Communism!

[kroner]

Why must everything be significant in the long-term? Just because I believe eventually that communism will be universally accepted, doesn't mean that I don't care about politics now. I have beliefs - stemming from experience and personal feeling - that do not fit with Communism. It simply does not fit our mindset, just as democracy did not fit the attitudes of certain countries in the Medieval period.

I think you have some strange conviction that people will change in their basic nature over time. The only significant differences you can expect in the future, even the very long term future are increases in technology and changes in the gereral conditions of our habitat (population, pollution, space colonization, etc.) None of these differences will make Communism more implementable. The flaws in Communism lie in human nature. How then do you come to the conclusion that Communism is an end state? How do you propose it could ever be stable in its pure form?

I'm raiding the whole thread for bits to comment on.

The principles of democracy make you THINK you really have a choice about what goes on in the government, but really, who can you choose from? [...] Are Kerry and Bush really that different? No, the left-wing right-wing thing is just something to make it seem like youre taking a side, when really, theyre pretty much the same, except they benefit different special interest groups...

Yes, American politics is something like professional wrestling. A chance to let off steam and believe in something larger than yourself, but outcomes are largely manipulated.

You allude to some grand conspiracy. It's easy to think that way, but things are usually as simple as they seem. The media is more like an overpowered headless chicken, running about, wreaaking havoc. They do what they think will sell. As rklenseth said, politicians and political parties know how to manipulate the idiocy of the media, and the idiocy of the general population. That's what politics is about. People are very stupid. If you know how to play them right, you can make them think that what you want is what they want, but it's not an easy game to play because there's stiff competition.
Sure some of the media is owned by people with an agenda, but there's no secret unified force behind the whole thing. It's much more chaotic than that.

Last point:
Yes both candidates in a given election may not be ideal, both candidates may be terrible or both are stupid. It's easy to decide you're above the whole thing. But the candidates are not the same. There are degrees of terribleness, there are degrees of stupidity. Believe me. It's up to you to do what you can for the lesser of two evils. So quit your whining and go vote for the major party candidate you hate least or else you're doing less than you can be for the fate of the world.

[rklenseth]

Hey, everyone is agreeing with me. I must be doing something wrong. Where is Pirog when you need him?

[Pirog]

You called...

I haven't read the whole topic but I agree with your first answer.

I believe communism could work if certain requirements were met and the people in the Western world would want to lose some of their privileges in exchange for a planet where everyone would have a reasonable good life.
As it is now we are too selfish to even want that change. At some times, like during the Russian Revolution and in the seventies, the political climate was at least close to a point where people would embrace communism...but even that isn't enough.

First of all there would have to a global revolution.
As it is now a country that becomes communistic have to isolate themselves from the rest of the world, since trade with capitalistic countries etc. won't work. And isolating yourself is never good.

Second of all these revolutions would have to be led by people without claims of power for themselves. Interim governments would be necessary until the communistic system would come in effect, and there is always much temptation for these interim governments to remain in power...

When it comes to the actual work process where anti-communists often point out that a lot of people would just decide to sit home and do nothing instead of being part of the community, there are many ideas on how to prevent such things...systems where people could pretty much work with what they want and society would still remain. Michael Foucalt has some interesting ideas of it, but you have to look it up yourself since it is too advanced for me to explain here.

Personally I believe that we will some time in the distant future have a society that is close to communism, but as it is today we are neither ready or willing to embrace the idea of a world where everyone are equally worth. As we who sit here are all part of the "winning side" we are content with what we have...

[Appleide]

Well, China isn't too bad in its communist economy, and they seem to be getting back on its feet, almost everywhere you look things are made in china, even though china might not earn much from the product which you bought, they still at least earned the wages, so more and more people would like chinese workers to do their jobs, so chinese people get a wage rise.

The only flaw with the communist party of China is that they aren't as communist any more. They abandoned the "iron rice bowl" thing where everyone gets food no matter how good you work. Now all they do is control the population and the interest rates. As a matter of fact, they are moving away from true communism, but right now, they are still very left wing (more than italy)

I live in Australia where the political landscape is neither left or right wing (although John Howard is still a little right wing, and I don't like him, he should be more neutral, we don't even get new chairs and curtains anymore, our school can't afford it, they said our twenty and ten year old chairs are just fine)

The soviets only collapsed when it used 90% of its budget on military

Disclaimer- the above info may not be entirely true, that is just what I read from newspapers, internet, tv.

