Communism: Futile Hope / Future Hints [Ayn's Rights (pour Candide)]
Ron Allen
Scott wrote:
> Don't dodge the observation by pretending to ignore the obvious point
> - if you work 80 hours a day you can make the money to afford > vacations and sit around the pool all day.
Ron Allen answers:
If you work 80 hours a week you will not have enough time to sit around
the pool all day. I stand by this assertion.
Scott wrote:
> For those who desire scarce products, such as fancy cars and other
> luxuries, people will have to work for them. Even with the current
> government taking more of your money than it should, it is possible to
> live off of 20 hr/week work - so long as you keep expenses to a bare
> minimum. If you want more, than you have to work for it. There is no
> such thing as a free lunch; no, not even in the communist system,
> where the 'free lunch' is gained at the cost of individuality.
Ron Allen answers:
It is possible to work less hours per week, for example 20 hours per
week, and still receive the same income received working 40 hours per
week, perhaps even more. The problem is that employers do not like this
idea.
Scott wrote:
> Sure - move to a commune. Or engage in barter. Money is just more
> convenient than hauling around a herd of cattle as trade material.
Ron Allen answers:
We can live without barter, as well as without money.
Scott wrote:
> The employee has the choice not to work for the evil employer. Those
> businesses that offer their employees less than the market dictates
> (the average) will lose the good workers, make inferior products, lose
> money, and fail. The employee is worth what he can get in a free
> market. If you aren't satisfied with working under a capitalist
> proprietor, than you are free (although admittedly expensive in
> today's heavy hand of government approach to business) to start your
> own business, and give the employees equal share in the company - all
> can then dictate wage, price, and profit. Plus, with the employees as
> part of the ownership, they can't complain about the evil capitalists
> devaluing their labor.
Ron Allen answers:
If I were to start a business, and if I wished to stay in the
competition, and if I wished to keep my employees in their jobs, then it
will be imperative that I drive down the wages I pay my employees, just
as it will be crucial for the wage earners under my employ to struggle
to drive their wages up. The very laws of capital oblige the employers
to seek to pay subsistent wages, and compel the employees to seek to get
a higher wage. And it is the inhumanity of such economic forces which
demand they be overthrown - peacefully, of course.
Scott wrote:
> You are once again ignoring free will.
Ron Allen answers:
In my opinion you have ignored my many statements about both freedom and
volition.
Scott wrote:
> "Comprehensive reality of capitalist hegemony"?????? Okay, where did
> you get your Phd in post-modern mumbo-jumbo?
Ron Allen answers:
I have no PhD.
Scott wrote:
> If the state ensures that the communists are not infringed upon, there
> is no reason they shouldn't survive, regardless of their surrounding
> environment. Unless of course it happens to be a failed system.
Ron Allen answers:
Both capitalism and communism will fail if either is attempted in small
isolated communities within a general world-wide hegemony of which the
other rules.
Scott wrote:
> There are public access channels in most cities (if not all), where
> T.V. time is very cheap (merely measured in time expended in learning
> the ropes). I don't see too many national programs espousing atheist
> (or libertarian) beliefs, but I'm not going to cry about some ruling
> class conspiracy - you sound like those that think the Jews run the
> world.
Ron Allen answers:
I have read enough libertarian literature to detect some levels of
conspiracy theory in their view of the world.
Scott wrote:
> Being the owner of the factory where the labor takes place entitles
> the evil capitalist to the surplus value - he has paid for supplies,
> insurance, etc. if you don't want to work for him, then start your own
> business.
Ron Allen answers:
The capitalist pays for supplies, insurance, etc. precisely by leeching
surplus value from the productive labor of the workers.
Scott wrote:
> The point is that they are free to produce OR NOT TO PRODUCE
> their fair share - they are FREE. As such, without some check and
> balance system that penalizes those that do not produce their fair
> share, the slackers will leech off the producers. I would love to be
> in your communist system - I would sit by the pool all day and get my
> share from all you loyal communists.
Ron Allen answers:
Nothing I have ever said indicates that anyone will be a slacker. I
have stated that the problem of slackers and bums is a capitalist
problem - and not a socialist or communist problem. Human beings
desire to be productive. And human beings desire equality of
productive input as well as equality in sharing the output produced.
Capitalism cannot have full employment, therefore capitalism produces
unemployed "slackers" and "bums". Communism can assimilate full
employment - as well as optimal production. Capitalism cannot
assimilate either. Full employment would destroy economic equilibrium,
especially in the form of inflation. Optimal production would create
another dis-equilibrium -a drastic fall in prices and a willful
destruction of products in order to restore the normal state of things
- which must be founded upon the notion of scarcity, even upon
deliberately created scarcity. The health of capitalism depends upon
inadequate supplies of goods and services.
Scott wrote:
> Either people are ready or they aren't. A democracy implies that
> they choose to move towards communism - so why not go there right away
> - unless there needs to be an indoctrination period for those who
> don't see the light.
