Strange Famous

Marx talked about higher and lower socialism, he never differentiated between the words socialism and communism, they meant the same thing. It was Lenin who called "lower communism" socielaim - but yes I do think there may have to be a transitional stage, where people are still rewarded based on the value of their labour.

This is simply because, as this thread demonstrates, people who have lived in and been conditioned by capitalism find it impossible to even contemplate the idea of a society where reward is not linked to effort, but to need.

I think we may well have to move gradually to a system where it does become "from each what they can give, to each what they need" - because it will take time for the way people think to change. But what we will have right away is common ownership of the means of production, what we will have is that there will not be millionaires, there will not be poverty, right from the start there will be a huge equalization of property.

And yes, we will take property from the richest people and we will not pay them for it, we will take it. We will take Bill Gates estates, we will liquidate his assets, we will take his cars - and he will live in an apartment in San Fransisco and he will be paid a fair wage for the job he does. His company will be owned by all the workers who are employed there (including "contract" workers) - and he will be included, he will have the same stake and ownership as all other staff - as an expert in his field he may well be voted onto the board of directors.

But of course, Bill Gates may oppose it, he may not want to just be another worker, when he was formerly in the position of exploiting 10,000's of workers... if he resists then he is free to go where he wants, he can go and live in alog cabin and hunt his own food if he wishes to... what he will not be allowed to is hold on to the wealth that he has gained through capitalism.

What will not exist, even in the lower communist, or the socialist state, is huge wealth or poverty.

Also, in a lower communist society, the state will need to be entrusted with a great deal of power. We must be very careful, because we know that the state may attempt to become the new capitalist exploiter if it is not controlled. The state must be constantly forced to be totally democratic, positions rotated, every representative removable.

In the interim, the state, although a democratic socialist state and not a capitalist liberal state, will have to manage the change between the two economic systems, they will be heavily involved in the confiscation of private property (not personal possessions, but private property) and the establishment of worker democracy and political democracy, in managing supply to meet the demand of the populace now that the profit motive does not manage supply.

In time, we know that the state will break down, "wither away" as Engels said, it will simply be broken down into so many small parts that it is simply a lose and unconnected collectivism of organisational work.

Also, as people live and grow in the new economic system, and as people's ideals and aspirations change, we will move more and more to a fairer distirbution of resource, where recources are distributed by need rather than by effort or social position. (and never let us say that capitalism does reward people entirely by effort and the value of the work they do, we know this is not true, we know capitalist is infested with corruption and privaledge)

When these two goals are achieved, fairer distibution and the withering away of the state, then socialism or lower communism moves into higher or true communism.

Quote:

2) Marx specifically argued that capitalism was a necessary engine of growth. I believe this should have been your response to the point raised in regards to the utility of competition. That is, Marx would agree with that assessment and wouldn't argue that competition should be squelched. Rather, he argued that capitalism was more fair than feudalism and that, once we had enough technology and desire, we could shift to the next (more fair) system of government. Only after that period would we be able to dismantle government and move towards a system that allows us to reach our species-being.

I dont disagree, capitalism was a necessary stage of human development, and it was necessary to develop the means of production that stagnated under an inefficient feudalist system. The fact is that now capitalism is outdated and stagnating the means of production - the next surge of human and technological development can only be created by a more free society.

Quote:

Creativity allows people to act according to their nature, not create growth. When everyone's needs are met, growth is no longer necessary. Don't dilute your message by warping it to the demands of a capitalist paradigm--that growth is a necessary component to productive (production can be defined as creativity and innovation rather than development, although one's understanding of these concepts may imply an overlap) society.

Growth can be measured in many ways. We will not aim at the sort of growth that means more supply or cheapening labour - we aim at the sort of growth in communism that improves the lives of ordinary people. That is the difference. Capitalism aims only to ever revolutionise and cheapen the forces of production, communism aims to enrich the experience and lives of human means throough technological growth.

Quote:

3) The critique I have of Marx's argument is that he was too influenced by a Darwinian paradigm. That is, he believed, due to the limited information he had access to, that societies progressed in linear fashion. We now know that societies fluctuate and co-exist with various types of economic structures. For example, we find evidence of "primative" societies smack in the middle of highly industrialied societies. I think his model needs to recognize that economic structures do not progress in a purely linear fashion. That said, it may be possible to shift from a capitalist society to a communist one--I just wanted your opinion as to whether you thought that was possible. I'm not quite certain one way or the other, to be honest.

I would say that that way of thinking was also heavily influanced by Hegel. I think it is only possible to shift to a communist society when the technology and forces of production to enable it are there. I dont think Marx is a prophet or that we should think he laid down a blueprint for exactly how the future will be, just that he was able to see forces of history that have lad and will lead inevitably to certain forms of society.

It is possible for societies to fall behind the progress of others certainly, and with an effort, societies may even be able to regress or go back a stage, to a agricultural feudalist society if there was a really determined effort to do it, but what I do believe is that when you have forced of production that reach a certain level, capitalism not only is no longer a logical system of economy, but an inpractical one that simply cannot cope. This is when the revolution is made.

if their may be further stages of human development beyond communism, we cannot say it is impossible, but I personally cannot see far enough ahead to judge that.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas