Sell Marxism/Communism to me

Ostrom

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

Ok it seems I'm misinterpreting people and its leading nowhere very fast. So to get back on track I would like to get the Marxist input on a number of issues.

1.Would it be safe to agree that the USSR and Communist China were effectively dictatorships?

Broadly agree

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

2. What aspects of the USSR and Communist China would be favorable to a true Marxist system?

I have trouble with the term 'true Marxist'. I dont consider there to be a true marxism of any sort, to the extent that you could call the failing of the above misplaced attempts at implementing a specific set of guidelines. 'Marxism' has changed significantly since Marx's writing, and various aspects of Marx's analysis have been incorporated into descriptive, normative and programmatic theories/studies. (i.e. Gramsci's work as an attempt to cope with Marx's inability to conceptualise civil society, or Lenin as an attempt to develop a theory of state). My own opinion is that its application has largely failed through its various incarnations, but this is all too often interpreted as an excuse not to work through Marx's critical method in his own terms, which is unfortunate.

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

3. Would the economic unit in a Marxist economic system effectively be a co-operative business with workers as shareholders?
4. How will the proposed Marxist revolution take place?

According to Schumpeter, we wont need one

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

5. How will a Marxist society compromise between the individual and society? or is this contrary to Marxist ideals and if so are we to believe whats good for society is good for the individual?

In what sense? In terms of personal liberty/law? What marxist ideals are you referring to?

Black Cross

Kama, i'll respond in a bit.

1.Would it be safe to agree that the USSR and Communist China were effectively dictatorships?

Yes, and considering economic relations did not change, at their roots, it would be farfetched to even call their usurper governments "revolutionary". Those so-called revolutions simply ended in a change of those in power between one group of people and another.

2. What aspects of the USSR and Communist China would be favorable to a true Marxist system?

Grassroots organization and their truly social movements (both of which were destroyed/manipulated by state centralization). Their economies were capitalist, so nothing more than that.

3. Would the economic unit in a Marxist economic system effectively be a co-operative business with workers as shareholders?

I think that's too vague. It's a business, but not competitive (i guess that's what you mean by co-operative?); and they're shareholders as far as everyone has equal stake in its productive capabilities.

4. How will the proposed Marxist revolution take place?

Ideally (and in my opinion, the only way it can succeed in establishing a communist society) it is through a social revolution, meaning it has massive support from the working class (the bulk of the population). It will take place through expropriation, whether it be legal or illegal (if the law isn't responsive to the will of the people, how can it be anything but illegitimate?), and will employ a democratic means of running the economy (soviets, collectives, etc.); that's all a revolution entails. Violence is usually a response from the state when it knows its existence is at risk.

5. How will a [communist] society compromise between the individual and society?

(Made a correction, since a 'marxist society' would be a communist society; marxism is more of a way of interpreting past and present events, whereas communism is an actual socio-economic structure, and the principle aim of Marxist theory)

It will function in a way that is natural in a human society. As individuals, we need society, cooperation -- or whatever you wanna call it -- in order to sustain the level of civility we've attained to this point. Hermits just can't pull this off. The individual is free to do what s/he pleases. Leave or stay, work or don't, but a coercive force can't threaten to starve you out if you don't give your share to society (this would be antethetical to the principles of Marxism).

...are we to believe whats good for society is good for the individual?

Is it not? Without co-operation we have none of these benefits that society grants us. Therefore how can social interests be any different than individual interests, unless of course by 'individuals', you mean 'some individuals' (i.e. the bourgeoisie). Otherwise, making a distinction between the individual and society is pointless, as a society is a conglomeration of individuals.

Anonymous1987

efla wrote: »

I have trouble with the term 'true Marxist'. I dont consider there to be a true marxism of any sort, to the extent that you could call the failing of the above misplaced attempts at implementing a specific set of guidelines. 'Marxism' has changed significantly since Marx's writing, and various aspects of Marx's analysis have been incorporated into descriptive, normative and programmatic theories/studies. (i.e. Gramsci's work as an attempt to cope with Marx's inability to conceptualise civil society, or Lenin as an attempt to develop a theory of state). My own opinion is that its application has largely failed through its various incarnations, but this is all too often interpreted as an excuse not to work through Marx's critical method in his own terms, which is unfortunate.

Given the political aspects of the USSR and Communist China failed to deliver any element of democracy I would refer to the successful aspects of a planned economy if it is at all possible to separate the political and economic components. When I say true Marxism I mean the version envisioned with democratic decisions on the allocation of resources if at all possible.

efla wrote: »

According to Schumpeter, we wont need one

Thats what my feeling would be however I do view co-operatives as a success story and I believe they have great potential in less developed countries.

efla wrote: »

In what sense? In terms of personal liberty/law? What marxist ideals are you referring to?

Take for example I feel my family's needs are not being met by society's allocation of resources. No matter how hard I work it makes no difference for to my ability to provide for my family because my marginal contribution to society is insignificant, effectively I have lost the right as an individual to provide for my family.

Black Cross

Kama wrote: »

So...one dominant, aggressively assertive group of interests replaces another?

Yes, that of the people would have to assert themselves over the state and the bourgeoisie, as the interests of the people are generally opposed to the interests of the state and the capitalist class. No need to make it sound dirty; it is what it is.

What of the interests that are subalterned or subordinated?

Are their interests justifiable, or even legitimate if it goes against the base principle of society? These interests you refer to are antethetical to democracy and have been instituted only through the most brutal and coercive violence.

Or: assume the dominant interests wish to assert state and capitalist projects, aka where do we put the 'reactionaries'.

