Ask a Red III

[timtofly]

American philanthropy is just a tax write off? Personally that would be the only gains after giving away money to those in need without any returns. Not that I am jaded, but throwing money at people rarely changes their life. Education hardly changes lives. You cannot have half the population exist with one economic mindset and the other half with a different economic mindset and expect things to work utopian-ly.

One could easily on one hand be a philanthropist for the tax write off and still have holdings that cause the demise of individuals. It is not the thought that counts, but the amount of money that is retained in one's holdings.

 

[Takhisis]

So, let's talk the next stage of history and Marxian thought:

Is capital planting the seeds for its own self destruction, or is it planting the seeds for our self destruction?

A little from column A, a little from column B.

Still, Marx wrote in the 19th century, we're 150 years after his manifesto (don't forget Engels). He did not think of everything that would happen in these days *dodges Cheezy and TF*, such as a manager/director having more power than the theoretical owners of a company.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Do people who wish to pursue creative writing or other creative venues and have talent in doing so rewarded in any way for their work in a communist or socialist system?

 

[Hygro]

A little from column A, a little from column B.

Still, Marx wrote in the 19th century, we're 150 years after his manifesto (don't forget Engels). He did not think of everything that would happen in these days *dodges Cheezy and TF*, such as a manager/director having more power than the theoretical owners of a company.

Why not? Marx certainly did

 

[caketastydelish]

Would you consider China to currently be a communist or capitalist country?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

A little from column A, a little from column B.

Still, Marx wrote in the 19th century, we're 150 years after his manifesto (don't forget Engels). He did not think of everything that would happen in these days *dodges Cheezy and TF*, such as a manager/director having more power than the theoretical owners of a company.

Are you expecting an objection? I've devoted more time to updating Marx than I have studing Marx. That he wrote in a manner somewhat specific to the time he wrote in is essentially a Marxist statement.

Do people who wish to pursue creative writing or other creative venues and have talent in doing so rewarded in any way for their work in a communist or socialist system?

Yes.

Would you consider China to currently be a communist or capitalist country?

Look at their policies, not the name of their political ruling party. That should tell you everything. Though I should make clear that my opinion regarding their path is less absolute than the previous statement. It may very well be that formerly-feudal China requires a bit of capitalism to get it down the right path.

 

[Takhisis]

Would you consider China to currently be a communist or capitalist country?

Military-backed dictatorship, crony, state-directed capitalism.

Are you expecting an objection? I've devoted more time to updating Marx than I have studing Marx. That he wrote in a manner somewhat specific to the time he wrote in is essentially a Marxist statement.

As Finn the Human would put it… Wink!

 

[caketastydelish]

Well I'm not trying to start an argument here, for the record I know very little about China however I would like to know more.

Does China have "free enterprise"? In other words, if you live in China are you allowed to get any job you want that someone will give you, or must you do what the government says?

I'm guessing China has at least SOME characteristics of a capitalist society. I say this because I read a chinese boy sold his kidney to buy an iPad...

I guess what I'm really asking you is does a country have to be 100% communist to be "truly communist" in your eyes, or can a country with some or most of the characteristics being communist characteristics be "communist enough".

 

[Traitorfish]

Firstly, Marxists do not define "capitalism" in terms of of buzzwords like "free enterprise". We define it in terms of concrete social relationships.

Secondly, a society is either communist, or it is not. It's not a matter of degrees.

 

[caketastydelish]

Firstly, Marxists do not define "capitalism" in terms of of buzzwords like "free enterprise". We define it in terms of concrete social relationships.

Secondly, a society is either communist, or it is not. It's not a matter of degrees.

So by your definition of communist, I'm guessing you all believe there is not a single country on earth right now that is communist. Not saying your belief is wrong necessarily, but I'm just saying I'm guessing that's what you think.

I can't blame communist for hating the word "free enterprise" because the word seems to be pro-capitalist propaganda (i.e, "free") but the literal meaning of the word does contradict communism.

Anyway, you all have already answered my question. If a country is not 100% communist, they are not real communist. Simply having SOME characteristics of a communist state does not make a country a communist state.

edit: a new question:

Explain how you believe communism and socialism are different, supposing you do.

 

[Traitorfish]

So by your definition of communist, I'm guessing you all believe there is not a single country on earth right now that is communist. Not saying your belief is wrong necessarily, but I'm just saying I'm guessing that's what you think.

