Refuting the Standard Arguments Against Communism and for Capitalism

Look into The Mondragon Corporation. They even have their own credit union now. About 100,000 workers in a number of branches in different countries.

 

Well, the creation of authentic communism essentially involves instituting a more authentic and comprehensive democracy. That is, the actualization of the vision of a socioeconomic and political organization in which the principle of upward control (of making the locus and base of control the common people), and the recognition of the right of all members of society to equal empowerment are applied not only in the political but in the economic sphere as well. A form of society in which a wide-reaching system of upward control and equal empowerment radically replaces capitalism’s oppressive system of top-down control, i.e. the control of the lives of the common people (the working class and underclass) by an elite capitalist class that arrogates an excessive amount of economic and political power.

In short, I’m talking about the full implementation of the ideal of δημοκρατία, the sovereignty of the people, the principle and pledge of "of, by, and for the people", which of course entails the complete abolition of the private wielding of the forces of production, economic wealth, and economico-political power, in favor of all of the citizens of society having an equal say in the management of the means of production and being equally guaranteed well-being (which, btw, means not crude egalitarianism, but rather taking account of the special needs of challenged individuals and groups, and taking whatever affirmative action and allocating whatever resources are necessary to enable them to enjoy the same optimal level of well-being as their neighbors).

Yes, when democracy in this full sense (as opposed to bourgeois democracy) is achieved, then authentic communism is in fact ipso facto achieved. So then, this is essentially how we will materialize communism, not by establishing a totalitarian state, but by a deep and full dehierarchicalization and democratization of society that will first take us through a stage of socialism, and then ultimately lead to a “withering away of the state” that will permit the attainment of maximal direct democracy.

Hmm, does mean that you're anti-Muslim as well as a tad bit bigoted against communism? It's quite interesting how anti-communists often seem to also be anti-Muslim, this suggests that their anti-communism is perhaps in part a form of xenophobia, a hostility to something that is foreign.

 

Surely all we anti-Muslims get an equal say in your polysyllabic utopia. Heck, maybe we'[[ get some affirmative action too, if the Islamophiles get too enthusiastic.

 

And, of course, that anti-communists also tend to be hostile toward those who practice the Muslim faith would suggest that anti-communism is largely a form of bigotry, and that the same bigoted mentality that used to set its sites on communism has nowadays simply been transferred to the new boogeyman, Islam.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=478748&p=1066718752#post1066718752

 

Hmm, this is the only part of the post that you care to reply to? Did I perhaps hit a nerve? Here, give it another read and see if you can offer anything more substantive,
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=478748&p=1066718752#post1066718752

 

You've yet to reply to my post that you invited in this thread. Perhaps you simply missed it, but I am not going to invest in anything more than a cheap shot until you do.

By the way, what about us anti-Muslims? Do we indeed get an equal say? Or do we just get suppressed? Who gets to suppress whom, and how do you decide? I think that cuts to the heart of the matter rather well.

 

Perused their site a little. I'll look into them more later; going to bed now. But from it looks like so far, it seems like they are a worker owned company. That's all well and good, but they are still operating inside a capitalist society, so their driving force for innovation is still competing in a capitalist market.

 

Unresponsive.

 

And let's not forget that the hostility of American culture to communism in large measure derives from the way its fundamentalist faith community has smeared communism as godless and therefore diabolical, when in fact communism is far more consistent with Christian ethics than the economic individualism of capitalism – the same fundamentalist movement, btw, that today is promoting Islamophobia.

Well, and since religion has now made its way into the conversation, I might observe that it’s actually quite bizarre, if you think about it, that politically right-of-center evangelicals in this country are so pro-capitalist. Do they actually think that the deity whom they worship, the same divinity whose reputed only begotten son said that the rich are excluded from heaven, and whose scriptures are filled with bits that advocate social justice, is okay with one being a profit-motivated, capital accumulating, expropriating, exploiting capitalist?! Well, if they do this would seem to be more of an aberration of American evangelical culture than a belief consistent with a more authentically Christian conception of the Divine. But of course one should not assume that all religionists are benightedly anti-communist, many Roman Catholic liberation theologians, for instance, are essentially Marxist, or have found a good bit of value in Marxist theory. And then there's the Dalai Lama, who's stated that he's a Marxist. Well, I could go on citing examples, but suffice it to say that core communist principles and values have been a dimension of the enlightenment of a great many spiritually enlightened individuals.