If people actually wished to impose a state or a capitalist mode of production on themselves (like tibet wants theocracy), they have every right to do so. If communism doesn't come from the grassroots, it's going to fail (see any vanguardist revolution)

The 'paltry evidence' I'm guessing was the 'jokes' about the necessity of killing people by synd,

Paltry

in response to the earlier question of Anonymous, that violent revolution implies that a movement does not possess sufficient legitimacy.

It could also imply that we live in societies ruled by instutitions that impose themselves through violence.

The liberal argument here is that if you gain the support necessary, you can have socialism, communism, whatever, and that the revolutionary approach is necessarily indicative of a lack of broad support, even among the classes in whose interests are claimed to be represented.

And in cases of majority movements for autonomy, there is still violence... How could this be!? :eek:

Again, the state and the capitalist class, as reactionary as they are, will use violence to sustain their existence, even if it isn't the will of the people they are supposed to be in service to.

Besides the 'bourgeois-ethical' objections to violence, and the problem that if 'the people' wanted to change those institutions there is already a non-violent means available to them through constitutional means (leading back to the implication that the 'people' functions as a rhetoric for a small cadre or minority, who believe, like de Valera, they have access to the soul of the Commonality). To be blunt, if you spoke for 'the People', I'd have heard more voices outside Thomas Cook. But moving on...

In the US, at least, communism is illegal, so that automatically rules out the reform possibility.

Violent insurrection against the State seems so politically and tactically maladroit; the State has, or is the nearest thing to, a monopoly of violence. And you intend to attack it, on its strongest point.

Uhh, no; that'd be dumb. If it is a sufficiently large movement, we wouldn't need to physically destroy the materials that make up the state. The state, as violent as it is, couldn't just destroy the bulk of its working population and get away with it with fancy rhetoric. Information disseminates far too quickly for that. And people are getting wise to that game.

The State thrives on the idea of a violent opposition, salivates for it, as does the media-entertainment complex, witness the London protest coverage, or any of the summits: theres a well-prepared propaganda machine whose desire is to portray all counter-hegemonic forces as 'stone-chucking anarchists', a frame which allows the sidelining of all of the political issues raised. It's so convenient it could almost be deliberate; the repressive state apparatus is legitimated by violent opposition, much as you feel violent opposition is and will be justified by it; two sides of the same violent coin.

Yep, you're right, and that makes me a sad panda, but this is besides the point of this thread. Tiny anarchist riots are no more a part of marxism than vanguardism. Violent revolution is not to be compared with simple stone-throwing.

I've had a mild conspiracy theory for some time, that the intelligence service have been encouraging this strand of thought, creating it agent provocateur style, as a successful and economic way to defuse and sabotage Leftist organization. A few broken windows, and you've a lovely Daily Mail cover. A few cops dressed as Black Bloc, and *bingo*...#sure they're all just violent yobs anyway'.

Not so farfetched, but i don't give the statesmen that much credit.

But the point remains: the State is specialized in violence, and has a history of dealing, in this country, with internal competitors to this monopoly. So the most hopeful prognosis I can see here is that of martyrdom as a political mobilization strategy, hoping the cops kill some people, and that this will be the radicalizing break and revolutionary moment, in a repetition of Pearse and the tradition of human sacrifice, to paint the streets 'Red'. At least Zizek is, for once, clear on this; if you want revolution, you'll need to have dirty hands. Which, as I said, is why sociopaths tend to thrive in the anarchic environment of a revolutionary situation, vide the Stalinist deviation.

Sociopaths thrive in a competitive society -- period.

As for the state, direct 'throw up the barricades' conflict is not an efficient way of defying the state, or of coming to the goal of communism.

Also, it's good to know that the state relies on people (police, army, etc.) to impose its violent rule, so if the state were to sic the armed forces on the friends, family, or community of those soldiers, there's always a good chance that their conscience will prevail over their "duty" (this is the case often when revolutions are social; certain portions of the armed forces will always take the side of the people).

It's ironic how we come to resemble our enemies...TINA's b*strd half-sister, asserting closure of possibility in the field of human autonomy, and the refusal to let people, the people you claim to represent, articulate and create the worlds they desire; essentially, the refusal or short circuit of politics. Instead, and 'for their own good', their future is to be determined.

I'm sorry, now i'm just confused. Are speaking of me, specifically? Because i don't remember claiming to represent anyone. I came here to try to represent Marxism, in its most essential form (before it was taken from Marx).

As a libertarian socialist, I find this utterly antithetical, a complete dead end for the Left, in theory (the substantiation or lack thereof of the privileged space from which the claim is made), and in concrete political practice. You're waiting for a political Eschaton, in messianic desire, rather than building the world you want in lived practice and human commonality. And tbh, if you can't adequately convince me, someone broadly to the Left of Finland, then...uh...splitters!

Convince you of what? I don't remember ever saying "Kama, here's some knowledge fo yo ass!". You think whatever you want to think; that's your own business.

"building the world you want"? Sounds like a fairy-tale. In order to effect significant, meaningful change within a society, you need significant support from the people within that society. Until the people within a society want change enough to get it for themselves, all we can do is agitate, teach, and go about our lives as best we see fit within the framework of a capitalist mode production.

If all you have is a hammer, all you see are nails; if your only solution is revolution, intellectual laziness sets in, there's no need to analyze, to interrogate, to question...you already know the answers. 'Revolution' here becomes something of a fetish, a projection of idealism...I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, but if it distracts from concrete change or the development of fresh analysis in a 'waiting for Godot' deferral, it's lethal.

