The Communism Thread

[Axl Van Sixx]

Originally Posted by SV Fan

I always thought a Communism style government could work if you have the government control selected big business(say like oil, weapons manufacturing, all main utilities(gas, electricity, phones, cable tv, etc) but leave stuff like chain stores(Walmart, McDonalds, etc) open to private ownership) but still let the people live in a democratic style environment competing for jobs at different wages.

Whatever money the government makes from the companies it owns gets re-invested in the country

I agree with you that we should only nationalize the largest corporations ("the commanding heights of the economy" - say, the Fortune 500) because you can't nationalize every small mom and pop store; doing so would be inefficient, costly and impractical. But it's also unnecessary, because small businesses aren't large enough to play a key role in the economy.

However, I don't see the advantage of private ownership even in retail. Why would you want to give away control of how consumer goods are distributed to a bunch of private individuals whose chief goal will be gaining profit for themselves?

A far better idea, IMO, would be to simply incorporate distribution of consumer goods into the larger, worker-controlled planned economy, the same way you did for production.

Also, the full employment that would result from a planned economy makes competing for jobs unnecessary. What would become more common is people doing different tasks in turn.

[SV Fan]

Originally Posted by Axl Van Sixx

However, I don't see the advantage of private ownership even in retail. Why would you want to give away control of how consumer goods are distributed to a bunch of private individuals whose chief goal will be gaining profit for themselves?

By taking control of everything you sort of stop innovation. By taking control of the retail industry for instance you might stop somebody who has a good idea for a store. You basically have to draw the line somewhere which is why I would just do most the utility industry. There is also ways you can control how consumer goods are distributed without actually owning the stores in question

[Papa G]

The real question is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjNjI0t3Cu8

[Axl Van Sixx]

Originally Posted by SV Fan

By taking control of everything you sort of stop innovation. By taking control of the retail industry for instance you might stop somebody who has a good idea for a store. You basically have to draw the line somewhere which is why I would just do most the utility industry. There is also ways you can control how consumer goods are distributed without actually owning the stores in question

If someone has a good idea for a store right now, they're stopped by the fact that their competitors are giant corporations with vastly superior resources. The majority of new businesses fail within the first four years. Your analysis omits the barriers that small business owners already face due to competition.

In an economy dominated by large-scale production, small businesses can't compete. Under capitalism they're crushed by the big monopolies and big banks, with small business owners having to pay exorbitant interest on loans. If you nationalized the banks and largest corporations, you could provide small businesspeople with access to cheaper credit, making it more likely their enterprises would survive.

I don't think you would discourage innovation at all under a socialist system. The incentive to come up with better, more efficient ways of doing things is that you would have to work less time to do the same amount of work - leaving people more free time to create, explore and invent.

[Axl Van Sixx]

Originally Posted by Papa G

The real question is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjNjI0t3Cu8

I love Scarface. But that's probably my least favourite line in the movie.

Watch an hour of television. We're already told what to do, what to think, and what to feel. Mind-numbing commercials telling you to buy Product X; ratings-driven news programs repeating the latest government propaganda on official enemies of the state; reality shows and trash TV encouraging you to vicariously enjoy the humiliation of others.

Just because they give you the illusion of choice doesn't mean you have any real choice in this society.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by Axl Van Sixx

I love Scarface. But that's probably my least favourite line in the movie.

Actually I find that the line really works. You have to look at who Tony Montana is as a character. For Cubans who flee Fidel Castro's regime, that is how they view Communism. Cubans in the United States are vehemently opposed to Communism. And here we have Tony Montana taking advantage of anti-Communist sentiment within the institutions of the United States as well.

[Axl Van Sixx]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

Actually I find that the line really works. You have to look at who Tony Montana is as a character. For Cubans who flee Fidel Castro's regime, that is how they view Communism. Cubans in the United States are vehemently opposed to Communism. And here we have Tony Montana taking advantage of anti-Communist sentiment within the institutions of the United States as well.

Fair enough.

