communism

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Turnip
Eomer, how can you be a member of a political party and be an objective historian?

It comes naturally; I was a historian before I was a proper communist - but think about it, I read revanchist reactionary authors like Paul Kennedy (Rise and Fall of the Great Powers) and can assess their work from two points of view; that of the conventional historian and that of the class historian.

Besides, no historian is completely objective; everyone has a favourite. If you ask an historian which they like better between Athens and Sparta, few say Sparta even though they were the good guys (see? a biased and objective thought in one sentence lol).

Quoted from Turnip
What do you think of the suppression of the Ukrainian anarchist Makhnovist movement and the rebellion at Kronstadt?

Hell even the Cossacks were right to revolt from the Soviet government; as I have said, in many ways the Soviets were admirable but the revolution was a failure from the day power passed to the party, as was inevitable in such a backward country.

Quoted from Turnip
And I read somewhere that the soviets didn't actually want the republican side to win the Spanish civil war because if Spain had gone communist, the capitalist democracies would have felt threatened enough to go to war and the soviets weren't ready for it. Is that right?

I remember Anthony Beevor postulating to that effect in his book on the Spanish Civil War but I am not sure if there was any evidence despite the paranoia of Stalin and what was revealed in Khruschev's memoirs which were themselves biased after the XX Party Congress. If you ever need a cure for insomnia, those memoirs are it, believe me. It really is irrelevent though since the Russian generals who turned up to the Spanish Civil War had outdated and preconcieved notions on how the war would be run so their advice led to disastrous defeats. If you put these together, it says something about the confidence of STAVKA in their own generals .

Turnip

Originally posted by mike65
At least it was a short sarcastic comment.... this rather sad thread has the dusty, dimmly-lit feel of a upper sixth late night "debate".

Mike.

I don't recall ever reading any posts of yours that contained any point of interest whatsoever. At least some people here have reached the upper sixth form level of debate.

Turnip

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Hell even the Cossacks were right to revolt from the Soviet government; as I have said, in many ways the Soviets were admirable but the revolution was a failure from the day power passed to the party, as was inevitable in such a backward country.

But if failure was inevitable then was the revolution a good idea at all? or would Russia have been better off if the whites had won the civil war and established a western european style liberal democracy?

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Turnip
But if failure was inevitable then was the revolution a good idea at all? or would Russia have been better off if the whites had won the civil war and established a western european style liberal democracy?

As the saying goes, hindsight is a wonderful thing; if this, if that - but ultimately asked for my opinion, I think that Russia was better off under the reds; the whites were self proclaimed autocrats and the autocratic nature of the Soviet politburo did not manifest itself in any economically damaging way until later - moreover, Stalin did achieve some frighteningly effective things though at a high human price which a liberal capitalist democracy would have been unable to pay.

So, Russia achieved super power status and a FAR better standard of living under a totalitarian dictatorship than it COULD have under capitalism BUT it sacrificed millions of people to do so - so really it is a personal question.

Victor

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Russia's current population is 144 million and that of the US is pushing 290 million - to be fair, if one was contrasting the USSR and the USA, it should more likely be the USSR and the USA PLUS Western Europe since the USSR was 15 seperate countries

No it wasn't - you are re-writing history now. So how about adding

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

Current populations:
[color=red]United States	290,342,554[/color] (which you agree has risen in the last ten years).


Armenia		  3,326,448
Azerbaijan	  7,830,764
Belarus		 10,322,151
Estonia		  1,408,556
Georgia		  4,934,413
Kazakhstan	 16,763,795
Kyrgyzstan	  4,892,808
Latvia		  2,348,784
Lithuania	  3,592,561
Moldova		  4,439,502
Russia		144,526,278 (which you agree has fallen in the last ten years)
Tajikistan	  6,863,752
Turkmenistan	  4,775,544
Ukraine		 48,055,439
Uzbekistan	 25,981,647
[color=red]Former USSR	290,062,442[/color] (which has varied in the last ten years).

And if you want to be liberal with your numbers, why not add:

Afghanistan	 28,717,213
Bulgaria	  7,537,929
Cuba		 11,263,429
Czech Republic	 10,249,216
Finland		  5,190,785
East Germany	 19,000,000 (say)
Hungary		 10,045,407
Mongolia	  2,712,315
Poland		 38,622,660
Romania		 22,271,839
Rwanda		  7,810,056
Slovakia	  5,430,033
Yugoslavia	 17,000,000 (say)
Total		185,850,882	

Or even add China and Vietnam and .... :P

mr_angry

Can I just point out the HUGE irony that at the very core of the idiologies, both Democracy and Communism are exactly the same thing? The people of the land come together to vote for an elected government who divide up the country's resources for the good of the people.