Ima wait, and not respond to this, since its clear that you simply didn't understand the meaning of "revolution" before you made this post. I think i clearly defined its actual meaning (not to be confused with connotative assumptions and doctrinal definitions) in my first post if you'd like to read it.

Anonymous1987

Black Cross wrote: »

Grassroots organization and their truly social movements (both of which were destroyed/manipulated by state centralization). Their economies were capitalist, so nothing more than that.

What about regional and national issues? I would think some level of hierarchy is necessary, possibly a tiered system similar to a federal system?

Black Cross wrote: »

Ideally (and in my opinion, the only way it can succeed in establishing a communist society) it is through a social revolution, meaning it has massive support from the working class (the bulk of the population). It will take place through expropriation, whether it be legal or illegal (if the law isn't responsive to the will of the people, how can it be anything but illegitimate?), and will employ a democratic means of running the economy (soviets, collectives, etc.); that's all a revolution entails. Violence is usually a response from the state when it knows its existence is at risk.

This is where I can't see a revolution happening because the majority of peoples needs are being met under the current system even if a minority are arguably not. Everyone has one vote no matter how much property you own, politically at least I think we moved closer to the empowerment Marx envisioned. Also if the majority do favour revolution then the institutions are in place to allow this to occur they just need to vote their representatives to government. Politically I don't see any obstacles for the majority.

Black Cross wrote: »

It will function in a way that is natural in a human society. As individuals, we need society, cooperation -- or whatever you wanna call it -- in order to sustain the level of civility we've attained to this point. Hermits just can't pull this off.

I would argue that generally people are hard wired to put their won needs and wants above others, call it greed or the fight for survival but if the opportunity exists to improve ones position at the expense of others they will do it, utterly depressing but I believe it is true to our nature as living creatures. I doesn't mean we can't co-operate as long as it is our interests. I think this can act as a barrier to achieving a true classless society as even if everyone starts off with nothing, very quickly people see the benefits of grouping together to achieve dominance over others

Black Cross wrote: »

The individual is free to do what s/he pleases. Leave or stay, work or don't, but a coercive force can't threaten to starve you out if you don't give your share to society (this would be antethetical to the principles of Marxism).

I would think think that the this would lead to lower productivity as the motive to work is removed.

Black Cross wrote: »

Is it not? Without co-operation we have none of these benefits that society grants us. Therefore how can social interests be any different than individual interests, unless of course by 'individuals', you mean 'some individuals' (i.e. the bourgeoisie). Otherwise, making a distinction between the individual and society is pointless, as a society is a conglomeration of individuals.

If society could be equated with the individual no problem would exist however we are all different, have different needs and wants and I would argue that an inherent conflict occurs between the individual and society. Whether the best way to resolve this is by putting society first or competing against one another is an open question. Certainly putting society first would seem to satisfy the majority at least.

Chi chi

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

The vast majority of the world consists of capitalist or socialist governments so why should anyone believe that Marxism or Communism will ever or even should ever be adopted as a from of government given the spectacular failures of states that attempted to adopt it specifically the Soviet Union?

China has retained its communist identity in name but really it behaves like a command capitalist state. North Korea is practically a dictatorship. Given that so many of these communist states have gone the way of control why should we ever expect any different? It seems communism requires a strong consolidated power base to direct the economy and therefore seems to end in failure as the all the power falls in the hands of a few who inevitably abuse their positions. Still there is a small following that support the ideals of Marx. My question to you is why given that the evidence is so much against communism do you consider it a viable form of government?

I'm Chinese. I stayed in Chinese school or college for 16 years (excluding kintergarden) and stayed in Ireland for almost a year. The title is "Sell Marxism/Communism to me". So I'll try to "sell" this to you.

You said "China has retained its communist identity in name but really it behaves like a command capitalist state." Here is the explain that can be found from the textbooks -- Generally each civilization ought to go through tribalism, slavery, feudalism, captalism, socialism, and finnally communism as it evolves. The political form should confirm to the contemporary economic foundation. And the contemporary economic foundation determines that China doesn't fit Socialism at the moment. So an adapted version "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" is what China is applying currently. As it develops, the time for Socialism and finally Communism would come in China. So Communism is still the goal for China though it is not practiced at the moment.

The failure of Soviet Union can be described as a failure of two main reasons. Neither of them has anything to do with the flaws of communism. They made a few mistakes on carrying out communism and we should learn lessons from that and learn to carry out communism in a more just way. Also, it can be assumed that perhaps the capitalism countries are afraid of the growth and power of the communist world so their purposeful propaganda was another reason that caused the failure of Soviet Union in sticking to Communism.

In Marx's writings, the working class has no capitals and have to work under the people with capitals. The workers are deprived of the desurplus value in the process manufacuring and labouring, which is the core of captalism in Marx's political econimics theory.

When you are planning on climbing over a hill with a forrest, imagine one friend comes to you to warn you that there are tighers in the forrest and you shouldn't go, you might take that as nonsense and think actually there is no tiger there. Then a second friend comes to warn you the same thing, you might begin to suspect there might be. Finally a third friend warns you again that there are tigers there. And would you believe totally and never try climb that hill again? Don't underestimate about propaganda and public voices.

And since people already did so many discussions on this theme here, that was the only supplement I'd like to made then.

Chi chi

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You said some comrades would say that "Just because such regimes have historically ended in dictatorship, totalitarianism, genocide, slavery, and torture doesn't mean that the same thing will necessarily happen again." Actually, these some comrades might not even know that Starlin was a dictator. Literacy Awards with his name might be an honor.