[Papa G]

^I just kinda posted that as a joke, but it is pretty interesting. You're definitely right that we're already told what to do and think in America. The average American is the anti-intellectual:technology dependent, irrationally consuming, and trapped in a system(and a pattern of thinking) that trains them to be either liberal or conservative, and to hate the other side these days. As far as communism goes, it's not as simple as communism or any underlying socioeconomic system training people what to think. I think many of these communist societies failed because they used communism as a vehicle for evil and the leaders were ruthless;Kim Jong Il, Stalin, Castro...the list goes on and on. The problem is that though communism can exist with democracy, it historically did not, and there was no way to keep corrupt individuals in check. Even here, it's not true democracy whatsoever. A system of "sociological representation"(people like you representing you) is long gone, and has been replaced with money buying influence and power, which corrupts. But aside from communism or capitalism, there are other factors/societal structures such as religion, education(or a big lack thereof here), and one's own developmental psychology that train people what to think. The socioeconomic system being the basis for all behavior is called economic determinism, and I've learned that Marx himself was almost an economic determinist. Technically, Marxist communism has never truly been utilized anywhere; there was always some part of the communist system that was perverted by those in charge, in my opinion. The question is, if the government has a great of control, what of the ones doing the governing are simply bad people?

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by Axl Van Sixx

Fair enough.

It really shouldn't be taken as a genuine criticism of Communism. More along the lines of how Cuban-American culture looks at the Cubam government and how dumb officials can be within the United States.

[Papa G]

I couldn't find a clip of it, but Tony also said "You know what capitalism is Manolo? Getting ****ed."

[Axl Van Sixx]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

It really shouldn't be taken as a genuine criticism of Communism. More along the lines of how Cuban-American culture looks at the Cubam government and how dumb officials can be within the United States.

Of course, this dialogue is also spoken by the character of Tony Montana, who is not known for his nuanced theories on political economy.

Originally Posted by Papa G

^I just kinda posted that as a joke, but it is pretty interesting. You're definitely right that we're already told what to do and think in America. The average American is the anti-intellectual:technology dependent, irrationally consuming, and trapped in a system(and a pattern of thinking) that trains them to be either liberal or conservative, and to hate the other side these days. As far as communism goes, it's not as simple as communism or any underlying socioeconomic system training people what to think. I think many of these communist societies failed because they used communism as a vehicle for evil and the leaders were ruthless;Kim Jong Il, Stalin, Castro...the list goes on and on. The problem is that though communism can exist with democracy, it historically did not, and there was no way to keep corrupt individuals in check. Even here, it's not true democracy whatsoever. A system of "sociological representation"(people like you representing you) is long gone, and has been replaced with money buying influence and power, which corrupts. But aside from communism or capitalism, there are other factors/societal structures such as religion, education(or a big lack thereof here), and one's own developmental psychology that train people what to think. The socioeconomic system being the basis for all behavior is called economic determinism, and I've learned that Marx himself was almost an economic determinist.

I don't think that Castro is that bad, actually.

The idea that economics determines all behavior is a bit of a vulgarization of Marxism. Nowhere does Marx say that socioeconomic factors decide everything; instead, he argues that economics provides the base of society on top of which a larger superstructure (religion, culture, gender/race relations, etc.) exists.

I find historical materialism to be like peeling back an onion. On the surface, somebody's motives might be purely based on religion, or racism, for example. But then you look deeper and you find economic factors influencing that behavior.

For example, you might say that a lot of Tea Party opposition to Obama is based on race, but just as much is based on economic uncertainty in an epoch of American decline. Racism in general is directly linked to capitalism, specifically the slave trade, which required the ideology of racism to justify a profitable economic system.

Or go back and look at the influence of the Catholic Church over medieval Europe. The Crusades were officially launched for religious reasons, but any historian would realize you had to look at the power dynamics in Europe at that time, which were determined by the socio-economic backdrop of feudalism.

Originally Posted by Papa G

Technically, Marxist communism has never truly been utilized anywhere; there was always some part of the communist system that was perverted by those in charge, in my opinion. The question is, if the government has a great of control, what of the ones doing the governing are simply bad people?

Based on Marx and Engels' analysis of the 1871 Paris Commune, Lenin put forward four key points to fight bureaucracy in a workers' state in 1917.

