Jump to content

zlemflolia

Supporting Member
  • Posts

    6,045
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Posts posted by zlemflolia

  1. 19 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

    Both the USSR and China have engaged in centuries of imperialism, not sure what you're on about. USSR expropriated the wealth and territories accumulated under Imperial Russia, and Chinese history of expansionism speaks for itself - and continues to do so (see Tibet, reneging on the HK treaty, border disputes with India/Nepal/Bhutan).

     

    ah yes USSR is to blame for imperial russia and china is to blame for what was done centuries before.  they started with fucking nothing.  they started with a plow and were left with nukes because of marxism-leninism

  2. 3 hours ago, chenGOD said:

    Of course constant attack is not necessarily in military form. I think US sanctions have been a massive failure with respect to North Korea, and wish they would reconsider the targets of those sanctions. I do find it somewhat ironic you consider espionage, or the threat of attack when the majority of those pressures come from North Korea (see assassination attempts such as the Blue House Raid, the bombing in Yangon that attempted to assassinate the SK president Chun Doo-Hwan, the targeting of North Korean defectors), or look at this long list of provocations and see how many originated with North Korean soldiers/agents infiltrating the South: https://beyondparallel.csis.org/database-north-korean-provocations/. This interview for the BBC from a defector provides some interesting insight: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-58838834

    Perhaps if the North had spent less of their budget on the military and more on economic development, they might not be in the state they are in today - but of course, the ultimate goal of juche thought was really about keeping the Kim family in power, and not about creating a centrally planned economy that was beneficial for all North Koreans.

    The US/USSR both wanted to form a trusteeship to govern Korea, as they both believed Korea wasn't ready for self-rule, despite centuries of self-governance in Choseon Korea. For all his faults, Rhee at least opposed this. The Communists in the North supported it (btw, I'm sure we are in agreement that North Korea post-1950 was not communist?). Regardless, the lack of support in the South led to the withdrawal of American forces by the end of 1948, and the same with Russian forces in the North in the same year. I am curious though how you think the repression of Communists in the South caused the North Korean military to invade? Do you honestly believe that the right-wing factions in the South wanted to cause the invasion?

    Speaking of reading history, while Cumings is great, he does make some very specific leaps of faith in his writing, and continues to deny that the DPRK initiated the Korean War (which started when North Korean troops rolled across the 49th parallel on June 25th, 1950) - but at least he finally alludes to both the Soviet Union and the US in being culpable in their roles, instead of just blaming the US.

    All of these events took place against the economic backdrops of central planning and capitalism. And there is no doubt which one ended up providing more for its citizens. And yes, even while capitalism does have many failings, it has been better than any implementation of central planning we have seen to date.

     

     

    ussr provided similar quality of life as US without requiring centuries of imperialism and slavery to accumulate stolen wealth, same as china, the idea you keep putting forth that these economic modes have had their fair shot and capitalism just came out on top because its better at "providing more for its citizens" is absurd and ahistorical, you havent even bothered to mention class conflict once in any of these analyses

  3. 7 minutes ago, cichlisuite said:

    the types of corruption and direct repression extends are different, but it's about accumulation of wealth and power, both of which are not willing to relinquish power willingly (as a form of a time-mandate, inherent by design). this is why i have an issue about such comparisons, or when someone says that x or y system is better or worse because proof... everything devolved (and is bound to devolve), namely in the capitalist system with neo-liberalism, nor was the capitalism better designed from the get-go (unlimited growth axiom) - to only name a few. with communism, we all can agree how it devolved.

    compared to communists, the capitalists were wiser enough to give their citizens more slack. only to better facilitate the reign of the top caste, through a form of a bypass system. for it's not their moral courage that separates them from, say, NK despots. the same power-hoarding, soulless qualities can be found in our top caste (more so than ever). a glass dome separates the social stratas in both cases. the grand strategy of nations is not up to you, as a citizen. i don't care what you heard.

     

    company owners are every bit as despotic as the worst national dictator, they will happily condemn thousands to the precipice of homelessness then talk about how the company is a family, or other absurd stuff you'd see typically attributed to for example anti-NK culture propaganda

    with capitalism its actually much more convenient that these despots dont need to do their own bidding, its the natural design of the system itself that if you have no money you will become homeless and starve to death and lack medical care, so they dont have to actually do that themselves to anyone, they dont have to send the armed squads to the persons house, some other landlord will do it for them.  this decentralization of the bourgeous class allows them each individually to avoid blame for many of the atrocities they commit, while still being, as a class, responsible, but they obscure this latter fact in culture + media

  4. 21 hours ago, chenGOD said:

    What in the actual fuck are you talking about? I’m talking about the failure of central planning as an economic policy, not foreign policy, domestic health policy, or anything else. 

