The reason Marx did not write a lot about what communism would look like
was that he was not in the business of prognostication. He invented
scientific socialism and the word scientific is very important. Science
is a way to determine what is true and it does not make value
judgements. Value judgements must come from a philosophical position and
then science can be used to advance the goals of one's philosophy. Marx
did, as I said, do some speculating about how it might work out in the
Gundresse, but it was only speculation based on the logic of the things
he was proposing. Furthermore, if anyone else tries to pin down exactly
how communism will work in its particulars they are speculating too and
if they claim that it is a prediction rather than a speculation then
they are essentially engaging in fortune telling. I think there are two
things to remember about this. The first is to remember what the
definition of communism is. That is, it is an economic arrangement in
which the members of a community perform labor on nature to produce
wealth and the wealth is shared with the community as a whole allocating
the wealth on a basis of what each community member needs and if any
wealth is left over it is allocated on the basis of what is wanted by
each community member or if all of them want it then it is distributed
equally. The specifics of how that is worked out has to be figured out
when it is time to implement them. The second thing to remember is what
Trotsky said about our goals. That is, our goal is to maximize man's
power over nature and to minimize man's power over man. Again, this is a
very open ended goal and no matter how close we get to it we will most
likely always have work to do in figuring out how to get even closer to
it. But at every step along the way it is necessary to assess the
reality that surrounds us and to develop theories based on that reality
and to act accordingly. Another way to describe the acting accordingly
is that experiments must be performed to test the theories. Then the new
reality must be reassessed to form newer and better theories. This the
scientific approach to reaching our goals. Let me also point out that
Marx did not actually live to see revolutions happen to which scientific
principles could be applied toward building communism. He did see the
revolutions of 1848 and a lot of his writings involve criticizing them
for not achieving what they had the potential to achieve because there
was no well organized scientific revolutionary vanguard. He also saw the
Paris commune and he wrote about the mistakes of the anarchist vanguard
in that revolution that led to their defeat. In fact, much of Lenin's
State and Revolution was based on Marx's The Civil War In France. After
Marx's death, though, there did come the Russian revolution and before
it was overthrown by the Stalinist betrayal there was a lot of things
being done to bring a greater freedom to the workers than they had had
in history. That gives some clues as to how some kinds of coordination
can be worked out. Then there are subsequent revolutions that give even
more clues. But it is not something that can be done overnight and there
is still much to be learned. Just remember that communism is a never
ending struggle that has to take into account an ever changing reality.
Now, since you mentioned A People's History of Science let me point out
something about the author. Cliff Conner is a former comrade of mine and
he has some writings that were published by Pathfinder Press. I don't
know how he came to leave the party, but he is outside of it now and so
it would be more than just difficult for him to get any further books to
be published by Pathfinder and so this book was published by Nation
Books. Do remember, though, that Cliff Conner is a Marxist and I am sure
that he is much better at explaining Marxist concepts than I am. Like I
said, I do not claim to be an expert on anything. And I will defer to
Cliff Conner in explaining Marxism. I don't know at what point one
becomes an expert, but Cliff comes much closer than I do.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in
telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after
death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst
out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement,
and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how
wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous
something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 11/21/2018 11:12 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
This is interesting now that we're getting more specific.
Marx did not say alot about what a Communist society would look like. So has anyone else written up something fleshing out these ideas? I think a lot of this could, or would, be automated, at least for recurring needs like food, clothes, and such. I wouldn't expect a fully detailed plan, but it seems reasonable to suspect that someone has put down some thoughts on the subject. I'd be interested in reading something if you know of it.
By the way, on a completely different subject, this People's History of Science is very good. It is also quite long, so it'll take me some time to finish it, but it is quite revealing.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 8:29 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: about Real News
The method of planning an economy on a worldwide basis is to not put the
planning in too few hands. People on local levels would have to
determine and project their needs and project how much they can actually
produce and then coordinate these plans with producers and consumers on
other local levels. This idea that you have of some individuals in some
ministry making all the decisions would, of course, not work very well.
