Ask a Red, Second Edition

[fishjie]

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.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. Cheesy points out that my question has been asked/answered multiple timesprior, but I don't post here much as you can see by my total post count. An FAQ/index would definitely be nice.

Okay, so you say that the true revolution emerges organically as a result of the existing political framework being unable to advance worker interests. you cite 1917 revolution in Russia. What do you think went wrong? the end result decades later obviously did not advance worker interests but left things as bad or worse than when the tsar was in charge.

 

[Traitorfish]

Thanks for taking the time to reply. Cheesy points out that my question has been asked/answered multiple timesprior, but I don't post here much as you can see by my total post count. An FAQ/index would definitely be nice.

Okay, so you say that the true revolution emerges organically as a result of the existing political framework being unable to advance worker interests. you cite 1917 revolution in Russia. What do you think went wrong? the end result decades later obviously did not advance worker interests but left things as bad or worse than when the tsar was in charge.

The two main reasons, I would say, were the failure of the revolution to spread to other industrialised nations, and the failure of the Bolshevik government to carry out a comprehensive program of the expropriation of workplaces. The first, a result of the collapse of the uprisings in Germany, Hungary and Finland and the failure of widespread insurrection to emerge elsewhere, meant that the young USSR was isolated, and no proletarian revolution, least of all one in an underdeveloped country like Russia, can realistically hope to survive in isolation. This lead to compromises by the Bolshevik government which ensured the perpetuation of capitalism (nominally in defence of the gains made so far, although opinion has divided since the as to whether these constitute necessary compromises or counter-revolutionary retreat) in the short term, and, as it happened, were the grounds for its perpetuation into the short term.
Secondly, the Bolshevik government, for various reasons, never fully committed to a program of workers' self-management and the associated democratic expropriation of capitalists, instead preferring nationalisation and "one-man management", as the reinstitution of bureaucratic management was known. Nominally, this was under the ultimate control of the local Soviet, something which varied in authenticity from city to city, but in either case lead to the gradual usurpation of political power from the organs of immediate workers power, the soviets and factory committees, by the Bolshevik Party and state apparatus, both of which were becoming rapidly indistinguishable. This collapse of working class power laid the groundwork for the final and total usurpation of control from the workers by the bureaucracy from the mid-1920s onwards, as well as the often more brutal expropriation of peasants (in practice, and accelerated form of agricultural accumulation by the capitalist class, manifested as the state).

The Russian Revolution, it is generally agreed, could have been "saved" if revolution had managed to succeed in Western Europe in 1919, or if it had broken out again in the mid-1920s and achieved success this time round, by alleviating Russia of its isolation (although if it took until the 1920s, it would likely have demanded a third revolution in Russia, by the soviets against the crystallising party-state and bureaucracy) and allowing the emergence of a pan-European revolutionary movement that would stand a serious chance of opposing international capital, not least because this would mean the collapse of the major capitalist powers. (North American revolution was always a more distant prospect, although it should be remembered that, at the time, there were significant left-leaning currents among the rural populations of the American Midwest and Canadian prairies, mostly famously the "prarie socialism" of Saskatchewan, as well as among the urban workers.)

 

[Behind The Mask]

Do you have a preference in your views towards communism/socialism?

By this I mean do you prefer the social point or the economic point? While both may be conjoined by the same term, was there one point which drew your initial attention?

Such as the social concepts of human rights (womens right) education and ect.

Or perhaps the equality of the economic theory (power to the working class) equal distribution of wealth or ect.

Were either more appealing then the other?

 

[civver_764]

Do you have a preference in your views towards communism/socialism?

By this I mean do you prefer the social point or the economic point? While both may be conjoined by the same term, was there one point which drew your initial attention?

Most communists/socialists will tell you that the two are intertwined and can't really be looked at separately.

However I became attracted to leftists politics because of the "social" issues, definitely. Mostly due to the over-religiousness of the American right and me in turn looking at the other side of the spectrum. I first got into socialism when the word kept getting thrown around during the Universal Health Care debate so I decided to look it up for myself, found out that it made perfect sense and that it made me look like a cool revolutionary, and so here I am today.

 

[GhostWriter16]

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".

Thanks.

Speaking of Leninism, how do the Reds here view Lenin?

 

[Traitorfish]

Speaking of Leninism, how do the Reds here view Lenin?

Cheezy is a Leninist, although not dogmatic, and very much an admirer, while myself, being a sort-of-Luxemburgist-council communist-whatever thing, and Civver, being an anarchist, have more mixed opinions of his theoretical work and political record, but are still able to respect him as a revolutionary figure. Can't speak with much precision for anyone else here.

 

[amadeus]

What I was getting at before was the economic calculation problem. I'll use Wikipedia's summary ("comparing heterogeneous goods") here:

Since capital goods and labour are highly heterogeneous (i.e. they have different characteristics that pertain to physical productivity) economic calculation requires a common basis for comparison for all forms of capital and labour.

