Ask a Red, Second Edition

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cheezy the Wiz

Cheezy the Wiz

Socialist In A Hurry
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
25,238
Location
Freedonia
Due to the popular support for the return of this thread, as well as the very obvious need for it, the socialists and communists of the forum will once again be answering your questions in the traditional "Ask an X" format.

FAQ

1. What is the purpose of this thread?
To inform about what socialism and communism, both their ideological tenets, their approach to concrete political issues and history. Judging from several threads, there is quite a few misconception regarding these topics, and they do not always stem from ideological malevolence. It can then serve as a reference thread for every time somebody makes a wild claim about any of said ideologies. One should also consider the fact that the amount of socialist and communists on this board is quite small to say the least, and it is sometimes difficult to participate in debates which typically are dominated by diverging opinions held by different segments of the societal elite.

2. I asked a question, but it was never answered!
There might be different reasons for this:
- You might be a fascist or a fascistoid. I have very low tolerance for your kind, and I also don't want to give you any attention.
- Your question might be irrelevant, or impossible to answer.
- You might be a troll. Trolls must and will be ignored. I ask this both of participants as well as questioneers.
- I might have overlooked your question. After all, believe it or not, I am only human.
- I might be temporarily indisposed. I do have to work for a living, you know.

3. This is such a great thread! I am pretty radical myself and I want to assist you in answering some of those questions!
-That is highly appreciated, but only after my permission. It goes without saying that I approve of collective efforts,indeed what can be said to be the right-wing equivalent of this thread seems to operate on these lines with good results. I also know that some of you would be a most welcome addition to my team, but I think it is just as evident that some structure has to be kept. To quote one of the classics of socialism; "Confidence is good, but control is better". So in case you want to contribute, PM me and just wait for my approval. Most of you will get it.

4. Who are you anyway who think that you can teach me anything about this?
- I am a 22 year old American man and member of the working class. My childhood was lower middle class, enough for my parents to help me pay for two years at a state university to compliment the two years I did at the local community college, which together yielded me a BS in History, to go with a slew of other degrees I picked up at CC. With any luck my Phd. studies will begin this coming fall. My specialization was in Middle Eastern History, but a passion for Russian history has led me to greater knowledge of it than of my specialty. I am also a card-carrying member of the Communist Party of the United States, a fortunate match for me, since my beliefs and their ideals are nearly one and the same. I have also participated in events with the International Socialist Organization, which is not entirely my cup of tea, but they are good people, for being miserable trots. And, as many of you on this board surely know, I have some knowledge about the topics at hand.
Click to expand...

List of posters approve to answer questions:

Cheezy the Wiz
RedRalphWiggum
civver 764
Traitorfish
innonimatu
Bast
Richard Cribb
Defiant47
FredLC
 
What is your understanding of abundance? Do you think it still can be achieved?
 
Is effective functioning of a communist state dependent on total participation? If so, would force be utilized to ensure everyone is participating, or would participation be voluntary?
 
Alassius said:
What is your understanding of abundance? Do you think it still can be achieved?
Click to expand...

Of commodities, you mean?

I always found it strange that anyone ever thought that socialism meant producing precisely what we need with no waste whatsoever. Marx's whole point about capitalist production was that individual benefit from those commodities could only be achieved by their bountifulness. The problem is to figure out just what is useful to us, as the word "commodity" suggests. That something is a commodity because someone thought it was useful and bought it is a tautology, and not entirely useful to us. What each person "needs" and "wants" are up to them, I suppose, and thus more of an esoteric psychology experiment than really the realm of sociology and political economics, which is what we are dealing with here. But I think we can agree that a hungry man needs food, and a tween wants an I-Phone.
 
Moderator Action: This is a pre-emptive note to say, please stick to question-answer format in this thread. If you want to start a further debate about something, please do so in another thread.
Also, only points you are going to score by spewing hatred will be infraction points.
- Mathilda
 
For what reasons do you believe that capitalism is fundamentally fallible, and how do you propose the transition from capitalism to communism take place?
 