The fact is that countries previously labelled as "Communist" are a hell of a lot closer to "Dictatorships". Unfortunately, we have yet to see a "Communist" country with more than one party competing fairly in open elections, and where the government doesn't divide up the resources for the good of a select few.

A perfect example was Iraq's 1998 Presedential election, where Saddam won 98% of the vote. The system was entirely democratic (as supervised by the UN), but we all know that most of the people voted out of fear. Did democracy succeed in this case? Nope.

Capitalism, on the other hand, can be equally as dangerous, if taken to extremes. We all saw what happened in the UK's House of Parliment when it emerged that Mohammed Al Fayed had been paying ministers to ask particular questions (i.e. Niel Hamilton) - the power of a particular tycoon can have implications on the proper running of a country. This was a particularly mild example, but nevertheless a warning.

The people protesting on the streets of Dublin (the original point of this article) seem to be protesting on the hold that particular organisations have on their lives, and their personal freedoms. I don't think there's anything really wrong with the way Ireland is run at the moment, but it's not too hard to imagine some of Ireland's biggest employers doing a runner were the Government to stop giving them massive tax incentives. This would leave "Joe Soap" factory worker with nothing.

In any case, I wont be voting for the Socialist Workers Party any time soon (Or the new Monster Raving Looney Party, as I prefer to call them), but I can't bring myself to support capitalism unquestioningly.

Incidentally, my Dad used to be a manager with Dunnes Stores. As a manager, he wasn't allowed to join a union, or he would be sacked (Still the case, I believe). He was forced to work obscenely long hours for his usual salary. Don't say large corporations can't exert a force on our lives.

Victor

Originally posted by mr_angry4
Incidentally, my Dad used to be a manager with Dunnes Stores. As a manager, he wasn't allowed to join a union, or he would be sacked (Still the case, I believe). He was forced to work obscenely long hours for his usual salary. Don't say large corporations can't exert a force on our lives.

Eh, management are management. Salaried workers are not normally entitled to overtime. If he felt he was not getting enough, why not go elsewhere.

bloggs

From the comments it appears that some people support communism in theory, but not in it's practice throughout the world. Some people say that a shift from communist to capitalist will lead to destruction (like Russia), but China is moving to a capitalist state (with communist leadership), and it seems to be going well. It is expected that China will be the next great superpower (if not already) and will be a counter balance to the USA.

People here have made decent arguments for communism, unlike those who march ever week in dublin city centre.

Éomer of Rohan

Regarding population

Well, ok, let's do it your way; go and work out for me the populations of NATO then; you already seem to have worked out the population of the Warsaw Pact (obviously plus a few nations, like I think you added Algeria. Yugoslavia and Mongolia which are a little unfair to add since Yugoslavia was decidedly anti-Moscow, Algeria was not communist, it was a military junta I believe and Mongolia was probably one of the most neutral countries in the world, which is understandable since the only two countries with which it shares about 7000 miles of land border are China and Russia!

Regarding Bloggs Post

Some people say that a shift from communist to capitalist will lead to destruction (like Russia)

Sorry, I have yet to see that argument properly - I have already dealt with why the events of the Russia revolution were exclusive to Russia and her dependencies.

but China is moving to a capitalist state (with communist leadership), and it seems to be going well

Does it? I mean, currently, China have to slash their funding to public health services which are some of the most comprehensive in the world. They are to break up and privatise the biggest state run mass transit system in the world (ie trains and buses and trams) and people will have to start paying private enterprise for that privilege. Moreover, the only layer of Chinese society that is benefitting from the market reforms are the middle business class, who owe their position to the state - and therefore the state is strengthened rather than weakened. And we have already established that China was not communist, can we please stop using that misnomer?

People here have made decent arguments for communism, unlike those who march ever week in dublin city centre

I find that quite offensive since the people who do the stalls in Dublin are some close friends of mine and they know every bit as much as I do (if they are in the Socialist Party or Socialist Youth, there is a reading list bigger than every book I have ever read). I suggest that some time you stop and ask them a few questions rather than hurrying by, eyes to the pavement or sneering at them.

Regarding Mr Angry

In any case, I wont be voting for the Socialist Workers Party any time soon (Or the new Monster Raving Looney Party, as I prefer to call them), but I can't bring myself to support capitalism unquestioningly

What is this obsession with the Socialist Workers Party? They are a bunch of Stalinist-allied fools who just lost all their council seats. Take a look at the Marxist forum which they run; it's a sham including the republican Workers Party, the Communist Party (current membership 5 old men) and the IRSP.