Ron Allen answers:
You fail to recall that the birth of capitalism took place when the vast
majority of human beings were illiterate and disenfranchised. Now,
people are educated a little, just enough to have been indoctrinated by
the ruling class with its ruling ideology. People are now able to vote,
but the two major parties in the U.S.A. are both supporters of
capitalism and are supported by the capitalists. I do believe a better
education could evolve a better consciousness among people. The birth
of socialism->communism will be the first new society founded upon an
enlightened majority with democratic rights and freedoms.
Scott wrote:
> No, you are assuming that 'intelligent and educated' = Ron Allen's
> view of society.
Ron Allen answers:
Of course ... I do think I am right in some of what I assert and
believe. I am, after all, arguing for what I think. We can both take
this for granted.
Andrew Ducker
In article <343B0B...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net>, Ron Allen <rallen2@ma
il.atl.bellsouth.net> writes
>Nothing I have ever said indicates that anyone will be a slacker. I
>have stated that the problem of slackers and bums is a capitalist
>problem - and not a socialist or communist problem. Human beings
>desire to be productive. And human beings desire equality of
>productive input as well as equality in sharing the output produced.
Human beings desire to be productive? I don't. Except, occasionally in
an artistic/musical/storytelling sort of a way. I desire to walk in the
hills, watch sunsets and play with kittens. Almost anything
'productive' holds no interest for me at all. How do I fit in to the
worldwide communist system?
Samael
--
Home: sam...@dial.pipex.com
Work: and...@irw-associates.demon.co.uk
Ron Allen
Andrew Ducker wrote:
> Human beings desire to be productive? I don't. Except, occasionally
> in an artistic/musical/storytelling sort of a way. I desire to walk
> in the hills, watch sunsets and play with kittens. Almost anything
> 'productive' holds no interest for me at all. How do I fit in to the
> worldwide communist system?
Ron Allen answers:
Your statement assumes that your penchant for laziness would be
functional in a society of freely associated producers. We are not
transporting you into the future of possible communism. You will not be
alive then. The context of intelligent wisdom and cooperative freedom
will have been developed over a long period of time. I really do not
think your post has any relevance to a better society, which will be
better precisely because people will be better.
Ron Allen
Scott wrote:
> You must forgive Mr. Ducker; he must have just started reading this
> thread, otherwise he would have known that your system assumes that
> humans will have been purged of free will, making them perfect bees
> for the communist hive.
> In Mr. Allen's utopia, which would have arisen after some
> indeterminate amount of time from a centralized authority - one
> assumes that it will be quite a awhile, since free will will have to
> be abolished - the now 'educated' masses will unthinkingly cooperate
> with each other. There will be no slackers and no successful people -
> everyone will be programmed to produce exactly enough for the society
> needs.
> If you liked "Brave New World" and "We", you'll love Ron Allen's
> Utopia!
Ron Allen answers:
I do not know if it's a lack of intelligence or a lack of integrity, or
if it's a desire to evoke anger, but there are those who post responses
to my messages who continue to mis-interpret what I am saying over and
over again. Rather than post positive assertions of what they believe,
they post nagative aspersions of what I assert. They post deliberate
falsifications of my meaning, and deliberate fabrications of my beliefs.
If you cannot write intelligently or honestly, then why write at all. I
will continue to share my beliefs and hopes on this newsgroup for those
who wish to read them. I do not care if imbeciles and morons continue
to misrepresent my position. I have been clear about my ideas and
ideals, and every reader of this newgroup knows it.
>
> Scott
Ron Allen
cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
> And I know you [referring to Ron Allen] maintain a belief
> in Santa, because he looks like Marx and redistributes the wealth,
> too!
Ron Allen answers:
Santa does not redistribute wealth, he just distributes the toys made at
the North Pole by a lot of elves. Uncle Sam does, however, do a lot of
redistributing.
cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
> Oh, and you realize, of course, that "true" communism necessitates
> conformity to state ideals, don't you? (You will be assimilated...)
Ron Allen answers:
You have been assimilated already - and you are clueless to that fact.
How can communism necessitate conformity to state ideals if the very
beginning and foundation of communism is the prior removal of every form
of political state?
cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
> And what of the radical, the individual, the iconoclast, and all the
> other different plants that do not grow in the rows, will they, too,
> be "weeded out"? (Everybody on board for the gulag express!)
Ron Allen answers:
You are apparently oblivious to how the above pericope best describes
the authoritarian and regimental aspects of contemporary American
capitalism.
Anti-socialist Stalinism, with its gulag camps for political prisoners,
has nothing to do with authentic socialism or authentic communism.
Some day maybe you will learn to distinguish between Stalinism and
genuine communism. Even Stalin made the distinction, since he believed
his policies and procedures were a pathway to future communism. I
believe Stalin's path to communism was evil and wrong. I also believe
the proper path to communism can avoid the mistakes and the crimes of
Stalinism.