[The Industriallist]

I believe communism could work if certain requirements were met and the people in the Western world would want to lose some of their privileges in exchange for a planet where everyone would have a reasonable good life.

THere's no actual reason everyone (or almost everyone) can't have a a good life under capitalism. Theoretically, you would (or should) expect capitalism to spiral up and suck in more workers, with ultimately everyone getting more goods. There are a number of reasons this hasn't happened, some of which are well outside the domain of economics.

Now, since there are certain forms of unemployment that are probably unavoidable, a dash of sociallism is probably a good thing. Unless some unforseen turning allows unskilled labor to have reasonable productivity.

Personally I believe that we will some time in the distant future have a society that is close to communism, but as it is today we are neither ready or willing to embrace the idea of a world where everyone are equally worth. As we who sit here are all part of the "winning side" we are content with what we have...

I don't think that it's sound as long as the economy requires human workers. If some people are producing more than others, they can be expected to claim the benefits...you could brainwash them otherwise perhaps. Which in a sense means that communism could work. You just need better ways to control people's desires and a trustworthy leader. Yeah.

If you had some productivity from outside the population (robot industry! Robot industry!) that the government, whatever form that might take, could control, you could institute an equal payment to everyone out of that. If it's big enough, it could become the dominating factor in the economy.

[The Sociologist]

Yes, American politics is something like professional wrestling. A chance to let off steam and believe in something larger than yourself, but outcomes are largely manipulated.

You allude to some grand conspiracy. It's easy to think that way, but things are usually as simple as they seem. The media is more like an overpowered headless chicken, running about, wreaaking havoc.

I can think of a lot of things to call Rupert Murdoch, but headless chicken is not one of them.

And I'm not arguing for a grand conspiracy. I'm merely pointing out the obvious. To take it further, the Iraq war scenario was developed during the 90s by a think-tank comprising right-wing intellectuals known as neocons, most of whom now occupy positions in the Pentagon. The funding for this think-tank came principally from the major shareholders of certain media interests which then then promoted the war in their publications. These same interests also played a significant role in financing the Bush campaign.

Does it not seem odd that these same interests had also supported Tony Blair's Labor party in the previous British election? For example, he had the endorsement of the Sun newspaper, a Murdoch publication.

Finally, Kerry was supported over Dean in much the same way, thereby giving a remarkably weak and uncharismatic man an enormous boost in the primaries. "If not Bush then Kerry" was the thinking. Kerry will do what he is told to do in the same way Blair does.

We even know the name of the man who used to convey instructions from Murdoch's people to Blair. As is typical of the neocons, he was noted for extreme right-wing views and support for Enron even after the debacle. His services were only discontinued after the Guardian began counting his visits to 10 Downing Street.

Sure, there are subtle differences in policy needs between Texas oil interests, East Coast free-trading interests, and so on. But these are not fundamental.

They do what they think will sell. As rklenseth said, politicians and political parties know how to manipulate the idiocy of the media, and the idiocy of the general population. That's what politics is about. People are very stupid.

If you wish to believe that the people who control some of the most powerful institutions in human history are idiots, that is your affair.
.

[Pirog]

Well, China isn't too bad in its communist economy.

That depends on what perspective you take.
It isn't bad for the capitalists in Chine that reap the benifits, but it is for the population who are used as slave labor in a system where they have no political power...

There's no actual reason everyone (or almost everyone) can't have a a good life under capitalism.

There are plenty of reasons, but I do agree that it is POSSIBLE for everyone/almost everyone to have a good life under capitalism.
But the primary reason for it not to happen is that capitalism is very much about striving for maximal profit for minimal costs...and using third world countries will always be an easy way to achieve that goal.

But I think we feel the same about it. I don't call myself a communist, although I think the communistic idea is very appealing to me.
We can just as well refine the capitalistic system to make people more caring than by a global communistic revolution...

On the other hand there may very well come new alternatives in the future...

I don't think that it's sound as long as the economy requires human workers. If some people are producing more than others, they can be expected to claim the benefits

But that isn't the current progress, where the Western world is outsourcing everything to third world workers that works for less than minimum wage.
The main purpose for citizens in the Western world is no longer to produce...nowdays it is all about consuming.

But my communistic future vision evolves around a hope that humankind through education will one day see all humans as one people instead of viewing them as strangers. The nations are allready starting to die...the term global or world citizen may come in effect during our life time.

[The Industriallist]

There's no actual reason everyone (or almost everyone) can't have a a good life under capitalism.

