Ask a Red, Second Edition

[GhostWriter16]

That number is falsified and exaggerated, right-wing historians add World War II deaths, starvation from the kulak instigated famine, deaths from industrialization, in addition to Stalin's purges. And I would say that Stalin's purges were not entirely a bad thing. There is no denying that many of those killed were counterreveloutionaries, traitors, capitalists, and other assorted enemies of socialist and the Soviet Union. So to an extent I would argue that the purges were an unfortunate necessity particularly with regard to industrialization. Of course Stalin went a bit too far, but the intention behind it was not all bad.

*Facepalm*

Being a right-wing capitalist, me trying to refute this would be overkill. Can a Socialist or Communist please do it? Civver? Traitorfish? Someone who's allowed to answer here?

 

[Perfection]

*Facepalm*

Being a right-wing capitalist, me trying to refute this would be overkill. Can a Socialist or Communist please do it? Civver? Traitorfish? Someone who's allowed to answer here?

I'd like to see you do it Dommy. It would build up respect for ya.

 

[_random_]

Seriously, go for it. You seem like you have a legitimate case, and if you present and argue it well, the people who can answer questions would probably hate you a little bit less.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Communism seems to operate on Locke's theories of property - natural resources are collective property, but anything mixed with your labor becomes the property of the laborer(s). Hence why goods in a factory should be held by the workers from that factory.

I suppose you could trace that theme to Locke, but the real crux is the Labor Theory of Value (LTV), which comes from Adam Smith. The idea is that labor is what gives objects value, either labor expended to make it or labor expended to find it (mining, harvesting, etc). This idea comes from the fact that human labor is the only thing that all produced objects have in common, apart from a price, which through some proof or another shows that the one equals the other (labor = price). Here are a few quotes from the first few chapters of Capital, to try and explain things in Marx's words.

"What exclusively determines the magnitude of the value of any article is therefore the amount of labor socially necessary, or the labour-time socially necessary for its production. The individual commodity counts here only as an average sample of its kind. Commodities which contain equal quantities of labor, or which can be produced in the same time, have therefore the same value. The value of a commodity is related to the value of any other commodity as the labour-time necessary for the production of the one is related to the labour-time necessary for the production of the other. As exchange values, all commodities are merely definite quantities of congealed labour-time."

"Since all other commodities are merely particular equivalents for money, the latter being their universal equivalent, they relate to money as particular commodities relate to the universal commodity."

"The first main function of gold is to supply commodities with the material for the expression of their values, or to represent their values as quantitatively comparable. It thus acts as a universal measure of value, and only through performing this function does gold, the specific equivalent commodity, become money.
It is not money that renders the commodities commensurable. Quite the contrary. Because all commodities, as values, are objectified human labour, and therefore in themselves commensurable, their values can be communally measured in one and the same specific commodity, and this commodity can be converted into the common measure of their values, that is into money. Money as a measure of value is the necessary form of appearance of the measure of value which is immanent in commodities, namely labour-time."

Now here's a question: running on this belief, more or less, shouldn't ultimate power rest in the hands of those who harvest raw materials and food? Short of hunter-gathering, food is artifically produced by a select group of workers, and their labor feeds the world. Logically, they deserve the greatest power in any Communist society, since all life originates with their labor.

No, because of what is explained above.

Miners, on the other hand, harvest the materials that make industrial production possible through their labor, and thus in theory, should be entitled to everything derived from those materials.

Indeed they do, but their product is only useful to the metalsmith. It is the metalsmith who makes it useful for the rest of society.

How does Communism address these theories, so as to prevent the sentiment that the miners/farmers and whatnot should be the supreme force? Miners(and other resource collectors) provide the material that gives factory workers jobs, and farmers the food that keeps the workers fed.

As I have explained above, your conclusions result from a misunderstanding of the origins of value, and the relationship we associate power to.

But what of the farmers? They don't glean; they actively alter the environment to provide a huge population base's support. Shouldn't power rest with them, given that they make everyone else's lifestyle possible?

No, because you are missing the point.