Andrew Ducker
In article <343C42...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net>, Ron Allen <rallen2@ma
il.atl.bellsouth.net> writes
>Wm James wrote:
>> What do you think happened to all those hippie communes back in
>> the 60s? They fell apart because only a few worked. The others
>> sat around getting stoned. Those working eventually got tired of
>> supporting the bums.
>
>
>Ron Allen answers:
>The failure of hippie communes teaches us what personal characteristics
>and patterns of conduct are inappropriate if a communal arrangement is
>to be successful. Again, human beings are free, and intelligent, and
>are therefore capable of those proper attitudes and habits which will
>improve the chances of success of a cooperative commonwealth of freely
>associated producers.
Yes, we are capable of them. But do we want to assume them? And should
you be allowed to force us to assume them (or our great-great
grandchildren to assume them).
Andrew Ducker
In article <343BB9...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net>, Ron Allen <rallen2@ma
il.atl.bellsouth.net> writes
Ok, I'll take this back another step.
I personally believe that all meaning is imposed. ie there is no
inherent meaning. I do not believe that there is any 'right' or
'wrong'. I enjoy myself and try not to hurt anyone else in the process.
I dont believe I have the right to interfere in other peoples lives
except when they ask me to. I do not thereofre believe that the
government can be justified in doing this either, except in ways that
increase the freedom of as many parties as possible (ie freedom of
information, prevention of monopolies, minimum standards of living,
etc.). I don't see how the government will decide to make in their
factories, what programs to show on tv, what food to produce or any of a
thousand things I use to make my life enjoyable. There has to be an
element of choice in all of these thigns because I am not like anyone
else. I am not claiming the right to do whatever I want, as I believe
that we have to fit into society, but I am claiming that within the game
rules of society (i.e. no eating the other players,no killing the other
players, helping the other players when they are incapacitated), we
ought to have as much freedom as possible, because any imposed rules
will fail to take into account that I enjoy tennis, not cricket, reading
and not television, sci-fi not romance novels and green cars to pink
ones :->
Was that a tad more useful?
Andrew Ducker
In article <343BD018...@bigfoot.com>, Scott <strattnerNOMORESPAM@b
igfoot.com> writes
>If you liked "Brave New World" and "We", you'll love Ron Allen's Utopia!
I read Brave New World for the first time recently. Scared the hell out
of me.
Ron Allen
Andrew Ducker wrote:
> I read Brave New World for the first time recently. Scared the hell
> out of me.
Ron Allen answers:
Scared me also, but it does not describe authentic communism.
Ron Allen
Andrew Ducker wrote:
> Yes, we are capable of them. But do we want to assume them? And
> should you be allowed to force us to assume them (or our great-great
> grandchildren to assume them).
Ron Allen answers:
Where do you get from all that I have posted for months any hint of a
desire on my part to force communism on people. I have always said that
communism must think of itself no more as a political party, but rather
transform itself into a pedagogical partner - an educational movement
willing to join in every liberating activity. Until people are ready
for authentic communism, coomunism will not succeed.
Ron Allen
Andrew Ducker wrote:
> I personally believe that all meaning is imposed. ie there is no
> inherent meaning. I do not believe that there is any 'right' or
> 'wrong'. I enjoy myself and try not to hurt anyone else in the
> process.
> I dont believe I have the right to interfere in other peoples lives
> except when they ask me to. I do not thereofre believe that the
> government can be justified in doing this either, except in ways that
> increase the freedom of as many parties as possible (ie freedom of
> information, prevention of monopolies, minimum standards of living,
> etc.). I don't see how the government will decide to make in their
> factories, what programs to show on tv, what food to produce or any of
> a thousand things I use to make my life enjoyable. There has to be an
> element of choice in all of these thigns because I am not like anyone
> else. I am not claiming the right to do whatever I want, as I believe
> that we have to fit into society, but I am claiming that within the
> game rules of society (i.e. no eating the other players,no killing the
> other players, helping the other players when they are incapacitated),
> we ought to have as much freedom as possible, because any imposed
> rules will fail to take into account that I enjoy tennis, not cricket,
> reading and not television, sci-fi not romance novels and green cars
> to pink ones :->
>
> Was that a tad more useful?
Ron Allen answers:
This is very useful for understanding your way of thinking and being,
but useless for understanding why you disagree with my communist vision
of a better future for humanity.
Scott
What do you mean? Everyone in the society was 'educated' from birth (and
before) to fit into the necessary roles; it was perfect communism. There
was no coercion either; the soma helped make everything good. Those
strange few that didn't accept the perfect society could go out into the
wild area, and live as misguided capitalists. The government was merely
in name; it played more of an ornamental father-figure role, since most
people obeyed the societal rules - it would be 'irrational' not to.
Everyone had perfect freedom, within the appropriate societal
constraints, of course.
How exactly does this differ from authentic communism?
Scott
Ron Allen
Ron Allen wrote:
> Communism is not a free-loader philosophy, because free-loading is
> exclusively a problem of exploitative social arrangements.
