Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Albatross wrote:I think a large part of this problem is the tendency for socialist academics to treat the 'proletariat' as children. Telling people what is good for them and imposing it upon them rarely ends well. It's just paternalism. Modern capitalist society works because everyone has equal opportunity for education, and accumulation of wealth. We have a choice.

That is so wrong as to border on being delusional.

Right, first off, cut that gak out. Seriously. You seem to do it in every thread in which you post. If you continue in this way I can see your time here being pretty short. Yes, there's the odd bit of snide floating around occasionally, that's par for the course, but you're just being a cock for the sake of it.

First, I have to laugh at the notion that "socialist academics" treat the proletariat like children. I'm not denying it, but it's just funny coming from someone defending capitalism, since the capitalists literally treat the proletariat like dogs, expecting mindless obediance and undying loyalty in exchange for table scraps and a place at the foot of their master's bed.

Use the word 'literally' correctly. I live in a modern capitalist nation (i.e. capitalist economy tempered by state-imposed social mechanisms such as education, National Insurance) - the captains of industry here in the UK do not make me live in a kennel, eat from a bowl on the floor, or take me for regular walks.

I think you mean 'figuratively' instead of literally.

Also, you completely ignored my point which is that communist regimes are notable for excessive paternalism (amongst other things), to a far greater extent than is found in a modern capitalist country like the UK. It's for this reason that I would RATHER live under the capitalist system than the communist. It's a preference. For some reason you seem to have me confused with someone who advocates end-state anarcho-capitalism.

It think it might be because you find such people easier to rant at. And let's be honest, you like ranting.

Second, capitalism does not offer choice, especially not regarding education -- it wasn't until working people began rising up against the new aristocracy of the capitalist class and threatening revolution that the system of public education was developed, and without public education the proletariat is entirely at the mercy of the capitalist class. One can look to the libertarians, with their head-in-the-sky ideas about private education for all, for an example of the sort of "choice" that a pure capitalist system would give workers. The children of the poor would pay (almost certainly overpay) for the educational equivalent of a Happy Meal from McDonalds, an education permeated with advertising and pro-consumption messaging, thus ensuring the concretization of class division and the permenant supremacy of the capitalist class.

Yeah, cool story Pancho Villa, but it didn't quite go down like that here. Also, please note that we aren't talking about the 18th or 19th centuries, we're talking about now. Advanced capitalist societies in the west offer a pretty wide choice in terms of education. And again, you seem to be making the assumption that I'm advocating anarcho-capitalism as opposed to communism.

Modern capitalist society barely works (notice the massive recessions we keep having? Notice they keep getting worse? It's because capitalism fundamentally does not work), and the sole reason it kinda works is because of the massive state sponsored quasi-socialist programs developed by Liberal parties to mitigate the extreme effects of the massive poverty creation engendered by capitalism.

Right, now you're just being hysterical. To say that modern capitalist society 'barely works'... We enjoy unparalleled standards of living in the west, we spend more on boredom than the most of the third world does on food, and our poorest citizens are often our most obese. No-one is starving here in Britain. I guess my answer to your 'point' is that it works for me. Past that I don't care.

You could have said that modern capitalist society is 'finely-balanced' and I would have agreed with you. You could also have said 'it only really benefits wealthy nations' and I would have agreed with you.

But I'm guessing subtlety isn't your strong suit.

It doesn't change anything - I would still rather live under a modern capitalist system and have (arguably) limited choices, than under a communist society and have no choices.

I really don't hear about many people from a Capitalist society risking thier lives jumping the fence to live in a Communist one.
On the other hand, I lived around and worked with quite a few people that have risked their liberty and lives to get out of Communist societies to live in the good ole' repressive, capitalist, U.S.A.

Kragura wrote:A few of you might remember way back when (like 1 month ago) I started a thread on dakka's view of communism to take some viewpoint from a mostly unbiased and fair group. well although dakka's view on it was resoundingly negative It did not deter me from further learning and research and now I am unapologetically communist and as a thought exercise for me I would like to know if dakka could give me it's viewpoint once more and I will try to stand-up for my new belief's.

So without further adieu, ask away.

What sort of Communist are you? I mean, I'll obviously give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not some type of Stalinist, but should we be grilling you on Trotsky? Adorno? Horkheimer?

It would also be worth noting whether or not you're in favor of the end results of Marx's Communism, the stateless society, the revolution of the proletariat meant to bring that about, or both.

Relapse wrote:I really don't hear about many people from a Capitalist society risking thier lives jumping the fence to live in a Communist one.
On the other hand, I lived around and worked with quite a few people that have risked their liberty and lives to get out of Communist societies to live in the good ole' repressive, capitalist, U.S.A.

It used to happen quite a lot before their economies collapsed in the 80s. It's not a surprise that you didn't hear about it much if you think about it. Nobody want's that kind of thing promoted.

Monster Rain wrote:Communism is a nice idea.

It utterly fails in practice though.

See, I'm not even sure its a nice idea. Marx's argument is essentially this:

Step 1 - Revolution!

Step 2 - ?

Step 3 - Utopia!

The dude made many methodological contributions to economics, and it can even be argued that he is the father of social science as we know it today, but his Communist project really wasn't all that well thought out.

Guitardian wrote:I think there is a false association between communism as an economic/social model for the usage of resources, and the totalitarian regimes responsible for the gulag, or the 1984 mentality. It isn't necessary to have harsh social control and human rights violations, in order to evenly distribute resources amongst a population. They are unrelated concepts, it just so happens that the previously mentioned 'big evil' commie states happen to coincide with communism.

