Ask a Red III

[Cheezy the Wiz]

This almost sounds like a rhetorical question, but do you believe America would be better off if it was communist?

I've been a member of the Communist Party of the United States for five years, so the answer to that question should be apparent.

Also, that's not a rhetorical question. Rhetorical questions are ones for which an answer is not expected to be given, and themselves make a point. For example, the question "can't you do anything right?" can be rewritten as "you can't do anything right" and have the exact same meaning.

 

[caketastydelish]

I've been a member of the Communist Party of the United States for five years, so the answer to that question should be apparent.

Also, that's not a rhetorical question. Rhetorical questions are ones for which an answer is not expected to be given, and themselves make a point. For example, the question "can't you do anything right?" can be rewritten as "you can't do anything right" and have the exact same meaning.

Well I thought the answer was pretty obvious and a given.

Ok, so you've been a member of the Communist party of America. Has this made you face discrimination? Have even family members given you trouble about this? Do you have co-workers that pick on you because of this?

 

[GamezRule]

Well I thought the answer was pretty obvious and a given.

Ok, so you've been a member of the Communist party of America. Has this made you face discrimination? Have even family members given you trouble about this? Do you have co-workers that pick on you because of this?

Assuming you will have seen the troll post before it's deleted, I think that's your answer.

@Reds: What is your opinion on market socialism?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Regarding our scurrilous new guest, I invite and urge all of you not to feed him, and to simply ignore his drivel. Moderator Action: He's now in troll heaven.

Ok, so you've been a member of the Communist party of America. Has this made you face discrimination?

It's not like it's apparent. But it's not something I would put on my resume.

Have even family members given you trouble about this?

My parents prod me sometimes. I ignore it.

Do you have co-workers that pick on you because of this?

The few of my co-workers who do know explicitly of my politics are also leftists themselves, either fellow communists or anarchists. It goes without saying that we have cooperated more often than conflicted.

You would be surprised, I think, to know just how much a lot of people will agree with many of the basic principles of socialism...especially when they don't directly recognize it as such.

@Reds: What is your opinion on market socialism?

Of what nature?

Oh dear, we have a troll on our hands...

I checked his post history and he's even made a "ask a troll" thread.

Yes, please ignore him entirely. It is the best way to deal with such people.

 

[Hygro]

"Feudal" isn't even a very good label in a European context, to be honest. It describes a pretty vague ideal rather than anything which actually existed, and certainly doesn't describe the basic terms of social organisation in the way which "capitalist" does. Marx's usage tends to reflect his inherited Jacobin prejudices, rather than actually having much to do with his analysis of pre-capitalist European society. To the extent which he or Engels discusses it, they were primarily concerned with the peasant household (and its derivative proto-capitalist forms), and to a lesser extent with communal and manorial formations, rather than with what we would recognise as "feudal" social structures.

Good point.

What's a manorial system, and what is a communal system in the greater context of society and geography (i.e. other than the 80 or whatever peasants would annually come together to assign land as you wrote in another thread)?

 

[GamezRule]

Well, I guess a market of competing workers cooperatives.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

This question has probably be asked before, but where does scientific innovation rank in a communist society? It seems to me that without patent and profit, there's less reason to innovate and invent. What is the motivation for invention and innovation in a communist society?

 

[red_elk]

This question has probably be asked before, but where does scientific innovation rank in a communist society? It seems to me that without patent and profit, there's less reason to innovate and invent. What is the motivation for invention and innovation in a communist society?

It's actually an interesting question. Scientific research is not always profitable in short or mid term - in fact, fundamental research is almost always unprofitable. The free-marked economy is good at regulating consumer market, but in this area it is IMO powerless.

I would add my similar question to this one.
In modern world, there are numerous issues regarding patents and copyright on digital content. From my understanding they are based on conflict of interests between authors who want their work to be paid, users who have technical possibility to reproduce copies of content at almost zero cost, and also corporations which distribute that content and interested in generating profit. In current world economy there is no obvious way to create a fair system which would be rewarding for authors of (good) content, and which would work without crutches like DRM and strict laws against digital piracy.

