[Beren]

I don't know, maybe I'm stupid, but every time I ask Communists a question about something specific under Communism, I always seem to get some vague answer that kind of relates to the question, but not really, and then when I say that I don't understand how it relates to my question, I seem to regularly get some backhanded insult.

No one actually knows how socialism and communism in a Marxist sense should work, mostly because Marx missed to explain it himself. So the best thing you can do is to have a look at what kind of systems socialists and communists created through history. That can be helpful because recent socialists and communists are very much like they were, they are mostly Leninists or Stalinists (or some kind of utopian losers). In my opinion the whole thing would basically be very much like the Soviet Union was, no matter if they happen to think or say otherwise.

By the way, TIG is right, Marxism is basically about explaining history and criticizing capitalism and class-society, it's not about laying down the theoretical foundations of a new socio-economic system.

[Wolfman]

No one actually knows how socialism and communism in a Marxist sense should work

Then how do you know what Socialism is when it comes? How do you know you're not supporting some other Stalinist regime, or some faux-Socialism made for the Capitalist class?

By the way, TIG is right, Marxism is basically about explaining history and criticizing capitalism and class-society, it's not about laying down the theoretical foundations of a new socio-economic system.

So, if Marxism isn't a political ideology then why the hell does it have it's own section in the ideology area of Pofo?

[daft punk]

There's nothing wrong with experimenting, daft.
The problem is that in socialism, you don't have boundaries, so it's impossible to control your own experiments. It's also impossible to prevent yourself from being involved in experiments you don't approve of. Without private property, you can't have rights to privacy.

How do you know you have no boundaries in socialism? What sort of boudaries dont you have? Why is it impossible to prevent yourself being involved in experiments you dont approve of? Why cant you have privacy? Do you even know what you are talking about? Abolition of private property refers to owning the means of production, not a door on your toilet or bedroom.

As for thinking about shit to sell, capitalism isn't all about money. Real profits are about free time, having experiences, and living creatively.

Bullshit. The only thing that drives capital is profit. You think speculating up the cost of food in a world where millions starve is living creatively?

In a socialist world, these values get thrown out the window because of the pursuit of equality. Anyone who isn't struggling gets chopped down to fit the norm. Heck, to figure out an effective marketing strategy, you need to have a successful personal life in order to relate with the culture of your customers.

No idea what this waffle means

As it pertains to food and weapons, merely fulfilling the demand for resources isn't what society is built around. Society is built around trustworthy relationships which depends upon agency.

Well when you guarantee that suppliers are obligated to fulfill demanders, that leads to free rider problems all over the place. In turn, that leads to more hunger and more wars because production gets sabotaged out of laziness, and wars take place as people argue over who's actually doing their job.

WTF are you on about? This is bizarre.

No one actually knows how socialism and communism in a Marxist sense should work, mostly because Marx missed to explain it himself. So the best thing you can do is to have a look at what kind of systems socialists and communists created through history. That can be helpful because recent socialists and communists are very much like they were, they are mostly Leninists or Stalinists (or some kind of utopian losers). In my opinion the whole thing would basically be very much like the Soviet Union was, no matter if they happen to think or say otherwise.

By the way, TIG is right, Marxism is basically about explaining history and criticizing capitalism and class-society, it's not about laying down the theoretical foundations of a new socio-economic system.

Hmm... Marx did not provide a blueprint for socialism because he was not a presumptuous clairvoyant. Socialists and communists have not created socialism or communism. They only tried in Russia. And there they knew it was impossible if it was just Russia on it's own. Russia became isolated when the revolutions in Germany and Hungary were crushed. Socialism woul not be like the USSR because the USSR was not socialist, and if you were a socialist in the USSR you got shot.

Then how do you know what Socialism is when it comes? How do you know you're not supporting some other Stalinist regime, or some faux-Socialism made for the Capitalist class?

This is quite a good question. Socialism doesnt just suddenly happen, it evolves. But how do you know it is evolving to socialism and nor something like Stalinism?

Somebody post some stupid one liner so I can reply to this properly.
__________

[The Immortal Goon]

if Marxism isn't a political ideology then why the hell does it have it's own section in the ideology area of Pofo?