I'm not sure I agree with you there. I think there are ideological concepts frequently found in communist/socialist (I consider the former a subset of the later, ideologically) thought that do greatly increase the likelihood of dictatorship and tyranny arising. For instance, I've read an excerpt by some socialist (one of the Fabian essays?) that essentially decried the concept of individual rights entirely, instead declaring that all legitimate rights must come from "society", which always expresses its will through the state. There's also the belief that the people who exist today are the "product of capitalism", and so are a greedy, stupid, lesser race of people when compared with the selfless, smart, enlightened products of socialism. Such a belief leads to the devaluation of the lives of those currently living, which I have little doubt contributed to the death toll during transitions to socialist forms of political economy. You occasionally have the (mostly Marxist) belief that "class consciousness" will lead to universal agreement about social/political/economic decisions (because these beliefs are dictated by their material circumstances; i.e. their economic class). Thus, if a person of the working class disagrees with socialist(/Marxist) ideology, this cannot because the person truly have a different view of morality or of the state of the capitalist system, but must be because they've been corrupted by capitalism, and are betraying their brothers, despite knowing the truth (which means it's gulag time). And any heavily centralized system tends to become increasingly authoritarian to each individual, as they become less and less powerful compared to the collective. Centralized socialism, then, has pitfalls here. I'm sure there are other ideological aspects of socialism that I think have a tendency to lead to tyranny, but I think you can see the point I'm trying to make.

Now, you may rightly ask if these ideological traits that lead towards oppression are an inherent extension of the ideology's economic/political theories. I would say that in some cases there isn't much of a connection; for instance, I never considered Marx's theories of class consciousness to be a vital part of (non-Marxian) socialist theory. However, the idea of individual rights can be a thornier one. As far as I can tell most modern socialists aren't as inclined to reject the idea of individual rights, but the right to possess the product of one's own labor is generally considered to be the big one. If a person has the right to own the product of their own labor, and to trade, and enter into contracts, then you have what a lot of people would consider the foundation of capitalism. With Marx's exploitation theory pretty badly mangled by the modern understanding of interest as (in part, at least) the product of time-preference, it becomes increasingly difficult to hold the position that the lease of capital goods leads to the confiscation of value that is rightfully the product of those who work with the capital. Rejection of a right to the product of one's labor ends this pretty quickly, but generally leads to the reputation of the rest of any other individual rights which make socialism difficult as well (not to mention it weakens many of their moral arguments against capitalism itself!). The gulf between the capitalist untermensch and the socialist ubermensch is another one that sort of necessarily forms whenever a socialist argues that all of the technical problems of socialism will be solved by the new golden age of selflessness and reason (not that I find these arguments convincing anyways. If everyone was selfless and reasonable, anarcho-capitalism could work just as easily. Hell, nearly anything could. It's just lazy).

So, I guess to sum it up, I do think there are problems inherent to socialism, or at least many kinds of socialism, that will tend to lead to authoritarianism/totalitarianism. There may still be socialistic theories that are capable of avoiding these issues, for the most part, but I think they're liable to be uncommon.

Ooh, I just thought of another huge problem: the belief that capitalism cannot coexist with socialism, in terms of nations, firms, anarchistic societies, or whatever. This generally comes around in form of "capitalistic countries will always try to undermine socialistic countries out of fear for their own survival so long as they are allowed to coexist", "capitalistic firms will outcompete cooperative firms through immoral/"exploitative"/underhanded tactics, and this cannot be stopped so long as capitalistic firms are allowed the same legal status as cooperative firms", "a capitalistic society will attract people who are smart, talented, and otherwise blessed by genetics and by society, which unfairly robs a socialistic society of its assets, by having them work for themselves instead of the society they have a duty to serve", and so on. It should be pretty clear why this concept has totalitarian implications! Not to mention, makes people quite a bit more skeptical of this socialist revolution (it's one thing to say you want to change how some people do things, it's quite another to say that all people must change the way that they act at once, and that unless everyone makes that commitment no one will be able to see the wonderful utopia that would surely be created).

Likewise, Capitalism does not necessarily create 'freedom', and 'democracy' does not mean 'capitalism' either. Too often these terms get intermingled in usage giving a false sense of 'communist dictatorship' versus 'capitalist democracy' when the first word is an economical/social form and the second word is a form of government. It is quite possible to have a capitalist dictatorship (hey, money talks!).

While I think it could well be argued that capitalism, or at least certain components of capitalism, help to stave off dictatorship, I think it would be pretty hard to argue that the two are incompatible. Even Milton Friedman, a pretty ardent capitalist, believed as much, and Pinochet's regime seems to give additional support for it.

I believe we actually live in one now, under the clever disguise of a democratic right to vote (which changes very little, measured against the weight of media, money, and a public kept largely ignorant of the real issues their vote concerns) or bear arms (which could not stand up to a government crackdown) or speak freely (as if the decision makers care what one voice thinks). The united states is ruled by an often vicious, ignorant mob and the politicians who pander to it. If one is not part of that mob mentality, one is enslaved to the will of the masses, whether or not it is right or wrong. SO if it is possible to be oppressed in a capitalist society, why is it so hard to envision a free communist society?

It would seem that you've not only demonstrated that one can be oppressed in a capitalist society, but that one can, in fact, be oppressed in a democratic society. But in any case, I don't think you can make the leap from "capitalism can be oppressive" to "communism may not be oppressive". After all, fascism is pretty much always oppressive, even though you can easily have an oppressive system which isn't fascist. (I should note that I'm not saying communism necessarily is oppressive, just that I don't think your logic is sound in this case.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That post ended up a little longer than I thought it would.