 

If you consider not being at liberty to discriminate against, or otherwise victimize innocent Muslims with their bigotry, then yes, the freedom of anti-Muslims would be curtailed in the form of democratic society that I advocate. Now you can go to town rationalizing that this would disqualify it from being considered a free society.

You might also like to give this a read,
http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...t-communism-capitalism-14.html#post1066718882

 

Good point, Charles.

The single most hypocritical element of American conservatism is that it is fed and nurtured by so-called Christian evangelicals. How any "Christian" can consider the political philosophy of the right as closer to the teachings of Jesus than the political philosophy of the left is beyond imagination.

Fact is, the political philosophy of the right is antithetical to the teachings of Jesus!

 

For starters, what makes you believe that an economic system can cure "sociological ills" ? Those two concepts are wholly separate entities. You seem to be putting forth the notion that a collectivist economy somehow equates to a magical elixir in regards to sociological problems, while in truth, an economic system has no bearing on that issue. Just because society's collective production is put into a pot and shared evenly, has absolutely no bearing on how we interact with our fellow man. If I don't like my neighbor, there is nothing about our collective output being shared evenly that is going to make me see him in a different light.

You seem to be under the impression that you can address the notion of human nature by tying it to "sociological ills", and all of a sudden it is time to move on in the conversation as if that somehow adequately addresses the quintessential flaw in collectivism which IS human nature. The goal of an economic system is to maximize the standard of living within a society. The greater the GDP that emanates from a society, the higher the standard of living within that society. This correlation is blatantly obvious. When you factor in human nature, collectivism is necessarily going to result in less productivity because there is less incentive to produce.

To illustrate this concept, lets say that an average individual, working an average amount of hours, and working moderately hard can earn $100 day for their family. If that individual works 50% longer hours, he can earn $150 for his family. While that individual would obviously rather be home with his kids, that additional $50 for his family is incentive enough to forego that time and work harder. If he and the family next door split their incomes, the additional money he would get from working 50% longer would only be $25, which may in fact be enough to change his calculation of whether working those extra hours is worth foregoing spending more time with his kids. If 10 families split their incomes, putting in 50% more hours would only net his family an additional $5. When you split this between a million families, that extra work provides his family with literally nothing. At that point, there is no incentive whatsoever for that person to put in those extra hours. In a nutshell, this is why extreme collectivism across an entire society will never result in a prosperous society. It very well MAY result in an equal society, but unfortunately the result would be that everyone is equally poor. My example focused on hours worked, but it equally applies to how hard one works, the amount of time and effort put into education etc.

Which is precisely why you have never seen a successful Communist country. You may very well be able to achieve your goal of a non totalitarian Communist government, but you are never going to be able to create a Communist society that thrives economically. The lack of incentive to produce that comes from a highly collectivist arrangement is inescapable. You can eloquently argue all you want on every facet of collectivism that you can imagine, and you can even fantasize any type of "New Communism" that you desire, the reality is that it will never work because of the resulting lack of incentive to produce that comes from a highly collectivist society. The more collectivist your fantasy "New Communism" may be, the less output that will result. The less output that results, the lower the standard of living for your society as a whole. Why anyone would desire a poor society in a quest for equality is beyond logic.

 

Ask Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin ISIS.

If you can not figure out that in Regimes like Stalin, Hitler, Mao you had a few people most or all resources and means of production (and these are what I refer to as "extreme socialism" then there is not much more I can say to help you understand.

I find that in dealing with complex topics such as political systems requires both sides to come half way. If one starts playing the semantics game (which is really easy in these convos) then there is just no point.




In Britain after the monarchy's forces were beaten and subdued, the revolutionaries told the monarchy that if they would cooperate and call off their dogs, the monarchy could keep their wealth and their heads. So even today Britain has royalty but with no power. It was a "courtesy" to allow them to remain in exchange for cooperation.



Confusion results from using imprecise terms, among other things. But there is no precision or validity to the expression "extreme socialism" because there really is no such thing. Socialism is a system under actual control of the working class, -not in words, but in fact. If you don't have that, you don't have socialism. Point 2: communism is a theory. It is a classless, stateless society that cannot be caused, forced, directed, or imposed. It evolves naturally, in theory, from socialism after many, many decades and maybe generations of successful socialist society. All resistance to socialism and in favor of capitalism has been worked out by long habit so that there is no longer any need to guard against capitalist-roaders any more then we need to worry today about feudalist-roaders. At that point there is no use for state machinery and it "withers away" leaving classless, stateless society.

