.

Here, therefore, the means of production is the doctors surgery and its equipment, and you and the doctor are the labourers.

Capitalism is a win-win proposition because both the doctor and I are exchanging our goods (immaterial and material) for mutual benefit.

That's correct. But, as you have said earlier, you are not as paid as much as you create - therefore, the surplus value from your work is taken by whoever owns the doctors surgery.

I'm leasing out my arms, legs, and intellect in exchange for $8.50 an hour.

Just refer to it as labour.

I win in that sense, because I'm exchanging something of lesser value to me (my time) for something of greater value to me (his money).

Yes, but the exchange isn't fair. Consider this example:

You own a chair. You can't be exactly sure, but taking into account the amount of time it took, the amount of labour, the raw materials, and so on, and so forth, it's worth about $80.

You go to a market to sell this chair, and you meet someone who is willing to pay for it only $30. It's actually worth much more than that, you know, but you have to sell it - otherwise you wouldn't eat. So you do so.

Are you being exploited? Yes, by nature, you are. You're being short-changed by how much you are gaining. Now, lets transplant that to our situation - the chair is your labour, you are the craftsman, and the customer is the capitalist.

I want money--and I get it. He wants my skills--and he gets it. Win-win.

That's like saying slavery is a win-win situation because the slaver gets his free labour, and the slave gets enough food and water to provide for his maintenance.

I don't like it either. The employees would obviously be much better off if a chunk of that money was re- apportioned among them. But they are already better of (by simple virtue of free exchange), just not much better off.

You're agreeing with me. This is still exploitation. Both gain, but not proportionately to their effort and talent. Thus, one is overcompensated for, and the other is exploited.

but both parties still benefit. It's still technically win-win.

Refer to my slavery analogy. Though both parties benefit (one gets free labour, the other gets food enough to continue his labour), one is still exploited by nature of his dependency on the former, and by the disproportionate amount he earns.

Are you following me?

- Scarlet.

 

"Here comes another one who thinks he/she can argue with 200 years of commonly-accepted logic."


REally, this is completely unecessary. I wouldn't mind it, except that it is systematic in your discourse, especially on this subject. Cut the condescension, please.



And yes, I understand this may be hard when occaisionally you are arguing with someone who is misinformed, or you are speaking on academic levels vs. someone speaking on a practical level, and terms get misinterpreted. But is it any surprise you occaisionally feel persecuted when you manage to condescend so often?

 

Condescension was not my intent, though, reading through my post again, I can see your point.

I offer my apologies to StarFire.

I will try and monitor what I'm saying and cut out the condescension. You're probably right about it damaging my point more than promoting it.

- Scarlet.

 

I offer my apologies to StarFire.

Awww, crap I had a good reply, and now I've got to cut it out

No worries, dude

We're not using the theories-adherents way of terming them. By capitalist we mean those who control the means of production.

We--we do? Oh.

You own a chair. You can't be exactly sure, but taking into account the amount of time it took, the amount of labour, the raw materials, and so on, and so forth, it's worth about $80.

You go to a market to sell this chair, and you meet someone who is willing to pay for it only $30. It's actually worth much more than that, you know, but you have to sell it - otherwise you wouldn't eat. So you do so.

Are you being exploited? Yes, by nature, you are. You're being short-changed by how much you are gaining. Now, lets transplant that to our situation - the chair is your labour, you are the craftsman, and the customer is the capitalist.

The chair is worth exactly the amount that it is worth. I can spend billions of dollars making the chair, but the end-result--the product--is only worth as much as the consumer is willing to pay for it.
Your chair is essentially value. The value of your chair increases if I want it more, because the sole measure of worth in the free market is consumer demand. If it is worth more to me, it's material value to you automatically increases--irrespective of the value of the goods you used to create it.

That's like saying slavery is a win-win situation because the slaver gets his free labour, and the slave gets enough food and water to provide for his maintenance.

The slave and the slaver aren't participating in a free market exercise, because the slave can't choose to not participate. That's an automatic win-lose.

Both gain, but not proportionately to their effort and talent. Thus, one is overcompensated for, and the other is exploited.

Exploitation is win-lose. You've said this yourself. If both parties still get what they want--regardless of whether one party gets more of what they want--you're automatically dealing with a win-win situation. I think it's time to deep-six the exploitation talk.

Refer to my slavery analogy. Though both parties benefit (one gets free labour, the other gets food enough to continue his labour), one is still exploited by nature of his dependency on the former, and by the disproportionate amount he earns.

See above. I'm talking about free exchange, not forced exchange.

