Shock Socialism, The Best Solution for Capitalism

[pErvinalia]

If Brazil is socialist then what is Norway?

[Hermit]

We could have revolution that would benefit the community that would get rid of capitalism.

I know, we'll call it Comm..., Communy..., er, Communism?

Historically, communism has always finished up benefiting an ever diminishing percentage of whatever community it was attempted.

What you are calling "Communism" is in fact State Capitalism.

Well, yes, that was the outcome of every communist revolution to date. I'm sure it was not the aim of most revolutionaries, though.

If only the right people were in charge of all those attempts... that's the problem.

I am certain you wrote that with tongue firmly in cheek.

[JimC]

Whose cheek is the question...

[rainbow]

We could have revolution that would benefit the community that would get rid of capitalism.

I know, we'll call it Comm..., Communy..., er, Communism?

Historically, communism has always finished up benefiting an ever diminishing percentage of whatever community it was attempted.

What you are calling "Communism" is in fact State Capitalism.

Any communism that has been tried and doesn't work wasn't the real communism.

That leads us to the following:

1. Has there been a communism in the world that was, in fact, communism?

Nope, except on a small scale.

2. If not, can you give a brief overview of what a communist country, in practice, would look like, or point to your source for what constitutes the real communism?

Das Capital.

When you've reddit, come back and ask what bits were too difficult for you to grasp, and we'll try to enlighten you.

[Hermit]

can you give a brief overview of what a communist country, in practice, would look like, or point to your source for what constitutes the real communism?

Das Capital.

Das Kapital is not a brief. The first volume alone goes on for well over 500 pages. The PDFs of following two, finished by Engels after Marx died, fill 373 and 645 pages respectively. Nor is Das Kapital an overview of communism. The subtitles make that abundantly clear:
Volume I The Process of Production of Capital
Volume II The Process of Circulation of Capital
Volume III The Process of Capitalist Production as a Whole

The briefest overview of communism I can think of is in the first 54 of the 68 page Manifesto of the Communist Party by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, first published in 1847 and last edited in 1890.

[Forty Two]

Whose cheek is the question...

Mila Kunis'

[Forty Two]

We could have revolution that would benefit the community that would get rid of capitalism.

I know, we'll call it Comm..., Communy..., er, Communism?

Historically, communism has always finished up benefiting an ever diminishing percentage of whatever community it was attempted.

What you are calling "Communism" is in fact State Capitalism.

Any communism that has been tried and doesn't work wasn't the real communism.

That leads us to the following:

1. Has there been a communism in the world that was, in fact, communism?

Nope, except on a small scale.

Which are the small scale ones? Let's see it in practice, if it really helps the poor better.

2. If not, can you give a brief overview of what a communist country, in practice, would look like, or point to your source for what constitutes the real communism?

Das Capital.

When you've reddit, come back and ask what bits were too difficult for you to grasp, and we'll try to enlighten you.

If you'd like to enlighten me, I'd be glad to have your expertise.

Which volume of Das Kapital do you believe presents Marx and Engel's structure of a good, socialist economic system? Is that in Volume 1? Volume 3? Volume 4? And, which chapters? I'm sure you know that much of it is dedicated to discussing the underpinnings and development of the then-current economic system, and it is not a blueprint for a socialist economy, yes?

Maybe you can explain the basis Marx has for concluding that "labor" has a heightened, intrinsic value, different from that of a capital good or a consumer good. Does he have a basis for that, or does he just declare it? Since you've studied the books, I expect you'd be able to point me to where that is in the text. Because if he's wrong on that, I'm sure you'd agree that there are some troubles with his theories, yes?

What is Marx's proposal on how to quantify the value of labor? In Das Kapital, Marx simply ignores the fact that without a system to quantify value, the value of labor is simply qualitative. Since he's rejecting supply-and-demand when it comes to labor, what does he replace it with?

[Forty Two]

The briefest overview of communism I can think of is in the first 54 of the 68 page Manifesto of the Communist Party by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, first published in 1847 and last edited in 1890.

