Discussing Communism

Lets see I go out and I work at a job, in exchange I get paid X amount of money, I can go out and use this money and exchange it for goods and services. If I do not like my job I can go out and get another one. Last time I checked my boss hasnt put a gut to my head to get me to do any of this.

I was offered money for my labor, I decided to give them my labor in exchange for money, then I used the money for various things I needed and wanted.

Its a pretty sqaure deal.
Except you aren't actually offered a square deal. You are offered a fraction of the value of your labor. Perhaps you are receiving enough that you don't mind. But plenty of people are living on the edge of starvation, and if they try to organize, they are murdered with the tacit approval of their employers.
Oh. I am glad that you agree with me that both Nazism and Communism are equally as horrible then.



I see. I minored in economy in university, so I guess I have an advantage over you in this regard.



Economy is a field that relies heavily on statistics in the research itself. It's fairly "soft" as far as real sciences go, but it's not nearly as full of assumptions as you think it is. Various economic models do rely on assumptions for the most part, but those get reexamined when they run afoul of the real world (the Keynsian models normally taught to undergraduate students are understood to be too simplistic for precisely this reason, they rely on the assumption of perfect "Homo Economicus" humans that react in very specific and rigid ways to changes in the economy).

All this is still miles and miles ahead of any of philosophy, which is not even a field of science of any kind, soft or otherwise.



Different shades of the dame color are still the same color. That is not how true diversity of thought works.
Do you think all philosophers are Marxists? Or even communists? Somebody should tell Robert Koons. He'll be mortified. If you divide the whole world up into "accepts premise X" and "rejects premise X", you'll find only two groups exist. That you have decided "rejects premise X" is in fact multiple positions doesn't actually make it more diverse.
Nope. What you've described isn't capitalism. There's no gun, or it by definition isn't capitalism. Capitalism depends on a free market, and a market isn't free if someone works because a gun to their head. This could be any number of other systems, depending on who holds the gun. If it's the government, it's socialism. If it's someone who claims to own you, it's slavery. If it's a company, that's still not capitalism. Capitalism depends on voluntary exchange.

Instead, in a capitalist system, I trade the my labor to someone for money. They value my labor more than the money, and I value the money more than my labor, so we both win.


I'm not, I'm saying unprovoked violence is inherent to socialism, and it isn't to capitalism, that's why capitalism is better.
Ahh. so real capitalism has never been tried?
 
Except you aren't actually offered a square deal. You are offered a fraction of the value of your labor. Perhaps you are receiving enough that you don't mind. But plenty of people are living on the edge of starvation, and if they try to organize, they are murdered with the tacit approval of their employers.
TBF, that has happened though it doesn't happen in the "West" or First World anymore. At least not that I'm aware of. Killing striking workers and labor organizers occurs in less developed countries still.

Ahh. so real capitalism has never been tried?
Personally I don't think capitalism is the be all end all. So I'm more sympathetic to your position. The problem with communism is that its based on an idea of how people behave, and what matters to people, that is not borne out by reality. Capitalism and Communism are both ultimately Materialist systems that are based on who controls the distribution of goods and political power through said distribution. Which is why they are both ultimately destructive.
 
TBF, that has happened though it doesn't happen in the "West" or First World anymore. At least not that I'm aware of. Killing striking workers and labor organizers occurs in less developed countries still.


Personally I don't think capitalism is the be all end all. So I'm more sympathetic to your position. The problem with communism is that its based on an idea of how people behave, and what matters to people, that is not borne out by reality. Capitalism and Communism are both ultimately Materialist systems that are based on who controls the distribution of goods and political power through said distribution. Which is why they are both ultimately destructive.
The outsourcing of brutality and the very worst of exploitation to poorer nations rather than to immigrants or the rural poor doesn't really change the moral calculus. There is still a lot of human misery undergirding our entire economic system. Globalism has meant we can move the worst of it where the customers are unlikely to see it, but it doesn't end it.