If you actually looked at the sensible party of the left, some of you might change your minds. This is not being sectarian towards all non-Socialist Party leftist groups - I just say what I see.

Can I just point out the HUGE irony that at the very core of the idiologies, both Democracy and Communism are exactly the same thing? The people of the land come together to vote for an elected government who divide up the country's resources for the good of the people

Er, no. The end result of communism is the complete decentralisation of power and the running of regions by people themselves rather than through elected representatives, which is an end in itself under the current form of the word. The ideologies are capitalism and communism, not democracy and communism because democracy is in reality a transition phase towards communism whence it becomes direct democracy. As I have said before, capitalism cannot exist with democracy since the result is a plutocratic form of government where to actually get anything done you need the support of a source of money; which in the end means the compromising of ideals to get the support of business, which stops reform in certain vital areas.

bloggs

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Regarding populationWhat is this obsession with the Socialist Workers Party? They are a bunch of Stalinist-allied fools who just lost all their council seats. Take a look at the Marxist forum which they run; it's a sham including the republican Workers Party, the Communist Party (current membership 5 old men) and the IRSP.

Sorry please explain to me the differences betwen the SWP and SP/SY?

smiles

Originally posted by gom:
IF Communism was applied to a modern Industrial power such as Germany(as Marx was talking about in 'Das Capital') it would have worked back in the late 19th century...

That's rubbish, 'Das Kapital' is primarily devoted to pointing out how capitalism was destined for disaster, how it had a "vampire thirst for the living blood of labour", in it he tries to document how the best possible case of capitalism is bound for failure. The Marxist prediction of decay was based on the idea that capitalism is politically incapable of setting its system's wrongs to rights, totally impossible. However, he fails to make allowance for the roles of social/political culture. As well as that 'Das Kapital' is a Doomsday book, and it barely looks beyond the "Day of Judgement" to see what the future would be like.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Marx's dictum predicted that socialist revolution would fail unless it took place in one of the more developed countries of the world; at that time, Britain or Bismarck's Germany. The reason for this was that the 'petit bourgeois' would begin by demanding further autonomy from the autocratic classes; then it would be the turn of the working class, which to steer the revolution away from 'social democracy' which was just a new cage with gilt bars, would make use of it's trade unions and the 'communist vanguard.'

His fundamental idea was Dialectical Materialism, wherein the world is in a constant state of flux and the ideas from one period help to shape the ideas of the next, hence communism is the natural follow on from capitalism, the system would not only destroy itself, but in doing so it would give birth to it's successor. He said: "Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please' they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly found, given, and transmitted from the past." His idea was that capitalism is fatalistic, and yes, some of it is, but over all communism has not come out as the "natural" way. Not in the 19th century and not now.

Originally posted by gom:
Freedom is a scarce thing under Capitalism and Communism.

I think the quote in my signature sums that up perfectly.
"Under capitalism, man exploits man.
Under communism, it's just the opposite."
J.K.Galbraith

Originally posted by gom:
The arguments about which system is more economically desirable is a very subjective question also.
I know I am better off under a Capitalist system economically. BUt the egalitarian inside of me says that something closer to communism would be preferable given the right destribution of wealth...

Capitalism isn't "better" than communism, and communism isn't better than capitalism, for several reasons. Initially we first accept that pure capitalism and pure communism can never exist, they're purely theoretical, our moral side objects to the pure form of one and our selfish side objects to the pure form of another.

But for arguments sake let's say that they did, Marx suggested that communism society is a "classless" society, "society" owned all the means of producing goods, "society" owned all the factories, but how would the managers and the managed be decided? How could someone agree to produce something when someone had to press a button and someone else had to clean the toilets, how is that classless? How is that fair?

In my eyes the theoretical problem with communism is that it is determined to bring everyone down to the same level. Always downwards, always abolishing the riches of the world so everyone can be poor together. And of course the practical problem is the sheer selfishness of man, and the way the system was exploited every time it was started, brother against brother, man against man, woman against woman, it was good to report your neighbours, it was good that no one could regulate the system...

Perhaps communism is best compared to a public works scheme, you are guaranteed an income, regardless of how much or how little you do.... I'm sure everyone has seen how long it takes for council work to be done, there's no competition, no incentive, and hence it fails.

It's a wonderful idea, but economically and growth wise it's idiotic. At least in it's present form.

Yes, capitalism works, it's self-propelling, and with a good social system in the background I think that it is the best possibility for the most amount of people.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
[...] some aspects of that society are enviable and admirable compared to ours; [...] the Soviet Union still provided her people with a better standard of living than many across the capitalist world. That they were not free in the way that the propaganda was state based rather than corporate based and that the economy was not democratic as Engels had envisioned was the downfall - but that took nearly forty years from the end of WWII and the introduction of the world wide rape that was free market capitalism to accomplish - and even now, after capitalist plutocracy has failed in Russia, people there hark back to the Communists who 'failed' and see light.

