Hmmmm... is this thread like the first one? One have to ask for the thread starter for permission to post?
Gary Childress:
As you are asking for possible ways in which communism could possibly work, and how would it be fundamentaly different than capitalism; also, why should we want thye current state of affairs with capitalism to change, I'll refer you to my posts in:
I warn though. These are long posts. But might shake up a bit your implication that capitalism is something we should be quite content with, and that no ideals of communism are worth pursuing.
I want to try and provoke some Red discussion about the following video. If Inspector Cribb happens to read past this, I'd be interested to hear his opinion as well.
In a way, he is right. I've made my jaded opinion of the USSR clear, as well as my praises of it, but for purposes of exposition I will explain. No, there is too much, let me sum up. For its time, I think it was a force for good. I think it was worth a shot, that the Bolsheviks (and The People) had no other choice in Fall of the 1917, and that for the most part the best was made thereafter of a bad situation.
But I also think that its example has done much to harm more advanced socialist movements in the West, for pretty much the reason that Chomsky explains in the video. Because it sat in the limelight as the first attempt at a socialist society that wasn't put down (well, for 80 years anyway), it was easy for capitalists in the West to point at it and say "see, that is what socialists want to create, that is what socialism is!" and provide an easy rebuttal of socialism by contrasting the Comintern's siege mentality and personal restrictions with the constitutional liberal freedoms of the individual, as well as the democratic versus authoritarian contrast. It also provided a venue for socialists to be slandered as Fifth Columnists and traitors to the country. Granted, those slanders already existed before 1917 (just look at the treatment of labor unions in pre-War America), but this certainly enabled it.
As tempting as it is to react against criticisms of fellow communists, ultimately the Western socialist movement cannot and will not mature fully until it can come to terms with the example and lessons of the great socialist experiment thus far. That means being real about both the successes as well as the shortcomings of those efforts, and an in-depth analysis of both. Now, Chomsky might be expected to have the reaction he does towards the USSR because he is an anarchist and has worked at one of the most prestigious universities in the world for longer than most of us have been alive. He has never struggled to pay rent, never skipped a meal, and doesn’t know what the inside of a pawn shop looks like. His libertarian socialist approach is jaundiced by his fundamentally unproletarian experience. He can only understand on a philosophical level the evils of capitalism and the need for socialism, never on the personal level. Because of all this, his comments must be viewed with a certain eye of suspicion. However, that does not mean that they ought to be dismissed outright. He is still ultimately a friend: remember, the enemy is always to the Right.
Thus, as might have been inferred from above, I feel that an honest approach towards the Soviet experience is required for us to fully modernize our message. That means both acknowledging its successes as well as its shortcomings, things that all of us are guilty of ignoring on various levels. What we must come to terms with the most, something harder for us Leninists than others, is that the Soviet Union was an honest attempt at the best socialism they could have mustered, but like Chomsky, they were not the proletarian products of an entrenched and fully developed capitalist society. We almost certainly exist today in a post-scarcity society, in all the things that matter. The capitalist system of commodity production has permeated all levels of society, the peasantry is nonexistent, the cottage industry fully displaced by mass-production by factory machine. Money obtains for us all the necessities of life, and sustenance by wage-labor is inescapable, even for CEOs of publicly-owned corporations. We live in a society more ripe for socialism than the Bolsheviks could have ever dreamed.
I’ve used the bread-baking parallel before. The Bolshevik bread was hard-tack. Technically it was bread, and it was better than no food at all, but the Western yeast has risen and created the perfect dough for us to create a delicious loaf of socialism.
If I might be more direct, lest I risk losing the more patient readers: Americans are capable of producing a better socialist society than anyone in the world, because our society is more suited and in more dire need of the transition than any place on Earth. The ostensible American values so touted will be most truly realized in the Brotherhood of Man that will be realized when private property is abolished and the system of wage slavery turned completely on its head. Thus far the American people have been tricked into practicing these virtues in the service of a wealthy few, but more and more every day they wake up to this fact, and openly reject it. Some of them turn to asking nicely for a reversal, but the failure of OWS to accomplish anything will vindicate the accusation by communists than the expectation of reformism to solve the chronic problems of our society is impossible.
