Ask a Red III

[Cheezy the Wiz]

As a communist, which do you think are hotter? Polish girls or British girls?

It is a joke question, because there is no contest between Polish and British ladies. (It's Polish).

Here is my own opinion:

While Karl Marx did say religion is the "opium for the poor" (or something like that) my opinion is that while times are changing, the end result is precisely the same. This is what I mean:

In western countries, the population is getting more and more secular and generally less religious. However, the class struggle still exists and not much seems to being done about it. This is my theory on that: Just as religion was once the opium for the poor, now other things are replacing it, such as literally opium and other drugs itself (ironically enough) sex, video games, other things.

Now poor people have other means to be preoccupied so as to prevent them from realizing the injustice of capitalism, that is, that the wealth is so unevenly distributed. It used to be religion, but now it's more secular means of being kept artificially content.

Would you agree with me or disagree?

I think your observations are correct, but I don't think your understanding of Marx's statement is quite on-point. His statement (which was that religion was the opium of the masses) didn't really mean that people were focusing on religious matters and ignoring political and economic ones, but rather that the religious message of tolerating worldly evils with the expectation of future, supernatural rewards made people choose to weather the storm rather than actually try to change their situation. Also, during the time period that he said that (1848; it appears in The Communist Manifesto) there was a very strong vein of futilism circulating in the religious revivalism accompanying the industrial revolution: many people felt that they could have no impact upon the divinely ordained order of the world, or upon the plan God had laid out for their lives. So that angle must also be taken into account.

Who is more awsome: Emma Goldman, Rosa Luxemburg, or someone else entirely?

I despise Goldman. Luxemburg is pretty awesome. But the best female communist is certainly Alexandra Kollontai; though I think Camila Valejo may give the Madame a run for her money, depending on how things go in Chile in the coming months.

I'm the Žižek-type lefty who doesn't quite agree with most of the usual definitions of Socialism/Communism.
Full Communist? probably not, the Soviet Union and Red China are enough to show that it doesn't work. Call it a Socialist then.

I would put you firmly anti-capitalist Left. Your anti-capitalism seems to come from a Veblenian/distributist point of view and not a Marxist one.

 

[Ajidica]

I thought you liked Goldman, but anyhow, why do you despise her? From the little I know about her she definately seems to have more of an anarchist bent than you or the Bolsheviks but her points of contention were over the things that most of us would agree were not the proud points of the early Soviet Union.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I thought you liked Goldman, but anyhow, why do you despise her? From the little I know about her she definately seems to have more of an anarchist bent than you or the Bolsheviks but her points of contention were over the things that most of us would agree were not the proud points of the early Soviet Union.

Because she reeks of the snide, bourgeois attitude that anarchists so often have. Mr. Cribb once quipped that there was no such thing as an impersonal anarchist (as opposed to a personal one), and the more I see and read of anarchists, the more I think that to be true. Anarchism is a fine ideology, which should serve to motivate communists towards their goal of a stateless, classless society. Anarchists have proven to be far less useful, and far more annoying. Possibly the only admirable thing about her was that she didn't fully attach herself to First Wave Feminism; but then I also dislike her for that, because she has served as a sort of "safe radical" for feminists ever since, not realizing that she is in reality not so different from the liberal feminists she distanced herself from.

 

[Ajidica]

Interesting. Any articles that go further in-depth on this interpretation of her?

 

[Traitorfish]

Who is more awsome: Emma Goldman, Rosa Luxemburg, or someone else entirely?

I tend to prefer Luxemburg. Goldman was a pretty good writer, but she wasn't particularly significant as a theorist or organiser. Luxemburg wrote some of the most important critiques of social democracy and Bolshevism from her time, and was one of the most important organisers on the left of the Second International.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Interesting. Any articles that go further in-depth on this interpretation of her?

I've never read an actual book or article specifically about her, apart from her Wikipedia page, which I don't think really counts (though is always good for an intro to, well, anything, which is what that website is really great for), it's always in other sources. She's mentioned in a book about American labor disputes, or A Russian Revolution/Civil War era book, or a Women's History in American class text. I've always been less than impressed by anything I've ever encountered about her or by her. Sure, the language of the propaganda of the deed is an impressive call to action, but what it really amounts to is a terroristic, spastic outlashing at The Man. It is not a program from working class organization and the assumption of power, but a design to provoke chaos and, dare I say it, anarchy. She is of little practical use to us.

 

[Domen]

My next question (regarding the efficiency of communist managed non-market economy).

Such a saying was popular in European communist countries before 1989:

"If communists took over the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in two years."

What do you think about this saying, how much truth is there in it?

 

[Old Hippy]

I'm the Žižek-type lefty who doesn't quite agree with most of the usual definitions of Socialism/Communism.
Full Communist? probably not, the Soviet Union and Red China are enough to show that it doesn't work. Call it a Socialist then.

I think the real question there is "what happens if/when red China shows it does work?..."

 

[caketastydelish]

It has already been confirmed in this thread that China is nowhere near communism.

 

[Old Hippy]

It has already been confirmed in this thread that China is nowhere near communism.

I don't think anyone in this thread bothered to ask the Chinese communist party...

