The reasons for why most of the 99% are averse to communism
- This topic has 12 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
What follows is a copy of a message from Adam Buick :
' I don't see much point in having this conversation just between the two of us while there is a public thread on this. What I suggest is that you put this question of yours on the forum:
"If most of the 99% in the First World are aware of this thesis, a most ' commonplace ' stuff, and the immediate corollary to it, then what makes them say NO to communism and keep away from communists ? "
This seems more important (much more important) than discussing what you regard as your claim to fame. '
Adam sent this message just today ( 25 March 2018 ). It's clear that Adam wants a discussion on the point obvious from the quoted message. I wish all of you interested in the topic would respond to this post.
Brian wrote:The question itself is incomplete for we have no idea what "this thesis" is relating too.It's also posted on the wrong sub-forum. I'm surprised the Moderator hasn't (re)moved it.
Brian wrote:The question itself is incomplete for we have no idea what "this thesis" is relating too.I am afraid we do ! It's that money is not a measure of the use-value of a product (and that he was the first to demonstrate this).
Prakash RP wrote:"If most of the 99% in the First World are aware of this thesis, a most ' commonplace ' stuff, and the immediate corollary to it, then what makes them say NO to communism and keep away from communists ? "didnt Harold walsby think this was stumbling block way back in the 1950shttps://libcom.org/library/spgb-utopian-or-scientific-fallacy-overwhelming-minority
The questions should be: Why the majority of the workers support capitalism, an economic system that is against their own interests? How has the capitalist class influenced in the minds of the workers to support their system? What has been the propaganda made by theruling elite and the capitalist against communism? and then we can go to the reasons why the majority of the peoples are againstcommunism
I think the point he is trying to mke is that if most people recognise that money does not measure useflness, i.e that the money price of a product is not a measure of its real worth to someone or to people in general, why don't they then conclude that the way to end this is to establish a communist society in which there woud be no money to distort things. The $64,000 dollar quesion of course.
I think that the false public image is the true reason for the degradation of the image of socialism and communism. I liked this article http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/newproposals/article/view/2017/182540 from the "New Propoosals" which clearly explains that the socialism or communism is the natural course of history and developmen of technology and socialism or communism can not be naturally introduced by force of by the common acceptance if there is no sufficient level of technological development for the socio-economic phase transition to occur.Marx wrote (bold by me):"in a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly — only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"Marx also warned against crude communism which is introduced by convention of by force and is destined to the failure:"The first positive annulment of private property – crude communism – is thus merely a manifestation of the vileness of private property, which wants to set itself up as the positive community system…The category of the worker is not done away with, but extended to all men…Both sides of the relationship are raised to an imagined universality – labour as the category in which every person is placed, and capital as the acknowledged universality and power of the community.."I have see so many web pages of socialist and communist movements who advocate more or less the redistribution of the current wealth. Well – some years ago the total wealth of High Net Worth Individuals (those with investable assets of 30.000.000 or more) was mere 50 trillion$. If we distribute this walth to the 5 billions of the most impoverished men and women then we get one-time injection of 10.000$ per capita. This is small amount for one time injection and it does not solve the problem of poverty. 10.000 is secondary education or higher education or housing or cost of raising children – only one thing and not all of then. Besides, we should take into account that great part of the wealth is in the form of intangible assets (e.g. goodwill of the companies) and this part is not suitable for eradication of poverty.So – the redistribution does not solve the problem of poverty, the needs of investments for development.So – there are 2 honest and rational answers possible. 1) Marxian answer is to sit and wait till the capitalisms will achieve its ultimate form and then the socio-economic phase transfer occur naturally; 2) to boost the current development of technology to hasten the arrival of socio-economical phase transfer. I think that the Nordic style welfare states are the most efficient form of socialised capitalism that increase the rate of technological advancement.So – socialists and communists must support the development of technology, the increase of production and total wealth and this will be seen as the sound way forward and then people will take more favourable attitude to the socialism and communism.E.g. – compare the websites:https://academic.oup.com/cjeand https://www.marxists.org/and select – what type of socialist you would want to be – the intellectual or the other type? Which type of socialist is more attractive to the general society?