This is what I cannot accept, the people were not free in far more ways than propaganda wars! Sheer oppression was the downfall, not the lack of democracy!

As for "the world wide rape" that you speak of... that's pure propaganda on your part. Yes, there are issues relating to capitalism, but no where near the way you suggest, in fact almost three-quarters of the flow of American (who is often singled out the main capitalist/imperialist exploiter of the world) international investment goes to Europe and Canada and other developed capitalist countries. Capitalism is easily adaptable into many countries, and while it may not be enriching them, it is, in the most part, most definitely not "raping" them. Keep your propaganda and nice phrases for your election speeches. Fact is preferable to fiction.

I'm sure there are people who hark back to Communism, but you know what? My granny before she died harked back to the days when there was no electricity. Does that make her correct? It's just opinion, just like your russians who hark back to communism, simply opinion. I'm sure there's people in the world who hark back to the Nazi regime. Are they correct?

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
But more importantly, open your ears and listen to what these people say (well maybe not the socialist workers party, but the SP) - Marx' Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital are all about true democracy, which the western capitalist nations do not have - in fact, what they have is called a plutocracy in my opinion, a government of wealth. Someone once satirised this by saying 'European elections are rigged; the government always wins' - that is to say that partisan politics coupled with a dependence on corporate support remove the freedom of any government and that the government generally consists of the Debsian ruling class doesn't help matters.

Right, well I think the fact that the Irish government is not disassociated from (or in the process of it) corporate donations, but I don't think you'll put them apart from the rest of Europe.

Perhaps the Communist Manifesto is about true democracy, but it's also an ideal which is almost impossible to establish without the destruction of civilisation and the idea of honest work for honest pay. What you put in is irrelevant, you will just be another sheep in the flock, treated the same by the same shepherds who claim to be helping you.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
As for the reference to having a meaningful job with prospects; the point in a communist society was to differ the centre of ones life from work to extra-curricular activities but in the USSR I can't see why most people wouldn't have had such a job with good prospects given that they were promoted in the same way as their capitalist counterparts and generally just had different titles, more socialist sounding ones.

See, I agree somewhat with Veblen, where he says that the ways of the little-noticed people, the American Indians, the bushmen of Australia, the Todas of the Nilgiri hills, etc. had a far "happier" life, they had their own simple economics wherein extra-curricular activities were not the be-all and end-all of everything, in fact everyone worked, it was not considered demeaning to toil hard and to work, there was satisfaction and natural-pride of workmanship and the parental feeling for the coming generations which caused them to strive, to live and to enjoy themselves doing what they do.

It is this pride in work which I believe is the best possible motive, not to out-do someone as in capitalism competition, and not to just merely produce for society as in communism but to enjoy oneself and to have your work appreciated, which communism totally loses out on, and which capitalism sees and rewards.

Communism, to me, seems to be a frozen process, with no rewards for innovation, radical ideas were frown upon because the 'norm' was trying to be imposed upon everyone.

<< Fio >>

Éomer of Rohan

I'll get right back on that when I return from work Smiles.

Bloggs, as to the difference between SP/SY and SWP, look up the Socialist Party(Northern Ireland or Ireland) - there should be a letter from the SP to the SWP in there explaining in painstaking detail what the differences are in the positioning of the parties.

If you can't find it, I will post the link after I come home, when I have time to dig it up.

Victor

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Well, ok, let's do it your way; go and work out for me the populations of NATO then;

No, it was you suggested it, you go off and do it.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
you already seem to have worked out the population of the Warsaw Pact (obviously plus a few nations, like I think you added Algeria. .... Algeria was not communist, it was a military junta I believe

Where do I include Algeria? I was going to ....

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Mongolia was probably one of the most neutral countries in the world, which is understandable since the only two countries with which it shares about 7000 miles of land border are China and Russia!

Mongolia was aligned with the USSR and had elements of the Red Army on it's soil.

Turnip

Doesn't Mongolia have a democratically elected communist government?

bloggs

Just say for example Ireland was to come a communist state tomorrow (some would love that i know), through an election. Over the next four years, the country would be completly changed, nationalisation of major coporations and newspapers would take place. Then after 4 yours if people didn't like the current regime people decided to vote in a non-communist party, wouldn't the country collapse, as the state would start to privatise again? Sorta like the way Russia has become? So those who are communist would require a communist dictorship, as this would keep the country in the way they wish, so decomracy and communism can't really function?