Money, as a means of exchange, allows many different goods to be analysed in terms of their cost in a very easy way; the cheaper good is a more desirable one to use. This is the signalling function of prices, and the rationing function prevents over-use of any resource.

Without money to facilitate easy comparisons, socialism lacks any way to compare different goods and services. Decisions made will therefore be largely arbitrary and without sufficient knowledge, often on the whim of bureaucrats.

In short, can you respond to this? How can a non-competitive economy allocate resources efficiently?

 

[Traitorfish]

Labour-time is usually presumed as the main basis for the distribution of goods in the early period of communist society- do eight hours work, get eight hours worth of stuff (directly or indirectly), give or take certain "public services", as we call them today, which will be managed in a more immediately as-needed basis. (Some people also introduce the possibility of variable wages based on intensity, difficulty, etc. of work, which would presumably be based upon some sort of democratically determined decision. As for the issue of more highly skilled work, its assumed that you will still be "paid" for want of a better word, for your time spent in education or training, so will not require any sort of additional compensation on what would in capitalism be an investment.) Labour-time is, after all, the source of the homogeneity of commodities under capitalism in Marxist thought, and there's nothing to say that it cannot be retained as a yardstick of distribution provided that market relations themselves are dissolved.
It is generally believed that, as both human technology and social organisation progresses, the combination of an abundance of material wealth (information, it can be assumed in the digital era, being rendered abundant as soon as private property and thus intellectual property laws in the current sense are abolished) and the gradual dissolving of the distinction between leisure and labour would lead to the evolution of a system which, while likely not to be "free access" in every regard, would be conducted on a more "purely" communistic, as-need basis, although the rationale for this goes deeper into the philosophy than I, personally, would be able to express in an effective manner, and is really something that time would have to tell. What's important is to remember that communism, like capitalism, does not represent a single set of institutions, but a set of fundamental social relations that allow significant variety of social organisation within those basic terms.

(And, for the record, the Soviet Union, which faced the brunt of the Austrian ire, was a market economy, just a highly centralised, poorly managed one. Mises, Hayek, et al. were unable to see this because, like all those who fetishise the legal form of private property, they were unable to comprehend capitalism in its essential form. (A book, if you're interested in the Marxian perspective.) Hence, their criticisms tend to address a society which is half-capitalist, half-communist, and which has never actually existed.)

 

[amadeus]

First, I don't believe your response answers the criticism in regards to goods consumed by industry, like tractors or trucks, etc.

Labour-time is usually presumed as the main basis for the distribution of goods in the early period of communist society- do eight hours work, get eight hours worth of stuff (directly or indirectly),

(1.) What is eight hours worth of stuff? By which I mean, how are the prices determined?

(2.) If there are two factories, one that produces a TV for every four labor hours, and one that produces a TV for every eight labor hours, what is the price of the TV?

(3.) Factory-produced goods are rarely, if ever homogenous, so a TV produced at one factory might be more durable than one produced at another. If the two TVs consume the same amount of labor time to produce, how is this factored into the pricing?

(4.) If there are 50,000 TV sets in supply and there is demand for 100,000, how are the 50,000 rationed? If the price of a good is tied exclusively to the time of its production, can I assume that the price would not be adjusted upwards to ration the product in the most efficient manner?

(And, for the record, the Soviet Union, which faced the brunt of the Austrian ire, was a market economy, just a highly centralised, poorly managed one. Mises, Hayek, et al. were unable to see this because, like all those who fetishise the legal form of private property, they were unable to comprehend capitalism in its essential form. (A book, if you're interested in the Marxian perspective.) Hence, their criticisms tend to address a society which is half-capitalist, half-communist, and which has never actually existed.)

I believe the problems pointed out by Mises and others are still applicable even in non-centrally planned non-capitalist systems.

 

[civver_764]

Thanks.

Speaking of Leninism, how do the Reds here view Lenin?

I don't really know what to make of him. What he did for Russia was definitely in the right direction and a lot of his actions can be defended. I like him more than his contemporary statesmen(ie. President Wilson).

 

[Perfection]

what is "redness"?

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

Have any of the Reds here read "Architecture and Social Question" by Bertrand Russell?

Any of you Reds believe that what make a good society by design, have to be well efficient in Architecture? What make a perfect worker paradise?

 

[Traitorfish]

Do you have a preference in your views towards communism/socialism?

By this I mean do you prefer the social point or the economic point? While both may be conjoined by the same term, was there one point which drew your initial attention?

Such as the social concepts of human rights (womens right) education and ect.

Or perhaps the equality of the economic theory (power to the working class) equal distribution of wealth or ect.

Were either more appealing then the other?

(Missed this, sorry.)
I would say that the two can't really be meaningfully separate, and that there's no particular history within the socialist movement/s of making such a distinction. (The idea of "social" and "economic" politics as discrete spheres is really just a ("big-L") Libertarian hobby horse, designed to put some rhetorical distance between them and the traditional right, that is really only widely acknowledged in on-line discussion.)
But, to answer your question as best I can, I'd say what lies at the heart of leftists politics for me is the principle of political, economic and social autonomy of the individual. I do not regard capitalism or liberal democracy as capable of ensuring that- indeed, I regard them as structurally compelled to act against the autonomy of the majority- nor that individual liberation without a more fundamental social liberation is possible, or even meaningful. As such, the democratisation of all social life- socialism- appears to me the truly libertarian course of action.

