communism vs capitalism

[Kraggen]

The man who hands you your bread will always be higher than you because he holds the bread. It may not be written as such but it shall always be as such. 

[Peter Quill]

Pure capitalism and pure communism will never work.

Social democracy is where it's at.

[Doktor Avalanche]

That's cool. I work for my money. Like everyone else should. My father grew up in a rich setting but had to earn his living. He has money but that doesn't mean any of it is mine. I don't get free college or even a free car. There is a difference between helping your child and handing them everything they need and more. If the 1% were actually charitable they wouldn't hoard the amounts of money needed to be at the top percentile. There is no need for an individual to have that kind of money.

What gives you the right to dictate what others do with their money? As long as the money is earned legally, we should not punish anyone just because they have wealth. Don't hate the rich for being rich. Some of the wealthiest people I know give more than any of us will ever know about.

[Fox Fire]

What gives you the right to dictate what others do with their money? As long as the money is earned legally, we should not punish anyone just because they have wealth. Don't hate the rich for being rich. Some of the wealthiest people I know give more than any of us will ever know about.

Of course they give more. They have the capacity to do so. But how many of them would actually sacrifice? By that I mean, how many of them would give away enough wealth to those who need it, that it would harm them? I don't think very many would. 

I don't hate the rich. Some of my family is fairly rich. I do however dislike people who inherit something and think they earned anything. There are literally people out there who are raised rich and have no concept of responsibility because of it. Because they go through their whole life never having any. That's sad to me. What's equally sad is that I get to work every day just to live in an apartment while someone else has never worked a day in their life and drives a Bugatti and inherits a huge fortune and business just because he came out of a certain persons vagina. I mean society really doesn't need this kind of person, but they are actually treated as more valuable to society than say, the guy who harvested the food you just ate, or even the person who educated your child. 

[Spite]

Well, I disagree. With the collective means of production of the entirety of human civilization and sustainable development, I believe it would be possible to practically have infinite resources. As far as access is concerned, that's just a matter of developing high standards of transportation and transportation infrastructure, localizing production and maybe encouraging population growth in cities where more people will have more access to commodities, goods and services.

There's a finite amount of resources. Not everyone could have a private jet. Not everyone could have a palace. Not everyone could have a brand new apple computer every year. Changing the political or economic system wouldn't change that. Essentially everyone would get an equal share of the pie. Currently if you divided the pie equally, it would work out at about $7000 each per year. Even if you remove profit margins (which you couldn't, because realistically the system needs to produce a surplus to reinvest in growth), then everyone would be living in poverty instead of just some people. And as that system of economic management, which by its nature needs to be statist and government managed, is so corrupt and bureaucratic, growth and development would be stifled. That is why the world has overwhelmingly rejected communism as an economic system and will continue to do so, despite the shortfalls that western liberal democracy obviously has.

[Big Brother]

There's a finite amount of resources. Not everyone could have a private jet. Not everyone could have a palace. Not everyone could have a brand new apple computer every year. Changing the political or economic system wouldn't change that. Essentially everyone would get an equal share of the pie. Currently if you divided the pie equally, it would work out at about $7000 each per year. Even if you remove profit margins (which you couldn't, because realistically the system needs to produce a surplus to reinvest in growth), then everyone would be living in poverty instead of just some people. And as that system of economic management, which by its nature needs to be statist and government managed, is so corrupt and bureaucratic, growth and development would be stifled. That is why the world has overwhelmingly rejected communism as an economic system and will continue to do so, despite the shortfalls that western liberal democracy obviously has.

 

You're thinking in terms of capitalism. 7000 dollars? That's pointless figure in a Communist society. Profit margins, surplus, investment, all become more or less meaningless terms. We have enough productive forces create an abundance of goods and commodities for everyone to benefit from. Through democratic control of the means of production and efficient organization of the workforce we can create a world in which there's plenty of pie for everyone. If you really believe that Communism as a system of economic management needs to be statist and government managed, you are gravely mistaken and have fundamentally misunderstood the ideology. The idea is that worker's councils will manage the economy, for the benefit of the workers themselves. In the early days of the Russian revolution, they had such councils (named Soviets), which were democratic institutions created by the Russian proletariat. It was only after Lenin added his authoritarian flair to the revolution that statism and bureaucracy became involved in the process of economic management, and this type authoritarianism is not representative of actual Communism.

