Open Questions For A Marxist/communist

[4588686]

well let me explain myself re: political scientists. some of them write books, play intellectual games about ideal societies that will not, cannot ever exist. We all need a hobby. It becomes sinister when the political scientist decides that progress is impossible until his vision is achieved.  

 

 

I agree with this completely.  I don't believe that hoping to get asymptotically closer, to the greatest extent possible, to what you consider to be an ideal society is necessarily bad.  Nor am I sure how any social progress is possible unless there is some values towards which you are aiming your goals.   

Edited September 16, 2013 by Hasan

[Winchester]

Why should I have to live in a system of private property that I never consented to? 

 

Because I said so.

[Winchester]

Resolved? It is not the purpose of such a thread to be resolved. It is not my intention to try to prove Communism/Marxism, or convert others to my ideology. I am merely attempting to give an exposition of the Marxian perspective.

 

 

 

So are all communists this serious?

 

Marx had it in his head that us poor laborers weren't willingly selling our labor. I like being a "wage slave".

[4588686]

So are all communists this serious?

 

Marx had it in his head that us poor laborers weren't willingly selling our labor. I like being a "wage slave".

 

 

Right.  You like it.  But you don't really have a choice in the matter.  It's the same as living under a representative, federal government.  But for the later system your an ideological purist while the former you're a pragmatist.  

[Era Might]

I am not convinced that our system is founded on the any sort of happiness or freedom. Soviet leaders preached democracy in their authoritarianism, but that did not make it true. 

 

Ok, but in that case there is not much basis for discussion, as I take patriotism seriously as a recognition of our virtues, however imperfect we are. The American people are deeply happy and free and many ways. One only needs to walk down any street in America to see it in action. Communism may or may not be free or happy, but if your argument is that communism has never actually existed in the world, then there are no streets to walk down except the streets of your mind.

Edited September 16, 2013 by Era Might

[Winchester]

Right.  You like it.  But you don't really have a choice in the matter.  It's the same as living under a representative, federal government.  But for the later system your an ideological purist while the former you're a pragmatist.  

I do have a choice. i have several choices. I prefer to not maintain capital. Apart from the tools of my trade as a writer. I am currently a wage slave in that trade, as well. However, I own the means of production for novels and short stories.

 

 

Both systems are subject to the same test. I don't presume the legitimacy of the claims of "our" government.

 

It's a question of assignation of property rights. Let's take anarchism at its purest form, prior to dealing with all the nastiness associated with all the stuff in the world. I'd say just plain old anarchism begins with no rulers. At this level, I think it means we all own ourselves (which is still a pretty big presumption, when you think about it. Why don't parents own their offspring? Because). This will be problematic for Christians, who reckon God as the owner of people. Fine. Suffice it to say that none of us own each other. We cannot treat each other like property. 

 

I believe Communists (real communists, not those who use communist rhetoric to set themselves up as owners (like the USSR political class)) will claim that holding a means of production (like a shoeshine stand) means anyone renting out the use of that stand--which is what you do when you pay someone a wage--is treating people like property. It's true that employees do not gain the full remuneration for the production process, and the employer has final approval of the percentage of production he'll release. Obviously, both the owner and employee are involved in production, but one has a final say. I think it's this final say that bothers communists. 

 

And we have reached the question portion of my post: Personal property is recognized by communists. So my house is mine. My computer is mine. But what if I use my computer as my means of production? I write. Currently, I write for a wage. But I also write fiction, and I'm fine with selling it. So my computer is a means of production. If someone wants in on my novel, must I let them in? What if another writer wants to use my computer to write his own novel? Obviously, he can't just take it or break it (I think that would make him essentially the owner of the computer, or at the very least violate the principles of cooperation behind communism), but does he have a claim on the computer, albeit one that would require negotiation between us? I don't think the claim could be made that I could just exclude him (although it seems at some point, a group of workers could exclude more people from working in a particular factory), because that would make me the sole owner of a means of production. If I decided to go it alone in the process, perhaps that would solve the problem? I wouldn't be employing anyone, so I wouldn't be exploiting a worker (not that I agree that it's exploitation to pay wages).

[John Ryan]

I was born in a socialist nation and many have lived under Communist regimes, so I take your answer to suggest you would challenge the degree to which any modern nation actually achieved socialism or communism. But my question is have you lived under any socialist or communist system to any degree?

 

The "Communist" regimes actually existing in the world are failed communist experiments. Any pretense to communism began to die within the first years after the revolution. Instead of pretending that these states were actually what the 19th century socialists fought and died for, the more reasonable argument would be to say that this is what naturally comes of communist thinking. That communist ideology, while not authoritarian, naturally decays into the most virulent totalitarianism. 

