Your Views Regarding Communism?

[Ederico]

What are your views regarding Communism? I personally am against it as I find it an Ideology based on Conflict between Social Classes that should be part of the same National and Racial Collective Community. The Bourgoisie and the Proletariat can compromise for the advancement of the whole of the Community and not seek to control each other either through Capitalism which gives control to Capitalist and through Communism which seeks to destroy all those who take part in Private Initiative for the supposed benefit of the Proletarian Class.

I am highly interested in Communism, so I am highly interested in your views about it.

[Legio_Melita]

i am against it, as it induces social-class related conflicts, but it supports the idea of multi-racial communities...i mean, does it make sense that all races are equal but there should be high distinctions between social classes?

[Ederico]

No it does not make sense to create Social Class conflict between people of the same Race and then supporting a Multi-Racial Society which eventually leads to the rise of Racism which will eventually destroy Egalitarian Thought and Society.

I believe Communism is an Economic Theory, Egalitarianism is not a direct feature of Communism. Workers Of All The World Unite, does not mean Workers Of All The World Unite Move Around And Mix, it means a Co-Operation between the Workers of varying Nationalities and Races. The stand some Communists take for Open Borders, Egalitarianism, and Anti-Racism. Such Communists are Race Traitors and they simply want to be Revolutionary in the sense that they want to change every aspect of Society whatever it is. Most of such Communists are probably rebellious youth, and if they are not, they are Traitors to the Nation and Race.

[88and308]

Communism advocates the distribution of wealth because it does not acknowledge a heirarchy in human society.

To a communist, no one is "better" than anyone else, therefore no one should starve while someone else is eating well, and of course this applies to the different races as well as individuals.

Of course, we know that some people are more productive--more useful--than others, so this element of communism is proven wrong just by observation.

A National Socialist does not consider "bourgeousie and proletariat", but rather sees all people of its national group to be "workers", whether "blue-collar" or "white-collar." All productive members of the society should benefit from the wealth created by the workers. In particular, the worker who actually produced the wealth should get a significant part of that wealth...right now, the worker gets a mere fraction, forcing him to work two jobs to make ends meet (this, in the US) The worker gets most, the company gets some, and the State gets the rest. All of this is coordinated by groups comprised of the Worker, the Company/Industry, and the State.

Modern Capitalists only understand those who work for "greed," (self-interests) and cannot fathom the idea of men who work/advocate for the good of the Nation. Thus the nature of the jew is exposed for its effect on White men.

A more productive worker, gets more wealth. Under communism, it doesn't matter if you work hard or not...you get the wage the State pays you. (Of course, if you don't work as hard as you should, you might get a bullet!)

[Ederico]

I believe in Worker's Rights which guarantee the Proletarian a decent Working Environment and a decent Livelihood, therefore some Redistribution of Wealth is necessary because the Capitalist gains all the Surplus Value produced by the work of the Worker or Proletarian.

The Capitalist in a Capitalist System gains all the Surplus Value created by the Worker, while the Worker is as Communists say enslaved by Wage Labour which is antagonistic to Capital.

I would like to know what is this Surplus Value and what is exactly Capital? Is Capital equal to Profit which is then re-used by the Capitalist in his activity?

Under National Socialism the Capitalist and the Worker co-operate together for the benefit of both, this necessitates that the Workers are not antagonistic to the Capitalist and follow the Capitalist's direction, but it also necessitates that the Capitalist does not exploit the Worker. In order to do this the Surplus Value created by the work of the Worker under the direction of the Capitalist, which is Capital (or not?) and Wealth must be redistributed by the State between the Worker and the Capitalist to ensure that the Income Inequality between the Capitalist and the Worker is not to severe that the Capitalist drowns in Wealth while the Worker can barely sustain himself.