[Fox Fire]

You're thinking in terms of capitalism. 7000 dollars? That's pointless figure in a Communist society. Profit margins, surplus, investment, all become more or less meaningless terms. We have enough productive forces create an abundance of goods and commodities for everyone to benefit from. Through democratic control of the means of production and efficient organization of the workforce we can create a world in which there's plenty of pie for everyone. If you really believe that Communism as a system of economic management needs to be statist and government managed, you are gravely mistaken and have fundamentally misunderstood the ideology. The idea is that worker's councils will manage the economy, for the benefit of the workers themselves. In the early days of the Russian revolution, they had such councils (named Soviets), which were democratic institutions created by the Russian proletariat. It was only after Lenin added his authoritarian flair to the revolution that statism and bureaucracy became involved in the process of economic management, and this type authoritarianism is not representative of actual Communism.

And I'll add that's why anarchy doesn't work.

In the end, the only reason anything works is because it changes all the time. If it doesn't, it stops working, because nothing is static. Both sides of the political spectrum are equally flawed. It's all a matter of finding an adaptable in between and being willing and able to change it. If there were a system that actually worked, we'd all be using it, but for now, we still very much operate on a fairly basic society. Get to a type 1 civilization and then we can have a serious debate about whether utopian economics is even possible.

Edited January 17, 2016 by Fox Fire

[Miles Dyson]

I'm a big fan of Proudhon, although I disagree with a lot of mutualist stuff. Money is a big one. Mutualism, to me, seems like the opposite of a "refined version" of "classical anarchist economics" (especially seeing as it goes back to the beginning just like more collectivist forms of anarchism) - a long-abandoned tendency that was more or less absorbed by the others which got rid of most of the weird leftovers (like banks) that don't really make sense in the context of a post-capitalist society.

 

Money isn't the problem with capitalism. Even the collectivists of the Spanish CNT used a voucher system during the Civil War; which served as exchange notes similar to money. The insinuation that we could possibly live without a convenient method of exchange, in today's world, is preposterous. The problem arises when artificial wealth is allowed to be created via interest and usury, and is deemed by society to be more valuable than real wealth (land, labor, resources, etc.). In state capitalism, money = debt. In a cost-based free market system, however, money would represent the true cost of labor, as determined by free individuals within their voluntary social contracts. Cooperatives are a great example of mutualist principles being practiced within capitalism today. Unlike Marxism, mutualism does not require an international, "post-capitalist", revolution to start working today.  

https://usworker.coop

http://ica.coop

http://www.cicopa.coop

Edited January 18, 2016 by Miles Dyson

[Miles Dyson]

"From Smith's principle that labor is the true measure of price – or, as Warren phrased it, that cost is the proper limit of price – these three men [i.e., Josiah Warren, Pierre Proudhon, and Karl Marx] made the following deductions: that the natural wage of labor is its product; that this wage, or product, is the only just source of income (leaving out, of course, gift, inheritance, etc.); that all who derive income from any other source abstract it directly or indirectly from the natural and just wage of labor; that this abstracting process generally takes one of three forms, – interest, rent, and profit; that these three constitute the trinity of usury, and are simply different methods of levying tribute for the use of capital; that, capital being simply stored-up labor which has already received its pay in full, its use ought to be gratuitous, on the principle that labor is the only basis of price; that the lender of capital is entitled to its return intact, and nothing more; that the only reason why the banker, the stockholder, the landlord, the manufacturer, and the merchant are able to exact usury from labor lies in the fact that they are backed by legal privilege…"
—Benjamin Tucker , "State Socialism and Anarchism," from Individual Liberty, Vanguard Press, New York, 1926.

[Hereno]

Money isn't the problem with capitalism. Even the collectivists of the Spanish CNT used a voucher system during the Civil War; which served as exchange notes similar to money. The insinuation that we could possibly live without a convenient method of exchange, in today's world, is preposterous. The problem arises when artificial wealth is allowed to be created via interest and usury, and is deemed by society to be more valuable than real wealth (land, labor, resources, etc.). In state capitalism, money = debt. In a cost-based free market system, however, money would represent the true cost of labor, as determined by free individuals within their voluntary social contracts. Cooperatives are a great example of mutualist principles being practiced within capitalism today. Unlike Marxism, mutualism does not require an international, "post-capitalist", revolution to start working today.  

https://usworker.coop

http://ica.coop

http://www.cicopa.coop

Except cooperatives within capitalism do nothing to change capitalism. You seem like you just want everybody to organize into cooperatives without even addressing the massive inequalities which define our system; how are you supposed to have a post-capitalist economy which does not require post-capitalism? It's just doublethink.