 

well let me explain myself re: political scientists. some of them write books, play intellectual games about ideal societies that will not, cannot ever exist. We all need a hobby. It becomes sinister when the political scientist decides that progress is impossible until his vision is achieved.  Or when he takes steps to erect his perfection on the real world. Or when he is long dead, somebody picks up his silly book and decides to have a go.  Now he is writing on flesh instead of paper. It goes badly 99% of the time. Intellectuals get pregnant with some idea, bring forth a revolution, which stillborn or not, devours the poor. Our friend here sighs that a "real" communist system has never been tried. why do we suppose that is? why has a "real" communist society never been tried?

 

So do you consider the American Revolution and the American Civil War to be idealist? Both were not utopian in the sense of Communism, but surely both were fought for strict ideals — national independence and the freedom of man. The Founding Fathers were far from utopian, yet their pragmatic politics lead to the collective genocide of the native american population. 

 

So are all communists this serious?

 

Marx had it in his head that us poor laborers weren't willingly selling our labor. I like being a "wage slave".

 

Marx was not a liberal, so he does not adhere to an abstract notion of individual autonomy. I would argue that your point is unfounded since the measure of something should not be whether we like it. A man may like debasing himself with pornography every morning, afternoon and evening, but that does not make it a sign of human flourishing. 

 

Ok, but in that case there is not much basis for discussion, as I take patriotism seriously as a recognition of our virtues, however imperfect we are. The American people are deeply happy and free and many ways. One only needs to walk down any street in America to see it in action. Communism may or may not be free or happy, but if your argument is that communism has never actually existed in the world, then there are no streets to walk down except the streets of your mind.

 

I am not quite sure I see this abundance of happiness. Surely there is happiness, but by what standard are we comparing this? When I look around me, I find universal dissatisfaction. There is a universal neurosis of consumerism, a universal alienation of humankind from communal ties, and a universal alienation of humankind from itself.

 

I do have a choice. i have several choices. I prefer to not maintain capital. Apart from the tools of my trade as a writer. I am currently a wage slave in that trade, as well. However, I own the means of production for novels and short stories.

 

 

Both systems are subject to the same test. I don't presume the legitimacy of the claims of "our" government.

 

It's a question of assignation of property rights. Let's take anarchism at its purest form, prior to dealing with all the nastiness associated with all the stuff in the world. I'd say just plain old anarchism begins with no rulers. At this level, I think it means we all own ourselves (which is still a pretty big presumption, when you think about it. Why don't parents own their offspring? Because). This will be problematic for Christians, who reckon God as the owner of people. Fine. Suffice it to say that none of us own each other. We cannot treat each other like property. 

 

I believe Communists (real communists, not those who use communist rhetoric to set themselves up as owners (like the USSR political class)) will claim that holding a means of production (like a shoeshine stand) means anyone renting out the use of that stand--which is what you do when you pay someone a wage--is treating people like property. It's true that employees do not gain the full remuneration for the production process, and the employer has final approval of the percentage of production he'll release. Obviously, both the owner and employee are involved in production, but one has a final say. I think it's this final say that bothers communists. 

 

And we have reached the question portion of my post: Personal property is recognized by communists. So my house is mine. My computer is mine. But what if I use my computer as my means of production? I write. Currently, I write for a wage. But I also write fiction, and I'm fine with selling it. So my computer is a means of production. If someone wants in on my novel, must I let them in? What if another writer wants to use my computer to write his own novel? Obviously, he can't just take it or break it (I think that would make him essentially the owner of the computer, or at the very least violate the principles of cooperation behind communism), but does he have a claim on the computer, albeit one that would require negotiation between us? I don't think the claim could be made that I could just exclude him (although it seems at some point, a group of workers could exclude more people from working in a particular factory), because that would make me the sole owner of a means of production. If I decided to go it alone in the process, perhaps that would solve the problem? I wouldn't be employing anyone, so I wouldn't be exploiting a worker (not that I agree that it's exploitation to pay wages).

 

Deploying the reductio ad absurdum against communist philosophy is a common criticism. In other words, private property must exist, because the logic of its non-existence is too absurd. However, I do not believe the reduction appears so absurd once we flesh it out and discard old ways of thinking. To answer your question: I imagine a communist society in which computers represent personal property that could be owned exclusively by individuals. The computer is so ubiquitous in our society that it would basically be a free resource in a communist mode of production. I do not see why anyone would need to use your computer. Nevertheless, on such a small scale, I am not sure it matters who owns the means of production (a computer). Rather, it is the distribution that becomes crucial.