Marxism is materialist, communism isn't necessarily. And Marx's materialism is a lot less grandiose than the ontological materialism that gets thrown around by your less clever atheist polemics. The question of "how should we arrange material society" must have material answers, but it needn't have material reasons. Valuing human welfare, freedom, and happiness, and intrinsic human dignity can be the motivators of an economic system. The question then becomes how do you arrange the material components in order to satisfy those ends most effectively? I think capitalism is a poor answer because it doesn't return those ends reliably and that it is possible to do better, I don't support communist ends because they are good in themselves, but because I think they will make people freer and better off and that is good in itself.
 
The outsourcing of brutality and the very worst of exploitation to poorer nations rather than to immigrants or the rural poor doesn't really change the moral calculus. There is still a lot of human misery undergirding our entire economic system. Globalism has meant we can move the worst of it where the customers are unlikely to see it, but it doesn't end it.
I suppose that might be why revolution failed in the West.

Marxism is materialist, communism isn't necessarily. And Marx's materialism is a lot less grandiose than the ontological materialism that gets thrown around by your less clever atheist polemics. The question of "how should we arrange material society" must have material answers, but it needn't have material reasons. Valuing human welfare, freedom, and happiness, and intrinsic human dignity can be the motivators of an economic system. The question then becomes how do you arrange the material components in order to satisfy those ends most effectively? I think capitalism is a poor answer because it doesn't return those ends reliably and that it is possible to do better, I don't support communist ends because they are good in themselves, but because I think they will make people freer and better off and that is good in itself.
I would say barring some new revolutionary Star Trek esque technology, what allows people to have a right to the fruits of their labor, and treats them not as a machine, or a rat in an experiment. But as a human person, with all the dignity accorded to this station.
 
I suppose that might be why revolution failed in the West.


I would say barring some new revolutionary Star Trek esque technology, what allows people to have a right to the fruits of their labor, and treats them not as a machine, or a rat in an experiment. But as a human person, with all the dignity accorded to this station.
I agree. I don't think capitalism does that, and I don't think that any system that does so can survive the tendency of capital to accumulate or the economic incentives to exploitation that exist under capitalism.
 
Except you aren't actually offered a square deal. You are offered a fraction of the value of your labor. Perhaps you are receiving enough that you don't mind.

Please tell me that's not a labor theory of value argument, because LtV has been comprehensively discredited for decades.

But plenty of people are living on the edge of starvation, and if they try to organize, they are murdered with the tacit approval of their employers.

You are aware that when you see dates listed as 5/18/20, the 20 there means 2020, not 1920, correct? I ask because that sort of temporally confusion is the only possibly way you could be under the impression that would-be labor organizers are being slaughtered by the big bad company, because that's not a thing that happens anymore.

Nor, for the matter, is "work or starve" even a remotely serious threat. Do you know how many people starve to death in the US? Because I don't, and when I've tried to find out, it turns out it's so rare they don't even show up in the statistics.
 
Please tell me that's not a labor theory of value argument, because LtV has been comprehensively discredited for decades.



You are aware that when you see dates listed as 5/18/20, the 20 there means 2020, not 1920, correct? I ask because that sort of temporally confusion is the only possibly way you could be under the impression that would-be labor organizers are being slaughtered by the big bad company, because that's not a thing that happens anymore.

Nor, for the matter, is "work or starve" even a remotely serious threat. Do you know how many people starve to death in the US? Because I don't, and when I've tried to find out, it turns out it's so rare they don't even show up in the statistics.
Labor theory of value is in fact correct.

Do you think I only care about what happens to Americans?
 
Labor theory of value is in fact correct.

No it's not. I'll explain why in a moment, but to start with, I want to know what I'm working with here, so please describe the LtV in your own words.

Do you think I only care about what happens to Americans?

Given all of your comments, yes.

EDIT: And on a quick google search, I'm not seeing your claims being true overseas either.
 
Ahh. so real capitalism has never been tried?
No, it definitely has been. I'm just pointing out that non-free labor means Not-Capitalism, in much the way that strong private property rights would make a society not-Socialist.

