Ask a Red, Second Edition

[Defiant47]

What we're trying to figure out is this chain of thought:

• P: How does a person obtain needed goods?
  • A: Is the method of obtaining goods at all affected by the occupation of the person (i.e. the goods that they produce)?
    • i: If so, exactly how?
    • ii: If not, then how do people exit worthless occupations (i.e. artists who produce paintings nobody wants)?
  • B: Does this method have a limitation?
    • i: If so, how is the limitation determined?
    • ii: If not, then what's stopping people from obtaining an inordinate and unsustainable amount of goods?
  • C: Is the method of obtaining goods efficient?
  • D: Is the method of obtaining goods fair?

For example, I can provide the following answers for a capitalist system:

P: A person goes to a particular store and uses their money to purchase the goods. This money was obtained through performing their occupation.
P(A): Yes,
P(A)(i): the occupation of the person determines how much money they have, and thus the ability and limitation of purchasing goods.
P(A)(ii): This issue does not exist, since if an occupation is worthless, then (most of the time) the person will not obtain the money necessary to obtain needed goods.

P(B): Yes,
P(B)(i): the limitation is the sum of money a person receives from their occupation (presumably equivalent to the worth of their occupational production; see sections C and D)
P(B)(ii): This issue does not exist, since people don't have an infinite supply of money. People cannot get more TVs and computers than society is capable of producing (or the few first ones getting all of society's capacity, and the late showers getting nothing).

P(C): Presumably. How valuable a person's occupation is, usually directly contributes to the amount of money the person receives (which is used to obtain the fruits of others' occupations). As such, we have more or less the same input and output for a person in the system.

P(D): Presumably. Same as in section C, if a person's occupational production is worth a certain amount of money, then they will usually receive about that same amount of money in compensation. If they don't, then the reigning capitalistic idea of entrepreneurs stepping in to eliminate inefficiencies would save the day. An entrepreneur could make profit by compensating currently-under-compensated workers more than their current compensation, but less than their actual contribution. The end result would be equitable (or close thereto) compensation for labour.

If you could address these points in this kind of format, it would be very appreciated!

 

[Alassius]

Yourself, along with whatever other individuals are effected by the decision. "Association of free individuals" and all that.

What if I'm a bad guy? What if I don't respect other people, and take all the sausages from the grocery? How am I supposed to make the decision with "whatever other individuals"? Who are those individuals? Everyone who wants to eat sausages? How is this association supposed to happen? Assemblies? Or delegates?

What do you mean by "government", in this sense?

Your workers' assemblies, and your various institutions and committees. Whatever you call them, they serve the role of a government.

On a semantic level, yes. Marxism does not connote any given vision of society, or a body of praxis for bringing that society about, so you can't discuss it in this manner. Presumably, you are yet again conflating "Marxism" with "Marxism-Leninism".

Or, perhaps, it's you who are conflating your brand of non-practical revisionism with orthodox Marxism? Because I'm fairly sure Marx would want to say something about your treacherous defeatism. Maybe you want to read Theses On Feuerbach again?

Why is it important? Why does anyone need to "say" what's what one way or the other? It's just an item of theory.

It's the most vital question. The person ending up with the power to decide what is objective, or proletarian, or revolutionary, is the person who wields unchecked power in your communist society.

Presumably you would do something else. There's always going to be something useful that you can do. The whole point of communism, remember, is that this logic of commodity exchange would no longer be of relevance- no need to lash yourself to one occupation because it is your sole livelihood- but that society would apply its collective resources, material and human, in response to the determined needs of its constituents.

In the capitalist society the said artist can live off the state, or family, or even charity. If he has to find "something useful" to do, does that mean he in fact would have less freedom under communism?

There are enough major theories on democracy that do not hold private property as fundamental (in fact, I'm not sure which other conceptions of democracy hold that it is, other than rationalisations of existing privileges - Lockean?) that I do not think this can be asserted as a universally accepted axiom. I'm aware that this is by and large Hayek's argument, but I'm unconvinced. So far liberal democracies have shown a capacity for regulating and otherwise reducing the preponderance of private property without becoming less democratic. In fact, there are those who wish to do away with private property in certain markets, and they are hardly Marxist or authoritarian.