Just my 2cent

Éomer of Rohan

Bloggs, your two cent fails to take into account that the point of the communism movement is internationalism; the idea that the nation state is the capitalist equivalent of a feudal baronetcy and that it will become outmoded along with the idea of capitalism itself, giving sway to movements of workers from across the world; in accordance with this therefore, no revolution would occur in one country as it did in Russia - the point at which a Socialist revolution would occur would be one of global turmoil for the capitalist system when millions of working peoples across the world, in different countries (remember the dictum of Trotsky!), would overthrow their capitalist system.

smiles

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I'll get right back on that when I return from work Smiles.

Or not as the case may be.

<< Fio >>

Éomer of Rohan

Give me half an hour - I was kicked off the computer last night cos my mother is having hormonal problems lol - Bloody women.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Smiles
That's rubbish, 'Das Kapital' is primarily devoted to pointing out how capitalism was destined for disaster, how it had a "vampire thirst for the living blood of labour", in it he tries to document how the best possible case of capitalism is bound for failure. The Marxist prediction of decay was based on the idea that capitalism is politically incapable of setting its system's wrongs to rights, totally impossible. However, he fails to make allowance for the roles of social/political culture. As well as that 'Das Kapital' is a Doomsday book, and it barely looks beyond the "Day of Judgement" to see what the future would be like.

Two things. First of all, since you seem to try and score a point over me by reminding those reading this that the method of reasoning by socialists is dialectical materialism, you neglect to apply some of it yourself; there are two ways one can read every book - yes Das Kapital is based on the wrongs of the capitalist system but the point of it is to make one consider the alternatives; thesis and anti-thesis, in the manner of dialectic.

Second, please clarify HOW you think Marx fails to take into account social and political culture.

Quoted from Smiles
His fundamental idea was Dialectical Materialism, wherein the world is in a constant state of flux and the ideas from one period help to shape the ideas of the next, hence communism is the natural follow on from capitalism, the system would not only destroy itself, but in doing so it would give birth to it's successor. He said: "Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please' they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly found, given, and transmitted from the past." His idea was that capitalism is fatalistic, and yes, some of it is, but over all communism has not come out as the "natural" way. Not in the 19th century and not now.

I find your perspective here interesting; but I am aware of what Marx said and capitalism WILL destroy itself, quite simply; the circumstances just have to arise yet, just as they came to a head in 1792, revolutionary France, in the change that led from feudalism to capitalism, but history records that there were other such rebellions which failed to bring about this change from capitalism to feudalism - Trotsky for example considers the Pugachev Rebellion as one of those. Thus, as Corinthian and certain others discussed earlier in other threads, politics is circling itself; changing back to the type of politics that dominated the C19th (though not necessarily in terms of foreign policy), so the chance at revolution may come around again and this time, the rebellion may go all the way.

Quoted from Smiles
As for "the world wide rape" that you speak of... that's pure propaganda on your part. Yes, there are issues relating to capitalism, but no where near the way you suggest, in fact almost three-quarters of the flow of American (who is often singled out the main capitalist/imperialist exploiter of the world) international investment goes to Europe and Canada and other developed capitalist countries

I was quite appalled with the reasoning on your part here. It is nothing to do with propaganda. I don't know whether you often post on politics but I remember discussing in minute detail with Mike 65 aspects of the crimes that go on across the world in capitalist nations and those exploited by such nations. One of these issues was the TRIPS - which has basically allowed major US conglomerates to patent the indigenous products of a host of the world's peoples.

Another was the destruction of democracy across the world due to MNE's. One of the best examples is South Africa where a people are actually mourning the Apartheid regime (yes, they're black!) because of the neo-liberal reforms which the ANC have embraced - reforms which have cut power and water to the poorest people in South Africa due to privatisation - and yes, those are the blacks. If you need my references, I will provide them tomorrow evening since it is a quarter to midnight.

Bottom line, so what if America invests in Europe and Canada? It is only to see what it can get out of it - not some altruistic donation to save jobs.

Quoted from Smiles
This is what I cannot accept, the people were not free in far more ways than propaganda wars! Sheer oppression was the downfall, not the lack of democracy!

How were the Russian oppressed? Apart from the political sense (which is the lack of democracy you dismissed), how were the Russians not our equals? The only thing that was denied them was access to the politically related instruments of media - free press (which really encompasses free speech since there were plenty of like minded thought groups which were not pro-Moscow and yet were tolerated so long as they didn't advertise the fact) and the whole aspect of democracy which encompasses trade unions and political demonstrations - but it wasn't just lack of democracy apparently, so explain what was it? The KGB and the state militia only got involved when people started becoming political and public about it.