And the exact methods of working out the coordination would have to be
developed. Since this kind of economy would have to be born out of
capitalism I expect that a lot of the coordination methods of capitalism
would be used, at least at first, with the difference that it would be
done with human needs in mind rather than profit. And also remember that
I keep saying that the goal is an open ended goal. Perfection may never
be reached, but learning how to do it would be a process that would lead
to it getting better as time went by. And remember, just because
planning and sharing is done on a worldwide basis that does not mean
that all distribution and production would have to be done on a
worldwide basis all the time. If a shoe factory exists in one corner of
North America those shoes do not necessarily have to be shipped to
China. It would be more efficient to distribute them locally and let a
shoe factory in China supply the shoes there. That is, the location of
the cheap labor would not be a factor. Then if the need for a product
made only in China arose in South America shipping from China could be
done until a factory was built in South America. And, of course,
emergency distribution networks could be set up for, just in case, there
was a hurricane in Florida that wiped out productive capacity there then
goods could be transported in from wherever they were available.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 11/18/2018 9:24 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
I see. But honestly, I am skeptical that any group of people can plan a system as complicated as the world economy. The current global economy is extremely complicated. Even if you strip out complex financial transactions, you have an enormous number of goods that need to get to over 7 billion people. And it's not just the final goods, it's all the parts that need to get to where they will be put together into those final products.
I just don't believe that a modern global economy can be planned. At least, that is, with humans of normal intelligence, even using computers much more powerful than we have now.
If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, and I'll admit it. But I'll admit I'm wrong when I see it working.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2018 8:46 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: about Real News
Yes, of course. I keep telling you that we would not want to go back to
primitive communism. It would be unworkable now anyway. The economic
system itself is the only just and fair one, but given our current
situation we would want to adopt a system in which the economy was
planned on a worldwide basis with human needs in mind instead of profit
for a very few who do not produce. Primitive communism is not a planned
economy and it is just how a group of people automatically organize
themselves for their mutual benefit. Organizing with planning and
considered intention will work much better.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 11/13/2018 9:12 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Okay, so "it was the only economic system for the very largest portion of
the existence of humanity."
That was a hell of a long time ago. Things are radically different now. A lot more people, massive technological advance, many other things are very different.
Don't you think maybe we could come up with something a little better than what was current before Stonehenge was on the drawing board?
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 8:13 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: about Real News
Again, it was the only economic system for the very largest portion of
the existence of humanity. As for who or where it has been tried lately,
again, it is a goal. And, again, it is an open ended goal.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 11/8/2018 3:21 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Okay, then the word Communism and its relatives have been quite abused apparently.
So where has Communism been tried lately, and how has it worked out.
Never mind Cuba, since you say that it isn't Communist. So who actually has tried to implement it lately?
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2018 2:33 PM
To: blind-democracy
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: about Real News
You are naming some people who I do not even consider communists, but
even among the several varieties of Stalinists they never claimed to be
trying communism. Even they held communism to be a goal.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 11/3/2018 9:37 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Well, there are some people who have said they were trying it. In China, Russia, Vietnam, Cambodia, et cetera.
Were all these people using the wrong word when they said they were trying to implement Communism? Mao, Lenin, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot?
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2018 9:30 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Evan Reese
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: about Real News
Evan wrote in part: "but it would have to be a new economic theory, not
one that
has failed every single time it has been tried, as Communism has."
Other than the very large majority of time that humans existed, that
time before the rise of class society, just when and where has communism
ever been tried?
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 11/1/2018 5:01 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Well, I guess I would have to agree with you that I would be in favor of replacing our current economic system with a better one. But perhaps we might disagree in that I do not believe that better economic system has been invented yet. And, I am doubtful that any economic system could work any better than one similar to what we have now, given the nature of people.
I am thinking that perhaps a better economic system is out there, but not for humans as we are currently constituted, given, as I said, that hierarchy seems to be wired into us at the genetic level. I am open to being proved wrong about this, but it would have to be a new economic theory, not one that has failed every single time it has been tried, as Communism has.
Now if technology ever advances to the point where material scarcity is eliminated, then people would not have to work to obtain food and shelter, and as much entertainment and information as they can shake a stick at. There are people who believe that that is actually coming. If that ever does happen, then perhaps a better economic system will replace the one we have now. Who knows? It might even look something like Communism. Until that time, I think we have to work toward improving the system we have.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2018 4:43 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: about Real News
That's because you don't know what I really think. You and Evan make assumptions about what I think by contrasting the words I write with your point of view. But I would absolutely be in favor of replacing our current economic system with a better one. I'm not sure that State Socialism would be the one I'd choose, but then, I don't claim to have expertise in that sort of thing. But what you are sensing is that I think that we have to be realistic and work with what we have toward a complete change. If you listen to Alan Nearn on today's Democracy Now, he's describing what I think we need to do right now. We can't ignore the political system we have, no matter how bad the corporate Democrats are, they are not the outlaw gangster party that the Republicans have become. So yes, I think that people need to do what Bernie Sanders is trying to do. At the same time, I think there needs to be organizing outside of the system and building of movements. The difference between you and me is that you have studied Marxism and you see history and change necessarily through a Marxist framework. My ideas of cooperation and socialism are unschooled and much less doctrinaire. But I do listen to Richard Wolfe each week who's a Marxist economist and is attempting to teach his version of Marxism to the masses, and when I listen to Brian Becker on Loud and Cleare, I'm being influenced by him. He's clearly a socialist organizer. I don't know which socialist sect, but he's interpreting facts according to socialist theory. And I don't have any problem with either of them. I'm liberal, in the old fashioned sense, being willing to learn and read various points of view, well, some points of view. But as I've mentioned numerous times, I'm rebellious, and I don't fit neatly into foxes, not the Jewish box or the Caucasian box, (I did racially integrate my family), or the suburban box, (I love nature but I hate the suburbs and I'm now living in a place that I despise), or the old woman box.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2018 3:10 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Evan Reese <mentat1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: about Real News
I don't think I ever used the phrase true leftist. When I mention liberalism I usually call it bourgeois liberalism and contrast it to radicalism. I call it bourgeois liberalism because it is a bourgeois ideology. That is, it defends or assumes the permanence of the current class system, capitalism. It is an ideology that concentrates on making the system somehow nicer without any perspective at all of replacing it.