I think that "communist country" is self-contradictory in at least three different ways, so: yes.

I can't blame communist for hating the word "free enterprise" because the word seems to be pro-capitalist propaganda (i.e, "free") but the literal meaning of the word does contradict communism.

I don't object to the term because of its connotations, I object to it because it contains no substance whatsoever. It's an empty Cold War buzzword.

Anyway, you all have already answered my question. If a country is not 100% communist, they are not real communist. Simply having SOME characteristics of a communist state does not make a country a communist state.

No, not just "not really communist", but simply not communist, in any sense. It's either/or, not just a matter of crossing some threshold into "true" communism. (Significantly, the fact that these societies posses a state rules out their identification as "communist" rather totally.)

Explain how you believe communism and socialism are different, supposing you do.

Do you mean in terms of theory, or in terms of terminology?

 

[caketastydelish]

Do you mean in terms of theory, or in terms of terminology?

Either/or.

edit: please explain why "communist country" is self-contradictory

 

[Hygro]

It may very well be that formerly-feudal China requires a bit of capitalism to get it down the right path.

I take issue with this. Marx's categories of mode of production meets social-economic regulation were based on European observation and aren't universal. Unless we stretch terms.

 

[Traitorfish]

"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.

Problem we run into, mind, is that there's no other universally accepted descriptor for pre-capitalist European society. Something that needs worked on, and not just by Marxists.

Either/or.

Theoretically, I don't make a distinction. Different names for post-capitalism.

Terminologically, communism specifically implies a state of direct communality, i.e. of statelessness, propertylessness, and classlessness. Socialism simply describes the utilisation of the means of production to social rather than private ends, and so can be used to describe a far wider range of models, programs, etc.

edit: please explain why "communist country" is self-contradictory

Three counts. Firstly, it would seem to imply the existence of a state, and states are antithetical to communism. Second, it would seem to imply the existence of a nation, and nationalism is antithetical to communism. Thirdly, and most importantly, communism isn't something that can occur locally, or at least not for an extended period of time. It's either international or it's nothing at all.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Problem we run into, mind, is that there's no other universally accepted descriptor for pre-capitalist European society. Something that needs worked on, and not just by Marxists.

Why do we need to work on a term for that? It seems to me that pre-capitalist European society was so diverse there's no need for a catchall term to cover the economic systems from Iceland to Anatolia.

 

[Traitorfish]

Fair point; I suppose what I mean is "Western Europe, but not entirely, and not exclusively". The bits in which capitalism emerged, basically, the assumption being that there was something distinct but also coherent about the pre-capitalist social relations in those regions which allowed capitalist social relations to develop as "abiogenetically", if that makes sense. (A debatable assumption? Could be! Certainly want to avoid the teleologies that invariably rear their ugly heads.)

 

[ParkCungHee]

Well yes, but my larger point is that I don't think there was enough similar connections even when you narrow it down to that, that I think a catchall term is actually necessary.

 

[Traitorfish]

Mebbe so. To be honest, it's not an area in which I can claim even the barest expertise. You could probably make an argument á la Korsch that the function of Marxism is to serve as the articulated conciousness of the working class, so it's possible to talk about a vaguely coherent pre-capitalist social formation in Medieval and Early Modern Europe insofar as there was a general trend towards capitalistic social relations in certain regions, defined as specifically pre-capitalist, that is in terms of their relationship to an emergent capitalism... But that doesn't really make for good academic historiography.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Explain how you believe communism and socialism are different, supposing you do.

You must understand that on this subject, you will get two totally different answers, depending on which of us you ask.

I will let TF give his answer, since he certainly understands his own position better than I.

My understanding is that socialism is the transfer process between capitalism and communism. Once the working class seizes the political initiative, whether this is through revolution or election, and actively begins the dismantling of the foundations of capitalist society and implementing those which proceed towards communism, it can effectively be said to be socialist.

Or perhaps and easier way to think about it is this: since communism has several very concrete characteristics which define it, namely the abolition of private property, money, the state, and political classes, the anti-capitalist society which exists before these have been achieved, and which is actively working towards achieving them, is socialist. The state, private property in some forms, and money, may still exist. Class conflict will still exist, and may even be more intense than it was in capitalism. It is important to understand this entity as being the engine that builds communism. If it does not try to build communism, then it is not socialist.

 

[caketastydelish]

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