    The simple fact is that all efforts at central planning and collectivization on large scales have been a failure. This is not to say that everything is perfect with capitalism (in its many iterations), far from it, but you asked if communism as tried so far was a failure in comparison to capitalism. So far the answer is yes. 
     

    Also, toll, not tole. 

    ur really gonna sit here and say food output would be better if they left land distributed into small landholding manual labor peasants? give me a break.  if they did not take these type of measures they would have been decisively genocided by the nazis

    u think ur advocating for capitalist economic planning when ur actually advocating feudal economic relations which is hilarious as fk, you think youre comparing equivalent countries where only capitalism vs "central planning" are the differences but instead comparing undeveloped rural nations, and one literally imperialized for centuries, to the most industrially advanced imperialists LMAO

    u think ur talking about capitalist nations non-collectivized non-centrally planned vs centrally planned but ur really talking about exploiter nations that imported basically stolen goods for centuries

    youre acting like these things exist in a vacuum with no other history influencing it

    cant make this shit up

  5. 12 hours ago, chenGOD said:

    What in the actual fuck are you talking about? I’m talking about the failure of central planning as an economic policy, not foreign policy, domestic health policy, or anything else. 

    The simple fact is that all efforts at central planning and collectivization on large scales have been a failure. This is not to say that everything is perfect with capitalism (in its many iterations), far from it, but you asked if communism as tried so far was a failure in comparison to capitalism. So far the answer is yes. 
     

    Also, toll, not tole. 

    you think imperialism and foreign policy designed to maintain global capitalism are not economic

  6. look at US death tole bombing entire cities and countries, genociding people by poisoning their farmland, enforcing "intellectual property" (always somehow the property of some company rather than the workers who invented that shit) to prevent other countries from getting access to ag/med tech, look at the domestic US death tole of over 1m preventable deaths due to covid, and youre going to complain about early 19th century post-colonial decolonial movement mistakes?

    what about US deaths due to weapons exports and funding genocidal states like israel?

    ur just gona come say "great leap forward" and u think that refutes socialism? ur rhetoric borders on cia level disinfo

  7. 8 hours ago, chenGOD said:

    Yes. As bad as shit is right now, every communist effort to date has been even worse. Look at the numbers of how many died under the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution. Look how many died of starvation in Stalin’s Soviet Union, or the numbers of people living on subsistence-level rations, while working insane hours to meet centrally planned quotas. 
     

    Comparative poverty in the US/Canada/Western Europe is shitty, but nothing compared to those examples above, and certainly nothing compared to the centrally planned economies that exist today (Cuba, North Korea, etc.)

    you really think these are equivalent comparisons? they started with nothing and were undergoing civil wars, threat of nazi genocide, etc

    look at capitalism's death tole in india and stolen trillions

    you wanna make these comparisons i guess but you never take it all the way

  8. 2 hours ago, chenGOD said:

    You can, but they don't work as well as market economies.

    That's clearly what I said. People can change careers, obviously, but it takes time to become proficient to where you're as productive in your new field. That's simple. All efforts to date to centrally dictate where capital should go have been failures for a number of reasons.

    failures in comparison to what? capitalism which centuries after its dominance still cant even solve homelessness and feed people and give them healthcare in the wealthiest nation in human history? that capitalism?

  9. 7 hours ago, chenGOD said:

    Therein lies the rub - you need X number of widgets to complete project Y. You don't have those widgets, but someone in the neighbouring town does. But they need them to complete their own project W. You can offer to trade them for something else so they can complete a different project, they will evaluate the opportunity cost of completing project W later and determine if the trade outweighs the cost.

    Which people and workers?

    Marx literally says: "Education will enable young people quickly to familiarize themselves with the whole system of production and to pass from one branch of production to another in response to the needs of society or their own inclinations". Maybe it won't be a carpenter being told to program some accounting software, but carpenters just can't up and magically become electricians or plumbers or farmers.

    Chinese history shows it is actually not viable at all. See "the Great Leap Forward" and consequences thereof.

     

    can you like not be thoughtful and refute your statements here? im always surprised what im reading

    you think carpenters cant become software engineers? i think you overvalue how hard software engineering is.  its gatekept anyway and tech is held back on purpose to make it hard, with new frameworks constantly and shit

    you think you cant have central, even decentralized, economic planning understanding X and Y and what processes need them?

    its very viable and in fact necessary for the human species-being and the human spirit to allow people to change forms of work.  why are you advocating this hyper-specialization being fixed in place after being chosen?

    u really gonna just say "people have to stick to one job for life, just look at the great leap forward" lol

  10. 12 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

    Of course there is price without money. When you exchange one good for another you have created a price: "these two bananas are worth 4 apples".

     

    "Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain."

    This is Marx describing the communist mode of production. Private property (where property = the means of production) is gone, instead replaced by communal ownership, but since communism is supposed to have a global democratic charter, it will need some management. Indeed Marx acknowledges this:

    Question: who makes the plan?
     