Can you direct to a concise introduction of communist theory, possibly one that can also dispel some common myths? Yes, I am aware that true understanding requires reading a lot, but some of us just don't have the time to undertake such an effort. It would also help the casual poster to avoid being persuaded by those heavily biased against it.
 
Cheezy the Wiz said:
Of commodities, you mean?

I always found it strange that anyone ever thought that socialism meant producing precisely what we need with no waste whatsoever. Marx's whole point about capitalist production was that individual benefit from those commodities could only be achieved by their bountifulness. The problem is to figure out just what is useful to us, as the word "commodity" suggests. That something is a commodity because someone thought it was useful and bought it is a tautology, and not entirely useful to us. What each person "needs" and "wants" are up to them, I suppose, and thus more of an esoteric psychology experiment than really the realm of sociology and political economics, which is what we are dealing with here. But I think we can agree that a hungry man needs food, and a tween wants an I-Phone.
Click to expand...

Of either what you need or what you want. Would you have an abundance of both food and iPhones? Or would you decide that iPhones are not needed by everyone, and thus not covered? If former, do you have any specific idea on how to get the necessary productivity increase, other than saying "better relations of production promotes productive forces"? If latter, what's the criteria for who should get iPhones and who should not? Who should make that criteria? Who should apply and enforce it?
 
Atlas14 said:
Is effective functioning of a communist state dependent on total participation? If so, would force be utilized to ensure everyone is participating, or would participation be voluntary?
Click to expand...

I would greatly appreciate if you would refer to communism as a "society" and not as a "state." State carries hierarchical overtones inappropriate to its anarchist nature.

It does not depend on total participation in all aspects of society, no. No one would force you to vote, for example, by the barrel of a gun. But there might be a fine, as there is now in many nations. Participation in democracy would of course be voluntary, but it is in everyone's interest to do so, since you cannot realistically withdraw from society, unless you wish to become a hermit in the mountains. If you are asking if people could opt out of public health systems or education like the Amish do, the answer is no.

Lord of Elves said:
For what reasons do you believe that capitalism is fundamentally fallible,
Click to expand...

The huge disparity of wealth between the rich and poor, and the exploitation by the capitalist of the working man's labor to steal the wealth that he creates.

and how do you propose the transition from capitalism to communism take place?
Click to expand...

Abolition of private property, expropriation of the capitalist's wealth, and the institution of workplace democracy.

Or, as Marx put it: "Let us finally imagine, for a change, an association of free men, working with the means of production held in common..."
 
Cheezy the Wiz said:
Abolition of private property, expropriation of the capitalist's wealth, and the institution of workplace democracy.
Click to expand...

All of these were supposedly done in the Soviet Union. How are you going to do it differently? Why your way would not result in the same?
 
Cheezy the Wiz said:
Abolition of private property, expropriation of the capitalist's wealth, and the institution of workplace democracy.
Click to expand...

And how would a communist society abolish private property? I assume that doesn't mean that someone can come into your house and take your stuff, since I've seen that interpretation of the argument criticized when it is proposed.
 
What level of economic equality are you advocating?

Do you find it plausible that such a society could arise in the United States by any means that would not result in war? Idealism is all well and good, but I just don't see the kind of change you're talking about coming without significant violence.
 
Cheezy the Wiz said:
To be clear, yes it is true that communism is anarchist, but anarchism is not anarchy. All these structures would still exist, but they (police, judges, et al) would be voted in, not appointed from above. Though it would certainly be appropriate to vote for the sheriff, for example, and let him pick his own deputies.
Click to expand...
Speaking as someone who find the thought of electing police and judges to be quite alien, I have to say that I'm not very comfortable with the idea. When people have to be popular to keep their jobs, they may easily be swayed to act in a way that is popular, but not necessarily just nor right.

Would a communist society lack a bureaucracy to hire and mange police, judges and other civil servants?

Cheezy the Wiz said:
The one-man enterprise is as compatible with socialism as capitalism. Larger operations will be expected to be cooperative.
Click to expand...
Why?

Hope that isn't to broad a question (I would like to second SS-18's question if so).