There are plenty of reasons, but I do agree that it is POSSIBLE for everyone/almost everyone to have a good life under capitalism.
But the primary reason for it not to happen is that capitalism is very much about striving for maximal profit for minimal costs...and using third world countries will always be an easy way to achieve that goal.

So long as the "third world" exists, you don't have everyone getting a good life under whatever system you're using. Maximal profit for minimal costs just means that companies are devoted to imbalancing income...but that's only an obsticle if there isn't enough to go around.

But I think we feel the same about it. I don't call myself a communist, although I think the communistic idea is very appealing to me.
We can just as well refine the capitalistic system to make people more caring than by a global communistic revolution...

The appeal of communism to me is that in theory, if properly managed, it could be more efficient. The automatic support is almost a downside.

On the other hand there may very well come new alternatives in the future...

Yes...but in my limited foresight that would require (A) a computer mastermind capable of replacing government agencies in economic management OR (B) an end to dependance on human labor, coupled with massive socialism.

I don't think that it's sound as long as the economy requires human workers. If some people are producing more than others, they can be expected to claim the benefits

But that isn't the current progress, where the Western world is outsourcing everything to third world workers that works for less than minimum wage.
The main purpose for citizens in the Western world is no longer to produce...nowdays it is all about consuming.

According to the theory of markets, the ones who are 'worth' the most get paid the most. Those markets are pretty distorted in some cases...but in the case of the labor market, jobs are fleeing because the US workers don't produce more than the third world workers, but claim the benefits anyway.

Western ciitizens have to be paid for something if they're going to consume...and there's no motivation for businesses to pay them if they don't produce something useful to the business. If all businesses needed Americans for was buyers, they would leave the US altogether. Likewise for other countries.

But my communistic future vision evolves around a hope that humankind through education will one day see all humans as one people instead of viewing them as strangers. The nations are allready starting to die...the term global or world citizen may come in effect during our life time.

I don't see what kindness or unity has to do with communism, really. Communism is about government controlled economics, presumably with more equal distribution of wealth. It doesn't mean you have to like anyone, and it doesn't have anything to do with international business.

And I don't see nationalism of any kind dieing out. I wish I did. On bad days I'd almost be willing to nuke the world down to non-nationalists...it realy is that big a problem. But as my nuclear response suggests, I don't think that education has shown any success at weeding it out. Maybe dictatorial education would do better

[kroner]

I can think of a lot of things to call Rupert Murdoch, but headless chicken is not one of them.

He's the obvious exception. Yes he has a very clear agenda and controls a number of publications, but it's certainly not all of the media or even a majority of it. I'll grant you that through the media companies he owns he does weild a great deal of power and he does use that power for his own dishonorable ends. But still, as a whole I'd say most of the mainstream media companies are concerned at least as much about making a profit as they are about pushing their agenda.

If you wish to believe that the people who control some of the most powerful institutions in human history are idiots, that is your affair.

The mainstream media being idiotic does not mean that the the people running the media companies are idiots. They merely know what sells and usually it's the most sensational crap they can find. Unfortunately this makes them suceptable to manipulation, including that from other media companies. This gives Rupert Murdoch and political parties both (and anyone else in the politics/media game with tons of money to spend) an easy avenue to twist the mainstream's arm. So I agree with you to some extent, but I still think no conspiracy, just a few evil bastards with too much cash who try to push things.[/quote]

[Pirog]

So long as the "third world" exists, you don't have everyone getting a good life under whatever system you're using. Maximal profit for minimal costs just means that companies are devoted to imbalancing income...but that's only an obsticle if there isn't enough to go around.

But the third world exists very much because of capitalism.
Not even the most devoted supporter of capitalism and free trade can deny that. We build our wealth on the misery of the people we exploit.

The appeal of communism to me is that in theory, if properly managed, it could be more efficient. The automatic support is almost a downside.

How do you mean that support is "almost a downside"?

Yes...but in my limited foresight that would require (A) a computer mastermind capable of replacing government agencies in economic management OR (B) an end to dependance on human labor, coupled with massive socialism.

All it takes would be a shift in focus. There are many current theories about new systems that would replace capitalism and democracy...

According to the theory of markets, the ones who are 'worth' the most get paid the most. Those markets are pretty distorted in some cases...but in the case of the labor market, jobs are fleeing because the US workers don't produce more than the third world workers, but claim the benefits anyway.