      Hide contents

    As an aside, Marx also assumes that people will be able to learn entire systems:

    Can you imagine some git who knows nothing about programming suddenly being told "hey we need you to whip up something in Python"?

     

    bartering N bananas for M apples will naturally result in a highly liquid and fungible commodity emerging as money, read capital section on money

    who makes the plan? people, workers. 

    you really think free associated labor and reduction of strict division of labor means some random guy is going to be asked by some other random person to "whip something up in python"?  no, clearly he is referring to free associated labor and his dream that you can work as a fisherman one day, farmer the next, and something else the next, which is actually very viable and simply involves more investment into human education as you even quoted

     

  11. 27 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

    Also Marx: "the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever." (from the same document as your text above). Marx can't even agree with himself.

     

    I see where the misunderstanding is - you're talking about the abolition of money, I'm talking about the allocation of resources.

     

     

    The allocation of resources will be in the hands of the nation. Yes no money, hooray, but the state will still be setting out "prices" through whatever exchange is necessary to make a good or provide a service.

    Back to this: https://forum.watmm.com/?app=core&module=system&controller=content&do=find&content_class=forums_Topic&content_id=81787&content_commentid=2958941

    So yes communism contains "govt set prices and production quotas".

    theres no price without money, you think price and the existence of money are discussable seperately?

    you arent properly differentiating

    a) "proposed idea for moving towards communism"

    b) "states which were led by communists attempting to achieve communism"

    c) "the communist mode of production"

    i am talking about C you are talking about when Marx once talked about A but saying he was talking about C

  12. 5 minutes ago, vkxwz said:

    Is there a definitive text or place where Marx's final views are layed out in an accessible form, if I hypothetically wanted to enter this discussion...

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/index.htm

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/

    in order of short to very long

  13. 1 hour ago, chenGOD said:

    You mean the part where he says:

    Is that the part where he refutes it?

    I disagree with this analysis - after laying out the "policy proposals" Marx and Engels write:

    They simply state there will be no class division - the notion that central planning will disappear is never stated.

    Anyhow, you and I will never see eye to eye, so please go ahead and have the last word (again).

    Sorry to all others.

    this time isnt a matter of not seeing eye to eye, its a matter of you not even reading marx's own words and misinterpreting what he said entirely

    he put forward policy proposals for a time and place which he later said are antiquated, find the quote where that list of proposals you quoted are equated by Marx, not by you, with BEING communism, you are equating those proposals to literally BEING communism.  dont care what your ideology is, thats not an honest read of the text you quoted lmao

    abolition of money is one of the most fundamental aspects of communism lol along with private property, fact you dont know this makes me have to say, why are you even discussing this if you havent done the reading?

    "and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today"

    you going to ignore this quote entirely ? this isnt your opinion vs mine its your explanation of marx's words, vs marx's own words where he contradicts you

    sorry to all others?

    ya, sorry they had to read ur bs where u cant even read 1 paragraph i quoted before replying, youre more interested in arguing against me than getting it right

  14. 11 hours ago, chenGOD said:

    Points 5,6, and 7 of Marx and Engels 10 point general plan in the Communist Manifesto (Chapter II) describe centralization of those functions quite explicitly:

    5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

    6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

    7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan

    Point 2 acknowledges the function of income (money) by calling for a tax:

    2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

     

    So, yes, communism is in fact the controlling of production quotas and prices. 

    Like I said earlier - I'm sure you can find a collective of like-minded individuals to work towards fully automated luxury communism where money is no longer necessary. Until we have that, let's go with market socialism which acknowledges that private property will exist (owned by collectives) and markets/supply and demand will guide the allocation of capital.

    u cant just quote the communist manifesto like doctrine unless u have more info surrounding to back up these ideas, Marx himself refuted these specific quotes from the manifesto as nothing more than a proposal for a specific place and time here*.  furthermore, he never said "this is communism" he literally says, if you read, that these are policy proposals for a path to attempt to achieve it.  i thot u knew this stuff

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm

    *However much that state of things may have altered during the last twenty-five years, the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever. Here and there, some detail might be improved. The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated. One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.” (See The Civil War in France: Address of the General Council of the International Working Men’ s Association, 1871, where this point is further developed.) Further, it is self-evident that the criticism of socialist literature is deficient in relation to the present time, because it comes down only to 1847; also that the remarks on the relation of the Communists to the various opposition parties (Section IV), although, in principle still correct, yet in practice are antiquated, because the political situation has been entirely changed, and the progress of history has swept from off the earth the greater portion of the political parties there enumerated.

    But then, the Manifesto has become a historical document which we have no longer any right to alter. A subsequent edition may perhaps appear with an introduction bridging the gap from 1847 to the present day; but this reprint was too unexpected to leave us time for that.