 

I envision a communist literature to function similarly to fan-fiction. There would be no such copy-right laws as such, since you cannot monetarily profit from your literature. You can withhold your novel from the world, if you choose not to distribute it. If you distribute it, it is distributed freely, whether online or published by whatever workers are laboring to produce physical books. The only way I can think that one could profit from a novel is by being only willing to trade for it in a barter exchange. However, such a desire would surely seem boorish and offensive in a world where literature is free for all. 

[Era Might]

I am not quite sure I see this abundance of happiness. Surely there is happiness, but by what standard are we comparing this? When I look around me, I find universal dissatisfaction. There is a universal neurosis of consumerism, a universal alienation of humankind from communal ties, and a universal alienation of humankind from itself.

 

Well, in the context of this thread I'm comparing it to Communism as it has existed historically. No doubt, we have lots of problems in our society, but we also have lots of real successes, not just theoretical successes. Communism, as it actually existed, did not solve any of the problems you describe, and I can't think of much positive that it did accomplish in terms of freedom, culture, personality, happiness.

 

Most of what you describe is largely a product of industrialization, and the difficulties of creating human-scaled society in an industrial world. Capitalism has not done that perfectly, but I think it has proven its ability to be integrated into Western civilization and Western virtues such as freedom, democracy, personality, religion, etc.

 

Not many people flock to Cuba or North Korea for happiness. I say that not as a jingoist but as a simple statement of comparison. If you need a standard of comparison, I would start there.

Edited September 16, 2013 by Era Might

[Lilllabettt]

So do you consider the American Revolution and the American Civil War to be idealist? Both were not utopian in the sense of Communism, but surely both were fought for strict ideals — national independence and the freedom of man. The Founding Fathers were far from utopian, yet their pragmatic politics lead to the collective genocide of the native american population. 

 

The American revolution was not ideological. This is why it did not eat its children, the way most other revolutions do. It was bourgeois and conservative. John Adams, Mr. Radical, went so far as to express a wish to go on being ruled by a King.  The Civil War was not a revolutionary war. The Union ideal was a conservative one - preserve the Union.  The Confederate ideal was conservative - maintain the plantation tradition.  Neither really wanted to change anything. They were afraid of the other guy's revolution. Later on the ideological stuff was imported into the war narrative, the better to open veins and scorch the earth.

Edited September 16, 2013 by Lilllabettt

[Winchester]

 

Deploying the reductio ad absurdum against communist philosophy is a common criticism. In other words, private property must exist, because the logic of its non-existence is too absurd. However, I do not believe the reduction appears so absurd once we flesh it out and discard old ways of thinking. To answer your question: I imagine a communist society in which computers represent personal property that could be owned exclusively by individuals. The computer is so ubiquitous in our society that it would basically be a free resource in a communist mode of production. I do not see why anyone would need to use your computer. Nevertheless, on such a small scale, I am not sure it matters who owns the means of production (a computer). Rather, it is the distribution that becomes crucial.

 

I envision a communist literature to function similarly to fan-fiction. There would be no such copy-right laws as such, since you cannot monetarily profit from your literature. You can withhold your novel from the world, if you choose not to distribute it. If you distribute it, it is distributed freely, whether online or published by whatever workers are laboring to produce physical books. The only way I can think that one could profit from a novel is by being only willing to trade for it in a barter exchange. However, such a desire would surely seem boorish and offensive in a world where literature is free for all. 

I entirely reject the concept of intellectual property. Once I release my novel, it's out there and people can copy it. There are interesting debates about forms of copyright as contract. I accept that I will lose control over anything I publish. I'd love to have credit by mention of my name, but demanding money or using courts? Not my style, I don't think. 

 

I don't see small scale production as being problematic to anarcho-communists. It's the concentrations of wealth or property that seem to be objectionable, and I think the criticism of anarcho-capitalism from an-coms is that this becomes inevitable. If we both hate the State, I think that's something to bond over. Mercantilism for an an-cap is not synonymous with capitalism. I prefer 'libertarian anarchist' because Gerard Casey does, and he has a soothing Irish accent, but I'm pretty much an an-cap for the purposes of this conversation.

 

Money arises. Tobacco has served as money. So have furs. Leave people to their devices, and they will eventually come up with some form of money. It makes trade easier. It's just bartering with a very commonly accepted good. Absent a legal tender law of some sort, this isn't a problem, but a boon.

[Apteka]

The "Communist" regimes actually existing in the world are failed communist experiments. Any pretense to communism began to die within the first years after the revolution. Instead of pretending that these states were actually what the 19th century socialists fought and died for, the more reasonable argument would be to say that this is what naturally comes of communist thinking. That communist ideology, while not authoritarian, naturally decays into the most virulent totalitarianism. 

 

I asked only get your perspective on things, and get a sense where you're coming from. If I may follow up with my original question, is there a society or nation in history that you feel did reflect real socialism or communism?