 

Shakespeare excellently depicts the real nature of money. To understand him, let us begin, first of all, by expounding the passage from Goethe.

 

That which is for me through the medium of money – that for which I can pay (i.e., which money can buy) – that am I myself, the possessor of the money. The extent of the power of money is the extent of my power. Money’s properties are my – the possessor’s – properties and essential powers. Thus, what I am and am capable of is by no means determined by my individuality. I am ugly, but I can buy for myself the most beautiful of women. Therefore I am not ugly, for the effect of ugliness – its deterrent power – is nullified by money. I, according to my individual characteristics, am lame, but money furnishes me with twenty-four feet. Therefore I am not lame. I am bad, dishonest, unscrupulous, stupid; but money is honoured, and hence its possessor. Money is the supreme good, therefore its possessor is good. Money, besides, saves me the trouble of being dishonest: I am therefore presumed honest. I am brainless, but money is the real brain of all things and how then should its possessor be brainless? Besides, he can buy clever people for himself, and is he who has [in the manuscript: ‘is’. – Ed.] power over the clever not more clever than the clever? Do not I, who thanks to money am capable of all that the human heart longs for, possess all human capacities? Does not my money, therefore, transform all my incapacities into their contrary?

 

If money is the bond binding me to human life, binding society to me, connecting me with nature and man, is not money the bond of all bonds? Can it not dissolve and bind all ties? Is it not, therefore, also the universal agent of separation? It is the coin that really separates as well as the real binding agent – the [...] [One word in the manuscript cannot be deciphered. – Ed.] chemical power of society.

 

Shakespeare stresses especially two properties of money:

 

1. It is the visible divinity – the transformation of all human and natural properties into their contraries, the universal confounding and distorting of things: impossibilities are soldered together by it.

 

2. It is the common whore, the common procurer of people and nations.

 

The distorting and confounding of all human and natural qualities, the fraternisation of impossibilities – the divine power of money – lies in its character as men’s estranged, alienating and self-disposing species-nature. Money is the alienated ability of mankind.

 

That which I am unable to do as a man, and of which therefore all my individual essential powers are incapable, I am able to do by means of money. Money thus turns each of these powers into something which in itself it is not – turns it, that is, into its contrary.

 

If I long for a particular dish or want to take the mail-coach because I am not strong enough to go by foot, money fetches me the dish and the mail-coach: that is, it converts my wishes from something in the realm of imagination, translates them from their meditated, imagined or desired existence into their sensuous, actual existence – from imagination to life, from imagined being into real being. In effecting this mediation, [money] is the truly creative power.

more: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/power.htm

[Miles Dyson]

Except cooperatives within capitalism do nothing to change capitalism. You seem like you just want everybody to organize into cooperatives without even addressing the massive inequalities which define our system; how are you supposed to have a post-capitalist economy which does not require post-capitalism? It's just doublethink.

 

 

more: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/power.htm

 

"By organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old." - From the Preamble to the Constitution of the Industrial Workers of the World. That is precisely what cooperatives, mainly worker cooperatives, do everyday. It sure beats the double-edge sword of policy reform, the almost invisible effect of minority Marxist parties, or the childish insurrectionary approach and aimless mutual aid of small anarchist communist groups. Cooperatives promote alternative business models, including those that are worker owned and managed. In the West, cooperatives are the most socialistic of any organizations we have.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Miles Dyson

[Hereno]

"By organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old." - From the Preamble to the Constitution of the Industrial Workers of the World. That is precisely what cooperatives, mainly worker cooperatives, do everyday. It sure beats the double-edge sword of policy reform, the almost invisible effect of minority Marxist parties, or the childish insurrectionary approach and aimless mutual aid of small anarchist communist groups. Cooperatives promote alternative business models, including those that are worker owned and managed. In the West, cooperatives are the most socialistic of any organizations we have.

Um, the IWW are industrial unionists frequently associated with anarchist communists.

 

Also, lol @ you criticizing "aimless mutual aid" (which doesn't even make sense) while being a literal "mutualist".

 

You didn't even address the rest of my post.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Hierophant

[Miles Dyson]

Um, the IWW are industrial unionists frequently associated with anarchist communists.

 

Also, lol @ you criticizing "aimless mutual aid" (which doesn't even make sense) while being a literal "mutualist".

 

You didn't even address the rest of my post.