The other thing is that the good content is not always universally popular. With market regulation, the authors have the biggest incentive to produce songs/movies/books, etc., which can be sold in millions of copies. But one particular author may have the talent to produce some unique thing which can be properly evaluated by, say, just 100 people in the world. Such author will not get reward which he deserves. Such system makes authors to replicate some general pop-style which is guaranteed to have decent sales, instead of experimenting, taking risk and providing users with various style content.

How will such things be regulated in a communist society? I understand this is probably a difficult question, but may be you have some general ideas about this?

 

[caketastydelish]

Somehow I get the feeling this is a stupid question, but I must ask anyway:

So I've recently purchased an iPad, and their is an app that lets me download free books. They're mainly "classics". One of them that I've obtained is "the communist manifesto" my Karl Marx.

Are there any parts of this book that you particularly enjoy? Or think is more important? What sort of "communist literature" would you recommend?

I know this isn't exactly a communist book, but I thought "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclaire was really good.

edit: another question. What are your views on the current American president? Would you even consider him to be "left wing" at all?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Yes.

Can you expand on this? In what way would those who pursue creative pursuits be rewarded? How would this be different than what we have today?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Well, I guess a market of competing workers cooperatives.

I wouldn't be opposed to it, if that's how things turned out. The most important thing is the democratization of industry for that is what socialism is. All else is second, and all that is necessary and proper will flow forth.

This question has probably be asked before, but where does scientific innovation rank in a communist society? It seems to me that without patent and profit, there's less reason to innovate and invent. What is the motivation for invention and innovation in a communist society?

It is capitalist society, which is founded upon such myths, that perpetuates this doctrine. There are myriad examples in history of people doing things; designing new inventions, discovering cures for diseases and other types of scientific discoveries. I think we should take a step back and ask ourselves: why do people go into the subject they choose, whether it's astronomy, auto repair, biology, or surgical care? It is, first and foremost, because they care about those things. Anyone who enjoys their job can relate to the drive of doing something not because they were asked to or because they think it'll get them some sort of monetary reward, but because they want to, or because they think it ought to be done. Hell, I've done that before. I once created a comprehensive waste log for my restaurant from scratch, doing months of research and work in my free time, not because I was told to, but because I perceived the need for it and cared about fixing what my invention would solve (namely, where our theoretical vs. actual usage discrepancy was going).

Or, alternately, you could watch this video:


Link to video.

Somehow I get the feeling this is a stupid question, but I must ask anyway:

There are no stupid questions, only stupid people. Please ask away, it is the point of this thread. The worst thing I will do is ignore the question.

So I've recently purchased an iPad, and their is an app that lets me download free books. They're mainly "classics". One of them that I've obtained is "the communist manifesto" my Karl Marx.

Are there any parts of this book that you particularly enjoy? Or think is more important? What sort of "communist literature" would you recommend?

The Manifesto is a good start for beginners. It's worth reading in its entirety, being less than 100 pages long and all.

I don't know what your "reading level" is, but this should be a good intro reading list for you. Best to look for these at your local or university library.

Introduction to Marxist Economic Theory, by Ernest Mandel
Profit Over People, by Noam Chomsky
Democracy for the Few, by Michael Parenti

If you're really up for a doable challenge, hunt down Chomsky's Chomsky on Anarchism. He's what's called a libertarian socialist, which is a type of anarchism, so I don't always agree with him, but this book will do a good job of making the case for cooperative enterprises, among a few other things.

I know this isn't exactly a communist book, but I thought "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclaire was really good.

It was written by one of the most prominent American socialists of the time, and for a decidedly anti-capitalist reason.

edit: another question. What are your views on the current American president? Would you even consider him to be "left wing" at all?

No. None of the Democratic party is. Compare their positions with even moderate parties in Europe, for example, and decide which is further left than the other.