In any case, I think the debate on private property is not the central point. It might have been in the past and still is to some, but the logic of capital is where I'd want cultural critiques to be aimed at - basically the idea that profit (or money; but it's more of profit, really) is some kind of necessary currency for subjective ends and is therefore an objective good. I think this approach is consistent with the more Aristotelian bent of late Marx, who wished to see a diversification of the pursuit of subjective ends that is inhibited by the profit-oriented capitalist relations of production.

Let's see... The Americans say one shall not "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". The Europeans say "[e]very natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions". The UN says "[n]o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property". Even the Chinese and the Cubans are jumping on the bandwagon with new private property laws. Where exactly are your "major theories on democracy" practiced?

Perhaps the debate on private property is no longer the central point precisely because it's already accepted as an uncontroversial part of modern politics? In fact, only Marxists still want to abolish it, and I'm afraid that unlike how it appears on this forum, Marxism is an extremely minor, radical school that nobody in the mainstream gives a damn about.

Yes, I think the average person can have more freedom in a communistic society, if only because one is no longer facing heavy pressure to 'perform' according to the specifications dictated by a capitalistic market. This would entail quite a radical cultural shift and might mean some paring down of the levels of consumption we are seeing today, but the latter seems necessary for other practical reasons as well.

In so-called communist labour relations (I say this because I don't profess to speak for anyone else), compulsion is no longer as convenient because the worker will have more flexibility in terms of accepting the kind of role he/she is offered. This sounds like it might require a generous welfare state, and I don't deny that. It might be difficult to achieve and not necessarily realisable to its full extent, but that is the direction in which I think we should be heading. In other words, I don't think absolute increases in wealth should be the goal, with the hope (or not) that it will trickle down. Rather, we should go for general improvements in well-being, including psychological well-being, even if it comes at some cost to the rate at which wealth grows.

Do you not face the pressure of "do something useful" under communism? Exactly what do you mean by "more flexibility"? How is it more flexible? Wouldn't there be as many jobs that need to be filled, including all the undesirable jobs?

Not actually true, unless you're denying that any form of 'big government' is liberal or democratic, which does not seem true when we look at the real world. How limited is limited anyway? The limits seem to be actively negotiated all the time.

"Big government" in America is far, far - I can't emphasise this enough - far smaller than the Soviet Union was. Just try to compare, say, NSA wiretapping with what the KGB could do, or Guantanamo Bay with an actual Gulag. If you dispute this you really should go back to read history.

The Bill of Rights is a great example of how limited the government should be, even if it's flawed (e.g. gun rights). Indeed the liberal limits are being eroded all the time, but this erosion is relatively minor and slow - it would probably take America hundreds of years to descend to North Korea - and it's not irreversible. Social liberals in both major parties are actively defending against this erosion.

 

[aelf]

Let's see... The Americans say one shall not "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". The Europeans say "[e]very natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions". The UN says "[n]o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property". Even the Chinese and the Cubans are jumping on the bandwagon with new private property laws. Where exactly are your "major theories on democracy" practiced?

Those are not theories. I don't really want to get into a debate about the application or usefulness of theory here. It's sufficient to note that people do engage in theorising and theoretical debate, so in a sense the 'market sentiment' does not necessarily favour the elimination of theory in favour of 'realist' perspectives.

Perhaps the debate on private property is no longer the central point precisely because it's already accepted as an uncontroversial part of modern politics? In fact, only Marxists still want to abolish it, and I'm afraid that unlike how it appears on this forum, Marxism is an extremely minor, radical school that nobody in the mainstream gives a damn about.

The influence of Marxism goes so much further than you're actually aware of. Granted I'm speaking of academia, but so many ideas from academia have filtered into the mainstream that have been partly influenced by Marxist thought.

As for the question of private property, I don't see why you see the need to try and declare some sort of victory here (as if it matters). I'm just not particularly concerned about the validity of propertarianism per se. I'm more interested in how property ownership is perceived and how much of a determining role it plays in social relations.

