38 replies to this topic

[Jaade!]

HELLO! Welcome

[Steve]

Punk Rock Geek, on 11 September 2011 - 12:16 PM, said:

So called "democracy" doesn't work under capitalism, because when you live in a hierarchical system, it cannot under any circumstances represent equality of decision making power.  My problem is that many radicals use the term democracy to describe the current system, when it is far from it.

except that democracy certainly does work within capitalism. capitalism and democracy aren't opposed because they are apples and oranges. democracy is merely a method of management. capitalism uses it when it needs to (obviously, capitalism isnt an entity that can make decisions. i am anthropomorphizing it for the sake of discussion), just as it uses fascism when it needs to. democratically managing a factory doesn't change the nature of its production. if people are producing commodities then there is capitalism, and one way or another it will become stratified again.


also welcome to the new person

[Renan]

Punk Rock Geek, on 11 September 2011 - 12:16 PM, said:

My problem is that many radicals use the term democracy to describe the current system, when it is far from it.

Most people today choose (and I aint saying they were NOT conditioned to this) to keep this society based on commodity production and capital accumulation.
The majority, today and in the past, has chosen to keep things as they basically are now. This fits perfectly in a democratic system.

Throughout history, political systems / ideology such as democracy today, or autocracies / oligarchies like fascism were used by the ruling classes from different countries to maintain and protect their own interests in accordance with their existing material base. But the economic system always stayed basically the same.

[Black Cat]

Steve, on 20 September 2011 - 09:03 PM, said:

except that democracy certainly does work within capitalism. capitalism and democracy aren't opposed because they are apples and oranges. democracy is merely a method of management. capitalism uses it when it needs to (obviously, capitalism isnt an entity that can make decisions. i am anthropomorphizing it for the sake of discussion), just as it uses fascism when it needs to. democratically managing a factory doesn't change the nature of its production. if people are producing commodities then there is capitalism, and one way or another it will become stratified again.


also welcome to the new person

What do you mean by "stratified"? That hierarchies are inevitable? Why?

[Renan]

Black Cat, on 21 September 2011 - 03:20 PM, said:

What do you mean by "stratified"? That hierarchies are inevitable? Why?

I think he meant that stratification, ie, the separation of individuals into social classes and, consequently, exploitation and domination, is inevitable in a system of commodity production.

[Punk Rock Geek]

Steve, on 20 September 2011 - 09:03 PM, said:

except that democracy certainly does work within capitalism. capitalism and democracy aren't opposed because they are apples and oranges. democracy is merely a method of management. capitalism uses it when it needs to (obviously, capitalism isnt an entity that can make decisions. i am anthropomorphizing it for the sake of discussion), just as it uses fascism when it needs to. democratically managing a factory doesn't change the nature of its production. if people are producing commodities then there is capitalism, and one way or another it will become stratified again.


also welcome to the new person

Capitalism can't use it though, because it is inherently hierarchical.  Vertical decision-making power cannot be democratic--it must be horizontal.

If capitalism could be democratic, which it cannot be, I would have no reason to oppose it.  There would be no classes, I would have the same say as my neighbor, and private property could not survive because there would be no state (or hierarchy) to enforce it.

[Punk Rock Geek]

Renan, on 21 September 2011 - 03:04 PM, said:

Most people today choose (and I aint saying they were NOT conditioned to this) to keep this society based on commodity production and capital accumulation.
The majority, today and in the past, has chosen to keep things as they basically are now. This fits perfectly in a democratic system.

Throughout history, political systems / ideology such as democracy today, or autocracies / oligarchies like fascism were used by the ruling classes from different countries to maintain and protect their own interests in accordance with their existing material base. But the economic system always stayed basically the same.

I agree that they call it democracy.  But they also called the USSR a communist country.  It doesn't make it true, and we shouldn't go by their labels, because it only perpetuates further stereotypes.

[Renan]

Punk Rock Geek, on 21 September 2011 - 06:43 PM, said:

Capitalism can't use it though, because it is inherently hierarchical.  Vertical decision-making power cannot be democratic--it must be horizontal.

Commodity production can be made with some kind of horizontal decision-making power.
It would just be a process of self-exploration approved by a democratic system. Practical examples such as cooperatives and even some more radical examples such as the workers' councils have proved that these new forms of the same old production process whenever put into practice could not stay for long. They have not paved the way for revolution.

Production is the root of the existence of Capital. Changing the form of production only changes the form of exploitation, whether it takes place under fascism and its blatant repression or democracy and its social peace by consensus.

Punk Rock Geek, on 21 September 2011 - 06:43 PM, said:

If capitalism could be democratic, which it cannot be, I would have no reason to oppose it.  There would be no classes, I would have the same say as my neighbor, and private property could not survive because there would be no state (or hierarchy) to enforce it.

Democracy is not synonymous with communism. And I have serious doubts whether it is really a way to it.

