25 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou think in capitalist countries "common folks" own the "means of production" (which is not synonymous with "capital"😉? What "economic power" do you think the "common folks" have in capitalist countries that they wouldn't have in a democratic communist one?
Communism says the common folks can't own capital, AKA "the means of production". It keeps economic power out of the hands of the people and keeps in in the Party/government.
25 Sep 08
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderFarmers who own the land they work, for example. Or, my father, the general contractor, with his truck and tools.
You think in capitalist countries "common folks" own the "means of production" (which is not synonymous with "capital"😉? What "economic power" do you think the "common folks" have in capitalist countries that they wouldn't have in a democratic communist one?
Here's an excerpt from the USSR Constitution:
State property, i. e. the common property of the Soviet people, is the principal form of socialist property.
The land, its minerals, waters, and forests are the exclusive property of the state. The state owns the basic means of production in industry, construction, and agriculture; means of transport and communication; the banks; the property of state-run trade organisations and public utilities, and other state-run undertakings; most urban housing; and other property necessary for state purposes.
http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/77cons01.html
You can't own "the means of production for agriculture" - that is, land. you can't own "means of transport" either - that is, trucks. you can't own "the means of production" for construction either...that's the tools, right?
I have the economic power to drive to Arizona without asking anyone's permission for the use of the car, because it's MINE! My Dad can, if he feels like it, destroy his hammers in order to figure out the best hammer design for his purposes, because they are his.
But if the car and the hammer belong to the State you have to ask Comrade's permission first.
26 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungDo you really think that people couldn't own cars or tools in the USSR?🙄
Farmers who own the land they work, for example. Or, my father, the general contractor, with his truck and tools.
Here's an excerpt from the USSR Constitution:
[/i]State property, i. e. the common property of the Soviet people, is the principal form of socialist property.
The land, its minerals, waters, and forests are the exclusive property car and the hammer belong to the State you have to ask Comrade's permission first.
26 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungDon't be silly AThousandYoung.
Any recommendations? I don't know of any books on the topic. Google's not helping. Wikipedia's giving me a Marx quote where he says tools are part of the means of production.
Of course you could own a car (what the hell were all the Trabants about otherwise?), a hammer, a table and what-not.
To simplify matters: What Marx is saying is that if you produce a table, you should reap the benefits of your labour, not some boss.
However, a boss also does have a part in the whole work process: Coordination, networking, etc.
But since he's not producing anything, yet still deserves a fair share for his part in it all, production is larger than just crafting the table.
So, effectively, the collective "own" the means of production.
This says nothing about an individual's right to own anything besides it.
Your next question should be: "So, say someone owns his own hammer and wants to make his own tables to sell, what happens then?"
Good question! Glad you asked it.
Nothing. He can do as he pleases. However, the means of distribution are part of the means of production. So, unless he distributes his chairs himself, he's started a collective.
Communism makes a collective a better choice (and hence people would opt to be in it, rather than out of it) and ensures that nobody is abused.
Another part of it all is that historically "the means of production", especially "land", have come into the hands of the few.
Democracies and parliaments may seem to be put in place to benefit you, they weren't. Most parliaments, senates, etc. came into being to take power and land away from kings and hand it to a few specific people.
These "few" people aren't going to want collectives, are they? Hell, they don't even want free health care for the punters slaving their health away to keep them rich.
So, to make sure collectives are a better option for the majority of people, you need to re-address this historical dilemma.
Obviously you'll hear some people whine on about: "That's majority rule!"
Yet, no matter how you look at it, it's still better than "Minority" rule.
And the basis is to ensure that you reap the benefits of that chair you produce.
26 Sep 08
Originally posted by shavixmirWhat exactly could people own and what couldn't they own? These vague terms ("means of production"?) are quite confusing.
Don't be silly AThousandYoung.
Of course you could own a car (what the hell were all the Trabants about otherwise?), a hammer, a table and what-not.
To simplify matters: What Marx is saying is that if you produce a table, you should reap the benefits of your labour, not some boss.
However, a boss also does have a part in the whole work process: Coo ...[text shortened]... basis is to ensure that you reap the benefits of that chair you produce.
26 Sep 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNot really. You can own anything, but basically everything.
What exactly could people own and what couldn't they own? These vague terms ("means of production"?) are quite confusing.
Anything as in: so long as you're not owning anything which takes away someone else's ownership of the means of production.
Everything as in: If everyone owns everything, then so do you.
See the means of production as: the workplace, everything in the workplace, the product and the distribution.
However, and this is the big "however", why would you want to own anything, if you can use everything you want?
We've been brought up to think: "I need my car." because, you just can't go out, step in a car and drive around.
But say you could. Why would you then want to own a car?
In the 60's Amsterdam tried the White bicycle plan. It worked for a while (until people stole the bikes). Basically, you could use any white bike in the city, cycle somewhere and leave it unlocked.
This led to various conclusions:
1. Less people bought bikes (why own one if you can cycle anywhere anyways?).
2. Cyclists become more friendly (waving to each other, because they belonged to a community).
3. The bikes ended up being stolen (which goes to prove that communist ideals are very hard to bring about in confinement, it has to be a larger picture).