Quoted from Smiles
I'm sure there are people who hark back to Communism, but you know what? My granny before she died harked back to the days when there was no electricity. Does that make her correct? It's just opinion, just like your russians who hark back to communism, simply opinion. I'm sure there's people in the world who hark back to the Nazi regime. Are they correct?

I think this is a waste of space; the difference between these is that I really doubt for one that your Granny does hark back to the days of no electricity since there is no sense in it whereas with harking back to communism, people are actually craving for the real benefits it brought; there was no uncertainty as there is in the Free Market - and more to the point, at least the politicians were open about their nepotism rather than promising the earth and prostituting themselves and their constituents' rights to a fair wage in order to position a large American factory in that district.

Quoted from Smiles
Right, well I think the fact that the Irish government is not disassociated from (or in the process of it) corporate donations, but I don't think you'll put them apart from the rest of Europe.

Perhaps the Communist Manifesto is about true democracy, but it's also an ideal which is almost impossible to establish without the destruction of civilisation and the idea of honest work for honest pay. What you put in is irrelevant, you will just be another sheep in the flock, treated the same by the same shepherds who claim to be helping you.

In a seperate post (sorry, this could get awkward) please include this part of what I quoted from you, include the paragraph you quoted from me which this was relevent to and then please tell me how they are related in any way.

Quoted from Smiles
and not to just merely produce for society as in communism but to enjoy oneself and to have your work appreciated, which communism totally loses out on, and which capitalism sees and rewards.

Communism, to me, seems to be a frozen process, with no rewards for innovation, radical ideas were frown upon because the 'norm' was trying to be imposed upon everyone.

Then you are not seeing communism, you are seeing the undemocratic economic and work ethic of the Stakhanovitic Russians and the two do not equate.

smiles

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
In a seperate post (sorry, this could get awkward) please include this part of what I quoted from you, include the paragraph you quoted from me which this was relevent to and then please tell me how they are related in any way.

:rolleyes:
Here you go:

Originally posted by smiles

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
But more importantly, open your ears and listen to what these people say (well maybe not the socialist workers party, but the SP) - Marx' Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital are all about true democracy, which the western capitalist nations do not have - in fact, what they have is called a plutocracy in my opinion, a government of wealth. Someone once satirised this by saying 'European elections are rigged; the government always wins' - that is to say that partisan politics coupled with a dependence on corporate support remove the freedom of any government and that the government generally consists of the Debsian ruling class doesn't help matters.

Right, well I think the fact that the Irish government is not disassociated from (or in the process of it) corporate donations, but I don't think you'll put them apart from the rest of Europe.

Perhaps the Communist Manifesto is about true democracy, but it's also an ideal which is almost impossible to establish without the destruction of civilisation and the idea of honest work for honest pay. What you put in is irrelevant, you will just be another sheep in the flock, treated the same by the same shepherds who claim to be helping you.

You said: "that is to say that partisan politics coupled with a dependence on corporate support remove the freedom of any government "

I said: "Right, well I think the fact that the Irish government is not disassociated from (or in the process of it) corporate donations, but I don't think you'll put them apart from the rest of Europe."

Meaning that you seem to make the general statement and not apply it to Ireland, you just talk about general Europe being corrupt, and I point out that you don't want to seperate Ireland from Europe because your argument and eloquent quotes wouldn't fit.

My follow paragraph is in response to "Marx' Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital are all about true democracy, which the western capitalist nations do not have" and my views on it.

Clear enough yet?

<< Fio >>

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Smiles
Meaning that you seem to make the general statement and not apply it to Ireland, you just talk about general Europe being corrupt, and I point out that you don't want to seperate Ireland from Europe because your argument and eloquent quotes wouldn't fit.

Last time I checked, Ireland was a part of Europe...and more to the point I am British. And I still really think that I am misunderstanding you.

You say that Ireland is not dissociated from the corruption that racks Europe - but I haven't said it is, in fact I positively think the opposite, see?

How do my eloquent words not fit? I am applying them to Ireland as much as to the UK and the rest of Europe.

smiles

Originally posted by Eomer in response to my view on Das Kapital
Two things. First of all, since you seem to try and score a point over me by reminding those reading this that the method of reasoning by socialists is dialectical materialism, you neglect to apply some of it yourself; there are two ways one can read every book - yes Das Kapital is based on the wrongs of the capitalist system but the point of it is to make one consider the alternatives; thesis and anti-thesis, in the manner of dialectic.