Bill Felton wrote:
> Bullshit. A free-loader is a parasite. Parasitism is not the fault
> of the host organisms. Free-loading is dysfunctional behavior.
Ron Allen answers:
Parasitic free-loading among human beings is the fault of the organic
capitalist system in which dysfunctional free-loaders live. The word
"fault" is not proper for describing non-human biological organisms, but
it can be employed properly to describe systemic weaknesses in a
sociological organism (a social order) constructed by human beings over
time.
Ron Allen wrote:
> The free-loader is one who prefers not to become a slave - neither to
> a master nor to an employer.
Bill Felton wrote:
> Then the free-loader becomes a slave to his "host" organism --
> whomever/whatever from which the free-loader loots.
Ron Allen answers:
This reply makes no sense. My assertion is that the free-loader, in the
context of capitalist relations, may prefer to freeload rather than work
like a wage-slave in order to barely make ends meet. The problem of
freeloading is a capitalist problem.
Ron Allen wrote:
> The free-loaders in a capitalist context are neither happy nor free -
> and they know it.
> Obviously communist freedom - a new degree of freedom - will require
> a new kind of human being, a new degree of social being. A viable
> cooperative commonwealth will require a new cooperative kind of
> existence. It will also require an economy of efficiently productive
> abundance erected upon a foundation of progressive technology and
> advanced ergonomic techniques.
Bill Felton wrote:
> Sorry, but I'm not AT ALL interested in social arrangements which
> by defnition are only appropriate for people other than people as they
> are in reality today.
Ron Allen answers:
Your lack of interest in better human beings living in a better society
precludes further discussion between us on this matter. Perhaps "people
as they are in reality today" are as they are because of social nurture
rather than human nature. What we are today has been instilled in us by
education and upbringing in a capitalist culture, and has little to do
with instinct.
Bill Felton wrote:
> Still less am I interested in forcing real people into absurd
> molds for the purpose of some lunatic fantasy social arrangement
> with neither a philosophical or moral or even sane basis.
Ron Allen answers:
I do not agree with you assessment of my vision. I find such words as
"forcing", "absurd", "lunatic fantasy" to be very overblown expressions.
And as to whether socialist/communist arrangements lack a philosophical
basis ... well philosophers of repute have argued for and against, and
philosophy is as philosophy does.
It seems utterly pretentious for you to assert that socialism/communism
has no moral basis, or even a healthy rational foundation.
Ron Allen
Bert Clanton wrote:
> How about, "No person who depends for his livelihood upon employment
> for wages can claim to be free unless he receives a wage that permits
> him and his family to live in comfort"? Or even better, "No person who
> depends for his livelihood upon employment for wages can claim to be
> free unless he receives a wage that enables him and his family to
> satisfy their basic needs for adequate food, adequate housing,
> adequate clothing, and adequate medical care"?
> That better? If not, why not?
Bill Felton wrote:
> No, not better at all. Too many undefined and fuzzy terms
> masquerading as universal truths. What family? I haven't one. What
> needs are basic? What is "adequate"? And whom shall you enslave to
> ensure that these wondrous, albeit fuzzy, goals are acheived?
Ron Allen answers:
Mr. Felton, your style is argumentative. You offer nothing constructive
to bring into the discussion at least a modicum of intelligence and
consideration. Instead you throw up destructive and contentious
disagreement meant to score points, rather than to start making a point.
Ron Allen
Ron Allen wrote:
> Education is precisely what is needed. Capitalist ideology teaches us
> through TV, radio, books, schools, newspapers, magazines, etc. etc. to
> believe human nature is as you describe it. The problem is that most
> of us are unable or unwilling to see that our point of view regarding
> human being is a reflection of the current economic arrangements, the
> current relations of production.
Wm James wrote:
> Nonsense. It is a result of evolution. It is the embodiment of
> the survival instinct. It is that simple.
Ron Allen answers:
For you "it is that simple". In my opinion, it is simplistic. Of
course, capitalism is a result of evolution, but evolution has more in
store for us, because we are now able to take control of our own
destiny, we are able to consciously evolve better social structures
and economic relations more suitable to human adequacy. Capitalism
does not fully embody the survival instinct, but rather embodies the
survival needs of the ruling class - the capitalist class for which
capitalism exists.
Ron Allen wrote:
> I do not propose to eradicate human nature. I propose that we
> eradicate the capitalist embodiment of human nature, the bourgeois
> form of human existence, and that we edify or educate a new and better
> human nature, that we enlighten the genuine human nature that is in
> all of us. Our better human essence is within us already, but it has
> been hidden, repressed by capitalist relations, suppressed by
> bourgeois values, corrupted by greedy expectations.
Wm James wrote:
> By genetic engineering, perhaps? Until you can rewire the brain
> of all individuals, you are dreaming.