Yes, Dickensian's poorhouse, as well as Andersen's The Little Match-Seller, and Oscar winner Titanic etc. epitomize how Capitalism makes tragedies.

The "unstable" trait can be seen in the great depressions at intervals.

You covered most points in summary.

Chi chi

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There are three dimensions of propaganda:

1. Such negative aspects never exist. The people with bad intentions are lying.

2. I admit such negative aspects exist, but they are sacrifice for the higher good. The overal harmony is more important.

3. Dare you argue any more, you will be arrested .

Chi chi

Anyone could recommend some readings just for the common sense for capitalism and demoncracy? (Most of which are perhaps nothing more than common sense to you.)

Chi chi

To synd :

If you know about Han han(韩寒), Luo Yonghao(罗永浩), who is one the most famous teachers in new-oriental English(新东方), then you might be interested in looking at this: www.bullogger.com. That's Luo's personal sites with mostly his students and writers(including Han han) writting blogs there. It is banned in China for the content on news and politics.

I wouldn't argue with you if communism is workable, because communism is a very beautiful dream and if it is realized, we would all live in happiness. I do wish we could reach real commumism one day.

The only thing is, when you realize you are hidden from some astonishing news and history, anyone can get surprised. North Korean people believe that they are living a much wealthier life than the people in south Korea because south Korea is "in chaos" and "on the edge of collapse" according to North Korea's media and news.

I wouldn't argue about the abstract concepts. But I think you should have compassions and you must be kind, just that we lack facts sometimes. What signal is showing when facebook, twitter, msn, google service, wikepedia are at least ocassionally banned and green dam is on agenda? I think when the people helping the victims of the posioned milk and killed children in the unstable buildings due to architecture problems during last year's earthquake are arrested, people lucky enough to still be accecible to the news would at least know what compassion is.

I think when every one evolves to Angels with no flaws, Communism would arrive. The time hasn't come yet but is so fantastic if reached.

And there are still social problems hidden from us. You shouldn't ignore them just because they are banned in news (harmonized). Every one is equal. The weak need to be taken care of. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archielago and George Orwell, 1984, the two books you might find interesting in having a glimpse.

Ostrom

Thanks for posting Chi Chi, it was very interesting to hear your views.

How is communism taught in China? Do you study Marx's texts in school? Are there specific classes on economic history that deal with communism - how is it presented? Are the books you name at the end of your post also banned in China?

Chi chi

efla wrote: »

Thanks for posting Chi Chi, it was very interesting to hear your views.

How is communism taught in China? Do you study Marx's texts in school? Are there specific classes on economic history that deal with communism - how is it presented? Are the books you name at the end of your post also banned in China?

Courses on "soul-cultivation" are compulsary for all students from primary school to college. They include "ideas" from Marx, and our several leaders. And we study literature written by Chinese writers who won Stalin Prize For Literature.

On Marxism, our textbooks were the simplified version of his original writings. I feel that Marx's theory is by itself logically explainable -- it is hard to find any logical flaws despite being studied over and over again -- though being logically correct doesn't necessarily induce any conclusions towards values. For example, the core concept of Marxist political economics -- desurplus value -- is a term logically defined by him and from his definition, such thing really exists. But this logical correctness does not necessarily show that desurplus value is crime.... And you know, value issues are much more controversal, much harder to argue about.... than fact issues or just reasonings.

Maybe when I get the chance, I would find his whole original writings and study them patiently from beginning to end.

We also studied marxist philosophy in a similiar manner. Again his theory is almost flawless in the logical reasoning, or, self explainable.

We have history course of course. Marxist history, which means, reviewing historical events under the guidence of Marxism. By the way, my friends some times brought up the Korean war when talking to me, and immediately when I said China took part in that war, helping Korea to fight America, I always seemed to surprise them and they seemed to suddenly stop what they wanted to say....

The translator for the novel 1984 stated that this novel doesn't reflect and criticize us. And he said Orwell is a socialist actually. I saw his book on sale from the internet. I was trying to find if The Gulag Archipelago was on sale there. Though I didn't heard about them until being recommended recently.

For a time, I thought value or opinion is relative, priorities in life are relative while facts are eternal and absolute. Then literally, I found even facts might be relative too.... Like how can I know if people's life are predefined, programmed, or there is nothing like fate, or there is unknown supernatural strength arranging this behind our meaningful lives, or the universe is just random atoms with no meanings or gods? When I was even younger, I even consider the values as absolute.

But there is one thing I know for sure despite the confusion. That is, I was told about the good, beauty, kindness.... and they seldom confirm to reality. Maybe the ancient Taoism still works -- when there is the good, there always should be evil. Good and evil, white and black, yin and yang etc. need to exist in pairs and mixed together so that the universe is balanced....

ChocolateSauce

It may have already been said, but I'll say it myself: Even a perfect communist system is a horrid idea. It would create a society of invalids dependent on the state and would cause a paradigm shift from society being made of individuals, to individuals being cogs of society. Things like enterprise, even in a perfect communist state that wasn't bent on controlling everything, would wither a great deal.

The weak do not need to be protected, they just need not be stepped on. The weak can look after themselves provided there is a fair distribution of opportunity.

Chi chi

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

The weak do not need to be protected, they just need not be stepped on. The weak can look after themselves provided there is a fair distribution of opportunity.

This point seems to conflict with taxes and welfare concept. Though strangely, China has a trend of making development at the cost of public health care and education. They turned from being free to being charged more and more, while economy is developing fast these few years. And what is socialism any way.

I think Franklin D. Roosevelt's Four Freedoms include both "freedom from fear" and "freedom from want". And by "freedom from want", I interprete it as , the weak need not be stepped on as well as need to be protected.

