Capitalism its evolution & the Communist Manifesto: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » Capitalism its evolution & the Communist Manifesto » Capitalism its evolution & the Communist Manifesto

Capitalism its evolution & the Communist Manifesto

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Capitalism its evolution & the Communist Manifesto

davidasearles
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 15, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 136

Posted 11/02/09 - 09:53 AM:	#101
dimitri wrote: Such exchanges are regulated through different cultural institutions, traditions (like family...), but the main mechanism of realizing exchnages (of goods and services) is market! This mechanism represents in the first place a system of measurment of the things exchanged. You achieve through it a relative equivalency, which is impossible to do in any other way. Good. Using your broad definition of exchanging goods and services to obtain the help of others - then I advocate the market solution of workers obtaining collective control of means of production via the political process to be able to input their labor into the industrial processes and taking out an equivalent value of what they put in in the form of other goods and serives on a roughly labor in labor out system (with various deductions democratically determined for upkeep, development and environmental maintenance. dimitri wrote: Communists can not see such simple but fundamental facts regarding human existence etc. The people who can't understand collective worker control of means of production as a viable market solution to the overarching problem of under-employment unemployment, disappearing wage value, etc., just simply must be communists! Dimitri,is this your understanding? Or are you a communist as well? Edited by davidasearles on 11/02/09 - 10:56 AM

dimitri
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 23, 2008

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 290

Posted 11/02/09 - 11:09 AM:	#102
Control of something is a communistic bullshit. I can understand property rights but what is control? I asked you already, which things you control and how? THere is not such thing as a collective control. If you mean management, than collective management is a madness! The only possible way of approaching the collective management is election of the management. But it is far from being a good solution to the problem of participation in management. On the other hand if you hope that majority can understand good ideas at once you are an incorrigible optimist... Obtaining collective control of means of production via political process is just another communistic mistification. You mean expropriation? Communists are very apt in inventing nice names and slogans which have nothing behind them.

davidasearles
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 15, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 136

Posted 11/02/09 - 03:23 PM:	#103
dimitri wrote: Control of something is a communistic bullshit. I can understand property rights but what is control? It's a funny way of asking a question. It's beginning to seem that you are the bullshitter, that you are the communist - because that's what you call everyone who doesn't hew to your ideology. If you would like to ask a question go ahead and ask it. I'll answer it directly, but not if you make it appear that you already have the answer and that everyone who doesn't see things exactly as you do are communist bullshitters. Dave Searles Edited by davidasearles on 11/02/09 - 04:51 PM

dimitri
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 23, 2008

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 290

Posted 11/02/09 - 10:36 PM:	#104
Communists must understand that they are heirs of people (communists) which killed much more people than adepts of any other theory (including fascists). Moreover they brought to poverty the whole nations! Neo-communists have neither responsibility nor imagination. They cannot uinderstand the simplest thing that old communists did what they did not deliberately. They (most of them at least) had also good intentions. But the logic of practical realization of communism has brought them to such awful results. Liberals can easily understand why this happens every time people start building communism. Because communism is absurdity. To keep economic going communists are obliged to take the most drastic measures. Its notions such as collective ownership or control, alienation, exploitation or economy without maket are senseless.

willem
starchild

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 03, 2004
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 295

Posted 11/03/09 - 03:03 AM:	#105
Native americans had no concept of soil property. It wasn't a problem at all before Columbus went west.
www.msf.org www.icrc.org www.greenpeace.org

davidasearles
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 15, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 136

Posted 11/03/09 - 03:46 AM:	#106
dimitri wrote: Communists must understand that they are heirs of people (communists) which killed much more people than adepts of any other theory (including fascists). And everyone who doesn't see things exactly as you do is a communist. Anyone advocating the least deviation from your own concept of "free and open market" must be a communist. Anyone advocating using the democratic political process to effect any change whatsoever in the present economic setup is a communist. The brand of communism that you ostensibly rail against dimitri is against all free exchange of ideas - the market place of ideas, as Jefferson said. Therefore dimitri, you must be the communist. You and your ideological brethren must be responsible for every war, every mass murder and every genocide since creation. Edited by davidasearles on 11/03/09 - 05:03 AM

thewatcher
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 241

Posted 11/03/09 - 01:44 PM:	#107
willem wrote: Native americans had no concept of soil property. It wasn't a problem at all before Columbus went west. What was an option for one culture is not necessarily an option for another. There are radically different intellectual, social and material circumstances at work in native american culture than in what we refer to as "Western Civilization."

davidasearles
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 15, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 136

Posted 11/03/09 - 02:06 PM:	#108
And cultures can change to often accept things previously unaccepted, even things previously unacceptable. I used to think, but no longer, that "private property" had to go by the wayside, as in the Manifesto. Means of production exclusively in private hands as pretty much exists in toto today doesn't have to be the way that it has to be for our culture for all time. The idea can build that workers ought to be in collective control of means of production and government ought to set up worker collective enterprises to the point that workers don't have to worry about unemployment as they will be able to produce pretty much all of what they require to live on, and will be able to access products of the means of production that they control on essentially a labor in, labor out basis instead of the current wages system. I can see that very easily becoming a part of our culture - much easier than workers continuing to accept their deteriorating position vis a vis the wages system and a private means of production that they do not control.

thewatcher
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 241

Posted 11/03/09 - 04:10 PM:	#109
davidasearles wrote: And cultures can change to often accept things previously unaccepted, even things previously unacceptable. Indeed. If Foucault is to be believed, this happens all the time. The operative question, however, is how it comes about. That is to say, there is more at issue here than can be dealt with by some sort of mere collective decisionmaking as to the conduct of existing systems. Certain Marxists, to their credit, recognize this (hence their focus on revolution).

davidasearles
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 15, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 136

Posted 11/03/09 - 04:55 PM:	#110
thewatcher wrote: there is more at issue here than can be dealt with by some sort of mere collective decision making as to the conduct of existing systems. Why, because it hasn't happened yet concerning the govt. via the democratic process helping to set up collective worker control enterprises? thewatcher wrote: Certain Marxists, to their credit, recognize this (hence their focus on revolution). I don't know what it means to focus on revolution without looking at the relationship of worker to means of production. Certain Marxists recognize? Marx didn't, that I know of, focus on revolution to the exclusion of the relationship of worker to means of production. Edited by davidasearles on 11/03/09 - 06:19 PM

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.