[Eauz]

Anyone recommend books or links which provide a better understanding of the economic system of socialism & communism? I know there is Das Kapital, but I'm looking for something more which can provide better examples, etc...

Thanks...

[Napuljun]

I have this link, but I never read it, looking forward to when I am in a more relaxed mood.

http://www.wiu.edu/users/miecon/wiu/yunker/postlang.htm

[Un Owen]

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/view ... hp?t=37450

The above link will take you to a previous thread I began in which you can download a textbook for a college level course in Marxist economics. I will try and find other materials and get back to you.

[Eauz]

Hey Un Owen, your site looks great, but I tried to download the file, and it seems like it only wants to download half of the file, and when I try to open it, it says there is an error. Any other form you could send it to me?

[lovespecter]

I have no idea if you know chinese .If you know that ,you can go to a Chinese website www.baidu.com and will get millions of articles about social and communism economy.

[Saf]

I am reading the book Un Owen linked right now, as well as the other article... Both are good, although the article is a bit higher-level. Any highschool student/graduate should be able to read the textbook at their own pace, in my estimation; the article probably will take some prior background in economics... Both powerful resources, however.

[Eauz]

I don't understand it, It still only downloads half the file and then says "finished", when it hasn't actually. Sef, did you download it, or do you have a hard copy of it? Anyway you could get it to me, either my MSN messenger or IRC client ? I would love to read it, but I seem to be having trouble with it.

[malachi151]

Here, go to my website:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/marxism.htm

[Eauz]

Alas, I have found myself a copy, by some backdoor ways. I thank you all for replying, and it looks like I've got some good reading to do. If only school didn't get in the way, eh?

Anyways, thanks, and keep posting your info, for my learning and others...

lovespecter, I do not speak or read Chinese, but thanks anyways. I know I have some Japanese in my sig, but that was because my girlfriend put it in for me. I only understand a very little amount of characters, mainly the phonems.

[Saf]

I downloaded it without problems. This may because I am the head of Holy Mother Church, however. The Lord works in mysterious ways.

[redcarpet]

The problem is that Marx and Engels were analysts of Capitalism. They didn't really lay out theories on how a Communist/Anarchist nation would function. So if you're looking for explanations of socialism and communism, you won't really be helped by most Marxist writings.

Infact, Anarchists are the ones, in my view, who have explained how a Communist nation functions. Because, in my view, Anarchism and Communism the the exact same things.

[Potemkin]

Because, in my view, Anarchism and Communism the the exact same things.

They are different routes to the same thing. This is an important distinction. In my view Anarchism is Utopian, while Communism (in its Marxist form) is scientific.

[graymouser]

They are different routes to the same thing. This is an important distinction. In my view Anarchism is Utopian, while Communism (in its Marxist form) is scientific.

Not all anarchism is equal, and I'm not sure there is any validity to "scientific socialism" as a notion. Most schools of anarchism are taken from real struggle - the most rigorous one being syndicalism, which is the use of strong unions as the vehicle for class warfare. I don't think that most schools of anarchism are utopian or "scientific" so much as they are practical.

-Wayne

[Eddier1]

graymouser wrote

Quote:
They are different routes to the same thing. This is an important distinction. In my view Anarchism is Utopian, while Communism (in its Marxist form) is scientific.

Not all anarchism is equal, and I'm not sure there is any validity to "scientific socialism" as a notion. Most schools of anarchism are taken from real struggle - the most rigorous one being syndicalism, which is the use of strong unions as the vehicle for class warfare. I don't think that most schools of anarchism are utopian or "scientific" so much as they are practical.

-Wayne

Well the poster was correct that "Anarchism is Utopian". But Wayne is also correct in that scientific socialism doesn't have validity as a notion, although he doesn't tell us why. I will! Because scientific socialism is based on the statistical coefficiencies of the latest and best in scientific method. And that bases scientific socialsm not on "notions" but on legitimate concepts.

Syndicalism was not really practical, Wayne, because even the best of the syndicalists like George Orwell did not realize that using trade unions, the only action that workers can take on their own, still and all cannot remove the oppression and exploitation of wage slavery that is an inseparable part of the economics of capitalism, and central to the social relationship of capitalism in its imperative to keep the class struggle balanced in favor of the capitalists.

True that the workers can obtain wage increases (and even bonuses) through the trade union activities in behalf of the workers. Yet that is not really practical, nor illuminated by the correct ideology of scientific socialism. In that sense, I am stating that trade unionism cannot edify the workers as to the real problem of the social relations within the class contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. So the T.U's cannot solve the problem of 'labor power sold', which perpetuates the wage slavery of the workers.

Only scientific socialism with its ideology and scientific methods can provide the workers with knowledge and the tactical actions required to crush the bourgeois-block that hinders an effective and practical solution to the wage slavery problem.

Anarchism, even on the level of syndicalism can't do that, and therefore remains forever a utopian notion that will never liberate the workers nor the general oppression of man by man. Scientific socialism alone can do that! That is why it is necessary and sufficient to the practical needs of the proletarians.

E.1

p.s. Potemkin note the significant distinction between notions and concepts. If you do, you will realize that it is never warranted to write nor speak of scientific socialism as notional.That is an error that anarchists make time and again due to their lack of expertise in scientific matters.

[Potemkin]

Not all anarchism is equal, and I'm not sure there is any validity to "scientific socialism" as a notion. Most schools of anarchism are taken from real struggle - the most rigorous one being syndicalism, which is the use of strong unions as the vehicle for class warfare. I don't think that most schools of anarchism are utopian or "scientific" so much as they are practical.