I find that a very strange way of looking at it.
It isn't the US workers that claims the benifits as much as the third world workers who are exploited since their situations prevent them from asking for benifits.
The way you put it sounds like the western workers are spoiled and that wages should always be kept at a minimum...or was your point made out of a pure capitalistic economical view?

Western ciitizens have to be paid for something if they're going to consume...and there's no motivation for businesses to pay them if they don't produce something useful to the business. If all businesses needed Americans for was buyers, they would leave the US altogether. Likewise for other countries.

Even unemployed people in the Western world gets more money than most workers in the third world. I'm not good at economics but even people without jobs consume...

I don't see what kindness or unity has to do with communism, really. Communism is about government controlled economics, presumably with more equal distribution of wealth. It doesn't mean you have to like anyone, and it doesn't have anything to do with international business.

The system was designed to give everyone an equal living situation. It has more to do with justice than kindness, but it does involve caring about other people.
And although communism in itself has no direct links to international business it will be hard for a communistic country to have open borders to capitalistic countries. A communstic system would fall quickly if millionaires from the neighbour countries could move over the border and keep their money for example...

And I don't see nationalism of any kind dieing out. I wish I did. On bad days I'd almost be willing to nuke the world down to non-nationalists...it realy is that big a problem. But as my nuclear response suggests, I don't think that education has shown any success at weeding it out. Maybe dictatorial education would do better

I do. The nations are slowly, but steadily, being hollowed out. Globalisation, with many of the national institutions lifted out and given a global context, makes it's part along with the decline in people believing or taking part in democracy.
According to many cultural studies researchers our societies will move back to adapting a sort of tribal society again.

[Surly]

I think you have some strange conviction that people will change in their basic nature over time. The only significant differences you can expect in the future, even the very long term future are increases in technology and changes in the gereral conditions of our habitat (population, pollution, space colonization, etc.) None of these differences will make Communism more implementable. The flaws in Communism lie in human nature. How then do you come to the conclusion that Communism is an end state? How do you propose it could ever be stable in its pure form?

How is it a strange conviction? QUite simply, people do change. How many people on this forum openly condone slavery? That was considered fine not so long ago. The capitalist system would not have worked if it was implemented, say, a thousand years ago. Then we were still in the "feudal" section of Marx's dialectic. Many countries are still in that stage... But eventually capitalism will penetrate.
There was a leaning towards socialism in the 20th century - admittedly we have swung more the other way now - which could easily resurface. That is the next step on the dialectic, and it is very possible.

The nations are slowly, but steadily, being hollowed out. Globalisation, with many of the national institutions lifted out and given a global context, makes it's part along with the decline in people believing or taking part in democracy.
According to many cultural studies researchers our societies will move back to adapting a sort of tribal society again.

This is a very interesting point. I agree that there may well be a leaning towards adapting a form of tribal society - manifesting in a socialist system.

Now again, I don't believe that communism will happen within my lifetime. But I believe it will happen, just read Karl Marx if you wnat more details than I can give.

[kroner]

But the third world exists very much because of capitalism.
Not even the most devoted supporter of capitalism and free trade can deny that. We build our wealth on the misery of the people we exploit.

This is in most regaurds false. Capitalism acts in many ways as an equalizer. Outsourcing for example. Due to globalization, an unskilled worker in a 3rd world country can be used for exactly the same job as an unskilled worker in an industrialized nation. The worker in the 3rd world country can often due the job for cheaper and so they'll get the job if capitalism and free trade are strictly adhered to all around. Who does this benifit? Certainly not the now enemployed worker in the industrialized country. And yes, it does benifit the 3rd world worker to have more job opportunities. In fact, the demand for labor would eventually lead to rises in wages.

It isn't the US workers that claims the benifits as much as the third world workers who are exploited since their situations prevent them from asking for benifits.

It is exactly that US workers claim benifits. I'm not really sure what you mean by "exploiting" the workers in 3rd world countries. The wages that jobs pay should be market rates. Any deviation from this is the result of deviations from free market economics. Here's what drives the wages down in 3rd world countries:
Many developed nations such as my own feel responsible for their unskilled workers who have to compete with foreign labor. Fine. Welfare and other social programs I fully support. Subsidies for education are good too. But the government also subsidizes domestic businesses which undercuts the global market. Farm subsidies are a prime example here in the US. The US government undercuts the international market for food stuffs by throwing money at farmers. This artifically raises supply and drives down prices by a huge amount around the world. This makes it that much harder for foreign farmers, especially those in 3rd world countries that don't have government subsideis, to turn a profit. Everyones wages go down except American farmers whose are inflated. There is no logical reason for this. The excess farmers in US need to find other jobs where there's actually a real market for their services instead of an artificial one set up by the government that simultaneously hurts the rest of the world and pisses everyone off. So no, it's usually not free trade that harms the workers of developing countries. Quite the opposite.