If you'd like me to be more specific:
Where does the lines between one-man/small enterprise and large corporation go? My dad started for himself a few years ago, and last year hired a recently graduated new guy to help him. He's been training the new guy and making sure he knows what he's doing, and while the new guy earns really well (my dad isn't very good at being an evil corporate overlord I suppose), my dad still keep the company's profits. Would that be wrong in a communist society? If not, what if my dad hires one more, and yet another one, and so on - when does it become a problem? If it is wrong, then how would you suggest that my dad and the new guy split the profits? Considering that it is my dad that runs the company, and the only reason they actually get contracts is because of my dad's contacts and reputation from his working life so far, and their extreme difference in experience, it would seem quite silly to split the profits fifty-fifty...
 
I'm an anarchist so my answers will likely differ from Cheezy's. They still embody the tenets of socialism though.

SS-18 ICBM said:
Can you direct to a concise introduction of communist theory, possibly one that can also dispel some common myths? Yes, I am aware that true understanding requires reading a lot, but some of us just don't have the time to undertake such an effort. It would also help the casual poster to avoid being persuaded by those heavily biased against it.
Click to expand...
Honestly the wikipedia articles are pretty good. If you have any specific questions I should be able to answer them pretty clearly.

Alassius said:
All of these were supposedly done in the Soviet Union. How are you going to do it differently? Why your way would not result in the same?
Click to expand...
Workplace democracy was not implemented in the Soviet Union, at least for very long. The fundamental problem here is that the state simply took over for the capitalist, and the workers did not. They were even more subservient to those above them, which destroys the whole point of it.

Lord of Elves said:
And how would a communist society abolish private property? I assume that doesn't mean that someone can come into your house and take your stuff, since I've seen that interpretation of the argument criticized when it is proposed.
Click to expand...
We have to establish what private property is first. It is not your tooth brush, your bed, your car, or even your house. Property would be for example a car manufacturing plant or the machines within it. Something that assists in the exploitation and theft of workers.

And there are many different theories on how abolishing this would take place. One would be within the limits of our current democratic system, where the government would simply nationalize these places and then hand them over to the workers to be run democratically. Another would be through mass strikes, or direct action. And then there's always good old violent revolution where society would be reorganized afterwards.

Cu Chulainn said:
What level of economic equality are you advocating?
Click to expand...
Equal opportunity is really it. People who refuse to work aren't going to be paid except for bare necessities(and some don't even think they should get that).

Do you find it plausible that such a society could arise in the United States by any means that would not result in war? Idealism is all well and good, but I just don't see the kind of change you're talking about coming without significant violence.
Click to expand...
Well, direct action could prove effective. Marx thought that the more industrialized countries(America included) could certainly achieve socialism within the confines of a liberal democracy. I'm a bit skeptical of that but I admittedly don't know enough.

shadowplay said:
Do you think communism and religion are inherently at odds?
Click to expand...
No of course not.
 
civver_764 said:
You think people aren't allowed to design their own products under socialism?
Click to expand...
I didn't say they weren't allowed to, I was wondering what incentives would be for them to do it?
 
civver_764 said:
You think people aren't allowed to design their own products under socialism?
Click to expand...
Well, it seems that when the production of the new product becomes big enough, it will be turned into a cooperative, and the entrepreneur would lose control with the invention itself and the profits.

One could then fear that this process would take away the incentive for an individual to take off his or her leisure time, energy and extra resources to innovate.

I can't seem to remember any reasonable counterargument as to why people would continue to be entrepreneurs instead of just following the path of least resistance and do their job, get a nice payout and spending their free time with their family and friends.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Birdjaguar
Being a Tourist in Italy
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
1K
Birdjaguar
Birdjaguar
Zardnaar
Red Zoning Disasters
Replies
3
Views
250
Klaus Hergersheimer
Klaus Hergersheimer
bene_legionary
Moments of Spontaneity
Replies
1
Views
307
warpus
warpus
ls612
[RD] Around the World in 8 Weeks: My Solo Travel in 2025
Replies
4
Views
229
Yeekim
Yeekim
GoodEnoughForMe
Should the US Invade Greenland (Denmark) & Panama
24 25 26
Replies
515
Views
20K
Crezth
Crezth
Back
Top Bottom