"Practical" Anarchism? Judging by their historical record of success (or rather, the lack thereof), isn't that almost a contradiction in terms?

And there is validity to the notion of "scientific socialism". This is why Marxism has taken over from every other form of Socialism and Communism from the late 19th century to the present day. Nobody describes themselves today as a 'Fourierist' or an 'Owenite', with good reason - Marx comprehensively refuted their ideologies, and demonstrated the intellectual and practical superiority of a Socialism based on rigorous economic and political analysis rather than Utopian daydreaming. And while the ideology of Marx has had, and is still having to this day, a tremendous impact on fields of thought as varied as literary analysis, film studies, semiology, psychology, sociology, etc, the ideology of Bakunin has had almost zero influence on any serious thinker. Marxism is both intellectually sophisticated and profoundly practical, while Anarchism is neither.

[Paradigm]

They are different routes to the same thing. This is an important distinction. In my view Anarchism is Utopian, while Communism (in its Marxist form) is scientific.

If it were scientific, it could be reproduced, yet every attempt at Communism has resulted in dictatorship. Quite the opposite of anarchy.

[Potemkin]

If it were scientific, it could be reproduced, yet every attempt at Communism has resulted in dictatorship. Quite the opposite of anarchy.

It's called the dictatorship of the proletariat. You know, that transition stage between capitalism and communism, without which the capitalist mode of production would never be dissolved. Unfortunately, no Communist society has ever succeeded in leaving that transition stage yet, due to their encirclement by hostile capitalist-imperialist powers.

[Paradigm]

When Communism can show that it can dissolve the state, I might accept the scientific label Marx gives to it. Until then, it's just a utopian fantasy.

[Potemkin]

When Communism can show that it can dissolve the state, I might accept the scientific label Marx gives to it. Until then, it's just a utopian fantasy.

The reason the state has not withered away in any Communist regime so far is very easily explained. Marx predicted that Communism could only be successfully achieved in a global, world revolution. Instead, what actually happened, due to the law of uneven development, was that the proletarian revolution occurred independently in only a few, isolated nations such as Russia and China. These nations were encircled by hostile capitalist-imperialist nations who were overtly hostile towards the Communist regime. These capitalist enemy nations had invaded Russia in the years immediately following the Revolution, and the regime only just survived this attack. And they tried it again in 1941, and the Soviet regime again only just survived. Despite being repulsed twice, the capitalist-imperialist nations were itching to invade again. This means that if the state had even begun to wither away in the Soviet Union or in China, the capitalist nations would have invaded again, and without a powerful state apparatus, the imperialists would have been victorious, and capitalism would have been restored in both Russia and China. Marx foresaw this, of course, which is why he insisted in his writings on the necessity for a global, worldwide revolution to overthrow capitalism; without this world revolution, the state cannot wither away even if Communism is successful in individual, isolated nations.

[Leopard]

how bizarre... communists actually think they can change human nature

and then there is this from ??'s site:

Marx's Theory of Surplus-Value and the Labor Theory of Value are cornerstones of his economic work. The Labor Theory of Value was first officially defined by the Classical Economist David Ricardo. Marx extended Ricardo's Labor Theory of Value. Ricardo's Labor Theory of Value stated that price of commodities was determined by the hours of labor spent on their production. This theory of value was shown to still have problems in providing an explanation for the prices of commodities however.

Marx extended the the Labor Theory of Value to state that value is the product of "all socially expended labor" needed to produce a commodity, implying that labor other than the direct labor used by the individual to create the commodity was also factored into value.

The Theory of Surplus-Value states that profits are a surplus value above the labor-value. By definition, a wage laborer never receives any of the surplus-value. Profits are the value that the laborer has created, which goes to the capitalist. Marx held that the labor-value of a commodity is a point around which market values revolve, thus he described two different types of value, use-value and exchange-value.

Use-value is the value of an object for satisfying some want or need, for example the value of a car is that it can transport people from place to place. This value is the product of labor and/or nature. Marx based this definition of value on John Locke's and Adam Smith's definitions of value, both of whom stated that labor is the primary means by which value is created. Locke argued that value that is inherent in nature is common property since it is not created by man. All other use-value that is not inherent in nature is the product of labor, and is rightfully the property of the person who labored to create it.

Exchange-value is the value that a commodity has in a market, which is a socially created value. Exchange-value is the value that commodities are judged to have in relationship to other commodities. One basket is worth two eggs; three cows are worth a horse and wagon; a pair of shoes is worth $30, etc. In any economic exchange, use-value is resolved to exchange-value by the parties involved in the exchange.

how contorted and convoluted communist 'economists' must twist and turn trying to explain and define 'value' into an objective figure which then can be computed easily to determine pricing and distribution of goods and services... what a horrible waste of time. 'Theory of Surplus-Value' and 'Use-value' and 'Exchange-value'... bunch of hogwash - there is only ONE true 'value' and that is relative to each person in question, the free market is the only system to best reflect the wide and varied subjective values out there and provide an aggregate which is actually useful to others in their individual determination of purchases and labor.

The attempt to fit all of humanity into a single mold is false from the start and anything that starts with this goal cannot help but fail and its attempted institution (forced always) upon a citizendry will induce harm, inefficiency, shortages, and waste...

Just let people be people... we can figure it out better without someone telling us what to do...

Join the Free Market revolution! live free, realize your dreams!

michael