Ron Allen answers:
Why do defenders of capital keep coming up with "genetic engineering" as
a part of my thinking? I give "genetic engineering" no thought, except
for occasional moments when I encounter the issue in my reading or
listening. But I never think about the matter when I'm writing. So why
does it keep coming up in responses to what I write?
Wm James wrote:
> Capitalism provides for all who can work to find work.
> There is plenty of work in the USA for ANYONE who is willing to
> work. Those on welfare choose to be bums. What would you do
> with them?
Ron Allen answers:
Every elementary economic textbook will tell you that capitalism cannot
provide full employment to every person that is willing and able to
work. It simply ain't possible.
It is one thing to say there is plenty of work in the United States for
those willing and able to work, but it's another thing to say that a
bourgeois economy can provide a just and fair wage for every work that
needs to be done. Although there is a lot of work for people to do,
people do not work for free. There is a lot of work that needs to be
done, but employers cannot afford to hire the labor needed to do the
work.
Those on welfare do not always choose welfare, and especially do not
always elect to be bums.
Welfare bums are a problem restricted to existing capitalist society,
and will not be a problem in a socialist/communist society where full
employment will be both possible and probable.
Ron Allen wrote:
> Another personal reward is the reward that comes from working
> side-by-side with others in productive activity in order to produce
> what every member of the community needs or desires. A productive job
> well done is a truly rewarding job.
Wm James wrote:
> Some people are interested in other things. What would you do
> with those who do not share your interests?
Ron Allen answers:
Your reply is not a response to my post. Why do you ask what I will do
with people who don't share my interests? I suppose, to humor you, I
will do with them what I have always done with them - nothing.
Ron Allen wrote:
> Within a communist context, each person will receive what is needed.
> You refer to this as "social allowance." When people are bored or
> stressed by the demands of capitalist schedules, they tend to consume
> more than they need - they get fat, or they shop until they drop.
Wm James wrote:
> So limiting their income will keep them from getting fat or
> shopping? Perhaps, but I don't like the method.
Ron Allen answers:
What my post indicates is that boredom and stress produced by overwork
in a capitalist context will be eradicated in a cooperative commonwealth
where more leisure and less labor will be typical, and therefore less
fatigue and less fatness. Productive employment for all translates as
less work time for each.
Ron Allen wrote:
> It is anticipated that when overworked people (overworked by the
> demands of capital) come to enjoy more quality time (within the
> context of a cooperative commonwealth), that is when people will no
> longer tend to consume more than they need. Studies show that
> Americans consume more than they need because of work schedules and
> the character of work today.
Wm James wrote:
> No, we consume because we can. We have wealth because we as a
> capitalist people have created it. We enjoy the fruit of our
> labor. You would define "quality time" for everyone. Some
> people enjoy playing the stock market, some people enjoy walks in
> the park. A capitalist system has provided the opportunity for
> people to choose.
Ron Allen answers:
I disagree with what you say in the above pericope. I do not define
quality time any differently than others define it. To equate
"enjoyment" both with playing the stock market and taking a walk in the
park shows a lack of clarity in your sense of the word, and leaves that
word ill-defined for purposes of communication with others.
Finally, the capitalist system provides limited and random economic
opportunity for people to make limited and random economic choices -
the operative word being "economic". In the context of capitalism,
active opportunity and actual choices are confined within the bounds of
economic luck - unpredictable possibilities and accidental
probabilities.
Wm James wrote:
> I question every belief, but I demand evidence. That is why I am
> an atheist, and that is why I deplore socialism.
Ron Allen answers:
I question beliefs that are evidently fallacious or spurious to me -
and I make no demands for evidence, only because I observe and listen.
Some of us make too many demands rather than simply paying attention.
I deplore capitalism for the same reason I'm an atheist - it just seems
so accommodating to my personal inclinations of thought.
Wm James wrote:
> If you think it is easy for people to agree on production, try
> talking to farmers. Small groups can choose to be cooperative,
> but unless individuals are allowed to leave the group, you can
> only enforce through slavery.
Ron Allen answers:
I grew up on a farm, and my father was a farmer, etc. My relatives are
former farmers. The young ones are becoming wage slaves for the big
department stores in Georgia.
If communism is a community of free productive associations, then
slavery has no place whatsoever.
Wm James wrote:
> You still haven't answered the question. What would you do with
> those who refuse to produce, and those who over consume?
Ron Allen answers:
You still have not answered the better question: Why would anyone
refuse to produce in a cooperative commonwealth? And: What can
overconsumption mean in an economy of abundant goods and services, with
abundant leisure and shared labor?
Ron Allen
Wm James wrote:
> Who is going to bother working years on inventing something and
> developing it if there is no profit to be made from it? Name one
> modern product that was invented and "given" to society. Don't
> say "the internet", because it was developed for military
> security and the only reason it has grown is the profit motive of
> the software developers, and ISPs.
Ron Allen answers:
Because we are in a capitalist context I cannot readily name a modern
invention "given" to society without the purpose of profit. However, we
do very often read of inventors inventing and then selling their
invention for a pittance, while the capitalists who purchase the patent
rights sell that newly invented product for a very unnecessary profit.