The original conditions were:

1) Free and democratic elections to all positions in the Soviet state,
2) Right of recall of all officials,
3) No official to receive a higher wage than a skilled worker and
4) Gradually, all the tasks of running society and the state to be performed by everyone in turn, or as Lenin put it: "Any cook should be able to be prime minister."

This would actually be the most democratic form of government ever if implemented - much more than our current system, where you elect politicians to Parliament or Congress who are then free to betray you for years.

Under these conditions of immediate recall, any bad apples who misrepresent the people would find themselves out of office pretty quickly. By paying officials a worker's salary, corruption would be made much more difficult.

[Papa G]

Well, for free elections and democracy, although Lenin put forth those pillars, I'm just saying that historically political democracy and the economic system of communism haven't co-existed, though they definitely could have. With democracy, communism may not have been as perverted in many places.
As far as Marx saying that the economy was the basis of everything, that's still economic determinism, but I'm not saying that's all Marxism is. That's just what Marx thought. Is the economy the basis for everything? One Anthropologist argued that there is a "cultural logic" for everything-for example, in the west we won't sell or eat domesticated animals, so there is a cultural taboo that dictates some economic behavior, for example. Marx had many ideas that may have not been so on-point. He believed in the unilineal evolution of a society, meaning that every society evolves in the same way. Today most social scientists and the like are historical particularists who believe(and I agree) that societies evolve differently. I know you'll argue it, but I think the economy being the basis for everything(though it plays a crucial role), unilineal evolution, and I'm sorry, but communism, were flawed ideas. Marx died in 1883-just like the founders of the U.S., he couldn't predict the future and he didn't have the means to develop his ideas. However, he was one of the greatest minds of his time, and ever in my opinion though I still don't think he was spot on.

[Axl Van Sixx]

Originally Posted by Papa G

Well, for free elections and democracy, although Lenin put forth those pillars, I'm just saying that historically political democracy and the economic system of communism haven't co-existed, though they definitely could have. With democracy, communism may not have been as perverted in many places.
As far as Marx saying that the economy was the basis of everything, that's still economic determinism, but I'm not saying that's all Marxism is. That's just what Marx thought. Is the economy the basis for everything? One Anthropologist argued that there is a "cultural logic" for everything-for example, in the west we won't sell or eat domesticated animals, so there is a cultural taboo that dictates some economic behavior, for example. Marx had many ideas that may have not been so on-point. He believed in the unilineal evolution of a society, meaning that every society evolves in the same way. Today most social scientists and the like are historical particularists who believe(and I agree) that societies evolve differently. I know you'll argue it, but I think the economy being the basis for everything(though it plays a crucial role), unilineal evolution, and I'm sorry, but communism, were flawed ideas. Marx died in 1883-just like the founders of the U.S., he couldn't predict the future and he didn't have the means to develop his ideas. However, he was one of the greatest minds of his time, and ever in my opinion though I still don't think he was spot on.

See Trotsky's quote in my sig about socialism and democracy.

The unilineal evolution thing is a bum rap. Marx saw some overall patterns in historical development, but recognized that different societies had different concrete conditions. For example, in 19th century Germany the national bourgeoisie was too weak to carry out the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, as had been done in France in 1789 (uniting the country, land reform, etc.), so the Prussian aristocracy, the Junkers, took charge with Bismarck helping to unite Germany as a modern nation-state.

If you believe Marx was a slave to an abstract, idealist conception of history, he wouldn't have been able to explain this. But it was exactly through his method of accounting for differences in the historical development of different societies that led Trotsky later to develop his theory of combined and uneven development.

I think Karl Marx made a much greater contribution to political thought overall than the American Founding Fathers (even though Thomas Jefferson was one of the all-time great revolutionaries). But the Founding Fathers have been practically deified in the United States.

Marx did for the social sciences what Darwin did for the natural sciences. He explained where political and economic systems come from and how they change and evolve.

Originally Posted by Francis0729

Who's More Polite?
A fat man and a skinny man were arguing about who was the more polite. The skinny man said he was more polite because he always tipped his hat to ladies. But the fat man knew he was more courteous because, whenever he got up and offered his seat, two ladies could sit down.