How would the Redistribution of Wealth happen under a National Socialist System? I find the idea of Worker's Co-Operatives and Worker's Self-Management in certain Industries to be valuable. The State should impose a Minimum Wage which guarantees that the Worker on Minimum Wage has the means to subsistance, but it must be a Minimum Wage which is not too high otherwise the effects of such a Minimum Wage could be of an increased Inflation due to the Purchasing Power of the Worker which could result in Excessive Demand related to Supply, which would create Demand-Pull Inflation. The State should own Organisations which offer required services and the main industries of the Nation, and the State should also venture in Creating and Organising non-essential Organisations for a Profit where the Profit is partly redistributed to the Workers as an Incentive, partly retained as Statal Revenues and partly re-invested in the Organisation as Capital.

[Francis_Benson]

I am against capitalism. The moral justification of communism lies in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve the common good. It does not, however, provide motivation for that goal. Capitalism on the other hand does provide for the common good not on an altruistic principle but on the fact that it is consonant with man's rational.

[Ederico]

I am against Free Market Capitalism myself although I would retain Private Initiative in the Economy especially in small businesses and not major industries. How is Capitalism consonant with man's rational and what does this exactly mean?

The State must intervene in the Economy to safeguard the Common Advancement of the Nation and Race, that is why I am a Socialist Economically.

[88and308]

I would like to know what is this Surplus Value and what is exactly Capital? Is Capital equal to Profit which is then re-used by the Capitalist in his activity?

"Surplus Value" is the difference between what a product costs (only in terms of parts, not labor) to make, and its selling price on the market.

For example, a chair might use $ 5 in wood to make, and another $ 1 in expenses (electricity, factory, etc) totaling $ 6...

The owner then takes the chair to the market, where it is sold for $ 20...this $ 14 is "surplus value" (as used by NS)...it is not profit.

"Profit" is what is left of the $14 after labor costs are subtracted. In a capitalist economy, the worker who built the chair might get $3...leaving $11 profit for the owner to divide between the company, the investors, and himself. (In a "corporation" which I believe is "Inc." or "Ltd.") the owner will either pay himself a salary, or pay his manager a salary....but in a small, "Mom and Pop" business, Mom and Pop can dip into the till whenever they feel like it.

I don't have a problem with this, except for the fact the worker only gets $3 for a $14 (net) product...if the chair he makes is worth $14, then he should get a good chunk of that wealth...perhaps not 50%, but still more than 10% (which is typical for the US worker) (My example shows a 20% earning)

Under NS, the worker gets the largest portion of the surplus value (as I read it, more than 50%, or at least the largest piece of the several interested parties...for example, worker gets 40%, company gets 30%, owner/company gets 20%, investors get 10%.)

It violates NS principles for someone to get money for not working...such as with the owner of businesses, who (in this example) make $11/chair, nearly 4 times what the worker himself makes.

"Capital" is the means to produce goods...cash, buildings/factories/machinery, etc. Often the profits of a company is re-inveested to obtain more "capital" (ie, more buildings to make more products)

How would the Redistribution of Wealth happen under a National Socialist System?

There is no "redistribution of wealth" under NS. The wealth that a worker produces stays with the worker. If anything, capitalism forces improper distribution because the owner controls the vault, and refuses to give to the worker what is his.

In order to do this the Surplus Value created by the work of the Worker under the direction of the Capitalist, which is Capital (or not?) and Wealth must be redistributed by the State between the Worker and the Capitalist to ensure that the Income Inequality between the Capitalist and the Worker is not to severe that the Capitalist drowns in Wealth while the Worker can barely sustain himself.

"Income inequality" is not important to NS. What is important is the amount of wages for the amount of work...An owner does very little in actual production of wealth (although he may organize and direct it) so he should get very little in the way of wages...now if we accept the idea that an owner can "skim" 10% of the surplus value from a product (using the chair example, this means $ 1.40/chair) then if he employs 10 people he will get $14 for their labor...if he employs 100 he gets $140....the more useful he is to society (employing 100 people instead of just 10) he gets more wages...and the worker can achieve the NS dream.

*******************

Under capitalism, an owner who employs 10 workers (making $3/chair) sees his wages as $11/chair...totaling $110 for his ten employees.