 

We--we do? Oh.

Yeah. It just make things easier. We can use the term bourgeoisie if you want, but that's a bit unwieldy.

The chair is worth exactly the amount that it is worth. I can spend billions of dollars making the chair, but the end-result--the product--is only worth as much as the consumer is willing to pay for it.

Even if the amount the customer is willing to pay for it is less than the amount of labour and time you put into it? My point is not how much the chair SHOULD be sold for, but, from a philosophical stnadpoint, whether it is exploitation to be paid less than the amount of effort and time you put into it.

Your chair is essentially value. The value of your chair increases if I want it more, because the sole measure of worth in the free market is consumer demand.

This would not change with Communism. However, the whole thing is, systemically, exploitative if you are unable to sell the chair to offset the effort and labour you put into it. You are leasing your sweat and toil, and receiving back less than that which you put in. Despite the fact that this must be so as a matter-of-fact, it is still systemically exploitative. However, while the customer demand will always regulate the price of objects, the capitalist/worker relationship is quite different entirely; something which is liable to change under Communism. Consider: customer demand affects the overall profit of the business, but it does not affect the profitability of a single labourer. Thus, you can divorce this particular relationship from that formula of the freem arket, and end the exploitation.

The slave and the slaver aren't participating in a free market exercise, because the slave can't choose to not participate. That's an automatic win-lose.

And the capitalist/worker are neither participating in a free market exercise. Unless you a contractor, the nature of your relationship with those who by your labour is not subject to customer demand (except in overall profit, in which case I'd ask you to look at negative profit, too).

Exploitation is win-lose. You've said this yourself. If both parties still get what they want--regardless of whether one party gets more of what they want--you're automatically dealing with a win-win situation. I think it's time to deep-six the exploitation talk.

Yes, exploitation IS win lose. However, just because both parties gain what they want, does not automatically make it win-win. There is still the human aspect to consider - that of philosophical exploitation. You can not be a winner if you are exploited.

See above. I'm talking about free exchange, not forced exchange.

The workers are also held in bondage. Consider: for a worker to survive, what must he do? Sell his labour. Thus, he is just a dynamic slave, rather than a static one. He can choose his slaver, and even work his way up to a better slaver, but he must, in the end, become a slaver himself if he wants economic independence.

- Scarlet.

 

Communism doesn't work in reality, because human nature isn't taken into account.

There cannot be a classless society, where no one individual has more than another. This is because human beings are naturally competitive. As exemplified in history, whenever attempted, communism does not work.

Captialism and representative democracy is the most successful expression of a governmental system in the history of mankind.

 

I was rather hoping you'd stay out of this argument, Darth Mischievous - it seems that whenever you get involved in a debate on Communism, out comes the dogma. You could learn from StarFire about how to conduct a debate on the subject.

Communism doesn't work in reality, because human nature isn't taken into account.

Perhaps you'd care to specify which portion of human nature prevents a classless society.

There cannot be a classless society, where no one individual has more than another.

I agree. That would be quite impossible. Luckily, Communism is not such a system. Individuals are quite able to possess more than others, provided, of course, that it is a personal item, gained through wealth you have earned, and is not a means of production.

As exemplified in history, whenever attempted, communism does not work.

Well, there are sporadic examples of it working (think Paris Commune). But neither has pure capitalism succeeded, or pure democracy, or the free market - however, we do not consider these to be failures.

Just because it has yet to be properly implemented does not make it, at all, a failure.

Captialism and representative democracy is the most successful expression of a governmental system in the history of mankind.

I agree entirely. Capitalism and democracy have done more for civilisation than any other form of society, let alone governmental system. The technological and societal advances caused by it are immeasuarable. However, the past is just that - the future is liable to change.

- Scarlet.

 

TSB, yeah it isn't quite communistic as it does exist in a capitalist system. Besides, there are likely negative externalities even though the workers themselves are the owners(i.e., they don't produce all the tools, and other materials to operate, they just own the business itself and its output).

 

Perhaps you'd care to specify which portion of human nature prevents a classless society.

Human beings are competitive by nature. Capitalism reflects upon natural human nature to succeed based upon drive and ability. It provides for competitive growth and incentive for improvement, something which does not exist in communism.

The founders of the US were wise in that they knew that pure democracy does not work either. That is why we have a representative democracy, where the policy of the nation is not dictated soley upon the whims of the masses.


I honestly don't think there are many nations on earth, at least in the civilized world, that wish to move more towards communism on a governmental scale. In fact, the ones that are actually communist (or proclaim to be - if you wish to pursue the purest definition in your terms) are moving towards capitalism.