The greatest weapon the capitalists have against us is the Soviet and CCP parallel. If I might suggest something radical, it may be wise for us to repudiate our wholesale defenses of the Soviet Union and its children states. Nothing which is necessary is ever unwise, and if it is necessary for us to separate ourselves from those dead socialist societies in order to advance our cause at home, with any expectation of success, then we should do it. The Soviet Union is gone, and long live it. Chinese socialism was dead in its infancy. So let us in the West abandon the ideologies created to explain and justify their existences: Trotskyism, Leninism, Maosim, and the defences of the societies thereof, and use new ones to justify and explain socialism in our societies. We have the tools. The sources exist. We don’t need to defend dead societies and dead people; if tradition is the democracy of the dead, defense of them is a religion of the dead. Both are equally useless to us. This is not to say that reading them and their ideas is useless, by no means are they, but there’s no need to defend the USSR if it does us no good here and now. Our sole focus should be on how to end the capitalist system for good, and all efforts must play towards that end. It’s just up to us to find the useful ones and separate them from the harmful ones.
Given your extensive service to us in the previous thread, I’m more than willing to allow you to answer questions again. Indeed, you have a more thorough understanding of the philosophical aspects of some of these things than many of us do. I certainly learned a great deal from your previous contributions. Consider yourself uninhibited by my heavy-handed OP.
I want to try and provoke some Red discussion about the following video. If Inspector Cribb happens to read past this, I'd be interested to hear his opinion as well.
It should be easy for me to be vindicated by Chomsky's comments in that video for, except for the parallel between socialistic ideas and historical ideals in the USA, he pretty much said the very same thing I did in the first part of my post in the previous "ask a red", down to the deviant nature of the real life attempt, and the seizure of the terminology for political agendas.
So I agree with his diagnostics, which is also pretty much my own.
Nevertheless, about the USA being the more readily able country to achieve "socialism" (as a purist, I still prefer to refer to communism as the goal), it certainly is the prime candidate by Marx's standards - however, I still think that dictating a path to a dialectcs process is a fool's errant.
Given your extensive service to us in the previous thread, I’m more than willing to allow you to answer questions again. Indeed, you have a more thorough understanding of the philosophical aspects of some of these things than many of us do. I certainly learned a great deal from your previous contributions. Consider yourself uninhibited by my heavy-handed OP.
I would say that, in regards to the Chomsky video, I see largely eye-to-eye with Cheezy. Perhaps some disagreements about exactly how the Soviet Union should be understood, or its historical development, but at the heart of it, the need for a serious effort towards the reformulation of theory and praxis, he is dead on. The methods and ideas of 1917 should no more dictate the events of 2012 than those of 1848 should have 1917. If there's one thing that we can learn from history, it's that there's only so much we can learn from history!
Nah, it's always been stops and starts. You'll get a bit of activity while it's on the first page of OT, then a bit of a lull after it falls off, same with all the "Ask A" threads as far as I can tell.
This question has been really bothering me. Are large scientific projects such as the LHC even possible in a world composed of decentralized communes? For all the restrictions on freedom that states create, they are able to mobilize vast amounts of resources to meet certain goals.
This question has been really bothering me. Are large scientific projects such as the LHC even possible in a world composed of decentralized communes? For all the restrictions on freedom that states create, they are able to mobilize vast amounts of resources to meet certain goals.
I don't see why not. To take your example, CERN is a more or less independent agency, not a direct subsidiary of some superstate or other. The usefulness of states in these projects lies in their ability to command large amounts of resources, not because they are structurally necessary for these projects to actually be pursued. We shouldn't downplay the challenge of constructing new forms of organisation for mobilising similar resources in a decentralised society, of course, and it's certainly a topic that could use some consideration, but I don't think that we have any reason to believe that it would be impossible, or even any more difficult than it is now. (Not least because in a post-capitalist society, these projects wouldn't be undertaken for their military potential or as unofficial subsidiaries to this-or-that industry, as many are now, which hampers the actual pursuit of scientific advancement as opposed to the pursuit of scientific investment.)