Can you expand on this? In what way would those who pursue creative pursuits be rewarded? How would this be different than what we have today?

I have to run now, but I promise I will return to this question.

 

[Ajidica]

While not 'communist literature' Robert Service's Comrades! A History of World Communism does give a very nice overview of the various communist parties around the world and their evolution while staying more or less free of Cold Warrior Nonsense.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Is that supposed to be humour?

Moderator Action: This, particularly in an RD thread, constitutes spam. It's not improving anyone's understanding of the subject of the thread, nor is it a question, so is not a sufficient contribution. Please ensure your posts, particularly in RD threads, are more contributory.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Ajidica]

Care to explain?

 

[Richard Cribb]

Why of course.
Even if I don't consider myself a "Red", don't do history on this forum, and don't have this book at my disposal.
I am not an expert on 20th century history, so I would preferred Cheezy to elaborate on this, but I will at least give you my impression.
In short, I consider this work by Service, a crooked customer and run-of-the-mill reactionary if there ever was one, to be of little merit unless it is regarded as a polemic.
He reveals a bad grasp on Communist theory, doesn't know his topic sufficintly well and doesn't contextualize when this will destroy his narrative about the totally evil Communism. While not prissy, I don't care much for his use of assorted pejorative terms either.
I am going to take the easy way out on this one and turn your attention to this review http://www.ncsu.edu/acontracorriente/winter_09/Segal_Rev.pdf which is better than anything I am capable to produce at the moment.
Finally, my post above was meant in full earnest. I really did believe it was a joking attempt. Otherwise I can't see how it is possible to claim that this work presents a "very nice overview" or explains "their evolution". As far as I can see it does no such thing.

 

[Ajidica]

Just to make sure we are on the same page, we are talking about this book, correct?
My memory of Comrades is that while he does engage in some Cold Warrior nonsense and overplays the democracy v. dictatorship a bit, it seemed to me like a decent semi-scholarly book on a vast subject. Service also is not universally against communism, in fact he speaks rather approvingly of some small communist groups in India and across the world. True, he is rather critical of Maoism and Soviet-style communism (whatever it is called these days) but one could do far worse if they were looking for an overview of the history of Communism.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Why of course.
Even if I don't consider myself a "Red", don't do history on this forum, and don't have this book at my disposal.

You don't? You're the one who gave this thread its name!

I have a haunting feeling, though, that this will turn out to be an "I am not a Marxist" comment though.

I am not an expert on 20th century history, so I would preferred Cheezy to elaborate on this, but I will at least give you my impression.

I would love to comment, but I haven't read the book.

In short, I consider this work by Service, a crooked customer and run-of-the-mill reactionary if there ever was one, to be of little merit unless it is regarded as a polemic.
He reveals a bad grasp on Communist theory, doesn't know his topic sufficintly well and doesn't contextualize when this will destroy his narrative about the totally evil Communism. While not prissy, I don't care much for his use of assorted pejorative terms either.
I am going to take the easy way out on this one and turn your attention to this review http://www.ncsu.edu/acontracorriente/winter_09/Segal_Rev.pdf which is better than anything I am capable to produce at the moment.
Finally, my post above was meant in full earnest. I really did believe it was a joking attempt. Otherwise I can't see how it is possible to claim that this work presents a "very nice overview" or explains "their evolution". As far as I can see it does no such thing.

He is a long-term Royal Academy partner of Robert Conquest, so this should not be entirely surprising. However, I was under the impression that his biographies of the big three Russian communists were rather good?

Just to make sure we are on the same page, we are talking about this book, correct?
My memory of Comrades is that while he does engage in some Cold Warrior nonsense and overplays the democracy v. dictatorship a bit, it seemed to me like a decent semi-scholarly book on a vast subject. Service also is not universally against communism, in fact he speaks rather approvingly of some small communist groups in India and across the world. True, he is rather critical of Maoism and Soviet-style communism (whatever it is called these days) but one could do far worse if they were looking for an overview of the history of Communism.