__________________________________
Cheap Wow Gold
Coach Outlet

Lame joke, but the picture made me laugh.

[Axl Van Sixx]

I love this image and its depiction of international solidarity between workers - regardless of gender, race, nationality, etc. - as they take control of their own destiny. That's what socialism means to me, and it's a much more hopeful view of humanity's future than the doom and gloom you hear every day in the corporate media.

[demitri_vampiro]

that's a nice image...

[hippie_hunter]

It's a great image, but too bad it doesn't reflect reality.

[Axl Van Sixx]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

It's a great image, but too bad it doesn't reflect reality.

Neither does the rosy picture of capitalism painted by the corporate media (where the free market works its magic and prosperity trickles down to the rest of us). But instead of calling that propaganda, we blandly refer to it as news.

There have been periods of revolutionary upswings before that united workers across borders - such as after 1917, when we saw revolutions and general strikes around the world. We're living in a period like that right now, and you can detect a spirit of internationalism in the Occupy movement, the indignados, the Arab Spring, etc.

Workers around the world share common interests and need to work together. The poster above is simply expressing that ideal.

On another note, there's a student strike movement sweeping across Quebec right now, with 300,000 students marching in the streets against tuition hikes on one day alone in Montreal. The Liberal premier Jean Charest is refusing to budge.

Students have adopted the colour red as a symbol of solidarity with the strike, changing their Facebook profile photos to red or pinning red cloth to their jackets. I like to refer to it "joining the Red Army".

But it looks like somebody decided to take it to the next level by sticking a red flag at the top of the Jacques Cartier Bridge in Montreal. Speaking as a Marxist, it's great to finally see the red flag waving over a Canadian city.

[hippie_hunter]

I'm not saying that that the rosy picture painted by the media is accurate either. But the idea of international solidarity promoted by Marx was sooooooooooooo dead wrong.

[Papa G]

^Not only was that wrong, but just the theory of how marxist communism/communism would come into being was wrong. Marx predicted that capitalism, socialism, and an immense surplus(so big that a surplus would never be required again despite growing populations) from these systems would make his marxism possible in addition to other tall orders. Among these were that people's whole attitudes about labor(and living) changing, a proletariat uprising(where he couldn't predict the sheer complacency and apathy amongst many people), and the educating of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie on how to self-govern and manage the economy, businesses, and resources. It sounds downright cruel, but that's assuming they could be and would be willing to be educated on such matters. And as for the upper class saying "sure, let's all be communist and we'll even teach you how!", give me a break.

[Axl Van Sixx]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

I'm not saying that that the rosy picture painted by the media is accurate either. But the idea of international solidarity promoted by Marx was sooooooooooooo dead wrong.

That's strictly your opinion, one that I believe is mistaken. I've pointed to different historical periods that saw a marked rise in international working class solidarity around the world. We're living in one of those periods right now.

How often do you go to protests? Because on Saturday I was at a labour rally in downtown Toronto, with thousands of unionized workers present, and the speakers repeatedly invoked the Arab Spring, the Occupy movement, and the struggles in Greece and Spain to illustrate how the fight against austerity is part of a worldwide movement. These words garnered loud applause.

If you haven't been out at demonstrations, I can see how you might miss this very real sense of international solidarity.

Originally Posted by Papa G

^Not only was that wrong, but just the theory of how marxist communism/communism would come into being was wrong. Marx predicted that capitalism, socialism, and an immense surplus(so big that a surplus would never be required again despite growing populations) from these systems would make his marxism possible in addition to other tall orders.

If I understand correctly, you're saying that Marx predicted that socialism would be based on having a huge surplus of goods. How is that wrong? The Great Recession, like all bust periods under capitalism, comes down to a crisis of overproduction - i.e. there is more supply than demand.

Doesn't that strike you as bizarre? We've got homeless people at the same time as we have people-less homes. We've got millions of people starving around the world and yet in wealthy countries we throw away massive amounts of food. And it's all because we have a system that is built around profit instead of human needs.

Originally Posted by Papa G

Among these were that people's whole attitudes about labor(and living) changing, a proletariat uprising(where he couldn't predict the sheer complacency and apathy amongst many people), and the educating of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie on how to self-govern and manage the economy, businesses, and resources. It sounds downright cruel, but that's assuming they could be and would be willing to be educated on such matters.