Radicalism, on the other hand, proposes the complete replacement of capitalism. By that measure I have never known Miriam to be anything but a bourgeois liberal.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 10/30/2018 9:10 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Haha, a liberal instead of a true leftist. I like that. It is
certainly easy to get overly concerned about labels.
I've been writing too much here. I need a break.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 9:04 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: about Real News
Evan,
I feel like we are arguing instead of talking. I'm not sure that I've
always said negative things about our country on this list. Of course,
I've been here for at least 11 years and I was on it for a few years
previous to those eleven years. And it's difficult for me to know how
what I write comes across. I've had debates with various folks on the
list before. Roger has often accused me of being a liberal rather than
a true leftist. Carl and I have quibbled over whether or not to use
the term, "middle class", in certain contexts. I use the term. He does
not. I once got into trouble with someone who is no longer on the list
because I said that I didn't think the White House should have a
Christmas tree lighting because I thought that a Christmas tree is a
symbol of a religious holiday and we are supposed to have a separation
between church and state. I've had differences with Richard over a
number of things, specifically, the Koch Brothers about whom his
feelings are more positive than mine. Frank and I have quarreled about
the Green Party and about Bernie Sanders. So certainly, I've had
disagreements with folks. But I don't think that I was accused of
being negative. You've indicated that all of us on the list sound
negative and you do remind me of Ted. Ted was a list member for many
years and he was kind of politically in the center. He'd been farther
right politically previously.
He left the list and accused us all of being, "left wing radicals"
which, to
him was a very negative thing to be. I think that perhaps, you mean
somewhat the same thing when you call me, or us, negative.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 8:09 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: about Real News
Hmmm, if you think I have ever said that people should only say good
things about our country or our economic system, you just aren't
reading what I've said.
There is a huge difference between being critical and being ONLY
critical.
That's the difference between me and most people here.
If you take all my messages together, you will find that I have been
critical, but not only critical. By the same token, if you take all my
messages together, you will find that I have been positive, but not
only positive. Any positive thing you say is grudging at best, and
only after serious prodding. That is a very large difference.
Evan
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 6:31 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: about Real News
You know, a Democracy requires varying opinions, dissent, give and
take. You are defining criticism as being negative. Paul Jay isn't
negative. He runs a news organization which is attempting to give
balanced, honest reporting of local, national, and international news
to people. He's describing, in part of this Q &A, his view of the real
issues in our country. Being critical of what is happening and trying
to make things better for people is actually what good citizens should
do. I don't want to be insulting, but in a way, you're sounding like
Mr. Trump who thinks that everyone around him, including the press,
should say only positive things about him and what he's doing. You
think that everyone in the US should say only positive things about
our economic system. I note that in your response to Mary's email
before, you mentioned something about how the Scandanavian countries
do more for the, I think you said, "unfortunate people", in their
population.
Maybe
that wasn't the word, but you ad the population divided up. The point
is that we need to have a society where people are treated equally
well and have equal access to goods and services, regardless of their
backgrounds or particular skill sets. We all need good medical care,
adequate housing, nourishing food. There's no reason for one person to
own 5 homes with full staffs in each while some people are homeless
and starving.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 5:27 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: about Real News
Well if you agree with it I'm sure it'll be all negative then.
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 4:44 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] about Real News
I just forwarded a digest. I recommend you listen to the discussion
between Ben Norton and Paul Jay. Paul Jay describes are current
political and economic situation in a way with which I pretty much
agree.
Miriam