I think the first, and most important thing you need to note is that not everything I said was in direct response to something you said, I was actually replying to gom at that point and therefore how on earth could I be trying to score a point over you? I'm not campaigning for anything here, just to try and explain my point of view and uptake on things. Feel free to argue with what I said, just don't be so egocentric please.

I was not "reminding" people, because, as far as I could see no one had pointed it out at all. I was introducing the point.

Originally posted by Eomer
Second, please clarify HOW you think Marx fails to take into account social and political culture.

From the book Marx proposes the idea of the labour as the only true source of profit for the capitalist, that if someone isn't willing to work the number of hours that the capitalist demands then he simply will not have a job, this was the case at the time but the culture was changing and the people would revolt, but not in the way Marx thought, they wanted reasonable working hours and conditions, not an entirely new system, and that is what eventually happened.

He also bases his case upon the idea that machines constantly replace men, and so no new profit is made and companies face bankruptcy, small firms go under, goods are dumped and the bigger firms that manage to survive accumulate the old factories, the workers happily go back to accepting subvalue wages.... and so on and so forth until the working class revolts and communism is ushered into the world. He fails to even consider the idea that politics could possibly come into play and companies could be forced by governments to take a step back, that other factors would come into play. Yes, this didn't happen until after WWII, but it did happen.

He used labour values for this thesis, which aren't easily compataible to the real world and so could not be accurately applied to the real world.

Marx saw machinery as the downfall, it cut out the profit-inducing labourer, and yet he failed to take account of more developing technologies which would give each capitalist a chance over each other. He didn't consider the idea of the expanding economies of the world and how they could help to support the growing industries and help to create new profits.

Marx also said that the small independant worker was unable to resist the pressure of mass production, no one would be self-employed, and this too was an aspect of social culture which he didn't truely evaluate.

Originally posted by Eomar
I was quite appalled with the reasoning on your part here. It is nothing to do with propaganda. I don't know whether you often post on politics but I remember discussing in minute detail with Mike 65 aspects of the crimes that go on across the world in capitalist nations and those exploited by such nations. One of these issues was the TRIPS - which has basically allowed major US conglomerates to patent the indigenous products of a host of the world's peoples.

I'm not saying that there are no exploitations, I am very aware of the fact that there are, it's just you throw around phrases with strong words without even attempting to validate them in the context of the discussion.

Originally posted by EomarHow were the Russian oppressed? Apart from the political sense (which is the lack of democracy you dismissed), how were the Russians not our equals? The only thing that was denied them was access to the politically related instruments of media - free press (which really encompasses free speech since there were plenty of like minded thought groups which were not pro-Moscow and yet were tolerated so long as they didn't advertise the fact) and the whole aspect of democracy which encompasses trade unions and political demonstrations - but it wasn't just lack of democracy apparently, so explain what was it? The KGB and the state militia only got involved when people started becoming political and public about it.

You ask me how they were opressed? ROFL (sorry, to be extremely honest it's a ridiculuos queston from someone who calls himself a historian and then goes on to point out how they were opressed).

Well as well as the reasons you kindly listed and refuse to see as opression, the new communist system was forced on people. Religion was abolished. These drastic changes could have been done only under a dictator - and indeed they were. In 1937 under Stalin, millions of people were shot or died in labor camps sometimes just for questioning the Communist Party's authority or stealing as little as a potato of "state property" during starvation. Many were working days and nights, sacrificing themselves for the "better future" of next generations.

Originally posted by Eomar
I think this is a waste of space; the difference between these is that I really doubt for one that your Granny does hark back to the days of no electricity since there is no sense in it whereas with harking back to communism, people are actually craving for the real benefits it brought; there was no uncertainty as there is in the Free Market - and more to the point, at least the politicians were open about their nepotism rather than promising the earth and prostituting themselves and their constituents' rights to a fair wage in order to position a large American factory in that district.

Right, so you argee with the idea that it's better to have a system that is totally corrupt and blatently so than to have one in which there are problems and issues, but is fundamentally open. I must remember that one, I wonder why I didn't think of it....

As for the uncertainty of the "Free Market" - the simple fact is that the "Free Market" works, unlike central planning. The uncertainty is not uncertainty when the system is allowed to run.

Originally posted by Eomar

Quoted from Smiles
and not to just merely produce for society as in communism but to enjoy oneself and to have your work appreciated, which communism totally loses out on, and which capitalism sees and rewards.

Communism, to me, seems to be a frozen process, with no rewards for innovation, radical ideas were frown upon because the 'norm' was trying to be imposed upon everyone.

Then you are not seeing communism, you are seeing the undemocratic economic and work ethic of the Stakhanovitic Russians and the two do not equate.

Then why don't you point out how this has changed, how it is different? There's a reason these things are called discussions, that is to share your information rather than to just say: "you're wrong."