Also, when saying "fair distribution of opportunity", does the opportunity only mean not preventing them from certain things or mean that enabling them to do certain things as well?

Chi chi

ps: I think maybe you misunderstood that -- When I mentioned the weak, I mean examples like victims of the poisonous milk in last year's incident. I was suggesting that he(or she) should pay attention before ensusiastically defending for his(or her) views.

S-Murph

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

It may have already been said, but I'll say it myself: Even a perfect communist system is a horrid idea. It would create a society of invalids dependent on the state and would cause a paradigm shift from society being made of individuals, to individuals being cogs of society. Things like enterprise, even in a perfect communist state that wasn't bent on controlling everything, would wither a great deal.

The weak do not need to be protected, they just need not be stepped on. The weak can look after themselves provided there is a fair distribution of opportunity.

This is always what amazes me. The likes of you can make assertions such as those above, and yet, quite obviously, you do not understand what it is you are talking about.

Any person who understands the concept of communism, or "perfect communism" as you put it, whether for or against - can see the blatent ignorance of your post.

So let me ask. Where did you develop these allegations from?

You clearly do not understand what communism, in the Marxist sense is.

And yet you have such strong views against it.

And in case you are wondering the incorrectness of your post. For one, communism is stateless. And secondly, communism is not contrary to individualism. In fact, it could be argued that communism would be more individualistic than capitalism. Marx:

In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic.

Or this:

"The less you eat, drink, buy books, go to the theatre, go dancing, go drinking, think, love, theorize, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you will be able to save and the greater will become your capital. The less you are, the less you give expression to your life, the more you have, the greater is your alienated life. So all passions and all activity become submerged in greed."

As for your "fair distribution of opportunity". This is the sort of ****e the PDs used to spout. The reality of this society, and others, shows this rhetoric for what it is. (but one example: http://www.independent.ie/education/latest-news/study-uncovers-class-divide-in-universities-1650735.html) Its not equal opportunity people need, its equal access to social wealth.

Working class kids do have the opportunity to go to college. They do have the opportunity to do good in the leaving cert. They do have the opportunity to become 'middle class' or a professional.

The opportunity is there. Yet the problem as outlined in the article remains. Predisposition is the factor. People are born within a certain set of circumstances to which their life pattern will develop. Capitalism rewards privilege.

Anonymous1987

I would think that because Chinese culture is so different from Western Culture it would only be natural that it would develop differently than the west. While China could be said to be less free than the west there doesn't seem to be any desire among the people for increased freedom. I would put this down to the fact that much of the population still lives in subsistence and care more about where they find their next meal than personal freedoms. Nevertheless the standard of living in China is improving and it gives hope that someday the Chinese people will feel the need to push for greater freedoms. I would really appreciate Chi Chi's input on how he/she would see China evolving?

I would also agree on the application of Taoism to society. To extend it I would argue that society works best when components of it are pitted against one another with neither achieving the ability to gain a lasting advantage over the other i.e. society versus the individual worker versus business left versus right. Of course this is all very enticing however putting it into practice is another thing.

With regard to ChocolateSauce's comment; Black Cross argues that communism would be achieved through grass roots democracy not state control. The concept of communism seems to very desirable an almost Utopian society thats not want I disagree with though. I think that its simply not possible to achieve a true communist society. Grass roots democracy will probably work in small rural areas where co-operation is far more likely and indeed is already in operation to a degree. However in denser and larger populations such as cities co-operation is far more likely to lead to hierarchical arrangements.

S-Murph

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

However in denser and larger populations such as cities co-operation is far more likely to lead to hierarchical arrangements.

Communism is not against hierarchy. Forms of hierarchy are inevitable in any society.

Though to implement an alternative social and economic arrangement such as communism, people must invent and develop new forms of social structure.

Its simply not good enough to say "but it will end up in a dictatorship (in common usage)". The simple fact that Ireland is a representative democratic system is evidence that human society can develop alternative forms of governance.

Communists must develop sound political structures in theory and in practice. A system of checks and balances to limit the power of hierarchial positions and to maintain mass social power.

Saying its impossible is just defeatist.

Anonymous1987

S-Murph wrote: »

Forms of hierarchy are inevitable in any society.

I agree but isn't grass roots democracy and hierarchy incompatible or is the idea to pit them against each other?

S-Murph wrote: »

Though to implement an alternative social and economic arrangement such as communism, people must invent and develop new forms of social structure

Again my personal aversion to communism and I believe many others also is that it will lead to domination by one group over all the others. As far as I know every country that attempted to adopt communism has fallen under dictatorship or oligarchical control. I believe that the best approach is gradual development of our democracies and the reduction of class differences over time. If a revolution is to take place then it must be by the majority however if the majority hold power then there is no need for a revolution. I would think that the "revolution" would be a gradual process and could only be called a revolution after the fact.

Having said that I'm beginning to think would it be possible to have a high degree of but not absolute communism while also keeping intact an element of capitalism?

Chi chi

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

I would really appreciate Chi Chi's input on how he/she would see China evolving?

It's not my view. It's what the textbook says.

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

While China could be said to be less free than the west there doesn't seem to be any desire among the people for increased freedom.

That's not the reason. The people are brain washed from childhood, believing things are right. Only a portion of the people know what is going on but are intellectual enough to keep it quiet. (Mostly higher intellectuals from higher classes, who receive benefits from this hierachical inequility so wouldn't be motivated to change the current situation.)