So I don't know what "spectrum" you are referring to.

The Gov't of Romania was "Violently Imposed". Ceausescu was a dictator.
I do not know if we can say "it did not work". Ceausescu just had a different system. It is not like the Soviet System (which remained more violent)

-which is part of the lessons learned. Check the freedom that characterizes the Mondragon Corporation in spain and elsewhere

 

It certainly would be a less free society. It would lack the freedom of association and freedom from involuntary servitude. Not to mention freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

I am not interested in Venezula.

 

I have not been myself but my wife was born in Timisoara (as was her father who lives with us). Immigrated here 30 years ago so around 86.

I also know numerous others (some who escaped and some who made it over later when communism ended). Communism ended in 1989. The "children on the streets" issue would not have happened under communism because everyone was given a place to live.

I agree with you on the running water thing .. that was the country side but in there are still many places in the country side here that still use water wells.

It is probably true that some areas did better than others. Everyone had a job (whether you liked it or not), every one had food and a place to live.

Of course after the communist system ended there is going to be a transition. The social support systems disappeared. This is what you witnessed.

 

Take out all the unnecessary words and what you have actually written is "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability". Same BS as all the communists, socialists, Stalinists, fascists, dictators, etc.

And exactly how are you going to implement this "equal say in the management of the means of production", equal political and economic empowerment? People won't agree, John will say he needs more than Bill, Bill will say he needs more than John. Multiply that by millions. How are you going to resolve it?

You will resolve it by forming a committee of people who will have the power to take resources from some and give those resources to others. Your system just turned into the same old BS that was the USSR, Mao's China, and all the other totalitarian hell holes throughout history.

It means I have read the Koran, and ask a very relevant question. Facts are facts whether you like them or not.

 

Yes and when that capitalist competition is gone there will still be a need for money and even loans. And when money and loans are gone there will be a need to deliver goods. And when that ends we'll probably all be dead.

The point is that capitalist competition is mostly irrelevant regarding who owns the productive capacity and makes the business decisions in Mondragon. But we always have to find an objection I guess.

 

They are also largely pro-Trump! TRUMP!!... -the most immoral, unethical candidate we have ever seen and the shame of America worldwide.

 

"Who gets to suppress whom, and how do you decide?" What policies and principles are in the interest of the working class is only a mystery to the capitalist class and their lackeys.

 

Is that really how you think communism would work?

 

And if you believe Hitler represented any form of socialism, you haven't yet gotten to square one! You have a lot of catching up to do!

 

They also seem to be a mystery to the working class itself, which is much more conservative than the intelligensia.

But of course, you could elucidate these mysteries, if you so chose.

 

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"


Yes. Yes I do. When you abandon the notion that someone keeps what they earn and instead distribute to everyone according to their needs, you DISTINCTLY eliminate the individuals incentive to produce. When you aggregate and distribute earnings in the collective, you distinctly eliminate the individuals incentive to produce and my simplified example illustrates that principal PERFECTLY. There isn't really anything there to argue despite the fact that you posted a clever laughing icon. Unfortunately for you, an icon is not a substitute for intellectual debate. If it were, you'd surely be one of the best.

I invite you to produce a legitimate retort to the post of mine to which you responded, but be forewarned, if you accept this challenge, it probably isn't going to turn out very well for you.

 

When the computer age was just beginning, high-tech geeks like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates had a new idea. They and their crew would work 4 days a week assembling computers and testing out new ideas. On Friday everyone would spend the day in discussion, brainstorming and planning and deciding and establishing guidelines. It was democratic. It involved everyone. All the workers had a say. They voted on ideas. They worked together even on business management in this way.

That is how the Mondragon Corporation did it too, and they now have 100,000 workers. We have about 60,000 worker co-ops and worker-owned companies in this country.

These questions you ask have been worked out. You might enjoy investigating into the subject and getting back to us.

 

It is no mystery nor is there any question that in fact, "urine therapy" is not beneficial to health, yet there are people who argue the point.

It is no mystery nor is there any question that in fact, democracy is more complete and expanded in a socialist society, yet some deny it.