26 Sep 08
Hold everything---nothing's been written in stone yet. A miracle may happen and Congress might grow some cahones, and tell the President that it is not our government's place to "bail out" ANY company. Nationalizing the banks and lenders that can't make a go of it is a bad policy. And even after Bush came on (rudely interrupting "Criminal Minds" I might add) giving his fearmongering speech--the Dems didn't fall into lockstep and quickly sign over their souls (and our $$) to the bailout.
Hope springs eternal.
26 Sep 08
3 edits
Originally posted by shavixmirI'd want to own things precisely so others can't use them. Why? Because then I know it's going to be there in the condition I left it when I need it. I can also find the perfect bicycle for my body frame and needs and I can if I choose obsess over the maintainance of it.
Not really. You can own anything, but basically everything.
Anything as in: so long as you're not owning anything which takes away someone else's ownership of the means of production.
Everything as in: If everyone owns everything, then so do you.
See the means of production as: the workplace, everything in the workplace, the product and the dist ist ideals are very hard to bring about in confinement, it has to be a larger picture).
I'm not going to do all that if anyone can just walk in and take it and bring it back missing pieces, dirty, banged up etc. or replace it with a bike that's "just as good" but doesn't fit my precise needs quite as well.
And what if I need it at 5:00 am, but Paul takes it at 4:30 am? You need schedules and beaurocracy, complicating life. A high achiever has so much going on he needs everything as simple as possible. He can't rely on beaurocrats taking care of his needs.
What if everyone wants to go from my neighborhood to some other neighborhood, and then finds alternate transportation home? Then there are no bikes near me when I need them!
26 Sep 08
5 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungShav, your post did not help. I'm being told that tools and trucks are both means of production, which could not be owned, and that they could be owned. So...where's the list of what can be owned and what cannot be owned in the USSR? Is there some official beaurocrat that decided these things on a case by case basis or...?
What exactly could people own and what couldn't they own? These vague terms ("means of production"?) are quite confusing.
I guarantee you that I wouldn't work nearly as hard if my pay didn't depend on it, and if I couldn't buy stuff and keep it for myself with my pay. Why bother? I won't enslave myself to the masses that have treated me so crappily over my life.
It's when I decided to work for my own benefit that things started to come together. That's how it's been my whole life.
05 Oct 08
Originally posted by kmax87A better question might be “When has it?” Inflation is not an aspect of capitalism, you’re up to your old tricks (being polite here, using the word “tricks” instead of “lies&rdquo😉 of blaming this, that and the other on the holy grail – Capitalism.
When has capitalism not devalued labour through inflationary spiral?
Inflation is essentially a ruse perpetuated by your beloved state, it’s about how much money (i.e. dollars and cents, pesos and centavos, baht and satang) there is compared to how much value (i.e. goods, services and property) exists inside an economy.
Now the gummint turns on the tap and out comes the money, if the flow is greater than the increase in value within the economy, you get inflation, everybody that has a dollar in their pocket loses a little of that dollar, it’s a scam run by the people in charge of money supply.
Let’s say there’s a magic currency that measures value honestly, we’ll call it the zoltoid. Now we have a country that has one trillion dollars floating around in it, and one trillion zoltoids worth of value in the form of goods, services and property. A long comes the polly and he’s trying to buy his position, either by buying votes or buying guys with guns, he pumps another half a trillion dollars into the economy, if he spends it fast enough it’s at the old value of one dollar = one zoltoid. There might be some increase in value within the economy or there might be the creation of a lot of parasitical buratcracies and welfare doling outs, but roughly what has happened is that the dollar has been devalued by 33%, everyone has had their pocket picked, it now takes $1.50 to buy one zoltoid. It’s about to happen in the US on a slightly larger scale than usual, it’s happened recently in Zimbawe on a massive scale, but it’s always happening, the filthy pollies with their fingers in the till, not capitalism, is to blame.
05 Oct 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThat's why communism fails in practice. It is much more complicated and requires a much greater infrastructure than capitalism.
I'd want to own things precisely so others can't use them. Why? Because then I know it's going to be there in the condition I left it when I need it. I can also find the perfect bicycle for my body frame and needs and I can if I choose obsess over the maintainance of it.
I'm not going to do all that if anyone can just walk in and take it and brin ...[text shortened]... finds alternate transportation home? Then there are no bikes near me when I need them!
The biggest problem with communism is that no one has an incentive to maintain the bikes. Even the Department of Bike Maintenace has no incentive to work -- why should they? They are taken care of regardless. Workers's can't be fired by definition. And there is absolutely no incentive to take the lead.
In fact, the only way to advance is by proving you are a "good party member". The usual way to be recognized for that is point out faults in others. That's what people who lived under Communism report -- little work getting done, and everyone watching each other.
Someone said in another thread that "people are too stupid to make big decisions." That may be true. But people are very good at making small decisions that affect them. The accumulation of all those small, excellent decisions leads to a rather high standard of living for a society -- and the work of getting that done is born by everyone.
The only significant breakdown is in those cases where short-term benefit jeopardizes long-term return. That's where larger bodies (e.g. the government) need to make collective laws that support the general welfare. But governments do not need to micromanage.