If today, in a completely hypothetical and fanciful event, there was a vote to decide whether Capital should be abolished (the end of classes, private property, state, police, etc.) most would vote no because what exists today is a certainty, it is reality. They will not sacrifice the certainty of their salaries and pensions for a hypothetical ideal society, which only exist in the heads of people like you and me, where all of this is not necessary.

[Punk Rock Geek]

Renan, on 21 September 2011 - 08:14 PM, said:

Commodity production can be made with some kind of horizontal decision-making power.
It would just be a process of self-exploration approved by a democratic system. Practical examples such as cooperatives and even some more radical examples such as the workers' councils have proved that these new forms of the same old production process whenever put into practice could not stay for long. They have not paved the way for revolution.

Private property is what allows wage-slavery (and thus hierarchy) to exist.  The examples you listed are not examples of horizontal decision making power if they take place within the confines of a capitalist, or state-capitalist (that is, the state owns everything) system, because in both of these cases, the people are subservient to those with the most property.

Quote

Production is the root of the existence of Capital. Changing the form of production only changes the form of exploitation, whether it takes place under fascism and its blatant repression or democracy and its social peace by consensus.

Production will exist in all societies, including anarchist ones.

Quote

Democracy is not synonymous with communism. And I have serious doubts whether it is really a way to it.

If today, in a completely hypothetical and fanciful event, there was a vote to decide whether Capital should be abolished (the end of classes, private property, state, police, etc.) most would vote no because what exists today is a certainty, it is reality. They will not sacrifice the certainty of their salaries and pensions for a hypothetical ideal society, which only exist in the heads of people like you and me, where all of this is not necessary.

You're correct that they would vote no.  But again, that's what I've been saying and that's why the system is undemocratic.  People are so reliant on authority that they're unable to make free decisions independent of that authority.  They say we each have one vote, but really, we're voting with proverbial guns to our heads.  Freedom is equality of compromise.  I know of no other fitting definition.

[Renan]

Punk Rock Geek, on 21 September 2011 - 08:50 PM, said:

Private property is what allows wage-slavery (and thus hierarchy) to exist.  The examples you listed are not examples of horizontal decision making power if they take place within the confines of a capitalist, or state-capitalist (that is, the state owns everything) system, because in both of these cases, the people are subservient to those with the most property.

Hierarchies already existed before capitalist social relations, but I got your point.
The examples I'm giving are exactly what horizontal management structures (with your "direct" or "pure" democracy) with a collective ownership of the means of production are, inside a system of commodity production.  They "socialized" capital, but not destroyed it. After a short time, the old production style based on private property returned again like nothing had happened. Not to mention that in practice "direct" democracy continued to be, even though to a lesser extent, representative just like the one in the present.

The problem is not the management, but the uninterrupted production of commodities.
Stop the production and circulation of it and capital cannot be multiplied and accumulated.

Punk Rock Geek, on 21 September 2011 - 08:50 PM, said:

Production will exist in all societies, including anarchist ones.

You know that I´m talking about commodity production...

Punk Rock Geek, on 21 September 2011 - 08:50 PM, said:

You're correct that they would vote no.  But again, that's what I've been saying and that's why the system is undemocratic.  People are so reliant on authority that they're unable to make free decisions independent of that authority.  They say we each have one vote, but really, we're voting with proverbial guns to our heads.  Freedom is equality of compromise.  I know of no other fitting definition.

If people are voting it´s democratic. In democracy the majority chooses and dictate it to the contrary minority, doesnt´matter if this majotity was condicioned by a continuous series of events and "tools" of social control developed historically. And where did you get that democracy has necessarily something to do with anti-authoritarianism or freedom?

And, well, I think it´s kind of hard to describe something that I never had experienced, such as freedom.

[Punk Rock Geek]

Renan, on 22 September 2011 - 08:31 AM, said:

If people are voting it´s democratic. In democracy the majority chooses and dictate it to the contrary minority, doesnt´matter if this majotity was condicioned by a continuous series of events and "tools" of social control developed historically.

I have to leave right away, but by your own definition, China would be considered a democracy.  I'm saying that's incorrect and that true democracy can only exist when power is horizontal.

[Black Cat]

Renan, on 21 September 2011 - 06:32 PM, said:

I think he meant that stratification, ie, the separation of individuals into social classes and, consequently, exploitation and domination, is inevitable in a system of commodity production.

I understand that job specialization is inevitable to produce goods. But why does this necessarily has to lead to different social classes, who are considered to have each a different value for society? I don't think, failed attempts in the past, where hierarchies soon were back after a worker's council was established or similar cannot prove that it always has to be this way.

[Renan]

Black Cat, on 22 September 2011 - 12:49 PM, said:

I understand that job specialization is inevitable to produce goods. But why does this necessarily has to lead to different social classes, who are considered to have each a different value for society?