Pessimists will often talk about how complacent and apathetic people are. They talk about how American workers are fat slobs who won't get off their couches if it means missing Dancing with the Stars. So when these pessimists saw the Arab Spring, the Occupy movement and workers fighting back in Wisconsin, they were taken aback and had no explanation.

Trust me, when things get bad enough, people eventually start to resist in any way they can. We're seeing that all over the world today.

Originally Posted by Papa G

And as for the upper class saying "sure, let's all be communist and we'll even teach you how!", give me a break.

You're right, that would be absolutely preposterous. And this is exactly what makes revolution necessary. Workers never won anything significant by politely asking the ruling elite.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by Axl Van Sixx

That's strictly your opinion, one that I believe is mistaken. I've pointed to different historical periods that saw a marked rise in international working class solidarity around the world. We're living in one of those periods right now.

Your examples are those that were short lived and produced no results at all.

How often do you go to protests? Because on Saturday I was at a labour rally in downtown Toronto, with thousands of unionized workers present, and the speakers repeatedly invoked the Arab Spring, the Occupy movement, and the struggles in Greece and Spain to illustrate how the fight against austerity is part of a worldwide movement. These words garnered loud applause.

Protests don't occur all that often where I live. The most I had was Occupy Rochester, which was actually quite well behaved.

Not only that, but please tell me, how much exposure did your protests get? How have they affected anything?

If you haven't been out at demonstrations, I can see how you might miss this very real sense of international solidarity.

There really isn't any.

[Axl Van Sixx]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

Your examples are those that were short lived and produced no results at all.

Haha. Yeah, that was pretty stupid of me. It's not like the Russian Revolution changed the course of 20th century history or anything - leading to the spread of communist movements, the rise of fascism as a reaction to communism (and the most destructive war in human history), and a half-century-long standoff after that between two rival political systems.

It's not as if just last year we saw revolutions across the Arab world that led to the fall of autocratic regimes, civil wars and Western intervention.

Yep, no results at all.

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

Protests don't occur all that often where I live. The most I had was Occupy Rochester, which was actually quite well behaved.

Not only that, but please tell me, how much exposure did your protests get? How have they affected anything?

What can I tell you - they're protests, you know how this kind of thing works. Protests don't necessarily solve anything. In 2003 we saw the largest protests in human history against the invasion of Iraq, but it didn't prevent the war. However, sometimes they do work. Exhibit A: Tunisia. Exhibit B: Egypt.

The protest I was at on Saturday was against this year's Ontario austerity budget. In addition to the unions, who bused in members from all over the province, the leader of the provincial NDP was there - although of course, her ideas were pretty weak (basically arguing that the Liberal premier should tax the rich in order to get her support for the budget, which would still end up selling out the audience she was speaking to that day).

Will it change anything? Who knows? But the act of getting out in the streets and making our presence known at least sends a message to the government that people aren't going to take this lying down. If they pass the budget anyway, workers would have to move on to things like general strikes.

To cite another example: the Quebec student strike against tuition hikes. It's started to get violent this past week, with the police using tear gas and stun guns on the students. It's hard to say whether the student protests will accomplish anything. If the labour unions were on their side, that would be a crucial difference, but right now they've just offered verbal support.

Nevertheless, I say kudos to the students for getting out to protest, because at least that gets the conversation going. I would defend Occupy for the same reasons.

Regarding the value of protests, I direct you to those inspirational basketball posters: "you miss 100% of the shots you don't take."

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

There really isn't any.

Okay, be a pessimist if you want. But people are facing very real problems, and when you're marching in the streets nobody wants to listen to Debbie Downer.

[Axl Van Sixx]

Just found this pic. I absolutely despise Mao, but otherwise a very cool/funny image.

[The Overlord]

Originally Posted by Axl Van Sixx

Pessimists will often talk about how complacent and apathetic people are. They talk about how American workers are fat slobs who won't get off their couches if it means missing Dancing with the Stars. So when these pessimists saw the Arab Spring, the Occupy movement and workers fighting back in Wisconsin, they were taken aback and had no explanation.