acke wrote:I think that the false public image is the true reason for the degradation of the image of socialism and communism. I liked this article http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/newproposals/article/view/2017/182540 from the "New Propoosals" which clearly explains that the socialism or communism is the natural course of history and developmen of technology and socialism or communism can not be naturally introduced by force of by the common acceptance if there is no sufficient level of technological development for the socio-economic phase transition to occur.Marx wrote (bold by me):"in a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly — only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"Marx also warned against crude communism which is introduced by convention of by force and is destined to the failure:"The first positive annulment of private property – crude communism – is thus merely a manifestation of the vileness of private property, which wants to set itself up as the positive community system…The category of the worker is not done away with, but extended to all men…Both sides of the relationship are raised to an imagined universality – labour as the category in which every person is placed, and capital as the acknowledged universality and power of the community.."I have see so many web pages of socialist and communist movements who advocate more or less the redistribution of the current wealth. Well – some years ago the total wealth of High Net Worth Individuals (those with investable assets of 30.000.000 or more) was mere 50 trillion$. If we distribute this walth to the 5 billions of the most impoverished men and women then we get one-time injection of 10.000$ per capita. This is small amount for one time injection and it does not solve the problem of poverty. 10.000 is secondary education or higher education or housing or cost of raising children – only one thing and not all of then. Besides, we should take into account that great part of the wealth is in the form of intangible assets (e.g. goodwill of the companies) and this part is not suitable for eradication of poverty.So – the redistribution does not solve the problem of poverty, the needs of investments for development.So – there are 2 honest and rational answers possible. 1) Marxian answer is to sit and wait till the capitalisms will achieve its ultimate form and then the socio-economic phase transfer occur naturally; 2) to boost the current development of technology to hasten the arrival of socio-economical phase transfer. I think that the Nordic style welfare states are the most efficient form of socialised capitalism that increase the rate of technological advancement.So – socialists and communists must support the development of technology, the increase of production and total wealth and this will be seen as the sound way forward and then people will take more favourable attitude to the socialism and communism.E.g. – compare the websites:https://academic.oup.com/cjeand https://www.marxists.org/and select – what type of socialist you would want to be – the intellectual or the other type? Which type of socialist is more attractive to the general society?And 70 years of Bolsheviks and Soviets propaganda.the worst thing that ever happened to socialism was the emerge of the Soviet Union and Leninism, with them, socialism did not advance one day, on the contrary, it was retarded
acke wrote:I think that the false public image is the true reason for the degradation of the image of socialism and communism. I liked this article http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/newproposals/article/view/2017/182540 from the "New Propoosals" which clearly explains that the socialism or communism is the natural course of history and developmen of technology and socialism or communism can not be naturally introduced by force of by the common acceptance if there is no sufficient level of technological development for the socio-economic phase transition to occur.Hi Acke , I think that article makes a number of mistakes such as the suggestion that M and E differentiated between socialism and communism refering to the the former as the lower stage, and the latter as the upper stage of comunism. That was Lenin's view not Marx's. Marx and Engels regarded the terms socialism and communism as synonyms. Also the the whole idea of Market socialism strikes me as an oxymoron and inherently incoherent in my view – it proposes social ownership of the means of production while retaining the trappings of a market economy in the sphere of distribution. That makes no sense. I dont think there is any need for socialists today to urge the further development of the producttive forces. We already have the technology that could make a socialist/communist society a viable proposition. The problem is not an insufficently developed productive potential but capitalism's iability to properly harness that potential for the good of humanity
acke wrote:I have see so many web pages of socialist and communist movements who advocate more or less the redistribution of the current wealth. Well – some years ago the total wealth of High Net Worth Individuals (those with investable assets of 30.000.000 or more) was mere 50 trillion$. If we distribute this walth to the 5 billions of the most impoverished men and women then we get one-time injection of 10.000$ per capita. This is small amount for one time injection and it does not solve the problem of poverty. 10.000 is secondary education or higher education or housing or cost of raising children – only one thing and not all of then.Good point but Socialists (as opposed to naive and/or confused reformists) have long ridiculed the idea that we want to divide up the wealth of the wealthy, as this passage from a pamphlet from 1876 shows :
Quote:Concerning the division of money, I must relate an anecdote invented to ridicule people who are represented to have such intentions. One day in 1848, as the story goes, Baron Rothschild took a walk on the Common of Frankfort-on-the-Main. Two labourers met him and accosted him thus: “Baron, you are a rich man; we want to divide with you.” Baron Rothschild, not the least puzzled, took out his purse good-humouredly and answered: “Certainly! We can do that business on the spot. The account is easily made. I own 40 millions of florins; there are 40 millions of Germans. Consequently each German has to receive one florin; here is your share;” and giving one florin to each of the labourers, who looked at their money quite confused, he walked off smiling. This teaches that the division of money is but an idle invention.What socialists want is the common ownership of the means of wealth production, so that they can be used to produce things and provide services to directly meet people's needs. Today, given the current level of technology, to produce enough to go over to the principle of "from each according to their ability, to each according to theirs needs".
' The question itself is incomplete for we have no idea what "this thesis" is relating too. Yours For Positive Socialist Activity Brian ' ( comment #2 by Brian) I'm sorry I ought not to have failed to refer to it. The thesis in question is the thesis that money cannot measure the worth of a commodity. to access it, please click on this link : THESIS on MONEY's incapacity & its SIGNIFICANCE .
First, socialism is not a movement yet and fighting for reforms is not a socialist movement, and second socialism is not based on charity or distribution of wealth that can be proposed by a church too. Those are left-wing social Democrats measures. The only thing that those groups are doing is to produce more confusions and distortions that were created by the Soviets The best solution is to go to our website and read our articles and pamphlets
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.