Plus, the actual CERN facility is mostly in Switzerland, which is pretty heavily decentralised to begin with. So there's that.
This question has been really bothering me. Are large scientific projects such as the LHC even possible in a world composed of decentralized communes? For all the restrictions on freedom that states create, they are able to mobilize vast amounts of resources to meet certain goals.
Why wouldn't they be possible? Having communes doesn't mean a lot of people can't get together in an area and create a huge product. If people want to create such a product, then it would be done, resources allowing. Also, general scientific and technological progress under communism would be much greater as people from around the world would be working together on things rather than competing against one another as in capitalism where they do so so that they can be the first to come up with something and thus make themselves and/or their employers rich.
We shouldn't downplay the challenge of constructing new forms of organisation for mobilising similar resources in a decentralised society, of course, and it's certainly a topic that could use some consideration, but I don't think that we have any reason to believe that it would be impossible, or even any more difficult than it is now.
(Not least because in a post-capitalist society, these projects wouldn't be undertaken for their military potential or as unofficial subsidiaries to this-or-that industry, as many are now, which hampers the actual pursuit of scientific advancement as opposed to the pursuit of scientific investment.)
I don't think the LHC has that much direct military applications (that would justify its funding). Not sure about subsidizing certain industries, but I don't see the involved producers being engaged in too much lobbying. To me it's about as close to a pure science undertaking as you can get.
Also, general scientific and technological progress under communism would be much greater as people from around the world would be working together on things rather than competing against one another as in capitalism where they do so so that they can be the first to come up with something and thus make themselves and/or their employers rich.
That's a legitimate request, and one that I'll be frank I can't respond to as fully as it would deserve. All I can say is that there's no reason why the resources mobilised by any one community would have to be directly deployed in that community- in fact, in a world with as globally integrated production processes as ours, that would be impossible- so the development of structures that allow for the coordination of resources on a larger scale would be quite likely. CERN is already a multi-national project, after all, so in a certain sense we're really just discussing the size of the participant entities, rather than the fact of multiple participants.
I don't think the LHC has that much direct military applications (that would justify it's funding). Not sure about subsidizing certain industries, but I don't see the involved producers being engaged in too much lobbying. To me it's about as close to a pure science undertaking as you can get.
True, CERN is a rare of example of a scientific endeavour that does more or less what it says on the tin- although I wouldn't get too into the idea of "pure science" given the practical by-products which have come out of it (the internet being the obvious!), which are obviously of some interest to the funding states. I was talking like things along the lines of NASA, which basically existed because A) the aerospace industry enjoys money and B) the military enjoys the possibility of satellite-mounted nukes pointed at Russia/China/enemy-of-the-moment (and for a little while, C) because everyone enjoyed showing up the Soviets). The extent of the phenomenon is probably a discussion in itself, though, so I won't push it.
One of the defining features of a Communist society is abolition of wage labour. Correct?
Now, it seems to me that a society in which no one is forced to work, but which is productive enough to provide everyone with necessities (and probably more) is possible. Saying that it isn't possible due to human nature and the usefulness of wage labour is like saying that a society without chattel slavery is impossible, since slavery is, obviously, useful.
However, it also seems to me that you need a high level of consciousness and self-organization in the producing people for such a society to work, which suggests that a successful revolution can only be made by conscious workers. Am I correct?
Second question: what is the limit of revolutionary violence? When does it stop being "necessary violence against those who would like to violently repress the revolution itself" and starts being "violence fetishism for the heck of it"?
One of the defining features of a Communist society is abolition of wage labour. Correct?
Now, it seems to me that a society in which no one is forced to work, but which is productive enough to provide everyone with necessities (and probably more) is possible. Saying that it isn't possible due to human nature and the usefulness of wage labour is like saying that a society without chattel slavery is impossible, since slavery is, obviously, useful.
However, it also seems to me that you need a high level of consciousness and self-organization in the producing people for such a society to work, which suggests that a successful revolution can only be made by conscious workers. Am I correct?
