I have a few questions for the Marxists on this forum or anyone who takes an interest in Marxism.
How is a “classless society” be achieved without a new ruling class creating it? Would such a ruling class agree to voluntarily dissolve itself once the new society had been established?
Do Marxists really believe in the abolition of money?
Can democracy function within a communist society and if so, does this imply that capitalist parties may compete for power?
Yo Russells I’m an anarchist not a Marxist but here’s my line any how!
Let the funs begin!!!
Krossie
How will the transaction function of money be achieved without money. That is to say, one man cannot produce everything he needs. At some point, a system of tokens or whatever would have to be introduced so that people can be allocated their ‘fair share’ or whatever. That would be de facto money, a system of exchange.
All products go into large warehouses, and one goes to the large warehouses and retreives whatever items he wants anytime he wants. The idea is that no-one is going to take more than they need because their is no reason to, they cannot trade it or barter for it, taking more than one needs will enrich their life in no way in Communism. You must realize that in Communism everyone will be an Aristotle.
But presumably there would exist a framework for what decisons could and couldn’t be taken by these councils? If not, then presumably the people could, if they choose, elect representatives from capitalist parties who could then reintroduce a capitalist mode of production and thus destroy the foundations of the communist/anarchist society that had been created.
Unless, that is, you propose that opposition political parties be outlawed?
While I’m no Marxist, I do think it is worth pointing out that capitalism is anti-Democratic.
Right. So without a profit incentive you’re going to be productively efficient enough to have huge surpluses filling up warehouses. Without a price function you’re going to have a rational allocation of resources.
I’m sure the ethical arguments for Anarchism/Communism stand up, but the economics certainly do not. And a utopia that cannot exist is no utopia.
Indeed. Why do you suppose that that is a bad thing?
So how exactly does the profit incentive determine the degree of productivity? Is a worker under capitalism persuaded to work harder (ie. be more productive) because it wants the company to make a bigger profit? Do the worker and capitalist not have contradictory interests under capitalism that causes instability in the production method?
As I understand it, production in a communist society would be either democratically planned (ie. workers in the factory would determine how much is produced) or centrally planned (ie the state would determine how much is produced). This seems to me more rational then production being determined by market forces that are heavily influenced by what a company thinks can be made profitable through mass marketing.
I’m not really a big fan of democracies . . . so it isn’t a problem for me.
However, I find most die-hard capitalists are also die-hard democrats (as in, people in favour of a democratic government, not the American political party.)
This makes no sense to me, since capitalism concentrates power to the few, and those who control the means of production control the government.
Incorrect.
As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, capitalism is the status quo that exists when each individual is left free to do as he pleases so long he honors his contracts and refrains from initiating, attempting to initiate, or threatening to initiate physical force or fraud against the person or property of another without his consent.
Sorry this just doesn’t make any sense to me as a definition of capitalism.
Surely you need to explain where these contracts come from, under what conditions they were signed and how each individual came to own their property before you can start talking about each individual being “free to do as they please”?
Pyramid Class [which everyone is usedto but the people at the top abuse] vs Virtual Democracy [which people don’t demand] vs Anarchism [which becomes despotism].
Kurt how do you square this fantasy with the reality of modern state Capitalism.
(I’d include the self defined communist countries here too!)
Also surely capitalists - fight to win.
Capitalists respect no airy fairy dreams of refraining from phyisical force etc and do so quite often either via the state or hired goons.
Also some (a tiny minority) do win - capitalism tends not to small guys building rockets in their back gardens but to microsoft/enron style monoplies.
The capitalist plays to win monopolies and market dominance not to biuild a libertarian capitalist utopia which is purely an imaginary prize for their stary eyed supporters.
Krossie
Most firms operate under a maxim of “profit maximisation”. Not all firms do. Tesco in the UK for instance does not currently try to profit maximise, instead it tries to maximise its market share.
In a competitive economy (and I do believe that the government has a role to play in promoting competition) production is “productively efficient”, in that the average cost of each unit produced is at the lowest point on the average cost curve. I can’t really explain why at the moment, since I’ve got to go to work in a minute, and it would require drawing economic diagrams.
It is the view of Friedrich von Hayek that socialist economies, due to the lack of a price function cannot accurately respond to changes in demand and hence will not reach “allocative efficiency”. You can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek#The_economic_calculation_problem
Needless to say - no socialist economy in history has ever been productively efficient.
Easy. That’s not actually capitalism.
You’re committing what is called the “empiricist fallacy”–that is, conufsing flawed historical attempts to implement an idea with the idea itself.
I suggest you read Andrew Bernstein’s essay on this exact subject here:
capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4708
Those people aren’t capitalists.
So? As long as it is the end result of the absence of physical force and fraud (which I doubt is the case with the examples you mentioned), what’s wrong with it?
Kurt M. Weber, I think it’s profound that there are no pensioners or children in Ayn Rand’s books. How are they supposed to survive in a world of ethical egoists?
Unfettered free markets are just as bad as any communist ‘utopia’.
How the hell is that relevant?
And thus you’ve missed the point, Herr Weber.
Well, you were the one who brought up Ayn Rand, and what she “proved” (though these ‘proofs’ must have escaped me when I read her - my bad, I suppose). I think that given you were referring to capitalism from an Randian ‘Unknown Ideal’ perspective, it was not unreasonable to assume that the same ethical theory underpins your thoughts as underpins Rand’s. That would imply ethical egoism. If I’ve jumped to a conclusion then it’s my mistake and I apologise for it - but could you please submit a fairly concise definition of what form you consider an ‘ideal’ capitalist economy to take, if it’s not the Randian one.
If it is the Randian one, how do kids and OAPs survive in a world of ethical egoists?
I’m very pro-capitalist - if I were American I’d likely be a Republican. But it would seem to me that you’re characaturing capitalism into something it is not. A regulated, but broadly free-market is in my view the best economic model we have available. Unfettered market forces are not, in my considered opinion.