Most of modern America's runs under versions of free-market capitalism, for example, with some major exceptions. The exceptions as regards to labor include forced prison labor, the draft when it is used, and some criminals doing human trafficking. Some other places I would argue are capitalism, but not in the vicinity of free-market capitalism, as the US government puts a lot of regulation on them, including the healthcare, education, and defense industries.

Except you aren't actually offered a square deal. You are offered a fraction of the value of your labor. Perhaps you are receiving enough that you don't mind. But plenty of people are living on the edge of starvation, and if they try to organize, they are murdered with the tacit approval of their employers.
And here, you mix your arguments, so I'll separate them.

Except you aren't actually offered a square deal. You are offered a fraction of the value of your labor.
This is wrong here. You are assuming that being offered less than the value your boss assigns to your labor isn't a square deal. In fact, what is happening is that you give up some of the value of your labor to your boss for a number of benefits, including reliable income, the network effects of working for your employer, the ability to specialize, the equipment and capital they provide for you to work with, etc.

But that's not even the most important reason it's a square deal. We know it's a square deal because both sides consented to the deal. Consent is what makes capitalism so great. In contrast, Socialism doesn't ask for your consent, it just takes and forces regardless. So really, the difference between Capitalism and Socialism is the same difference between consensual sex and rape.

But plenty of people are living on the edge of starvation, and if they try to organize, they are murdered with the tacit approval of their employers.
But if you try to protest in a socialist place, the government murders you. By the millions. And again, if you don't have the ability to choose not to work, you aren't in a capitalistic system. It's part of the key parts of capitalism: voluntary exchange (in this case of labor for cash).

Labor theory of value is in fact correct.

Do you think I only care about what happens to Americans?
No it's not. No economist gives it the time of day because it's so crap. It's like arguing creationism to a paleontologist. Fundamentally, different people value different things differently. A things value is not dependent on how much work went into it or how expensive the stuff it is made out of, just what someone will pay for it.
 
No it's not. I'll explain why in a moment, but to start with, I want to know what I'm working with here, so please describe the LtV in your own words.



Given all of your comments, yes.
Well I am afraid you are entirely wrong. All people have the same moral worth. Now that we have that cleared up, I think it should be clear why I don't care for capitalism.

As to the answer about labor theory of value, I was being a bit cheeky with you.

My layman's understanding of the LtV is that the value of an item is determined by the labor that goes into it, including the costs of gathering materials and transporting it to market, and so that under idealized circumstances, the price of the item should be the price of the materials that went into it and the cost of the labor to produce it. In actuality prices differ due to fluctuations in demand, which is where marginal theory of demand comes in.

My smart ass answer was because, while it doesn't actually produce a model of prices, it gets to a significant point. Why should "ownership" produce wealth? The ability of someone to extract wealth from another's labor is morally bad on the face of it. And when you see the consequences for actual laborers in places where they lack strong protections from violence and exploitation that is confirmed. And our entire economy is built on access to labor without those protection, so wealth can be extracted by people totally disconnected from the labor involved.

No, it definitely has been. I'm just pointing out that non-free labor means Not-Capitalism, in much the way that strong private property rights would make a society not-Socialist.

Most of modern America's runs under versions of free-market capitalism, for example, with some major exceptions. The exceptions as regards to labor include forced prison labor, the draft when it is used, and some criminals doing human trafficking. Some other places I would argue are capitalism, but not in the vicinity of free-market capitalism, as the US government puts a lot of regulation on them, including the healthcare, education, and defense industries.


And here, you mix your arguments, so I'll separate them.


This is wrong here. You are assuming that being offered less than the value your boss assigns to your labor isn't a square deal. In fact, what is happening is that you give up some of the value of your labor to your boss for a number of benefits, including reliable income, the network effects of working for your employer, the ability to specialize, the equipment and capital they provide for you to work with, etc.

But that's not even the most important reason it's a square deal. We know it's a square deal because both sides consented to the deal. Consent is what makes capitalism so great. In contrast, Socialism doesn't ask for your consent, it just takes and forces regardless. So really, the difference between Capitalism and Socialism is the same difference between consensual sex and rape.