 

Industrial unions and cooperatives go hand in hand. The I.W.W. might have anarchist communists in their ranks, but they are not an ancom union. If you recall, I was referring to "small ancom groups", particularly those that are insurrectionary and naively "gift giving" in their approach (like the black bloc or FNB). Not to criticize those groups, but they are largely ineffective @ combating capitalism in comparison to worker coops. To reply to the rest of your previous post, cooperatives do address the massive inequalities apparent in capitalism; but instead of debating the merit of the issue in social media forums, cooperative workers become the change they want to see in the world. This is true direct action, or propaganda of the deed. Mutualism is a post-capitalist model. Cooperatives and labor unions are the most effective methods of achieving that model. 

Edited January 18, 2016 by Miles Dyson

[Hereno]

Industrial unions and cooperatives go hand in hand. The I.W.W. might have anarchist communists in their ranks, but they are not an ancom union. If you recall, I was referring to "small ancom groups", particularly those that are insurrectionary and naively "gift giving" in their approach (like the black bloc or FNB). Not to criticize those groups, but they are largely ineffective @ combating capitalism in comparison to worker coops. To reply to the rest of your previous post, cooperatives do address the massive inequalities apparent in capitalism; but instead of debating the merit of the issue in social media forums, cooperative workers become the change they want to see in the world. This is true direct action, or propaganda of the deed. Mutualism is a post-capitalist model. Cooperatives and labor unions are the most effective methods of achieving that model. 

 

How can participation in the capitalist political economy possibly be considered addressing the inequalities of capitalism, or being opposed to capitalism? It's not an either-or thing with regard to talking on social media, and you're coming across as very holier-than-thou. Meanwhile, labor unions haven't ever been weaker or more maligned, and the AFL-CIO has been reduced to a managerial-esque go-between between workers and upper management. I have a lot of respect for the IWW and have considered joining myself, but I don't see how making real change right now that affects actual people we see right in front of us could possibly be considered "largely ineffective" or not "becoming the change they wish to see". It's just not that simple. Gandhi and MLK did not, alone, force serious change on Western governments; and, in fact, there really wasn't any change from an economic perspective. India still has our sweatshops and Gandhi himself ended up being murdered. Sure, they're independent in a political sense, but the economy is global, and it's actually much cheaper and more efficient to just own things through commercial monopolization rather than actually taking responsibility for all of those people.

 

You ever read the Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin?

Edited January 18, 2016 by Hierophant

[Miles Dyson]

How can participation in the capitalist political economy possibly be considered addressing the inequalities of capitalism, or being opposed to capitalism? It's not an either-or thing with regard to talking on social media, and you're coming across as very holier-than-thou. Meanwhile, labor unions haven't ever been weaker or more maligned, and the AFL-CIO has been reduced to a managerial-esque go-between between workers and upper management. I have a lot of respect for the IWW and have considered joining myself, but I don't see how making real change right now that affects actual people we see right in front of us could possibly be considered "largely ineffective" or not "becoming the change they wish to see". It's just not that simple. Gandhi and MLK did not, alone, force serious change on Western governments; and, in fact, there really wasn't any change from an economic perspective. India still has our sweatshops and Gandhi himself ended up being murdered. Sure, they're independent in a political sense, but the economy is global, and it's actually much cheaper and more efficient to just own things through commercial monopolization rather than actually taking responsibility for all of those people.

 

You ever read the Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin?

 

"making real change right now that affects actual people we see right in front of us" is precisely what CICOPA and the IWW do. Gandhi and MLK Jr, rest their souls, did not promote a particular economic model. They focused more on social issues, like imperialism, war and segregation. Gandhi wanted India to be an independent state, and MLK Jr wanted to end segregation and the remnants of Jim Crow. They were not revolutionaries in an economic sense, but rather, in a social sense. So, what is more effective, to you, than coops and industrial unions when it comes to combating capitalism? BTW, I have read both Conquest of Bread and Mutual Aid; as well as Council Communism by Anton Pannekoek, and Libertarian Communism by Isaac Puente; to name a only a few. I have also read extensively about the anarchist experiment during the Spanish Civil War, the Ukrainian Revolution, etc...

[durmij]

Um, the IWW are industrial unionists frequently associated with anarchist communists.

You a wobbly?

[Miles Dyson]

You a wobbly?

 

I am. Wobbly and proud. I know you weren't talking to me. But if you were, yea.

 

"So happy together!"

Edited January 18, 2016 by Miles Dyson

[durmij]

I am. Wobbly and proud. I know you weren't talking to me. But if you were, yea.