Gailbraithe wrote:You want me to post pictures of Mexican workers gunned down by machine guns for meeting to discuss forming a union? That's capitalism in action. There's a whole history of that kind of thing in the 19th century, capitalists killing their own workers to keep them from self-organizing or rising up. I know that's not part of the "theory of capitalism," but the reality of capitalism is that -- without a lot of state support for workers -- capitalists find it a lot easier to just pay the government to keep an iron heel on the people's face forever. And in many third world countries, the government provides that iron heel in exchange for kickbacks from American companies.

You want me to post pictures of Soviet workers sent to a Gulag for trying to do anything in a union but agree with their bosses and turn people in? That's communism in action. Communist countries are far, far worse on labor unions than capitalist countries. If you don't believe me, tell me one law that labor unions managed to pass in spite of opposition from the ruling body. Labor unions in the US pushed for and got minimum wage, 8 hour workday, workplace safety, and a host of other things for labor. Labor unions in every communist country parroted whatever the government said for them to say, or they got shot. The fact that the non-communist world isn't perfect doesn't make the communist world any better - I'll certainly take US labor law over USSR labor law.

You keep making the mistake of posting something showing 'bad thing happened under capitalism' and acting like it means 'capitalism always does this and is bad' and further that that means 'communism is good'. You don't seem to really have anything positive to say about Communism or why you chose it, you seem to have 'bad thing happened when not communism, therefore communism is good' which doesn't work logically. Putting my hand in the blender is bad, but that doesn't mean that I should put my hand in the lawn mower.

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Communism is a nice idea.

It utterly fails in practice though.

See, I'm not even sure its a nice idea. Marx's argument is essentially this:

Step 1 - Revolution!

Step 2 - ?

Step 3 - Utopia!

The dude made many methodological contributions to economics, and it can even be argued that he is the father of social science as we know it today, but his Communist project really wasn't all that well thought out.

Yeah, that's why I was saying that at it's most basic level it's a nice idea.

The utopia part, where everyone shares and is happy. And rides a Unicorn and frolics through misty meadows sprinkling Pixie Dust hither and yon. It just never seems to work out that way.

But yes, something that requires a violent revolution probably isn't something to really push for IMHO.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:You want me to post pictures of Soviet workers sent to a Gulag for trying to do anything in a union but agree with their bosses and turn people in? That's communism in action. Communist countries are far, far worse on labor unions than capitalist countries.

That's a ridiculous claim. Both communist authoritarian states and capitalist authoritarian states deal with unions the same way: through violent oppression. Neither is worse than the other. Labor unions in democratic countries do better than labor unions in authoritarian countries, but since there is no connection between democracy and capitalism, it is ridiculous to claim that capitalism is better for labor unions. America has a wonderful history of shooting innocent people for exercising their right to free assembly.

If you don't believe me, tell me one law that labor unions managed to pass in spite of opposition from the ruling body. Labor unions in the US pushed for and got minimum wage, 8 hour workday, workplace safety, and a host of other things for labor. Labor unions in every communist country parroted whatever the government said for them to say, or they got shot. The fact that the non-communist world isn't perfect doesn't make the communist world any better - I'll certainly take US labor law over USSR labor law.

You seem to have fundamentally misunderstood my comments. I think both capitalism and communism are failures, for many reasons, some of which overlap and some of which don't. Nowhere in this thread have I ever, even once, suggested that the failures of capitalism are an endorsement of communism.

I would take the LIBERAL labor laws of the US over the AUTHORITARIAN labor laws of the USSR as well, just as I would take the LIBERAL labor laws of the US over the AUTHORITARIAN labor laws of Chile under Pinochet. Which was organized as a capitalist society.

You keep making the mistake of posting something showing 'bad thing happened under capitalism' and acting like it means 'capitalism always does this and is bad' and further that that means 'communism is good'. You don't seem to really have anything positive to say about Communism or why you chose it, you seem to have 'bad thing happened when not communism, therefore communism is good' which doesn't work logically. Putting my hand in the blender is bad, but that doesn't mean that I should put my hand in the lawn mower.

I have never said a single thing in this entire thread that could be reasonably interpretted that way. I have not made the mistake you claim I've made, because -- quite frankly -- you are not responding to my comments but some weird interprettation of them that isn't supported by the text and only exists in your own fevered mind.

Also, not once have I ever claimed to be a communist or claimed to have chosen communism. In fact, in this two page long thread I have clearly identified my position (libertarian-socialist (anarchist)).

George Spiggott wrote:

Relapse wrote:I really don't hear about many people from a Capitalist society risking thier lives jumping the fence to live in a Communist one.
On the other hand, I lived around and worked with quite a few people that have risked their liberty and lives to get out of Communist societies to live in the good ole' repressive, capitalist, U.S.A.

It used to happen quite a lot before their economies collapsed in the 80s. It's not a surprise that you didn't hear about it much if you think about it. Nobody want's that kind of thing promoted.

I just wnt to make sure I read you correctly. Are you saying people risked being machine gunned, sent to detention, etc. in droves to escape England, the U.S., Canada to live in the welcome, free, and heady climates of free thinking Red China, Russia and other communist countries?
Sorry in advance if I misunderstand. It's just that I know people that were sent to "reeducation" camps in communist countries and I laugh if that's what you are saying.

dogma wrote:See, I'm not even sure its a nice idea. Marx's argument is essentially this:

Step 1 - Revolution!

Step 2 - ?

Step 3 - Utopia!

Or alternatively:

Step 1 - Buy capital goods

Step 2 - Pay wages

Step 3 - ???

Step 4 - Profit!

Gailbraithe wrote:Also, not once have I ever claimed to be a communist or claimed to have chosen communism. In fact, in this two page long thread I have clearly identified my position (libertarian-socialist (anarchist)).