It seems that inventors do not spend as much time with inventorying
their too-often-meager earnings as do the capitalists who invest no
intellect in actually inventing something good for humanity, and invest
almost as little capital in actually acquiring property rights from
those who actually do the inventing. The scientists and the inventors
are very rarely the capitalists. Possibly, without capitalist
arrangements, scientists and inventors will continue to analyze and
invent within a cooperative commonwealth.
Imagine freely associated scientists and inventors in a communist
community!
Wm James wrote:
> Taking away profit insures scaricity. History proves this.
> Tose countries that are the most socialistic also have the
> highest prices and the least available products. ( Not to mention
> the highest taxes and the lowest quality products )
Ron Allen answers:
History only proves that within an over-all general capitalist economy
profitability stimulates production - profitability does not however
insure abundance, precisely because abundance diminishes profitability.
You say that "taking away profit insures scarcity," but the reverse is
factually true: Scarcity of any product insures profitability in
producing and distributing that product. More simply put: Scarcity
increases profits. This happens to be very simple bourgeois economics.
Socialist experiments in isolated national economies, within a worldwide
capitalist economic hegemony, are bound to experience inflationary
tendencies simply because every socialist experiment so far has always
included capitalist market elements as well as initial capital
investments - and the socialist feat of full employment for everyone
cannot function wholly or vigorously within a context of lingering
bourgeois economic practices, such as privately planned reduction of
output in order to increase profitability, which reduction of output
signifies a reduction of input - a reduction of labor, a laying-off of
workers, which is incompatible with the stated purpose of socialism to
employ every person willing and able to work productively.
Capitalism has the lay-off option in order to recover economic
equilibrium between variable employment rates and variable rates of
inflation. Socialism does not wish to use the lay-off option, which is
one of the differences between the give-and-take of socialism and the
give-and-take of capitalism.
Ron Allen
Wm James wrote:
> In a free society people are paid exactly what they are worth.
Ron Allen answers:
That is your opinion - and a very apathetic one at that.
Wm James wrote:
> If a person's labor is only worth 5 cents per day, that is their
> own fault for not improving their skills. No one is underpaid
> unless they are a slave and are not free to sell their labor in
> the open market.
Ron Allen answers:
The necessity to find employment in a capitalist context makes the
"freedom" to sell one's labor a very compelling freedom for sure - a
very forced privilege it is looking for gainful employment. You seem
very indifferent to the fact that hunting for a good job is a very
oppressive "freedom", and very often an unfulfilling routine.
Wm James wrote:
> The investor is never overpaid since he gets the price people are
> willing to pay.
Ron Allen answers:
In the everyday world of capitalism haggling over the price of every-
thing is simply not feasible. More often than not, we all pay the price
we are told to pay, not so much what we are willing to pay.
Wm James wrote:
> Your price fixing scheme has never succeeded in doing anything
> but causing poverty to get worse.
Ron Allen answers:
I have never posted on this newsgroup a price-fixing scheme.
Ron Allen
Wm James wrote:
> The problem with anarchy is that it only lasts a few minutes.
> Then someone decides to fill the void. How would you prevent
> that? How would you prevent someone from forcefully taking over?
Ron Allen answers:
The void you speak of is a product of a violent revolutionary jump from
authoritarian capitalist structures to anarchic arrangements. I have
advocated a gradual democratic and educated development from capitalism
through socialism to communism. It is precisely in order to eradicate
the void produced by too much freedom too fast that I advocate a
gradualist and evolutionary ascent towards total freedom in the future.
None of us alive today can possibly live together peacefully in harmony
simply because our authentic species essence has been so repressed and
perverted by an inauthentic specious being. Bourgeois culture has
nurtured in us all a bourgeois second-nature. A proper communist
culture will nurture in every person the qualities of character
necessary for living together and working together in a cooperative
commonwealth of self-governing producers and liberated social beings.
Wm James wrote:
> How would you even deal with simple crime?
Ron Allen answers:
First ask yourself why there is crime. Then ask yourself how crime can
possibly avail anyone in a context of communism.
Wm James wrote:
> Well, people usually like the jobs, wealth, comfort, and generally
> high standard of living that those investors leave in their wake.
Ron Allen answers:
People like to work a little and live in comfort no matter what kind of
society they happen to live in. The issue becomes: Which social
arrangement allows everyone to contribute their talents fully in
productive labor? And: Which social pattern allows every person to
live in comfort rather than a few?
Wm James wrote:
> Most people prefer to work for someone else rather
> than themselves. They are willing to trade a little security for
> independence. If they choose it, why do you object?
Ron Allen answers:
The above pericope does not address anything I have ever posted, and is
utterly de trop.
Wm James wrote:
> And if someone has no "gifts" and is not willing to learn skills,
> and is not even willing to work? Then what? Do you feed them
> and give them a living standard equal to the best producers? Why
> would anyone bother producing?