Yes and no. Conciousness is important in both cases, but they are two different kinds of conciousness, developed in two different situations. Social conciousness follows social being, is formed by the experience of social being, it cannot precede it. So social revolution doesn't take the form of workers developing a "communist conciousness", and then setting about making their social reality correspond to it, because that would put social conciousness before social being; in short, it is idealism. Rather, workers within capitalism develop a "class conciousness", an historically specific conciousness which correspond to their social being as workers, and this compels them to act in a manner which alters that being. This new being then forces social conciousness to evolve with it, to take on new forms which correspond to it, which then leads to new action, and so on and so forth. It's a process of mutual information, what Marx would call a dialectical process, rather than an act of will.
Second question: what is the limit of revolutionary violence? When does it stop being "necessary violence against those who would like to violently repress the revolution itself" and starts being "violence fetishism for the heck of it"?
What are the limits of any violence? When does it stop being "policing" and start being "fascism"? What you're asking here is a universal question, not one specific to working class organisation. The only answer I can give is to say that, like any violence, it depends on circumstances.
Can anyone recommend some resources on poverty in England 1900-1910? Supposedly it was the worst decade of poverty in England's modern history. Insights on how/if this may have been related to British imperialism are welcome too. While we're at it, what sort of effect (if any) did the circumstances of this period have on Marxism in England?
it's about the 1930's, not the 1900's, but if you are interested in reading about abysmal poverty in the British Islands, I'd suggest the Book "The Road to Wigan Pier", from George Orwell. Here is a brief description I took from Wikipedia:
The Road to Wigan Pier is a book by the British writer George Orwell, first published in 1937. The first half of this work documents his sociological investigations of the bleak living conditions amongst the working class in Lancashire and Yorkshire in the industrial north of England before World War II. The second half is a long essay on his middle-class upbringing, and the development of his political conscience, questioning British attitudes towards socialism. Orwell states plainly that he himself is in favour of socialism; but feels it necessary to point out reasons why many people who would benefit from socialism, and should logically support it, are in practice likely to be strong opponents.
One of the defining features of a Communist society is abolition of wage labour. Correct?
Now, it seems to me that a society in which no one is forced to work, but which is productive enough to provide everyone with necessities (and probably more) is possible. Saying that it isn't possible due to human nature and the usefulness of wage labour is like saying that a society without chattel slavery is impossible, since slavery is, obviously, useful.
It depends on what you consider to be compulsion I suppose. People will get out what they put in. There's no room for free-riders unless they're incapable of contributing, in which case it would be no fault of their own and thus unfair to penalize them for it.
However, it also seems to me that you need a high level of consciousness and self-organization in the producing people for such a society to work, which suggests that a successful revolution can only be made by conscious workers. Am I correct?
That is the theory, in a nutshell. We can't make a revolution for them, that would be a coup and not conductive towards the goal of universal liberation from classes and rulers.
Second question: what is the limit of revolutionary violence? When does it stop being "necessary violence against those who would like to violently repress the revolution itself" and starts being "violence fetishism for the heck of it"?
I mean the theory that working class of developed First World nations has lost all revolutionary potential, collaborates with capitalism in depriving the Third World countries from resources, and, probably, is overpaid (since the wages of First World workers are paid not from their labor, but from the labor of Third World).
when debating in another thread I was trying to explain a certain phrase some marxists use here. They don't refer WW1 and WW2 as World Wars but "Sharing Wars" (sometimes "Imperialistic Sharing War") Does english speaking world have a smililar terminology?
Five questions:
1. Do you think communism on a large scale can ever work without resulting in something like the USSR, the PRC, Cambodia, or NK? Surely even a red must admit that these nations cancelled out any good that they might have achieved.
2. Would you sacrifice the freedom of the individual, for the good of the state? If not how would you implement communism? If yes, then what else are you willing to sacrifice for the state?
3. Which would you prefer, every one have $10, or one person has $7 another $13, another $24, another $35, and another $48?
4. Do you think that representation has a place in communism?
5. How do you explain popular resistance to communism?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
.