Do you think its even possible to shift to a full on communist or anarchist society by incremental steps? It seems to me that socialism might be doable incrementally, but I can't get my head around how you would make the sweeping systemic changes necessary incrementally. To borrow a favorite term of creationist con artists, anarchism seems irreducibly complex relative to current state capitalism to be implemented incrementally. I realize you can't see the future, but any further elaboration would be appreciated.

It is understood by communists that the transition to communism necessitates socialism. Socialism is, essentially, the transition stage from capitalism to communism. Given the huge upheaval this type of social reorganization necessitates, it should be obvious that this transition could take a very long time. Centuries, even. We aren't going to just have a revolution and *bam* the state is gone, and long live communism! That is how anarchists generally think, they think that humans innately have the ability to govern their own affairs, and that the state forcefully represses this instinct, so that we have but to remove the state and in a matter of days or weeks our utopia will be achieved. I don't need to explain how foolhardy this is. Human beings are crafted by society; just as racism didn't just magically go away when the Civil Rights Act was signed, so will capitalist and hierarchical ideas slowly fade from society with time. Generations are the biggest changer, as I'm sure you can imagine. Lenin said "give us a child for eight years, and we will make him a communist for life." Some ideologues pretend this is brainwashing, that we want to fundamentally change man from his natural tendencies, and that this is wrong. Given that they think capitalistic relations are man's natural tendency, I can see how they think this! But in reality it is simply social conditioning, the kind that has been going on since society was formed. "Brainwashing" is simply a slander against a type of social conditioning that they don't like.

Which is not to say that there is no such thing as brainwashing, but that is not my point.

Wouldn't the capitalist just retort that what engenders respect for property rights is a sort of self-interest, namely fear of punishment (criminal, civil, social)? I would think the basic difference in the (stereotypical) anarchist vs (stereotypical) capitalist conception of the social contract is that the anarchist would view it as "we agree to do x for the benefit of us" whereas the capitalist would view it as "we agree to do x for the benefit of me". Do you think that distinction tracks the truth of the matter at all? If so, isn't that a salient difference that needs to be addressed if we accept that people are basically self-interested? If not, how would you characterize the difference (if any) between capitalist and socialist/anarchist/communist conceptions of the "social contract"?

Well yes, I think there is a certain amount of self-interest in it. I give up my right to kill so that I don't get killed. I never suggested that humans were entirely selfless. What I have suggested is that more can be accomplished for each of us by working together than by going it alone. Personally, I think that I am "more free" because I am free from fear [of being arbitrarily killed legally] than if I had the freedom to kill whom I wished when I wished. There is still self-interest as its fundamental, but a different kind of self-interest than the rash, animalistic kind. Do you see what I mean?

One would hope so! But I think you're being too short here.

Yes I had meant to come back to that answer, but I forgot.

I mean, if evil and smart people can dupe large portions of the masses into believing things that are at odds with their own interests, doesn't that present a problem for socioeconomic arrangements where the masses do a large part of the decision making? If your answer is to legislate away the ability of Glen Beck's to exist (i.e. banning insane right wingers from having TV shows), do you think that sort of action could form the basis of a slippery slope from real socialism/communism/anarchism into soviet-style "communist" authoritarianism?

Absolutely it is, which is why I do not support repression of the press of any kind.

It asks people to be informed and cogent citizens. I am aware that asking this type of mature behavior is a tall order to some people. But these dupes will fade with time into less and less dangerous things. For example, if Beck is the worst we can summon today, then we are not quite so bad off. We have no one suggesting a return to slavery and monarchy! Reactionaries fear change, so they are always a problem, but extremely few are regressive, they fear change from what they already know and are comfortable with.

John Oliver explains it rather well, and involving Beck, too: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-5-2010/even-better-than-the-real-thing

What about the view that large scale explanations of "movements of history" are necessarily overly reductionist, and that history is essentially a series of events with no defining narrative? So maybe (just picking things out of a hat for example's sake, not claiming any of this is remotely true) world war 2 was the result of class struggle, the plight of sub-saharan Africa is the result of geography, the rise of the USA as a superpower is the result of economics, the fall of Rome is due to a series of unfortunate events, etc.? Thats the view I tend to default towards, and I've never been quite sure why we ought to expect history in all its glorious complexity to fit neatly into an explanatory -ism.