In short, I'm not interested in amateurish discussions about which side prevails. It's not a contest. I'm interested in the analysis and critique of actual phenomena.

Do you not face the pressure of "do something useful" under communism?

Yes.

Exactly what do you mean by "more flexibility"? How is it more flexible? Wouldn't there be as many jobs that need to be filled, including all the undesirable jobs?

I already described it to you as pretty much a generous welfare system. Of course, that's my idea of the ideal. Naturally, the actual social contract has to be actively negotiated and will probably not stay constant. Just as how it is now.

"Big government" in America is far, far - I can't emphasise this enough - far smaller than the Soviet Union was. Just try to compare, say, NSA wiretapping with what the KGB could do, or Guantanamo Bay with an actual Gulag. If you dispute this you really should go back to read history.

The Bill of Rights is a great example of how limited the government should be, even if it's flawed (e.g. gun rights). Indeed the liberal limits are being eroded all the time, but this erosion is relatively minor and slow - it would probably take America hundreds of years to descend to North Korea - and it's not irreversible. Social liberals in both major parties are actively defending against this erosion.

Nobody is talking in North Korean or even in Soviet Union terms.

Or, perhaps, it's you who are conflating your brand of non-practical revisionism with orthodox Marxism? Because I'm fairly sure Marx would want to say something about your treacherous defeatism. Maybe you want to read Theses On Feuerbach again?

"treacherous defeatism" my arse. There is more than one way to change the world. I've already provided you with a vision of praxis, and although I can't say that everyone here endorses something like that, it's a good example of how so-called revisionists (such as John Holloway) operate. On the other hand, you seem to have a preoccupation with talking about violent methods. Maybe it goes to show just what are the actual obsessions of supposedly peace-loving liberals?

 

[Traitorfish]

What we're trying to figure out is this chain of thought:

• P: How does a person obtain needed goods?
  • A: Is the method of obtaining goods at all affected by the occupation of the person (i.e. the goods that they produce)?
    • i: If so, exactly how?
    • ii: If not, then how do people exit worthless occupations (i.e. artists who produce paintings nobody wants)?
  • B: Does this method have a limitation?
    • i: If so, how is the limitation determined?
    • ii: If not, then what's stopping people from obtaining an inordinate and unsustainable amount of goods?
  • C: Is the method of obtaining goods efficient?
  • D: Is the method of obtaining goods fair?

For example, I can provide the following answers for a capitalist system:

P: A person goes to a particular store and uses their money to purchase the goods. This money was obtained through performing their occupation.
P(A): Yes,
P(A)(i): the occupation of the person determines how much money they have, and thus the ability and limitation of purchasing goods.
P(A)(ii): This issue does not exist, since if an occupation is worthless, then (most of the time) the person will not obtain the money necessary to obtain needed goods.

P(B): Yes,
P(B)(i): the limitation is the sum of money a person receives from their occupation (presumably equivalent to the worth of their occupational production; see sections C and D)
P(B)(ii): This issue does not exist, since people don't have an infinite supply of money. People cannot get more TVs and computers than society is capable of producing (or the few first ones getting all of society's capacity, and the late showers getting nothing).

P(C): Presumably. How valuable a person's occupation is, usually directly contributes to the amount of money the person receives (which is used to obtain the fruits of others' occupations). As such, we have more or less the same input and output for a person in the system.

P(D): Presumably. Same as in section C, if a person's occupational production is worth a certain amount of money, then they will usually receive about that same amount of money in compensation. If they don't, then the reigning capitalistic idea of entrepreneurs stepping in to eliminate inefficiencies would save the day. An entrepreneur could make profit by compensating currently-under-compensated workers more than their current compensation, but less than their actual contribution. The end result would be equitable (or close thereto) compensation for labour.

If you could address these points in this kind of format, it would be very appreciated!

Ok, well, I'm not the strongest on points of post-revolutionary social organisation (there's certainly no one school of thought on this, for a start), but I'll try to cobble together as effective an answer as I can. Feel free to pick holes in it.