Ron Allen answers:
Those who have no gifts are much too rare to concern anyone interested
in a better society. Those who have no desire to learn a skill, or who
are unwilling to work, are also much too rare to be a matter of concern.
An abundantly productive society can very likely afford to take care of
such individuals. In the words of Nietzsche: "A gift-giving virtue is
the highest virtue." Such a superior virtue, surpassing every bourgeois
virtue, will be an ingrained virtue within the cultural context of
bountiful communism and generous reciprocity - overflowing spontaneous
gift-giving.
Wm James wrote:
> Hence another of many reasons for failure. No way to save. No
> way to plan. No way to provide for the future of your family.
Ron Allen answers:
Indeed! No way to save money, since there will be no money within a
communist context. Money, as pure exchange value, will not be saved.
But needed goods will be saved in communal storage facilities.
There will be planning, but not centralized authoritarian planning.
Freely associated producers will plan production according to informed
calculations of present and projected need, as well as production for
storage in the event of an emergency.
Capitalism prefers scarcity of goods and services, in order to increase
the selling cost of goods and services, precisely to increase the
profits on which the capitalist class lives. Government interferes with
this capitalist dream in order to prevent the nightmare of extreme
scarcity.
Wm James wrote:
> How about making the short term goal "equality of input?" Once
> you achieve that, then we can talk.
Ron Allen answers:
Have I ever indicated that "equality of input" has no place in
communism. "From each according to ability" implies "equality of
input".
Wm James wrote:
> Assuming that EVERYONE is willing to do so, but you're dreaming.
> I, for one refuse to comply. I will not produce for others. If
> that means I'm a selfish S.O.B. then so be it. The question is:
> How do you propose to deal with me in such a society?
Ron Allen answers:
Neither you nor I will be alive when human beings have become morally
mature enough to govern themselves in a totally free and abundantly
productive cooperative commonwealth.
Wm James wrote:
> We are social animals, as are dogs, and even ants. How much of
> everyone's brain would you remove to insure that all our
> instincts, drives, and freethought are suppressed?
Ron Allen answers:
Once again my communist vision is implicated with lobotomy practices
which I do not advocate, and which I address only in reply to muddled
posts from reactionary defenders of capitalism.
Wm James wrote:
> Communists are not willing to do the work to become successful.
> They want the wealth, but are not willing to do the work and take
> the risks.
Ron Allen answers:
Communist intellectuals do intellectual work - not usually associated
with lucrative pecuniary success. But the workers, who produce the
wealth, have done the work; and they want the wealth equally distributed
among all who participate in productive labor.
Ron Allen
Wm James wrote:
> Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. How
> many times does something have to fail before you recognize that
> is will fail next time as well?
Ron Allen answers:
It is the human capacity for wisdom that enables human beings to
distinguish what is merely repetition and what is modified repetition.
If an experiment fails, prudence looks for the reason for the failure.
If the reason for the failure can be determined and then dislodged and
discarded, then perhaps another experiment can be better managed by
human intelligence and ingenuity. If we can modify the conditions, then
perhaps the next attempt to construct democratic socialism will not be a
mere repetition of the failures of past socialist ventures.
Wm James wrote:
> As a species, we have the same instincts and drives as any other
> life form. There are individuals, sure, but for a socialist
> system to work you must have 100% cooperation. You can't ever
> hope to get more than a few percent.
Ron Allen answers:
The human species has the instincts and drives of life itself - the
instincts and drives one discovers in every animal life form. But human
beings are a product of evolutionary differentiation, and your asertion
above indicates a reductionist view of human existence. You seem to
reduce human existence to nothing more than repetition of every other
form of organic existence. All life is identical, in your thinking.
And human life is nothing different, you seem to be saying.
In a socialist system there will be full employment in social production
simply because, unlike capitalism, any cooperative commonwealth can
achieve full employment and still maintain the economic equilibrium
necessary to promote distributive fairness based on equality of
benefits.
Wm James wrote:
> [No socialist economy] can survive without assistance from the
> outside. Most rely on the USA.
Ron Allen answers:
In a global capitalist economy, every experiment with socialism will
either fail miserably or experience relative insufficiency. This is the
consistent result of capital flight. The wolf remains always at the
door, capital in hand, ready to take possession of every means of
production. The only proper path to a viable socialism is to construct
socialism on the foundation of the abstracted value form of capitalism,
simply because socialism must follow in order the prior abstract
concentration of value in the independent form known by the designation
"capital".
Ron Allen
Wm James wrote:
> Work is less desirable to some than to others.
Ron Allen answers:
I believe every sober and healthy-minded human being desires to do
productive labor. I also believe that in the United States too many
Americans are forced by existing conditions to do unproductive labor,
and too many are forced by present circumstances to labor more hours
than necessary for the plentiful production of socially useful goods and
services.
Wm James wrote:
> Some are quite content to live with less if it means they have to work
> less.
