Christianity: Free Market or Communist?

[fungus44]

capital is money.

Capital is dead labour. Money is a system of exchange of capital, natural resources, and alienated labour.

 

[PhorIndicator]

economics:

1. the branch of social science that deals with the production and distribution and consumption of goods and services and their management.
   [/list=1]
   economy:
   1. the system of production and distribution and consumption.
   2. the system of operation of the processes of anabolism and catabolism in living bodies.
   3. an orderly, functional arrangement of parts; an organized system.
   4. the system or range of economic activity in a country, region, or community.
      [/list=1]
      how isn't communism applicable in the real world? marxism failed to account for cultural forces in his social model--communism cannot be implemented through a violent revolution or political/legal coercion--that is why proto-marxist experiments have generally failed in nation states. it's hard to convince large national populations to change from a capitalistic way of thinking to a communistic one over-night because cultural change is a gradual process. but it's a lot easier for smaller populations of progressive-minded individuals to create a self-sufficient community based on a communist economy.
      
      all over the world we've seen progressive communities like these being formed. we're even seeing more and more nation-states adopting socialist policies such as universal healthcare, socialized education, communal farming projects, etc. it's possible, it works, and it's beneficial for a society to adopt such policies. even in nature we see a lot of species of very simple to extremely complex organisms who have evolved to take advantage of communal existence as a highly effective living strategy. a communistic social hierarchy allows large numbers of individuals to live together in harmony, achieving a better life by dividing their workload and sharing the fruits of their labours. implemented correctly, communism increases economic efficiency and better ensures the survival of the whole.
      
      justice and equality are utopian ideals as well, but that doesn't mean it's unrealistic to strive for these ideals. those are just excuses for not trying to adopt these ideals which require progressive change and challenging the status quo.

1. 1. 
      
      Ok, first off - do you disagree with what I said about the lack of motivation present in communism? And about the lack of competition that drives the economy?
      
      
      Second, I don't think it's relevant to compare our society with nature... we are much more complex organisms than any other species on earth, driven in large part by our emotions, desires, and ideals.
      
      I agree, I don't think it's wrong to strive for these ideals... but if they aren't realistic, it's not worth the effort. Justice and equality are ideals, but they are not economic ones.
      
      Basically, I am saying I do not think an ideal economy is possible in this world, because human beings are not "ideal." In other words, human beings are fallible, imperfect creatures. And economy, no matter what kind it is, will always be subject to the nature of the people within the economy. if this nature is imperfect and driven by materialism, like you said in another post, and selfish ambition (for lack of a better term), then an ideal economy is unrealistic.
      
      By the way, I agree with what ebola said underneath your other response to my post. You could have been a little more diplomatic.

 

[fungus44]

I agree, I don't think it's wrong to strive for these ideals... but if they aren't realistic, it's not worth the effort. Justice and equality are ideals, but they are not economic ones.

Basically, I am saying I do not think an ideal economy is possible in this world, because human beings are not "ideal."

Ok, a coule of points. To respond to the latter claim about the "ideal", the great strength of Marxist apporaches to culture and ideology is to show the ways in which "human nature" is produced by exploitative social relations.

Now to the former. In the 1930s, while the USSR was becoming more and more authoritarian and the almost revolutions in Western Europe had failed, many decided socialism was impossible. Leon Trotsky's response to that was to say that, while he disagreed with the claim, maybe human society would always be based on master/slave relationships. Regardless, the task of the socialist was to organize the slaves in resistance to their oppression.

Makes more sense than "it's not worth the effort.".

 

[ebola?]

>>Basically, I am saying I do not think an ideal economy is possible in this world, because human beings are not "ideal." In other words, human beings are fallible, imperfect creatures. And economy, no matter what kind it is, will always be subject to the nature of the people within the economy. if this nature is imperfect and driven by materialism, like you said in another post, and selfish ambition (for lack of a better term), then an ideal economy is unrealistic. >>

Communism, in practice, would not be ideal.

>>Capital is dead labour. Money is a system of exchange of capital, natural resources, and alienated labour.>>

Since I have this particular pathology where I can't stop splitting hairs, I'm just going to add that capital is dead labor put towards pursuit of profit via the purchase of wage-labor, not just dead labor in general.

ebola

 

[fungus44]

Hairsplitters of the world unite!