     

  15. 26 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

    1) Because paying for goods and services is a basic tenet of a market based economy.

    2) Personal property and private property are of equal importance in market based economy. Communism is not a market based economy (govt sets prices and production quotas).

    3) Market socialism is not nicer capitalism, you're the one who said all I have offered is nicer capitalism (thank you for putting words in my mouth). Market socialism is not communism either. Private property will continue to exist under market socialism as markets/supply and demand will continue to provide signals for the allocation of goods/capital/means of production.

    why would personal property not be more important than private property.  isnt the goal of this private propertys existence under market socialism merely to be a vehicle for the accumulation of personal property? why doesnt it has concepts of communal property which paired with expanded personal property can eliminate the need for private property? not even seeing the point of private property.  why do you need it rather than just worker coops

    communism is not govt set prices and production quotas its literally the abolition of money, something only conceivable under mature socialism anyway

    • Like 1
  16. 30 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

    Because rental properties are necessary (not everyone will be living in one location permanently) and private property (like a house/apartment/condo) that can't be taken away from you without due process is also a necessity and guaranteed in virtually every founding principles document worth having.

    Nicer capitalism is an interesting way to spell market socialism, nothing hopeful about it, we can work towards it and many places are. Sorry it sucks for you so bad in wherever you live. I'm sure with enough time and effort you can work towards fully automated luxury communism with a collective of like-minded thinkers.

    ur already falsely equating a bunch of stuff.

    "not living in one location permanently" = "rental properties required"

    how about, freedom of movement and free access to housing?  if someone moves that housing just becomes available.  how does renting (paying rent and having landlords) become necessary?

    u already know fixed house/apartment/condo with longterm freedom of ownership and modification is personal property not private property and has no reason to be abolished.  how does that imply landlords?

    now ur saying u want market socialism?  how is "nicer capitalism" = "market socialism" lol, i think youre confusing social democracy + welfare net with market socialism, because thats about as nice as capitalism can possibly get.  and yet it does not solve more complex issues like unequal exchange with the third world, and the ecological crisis inherent to profit motive

  17. On 6/19/2023 at 5:24 AM, chenGOD said:

    The definition of income needs to include capital gains, taxes on property acquired through loans where the collateral comes from above the billy, etc. etc. Luxury goods such as super yachts should have substantial taxes on them, vacant property taxes. Corporations with assets/gross revenue above a certain amount need to be taxed more heavily as well.

    Rent needs to be capped with strictly enforced regulations on maintenance and upkeep requirements. And there needs to be a limit on how much a house's value can appreciate in a year (something like 1% would be appropriate) - and I say this as a homeowner. Houses aren't investments - but we do have to respect that rental stock is necessary (some people move to places for a year or two due to work, life circumstances, etc.) and sometimes people will wish to sell their houses and purchase elsewhere for whatever number of reasons.

     

    y use so many words when u can just say "abolish landlords" "abolish private property" and all this stuff is solved? why the half measures

    im serious tho i just dont get it

    for real all these pages and not one alternative to capitalism presented except "nicer capitalism hopefully"

  18. 1 hour ago, Walter Ostanek said:

    ...capitalist countries, of which they are one? And forced precisely how? Everything they need for an effective energy transition can be found within their own borders

    What matters is that CO2 emissions decrease. It doesn't matter to the atmosphere if the energy thereby generated goes towards manufacturing stuff to be exported or not - though it does wipe the greenwash right off of Europe's green credentials!

    It doesn't matter how many wind turbines a country builds if their CO2 emissions are still increasing. I'm not out to demonise China (inb4 sarcastic quotemine of that one sentence), just point out that there is no basis to put them on a pedestal - and if anything, on account of their theoretically more favourable economic setup and their exceptional endowment of the metals required for low-carbon tech, I see their behaviour thus far as a tragic missed opportunity

     

    you think china manufactures just about everything for the rest of the world out of the goodness of their heart? no it's a strategy they were forced into to avoid being destroyed by the US like the USSR was. 

    • Haha 1
  19. 15 hours ago, Walter Ostanek said:

    I mean, I agree that capitalism is almost designed to fail miserably at solving problems like this, or any other where there's little prospect of the solutions being near-term profitable. Theoretically a Chinese type  system should be able to weather the storm (lol?) far better given that they have the ability to steer their economy. Though judging them by their own actions they're not really bothering - their oft-touted, supposedly miraculous rollout of renewables is dwarfed into meaninglessness by their continued expansion of coal

     

    As for the above fine fella, it's classic campism, claiming to be socialist while copypasting vapid propaganda from overtly fascist regimes, just check out anything he's ever said about Ukraine

    no quotes how surprising

    ur really attacking chinas renewable development and energy usage when they primarily export? they were forced into this kind of position by capitalist nations

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.