The rest of people aware of this can do nothing but leave it be. (e.g. Some impoverished college students like me)

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

Communists must develop sound political structures in theory and in practice. A system of checks and balances to limit the power of hierarchial positions and to maintain mass social power.

That's it! This is to eliminate the possiblity that the ruling class might abuse the power in the name of sacrifce from its people for the higher good. Because in communism, private property doesn't exist any more, the ruling class to allocate the resources would be likely to hold massive power and Lord Acton says "Power corrupts."

If this can be achieved, then that would be fairly nice.

Chi chi

Hi S-Murph, are you from China? "Murphy" seems like Irish. But judging from your views, I guess you are Chinese.

Black Cross

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

What about regional and national issues? I would think some level of hierarchy is necessary, possibly a tiered system similar to a federal system?

There would be hierarchy, in the most uncoercive sense (that is, if the system were to be preserved. I say this because i don't know of any statements by Marx regarding this. There are, however, other communist theorists who have taken this into account). The society would be run by those within it, and would federate with other societies, industries, and what-have-you. Federation would merely be a system of inter-societal organization, since not every community/society would be self-sustaining in every civil sense, that is, beyond bare necessities, which any community could likely procure.

This is where I can't see a revolution happening because the majority of peoples needs are being met under the current system even if a minority are arguably not.

Possibly, although it depends on how you define "needs". Bare subsistence, sure, but there is a level of civility attained by technological advancements, and sustaining that civility could also be argued as a "need", that is, if we consider reducing crime a need for the society.

That minority will generally be criminal, especially if there is a distinct polarization of wealth within the community they live in. Seeing what others have, deservedly or not, generally shines the spotlight on what you don't have. I'm not justifying crime, i'm just saying, that is the likely outcome. The US is a perfect example of this.

Also, crises precipitate change. There is always a good chance that when capitalism goes into its periodic crisis, it will ignite a spark that would have otherwise dwindled in the face of capitalism/statism (two large deterrents to grassroots organization).

Everyone has one vote no matter how much property you own, politically at least I think we moved closer to the empowerment Marx envisioned.

I don't think Marx would so easily have divided the politics of a country from the economy. Those who run the economy have easily as much influence governing a society as do the elected "representatives". Think of how many lives GE (the electric company) can change in one board meeting. They weren't elected by those people they affect, and they don't need their permission, or even to forewarn the people of these changes they may make, which is quite resemblant of fascism.

Also if the majority do favour revolution then the institutions are in place to allow this to occur they just need to vote their representatives to government. Politically I don't see any obstacles for the majority.

Well, here in the US, expropriation of any kind is illegal, so reform is of nil importance in that regard.

Also, as i said before, if the government were made of representatives of those who favor revolution, they would still need the revolutionary peoples to enact revolutionary change. The state is incapable, by its very nature, of enacting such a change that would threaten its very existence. Reform, by definition, means remaining within statist/capitalist organizations of society. Revolution, by definition, means obliterating these reactionary, coercive institutions. So once more i repeat that revolution is the only way. Do not take this to mean, however, that revolution manifests itself in only one way.

I would argue that generally people are hard wired to put their won needs and wants above others...

I agree. This does not, however, rule out communism as a more natural human tendency than capitalism.

...call it greed or the fight for survival...

How bout we call it self-interest, as that seems the most precise definition. Greed is something entirely different than a survival instinct; and there really is no 'fight for survival' within human society, except for those most destitute people who will literally, violently fight for what they need.

I'd also say here that the Darwinist notion of struggle for survival, as Darwin put it, was not saying that struggle is on every level of being. Within societies, both human and animal (obviously not scavengers, lone hunters and the like; but those don't comprise a majority of animals), there is a distinct need for cooperation in order to sustain the society. The struggle takes place between societies/tribes, generally when there is a lack of resources for the subsistence of two different tribes. I believe this has been overcome, and imperialism ensues now because of greed and the natural tendency of capital to valorize itself, regardless of the means by which it does it.

...but if the opportunity exists to improve ones position at the expense of others they will do it...

Only within an individualistic society is this made possible. Take away the foundation of the means of accomplishing that, and it won't happen.

This is why a social revolution is the necessary basis for a communist society. People need to learn first hand that it is cooperation, and not competition, that facilitates civility and progress.

utterly depressing but I believe it is true to our nature as living creatures.

I will concede that it is our nature that pushes some to exploit others, but not our nature as self-serving; it is our nature as social creatures that pushes us to live by the laws of a society (not governmental laws, but physical, material laws); therefore, as the physical manifestation of capital, the bourgeoisie will follow the law they know best (or rather, the law that asserts itself upon them), that is the law of valorizing capital.

I doesn't mean we can't co-operate as long as it is our interests.

It is always in the best interest of the majority of civilization to cooperate. It is only against the interest of some of the bourgeoisie to stunt cooperation, which lowers the cost of labor by keeping the market glutted (simple supply and demand makes this painfully obvious).

I think this can act as a barrier to achieving a true classless society as even if everyone starts off with nothing, very quickly people see the benefits of grouping together to achieve dominance over others

There isn't much historical proof of this. Colonization/Imperialism give people a reason to dominate others (and even so, it is a very small group dominating a very large one). These are affects of a centralized authority, not democracy. If democracy were to truly prevail, why would the bulk of society think to enslave another group of people? It takes a distinct amount of desensitization to be able to violently oppress a group of people. You don't get that desensitization from within the general population. But when your whole existence is based on profit making/valorizing capital, then i'm sure it's hard to see the humanist side of things.