>>Capital is dead labour. Money is a system of exchange of capital, natural resources, and alienated labour.>> Since I have this particular pathology where I can't stop splitting hairs, I'm just going to add that capital is dead labor put towards pursuit of profit via the purchase of wage-labor, not just dead labor in general.

Oui oui, monsieur. "Natural resources" or an equivalent is also necessary.

From something on John Bellamy Foster's eco-Marxism:

The ecological crisis has prompted nearly every school of thought to return to its ideological foundations in order to come up with a solution. For neo-Classical economists, this means trying to bring nature into the sphere of commodities. They argue that the problem is that natural resources like soil and water are not properly priced. If the same market laws that dictate the price of manufactured goods operated in realm of nature, then the "invisible hand" would protect such precious commodities as the soil and water.

For Marxists, an analogous effort has taken place, which seeks to discover either explicit or implicit concerns with nature in the central body of Marx's work. Foster has come up with some very interesting insights into the rather explicit concern that Marx had with the central ecological crisis of the 19th century: soil fertility.

There is actually a long tradition of Marxist research into agrarian questions going back to Marx and Engels. Lenin and Kautsky also wrote important articles on the question. Michael Perelman, the moderator of PEN-L, has also written on the topic: "Farming For Profit In A Hungry World: Capital And The Crisis In Agriculture." I plan to read and report on this book before long.

The context for Marx's examination of the agrarian question was the general crisis of soil fertility in the period from 1830 to 1870. The depletion of soil nutrients was being felt everywhere, as capitalist agriculture broke down the old organic interaction that took place on small, family farms. When a peasant plowed a field with ox or horse-drawn plows, used an outhouse, accumulated compost piles, etc., the soil's nutrients were replenished naturally. As capitalist agriculture turned the peasant into an urban proletariat, segregated livestock production from grain and food production, the organic cycle was broken and the soil gradually lost its fertility.

John Bellamy Foster on the Marx-Liebeg connection.

 

[PhorIndicator]

Communism, in practice, would not be ideal.

Yes, that is my point. Communism is not practical. From an idealistic standpoint, it sounds great. But for practical purposes, it just doesn't work.

 

[ebola?]

My point, implied I guess, is that capitalism succumbs to identical criticisms.

ebola

 

[gloggawogga]

Just because we will never be perfect doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to improve our selves. A more socially just economic system would be such an improvement.

 

[thursday]

Ok, first off - do you disagree with what I said about the lack of motivation present in communism? And about the lack of competition that drives the economy?

lack of motivation for what? sure, in a communist society people wouldn't be motivated to spend their entire lives trying to amass material wealth, but who cares? in our society almost everything revolves around money. people don't go to universities to learn anymore, they go to get a degree to help them land a high paying job. so many people waste their entire lives doing what will make them the most money instead of what they enjoy doing most. if people didn't have to worry about trying to amass wealth, didn't have to compete with each other just to survive, that would foster much more productivity and cooperation.

Second, I don't think it's relevant to compare our society with nature... we are much more complex organisms than any other species on earth, driven in large part by our emotions, desires, and ideals.

i'm not making a comparison. i'm illustrating a point about communal existence and cooperative societies versus competitive ones. whether human or not, cooperation allows people to achieve greater success for the common good of society than competition does. just saying that "we're not ants" or "it's not the same" doesn't really refute my point. people aren't ants but we all still starve to death if we don't eat food, we still have our own internal economies and social networks, etc. the relevant analogs are there unless you can give a more substantial argument as to why cooperation helps so many animal populations but somehow would be detrimental to humans. seems like being morally and spiritually elevated beings we'd be able to achieve a cooperative & harmonious existence with each other easier than ants, bees, polyps, monkeys, and other "lesser" beings which have been able to benefit from such an arguably more morally advanced existence.