 

"So happy together!"

 

Neat! I've been one for about 2 years, but have lapsed in my dues because my locals meetings are always so inconvenient.

[Miles Dyson]

Neat! I've been one for about 2 years, but have lapsed in my dues because my locals meetings are always so inconvenient.

 

Awesome! Glad to know there are some of us on P&W. Don't worry about the dues. Once a wobbly, always a wobbly. 

 

[Lannan13]

Awesome! Glad to know there are some of us on P&W. Don't worry about the dues. Once a wobbly, always a wobbly. 

 

International Workers of the World Unite! I've always been a Eugene V Debbs fan.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Lannan13

[Lannan13]

Neat! I've been one for about 2 years, but have lapsed in my dues because my locals meetings are always so inconvenient.

On actual card holding members I'm a Tea Party Patriot.

 

[Miles Dyson]

International Workers of the World Unite! I've always been a Eugene V Debbs fan.

 

Really? I admire classical liberals and ancaps (assuming one of those is what you meant by your name) who appreciate the labor movement. We are not so different. The state is a plague to us all. I've never met a Tea Partier who even knew what the IWW is, let alone, was supportive of it.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Miles Dyson

[Lannan13]

Really? I admire classical liberals and ancaps (assuming one of those is what you meant by your name) who appreciate the labor movement. We are not so different. The state is a plague to us all. I've never met a Tea Partier who even knew what the IWW is, let alone, was supportive of it.

Yeah, of course I used to be a HUGE Socialist, I wasn't too much into the IWW even though Eugene V Debbs founded it, it became a little too crazy. I was more of a Trotskyist when it came to that. Though I'm a Libertarian near Ancap, I've had my past in the Pinko movements. I'm not against labor nor have I ever been, I'm just a more of free market guy. Usually if the public wants it then they will make it occur via the markets. Another deal breaker was property rights. I also find it amuzing as to why Marx became against property ownership. Though not a lot of people read to much into it. I've read several socialist propaganda Books from the Communist Manifesto, Capital, Lenin's book on Capitalism's imperialism, his War on workers and several more. Though at this point, my personal beliefs, are that you cannot be against something until you see it from that point of view and understand the opposition's arguments. 

[Hereno]

"making real change right now that affects actual people we see right in front of us" is precisely what CICOPA and the IWW do. Gandhi and MLK Jr, rest their souls, did not promote a particular economic model. They focused more on social issues, like imperialism, war and segregation. Gandhi wanted India to be an independent state, and MLK Jr wanted to end segregation and the remnants of Jim Crow. They were not revolutionaries in an economic sense, but rather, in a social sense. So, what is more effective, to you, than coops and industrial unions when it comes to combating capitalism? BTW, I have read both Conquest of Bread and Mutual Aid; as well as Council Communism by Anton Pannekoek, and Libertarian Communism by Isaac Puente; to name a only a few. I have also read extensively about the anarchist experiment during the Spanish Civil War, the Ukrainian Revolution, etc...

 

The point I was trying to make was that there were real militant movements working alongside the peaceful "be the change" sorts of people. Sometimes you have to pick the gun up to put the gun down. Isn't that a paraphrase of something Malcolm X said? But I don't think any of them were revolutionaries. They were peaceful activists. Gandhi actually advised the Jews to accept the Holocaust and to passively resist the Nazi party. That shit works fine when your enemy is Gandhi, but not everybody is the same.

 

You a wobbly?

How can participation in the capitalist political economy possibly be considered addressing the inequalities of capitalism, or being opposed to capitalism? It's not an either-or thing with regard to talking on social media, and you're coming across as very holier-than-thou. Meanwhile, labor unions haven't ever been weaker or more maligned, and the AFL-CIO has been reduced to a managerial-esque go-between between workers and upper management. I have a lot of respect for the IWW and have considered joining myself, but I don't see how making real change right now that affects actual people we see right in front of us could possibly be considered "largely ineffective" or not "becoming the change they wish to see". It's just not that simple. Gandhi and MLK did not, alone, force serious change on Western governments; and, in fact, there really wasn't any change from an economic perspective. India still has our sweatshops and Gandhi himself ended up being murdered. Sure, they're independent in a political sense, but the economy is global, and it's actually much cheaper and more efficient to just own things through commercial monopolization rather than actually taking responsibility for all of those people.

 

You ever read the Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin?

[durmij]

sorry, just tuned back into this thread.