It seems you've given the answer to your question, then, at least partially.

As for "it could be worse," that's hardly an excuse. A much better book on the subject would be How to Change the World by Eric Hobsbawm, a truly fantastic historian.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Just to make sure we are on the same page, we are talking about this book, correct?
My memory of Comrades is that while he does engage in some Cold Warrior nonsense and overplays the democracy v. dictatorship a bit, it seemed to me like a decent semi-scholarly book on a vast subject. Service also is not universally against communism, in fact he speaks rather approvingly of some small communist groups in India and across the world. True, he is rather critical of Maoism and Soviet-style communism (whatever it is called these days) but one could do far worse if they were looking for an overview of the history of Communism.

Let me start this with addressing your first question in this very thread.
I don't enjoy much being a communist (As opposed to a "communist", those left-communist Pentagon pets who can't speak for five minutes without spouting invectives about the former Eastern Bloc and have such touching concern for every liberal right there is. That can be quite cushy) In fact, often the opposite is the case.
Which should hardly be surprising. I would be quite masochistic if I did.
Just look at it. I am supposed to be content with a work written by an ideological antagonist, a work full of slander, propaganda and ignorance, only because I "could do worse" since he throws a bone at me by giving his royal approval of Kerala? No thank you. Would you, presuming that you are a liberal, be just as pleased if some Marxist-Leninist gave the liberal ideology a similar treatment?
You call this book decent. Very well. Could you then with a straight face tell me that you find the part of it about Marx and Engels decent? Or the one dealing with the aftermaths of the October Revolution. Or his use of the term bacillus?
By the way, can you tell me a book dealing with the same topic which is clearly worse than this?

You don't? You're the one who gave this thread its name!

I have a haunting feeling, though, that this will turn out to be an "I am not a Marxist" comment though.

Indeed. And plese don't take that as a personal critique. I have the highest regard for aelf, innonimatu and yourself, and what you have done here. I also have appreciated the most honourable Fred's output. but this thread has pretty much turned into a showcase for individuals of the type I mentioned above. And I don't want to be associated with that.
That was also why i was impolite enough to not comment on that Chomsky video you posted in spite of being asked. i just don't take that man seriously anymore - I wouldn't be surprised if he turned out to be a agent provocateur (I am quite serious here).

I would love to comment, but I haven't read the book.

In that case my advice would be to read that review I posted, and so make up your mind whether you want to invest the time and effort necessary. For all its fault, i actually quite like his style. He is quite the verbal bully, not unlike me actually...

He is a long-term Royal Academy partner of Robert Conquest, so this should not be entirely surprising. However, I was under the impression that his biographies of the big three Russian communists were rather good?

I knew that, but I didn't want to be the one to bring it up.
Now I haven't read any of those, but I have also heard good things about them. As far as i understand he is more generous with Stalin than Trotsky. Which is a good thing in my book.
This doesn't surprise me though. Biographies are quite different animals. Just look at the Stalin biographies by another hardcore rightwinger, Simon Sebag Montefiore. Those I have read and i can recommend them.
But what is to be regretted, of course, is that in the West the whole field of USSR history has been the exclusive domain of right-wingers.

As for "it could be worse," that's hardly an excuse. A much better book on the subject would be How to Change the World by Eric Hobsbawm, a truly fantastic historian.

Hobsbawm is quite good, and did wonders for restoring my sanity. My fourty year crisis wasn't fast cars or faster teeenage girls, but a flirt with ultra-leftism.
That said, I think we have to wait quite a while before we can get the definitive treatise on communism. Quite simply because it is too close in time yet. Remember what Zhou Enlai said when asked about to assess the French Revolution...

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Let me start this with addressing your first question in this very thread.
I don't enjoy much being a communist... In fact, often the opposite is the case.
Which should hardly be surprising. I would be quite masochistic if I did.