See, I would define a communist as being both an anarchist and a socialist, as you are. However, you seem to be using a different definition; do you define communism as revolutionary socialism? Marxism? Something else?

Not meaning to contest your use of it, just trying to help get some definitions clear.

Relapse wrote:I just want to make sure I read you correctly. Are you saying people risked being machine gunned, sent to detention, etc. in droves to escape England, the U.S., Canada to live in the welcome, free, and heady climates of free thinking Red China, Russia and other communist countries?
Sorry in advance if I misunderstand. It's just that I know people that were sent to "reeducation" camps in communist countries and I laugh if that's what you are saying.

Well, a lot of people from southern Vietnam ended up fighting for the north. I suppose we need to be defining exactly what "capitalist" countries are consisting of.

@Ork,

A good point you have there. I'm envisioning Capitalist countries in terms of West Europe, the U.S., Canada, etc.

Guitardian wrote:A great example is a room-mate/house-mate situation. One roommate 'owns' the TV. Does this mean he gets to only have it on when he wants to? (my little brother does this, but he's a bit nutty, I can't use his Xbox unless he wants to, because it's his, but he's a little nutty and possessive)

Well according to ownership law, yes, he is in every right to not allow me to use his thing. But, we both pay for the space the TV is in, we both live there, and since it's 'our' space, it causes no harm for me to use it, so why not use it? Sure if he moves out he'll take it with him, but so long as it's there to use, he may as well let me use it as it causes no harm to him.

I could stage a revolution, and chuck his TV and put in my own TV in the space it occupied and just say "tough gak buddy, I can beat you up if you don't like it... I could set up my own TV right next to it and now neither of us can watch because it's too distractingly impossible to watch two TV shows at once. He could take it into HIS room instead of the COMMON area, now where's my remote?", or we could just get along fine and just USE THE TV! In this analogy, land ownership, property ownership, would be the apartment. Roommates would be the communists. There is no reason to have 2 TVs, 2 xboxes, 2 sinks, 2 laundrys, just because there's 2 people living there, if we can get by just fine and non-distructively just sharing the one for the community.

Hmm. I think a distinction needs to be made between use and ownership. Ownership generally implies that you can do anything you want with the owned object (so long as it doesn't end up infringing upon the rights of someone else), and so a person who owns an object necessarily has the right to relinquish ownership of it, destroy it, give it, trade it for something else, and so forth. They also have the right to use it, refrain from using it, or let someone else use it (and the right to let another person use it in exchange for something; this is really the heart of the issue, as far as socialism is concerned). Thus, what you're describing is communal use, rather than communal ownership (or a lack of ownership entirely, which is, as far as I can tell, the same thing). So long as your friend ultimately makes the decision as to the use of the TV, ownership remains private; if ownership was communal then there would be no heirarchy in place, if you had a disagreement over what to do with the TV you would have to come to some sort of agreement, whereas with your roommate owning it, the decision over what to do with it is ultimately his (although you're certainly free to come to an agreement if you wish).

Also, it's probably worth noting, that in most cases I've experienced communists only believe in communal ownership of "the means of production", and only believe in the distribution of consumer goods "according to his need" initially; after they've been distributed they would be privately owned, with of all the implications that go along with it (the major exception, as far as my understanding goes, being the ability to charge others for its use; this would make it a de facto capital good, and thus to do this would be exploitation). There are some communists who believe in a truly "propertyless" society (i.e. one in which everything is owned communally), but I think they're rare, and honestly, their position seems a bit ridiculous (at least if you're talking about any "society" consisting of more than a five people).

Guitardian wrote:I oppose 'ownership' of anything you didn't either make or earn or purchase fairly. Land was here long before humans. Land belongs to everyone. Who do you buy it from? The guy says he who 'owned' it before you? Where'd he get it? Who paid god for the first land title?

Have you read anything by Henry George?

Gailbraithe wrote:
That's a ridiculous claim. Both communist authoritarian states and capitalist authoritarian states deal with unions the same way: through violent oppression. Neither is worse than the other. Labor unions in democratic countries do better than labor unions in authoritarian countries, but since there is no connection between democracy and capitalism, it is ridiculous to claim that capitalism is better for labor unions. America has a wonderful history of shooting innocent people for exercising their right to free assembly.

That last example doesn't really jive if you're attempting to control for variables that aren't capitalism in terms of what causes state violence against the nation.

Also, let's be real here, free assembly does not necessarily indicate a challenge to capitalism, it indicates only free assembly. Don't equivocate.

Also, I don't think anyone is arguing that communism is to blame for state violence. Rather it seems as though people are arguing that Communism has always been authoritarian, and therefore can be viewed as tacit to a violent state in the practice of state-craft.

Kragura wrote:A few of you might remember way back when (like 1 month ago) I started a thread on dakka's view of communism to take some viewpoint from a mostly unbiased and fair group. well although dakka's view on it was resoundingly negative It did not deter me from further learning and research and now I am unapologetically communist and as a thought exercise for me I would like to know if dakka could give me it's viewpoint once more and I will try to stand-up for my new belief's.

So without further adieu, ask away.

You've been given a whole lot of responses so I won't chew your time up too much. I'll just give you one issue with communism to think about.

Communism was predicted by Marx to occur in industrialised Europe, but this never happened. Where there has been successful communist revolutions they've been primarily due to increasingly cruel agricultural societies, or as a response to the hardships of war. The revolution of the proles was meant to be the natural response to oppressive industrial conditions, instead we had unionisation, workers rights, minimum wages and all other kinds of gradual social reform. It seems the natural, historic response to the hardships of capitalism wasn't a grand new system, but steady, progressive reform to minimise the extremes of capitalism.