Worker = $3

Owner = $110

And if he employs 100, it becomes clear he is "drowning in wealth", and does very little for his employees, relative to their wages...and of course does not work alongside them, but rather "pushes papers", creating no work at all. (In the US military jargon, he becomes a "force multiplier," not actually contributing to the work effort, but by his organizational/command skills, creates the opportunity to create wealth)

Worker = $3

Owner = $1100

This is outrageous....

************************

Now under NS, the proper, healthy balances would be...

Worker = $7

Owner (10 workers) = $ 14

and with 100...

Worker = $7

Owner = $ 140

For the worker, $7 is more than twice the wages he was paid under non-NS capitalism...Now the issue becomes "price controls", especially for rents/land prices. That's another thread.

************************

I find the idea of Worker's Co-Operatives and Worker's Self-Management in certain Industries to be valuable.

In fact, this is what happened under the Reich...major industries (farming, manufacturing, etc) had industry-specific "councils" which included labor, management, and State represetatives...between the three of them they decided things like prices, wages, and production levels.

The State should own Organisations which offer required services and the main industries of the Nation, and the State should also venture in Creating and Organising non-essential Organisations for a Profit where the Profit is partly redistributed to the Workers as an Incentive, partly retained as Statal Revenues and partly re-invested in the Organisation as Capital.

In the Reich the State got directly involved only when the particular industry would likely fail to show a profit, yet provided a needed service/product...the publishing industry and the development of low-grade iron ore, for example.

[Ederico]

Originally posted by 88and308
"Surplus Value" is the difference between what a product costs (only in terms of parts, not labor) to make, and its selling price on the market.

Thanks a lot.

Surplus Value is the difference between a Unit's Selling Price and its Cost Price excluding the Cost of Wage Labour per Unit.

I do not know if you know any accounting but those Surplus Value equals Gross Profit per Unit?

"Profit" is what is left of the $14 after labor costs are subtracted.

I sense that this is Net Profit per Unit, or not?

In a capitalist economy, the worker who built the chair might get $3...leaving $11 profit for the owner to divide between the company, the investors, and himself. (In a "corporation" which I believe is "Inc." or "Ltd.") the owner will either pay himself a salary, or pay his manager a salary....but in a small, "Mom and Pop" business, Mom and Pop can dip into the till whenever they feel like it.

Thanks. I already knew how different Private Organisations distibute their Profits.

Limited Liability Companies either Private or Public (whose Shares are available on the Stock Exchange) distibute Profit that will not be re-used as Capital the subsequent Financial Year, to Shareholders (the Owners of the Company) through Share Dividend. The distribution of the Profit is at the discretion of the Directors and not by the Shareholders. Shareholders simply confirm or remove Directors at Annual General Meetings generally.

Partnership and Sole Traders distribute Profit the way the Owners find appropriate.

I don't have a problem with this, except for the fact the worker only gets $3 for a $14 (net) product...if the chair he makes is worth $14, then he should get a good chunk of that wealth...perhaps not 50%, but still more than 10% (which is typical for the US worker) (My example shows a 20% earning)

I agree with your consideration.

Under NS, the worker gets the largest portion of the surplus value (as I read it, more than 50%, or at least the largest piece of the several interested parties...for example, worker gets 40%, company gets 30%, owner/company gets 20%, investors get 10%.)

Do you know exactly how this System functioned in the Third Reich?

It violates NS principles for someone to get money for not working...such as with the owner of businesses, who (in this example) make $11/chair, nearly 4 times what the worker himself makes.

This violates my principles as well. That is obvious since I am a National Socialist.

"Capital" is the means to produce goods...cash, buildings/factories/machinery, etc. Often the profits of a company is re-inveested to obtain more "capital" (ie, more buildings to make more products)

Thanks. I knew what Capital meant but I thought Communists put some other meaning to it.

There is no "redistribution of wealth" under NS. The wealth that a worker produces stays with the worker. If anything, capitalism forces improper distribution because the owner controls the vault, and refuses to give to the worker what is his.