Well I don't think that Marx meant that class struggle was the only thing that decided anything in history, ever. Merely that it was the prime mover within societies themselves. Naturally things like geography and events beyond anyone's control can and do affect society in a great way. But with the case of Rome, for example, the argument is made that it was socially degenerating because of class struggle already, before the barbarians pressed the Limes. Dachs can give you a nice dissertation on late-Roman class problems, but I'm already writing a small book with this post so I'll decline to do so here.

A new question: What is the point of having social and economic policy guided by a utopian vision instead of just seeking specific solutions to specific problems in a pragmatic sort of way? I'm not saying you think communism or whatever would be literally utopia, just utopian vision in the sense of "vision for the future" or something.

Why believe in anything larger?

Another new question: I've heard anarchists (Chomsky in particular) speak derisively about "wage slavery", which he defined as the idea that one had to rent oneself out to eek out a life. Could you go into some specificity about what "wage slavery" amounts to, and what alternative is anarchists would put in place that doesn't lead to a situation where there is no incentive to do crappy jobs but necessary jobs like janitor etc.?

Wage-slavery is actually a Marxist term.

What it means, really, is that proletarians are compelled by the necessity of obtaining money in our commodity-driven society to seek out work, and that the capitalist who employs them is aware of their need and uses his advantageous position to exploit them. The proposed solution? Get rid of the capitalist, so that association of labor is free. People still have to work, that's just a fact of life, but doing so would not necessitate their submission to a dictatorial power who will take advantage of him to become rich.

Gay marriage? Homosexualism was punishable with up to 5 years of imprisonment in USSR, at least from 1930-s.

Not that this has much to do with communism, imo.

EDIT: Sorry for unauthorized answer, I hope that isn't a problem since the question was factual rather than ideological.

Indeed. Many things about 1920s Sovnarkom/USSR were admirable, but the socialist-realist transition was very conservative. I cannot say I agree with it. Though I will profess an admiration for Bertolt Brecht and for some of those Stalinist Gothic buildings.

Hence the importance of a dictatorship of the proletariat to act as a reveloutionary vanguard to safeguard the reveloution and prevent it from being destroyed by counterreveloutionary elements.

The dictatorship of the proleteriat would act in support of the majority of the proleteriat and hold absoloute power in order to replace the capitalist system with a socialist one.

Lenin said it best:



The capitalist classes must be smashed, otherwise as you rightly predicted there would be a fall back into capitalism were a liberal democracy to be adopted without nessecary measures being taken.

My friend, you must learn to disassociate Marxism-Leninism from Western realities.

Which is why you wishy washy socialist libertarians, syndicalists, and anarchists were never successful and won't get anything done. You're afraid to shed blood and to use force. That's why the Bolsheviks were so successful while the Greens, Anarchists, and Mensheviks were crushed.

Actually you should pay attention to another maxim by Lenin:

"Patiently explain, and we shall have our majority."

The Bolsheviks did nothing until they had achieved a majority in the Petrograd Soviet. And even then the October Revolution was hardly "violent" in the careless way that you describe. Things only got nasty when terror against their regime began. First the self-righteous Mensheviks rejected the Revolution and walked out, turning to terrorism, then the Provisional government functionaries sabotaged telegraph lines and destroyed public documents, then the Right SRs returned to their Narodnaya Volya terrorist roots, and finally the bourgeois anarchists at Kronstadt revolted. Spots for all these parties were specifically reserved in the government by the Bolsheviks, who wanted very much to have a coalition of all socialist and anarchist parties, and whom they repeatedly invited to return to the government. The Russian communists got violent because they absolutely had to, not because they really wanted to.

The Bolsheviks were primarily successful in the Civil War because the Triumphal March of Soviet Power delivered them the core parts of the Russian Empire. Their position at the center of the conflict gave them interior lines of communication, and their enemies were disunited and disorganized.