So where does that leave communism?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

n0t_u wrote:How can a single person be a communist if it relies on many people being equal?

It does not rely on people being equal. Where people get that idea I do not know.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BearersOfSalvation wrote:Aside from the whole murdering and torturing thing, what job do you think you will have based on the 'from each according to his abilities' part - do you think you'll be stuck as the sewer cleaner, or will you get to be a poet, leader, philosopher, musician, or some other fun job? How do you expect to fill all of the jobs that aren't poets, leaders, philosophers, writers, musicians, artists, etc, since very few people actually enjoy drudge work - will there be some kind of mechanism to force people to work at jobs that no one wants to do when they could sit around and play guitar all day? Capitalist and mixed-socialist systems solve this by paying more for crappy jobs than the education/skill level would warrant (garbage collectors make damn good money for a job that requires no education and no real skills), Communist societies in theory don't seem to solve the problem, and in practice tend to solve this by telling someone 'do this job or I'll shoot you'.

A person is still paid according to the work they do in society. If a person is not able to get a job in his preferred position, he would still need a job in order to buy stuff he wants. This mechanism is the same whether the means of production are owned by private citizens or the state.

Contrary to popular belief, a doctor in a communist society was paid more than a street sweeper.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:Read 1984 by George Orwell if you haven't. Then tell me how you feel about Communism.

Orwell was a socialist himself. His criticism was of the anti-democratic tendencies common in communist movements. He himself argued for democratic socialism.

Our revered President Rutherford B. Hayes ordered federal troops to fire on a large group of striking railroad workers, killing about 70 people in order to stop a strike. There is a memorial to him at his childhood home in Ohio, where an orphanage was dedicated and founded in his name. I wonder where the orphans came from Mr. Hayes?

Oh my good golly gosh I go away for one day and have 3 pages of responses on my hands well, I'll give it a shot.

Albatross you said our poorest citizens are our most obese and although this may be true in the UK I'm sure the same could not be said for Bangladesh or Myanmar, both of which are capitalist countries.

Dogma I have chosen to stay away from clinging to one persons way of thought and instead chose to think of myself as simply a communist, one who understands that there are lessons to be learned from all past communist leaders (by simply assessing my own belief's I probably fall into a very left communist ideal but I still disagree with them on some things).

sebster you bring up a very interesting thought, however there have been altogether successful revolutions in backwards countries that did not descend into tyranny and successful revolutions in what were at the time well off society's, I would also like to say that I view each one of those struggles you mentioned as a step towards communism leaving communism as the end goal.

Frazzled go visit Ethiopia go visit the slums of Mumbai fully understand why they are there, and then tell me you are a capitalist.

Bearers of salvation I don't consider poet, philosopher, leader, and musician jobs so no I'd probably be the sewer cleaner.

Sadly I don't have the time nor mental focus to answer all your posts so I have chosen to address the one's I could for now and will hopefully be back soon.

Kragura wrote:
Dogma I have chosen to stay away from clinging to one persons way of thought and instead chose to think of myself as simply a communist, one who understands that there are lessons to be learned from all past communist leaders (by simply assessing my own belief's I probably fall into a very left communist ideal but I still disagree with them on some things).

I understand, and commend that impetus, but I think you should still be able to explain your beliefs in the context of the current literature on the subject.

Kragura wrote:sebster you bring up a very interesting thought, however there have been altogether successful revolutions in backwards countries that did not descend into tyranny and successful revolutions in what were at the time well off society's, I would also like to say that I view each one of those struggles you mentioned as a step towards communism leaving communism as the end goal.

You're likely not understanding what I'm saying. I am not talking about tyranny or what communist revolutions produced. I'm talking about Marx' idea that proletariat revolution was inevitable in capitalist societies - it hasn't happened. The revolutions we've seen in capitalist societies have not been communist, and where there have been communist revolutions, they occur exclusively in agrarian economies.

It becomes very obvious that whatever else is going on, communism is not appealing to factory workers. They've opted, historically, to keep the capitalist system, but argue for progressive reforms to modify the extremes of that system.

The problem with viewing those steps as a movement to an end state of communism is that communism doesn't work that way. According to Marx, revolution was the means to the end, the inherent nature of capitalism meant it was the only solution for the proletariat that was possible. Which was probably a reasonable thing for Marx to think in the mid-19th C, but it isn't very reasonable any more.

If you're all for steady, progressive steps to reduce the extremes of capitalism, then you're a socialist at most, and may just be a sane human being who favours results over ideological purity. If you're a communist then you need to be arguing for the people to rise up and take control of the state and put in place a new economic system where the people collectively own the means of production.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:In fairness, pretty much every capitalist democracy -- including this one -- has engaged in torture and mass murder. If you're an American, try asking a well-educated black person or native American. They'll tell you all about torture and mass murder by capitalists. The only significant difference is that democracies tend to torture and murder people who aren't part of the enfranchised group. Part of the reason communism was able to take hold so successfully in so much of the third world during the 20th century was the history of brutality and oppression by the so-called "free nations" of the west.

When did the US engage in mass murder of blacks, exactly?

You know very well I was making an oblique reference to native americans, but let's try not to pretend that in the 400 years of slavery, lynchings and town burnings there weren't more than a few black people killed.

Indians were not part of the US back when the US was kicking them off of their land. That doesn't make it right to kill them, but driving an outside group off of their land to take it is a bit different than murdering huge chunks of people you already consider in your group - bear in mind that I wasn't talking about communist aggression against other countries, just the internal mass murders.