Indeed, and it sets forth interesting aspects such as the elimination of private property, the silencing of dissent, the confiscation of the assets of dissidents and expatriates, elimination of the family/marriage, elimination of freedom of religion, application of all rents to public purposes, exclusive monopoly on credit to be in the hands of the state (no private lending), centralization of communication and transportation in the State, central planning of industry and agriculture, equal OBLIGATION of all to work (including industrial and agricultural "armies"), abolition of all inheritance, abolition of all for-profit business, elimination of dissent (no free speech for those who oppose the Community or the central plan), etc.

[Hermit]

The briefest overview of communism I can think of is in the first 54 of the 68 page Manifesto of the Communist Party by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, first published in 1847 and last edited in 1890.

Indeed, and it sets forth interesting aspects such as the elimination of private property, the silencing of dissent, the confiscation of the assets of dissidents and expatriates, elimination of the family/marriage, elimination of freedom of religion, application of all rents to public purposes, exclusive monopoly on credit to be in the hands of the state (no private lending), centralization of communication and transportation in the State, central planning of industry and agriculture, equal OBLIGATION of all to work (including industrial and agricultural "armies"), abolition of all inheritance, abolition of all for-profit business, elimination of dissent (no free speech for those who oppose the Community or the central plan), etc.

That's the libertarian slant on what's in the book. What you refer to as "the elimination of private property", for instance, is a gross distortion of "the elimination of private ownership of the means of production". Neither Marx nor Engels proposed that under communism your razor or your son's teddy bear will become public property.

Be it as it may, I am not interested in defending communism, basically because I am not in favour of communism. I am not interested in attacking capitalism either, basically because I think capitalism is how things work best. What I am opposed to is Milton Friedman's version of capitalism. It gives capitalists too much leeway for destruction in order to maximise profit and not enough scope to prevent the ensuing human suffering. If you can get yourself to think of me and very likely all or almost all other forum members as capitalists we might actually have a more fruitful discussion.

[pErvinalia]

No man, you're either a free market capitalist or a socialist. There's no in-between.

[Forty Two]

The briefest overview of communism I can think of is in the first 54 of the 68 page Manifesto of the Communist Party by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, first published in 1847 and last edited in 1890.

Indeed, and it sets forth interesting aspects such as the elimination of private property, the silencing of dissent, the confiscation of the assets of dissidents and expatriates, elimination of the family/marriage, elimination of freedom of religion, application of all rents to public purposes, exclusive monopoly on credit to be in the hands of the state (no private lending), centralization of communication and transportation in the State, central planning of industry and agriculture, equal OBLIGATION of all to work (including industrial and agricultural "armies"), abolition of all inheritance, abolition of all for-profit business, elimination of dissent (no free speech for those who oppose the Community or the central plan), etc.

That's the libertarian slant on what's in the book. What you refer to as "the elimination of private property", for instance, is a gross distortion of "the elimination of private ownership of the means of production".

Well, In The Communist Manifesto, Marx literally wrote: "In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so: that is just what we intend.” He wrote, “the theory of Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”

Personal possessions, to the extent other people would have no need for them, are irrelevant and not the private property they are talking about. I.e., I acknowledge that one's shirt on one's back, and one's toothbrush are not the private property they are talking about. But, they are talking about things like houses and cars. For example, all rents are paid to the State, so that means there is no ownership for the collection of rent by individuals who own houses. Also, you can't finance a house unless the government gives you a loan, and you'd have no ownership right in the house to exclude others from the house if they have no place to live. I.e. communism theoretically would suggest that a couple with a 1500 square meter house with 5 bedrooms and three bathrooms could not exclude people who need a roof. A person wouldn't own a car, but the car would be shared equally by those who need it - you don't have a possessory right to transportation for yourself - people have an equal right to transportation.

Neither Marx nor Engels proposed that under communism your razor or your son's teddy bear will become public property.

Indeed, but that's all you get under communism. Your necessaries. You aren't allowed more than you "need" and you don't get to determine what you need. Need is determined by the State, as part of the central economic plan.