Mind you this has nothing to do with the merits or flaws of Communism. If a nation was able to implement Communism and remain efficient, they could do just fine in free market international trade. The trade would of course be handled by the government, not individual businesses, but the mechanisms would be the same.

[Pirog]

kroner>

That is a very romantic view of it...but you don't seem to understand much about the worker conditions in the third world. In most cases it is little more than slave camps that are used.

Western companies that outsource manufacturing jobs also have a lot of countries to chose from, so they usually avoid paying taxes and other things that would actually benifit the third world countries...

The current situation, that has been pretty much the same since the colonization, is that the western world buy raw materials from the third world, process and refine it, and then sell the finished products back to the third world at a much larger prize.
Early on the third world countries were forced to start to loan money to buy these refined products. Nowdays almost all third world countries are held back because their debts are so large that they have to loan more money just to pay the interest.
Many western countries have started to write of those debts so that the third world countries will finally have enough money to rebuild their societies...but then again we have those countries that like the way it is, since it benifits them a lot.

[The Industriallist]

Fun wanderings in the nature of international capitalism!

That is a very romantic view of it...but you don't seem to understand much about the worker conditions in the third world. In most cases it is little more than slave camps that are used.

Are you actually attempting to say that people have no choice but take the work? Not no economically feasable choice, but no choice other than direct execution? Because unless you are, it isn't slavery.

Western companies that outsource manufacturing jobs also have a lot of countries to chose from, so they usually avoid paying taxes and other things that would actually benifit the third world countries...

Of course, it's generally assumed that when you offer someone a job, you are at least not doing them any harm...they can turn you down. Taxes aren't the point.

Also, they get out of taxes because the governments would rather have the jobs without the taxes than neither. Jobs benefit the people who get them. Taxes benefit the government, and in theory would be spent to benefit the people.

The current situation, that has been pretty much the same since the colonization, is that the western world buy raw materials from the third world, process and refine it, and then sell the finished products back to the third world at a much larger prize.

And...presumably the third-worlders considered both of their transactions fair enough, since after actual colonialism was over they were not forced to sell or buy. Colonialism was one example of what happens when businesses are allowed to trade the free market for something they like better.

Early on the third world countries were forced to start to loan money to buy these refined products. Nowdays almost all third world countries are held back because their debts are so large that they have to loan more money just to pay the interest.

"forced" again...they weren't forced to buy things they couldn't afford, they chose to buy the products and borrow the money. Free Markets allow you to mess up, perturbations allow you to mess up badly, and non-free market interferences can help you mess up really badly. But anyone who decided to take a loan to buy equipment to increase productivity of a farm (say) where the increase won't pay for the loan is willingly shooting themselves in the foot, and that's their stupid mistake. It isn't some outside force driving them down.

Many western countries have started to write of those debts so that the third world countries will finally have enough money to rebuild their societies...but then again we have those countries that like the way it is, since it benifits them a lot.

Writing off loans = forcing their businesses to make large gifts of money to other countries. Which is OK with me, but it's hardly an obligation.

Throughout you seem to be saying that if the government doesn't have money, everyone suffers, and having the option of buying things is bad for you. So...the parties are:

People: everyone but the government in the country. We seem to not want them shafted.

Gov't: Can use force/law to take things from the people. Have historically spent far more money than they have on goods that haven't actualy done them or the people any good.

TROTW: offers people and government the option of trading some of what they have for things that they would be hard put to get any other way. Has people looking over their shoulders to make sure they don't use force on anyone in the country.

Which of these is capable of causing harm to the people?

[kroner]

Pirog>
All the problems you cite in 3rd world countries have nothing to do with international trade. Of course wealth distribution is very uneven and the standard of living is very low. This is not the fault of free trade. Trade restrictions imposed by other countries have some negative impact. There are political actions responsible, including outside political influences. There are political and economic forces wroking inside the country that create problems. Free trade is not one of the problems.
You have a very Romantic view of the strife of the proletariat, but I'm afraid it's a bit inaccurate and your knowledge of economics is questionable. Removing trade restrictions expands markets and increases opportunity.