 

I'm not denying that the free market force which forms the basis for capitalism has led to the exploitation of workers, but your implication that capitalism is by nature exploitive is insupportable. The entire basis of capitalism is one of win-win propositions, not win-lose (exploitation).

This probably does not apply to what Scarlet was saying, but I recently started to work for a major retailer who does not pay what it is required to by law, and all the employees accept this for reasons I can't comprehend. They have been paying overtime on a weekly basis instead of my state's daily basis for over a year now - they have hundreds of employees in this state, and I'm sure all of them are due some overtime pay they have not received. Apparently no one caught this mistake until I brought it up. Worse, they require salaried managers to work 9 hour shifts, and do not pay them overtime for the extra hour. This IS required in my state - they have to calculate the hourly wage from the salary and pay overtime for anything above 8 hours per day (this gets complicated, but my manager went to UCLA business school and he reads the law the same way I do, so please take my word). This company is in gross violation of basic labor laws, and they want to promote me into management because I'm good at sales.

I don't know why the US fought the south to end slavery, when companies complain constantly about having to pay for labor. Sure, slavery shouldn't have been based on race, but I think half the companies I've worked for would happily use slaves if it was legal. Some of them DO use sweatshops and slave labor abroad.

 

"but I recently started to work for a major retailer who does not pay what it is required to by law, and all the employees accept this for reasons I can't comprehend. They have been paying overtime on a weekly basis instead of my state's daily basis for over a year now."

You work for Wal-Mart! Seriously, they are in deep-Bantha poodo apparently for requiring overtime without pay.

 

Even if the amount the customer is willing to pay for it is less than the amount of labour and time you put into it? My point is not how much the chair SHOULD be sold for, but, from a philosophical stnadpoint, whether it is exploitation to be paid less than the amount of effort and time you put into it.

If you agree to sell me your chair for $30--even though you spent more than twice that constructing it--have I exploited you or have you sold your chair at a loss? I personally believe it's the latter.
If you were forced to sell your chair to me and I purposefully paid you less than the actual worth of the chair, then I would definitely be exploiting you.
Essentially, in a truly free market, there's no such thing as exploitation.

This would not change with Communism. However, the whole thing is, systemically, exploitative if you are unable to sell the chair to offset the effort and labour you put into it.

Again, this would be true if you HAD to sell your chair. But the system isn't forcing you to deal, your own personal needs are. (The harsher side of capitalism comes into play at this point.)

Consider: customer demand affects the overall profit of the business, but it does not affect the profitability of a single labourer. Thus, you can divorce this particular relationship from that formula of the freem arket, and end the exploitation.

Profit sharing and free market practices are not mutually exclusive. They're a highly efficient combination. I'm not exactly sure if I understood your point ...

However, just because both parties gain what they want, does not automatically make it win-win. There is still the human aspect to consider - that of philosophical exploitation. You can not be a winner if you are exploited.

And exploitation denotes forcible exchange. But the gist of what you're saying seems to be that the free market isn't really free. Is that right?

The workers are also held in bondage. Consider: for a worker to survive, what must he do? Sell his labour. Thus, he is just a dynamic slave, rather than a static one. He can choose his slaver, and even work his way up to a better slaver, but he must, in the end, become a slaver himself if he wants economic independence.

Or look at it this way. We're all maggots burrowing in the meat of existence, and all of us are subject to the same restrictions (death, etc). Everybody needs to barter their talents and goods, and so people become employers or employees.
The employers ("slavers") consolidate resources by creating companies, the idea being to increase efficiency. The employees (so-called "slaves") simply continue the cycle of trade by exchanging their labor (also known as their ARMS, LEGS, and INTELLECT! ) for the employer's stuff.

What's the single difference between the two? Not really a whole lot. They both trade with the same entities, but only on different scales. They actually complement each other.
For instance, I trade with my employer for money, and I spend it in the outside world. The company (my employer) trades the result of my labor to the outside world, and gives some of the proceeds to me. The exact apportionment of the proceeds may not seem fair, but it is if I agreed to it. And it would definitely be in the companies interest to spread around, based on they employee's results, the earnings.

 

Starfire wrote: "Essentially, in a truly free market, there's no such thing as exploitation."

Well yeah, but where's that at? As a student of the free-market, I'm sure you know F.A. Hayek. He acknowledged the limitations of total laissez-faire.

No exploitation? Are you sure multi-national firms escaping national restrictions are as fair-minded? Who holds them accountable? Who do they answer to?