 

[caketastydelish]

It's the policies that define if a political system is communist, not what they call themselves.

 

[Old Hippy]

It's the policies that define if a political system is communist, not what they call themselves.

well from my narrow western perspective I would agree with you ... but from a dynamic Chinese communist perspective millions would disagree with the both of us....

 

[aelf]

My next question (regarding the efficiency of communist managed non-market economy).

False dichotomy.

Such a saying was popular in European communist countries before 1989:

"If communists took over the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in two years."

What do you think about this saying, how much truth is there in it?

So you've come here to troll, eh? What do you think? Is it likely that communists would cause a shortage of sand in the Sahara if they "took [it] over"?

Next you'll be asking if it's true that pigs will fly if Lenin came back to life.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't think anyone in this thread bothered to ask the Chinese communist party...

Funny you should say that, because a lot of Communist Party intellectuals are begging to argue that China is the only authentic capitalist nation in the world, on the grounds that all other countries participate in imperialism and are therefore "semi-feudal".

 

[Old Hippy]

Funny you should say that, because a lot of Communist Party intellectuals are begging to argue that China is the only authentic capitalist nation in the world, on the grounds that all other countries participate in imperialism and are therefore "semi-feudal".

True ... but a lot of Communist party power brokers would see this phase as transitional, a necessary step towards "true" communism, I've heard this expressed in European ideas over 100 years ago.... actually I heard this idea expressed on CFCOT more recently...

and I did say if/when Chinese Communism is proved to work earlier...

 

[GhostWriter16]

What is the optimum political strategy for a Red in the United States? Voting for the Democrats in order to get closer (Even if not by much) to the society you want, vote for the Republicans in hopes that they will (Allegedly) screw the working class over and ultimately speed up revolution, or some other cause?

Would you rather vote for a left-wing economic system which includes an authoritarian government, or a right-wing economic system that includes a socially libertarian government? I imagine the answers will differ there, but the question is more "Which is worse, for a liberal red?"

What's the difference between communism and socialism, exactly?

Do all socialists/communists agree with Marx's quote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?"

 

[caketastydelish]

I am not on the listed of accepted communist, but I fancy myself one, so I will try to answer some of these anyway.

What is the optimum political strategy for a Red in the United States? Voting for the Democrats in order to get closer (Even if not by much) to the society you want, vote for the Republicans in hopes that they will (Allegedly) screw the working class over and ultimately speed up revolution, or some other cause?

The US communist party of America has endorsed Obama, so the answer to that question should be self apparent.

Would you rather vote for a left-wing economic system which includes an authoritarian government, or a right-wing economic system that includes a socially libertarian government? I imagine the answers will differ there, but the question is more "Which is worse, for a liberal red?"

Define what you mean exactly by "authoritarian".

 

[Traitorfish]

What is the optimum political strategy for a Red in the United States? Voting for the Democrats in order to get closer (Even if not by much) to the society you want, vote for the Republicans in hopes that they will (Allegedly) screw the working class over and ultimately speed up revolution, or some other cause?

Would you rather vote for a left-wing economic system which includes an authoritarian government, or a right-wing economic system that includes a socially libertarian government? I imagine the answers will differ there, but the question is more "Which is worse, for a liberal red?"

Voting is counter-productive. The working class has nothing to gain from it. Either they can achieve what they want by exerting direct pressure on capital, or they were never going to get it in the first place.

What's the difference between communism and socialism, exactly?

There is no exact distinction. Some schools of Marxism regard them as subsequent modes of organisations, some use the terms interchangeable, and others tend to disregard the term "socialism" altogether in favour of the more too-the-point "communism". Non-Marxist schools have different views.

Do all socialists/communists agree with Marx's quote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?"

Marx was intending to describe the sort of logic on which a communist society would out of necessity be organised. It wasn't an ethical claim in and of itself.

True ... but a lot of Communist party power brokers would see this phase as transitional, a necessary step towards "true" communism, I've heard this expressed in European ideas over 100 years ago.... actually I heard this idea expressed on CFCOT more recently...

I'm frankly sceptical that any serious percentage of the CCP takes communism to be a serious proposition any more.

 

[caketastydelish]

Enlighten me, Traitorfish, on how voting is counter productive. Are you saying a communist could not ever be democratically elected? Why the pessimism?

 

[Old Hippy]

I'm frankly sceptical that any serious percentage of the CCP takes communism to be a serious proposition any more.

well there are 80 odd million members who are signed up and agree with the Constitution of the party and its general principals (a requirement for joining) and over 3.3 million grass roots branches

China is at the primary stage of socialism and will remain so for a long period of time. This is a historical stage which cannot be skipped in socialist modernization in China that is backward economically and culturally. It will last for over a hundred years. In socialist construction we must proceed from our specific conditions and take the path to socialism with Chinese characteristics.

http://www.chinatoday.com/org/cpc/china_communist_party_constitution.htm#1

when one looks at the party cental academy (party shcool of central commitee of CPC) admitidely only second hand translations, but thats all we have. and the strong language in Chinatoday... there can be little doubt that they will pursue there agenda...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E94rpGRRgD8&feature=player_embedded