P: A person obtains them from the relevant point of distribution.
P(A): Assuming that they are for private use, no.
P(A)(i): N/A
P(A)(ii): In communism, labour power (i.e. the ability to work) is not volunteered to a market as a commodity (directly or indirectly), as in capitalism, but approached as a resource held in common and thus applied in accordance with common needs; "worthless occupations" do not exist, because by definition labour work not be "assigned", for want of a better word, that was not considered valuable.

P(B): Yes.
P(B)(i): In capitalism, money functions for the worker as what you might call "consumption points", that is, a measured entitlement to consumption. Similarly, some form of measured entitlement could exist under communism, but distinguished by the fact that their attribution is direct, not obtained through commodity exchange, and that their redemption does not constitute a further form of commodity exchange.
P(B)(ii): As in capitalism, this is not an issue. "Free access", although an idea tampered with as a long-term outcome (assuming certain levels of technological and social development), is evidently ineffective in any immediate sense.

P(C): Not inherently, no, but if the criteria is taken as meeting the greatest needs to the greatest extent, then no system can be said to be inherently efficient. This model, at least, allows for concious improvement, rather than obliging invocation of market values as reflect of objective morality.

P(D): Same as above.

What if I'm a bad guy? What if I don't respect other people, and take all the sausages from the grocery? How am I supposed to make the decision with "whatever other individuals"? Who are those individuals? Everyone who wants to eat sausages? How is this association supposed to happen? Assemblies? Or delegates?

It would help if you could ask a straight question, rather than all this "What about self-evidently exceptional scenario X? Huh? And Y? And who stole my shoes? And what's the capital of Papua New Guinea? Huh, punk? Huh?"

Anyway, I addressed the main part of that above, so, well, ask about that.

Your workers' assemblies, and your various institutions and committees. Whatever you call them, they serve the role of a government.

Ok, then going back to the original point, what is it about these forms of governance, as distinct from liberal forms of government, that makes corruption an exceptional problem?

Or, perhaps, it's you who are conflating your brand of non-practical revisionism with orthodox Marxism? Because I'm fairly sure Marx would want to say something about your treacherous defeatism. Maybe you want to read Theses On Feuerbach again?

You continue to misunderstand. I mean that you cannot "implement Marxism", because Marxism is not a thing which can be implemented. It provides a theoretical basis upon which praxis can be developed, yes, but it does not in itself constitute praxis. The whole point of Marxist thought, remember, is class struggle, something which is not determined by ideology- as much as your silly liberal idealism may oblige you to believe that ideology is the be all and end all of political struggle.

Also, do you actually even know what the term "Orthodox Marxism" means? It's hard to take you seriously if you can't even use basic terminology in a coherent manner.

It's the most vital question. The person ending up with the power to decide what is objective, or proletarian, or revolutionary, is the person who wields unchecked power in your communist society.

Why does "a person" have to end up with "the power"? If you're going to start out with the assumption that communism is just fascism with a red flag, then, yeah, you're going to reach "red fascist" conclusions, but I can't see how it contributes to a meaningful discussion on the topic.

In the capitalist society the said artist can live off the state, or family, or even charity. If he has to find "something useful" to do, does that mean he in fact would have less freedom under communism?

I don't consider the obligation to contribute to society in order to benefit from society to be "oppressive". Frankly, only a sociopathic narcissist would hold themselves in such high regard as to consider themselves free from such an obligation.

 

[Defiant47]

Ah, I see, so this method of labour would be somewhat similar to what we had back in Communist Romania, where you'd attend university, entrance to desired programs determined by academic performance, and upon exiting you would be assigned to a relevant occupation.

You've also addressed the issue of "money", or "consumption points". Through what determination would money be distributed?

Thanks for answering my questions, by the way

 

[Traitorfish]

Ah, I see, so this method of labour would be somewhat similar to what we had back in Communist Romania, where you'd attend university, entrance to desired programs determined by academic performance, and upon exiting you would be assigned to a relevant occupation.

Insofar as they both constitute planned investment of resources, yes, but not much more than that. Ceaușescu's Romania was a state capitalist regime, rather than a communist society, so the social relations it represents a fundamentally different.

You've also addressed the issue of "money", or "consumption points". Through what determination would money be distributed?