I agree, I don't think it's wrong to strive for these ideals... but if they aren't realistic, it's not worth the effort. Justice and equality are ideals, but they are not economic ones.

communism isn't an ideal, it's an economic model. it embodies certain values such as altruism, cooperation, and harmonious existence between individuals, but capitalism also embodies its own "ideals" such as competition and selfishness. you haven't given any logical arguments as to why communism, which has been achieved in many communities, is unrealistic while capitalism isn't. they're both economic models, and they're both based around a set of values at the center of each ideology.
also, fascism/despotism are both "realistic" models of government and are a reality in a lot of different places, but that doesn't make them desireable. simply labeling any type of political or economic system which is based around a certain ideal as unrealistic doesn't really say anything as it can be applied to every political/economic/social ideology out there.

Basically, I am saying I do not think an ideal economy is possible in this world, because human beings are not "ideal." In other words, human beings are fallible, imperfect creatures. And economy, no matter what kind it is, will always be subject to the nature of the people within the economy. if this nature is imperfect and driven by materialism, like you said in another post, and selfish ambition (for lack of a better term), then an ideal economy is unrealistic.

right. so is democracy, social equality, etc, etc. we're too imperfect to strive for a utopian society, so let's just abandon all attempts at achieving social progress.

By the way, I agree with what ebola said underneath your other response to my post. You could have been a little more diplomatic.

i'm sorry, did i hurt your feelings? let me stroke your ego for a little bit: i'm sure you're a very intelligent person, you just choose to hide it from people most of the time by posting smug and vacuous statements instead of actually responding to people's criticisms. i did what i had to do to elicit a response from you that would actually result in a productive discussion rather than something like "i think i've made my point." c'mon, that's such a cop out. if you don't want to admit to being wrong, then defend your argument. if you really believe in it that strongly, then it shouldn't be that hard.

 

[thursday]

My point, implied I guess, is that capitalism succumbs to identical criticisms.

ebola

exactly. free market capitalism would work if everyone had access to the same amount of resources and opportunities so that everyone would atleast be able to maintain a respectable existence without social/economic regulation. but we don't. communism deals with these issues directly rather than just say "it's a dog eat dog world, deal with it."

 

[ebola?]

>> Oui oui, monsieur. "Natural resources" or an equivalent is also necessary.>>

This is an interesting issue. What role does the natural environment play in Marx's theory of value and ontology of the economy?

Well, on one hand, "raw materials" play a role in the economy similar to any other commodity. That is, their value is contingent upon the labor necessary for their extraction. There are a couple dangling questions, however. Firstly, must we accept the labor theory of value in order to accept this view of natural resources? Also, what does it mean when we run out of natural resources? Can we account for this by arguing that the amount of labor necessary to extract these materials approaches infiniti?

On the other hand, we also have the landed class, which has, on historical terms, stuck a flag in the ground and begun charging rent. Rent stands as distinct from wages and profit.

>>From something on John Bellamy Foster's eco-Marxism: >>

I've actually taken two classes from him (and one from one of his students). Good work, he's done. We focused, in part, on the problem of metabolic rift, which has developed under capitalism. Marx's writings thereon focused particularly on the division between town and country.

I think we can use metabolic rift to interpret the question of what it means for resources to run out, in terms of Marxian theory. Basically, we can shift our analytical focus from the economy of society at large to the ecosystem which contains groups of humans within it. On these terms, the laboring process is not strictly human, but is emergent in the world's ecosystems which contain humans. As metabolic rift emerges, the organism threatens to destroy itself (at least in terms of its own developmental path) via its own wanton expansion.

ebola

 

[protovack]

I think we can use metabolic rift to interpret the question of what it means for resources to run out, in terms of Marxian theory. Basically, we can shift our analytical focus from the economy of society at large to the ecosystem which contains groups of humans within it. On these terms, the laboring process is not strictly human, but is emergent in the world's ecosystems which contain humans. As metabolic rift emerges, the organism threatens to destroy itself (at least in terms of its own developmental path) via its own wanton expansion.

Could you clarify what you mean by 'metabolic rift'? I think I have an idea but I'm not sure. Are we just talking about a disparity between demand for resources and supply of said resources? And how is a laboring process that is "emergent in ecosystems which contain humans" different from a laboring process that is "strictly human" (in terms of fitting into a theory of labor)? In other words, what impact does this have on how we think about exhaustion of resources?