Trust me, when things get bad enough, people eventually start to resist in any way they can. We're seeing that all over the world today.

.

I am not taken aback by that that all and I am very pessimistic. There are tons of protest movements that don't really go anywhere in history. Also the Arab Spring is being undercut by the fact the population in Egypt mainly supports reactionary parties that want to persecuted religious minorities and oppress women. That's the great irony, people want to have freedom, then want to use that freedom to have power to oppress others. Some protesters just seem really naive in what they can achieve. The Occupy movement may go somewhere or nowhere, its still too early to tell.

People who really believe in something are often betrayed by those movements. The people who believed in the October revolution were betrayed when it became a Stalinist dictatorship. People who believed in the communist movement in China were betrayed at every turn. People who thought the Khmer Rouge would make Cambodia a better place were brutally betrayed. I have beliefs, but I do not engage in blind idealism. History is filled with revolutionaries who get corrupted by power and betrayed the people who believed in them. I would love to be an idealist, but history is filled with disappointed idealists.

Frankly I think Communism is a naive system that makes it easy prey for corrupt opportunists. That's why monsters like Stalin often win in these movements, they can fake idealism and use every cynical trick in the book to beat out their rivals. The brutal and the ruthless always have an advantage over others, those who play dirty often win over others.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by Axl Van Sixx

Haha. Yeah, that was pretty stupid of me. It's not like the Russian Revolution changed the course of 20th century history or anything - leading to the spread of communist movements, the rise of fascism as a reaction to communism (and the most destructive war in human history), and a half-century-long standoff after that between two rival political systems.

It's not as if just last year we saw revolutions across the Arab world that led to the fall of autocratic regimes, civil wars and Western intervention.

Yep, no results at all.

Asides from the Russian Revolution, name me one long lasting communist movement that gained legitimate power. And even with the Russian Revolution, Lenin had to resort to some well....tactics that aren't looked upon so well. Like how he had to resort to a coup because he was going to lose the upcoming democratic elections. Or thuggery.

I'm not saying that Marx changed the course of history. His ideology has had a profound effect on politics and social movements. But in terms of implementation, not so much.

What can I tell you - they're protests, you know how this kind of thing works. Protests don't necessarily solve anything. In 2003 we saw the largest protests in human history against the invasion of Iraq, but it didn't prevent the war. However, sometimes they do work. Exhibit A: Tunisia. Exhibit B: Egypt.

But movements need to have an impact. The Arab Spring has had an impact. Hell, you can even say that the Iraq War protests had an impact politically.

The protest I was at on Saturday was against this year's Ontario austerity budget. In addition to the unions, who bused in members from all over the province, the leader of the provincial NDP was there - although of course, her ideas were pretty weak (basically arguing that the Liberal premier should tax the rich in order to get her support for the budget, which would still end up selling out the audience she was speaking to that day).

It's easy to bus people throughout a province. Solidarity works really well when you have a local movement. But when it branches out, it doesn't work all that well.

Will it change anything? Who knows? But the act of getting out in the streets and making our presence known at least sends a message to the government that people aren't going to take this lying down. If they pass the budget anyway, workers would have to move on to things like general strikes.

To cite another example: the Quebec student strike against tuition hikes. It's started to get violent this past week, with the police using tear gas and stun guns on the students. It's hard to say whether the student protests will accomplish anything. If the labour unions were on their side, that would be a crucial difference, but right now they've just offered verbal support.

Well, labor unions are a lot more powerful in Canada (and Europe) than they are in the United States.

Union power in the United States is not only weak, but it's so damn inept.

Nevertheless, I say kudos to the students for getting out to protest, because at least that gets the conversation going. I would defend Occupy for the same reasons.

Regarding the value of protests, I direct you to those inspirational basketball posters: "you miss 100% of the shots you don't take."

It certainly is good to get conversation going.

Okay, be a pessimist if you want. But people are facing very real problems, and when you're marching in the streets nobody wants to listen to Debbie Downer.

It's hard to be an optimist when idealism doesn't go anywhere. There needs to be pragmatism incorporated.