It's a bit different, but not in an especially important way. Also, the "internal" mass murders in the Soviet Union weren't organized pogroms to eliminate people -- most of the deaths were the result of slow starvation. Nor where they particularly "internal," as the oppression usually originated in the dominant Rus group and was inflicted on small ethnic groups, such as Lempke and Ukrainians.

And how long ago were these events anyway - aren't we talking about the 1800s here? Western democracies have been making huge strides AWAY from killing people off, paying compensation for old wrongs, extending rights to others, acknowledging more and more rights of people. The record isn't perfect, but the clear trend is for things to get BETTER in non-communist countries, while switching to a communist country takes you from 'killed indians 200 years ago' to 'killed 20% of our population this year' - I know which system I'd opt for.

So communism, which developed after capitalism, is worse than capitalism because by the time communism was rising, capitalist was already in decline and had been largely defanged? That's really your argument? Because that's a silly argument.

And no, we're not just talking the 1800s here. Nazi Germany was organized on capitalist principles, and was a capitalist country. While they called it "national socialism" it was not any form of socialism (much like the democratic republic of the congo is neither a democracy or a republic, names are sometimes meaningless, especially when villains pull them on like cloaks to cover their evil).

And there is ongoing oppression and violence right now. Today. In the third world as we speak, there is brutality being directed at working people to keep them working, working for low pay and no hope of a better tommorrow, all for the benefit of modern American capitalism. I think it was about ten years ago now that it came out that in Myanmar the government had murdered some 500 workers who had been engaged in forced labor for Chevron. Slaves, disposed of because they were becoming inconvenient. Even in Iraq, it was proven that Halliburton was using slave labor to keep costs low on the construction of infrastructure -- and then there is the whole question of whether we fought in Iraq to "save liberty and freedom," or if the actual motive had more to do with lining capitalists pockets.

There is a whole world of horrible violence done in our names every day, all over the world. Turn a blind eye at your own peril, it will come back to haunt you. There is a reason Al Queda struck out at the World Trade Centers, and why those buildings (along with the Pentagon) were seen as the heart of American capitalist power.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:Also, you completely ignored my point which is that communist regimes are notable for excessive paternalism (amongst other things), to a far greater extent than is found in a modern capitalist country like the UK. It's for this reason that I would RATHER live under the capitalist system than the communist. It's a preference. For some reason you seem to have me confused with someone who advocates end-state anarcho-capitalism.

The UK is a modern liberal state, and the reasons it works and you like it have far more to do with the liberalism than the capitalism. That's my point. People give all the credit for the benefits of liberalism to capitalism, but without the liberalism you'd have laiez-faire (sp?) capitalism -- and it would be as bad as communism.

Yeah, cool story Pancho Villa, but it didn't quite go down like that here. Also, please note that we aren't talking about the 18th or 19th centuries, we're talking about now. Advanced capitalist societies in the west offer a pretty wide choice in terms of education. And again, you seem to be making the assumption that I'm advocating anarcho-capitalism as opposed to communism.

Advanced LIBERAL societies in the west offer a pretty wide choice in terms of education, despite capitalism.

Right, now you're just being hysterical. To say that modern capitalist society 'barely works'... We enjoy unparalleled standards of living in the west, we spend more on boredom than the most of the third world does on food, and our poorest citizens are often our most obese. No-one is starving here in Britain. I guess my answer to your 'point' is that it works for me. Past that I don't care.

Well, I guess I'm just a better person than you, because I care about how my actions affect everyone they affect. I don't suddenly go blind at the borders.

It doesn't change anything - I would still rather live under a modern capitalist system and have (arguably) limited choices, than under a communist society and have no choices.

Sure, and I would rather live under a democratic socialist system and have more choices, more power, and have less of my labor go to support asshats who don't see me as being any different than a dog.

Ok dogma I guess your right it would certainly help the discussion

Lets say for the purpose of discussion I am leading the revolution and we just chased out the last capitalist what do I bring about?

A dictatorship of the proletariat based on direct democratic principles using referendums (plebiscites) or in times of crises a republic based on representatives from each soviet. This republic would also come together to decide the country's position on international issues and would elect one person as a sort of ambassador to other nations (like the presidents of Pakistan and Russia). A crisis would be decided on plebiscite and could be ended by an annual plebiscite or when the soviet council sees fit. attendance at the soviet council would come above work duties how ever, If someone chooses not to attend then they must work as per normal. each community would also elect a team of representatives to oversee the community the team can be made up of whoever they wish. larger communities would be broken up into communities of perhaps no more than 300,000 to 500,000 people. It is the duty of the teams to provide reports to the soviet council in times of crisis and to all of population in times of peace.

Education would run as it does now however higher levels of education would be free to all and would focus heavily on distrusting and knowing that you can overthrow governments that do not represent the people (although not necessarily by bloody revolutions) health would be free to all as well as would things that benefit community such as cinemas and parks. money would be used primarily for the trade in material goods such as TV's gaming systems etc. I'm not sure but it occurs to me now that perhaps food could be free like health care and schooling although I would need to think about this more.

There would be no standing military but compulsory military training would be in place, and it would be the duty of everyone to keep themselves armed and alert. people could go to war as they please however the government will not back them unless by decision of the soviet council. It would be a right to refuse to fight any war.

other rights would include

free speech
free religion
right to basic needs (right to a healthy life)
right to assemble peacefully
right to form any organisation

*DISCLAIMER*

Most of this is just what seems obvious to me as what would be needed as the basis of a communist society and as I haven't thought to deeply along these lines, problems will no doubt arise as this is of course the ideal scenario.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

Kragura wrote:sebster you bring up a very interesting thought, however there have been altogether successful revolutions in backwards countries that did not descend into tyranny and successful revolutions in what were at the time well off society's, I would also like to say that I view each one of those struggles you mentioned as a step towards communism leaving communism as the end goal.