Also, if it were the people who had to themselves do the exploiting, it would be a whole lot of work for a whole lot of nothing. They could be just as productive (if not more so) cooperating within their society, and with the people they would think to exploit.

I would think think that the this would lead to lower productivity as the motive to work is removed.

That is literally impossible. You can't remove the motive to labor just like that. Our entire past and present civilitation existed/s thanks to labor. We can't just one day stop working (and if we made the collective decision to do so, who has the right to deny us our apathy?). The motive to work would only change slightly in a communist society (i'll explain this in detail if i'm asked to do so).

Lower productivity is a good thing though, as of now we're constantly over-producing, inviting environmental disaster right to our doorstep, while at the same time denying people necessities (because the over-product is mostly destroyed) to keep prices up.

If society could be equated with the individual no problem would exist however we are all different, have different needs and wants and I would argue that an inherent conflict occurs between the individual and society.

I would concur if you limited your statement to competitive society, and not a cooperative one. As for our individual needs differing, that is trifling. There's no reason individual preferences should have to defer to the community's well-being in a productive society; And merely saying it is that way, doesn't make it true. If you would, please substantiate your argument in some meaningful way, otherwise i can only think it's an assumption based on general acceptance (which does not decide a case).

Whether the best way to resolve this is by putting society first or competing against one another is an open question. Certainly putting society first would seem to satisfy the majority at least.

Note that it is much easier to focus on wants once needs have been fulfilled. If everyone is a productive member of society (that is, no idle laborers, no energy-wasting labor, no hunger, little 'crime', etc.), all the easier it will be to labor on what makes us happy.

Chi chi

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

Having said that I'm beginning to think would it be possible to have a high degree of but not absolute communism while also keeping intact an element of capitalism?

Correct me if I'm wrong. I think nations like Switzerland are more of Socialist nations than China is. China is a high-tax place, called socialism, yet public health and education are more and more expensive, very confusing.

And when you denote for children to go to school through an agency or a local government, you don't know where the money goes when you later go and see the new school and the children still are not able to go schooling, for example.

Black Cross

Chi chi wrote: »

You said "China has retained its communist identity in name but really it behaves like a command capitalist state." Here is the explain that can be found from the textbooks -- Generally each civilization ought to go through tribalism, slavery, feudalism, captalism, socialism, and finnally communism as it evolves.

This isn't Marxian, to be clear. This is from a Chinese textbook, no? Anyway, Marx has never said anything about the inevitable fall of the capitalist mode of production. As a historical materialist he probably had an inkling, but historical materialism is broken and redundant anyway.

Also, Marx never differentiated between socialism and communism (for a period when the so called Utopic Socialists were somewhat popular with people, he stopped using socialism and started using communism, so as not to be confused with utopian socialism. Once utopian socialism died down, he used socialism again, interchangeably with communism).

That socialism is a temporal stage in an evolution to communism is a Leninist notion (which is not Marxism, though they may have similarities).

The political form should confirm to the contemporary economic foundation.

Correct, which is why as long as a centralized economy exists, so will a centralized state.

And the contemporary economic foundation determines that China doesn't fit Socialism at the moment. So an adapted version "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" is what China is applying currently. As it develops, the time for Socialism and finally Communism would come in China. So Communism is still the goal for China though it is not practiced at the moment.

It is the stated goal of China, but they've been saying that for as long as i can recall. Possibly another ploy for protecting state and capitalist interests, as it keeps the laborers hopeful. Besides this, the state and the capitalist class are simply reactionary, so for them to dissolve themselves (which is what the process called "socialism" entails) is absurd. The working class of China will be in need of more revolutionary action if they wish to see actual socialism, and not a welfare state run by "sympathetic" statesmen and covert capitalists.

The failure of Soviet Union can be described as a failure of two main reasons. Neither of them has anything to do with the flaws of communism. They made a few mistakes on carrying out communism and we should learn lessons from that and learn to carry out communism in a more just way. Also, it can be assumed that perhaps the capitalism countries are afraid of the growth and power of the communist world so their purposeful propaganda was another reason that caused the failure of Soviet Union in sticking to Communism.

Communism may have existed for a brief period of about 9 months, from February (the actual period of revolution) to October (when the Bolsheviks laid claim to the state apparatus, and therefore sounded the knell of any communist tendencies the people were acting out). Once the Bolsheviks take power, democracy wilts, the soviets lose all their meaning (soviet means workers democracy, or something to that effect, but after being infiltrated by the Bolsheviki, there was not even a semblence of worker control).

The State of the soviet union was fucked over by the cumulative invasion of 13 imperialist nations. Not to mention they engaged in spy mania, leaving the population a little less than confident in its government.

Chi chi

Black Cross wrote: »

I don't think Marx would so easily have divided the politics of a country from the economy. Those who run the economy have easily as much influence governing a society as do the elected "representatives".

When there is no private property, everything is shared, belongs to the nation, just think who has the right to allocate these resources? Is it possible that the one who allocates them (the ruling class) would have the best personal econimic foundation -- thus it leads to total totalitarianism. A new dictator would come into being then.

Unless we learn what Switzerland is doing regarding how they deal with high tax and high social welfare. But certainly never follow Stalinsm. In case you are from China, read "Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archielago" in case you are still admiring the Stalin Prize For Literature Winners.

Black Cross

Chi chi wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong. I think nations like Switzerland are more of Socialist nations than China is. China is a high-tax place, called socialism, yet public health and education are more and more expensive, very confusing.

Confusion can arise out of deeming some nations "more socialist" than others. This makes it seem as if socialism is an ingredient in the recipe of a society (social ingredientism) which is not the case. Switzerland is a better welfare state than China, but one is not any more or less socialist than the other.