 

[protovack]

J.B. Foster wrote:

As capitalist agriculture turned the peasant into an urban proletariat, segregated livestock production from grain and food production, the organic cycle was broken and the soil gradually lost its fertility.

Does the fact that I believe the words 'capitalist' and 'proletariat' serve no purpose in the above explanation make me a bad socialist?

 

[PhorIndicator]

i'm sorry, did i hurt your feelings? let me stroke your ego for a little bit: i'm sure you're a very intelligent person, you just choose to hide it from people most of the time by posting smug and vacuous statements instead of actually responding to people's criticisms. i did what i had to do to elicit a response from you that would actually result in a productive discussion rather than something like "i think i've made my point." c'mon, that's such a cop out. if you don't want to admit to being wrong, then defend your argument. if you really believe in it that strongly, then it shouldn't be that hard.

Do you think you hurt my feelings? Please copy and paste one of my posts that you found "smug and vacuous". I challenge you to find one. Also, your condescension is entirely unneccessary. I do not need my ego to be "stroked" as you put it. Furthermore, the patronizing tone of your comment negated any complimentary value it may have even held in the first place. On the contrary, I find that entire statement arrogant, patronizing, and, ironically - smug and vacuous. I am insulted by it.

Also, "how hard " you belive in something is really quite exclusive to whether or not you can defend your belief against. Take a Christian, for example. A Christian believes Jesus Christ was the Son of God, but no amount of arguing or discussing one way or the other is going to prove this. And the degree to whch you beleive it to be true is irrelevant to this. If you believed it a little bit, or were a vehement believer in it, that would not change your ability to prove it as true or not at all.

 

[thursday]

I think I've made my point anyway. It's starting to digress away from the original topic of the thread.

 

[thursday]

Also, "how hard " you belive in something is really quite exclusive to whether or not you can defend your belief against. Take a Christian, for example. A Christian believes Jesus Christ was the Son of God, but no amount of arguing or discussing one way or the other is going to prove this. And the degree to whch you beleive it to be true is irrelevant to this. If you believed it a little bit, or were a vehement believer in it, that would not change your ability to prove it as true or not at all.

that's the problem with faith. you can't have productive discussion if people want to stubbornly stick to arbitrary beliefs without being able to explain why they believe it. there's no point to engage in a discussion if you're going to just ignore all counter-arguments you can't refute.

 

[ebola?]

>>Could you clarify what you mean by 'metabolic rift'? I think I have an idea but I'm not sure. Are we just talking about a disparity between demand for resources and supply of said resources? >>

Metabolic rift is a pretty simple concept, and maybe not that illuminating. Basically, if we think about the world ecosystem as a sort of organism attempting to maintain homeostasis, metabolic rift is its failure to do so. Since the world-capitalism system entails expansion and subbordination of production to efficiency in the short-term, there will be certain metabolic imbalances which arise due to this expansionary process (even in the face of new energy being added by the sun). In Marx's time, the most glaring example was the fact that a lot of shit was no longer being used to fertilize crops...so nutrients were being drawn out of the soil. Nowadays, we are on the cusp of running out of oil...

>>And how is a laboring process that is "emergent in ecosystems which contain humans" different from a laboring process that is "strictly human" (in terms of fitting into a theory of labor)? In other words, what impact does this have on how we think about exhaustion of resources?
>>

Gawd...I'll need to think about this. It could just be a philosophical statement of ontology that does not really differ predictively.

>>As capitalist agriculture turned the peasant into an urban proletariat, segregated livestock production from grain and food production, the organic cycle was broken and the soil gradually lost its fertility.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does the fact that I believe the words 'capitalist' and 'proletariat' serve no purpose in the above explanation make me a bad socialist?>>

No, it just means that you're misunderstanding Foster. Basically, he is highlighting the fact that certain aspects of capitalist development (principally, the increasing division of labor (manifesting in the division of town and country), increasing productive output, and rational subordination of production to cost-effectiveness) have caused metabolic rift to arise in the form of the division of town and country.

ebola

 

[fungus44]

Thanks for the metabolic rift definition, ebola!. I read it once, I thought I got it, and then realized I had no idea what the fuck it meant. Makes sense now. Is there an idea that some metabolics rifts are irreverisble? Do you know if Foster considers this?

