After reading a few posts on the forums, it seems like most are ignorant in the subject of Communism. Most believe it to be a state socialist/capitalist scenario of government ownership in all economic policies. Communism is actually closely related to Anarchy in the way they want the end results to be. To eliminate class struggle and to achieve collectivism, most, if not all communist believe you can not have a ruling class in politics, since this will obviously create a political, as well as economic hierarchy. Alternatives vary from communist ideology to the next, but most believe in local or self governance of the working class as a whole, creating a form of democracy.
Now you might be wondering how collectivism or the reduction of economic hierarchy would be done without the intervention of the state. Most communist believe this will be achieved through the over taking of the industry by the working class, and paying people through the labor of there action, opposed to the minimal amount of pay the workers could tolerate from there boss. Marx's theory for this is called the Labor Theory of Value, or LTV. There's much criticism on this theory of value, but it is still up to debt to weather it would work or not.
Some, more extreme communist believe that you can achiever pure collectivism in a Communist society. This is simply a system where you give and take. As long as you contribute to society, society will reward you with all the needs you must have to live, as well as to work. I personally think that system is extremely unlikely in any case.
As far as what kinda system the USSR had established, I'd personal consider it State Capitalism. This is, as Wikipedia says "a social system combining capitalism — the wage system of producing and appropriating surplus value — with ownership by a state apparatus." Some argue it was a form of State Socialism though, this is up for debt as well.
I'm not a communist myself, but I just thought I'd attempt to clear up some common misconception on communism. I might be wrong myself, so feel free to prove me wrong on any of this.
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Fri Apr 13, 2007 7:41 am
SpockGuy wrote:
After reading a few posts on the forums, it seems like most are ignorant in the subject of Communism. Most believe it to be a state socialist/capitalist scenario of government ownership in all economic policies.
Ah...I love the smell of communist apologetics in the morning. The USSR wasn't *really* communist, right?
SpockGuy wrote:
Communism is actually closely related to Anarchy in the way they want the end results to be.
What they want. But what they implement is totalitarianism.
As for the LTV: there is no debate. It's been refuted to death.
After reading a few posts on the forums, it seems like most are ignorant in the subject of Communism. Most believe it to be a state socialist/capitalist scenario of government ownership in all economic policies. Communism is actually closely related to Anarchy in the way they want the end results to be.
Except that they contradict themselves in saying that communism would be voluntary. What they desire (absolute egalitarianism) is impossible without massive coercion.
F.A. Hayek wrote:
A claim of equality of material position can only be met by a government with totalitarian powers.
SpockGuy wrote:
To eliminate class struggle and to achieve collectivism, most, if not all communist believe you can not have a ruling class in politics, since this will obviously create a political, as well as economic hierarchy.
And thus they contradict themselves.
SpockGuy wrote:
Alternatives vary from communist ideology to the next, but most believe in local or self governance of the working class as a whole, creating a form of democracy.
In which the minority has their rights trampled. I'm quite familiar with their proposals, you know. Further, a system of decentralized government (federalism) is impractical under socialism, as eventually a local government will realize the chaos and destitution socialism creates and allow free markets. The free market locality will prosper, and others will began to leave the communes for the better life the capitalist areas offer. Thus, the only way to implement socialism is on a large scale, and to prohibit emigration (just one of the many totalitarian features of socialist governments throughout history).
SpockGuy wrote:
Now you might be wondering how collectivism or the reduction of economic hierarchy would be done without the intervention of the state. Most communist believe this will be achieved through the over taking of the industry by the working class,
IOW: Robbery.
SpockGuy wrote:
and paying people through the labor of there action, opposed to the minimal amount of pay the workers could tolerate from there boss. Marx's theory for this is called the Labor Theory of Value, or LTV. There's much criticism on this theory of value, but it is still up to debt to weather it would work or not.
There is no debate. The LToV is the economic equivalent of a flat earth theory. Neither Brian or Machiavelli have given me an answer, so perhaps you can: if the LToV is valid, how come I'm not rich from expending labor handing socialists their ass in debates?
