Comments on: Does communism stiffle individualism?

By: db0

db0 — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:09:22 +0000

As empirical proof: todays workers, even in third world countries such as mine, have access to more and more "luxuries" such TVs and Nintendo's even if these objects were conceived as luxuries exclusive to the bourgeoisie in the first place.

Your empirical proof is about to collapse. The only reason why it seems like it was a proof of how Capitalism works is because since the 70s we were in a series of booms that have finally created an ultraboom which has now popped. Within two years all this empirical proof will have become the empirical proof of the opposite.

Yes, Marx did indeed expect Capitalism to stop but he could not foresee the rapid increase in "gadgetry" which managed to forestall this event. However his only flaw was that he put the end of Capitalism too soon. The rest of his theory could just as well be describing modern capitalism.

By: db0

db0 — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:05:41 +0000

This is a common dream of the Capitalist, that some kind of gadget will save the day. And it is an understandable dream as without a way for Capitalism to expand, it necessarily feeds upon itself. And even when it does find a new thing to expand to, it simply follows one of its classic cycles of booms and slumps, destroying the lives of millions.

However, unless the dream gadget is some kind of star-trek replicator, the gadget will only forestall the exploitation increasing. The problem is that Capitalism does not gave a problem because it does not produce enough, but because it overproduces and profit cannot be realized anymore. We already have gadgets to feed 12x times the earth population but we do not because there's no profit in feeding the poor.

And there will always be poor for which there will be no profit to take care of. Thus, there will always be inequality.

By: GokuEn

GokuEn — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:45:30 +0000

As new tecnologies appear, the easier it becomes to fullfil the dream of equality. What you are arguing is that destroying capitalism now and redistibuting resources will asure that every inhabitant in the planet will have food and shelter. But what if you destroy it a 100 years from now? Then the capitalist machine would of had produced more wealth to redistribute!
Now, what if you dont abolish it? Then the creation of more and more wealth will enrich the lower classes too. Not at the same rate of course, but their standard of living will increase. As empirical proof: todays workers, even in third world countries such as mine, have access to more and more "luxuries" such TVs and Nintendo's even if these objects were conceived as luxuries exclusive to the bourgeoisie in the first place.
When Marx wrote his essays, he thought capitalism was already in decline and the increased gap between rich and poor will give birth to a revolution… But more than a century after that, capitalism subsists as it enrich everybody.

By: db0

db0 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:21:31 +0000

You got it wrong. I did not call for no job specialization, but if there are some jobs that nobody wants to do, the society needs to find a way to do them. The non-authoritarian possibilities are.
A) for a non-specialized job, everyone chips in. With the number of humans we have, even a full sewer cleaning of a city would not take more than one day if everyone worked on it. Possibly much less.
B) for specialized positions that nobody wants, more benefits could be attached to them that do not disrupt egalitarianism. Examples include less working hours, extra kudos from the society etc.

By: db0

db0 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:21:31 +0000

By: db0

db0 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:21:31 +0000

By: db0

db0 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:21:31 +0000

By: db0

db0 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:18:48 +0000

These are not needs in the sense that I mean it though. When I say needs, I mean what a human "needs" to survive. And the only things that fit this description is food and shelter. Planes, Computer etc increase our production in various ways and they would certainly not exist without Capitalism BUT, I am not arguing that Capitalism should never have existed. Capitalism is a necessary step before we reach Communism, in the same way that Feudalism was needed before Capitalism.

All these things we have now, they are luxuries in regards to what we need to live, we can certainly sacrifice a lot of them in order to fulfill the real needs of all humans. Food and shelter.
Once we have that, we can then start increasing our luxuries, and we will.

By: GokuEn

GokuEn — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:11:49 +0000

I hope I got the second part of the argument wrong. I understood that you are arguing for a community with no job specialization. If it was that what you argued, then again you forget that it is production which enriches people and job specialization increases production. Thus a job-specialized commune will produce much more than one that does not. The problem rises: how to keep people doing the tasks they are required to do without forcing them?

By: GokuEn

GokuEn — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:10:52 +0000

As for the "needs" versus "luxuries", think about planes and computers. Both goods have made humanity's life better (even for the lower classes). But in the beginning they were not considered "needs" but "luxuries", if we were living in a global commune neither the plane nor the computer would have existed since in they responded, at first, at a "luxury" for the upper class even though nowdays they could be considered a "need" as even the lower classes can benefit from both inventions. Therefore the luxuries of the present might well be the needs of the future. Therefore I conclude that a commune based on "need" would have very little improvement in tecnologies that fail to respond to the inmediate nessesities of the commune.