It is an ideology in that it provides a framework for how ideology and economics and government and human relations work. It also helps to explain the direction things will go into when contradictions in the current order finally fail. It outlines socialism and communism as points that will come, and advocates for the pushing of these to ease the suffering and inequality of the present.

As for how pencils will be distributed and built, one can only guess. Capitalists aren't asked to specify how the pencil of the future will be - but they advocate a certain means of production to do so. The cost, role of computers, trucks, roads, sea lanes, and Aircraft were all hopeless abstractions to Adam Smith. But the means of production remains capitalist.

We advocate a collective and equal production, but how exactly that will land no man can say.

[Wolfman]

This is quite a good question. Socialism doesnt just suddenly happen, it evolves. But how do you know it is evolving to socialism and nor something like Stalinism?

So, all you have is hopes and prayers that Socialism will happen, and that it'll be something you'd actually like to live under, and that it wont just be Stalinism redux or some faux-Socialism for the Capitalists?

[The Immortal Goon]

Again, it's an analysis of history. We know that feudalism collapsed under its own contradictions and gave rise to capitalism. We know that capitalism is not perfect, has contradictions, and can foresee a basic understanding of the trends in history as well as how the system works and does not work. So we can see that a turn to socialism is inevitable. We know to fight for it will be easier for everyone.

It's not hopes and prayers any more than one may hope and pray the sun will rise tomorrow. In both cases, a material system is at work.

[Daktoria]

How do you know you have no boundaries in socialism? What sort of boudaries dont you have? Why is it impossible to prevent yourself being involved in experiments you dont approve of? Why cant you have privacy? Do you even know what you are talking about? Abolition of private property refers to owning the means of production, not a door on your toilet or bedroom.

Not really. The community would have to interject in the definition of consumption versus investment in order to coordinate demand with supply.

Furthermore, the community would expect members to use resources a certain way to coincide with economic planning. It would have to because if it didn't, there would be inefficiencies. People who consume resources the wrong way would be wasteful. Furthermore, people who AREN'T wasteful would be plagued by those who are.

Bullshit. The only thing that drives capital is profit. You think speculating up the cost of food in a world where millions starve is living creatively?

Did you read what I said about real profit?

Go ahead. Tell me, what's so great about profit? Furthermore, tell me how capitalists achieve profit.

No idea what this waffle means

I'm not surprised. This is why socialism fails.

WTF are you on about? This is bizarre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem

[USB]

There is always a limit to everything. Market calculation is possible under the leninist centralist planning if mixed with privileges granted to citizens to cultivate their plot including city dwellers. Lenin attempted to do it but it was banned by Stalin. Hence, famine and starvation. But these happened when Ukraine was attacked by the GErmans. After the War, things became normal and consumption reached a million fold despite centralized planning.

[Eauz]

I don't see how that answers my question. Am I just going to get pencils for nothing, will I have to hand over random labor-hour vouchers, will I have to barter?

First, as I stated earlier, we have to have a concept of what type of socio-economic structure would be in place. There are various means of achieving collective production and consumption of goods and services, however, you're assuming in your present argument that a socialised society would have the same means of distribution, i.e. how do I get a pencil. There may be labour hours or collective ownership over all production within society, with allocation towards the work done. Is every single person going to have the same number of pencils as the other person? Definitely not. Regardless of this, we are in this argument assuming that the same concept of consumption would exist in the future, as does in the present. I think for many Marxist, the concept of consumerist economy is a sign of instability over the long-term and does not provide sustainable benefit for all those who are productive members of society. In a socialist economy, the need for pencils may be displayed in a different form than it is in our present day. For example, rather than wasting resources and material to produce 100 types of pencils, a few styles of pencils will be produced and distributed for use within the collective (at a price or exchange in some form). There may be a quota of production that a certain collective region needs to produce of X product in order to be provided with Y product. There are numerous concepts and ideas of developing a socialist economy, the question remains as to what would be the most effective, taking into consideration historical and present day developments. This is somewhat like assuming that in the 1700's, when people were writing about capitalism, that all future societies will be absolute free market and goods and services will move smoothly throughout the world. Most writers and philosophers of the time had no idea how these ideas would be turned into practice.

Hope this helps.

I seem to regularly get some backhanded insult.