Some, more extreme communist believe that you can achiever pure collectivism in a Communist society. This is simply a system where you give and take. As long as you contribute to society, society will reward you with all the needs you must have to live, as well as to work. I personally think that system is extremely unlikely in any case.
More like impossible, as it implies society is a distinct, sentient being apart from the individuals that comprise it. "Society" can't give or receive anything, only individuals can.
SpockGuy wrote:
As far as what kinda system the USSR had established, I'd personal consider it State Capitalism. This is, as Wikipedia says "a social system combining capitalism — the wage system of producing and appropriating surplus value — with ownership by a state apparatus." Some argue it was a form of State Socialism though, this is up for debt as well.
Is it correct that no true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge?
State control of capital = socialism
Capital in USSR = controlled by the state
Therefore, the USSR was socialist.
Also, perhaps the socialists here could take note of the above as an example of a valid argument, something they seem to have problems constructing.
transientangent Grand Poster
Joined: Apr 26, 2005
Posts: 1138
Posted:
Tue Apr 17, 2007 6:18 am
Doesn't capitalism do precisely this? Compensating people for labor based on how valuable and difficult that labor is? What still has not been addressed is how communism is supposed to occur without strict suppression of capitalism and therefore freedom.
I suspect that the socialists have ran off after having their fantasies carpet-bombed with logical analysis and economic fact.
Jason_Harvestdancer Graduate Thinker
Joined: Oct 24, 2005
Posts: 593
Posted:
Tue Apr 17, 2007 6:38 am
SpockGuy wrote:
After reading a few posts on the forums, it seems like most are ignorant in the subject of Communism. Most believe it to be a state socialist/capitalist scenario of government ownership in all economic policies. Communism is actually closely related to Anarchy in the way they want the end results to be.
Communism is an economic system. Anarchy is a political system. Even if it were possible to combine the two, they are not by necessity combined.
Doesn't capitalism do precisely this?
Compensating people for labor based on how valuable and difficult that labor is?
What still has not been addressed is how communism is supposed to occur without strict suppression of capitalism and therefore freedom.
Compensation in our current capital-based economic models is based on many factors, many of which are arbitrarily based on politics or nepotism. But mostly I’d say it’s based on supply and demand. In other words, the less people qualified to do a particular job (especially a job that’s in high demand), the higher the compensation will be. One could argue that digging a ditch is more difficult then computer programming, at least on a physical level, but there are more people qualified to dig a ditch then program computers, so the wage is higher for programming.
Compensation in our current capital-based economic models is based on many factors, many of which are arbitrarily based on politics or nepotism. But mostly I’d say it’s based on supply and demand. In other words, the less people qualified to do a particular job (especially a job that’s in high demand), the higher the compensation will be. One could argue that digging a ditch is more difficult then computer programming, at least on a physical level, but there are more people qualified to dig a ditch then program computers, so the wage is higher for programming.
You've left productivity completely out of the equation here. What puts workers in high demand? The amount of stuff they can produce. Programmers produce more value for their employers than ditch-diggers, which is why they are in higher demand.
MockingGods Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3832
Location: USA
Posted:
Tue Apr 17, 2007 7:00 am
offsprng46 wrote:
MockingGods wrote:
Compensation in our current capital-based economic models is based on many factors, many of which are arbitrarily based on politics or nepotism. But mostly I’d say it’s based on supply and demand. In other words, the less people qualified to do a particular job (especially a job that’s in high demand), the higher the compensation will be. One could argue that digging a ditch is more difficult then computer programming, at least on a physical level, but there are more people qualified to dig a ditch then program computers, so the wage is higher for programming.
You've left productivity completely out of the equation here. What puts workers in high demand? The amount of stuff they can produce. Programmers produce more value for their employers than ditch-diggers, which is why they are in higher demand.