Ron Allen answers:
Most human beings need more than they receive from the give-and-take of
capitalism, while a number of people receive more than they truly need
from the same give-and-take. Those who give more productive social
labor time receive less from the abundant wealth their own labor has
created.
Wm James wrote:
> [The capitalist class] were willing to do the work and take the risks.
> The employees have the same options, the same rights, and the same
> freedom.
Ron Allen answers:
The working class is also very willing to do the work - but unlike the
capitalist class they do not work hard in order to have a future of
opulent luxury and affluent leisure, a future of leeching off the labor
of others that they employ. The working class also takes risks every
day.
The option of being or not being a capitalist, of enjoying the
profiteering and unscrupulous rights of capital, of exercising the
exploitating and expropriating freedoms of the ruling class, these are
not an option for most of us, who manage to retain their human dignity
in spite of the indignities of having to live in the forcefully imposed
capitalist pattern of social existence.
Wm James wrote:
> It is the ultimate in realism. If you produce more you have
> more. It really is that simple.
Ron Allen answers:
It would be that simple if not for the realism of existing capitalist
structures which permit the capitalist class to expropriate from
productive labor a measure of their product in the form of surplus value
as private profit.
Wm James wrote:
> Keep in mind that the investor produces jobs. Is that not something
> of value? Shouldn't he be rewarded?
Ron Allen answers:
Capitalist investors create jobs only in the context of capitalism. But
even in that context it is the potential for profit that creates jobs.
But no matter who creates jobs, which is a debatable issue, we all know
who does the work, we know who produces the goods and services needed by
the human community, and we know who produces the profits that are
withheld from the direct producers and that are privately saved in the
bank accounts of the capitalist class.
Giving too much work to others, while doing less productive work
yourself, generates nothing of real or lasting value. There is
productive work for people to perform before the existence of capitalist
relations and capitalist investors, and there will be productive work
for people to do long after the structures of capitalism have passed
away into history as an artifact of a corrupt class society and as an
artifice of capitalist ideological rule.
Who should be rewarded? Those who can produce, and do produce, should
be rewarded with an equal share in the fruit of socially produced
abundance. That is justice and fairness.
Wm James wrote:
> Uncle Sam gets more because of the socialist policies that you
> seem to like. Penny and Sanders paid a great deal more to Uncle
> Sam than any of his employees. They also paid the salaries to
> the employees that allowed them to pay Uncle Sam.
Ron Allen
Even an atheist with an open mind can glean from the story of The
Widow's Mite a truth apropos to the issue of who pays more taxes:
"And [Jesus of Nazareth] sat down opposite the treasury, and watched the
multitude putting money into the treasury. Many rich people put in
large sums. And a poor widow came, and put in two copper coins, which
make a penny. And Jesus called his disciples to him, and said to them,
'Truly, I say to you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who
are contributing to the treasury. For they all contributed out of their
abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, her
whole living.'"
Although the quantity the widow paid in temple taxes was very small, the
proportion she paid from her possessions was much more than the
proportion the wealthy paid from their opulent measure of private
resources.
In the United States, the capitalist class, with its huge write-offs and
huge deductions, contributes a reduced proportional measure of its
yearly income in taxes. Meanwhile, the direct producers contribute a
considerable proportional measure of their yearly income in taxes. Who,
therefore, really pays more taxes?
Wm James wrote:
> Eradicating the source of the wealth could never get the bums off
> their butts.
Ron Allen answers:
The capitalist class is not the source of wealth. Allow me to quote
Joan Robinson, an English economist, who wrote: "Owning capital is not
a productive activity." Production is what produces wealth. Labor
produces economic value.
The only way of getting the proletarian "bums" off their butts is the
same way necessary to get the bourgeois "bums" off their butts: Give
the workers work to do, and make the capitalists do some real work for a
change.
Wm James wrote:
> You must not get out much. I have met thousands [of unemployed bums].
> I used to live in a neighborhood full of them.
Ron Allen answers:
I have never denied the existence of unproductive bums. I have simply
asserted that the existence of such is a capitalist problem. Without
capitalist relations of production the problem of bums, whether
proletarian or capitalist, will be solved.
Wm James wrote:
> I respect the rights of people to choose their own destiny.
Ron Allen answers:
In fact, you have a capitalist bias, a preference for the rights of
those few who succeed in becoming members of the bourgeois class. It is
difficult to choose your own destiny when you are forced by present
reality to overwork yourself in order to enjoy a meager measure of
leisure time.
Caesar Squitti
Poverty is great business to some, who do all they can preserving it, so
they can profit from it...Creating a system that benefits "non-poverty" is
seldom discussed. Also consider that some people work for free because
that appeals to them, and side of human motivation tends to throw much of
the dollar-motivated statistics and logic out the window,.....
--
ANTI-TRUTHS: Truths, half-truths & lies. Caesar Squitti
"The Light....The Colors of Truth." http://flash.lakeheadu.ca/~csquitti/