This is not just about job specialization, something that is only related with the improvement of the production.
The reason for the production of goods is the production and accumulation of capital, something that can only be done through the extraction of surplus value from someone else's work, from someone who doesn´t own the means of production. So, the class that has the ownership of the means of production can benefit itself from this process forcing the class that has no property to sell their labor for them.

Throughout the history of commodity production, social classes have always existed because such economic system needs mainly a class of producers and a class of accumulators .

Black Cat, on 22 September 2011 - 12:49 PM, said:

I don't think, failed attempts in the past, where hierarchies soon were back after a worker's council was established or similar cannot prove that it always has to be this way.

Just to make clear it was not stated that hierarchies are inevitable in human society, but in the process of commodity production.

And, well, being materialist the establishment of workers' councils failed in several attempts for several reasons during history. Yes, there was severe repressions against those attempts, but one of the common reasons of failure was their remain within the logic of commodity production. You cannot control the production of goods, because you cannot control capital. It needs to be in a eternal process of expansion even using different kinds of production management like the councils, but always lasting for a short period of time. It cannot be reformed. The only solution is it complete destruction through the end of production, when producers deny themselves as a class and its imposed social role.

[Black Cat]

Which goods exactly count as goods from commodity production in your opinion?

[Renan]

Black Cat, on 22 September 2011 - 02:57 PM, said:

Which goods exactly count as goods from commodity production in your opinion?

Anything that can be sold for a profit can be a commodity. It doesn´t matter what is sold, but how much capital it can produce.

From your computer to even abstract things (without a physical representation) as ideologies, can be transformed into commodities. We sell ourselves like any other commodity.

[Steve]

Black Cat, on 22 September 2011 - 02:57 PM, said:

Which goods exactly count as goods from commodity production in your opinion?

Anything can be a commodity. What makes a thing a commodity is the way people relate to it. If something is being created to be exchanged, and therefore has value, even if that exchange is merely barter, then it is a commodity.

This is precisely the problem with the Left's obsession with democracy. The very reason why workers council failed in the past is because they focused on the form of management of the economy, rather than understanding the economy itself is what needs to be abolished. In fact, I would go so far as to say that workers councils are the forms capital takes in its last straw attempts to keep itself around.

[Punk Rock Geek]

Steve, on 28 September 2011 - 09:36 PM, said:

Anything can be a commodity. What makes a thing a commodity is the way people relate to it. If something is being created to be exchanged, and therefore has value, even if that exchange is merely barter, then it is a commodity.

This is precisely the problem with the Left's obsession with democracy. The very reason why workers council failed in the past is because they focused on the form of management of the economy, rather than understanding the economy itself is what needs to be abolished. In fact, I would go so far as to say that workers councils are the forms capital takes in its last straw attempts to keep itself around.

There's nothing wrong with workers councils.  A gift economy is the natural progression of them--the problem is that a gift economy only works when all industries abide by it.  That is, if workers take over a factory for producing lightbulbs, but capitalist companies have a monopoly over electric power, then the factory producing the lightbulbs will need to continue to sell commodities in order so that they are able to purchase electricity.  I guess one could argue that one could just steal everything, but with corporations at the most powerful they've ever been in world history, in the early stages of revolution, sustaining an anarchist society entirely by theft is just not plausible.  

Do you have a source of income, Steve?

[Renan]

Steve, on 28 September 2011 - 09:36 PM, said:

If something is being created to be exchanged, and therefore has value, even if that exchange is merely barter, then it is a commodity.

But the point of producing a commodity isn´t mainly because of the profit involved in the exchange?
Only through profit that capital can be produced in the exchange, right?

[Black Cat]

Steve, on 28 September 2011 - 09:36 PM, said:

Anything can be a commodity. What makes a thing a commodity is the way people relate to it. If something is being created to be exchanged, and therefore has value, even if that exchange is merely barter, then it is a commodity.

This is precisely the problem with the Left's obsession with democracy. The very reason why workers council failed in the past is because they focused on the form of management of the economy, rather than understanding the economy itself is what needs to be abolished. In fact, I would go so far as to say that workers councils are the forms capital takes in its last straw attempts to keep itself around.

Marxist theory says something similar, if I remember right, but don't hold me accountable for it. Workers councils are not the last stage in the revolution according to Marxist theory, aren't they? They need to be abolished too in the end. Or maybe I'm mixing this up with something else.

God, it's too long that I read about this. I'm a bit lost, I have to say.

Fine, I thought a commodity was something along those lines although the translation I have isn't clear. But then I don't understand what could replace an economy with commodity goods, because every kind of distribution of goods would be based on exchanging those goods, wouldn't it? Someone produces corn, someone else has a mill, they both exchange their goods/work and get corn flour out of it. What's wrong with that, if both of them and everyone else in the community have the same say in the whole process and why does this necessarily have to lead to a system, where one ends up oppressing the other?