You're likely not understanding what I'm saying. I am not talking about tyranny or what communist revolutions produced. I'm talking about Marx' idea that proletariat revolution was inevitable in capitalist societies - it hasn't happened. The revolutions we've seen in capitalist societies have not been communist, and where there have been communist revolutions, they occur exclusively in agrarian economies.

It becomes very obvious that whatever else is going on, communism is not appealing to factory workers. They've opted, historically, to keep the capitalist system, but argue for progressive reforms to modify the extremes of that system.

The problem with viewing those steps as a movement to an end state of communism is that communism doesn't work that way. According to Marx, revolution was the means to the end, the inherent nature of capitalism meant it was the only solution for the proletariat that was possible. Which was probably a reasonable thing for Marx to think in the mid-19th C, but it isn't very reasonable any more.

If you're all for steady, progressive steps to reduce the extremes of capitalism, then you're a socialist at most, and may just be a sane human being who favours results over ideological purity. If you're a communist then you need to be arguing for the people to rise up and take control of the state and put in place a new economic system where the people collectively own the means of production.

But I am talking about reducing the extremes of capitalism to the point of it no longer existing. how the people rise up is not really of consequence, revolution is simply what I think is most likely to do it.

Now a second point my vocab isn't to crash hot But I would assume an agrarian society is primarily agricultural is this right?
If so then yes most successful communist revolutions have taken place in agrarian society's, however if we take the example of the Russian revolution it was the factory worker in Petrograd that began the revolution with their international woman's day marches. So it would seem in this case at least the workers can come together for communism, not just workers rights.

and as a final point their have been communist revolutions in industrial society's as well the German revolution springs to mind as doe the commune de Paris.

Kragura wrote:But I am talking about reducing the extremes of capitalism to the point of it no longer existing. how the people rise up is not really of consequence, revolution is simply what I think is most likely to do it.

Revolution is a really exciting thing, but in reality it involves years of protests, violent street battles with police and other political movements, assassinations and bombings. It's a really ugly thing. Nor does it guarantee a government or economic system that's actually any better than what we've got now.

Now a second point my vocab isn't to crash hot But I would assume an agrarian society is primarily agricultural is this right?
If so then yes most successful communist revolutions have taken place in agrarian society's, however if we take the example of the Russian revolution it was the factory worker in Petrograd that began the revolution with their international woman's day marches. So it would seem in this case at least the workers can come together for communism, not just workers rights.

Yes, agrarian means agricultural. Russia was still a predominantly agricultural society when the revolution occurred, the majority of workers were not factory hands but serfs. Marx himself argued against revolution there, believing they still needed industrialisation to build up the material wealth to have something reallocating to the people. Nor was the communist revolution much of a revolution at all. There was a real revolution when the Tsar was overthrown, but the subsequent overthrow of Kerensky's Provisional government was more a revolution than anything else.

The actual level of support for communism among the working classes is very small, and has never been large. It is a problem when a movement that is nominally all about the plight of the working man is led entirely by the bourgeoisie. It begins to appear as a false movement.

and as a final point their have been communist revolutions in industrial society's as well the German revolution springs to mind as doe the commune de Paris.

The Paris Commune ran parts of the city before a month before failing, a failed revolution is a very different to a successful one. I'm unsure as to which German revolution you're talking about, neither of them had any overt Communist.

sebster wrote:Yes, agrarian means agricultural. Russia was still a predominantly agricultural society when the revolution occurred, the majority of workers were not factory hands but serfs. Marx himself argued against revolution there, believing they still needed industrialisation to build up the material wealth to have something reallocating to the people. Nor was the communist revolution much of a revolution at all. There was a real revolution when the Tsar was overthrown, but the subsequent overthrow of Kerensky's Provisional government was more a revolution than anything else.

I don't mean to say that Russia wasn't agrarian but the revolution was a proletarian movement, both of them were.
I was also using the Paris commune and the German revolution* as examples of communist movement's starting up in industrial society's whether or not they were successful was not my point, my point was they happened.
Final point I would hardly call invasion from an aggressive and vastly superior military power against a few armed militias failing, I would like to see what political ideology could stand up to that.


*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918%E2%80%9319

Kragura wrote:I don't mean to say that Russia wasn't agrarian but the revolution was a proletarian movement, both of them were.
I was also using the Paris commune and the German revolution* as examples of communist movement's starting up in industrial society's whether or not they were successful was not my point, my point was they happened.

But they lacked the popular support needed to successfully build a new government. And that is my point. Where has communism ever had the overwhelming support of the working class?

Where there's been successful communist revolts, they've due to the unpopularity of colonial and agricultural systems, or due to the hardships of war. In a plain capitalist state the hardships caused by capitalism have always been solved with workers rights, minimum wages, universal healthcare and other such system. Because the workers don't dream of revolution, that's something university kids dream of.

Final point I would hardly call invasion from an aggressive and vastly superior military power against a few armed militias failing, I would like to see what political ideology could stand up to that.

The Soviets managed that very thing in the civil war. Of course, the exact reasons for that success had little to do with any belief in communism, and everything to do with a rejection of the aristocracy, the incompetence and disorder of the whites, and the incredibly brutal means the Bolsheviks used to maintain control. But that's kind of the nature of revolution.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918%E2%80%9319

While a few of the earliest incidents were by groups with strong communist roots, the revolution as a whole was not communist. This can be observed in that the end state of the revolution was not a communist state.

I'm a little confused are you saying that the worker supported the revolution but not the end result of the revolution?

