I am now convinced that capitalism is evil

[zlemflolia]

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.

 

[chenGOD]

You mean the part where he says:

6 hours ago, zlemflolia said:

the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever.

Is that the part where he refutes it?

6 hours ago, zlemflolia said:

these are policy proposals for a path to attempt to achieve it

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

Quote

If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

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.

[zlemflolia]

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

Edited September 8, 2023 by zlemflolia

[zlemflolia]

chengod: "This is the literal definition of communism according to Marx"

Marx: "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"

[vkxwz]

4 minutes ago, zlemflolia said:

chengod: "This is the literal definition of communism according to Marx"

Marx: "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"

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...

[zlemflolia]

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

Edited September 8, 2023 by zlemflolia

[chenGOD]

3 hours ago, zlemflolia said:

chengod: "This is the literal definition of communism according to Marx"

Marx: "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"

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.

 

2 hours ago, zlemflolia said:

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

 

Quote

"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. "

 

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".

[zlemflolia]

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

Edited September 8, 2023 by zlemflolia

[prdctvsm]

[chenGOD]

26 minutes ago, zlemflolia said:

theres no price without money

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".

 

29 minutes ago, zlemflolia said:

c) "the communist mode of production"

"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:

Quote

-20-

What will be the consequences of the ultimate disappearance of private property?

Society will take all forces of production and means of commerce, as well as the exchange and distribution of products, out of the hands of private capitalists and will manage them in accordance with a plan based on the availability of resources and the needs of the whole society.

...

Industry controlled by society as a whole, and operated according to a plan, presupposes well-rounded human beings, their faculties developed in balanced fashion, able to see the system of production in its entirety.

Question: who makes the plan?
 

Spoiler

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

Quote

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

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

 

[zlemflolia]

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

 

[chenGOD]

16 minutes ago, zlemflolia said:

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.

 

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?

22 minutes ago, zlemflolia said:

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

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.

 

[zlemflolia]

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

Edited September 8, 2023 by zlemflolia

[chenGOD]

9 hours ago, zlemflolia said:

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

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

9 hours ago, zlemflolia said:

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

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.

[zlemflolia]

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?

[chenGOD]

7 hours ago, zlemflolia said:

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?

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.)

[zlemflolia]

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

Edited September 9, 2023 by zlemflolia

[zlemflolia]

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

[prdctvsm]

[ignatius]

1 hour ago, prdctvsm said:

he tore up the contract that would've made him the richest person to have ever lived. he could've have funded all his crazy ideas for his entire life and who knows wtf would've come of that. could be a very different world. too bad westinghouse didn't think of tesla just for a second and say "hey, how about you don't tear that up and we give you a smaller amount that is fair for both of us?" but nope.

 

Edited September 10, 2023 by ignatius

[chenGOD]

12 hours ago, zlemflolia said:

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

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. 

[zlemflolia]

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

[chenGOD]

4 hours ago, zlemflolia said:

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

That isn't what I said, at all. Certainly they have an impact, but they are not inherent features of capitalism (especially imperialism). Central planning is an inherent feature of Communism. The question we were discussing, was whether I thought that that all implementation of central planning on a national scale has been a failure to date, in comparison to capitalism.

If you would like to talk about foreign policy of the US and China, we can certainly do that, but I think there's another thread for that discussion.

[zlemflolia]

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

Edited September 11, 2023 by zlemflolia

[zlemflolia]

ur also pretending like computers, supercomputers, upc codes, nfc trackers, etc dont exist which would drastically increase the effectiveness of central planning