But if you try to protest in a socialist place, the government murders you. By the millions. And again, if you don't have the ability to choose not to work, you aren't in a capitalistic system. It's part of the key parts of capitalism: voluntary exchange (in this case of labor for cash).


No it's not. No economist gives it the time of day because it's so crap. It's like arguing creationism to a paleontologist.
Then there is no capitalist economy, because violence is used to compel workers everyday.

I'm not defending the USSR or Maoist China, so what they did isn't relevant.

The fact that your employer is able to offer or deny reliable income or access to the means of production and thus compel you to work for less than your labor is worth is in fact the problem. Describing the problem does not dissolve it.

And comparing socialism to rape is gross and weird.
Nice strawman, the head is a bit lumpy though, and one leg is longer than the other.
It isn't a strawman though? Or if it is I don't understand what you are arguing. You seemed to be saying there is no diversity of thought among philosophers. There is, and while most of that diversity is communism, some of it isn't.
 
I suppose that might be why revolution failed in the West.

Wrong:


Lenin (Vladimir Ulyanov, 1870-1924) proposed that colonialism and imperialism were relieving the stress on capitalism and had temporarily derailed history: Colonies were a safety valve for excess capital and over-production; and the exploitation of colonies enabled the capitalists to buy off the proletariat at home. But Lenin's own data showed that most foreign investment was in other capitalist countries.
 
I don't mean in the sense of FDI, as much as the worst effects of exploitation and the like.

Revolution in the west was possible, it wasn't some Bolshevik fantasy.

That is the reason for the Frankfurt School and the whole business with the French postmodernists.

1926 in Britain, 1919 in Germany, possibly 1936 in France, etc...

I do think that rising living standards, and the lack of the whole pinkerton philosophy for dealing with strikers did mean that the appeal of communism in the west faded by the 1950s or so. Though this wasn't the case everywhere.

Hell there was real risk of the French communist party rising in 1946. Among other revolutions that might have been(a major subject for communist and Marxist historians).

It does us no good to deny that yes, fear of revolution in Germany and Britain and the US was very real by politicians, and the upper classes.

@Navarro in certain places like Italy in 1919, and even Britain in 1926, the lack of a push, as well as an organized communist party meant that pre revolutionary conditions-often with Soviet equivalents faltered.
 
Wow, that looks like a crazy person website.

It's a succint and complete description of Marx's economic theories and how utterly wrong they are.

Since you of course have admitted that you know nothing about economics and have no interest in it (and have therefore concluded it's all bunk and the reason Marx isn't regarded as the greatest economic thinker of all time is a conspiracy to suppress him) you can't understand it and think it's crazy.
 
If only Trotsky had won, surely we would live in a communist utopia today.

(sarcasm obviously).

I would say what decisively ensured there would be no revolution in the US, or Germany or Britain is by 1960 or so-living standards had rose to a state that was tolerable, even for the poorest.

This meant that even if a generation before, someone working in Chicago, or Manchester, or Dijon might have eagerly taken up the red flag, they did not after that. As life was good, or at least not worth sacrificing.
 
It's a succint and complete description of Marx's economic theories and how utterly wrong they are.

Since you of course admit that you know nothing about economics and have no interest in it (and have therefore concluded it's all bunk and the reason Marx isn't regarded as the greatest economic thinker of all time is a conspiracy to suppress him) you can't understand it and think it's crazy.
I don't think there was a conspiracy to suppress Marx. He is extremely influential and nobody seems to deny that. I don't know where you are getting that from. I do think economics is very dull though.

I didn't even read the text. (as should be evident by the speed I replied). I skimmed through and saw the lay out. Then I backed out to the main page and it looked even more like a crazy person website. I actually thought it was a Stalinist website, not an anti-communist one.

But it has schizophrenic web design energy. The weird spacing, lots of image. Nothing properly centered. this kind of Time Cube vide. You see it a lot if you read crank websites that claim to have invented anti-gravity or proven pi is equal to three or whatever.
If only Trotsky had won, surely we would live in a communist utopia today.