Class consciousness by definition is the realization, or the awarness that you belong to an oppressed class of a system of exploitation (capitalism) and that you have nothing to gain by continuing to be a part of the system as it's not in your rational self-interest.

Actually class-consciousness refers to a society-wide awakening in this regard, not individual.

Better to accomplish nothing(which we actually haven't) than to accomplish the further oppression of the workingman.

Here I must disagree. I would take rough-around-the-edges socialism that we can reform later.

Seriously? Are you trying to suggest that the workingman was oppressed by the Soviet state?

Well we can hardly doubt that they were not even socialist, once factory committees were abolished. Indeed, the very ideas of GosPlan and Stakhanovism run contrary to the idea of socialism.

The great mistake of the Soviets was to even claim the USSR was socialist. They were building socialism, but they were not there yet. A cursory reading of Trotsky can tell you that, for that is where the very idea of the Five Year Plans, the very idea of the April Theses and thus the USSR itself, came from!

Did they achieve admirable things? Absolutely. I am the first to speak of the great strides towards social equality and services made available to huge numbers of people in so short a time, but these things do not a socialist state make. Governed by socialist ideals, but their state did not wholly embody the socialist spirit.

Killing 20 million people is "A mistake?" (And that's just under Stalin.)

More like genocide. The Soviet Union was a scar in history much as how Hitler, Mao, and Mussolini were, and much how North Korea, Afghanistan's Taliban, and Sudan are today.

We aren't playing this game here. Go away.

 

[luiz]

I am not going to ask anything about theory or morals because I think I know your answers and I don't like them. I am however very curious about some tangent issues:

1)You and Traitorfish write as if you really believe that socialism / communism will come. Are you writing this way merely as a rhetorical tool or do you really believe that? Do you expect to see a serious movement towards socialism in our lifetimes? What evidence is there to suggest such thing is even remotely likely?

2)A good deal of your posts (particularly Traitorfish's) have touched the issue of how growing "consciousness" among the masses would lead to socialism. But how do you reconcile that with the fact that as societies progressed and got more educated in the 20th century they increasingly rejected socialist ideals? In the US, the communist/socialist ideology reached a peak of popularity in the 30's and has since declined. I suppose you'll answer that that was due to Cold War propaganda, social conditioning and brain washing. But what to say of neutral countries such as Finland or Sweden? They have a highly educated (and thus, one would expect, "conscious") population, the masses there have had a decent exposure to socialist ideology, and yet they overwhelmingly vote for capitalist social-democratic parties, rejecting actuall socialists. It seems that the masses have no interest in communism. How do you explain that?

 

[civver_764]

I'm not buyin' it. What incentives would communities have for funding your stuff? Communities would by and large only vote for things that benefit themselves, and since most of your product's benefit would probably be to other communities, why should any community bother supporting you?

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're saying but I'll give it a shot. Communities would support things that offer technological advancement or that the people in the community would like to use as a luxury. I'm not sure what you're talking about with the "other communities" thing.

Most ideas suck, it's quite difficult to separate the good ones from the bad ones.

I still don't see what you're getting at.

That's not all entrepreneurs do. Entrepreneurs take a vision and make it reality, which is quite difficult!

By doing what? The stuff they are responsible is greatly diminished in socialism.

And that's because entrepreneurs aren't just R&D guys. They are and need to be so much more.

Again I'm going to need you to be more specific.

Here I must disagree. I would take rough-around-the-edges socialism that we can reform later.

Rough-around-the-edges is a bit of understatement. =/

That is how anarchists generally think, they think that humans innately have the ability to govern their own affairs, and that the state forcefully represses this instinct, so that we have but to remove the state and in a matter of days or weeks our utopia will be achieved.

1) Anarchists are not utopians.
2) Why don't humans have the ability to govern themselves? And if not why do we have to have a socialist state for them to learn how to do so?
3) "Govern their own affairs" is a bit of a misconception anyways. There is still a highly organized system of governance in place, it just don't give someone more power than another.

 

[Fifty]

Thanks for the answers, Cheezy!

New ones:

What are (in your opinion) the best arguments that a socialist might give that socialism is better than communism or anarchism?