True enough, the more qualified or better you are at a particular job, the higher your compensation should be within that field. I was speaking in a broader sense. You have ranges of salary within fields and fields of employment also have of ranges of salary.
Hypothetical…
Manual dig digging might garner 10 to 25 dollars an hour depending on productivity and quality
Computer programming might garner 50 to 200 dollars an hour with the same variables.
edit: If there were more qualified people programming computers then digging ditches and ditches were in high demand, ditch digging would garner better wages. In other words, if we had a glut of people to program our computers, the wage range would be appropriately reduced. This of course is ideally how it should work, but many other factors are involved other then pure economics.
MockingGods Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3832
Location: USA
Posted:
Tue Apr 17, 2007 7:25 am
SpockGuy wrote:
After reading a few posts on the forums, it seems like most are ignorant in the subject of Communism.
I get the impression (I certainly could be wrong) the subject of Communism angers most people, especially those who are certain of the "good" of capitalism. If so, this certainly fits well with our tribalistic nature.
Compensation in our current capital-based economic models is based on many factors, many of which are arbitrarily based on politics or nepotism. But mostly I’d say it’s based on supply and demand. In other words, the less people qualified to do a particular job (especially a job that’s in high demand), the higher the compensation will be. One could argue that digging a ditch is more difficult then computer programming, at least on a physical level, but there are more people qualified to dig a ditch then program computers, so the wage is higher for programming.
You've left productivity completely out of the equation here. What puts workers in high demand? The amount of stuff they can produce. Programmers produce more value for their employers than ditch-diggers, which is why they are in higher demand.
True enough, the more qualified or better you are at a particular job, the higher your compensation should be within that field. I was speaking in a broader sense. You have ranges of salary within fields and fields of employment also have of ranges of salary.
Hypothetical…
Manual dig digging might garner 10 to 25 dollars an hour depending on productivity and quality
Computer programming might garner 50 to 200 dollars an hour with the same variables.
edit: If there were more qualified people programming computers then digging ditches and ditches were in high demand, ditch digging would garner better wages. In other words, if we had a glut of people to program our computers, the wage range would be appropriately reduced.
Indeed, because the relative productivity of programmers would be lower (as less productive IT projects are implemented due to the glut of programmers), and that of ditch diggers would be higher. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that more training/education doesn't automatically mean higher wages.
MockingGods wrote:
This of course is ideally how it should work, but many other factors are involved other then pure economics.
Like what? Intervention, obviously, but the economic effects of such policies can still be determined.
After reading a few posts on the forums, it seems like most are ignorant in the subject of Communism.
I get the impression (I certainly could be wrong) the subject of Communism angers most people, especially those who are certain of the "good" of capitalism. If so, this certainly fits well with our tribalistic nature.
How is doing what is morally correct (not initiating force - i.e., laissez faire capitalism) tribalism? It seems to me morality is about as far as you can get from tribalism. Contrary to what some might think, there's a bit more that goes into my support of capitalism than the typical right-wing knee-jerk "capitalism yay, socialism boo" mentality. What makes the aformentioned attitude even more absurd is that the American right is much more socialist than the American left at this point, but I digress.
transientangent Grand Poster
Joined: Apr 26, 2005
Posts: 1138
Posted:
Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:02 pm
MockingGods wrote:
SpockGuy wrote:
After reading a few posts on the forums, it seems like most are ignorant in the subject of Communism.
I get the impression (I certainly could be wrong) the subject of Communism angers most people, especially those who are certain of the "good" of capitalism. If so, this certainly fits well with our tribalistic nature.
It doesn't anger me. It just frustrates me that people imagine themselves capable of legislating a community onto people. That's how communism does work. When you have a single culture of hard work and generosity among a small number of people, communism happens. Somewhere in between the individual and the nation, the largest group capable of supporting communism exists. I suspect however, that a realistic domain would be from the family unit to a group of about 100. This equilibrium point between capitalism and communism can only be achieved organically through voluntary adoption, and is far below the political communist's idea of a state.
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
* You can syndicate our news and blog using the file