(sarcasm obviously).
Trostsky was a dumbass. Better than Stalin by a mile, but intestinal nematodes are better than Stalin. The kind of asshole that keeps a guy like Beria around is absolute garbage.
 
Do you believe that communism would have succeeded if Rosa had won in Berlin in January 1919? Yes or no?
 
Do you believe that communism would have succeeded if Rosa had won in Berlin in January 1919? Yes or no?
No clue. :)

I don't think there is a definite answer to questions like that.

I do think it would have had a much better chance of success than it did in OTL, though. Though I think victory was basically impossible, with the social democrats deciding to work with the fascists.
 
I don't think there was a conspiracy to suppress Marx. He is extremely influential and nobody seems to deny that. I don't know where you are getting that from. I do think economics is very dull though.

You've literally stated that in this thread that Marx's economics would be universally accepted if economists hadn't accepted large amounts of bribes to refute him and that a whole school of economics was created by "the elites" from whole cloth specifically to attack Marx.

I didn't even read the text. (as should be evident by the speed I replied). I skimmed through and saw the lay out.

There are line breaks between paragraphs and sections are marked off by dividers. Each page starts with a list of quotes from various personages and the author himself about the subject they're describing.

Then I backed out to the main page and it looked even more like a crazy person website. I actually thought it was a Stalinist website, not an anti-communist one.

It's by a libertarian college professor. TBF it was designed way back in the 90s and the guy is rather old, so it's not as slick as modern sites.

The weird spacing, lots of image.

You know how in textbooks there are diagrams and photographs so the students can better visualise what they're reading? It's kind of like that. Since the guy behind the site is a college professor. Duh.

Still, this whole farrago is the most pathetic attempt at an argument you've made, and that's including the times you made casually-refuted claims about Lee Atwater and the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.

I do think it would have had a much better chance of success than it did in OTL, though.

Luxemburgism would have rapidly become "authoritarian socialism" and the German economy would have never recovered to the extent it did in Weimar. The new regime would have rang alarm bells immediately in France and Britain - we see either a quick intervention in the early 1920s which overthrows the regime in short order, or an alt-WW2 which ends much as OTL.

Though I think victory was basically impossible, with the social democrats deciding to work with the fascists.

OMG! We've got somebody who actually believes 1920s KDP propaganda they spread to justify their actual alliance with the fascists!

Aligning with the Comintern's ultra-left Third Period the KPD abruptly turned to viewing the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) as its main adversary.[20][10] In this period, the KPD referred to the SPD as "social fascists".[21] The term social fascism was introduced to the German Communist Party shortly after the Hamburg Uprising of 1923 and gradually became ever more influential in the party; by 1929 it was being propagated as a theory.[22] The KPD regarded itself as "the only anti-fascist party" in Germany and held that all other parties in the Weimar Republic were "fascist".[10] Nevertheless, it cooperated with the Nazis in the early 1930s in attacking the social democrats, and both sought to destroy the liberal democracy of the Weimar Republic.[23] In the early 1930s the KPD sought to appeal to Nazi voters with nationalist slogans[10] and in 1931 the KPD had united with the Nazis, whom they then referred to as "working people's comrades", in an unsuccessful attempt to bring down the social democrat state government of Prussia by means of a plebiscite.[24]

During the joint KPD and Nazi campaign to dissolve the Prussian Parliament, Berlin Police Captains Paul Anlauf and Franz Lenck were assassinated in Bülowplatz by Erich Mielke and Erich Ziemer, who were members of the KPD's paramilitary wing, the Parteiselbstschutz. The detailed planning for the murders had been carried out by KPD members of the Reichstag, Heinz Neumann and Hans Kippenberger, based on orders issued by Walter Ulbricht, the Party's leader in the Berlin-Brandenberg region.

In actuality, what happened was that the communists decided to launch a communist revolution and overthrow the German government in a coup similar to what the Bolsheviks did in St. Petersburg, but failed to get the local soldiers on side. Then the government sent in a militia to clear the communists out of the buildings they'd illegally occupied, and easily defeated them.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top