First, I don't believe your response answers the criticism in regards to goods consumed by industry, like tractors or trucks, etc.

It wasn't intended to be. Production of productive goods- what would in capitalism be considered capital production- would be planned based on the use-values they could met. As communal property, there would be no need for them to treated as products for consumption, so they wouldn't need to be addressed in the same way.

(1.) What is eight hours worth of stuff? By which I mean, how are the prices determined?

"Eight hours worth of stuff" is a body of goods that embodies eight hours of labour time.

(2.) If there are two factories, one that produces a TV for every four labor hours, and one that produces a TV for every eight labor hours, what is the price of the TV?

Six labour hours. The point of communist production is to produce use-values, so the allocation of "prices" is just a way of organising distribution. The social average is as good as any individual case for that purpose.

(3.) Factory-produced goods are rarely, if ever homogenous, so a TV produced at one factory might be more durable than one produced at another. If the two TVs consume the same amount of labor time to produce, how is this factored into the pricing?

That would be addressed by those effected by it, with whatever solutions were established to be the most effective. This could even include altering the prices of each- as I said, the allocation of "prices" based on labour time is essentially a convenience, not a fundamental constituent of the economic system.

(4.) If there are 50,000 TV sets in supply and there is demand for 100,000, how are the 50,000 rationed? If the price of a good is tied exclusively to the time of its production, can I assume that the price would not be adjusted upwards to ration the product in the most efficient manner?

If it was just a case of a swift and unexpected rise in demand, then you presumably just continue to distribute as normal while increasing the level of production. If it was a case of some more fundamental limit to supply emerging, then this would have to be addressed as the exceptional event that it is; if that means raising the "price" of a given commodity, presumably distributing the excess in the form of lowered "prices" elsewhere, then so be it.

I believe the problems pointed out by Mises and others are still applicable even in non-centrally planned non-capitalist systems.

Mises argument would also have us believe that primitive hunter-gatherer societies were structurally incapable of functioning, so I'm not overly inclined to take his word on the matter.

what is "redness"?

In the context of this thread, I'd say that it means advocating for the collectivisation or socialisation of the means of production, including the democratisation of the process of production and distribution.

 

[Perfection]

Why should one prefer a "Red" system over a capitalist system with strong social programs?

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

Why should one prefer a "Red" system over a capitalist system with strong social programs?

I think you are confusing socialism for communism.

 

[_random_]

Why was red chosen as the official color of communism?

 

[Perfection]

I think you are confusing socialism for communism.

So a capitalist system with strong social programs counts as "red"?

 

[Junius]

I haven't read the entire thread so i apologize if this has been covered. At what point do you feel the Soviet Union betrayed its communist ideals? Basically at what point (if there is a point) did the USSR become a nation you couldn't support? Also why do you feel Communism or even Socialism never became as influential or important in the US as in other parts of the world? It had some influence to be sure, but not what it did in Europe for example.

 

[Smellincoffee]

Thanks.

Speaking of Leninism, how do the Reds here view Lenin?

I despise and distrust dictators on principle. I am not a fan. He seems to me more an opportunity angry at the aristocracy than an actual idealist who wanted to create a better world.

I haven't read the entire thread so i apologize if this has been covered. At what point do you feel the Soviet Union betrayed its communist ideals? Basically at what point (if there is a point) did the USSR become a nation you couldn't support? Also why do you feel Communism or even Socialism never became as influential or important in the US as in other parts of the world? It had some influence to be sure, but not what it did in Europe for example.

The second question is an interesting one: as a student of the late 19th and early 20th centuries in both the U.S. and Europe, it fascinates me. I think the answer lies in the histories of the Old and New worlds. European society has a long, established history. I think this let people put capitalism into perspective: they saw it as the system currently in power. It had taken power and it could lose that power, just as countless systems and states had fallen. In the United States, however, the attitudes, values, and beliefs of ruthless capitalism CREATED the culture which developed there. Americans are truly oblivious to the possibility that theirs is not the best and only way things can be accomplished.

The problem with this explanation is that it does not explain Canada very well. Perhaps if Canada had broken off from Europe like the US, it would have become nothing more than plutocracy as well.

As for the first question...I believe communism is fundamentally democratic. The Bolsheviks ceased to be revolutionaries the moment they began to violently oppress dissent among the people. Communism, like democracy, cannot be forced. It must grow from the desires of the majority. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, et. all were nothing more than statists. They wanted power and used the legitimate pain of people to acquire that power. In that sense they are no better than Julius Caesar, promising the people reform in turn for support.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

So a capitalist system with strong social programs counts as "red"?

I don't think so. Unless you can invent a new color.