At a fundamental level, it would be determined by workers' councils, although of course various intermediary bodies may appear.

 

[Dumanios]

Assuming that a country (we'll call this country Zhonrus) has been able to implement Communism perfectly. Would you rather stay where you are, or move to Zhonrus.

 

[Traitorfish]

Assuming that a country (we'll call this country Zhonrus) has been able to implement Communism perfectly. Would you rather stay where you are, or move to Zhonrus.

Unfortunately, that would be impossible. Communism, in the Marxist understanding, is necessarily internationalising. Capitalist social relations are by their nature expansive and thus generalising, so communist social relations must be similarly generalising not to collapse in their infancy. The only alternative is to imagine some functional autarky, which is a very unlikely prospect in this era. The closest that they could achieve would be the political empowerment of the working class, Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat", and if that were to emerge in some region of the world, the proper response would really be to work on aiding its expansion to your own country, for the reasons stated above.

 

[Ajidica]

Does anyone know of a good book that looks at the daily life for people in the Soviet Union? Preferable one that goes from Lenin to Gorby and that I could get my hands on through Amazon.

 

[carmen510]

Does anyone know of a good book that looks at the daily life for people in the Soviet Union? Preferable one that goes from Lenin to Gorby and that I could get my hands on through Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/Stalinism-Way-Life-Narrative-Documents/dp/0300084803

I personally own this book, although I don't remember actually reading it. It only goes through Stalin's reign through the perspective of historical documents, but it seems to fit your purposes for that time era.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Well this thread has gotten fun in my absence. Fight the good fight!

Does anyone know of a good book that looks at the daily life for people in the Soviet Union? Preferable one that goes from Lenin to Gorby and that I could get my hands on through Amazon.

A few for your convenience and reading pleasure:

Everyday Stalinism: Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times

Black on Red: My 44 Years Inside the Soviet Union

Behind the Urals: An American Worker in Russia's City of Steel

Russia's Sputnik Generation: Soviet Baby Boomers Talk About their Lives

Steeltown, USSR: Soviet Society in the Gorbachev Era

I wonder if you might be interested in R.W. Davies' series on Soviet industrialization. They are:

The Socialist Offensive: The Collectivization of Soviet Agriculture, 1929-1930
The Soviet Collective Farm, 1929-1930
The Soviet Economy in Turmoil, 1929-1930
Crisis and Progress in the Soviet Economy, 1931-1933
The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933

Good luck finding most of them. They cost me dearly.

By any and all means, avoid anything with Robert Conquest's name on it.

 

[Camikaze]

So based on an entirely superficial and shallow understanding of the two concepts, it occurred to me that the whole thymos thing Fukuyama talks about seems kinda similar to the idea of the alienation of the worker. Both have to do with the intrinsic need to gain some sort of recognition. It seems to be a similar concept pulled in two opposite direction. So firstly, what's a nice brief explanation of the alienation of the worker, and secondly, how do you think this relates or compares to Fukuyama's thymos?

 

[aelf]

Oof, alienation is a very interesting concept, but it takes some effort to explain. In my understanding, it has a lot to do with commodity fetishism. Familiar with that term?

Anyway, from what I've seen people say about it, thymos seems more reminiscent of a Hegelian dialectical view of history that has been ascribed a particular motivation à la Nietzsche's will to power.

 

[GhostWriter16]

What's the difference between socialism and communism?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

So based on an entirely superficial and shallow understanding of the two concepts

Basically, alienation (as I understand it) is, at it simplest, the mental and physical separation between the people who make products and those who buy them. Like when you buy a t-shirt at JC Penny, but don't think about who made it or where. When you buy from the person who makes it, there's a more personal exchange that happens and it's easier to sympathize with their plight, whatever it may be. Or something.

As for Fukayama, I've admittedly never read him. From what I know of him, he seems to be a Hegelian-rooted neoconservative. I know he wrote that End of History book back in the 90s, which is particularly unimpressive in its assertions.

 

[Traitorfish]

What's the difference between socialism and communism?