Be it as it may, I am not interested in defending communism, basically because I am not in favour of communism. I am not interested in attacking capitalism either, basically because I think capitalism is how things work best. What I am opposed to is Milton Friedman's version of capitalism. It gives capitalists too much leeway for destruction in order to maximise profit and not enough scope to prevent the ensuing human suffering. If you can get yourself to think of me and very likely all or almost all other forum members as capitalists we might actually have a more fruitful discussion.

I've not expressed any opinion on what you or other forum members are. They're posting what they post. I haven't suggested they aren't capitalists. The ones that are suggesting that are the ones that are suggesting other systems.

I don't see what's not fruitful about the discussion. I'm not the one doing any sort of attacking of anyone on this thread or the other Capitalism thread that's active now. If you read the post, I'm sticking strictly to the issues at hand, and not at all to either attacking any forum member or arguing about what system forum members adhere to, if any.

[Hermit]

Well, In The Communist Manifesto, Marx literally wrote: "In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so: that is just what we intend.” He wrote, “the theory of Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”

It's easy to recontextualise stuff by isolating it from the original context. You get something like this:



Had you read the communist manifesto instead of copypasting a snippet from some site, you would have noticed this just above the bit you quoted. I'll highlight the section you lifted from it to make the wilful excision more obvious.

• All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions. The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property. The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few. In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

Below the snippet you quoted, the manifesto continues:

• When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.

and

• Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

Sounds good to me. In theory. In practice, as everybody who has ever lived under an allegedly communist system has inevitably found out, some people very quickly become more equal than others, and have accordingly different needs. Mao Zedong apparently had 25 Mercedes-Benz 600 Kompressor at his disposal. They were more luxurious and more expensive than any car Rolls Royce made at the time.

communism theoretically would suggest that a couple with a 1500 square meter house with 5 bedrooms and three bathrooms could not exclude people who need a roof. A person wouldn't own a car, but the car would be shared equally by those who need it - you don't have a possessory right to transportation for yourself - people have an equal right to transportation.

Worst case scenario much?

I am not opposed to communism because it is evil and all it wants to do is to destroy the freedom of the individual. It isn't and it doesn't. My opposition stems from the empirical fact that it has never worked, and knowing what we do know about human beings it never fucking will. Given enough time, and it usually does not require much of it, the dictatorship of the proletariat morphs into the tyranny of a very small, tight-knit oligarchy and a single individual soon after that.

[Forty Two]

My opposition does not stem from the fact that it is evil or that it wants to destroy freedom either. It's not evil or good, and it doesn't want anything, because it is just a system. I agree with you that it would never work. I also would extend that to the notion that in my view, even if the system did work, it would not be particularly good for the individual members of society.

[Hermit]

My opposition does not stem from the fact that it is evil or that it wants to destroy freedom either. It's not evil or good, and it doesn't want anything, because it is just a system. I agree with you that it would never work. I also would extend that to the notion that in my view, even if the system did work, it would not be particularly good for the individual members of society.

In my previous post I basically wanted to clarify that the snippets you quoted did not reflect what they actually meant because they were quoted in isolation from their context. The same can be said about your mention of "the silencing of dissent, the confiscation of the assets of dissidents and expatriates, elimination of the family/marriage, elimination of freedom of religion, application of all rents to public purposes, exclusive monopoly on credit to be in the hands of the state (no private lending), centralization of communication and transportation in the State, central planning of industry and agriculture, equal OBLIGATION of all to work (including industrial and agricultural "armies"), abolition of all inheritance, abolition of all for-profit business, elimination of dissent [again ] (no free speech for those who oppose the Community or the central plan), etc", but I am not interested in going through them one by one because communism is a lost cause to me and going through the exercise once with your "the elimination of private property" should suffice to illustrate the principle anyhow.

The way you listed those items does rather more than suggest to me that you regard communism as evil and that it wants to destroy freedom. I'm pretty sure you actually said as much in other posts, but I'm not going to search for them now.

[Animavore]

The rich getting mega rich. Article by a CEO. And pointed out to me by another CEO.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/07/ ... hecks.html

Capitalism is corrupt through and true.