The Wealth (Surplus Value?) the Worker produces stays with the Worker through what method? Is it the Distribution of Surplus Value decided at a Company Level or does the National Socialist State decide the on a National Level through legislation what Surplus Value portion is required to be given to the Worker.

"Income inequality" is not important to NS. What is important is the amount of wages for the amount of work...An owner does very little in actual production of wealth (although he may organize and direct it) so he should get very little in the way of wages...now if we accept the idea that an owner can "skim" 10% of the surplus value from a product (using the chair example, this means $ 1.40/chair) then if he employs 10 people he will get $14 for their labor...if he employs 100 he gets $140....the more useful he is to society (employing 100 people instead of just 10) he gets more wages...and the worker can achieve the NS dream.

I do not understand one thing is One Chair the result of One Worker's Work in this example?

Under capitalism, an owner who employs 10 workers (making $3/chair) sees his wages as $11/chair...totaling $110 for his ten employees.


Worker = $3

Owner = $110

And if he employs 100, it becomes clear he is "drowning in wealth", and does very little for his employees, relative to their wages...and of course does not work alongside them, but rather "pushes papers", creating no work at all. (In the US military jargon, he becomes a "force multiplier," not actually contributing to the work effort, but by his organizational/command skills, creates the opportunity to create wealth)

Worker = $3

Owner = $1100

This is outrageous....

It is outrageous

Now under NS, the proper, healthy balances would be...

Worker = $7

Owner (10 workers) = $ 14

and with 100...

Worker = $7

Owner = $ 140

For the worker, $7 is more than twice the wages he was paid under non-NS capitalism...Now the issue becomes "price controls", especially for rents/land prices. That's another thread.

Start that thread this is interesting.

In fact, this is what happened under the Reich...major industries (farming, manufacturing, etc) had industry-specific "councils" which included labor, management, and State represetatives...between the three of them they decided things like prices, wages, and production levels.

Perhaps we should start new threads on how these Councils functioned.

In the Reich the State got directly involved only when the particular industry would likely fail to show a profit, yet provided a needed service/product...the publishing industry and the development of low-grade iron ore, for example.

So the Major Industries where still under Private Control?

[88and308]

I do not know if you know any accounting but those Surplus Value equals Gross Profit per Unit?


I sense that this is Net Profit per Unit, or not?

Don't know either of these terms, but they do sound about right...for this thread we could presume so.

Limited Liability Companies either Private or Public (whose Shares are available on the Stock Exchange) distibute Profit that will not be re-used as Capital the subsequent Financial Year, to Shareholders (the Owners of the Company) through Share Dividend. The distribution of the Profit is at the discretion of the Directors and not by the Shareholders. Shareholders simply confirm or remove Directors at Annual General Meetings generally.

...Unless Andrew Fastow (the jew who screwed Enron) is at work somewhere in the company... .SMARTASS

Do you know exactly how this System (worker getting the largest %) functioned in the Third Reich?

Not the specifics...what I know comes from "Nazi-Sozi" (Dr. Goebbles) and/or "Tragedy and Hope" (C. Quigley) I'm always looking for detailed reports of how the 3R functioned, economically. Too often I will read simplistic statements like "Hitler used unconventional methods for financing..."

So the Major Industries where still under Private Control?

Yes, very much so! The only major industry that was under Reich control (iirc) was the banking system....and this was only for a few years (3? 4?) after AH took power...then it reverted to private control. Again, I am using "Tragedy and Hope" as a source...I am told this (the lack of State control) was one of the big deciding factors in the split of the NS party between Hitler(the "right wing" of NS) and Strasser (the "left wing"). I am still looking into these allegations...

Incidentally, "Tragedy and Hope" is a pretty thorough history of modern times...and it provides evidence for what is known as "conspiracy theories."

Yes, Virginia, there are secret groups (in particular, the international bankers) who create specific events to usher in a New World Order...Hitler, of course, was a major "wrench" in their plans.

But I digress...