What are (in your opinion) the best arguments that a communist might give that communism is better than socialism or anarchism?

What are (in your opinion) the best arguments that an anarchist might give that anarchism is better than communism or socialism?

I ask because its so often construed as a battle of socialism/communism/anarchism vs capitalism, I wonder what socialists, anarchists, and communists would argue about amongst themselves.

 

[lutzj]

Thanks for the answers, Cheezy!

New ones:

What are (in your opinion) the best arguments that a socialist might give that socialism is better than communism or anarchism?

What are (in your opinion) the best arguments that a communist might give that communism is better than socialism or anarchism?

What are (in your opinion) the best arguments that an anarchist might give that anarchism is better than communism or socialism?

I ask because its so often construed as a battle of socialism/communism/anarchism vs capitalism, I wonder what socialists, anarchists, and communists would argue about amongst themselves.

It's worth noting that communism/socialism/capitalism can all exist alongside anarchism.

 

[luiz]

I ask because its so often construed as a battle of socialism/communism/anarchism vs capitalism, I wonder what socialists, anarchists, and communists would argue about amongst themselves.

History suggests that they would not argue; they would slaughter each other if given the chance

 

[Traitorfish]

We aren't going to just have a revolution and *bam* the state is gone, and long live communism! That is how anarchists generally think, they think that humans innately have the ability to govern their own affairs, and that the state forcefully represses this instinct, so that we have but to remove the state and in a matter of days or weeks our utopia will be achieved. I don't need to explain how foolhardy this is.

Doesn't that risk over-simplification? After all, one could similarly characterise Left Communism, yet it most certainly takes the Marxist view of history into account.

 

[GhostWriter16]

We aren't playing this game here. Go away.

Are you seriously justifying Stalin's actions? Or is there something else in my post you objected too? One of my comparisons perhaps?

 

[JohnRM]

1. What are the primary differences between Socialism and Communism?

2. Is there a marked difference between Socialists and your typical Social Democrats?

3. How can Socialism & Communism benefit the average American (as opposed to Capitalism), especially with regard to health, safety, and education, and in general, with regard to our overall standard of living?

4. What questions would I have to ask myself if I thought I were turning into a socialist and wanted to know for sure?

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'd like to see you do it Dommy. It would build up respect for ya.

Seriously, go for it. You seem like you have a legitimate case, and if you present and argue it well, the people who can answer questions would probably hate you a little bit less.

Very well.

First of all, how can you EVER justify killing someone for voicing their belief, no matter what it is. Even if it is Hate Speech, which, regardless of your opinion of its legality, capital punishment is an extraordinary punishment for it. I support it only for Murder, Rape, and sometimes treason, armed robbery, or espionage, and most people on here think I am radically pro-capital punishment, even in the US.

Now, I will say, regardless of your opinion of capitalism, supporting it is NOT hate speech. And so there is absolutely zero grounds for it to be punishable everywhere.

Third of all, Stalin was an autocratic ruler, and he did not follow the law when he punished people. He did not give them a legitimate, jury trial.

Now, if you want to say Hitler was a step up because of his racism, and you want to object to me comparing Stalin to Hitler on those grounds, that's fine with me. It is true most of Stalin's beliefs on how to control were similar to other autocratic rulers, while Hitler's were totally insane. I could probably argue that Stalin was just as bad, but regardless, he was an evil, totalitarian dictator who enforced, on pain of death, that people not speak against him, whatsover. The only country I can think of that currently does that completely is North Korea, and Stalin killed like seven times as many as Kim Jong IL.

In short, anyone who supports Stalin is supporting the government's right to kill people on a whim. No matter your political view, there is zero means to justify that.

 

[Perfection]

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're saying but I'll give it a shot. Communities would support things that offer technological advancement or that the people in the community would like to use as a luxury. I'm not sure what you're talking about with the "other communities" thing.

Well, let's say you have an idea that will cost $1,000,000 and benefit 3000 separate communities each $1000 dollars. It seems like getting said money would be a very difficult task. Worse would be 300,000 separate communities $10! Under capitalism, you'd get funding under the premise that you'd sell the benefit to the communities at a market price and make a profit. I'm not sure how that would work under a communist system.