<< Fio >>

smiles

Quoted from Smiles
Meaning that you seem to make the general statement and not apply it to Ireland, you just talk about general Europe being corrupt, and I point out that you don't want to seperate Ireland from Europe because your argument and eloquent quotes wouldn't fit.

Last time I checked, Ireland was a part of Europe...and more to the point I am British. And I still really think that I am misunderstanding you.

You say that Ireland is not dissociated from the corruption that racks Europe - but I haven't said it is, in fact I positively think the opposite, see?

How do my eloquent words not fit? I am applying them to Ireland as much as to the UK and the rest of Europe.

You were replying to Bloggs, and he was talking about the communist rallys outside of the GPO in Dublin, you replied to describe how Europe is corrupt, I pointed out that Ireland had stopped those corporate political donations in the idea that you might structure your reply to his points in their context.

I did not say that Ireland is not dissocatied from the corruption in Europe, I suggested that you weren't going to because you didn't in your reply to Bloggs (see the above point).

My point was that they didn't apply to Ireland anymore, and your lead point (allow me to paraphrase) "it stinks coz of corporate buggery of the government" doesn't apply to Ireland in the same way it (might) apply to Europe (I'm not read enough on European politics to discuss that.

I was just trying to get you to make your point fit the discussion.

<< Fio >>

Turnip

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Thus, as Corinthian and certain others discussed earlier in other threads, politics is circling itself; changing back to the type of politics that dominated the C19th (though not necessarily in terms of foreign policy), so the chance at revolution may come around again and this time, the rebellion may go all the way.

All the way to what? A new self-appointed elite bossing everyone about after they've killed or denounced all their (well-meaning but shortsighted) rivals? Mass murder? gangs of secret police picking up anyone suspected of bourgeois consumerist sympathies? Dictatorships always follow revolutions. It all sounds lovely but I won't be seeing you on the barricades Eomer.

bloggs

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Bloggs, your two cent fails to take into account that the point of the communism movement is internationalism; the idea that the nation state is the capitalist equivalent of a feudal baronetcy and that it will become outmoded along with the idea of capitalism itself, giving sway to movements of workers from across the world; in accordance with this therefore, no revolution would occur in one country as it did in Russia - the point at which a Socialist revolution would occur would be one of global turmoil for the capitalist system when millions of working peoples across the world, in different countries (remember the dictum of Trotsky!), would overthrow their capitalist system.

So it can't come around by normal democratic means? And if it can only appear though chaos (perhaps i picked up your point wrong), and it reigns for a few years, how do we get rid off it, if we don't like it?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Thus, as Corinthian and certain others discussed earlier in other threads, politics is circling itself; changing back to the type of politics that dominated the C19th (though not necessarily in terms of foreign policy), so the chance at revolution may come around again and this time, the rebellion may go all the way.

To be honest Éomer, I was referring precisely to the return to a pursuit of a foreign policy based upon nation states rather than ideology, which characterised the twentieth century.

As for popular rebellion and revolution, that is probably an inevitability, somewhere down the line, but you have yet to convince me that as an ideology, communism is anything other than a spent force.

gom

A different type of Communism... Communalism.
Decentralise Irish Political powers and move them closer to the people via Provincial Governments, Local Governments, City and County councils. Alot of these local councils must be reformed alot more but the ideals of equality and people power of direct democracy can take hold if more decision making is taken at closer levels to the people that they effect.
There is an excellent post by M.Ferguson on the matter of Provincial government in Ireland. Why haven't we even broched the idea of devolution as a means of achieving a pure communist state. The trouble with most communist states in existance is that they come into existance via revolution(mostly violent). The democratic ones were overthrown by US backed military coos...

Provincial Governments can have communist stints and exist in the largest democracy in the world. E.g. India -- The larest democracy in the world. India is democratic enough to permit communist governments in some states. The state of West Bengal has had a communist government continuously for the past 21 years!

So
The Peoples Republic of Cork becomes a reality

gom

Don't confuse Democracy with Capitalism... They are very different things.
Democracy is the rule of people not the exchequer
:rolleyes:

DadaKopf

by Smiles
Yes, capitalism works, it's self-propelling, and with a good social system in the background I think that it is the best possibility for the most amount of people.

Wasn't it J.K. Galbraith who said something like: "Socialism saved capitalism from itself"?

Hmmmm.

DadaKopf

by gom
A different type of Communism... Communalism.

Communitarianism is even deadlier. Not so much a political philosophy/ideology as a way of doing things.

Check our Charles Taylor's writings (no not the Liberian dictator, but a world standard Canadian political philosopher).