In their most general use, "socialism" refers to a system in which the means of production are held and operated collectively, while "communism" refers to a system in which production and distribution are conducted on an as-need basis. In Marxism, the two are broadly interchangeable, the two being seen as necessarily mutual conditions, although individual schools may draw some great distinction between the two, most prominently the Leninist description of the the "lower stage of communism" (in Marx's words) society as being "socialist", stressing a greater distinction between that and the "higher stage".

 

[fishjie]

First I want to make sure I understand Communism correctly. I read some of Marx stuff in college years ago so I'm rusty. He envisioned the end goal being some sort of utopian anarchist commune, where everyone provided goods and services for one another out of their own free will and volition. Communism would be the transitional government that would lead to this end result. Sorry if I'm simplifying it so much.

My question is, do you really think its even viable and feasible? The power required to redistribute wealth from bourgeois to proletariat is the same power that corrupts and leads to dictatorships in every single failed communist revolution. Why strive for that when history has shown repeatedly that 99% of revolutions fail? They redistribute the wealth sure, but it just ends up in the hands of dictators. So why believe next time will be different?

 

[Traitorfish]

First I want to make sure I understand Communism correctly. I read some of Marx stuff in college years ago so I'm rusty. He envisioned the end goal being some sort of utopian anarchist commune, where everyone provided goods and services for one another out of their own free will and volition. Communism would be the transitional government that would lead to this end result. Sorry if I'm simplifying it so much.

My question is, do you really think its even viable and feasible? The power required to redistribute wealth from bourgeois to proletariat is the same power that corrupts and leads to dictatorships in every single failed communist revolution. Why strive for that when history has shown repeatedly that 99% of revolutions fail? They redistribute the wealth sure, but it just ends up in the hands of dictators. So why believe next time will be different?

I would contest that the bolded assertion, on which the rest of your position relies, is in fact false. In genuine proletarian revolutions- a distinct social phenomenon from an ideologically communist revolution- the leading organs of working class power have always been radically democratic in character- soviets, factory councils, and so on- which have more than proven themselves entirely capable of carrying out the democratic expropriation of the exploiting classes. The concentration of political power into the hands of a party elite represents not revolution but counter-revolution, and the struggle of workers against the concentration of power into a party-state is a further incarnation of class struggle.

Also, I'll elaborate on my distinction between a "proletarian revolution" and a "communist revolution", because it's important in establishing a properly Marxist understanding of the events of the 20th century. For Marx, revolution is not something which is made by a party of intellectuals, a chronologically discrete quest which is consciously embarked upon, but something which emerges organically out of a process class struggle that is being carried on even as we speak. It emerges when the struggle between workers and capitalist, between labour and capital, has reached such a point where the existing political framework is no longer sufficient for the workers to advance their interests, and so loses the ability to contain class struggle. This is what happened in Russia in 1917, what happened in Germany and Hungary in 1919, what happened in Spain in 1936, and what began to happen in France and in Czechoslovakia in 1968. What happened in Poland in 1945 was the imposition of a nominally "socialist" regime by an external power, what happened in China in 1949 was the seizure of the state by a party of populist intellectuals supported by the peasantry, and what happened in Cuba in 1959 was a fairly run-of-the-mill radical nationalist revolution whose leading figures later adopted the form of Soviet "socialism" for largely cynical reasons. In none of these cases did revolution emerge naturally, in none of these cases was the working class a primary actor (and when it attempted to act, it was repressed, often brutally), and so in no case can these be considered representative of what we advocate.
As such, to talk about "communist revolution" in such a manner is to effectively depart from a Marxist analysis of history. Marx was no insurrectionary utopian, no idealistic Blanquist, and neither are we. Such events must be viewed in a proper historical context, in all the messy complexity which that implies, and not simply as the product of certain ideas being "bad" or "dangerous" ideas. That doesn't mean that we can disregard their ideological content, that we can casually distance ourselves from the very real influence of Marx and Marxism in those revolutions, or at least those which were not forcibly imposed by an outside power, but that we cannot treat those ideas as existing in some transcendent ideological space removed from the material, social and political reality of the era.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I feel like this question has been answered repeatedly in this thread.

 

[Ajidica]

Perhaps you should create an Index like Plot has?