Gailbraithe wrote:

Albatross wrote:Also, you completely ignored my point which is that communist regimes are notable for excessive paternalism (amongst other things), to a far greater extent than is found in a modern capitalist country like the UK. It's for this reason that I would RATHER live under the capitalist system than the communist. It's a preference. For some reason you seem to have me confused with someone who advocates end-state anarcho-capitalism.

The UK is a modern liberal state, and the reasons it works and you like it have far more to do with the liberalism than the capitalism. That's my point. People give all the credit for the benefits of liberalism to capitalism, but without the liberalism you'd have laiez-faire (sp?) capitalism -- and it would be as bad as communism.

Laissez-faire, I think. *checks google* Yeah.

I'm not saying that's preferable, I'm saying that modern capitalism allows for that balance between liberalism and capitalism and that I would rather live under that system than a communist system. I can't think of one communist regime which has achieved a similar balance. Probably because communism doesn't allow for it. You could argue that China is moving towards a balanced economy, but you could also argue that in doing so they are also moving away from communism.

Yeah, cool story Pancho Villa, but it didn't quite go down like that here. Also, please note that we aren't talking about the 18th or 19th centuries, we're talking about now. Advanced capitalist societies in the west offer a pretty wide choice in terms of education. And again, you seem to be making the assumption that I'm advocating anarcho-capitalism as opposed to communism.

Advanced LIBERAL societies in the west offer a pretty wide choice in terms of education, despite capitalism.

Again, balanced economy. Public and private options. Choice. Not under communism.

Right, now you're just being hysterical. To say that modern capitalist society 'barely works'... We enjoy unparalleled standards of living in the west, we spend more on boredom than the most of the third world does on food, and our poorest citizens are often our most obese. No-one is starving here in Britain. I guess my answer to your 'point' is that it works for me. Past that I don't care.

Well, I guess I'm just a better person than you, because I care about how my actions affect everyone they affect. I don't suddenly go blind at the borders.

Of course you're a better person. Shrieking at people who disagree with you on the internet makes you a better person. Everyone knows this. It was on the news.



In all seriousness, you may have a point. I'm an avowed pragmatist. I'm pretty happy with my life. If that means someone-else's life has to suck, then that's sad but so be it. I'm not running for pope here.

It doesn't change anything - I would still rather live under a modern capitalist system and have (arguably) limited choices, than under a communist society and have no choices.

Sure, and I would rather live under a democratic socialist system and have more choices, more power, and have less of my labor go to support asshats who don't see me as being any different than a dog.

Ahtman wrote:@ComputerGeek01: You really need to do more research before talking about things. Native American societies are not communist, and neither are Amish.

To call a Comanche a communist is an insult to all comanches. Expect to be visited by a war party bearing Henrys and lawsuits within the next three weeks, depending on your distance from Texas, or come to the fun filled Coushatta Hotel and Casino where they will take al your posessions legally white man!

Gailbraithe wrote:That's a ridiculous claim. Both communist authoritarian states and capitalist authoritarian states deal with unions the same way: through violent oppression. Neither is worse than the other. Labor unions in democratic countries do better than labor unions in authoritarian countries, but since there is no connection between democracy and capitalism, it is ridiculous to claim that capitalism is better for labor unions. America has a wonderful history of shooting innocent people for exercising their right to free assembly.

It's a true claim, sorry if you find it ridiculous. Actual communist states (as opposed to wishful thinking) have all been authroitarian, it's a fundamental part of the revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat on the way to the conversion of society to the imaginary end state that no one ever gets to. And they've been way, way crueler to labor unions than capitalist societies - we wouldn't have any worker protections if the US treated labor unions as 'well' as communist countries.

You seem to have fundamentally misunderstood my comments. I think both capitalism and communism are failures, for many reasons, some of which overlap and some of which don't. Nowhere in this thread have I ever, even once, suggested that the failures of capitalism are an endorsement of communism.

Capitalist societies operating under liberal democracies (really republics using technical definitions) have produced more wealth, more freedom, more opportunity, and more of everything good than any other system. Communist societies have produces absolutely incredible body counts, staggering levels of repression, and record-setting levels of human misery. Capitalism may not be perfect, but it's far from a failure, while communism has failed at the goals any non-evil person wants in a huge manner every single time it's been attempted.

Also, not once have I ever claimed to be a communist or claimed to have chosen communism. In fact, in this two page long thread I have clearly identified my position (libertarian-socialist (anarchist)).

Oh, I thought you were the OP for some reason, probably because you've responded more than he has. So what is the point of your responses in this thread then? Are you just trying to establish 'capitalism is not perfect'? Well, I don't think anyone would disagree with that. If you're trying to establish 'capitalism is as bad as communism', you're failing miserably.

Kragura wrote:
I don't mean to say that Russia wasn't agrarian but the revolution was a proletarian movement, both of them were.
I was also using the Paris commune and the German revolution* as examples of communist movement's starting up in industrial society's whether or not they were successful was not my point, my point was they happened.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918%E2%80%9319

Tianamen square

Hungary

Chechoslavakia

Romania

etc., etc.

People stand up to Communist society, also.

Monster Rain wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Or maybe it was right but some avoidable circumstance interfered?

if it had only failed in 1 place I guess I could see that, but it fails pretty much every time its attempted. If the theory fails to take account of something that happens more or less consistently then it's at best incomplete.

It's a nice idea about people all working together and sharing what they make and earn for the common good, at it's most basic level. That's the way I see it anyway.

Though it is a complete failure in real world terms.

You know, technically marriages are communist. Absolute sharing of resources for the good fo the many. At least in the uS, half of those end in divorce. Communism, making blood sucking attornies rich for over 100 years...