Will add more later... (in a separate post)

 

[Traitorfish]

Are you seriously justifying Stalin's actions? Or is there something else in my post you objected too? One of my comparisons perhaps?

The thread is "Ask a Red", not "Domination's Shiny New Soapbox". If you wish to discuss the legacy of Stalin, start a new thread to do it in.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The thread is "Ask a Red", not "Domination's Shiny New Soapbox". If you wish to discuss the legacy of Stalin, start a new thread to do it in.

Karalysia started that when he actually tried to justify Stalin.

However, upon looking back I should not have continued there, and I probably should not have continued it even though Perfection and Randomnerd asked I do so. I will formally apologize, and I will discuss the issue no further in this thread. My apologies for threadjacking

 

[Ajidica]

Question on class conciousness.
How I understand it, class conciousness is generaly the proletariat understanding their role in production and wishing to rectify it.
Let us suppose that there is a large-scale grassroots movement looking to implement socialism. Somewhere down the line they decide to try capitalism again. Did the proletariat ever have class conciousness? Additionally, once the proletariat has class conciousness, is it possible for them to 'lose it'?

Separate question:
What exactly separates Communism from Primitive Communism besides and understanding of the means of production? ie: What stops Communism from becoming cyclical and defaulting back to feudalism or capitalism?

EDIT:

Karalysia started that when he actually tried to justify Stalin.

Do you not remember the Stalinist troll persona of Karalysia?
Considering you got trolled by it, I thought you would remember.

 

[Perfection]

I still don't see what you're getting at.

Well, with capitalism in general you are rewarded handsomely if your risk pans out and not rewarded if it doesn't. This mirrors the nature of the work being done, under the situations where these people would be paid roughly constantly they don't have that big drive to success nor aversion to trying half-baked ideas.

By doing what? The stuff they are responsible is greatly diminished in socialism.

The entire coordination task of hiring/firing people, making design decisions, marketing, finding supplies, budgeting, etc. etc. That all has to get done, and it's often very tough!

 

[Yeekim]

We aren't playing this game here. Go away.

The thread is "Ask a Red", not "Domination's Shiny New Soapbox". If you wish to discuss the legacy of Stalin, start a new thread to do it in.

If Karalysia continues here, this thread will go to hell sooner rather than later...

 

[Yeekim]

Well, in the case of syndicalist collectives, it's quite simply the natural conclusion of a political agenda, the overturning of Capitalism in favour of Socialism being for the good of all, and so a worth investment of a workers labour. Non-syndicalist cooperatives may not have such explicit political goals, but few cooperatives exist without a philosophical or ideological investment in cooperativism itself, and so the expansion of cooperativism would similarly be viewed as something of a moral compulsion. Also, I would imagine that collectives would not always expand in such a mitosis-like manner, but would pool resources between themselves into a collective fund, establishing or supporting the establishment of new collectives with this fund. It would also be possible for the state to fund the establishment of collectives, which I, personally, would be supportive of, although some of my more radically anarchistic fellow travellers may not be.
(I will also note that forwarding the wealth for the establishment of a new collective on the understanding that it be recouped is not exploitative, as it is not a for-profit venture, but, indeed, an act of charity; the equivalent of lending a friend £20 til payday, rather than of a bank loan.)

It may also be worth observing that many contemporary cooperatives are consumer cooperatives, and so are driven to expand by the goal of providing as effective service to member and non-member customers, and, in a less immediate sense, of increasing and encouraging more ethical business practices. While not following a syndicalist model themselves, they offer a kernel of Socialism by removing the bourgeoisie from the equation, and their retention in necessary services- such as the grocery, banking and funeral services offered in the UK- is, I would suggest, compatible with at least early or transitional Socialist societies.

So, are you essentially saying that the success of socialist economy depends on the degree people are willing to spend their money on non-profit motives (as there would be no mechanism for investors to ever profit from their investment, every investment would be made just "out of good will")?