Message forums are horrible for understanding what people are saying. Don't take things personal. I answered your questions originally with a few sentences, because I was digging, trying to get more out of you and see what you want to get from this.

[daft punk]

Then how do you know what Socialism is when it comes? How do you know you're not supporting some other Stalinist regime, or some faux-Socialism made for the Capitalist class?

Ok so socialism evolves. First you start with capitalism. You get a socialist government in power. Then you begin a transition towards socialism. This is a transitional period. In this period you take the biggest companies into public ownership, you start to plan the economy. You increase the lowest wages and tax the rich.

Workers representatives MUST be on the average wage, subject to recall (immediate de-selection) and democratically voted for. Boards of Directors etc must represent workers from a particular industry, consumers and the government. The government must have an internationalist, revolutionary policy.

If you see all this you know you are probably heading for socialism.

So, all you have is hopes and prayers that Socialism will happen, and that it'll be something you'd actually like to live under, and that it wont just be Stalinism redux or some faux-Socialism for the Capitalists?

The reason Stalinism happened in Russia was mainly because socialism was impossible in backward Russia once it became isolated, ie other revolutions eg Germany and Hungary were crushed.

Lenin:

"But we have not finished building even the foundations of socialist economy and the hostile power of moribund capitalism can still deprive us of that. We must clearly appreciate this and frankly admit it; for there is nothing more dangerous than illusions (and vertigo, particularly at high altitudes). And there is absolutely nothing terrible, nothing that should give legitimate grounds for the slightest despondency, in admitting this bitter truth; we have always urged and reiterated the elementary truth of Marxism - that the joint efforts of the workers of several advanced countries are needed for the victory of socialism."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... eb/x01.htm

We know that feudalism collapsed under its own contradictions and gave rise to capitalism.

Well, capitalists overthrew feudalism in three revolutions in England first (the English Civil War), Holland, and later France (French Revolution).

[Beren]

There may be a quota of production that a certain collective region needs to produce of X product in order to be provided with Y product.

Centrally planned barter economy?

[Daktoria]

AKA marketplace. :-b

[Beren]

Pardon?

[Daktoria]

Well think about it. To have a planned barter economy, you need to have some supply of store of value, unit of account, and medium of exchange...

...AKA money (supply).

Also, the centralization of barter would... involve a "place" for this value, these accounts, and this exchange to happen.

The problem with socialism isn't that operations are centralized, but that operations are stuck in the past. As Eauz said, there would be a "quota" of production which assumes that demand is constant over time. Centralization becomes rather vital as time goes on and society becomes more sophisticated because people need increasing convenience in order to interact.

As long as people are making their own decisions though, the economy would be fine. It's just socialism always forgets how private property is necessary in order to make sure this happens. Without private property, people don't have any guarantee of reliability.

[Beren]

I'm afraid I just can't follow you guys.

[Eauz]

Centrally planned barter economy?

Could you explain how you got that from what I wrote?

[Beren]

Could you explain how you got that from what I wrote?

Perhaps you should explain what else I should have got instead.

Anyway, you're a fan of central planning, aren't you? So I guess that quota should be determined by a central office, bureau or committee. As for the barter economy part, even if some kind of money as an accounting unit and means of payment were used (Transferable Ruble), the system would basically be a barter economy, like the Comecon basically was.

[Eauz]

So I guess that...

That's pretty much all we can do at the moment. Nevertheless, if you had read what I wrote earlier, we might finally be on the same page.

This is somewhat like assuming that in the 1700's, when people were writing about capitalism, that all future societies will be absolute free market and goods and services will move smoothly throughout the world. Most writers and philosophers of the time had no idea how these ideas would be turned into practice.

[Mod Note]: Phred, stop trolling the thread. If you have something to add to the topic, please feel free to post, but if you aren't going to bring anything other than trolling and personal assumptions, then I'll keep deleting your posts.

[Beren]

This is somewhat like assuming that in the 1700's, when people were writing about capitalism, that all future societies will be absolute free market and goods and services will move smoothly throughout the world. Most writers and philosophers of the time had no idea how these ideas would be turned into practice.

Fine. However, you recent commies seem to have the same Soviet kind of ideas that already failed in the past.

[Eauz]

Beren, what are you trying to get out of this? If I haven't answered your questions appropriately, please point out what is lacking.