I can empathize with this.

Just look at it. I am supposed to be content with a work written by an ideological antagonist, a work full of slander, propaganda and ignorance, only because I "could do worse" since he throws a bone at me by giving his royal approval of Kerala? No thank you. Would you, presuming that you are a liberal, be just as pleased if some Marxist-Leninist gave the liberal ideology a similar treatment?
You call this book decent. Very well. Could you then with a straight face tell me that you find the part of it about Marx and Engels decent? Or the one dealing with the aftermaths of the October Revolution. Or his use of the term bacillus?
By the way, can you tell me a book dealing with the same topic which is clearly worse than this?

The idea of one becoming "infected" with communism is about as insulting as it can get. Actually, I take that back. The most insulting it can get is when American psychiatrists in the 1930s-50s tried to diagnose "belief in communism" as a mental disorder. But the Red Bacillus is close.

If one wants a good look at Marx and Engels from a non-communist perspective, To the Finland Station is delightful, rewarding, and worth the read, though you may not like him for his unkind words about Lovecraft's work...

Indeed. And plese don't take that as a personal critique. I have the highest regard for aelf, innonimatu and yourself, and what you have done here. I also have appreciated the most honourable Fred's output. but this thread has pretty much turned into a showcase for individuals of the type I mentioned above. And I don't want to be associated with that.

I have been careful enough to remove some of the people you describe. Others I consider a valuable counterpoint to my own ideas. We are not formulating policy here, we are answering questions people have about communism, and that includes all its schools. We sent the anarchists to another thread for just this reason.

That was also why i was impolite enough to not comment on that Chomsky video you posted in spite of being asked. i just don't take that man seriously anymore - I wouldn't be surprised if he turned out to be a agent provocateur (I am quite serious here).

I like to use him sometimes as inspiration for further research on my part, and I can appreciate his approach to certain subjects. He is far more useful as a weapon against capitalism than he is as a tool for building socialism, I will say that much. And right now we are concerned with the former and not so much the latter.

In that case my advice would be to read that review I posted, and so make up your mind whether you want to invest the time and effort necessary. For all its fault, i actually quite like his style. He is quite the verbal bully, not unlike me actually...

I just read it. Rather sad, and very insulting. Those sorts of things spoken are easy to brush off, but printed, and by a supposed academician no less, they bear a bit more weight. I suppose I haven't quite thick enough skin yet. Oh well, praising the Eastern Bloc doesn't put you on the NYT best seller list.

I knew that, but I didn't want to be the one to bring it up.
Now I haven't read any of those, but I have also heard good things about them. As far as i understand he is more generous with Stalin than Trotsky. Which is a good thing in my book.
This doesn't surprise me though. Biographies are quite different animals. Just look at the Stalin biographies by another hardcore rightwinger, Simon Sebag Montefiore. Those I have read and i can recommend them.
But what is to be regretted, of course, is that in the West the whole field of USSR history has been the exclusive domain of right-wingers.

I've been able to find some decent treatments of the subject, but they're not very well-known. I did unearth one particular gem (by a non-communist, for those reading who might think the author a cheerleader) that directly refutes most of Harvest of Sorrow.

Hobsbawm is quite good, and did wonders for restoring my sanity. My fourty year crisis wasn't fast cars or faster teeenage girls, but a flirt with ultra-leftism.
That said, I think we have to wait quite a while before we can get the definitive treatise on communism. Quite simply because it is too close in time yet. Remember what Zhou Enlai said when asked about to assess the French Revolution...

Quite so. I personally adore Hobsbawm, his approach to history is one I can really appreciate (particularly the Long Nineteenth Century), because it's more or less how I had already understood it, without really identifying it as such. And I like how much he concentrates his efforts (in other books) on the outcasts of society, like pirates and brigands.

 

[caketastydelish]

The most common anti-communist argument I hear from people is

"if everyone is paid the same no matter what this will make them lazy"

What are your rebuttals against claims such as this?