Socialism is defined by the material relations between producers and the means of production, just as capitalism is defined by this same relation, as well as a relation between the producer and the capitalist (One selling the commodity that is labor-power as Marx called it, the other buying this commodity, and keeping the product of the labor).

Petty definitions of socialism-within-capitalism don't hold any weight because they lack any material foundation for use of the word socialism. If these definitions were to be assumed true, then socialism is whatever you want it to be.

S-Murph

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

I agree but isn't grass roots democracy and hierarchy incompatible or is the idea to pit them against each other?

It depends by what we mean by hierarchy. For example, socialists usually advocate 'democratic workplaces'. Managers and supervisors are elected from amongst those working in the factory. In this instance you have a hierarchial structure. Managers and supervisors are granted authority over individual workers.

I would still see this arrangement as 'grassroot' and democratic, despite the hierachial institutional structure.

It gets more complicated the larger the institution you go. For example a national authority or a national planning institution.

I cant speak for all socialists, but I myself would be along the lines of council communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_communism). A system where the primary social institution is the workers council. The more power is decentralised in a society, then I believe the more the term grassroot gains its validity.

Its all relative of course, but i think society should aim for as decentralised a system as is feasible.

Again my personal aversion to communism and I believe many others also is that it will lead to domination by one group over all the others.

An attempt at communism might very well lead to such a scenario. You then have a problem, but problems are there to be overcome.

But its within our capacity to solve and develop ways to prevent the extent of power by individuals or social groups.

As far as I know every country that attempted to adopt communism has fallen under dictatorship or oligarchical control.

But it has to be remembered that the overwhelming majority of so called attempts at communism came from the same blueprint. And that was either Leninist or Stalinist methods.

So instead of counting the "amount of countries" that failed, how about counting the amount of methods which failed.

USSR, Cuba, China, the entire Eastern Block, Angola, North Korea, Burkina Faso, Mozambique, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia etc all fall within a very narrow context and spectrum. Types of vanguardism.

As far as I am concerned, these have little to do with Marx's theories. Vanguardism warps Marx's concept of class consciousness.

And just a side point. I dont think any of the above can be considered complete failures, no more so than capitalism can. They have had their successes and acheivements, some of which synd refered to.

I believe that the best approach is gradual development of our democracies and the reduction of class differences over time. If a revolution is to take place then it must be by the majority however if the majority hold power then there is no need for a revolution. I would think that the "revolution" would be a gradual process and could only be called a revolution after the fact.

It would be nice if this were possible. If communism requires grassroots action then I think its potential for change is severely limited when political action is confined within bourgeois institutions.

The entire expression of people is confined within the bourgeois state. For example, if you have another 'Limerick Soviet' ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js0FR8GkBEo) - a grassroots and participatory political expression. This would be crushed by the bourgeois state on numerous counts.

Action is restricted to within the limits of a coercive state, and not to the democratic expression of people.

The state is and of itself a coercive entity, with its validity entirely subjective to the individual. If "Cork" decides they are the democratic majority within their repective city, who is "Ireland" to say their entity is undemocratic?

State violence preceeds any democratic expression.

Having said that I'm beginning to think would it be possible to have a high degree of but not absolute communism while also keeping intact an element of capitalism?

Elements such as what?

S-Murph

Chi chi wrote: »

Hi S-Murph, are you from China? "Murphy" seems like Irish. But judging from your views, I guess you are Chinese.

No im Irish Chi chi. Its not only Chinese people who are communists you know

Infact James Connolly, one of the most famous people in Irish history was a communist.

Chi chi

Black Cross wrote: »

You can't remove the motive to labor just like that. Our entire past and present civilitation existed/s thanks to labor. We can't just one day stop workin

Black Cross wrote: »

I'd also say here that the Darwinist notion of struggle for survival, as Darwin put it, was not saying that struggle is on every level of being.

Now let's put the two points you made together here (as above).

The struggle for survival makes humans combined with the trend of meeting its desires.

And the sevens sins in the bible are all forms of human desires.

Why a buddhist monk has to try so hard to resist temptations from like sloth etc.?

When human has no desires, it's not a human any more. And we can compare human desire as air in balloons, try the best to expand -- and the restriction, the balloon that restricts the air is things like laws and morality!!!!

Just imagine a nation without punishing it's citizens at all, either verbally, mentally or physically! Can you assure not a single crime happens and even if one case happens the victim is not vengeful?

And relying on the assuption that people would tend to labor rather than rest is against human nature!

Also, every one is selfish -- If you have a child and a wife, would you treat any stranger as equal as treating your blood relations like your child?
That is one form of selfish.

So the balloon is needed to restrict those expanding selfishness (according your Darwinism on struggling and competition). This balloon, is through trading , either between labor or goods .... And laws and moralities are to assure them.

If every one really is taking labor as pleasure, then why holiday is called "a day off", why we are educated "no pains, no gains"? And if your own daughter is sick, you are working to get money for her curing the disease, and knowing however hard you work even without sleeping several days the money wouldn't directly go to her but rather go to the "allocator for resources", would you be still so motivated in this working?

Finally, if you are Chinese, again I would recommend
1 www.bullogger.com
2 George Orwell, 1984
3 Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archielago

All the best

Chi chi

S-Murph wrote: »

No im Irish Chi chi. Its not only Chinese people who are communists you know

Infact James Connolly, one of the most famous people in Irish history was a communist.

Fair enough. Now someone from China is arguing against someone from Ireland about Communism, and the Chinese one is against it.... Though she once believed it as sacred....