In Marx's time, the most glaring example was the fact that a lot of shit was no longer being used to fertilize crops...so nutrients were being drawn out of the soil. Nowadays, we are on the cusp of running out of oil...

The other problem, maybe more than oil, is shit. There is fucking tonnes and tonnes of it. In Ontario, Canada a number of people have died in the last few years due to run off of agricultural shit. Poor sewage is becomingmore and more of a problem in the advanced capitalist countries.

Then there's the rest of the world...

Edited to add:

>>As capitalist agriculture turned the peasant into an urban proletariat, segregated livestock production from grain and food production, the organic cycle was broken and the soil gradually lost its fertility.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does the fact that I believe the words 'capitalist' and 'proletariat' serve no purpose in the above explanation make me a bad socialist?>>

No, it just means that you're misunderstanding Foster.

In fairly orthodox Marxist discussion , which this is at present, 'capitalist' means those people who own land and the tools to use it, and 'proletariat' means those who have no, or extremely minimal, land or tools, and depend on their own or a famiy member's labour to survive.

Before capitalism, even very poor peasants were able to find basic means of survival by working local land or moving to a more abundant place. With the rise of capitalism, and the establishment of land boundaries and borders, 'living off the land' has been a basic impossibility and becomes more impossible as we go.

 

[Turbulence]

I think that the reason so many people still believe that capitalism is more founded is because their beliefs about what is important in life are too strongly rooted in the capitalist beliefs that they were exposed to their entire lives. If our society as a whole realized that life doesn't have to be about getting to the "top" of the totem pole and it is instead about broadening of their own perspectives through the experience of life, then I think it would become fairly obvious that an economic system that focused on providing for the needs of the whole instead of the accumulation of wealth is more beneficial to society.

There's my 2 cents....

 

[protovack]

Basically, he is highlighting the fact that certain aspects of capitalist development (principally, the increasing division of labor (manifesting in the division of town and country), increasing productive output, and rational subordination of production to cost-effectiveness) have caused metabolic rift to arise in the form of the division of town and country.

He says, "As capitalist agriculture turned the peasant into an urban proletariat, segregated livestock production from grain and food production, the organic cycle was broken and the soil gradually lost its fertility."

But the gradual decline in the percentage of the population doing farming has occurred along with population growth (which is fueled by technological advance). When a farmer's son moves to the city and becomes an engineer, he might design a machine that makes farming more efficient. Also, certain areas of land will lose their fertility whether there is livestock production or not. It depends on the type and depth of soil, and the density of livestock population.

The town/country division was establishing itself far before modern capitalism. Theoretically, it began the instant when there were more humans than were required to farm enough food.

I think citing capitalism as the cause of metabolic "rift" is a rather weak line of argument, only because it doesn't help explain anything.

He says "capitalist agriculture turned the peasant into an urban proletarian."

But why not just say, "increasing agricultural technology gradually reduced the number of people required to farm enough food"?

Equating capitalism with broad concepts like efficiency or a division-of-labor is just not a good idea. You could make the same argument about ancient Mayan society (which was probably destroyed by its own exploitation of limited farm land), but would the concepts of capitalism be relevant to that era? Of course not, unless you think capitalism began the instant humans designed a tool.

Don't get me wrong, I think it is entirely legitimate to analyze human behavior in terms of capitalist exploitation. But it is a big mistake to view large, continual processes as merely the fault of capitalists. This dilutes the efficacy any critique of capital in general.

Before capitalism, even very poor peasants were able to find basic means of survival by working local land or moving to a more abundant place. With the rise of capitalism, and the establishment of land boundaries and borders, 'living off the land' has been a basic impossibility and becomes more impossible as we go

A good example of what I was saying. Even "after capitalism," farming continued! I also don't think we can associate the rise of capitalism with the "establishment of land boundaries and borders." And certainly the rise of the border system did not "cause" peasants to be unable to live off the land.

When exactly was it, that we stopped "living off the land"? How "capitalistic" were we at that time?