Ask a Red, Second Edition

[GhostWriter16]

They aren't going to have a TV if they don't work.

What if they had one before the revolution? Are you going to take it away?

He's also a known terrorist-sympathizer.

Lies and slander. But let's not discuss that here.

Well, that's debatable. Self-inflicted poverty is poverty, and there's no reason for the rest of us to indulge somebody in their parasitism.

The trick, I would suggest, is to make sure that you have a water-tight system in place to establish the legitimacy of circumstances, such as mental health, that may make it difficult for a person to work. Someone not being willing to work because, for example, they have severe depression is certainly not the same thing as parasitism.

(NOTE: Not agreeing with socialism, just debating in that framework.)

I think it depends on their cause of depression. If they have a totally valid, external reasoning, such as someone in their close family just died, sure that's OK with me. But if its because they are insane, they need medical help, and if its just without cause they should have to work.

 

[berkut]

So what is the position of comunism toward abortion?
i lerned lenin permited aborption up to the ninith month

also, were there gay marriege in the soviet union? is comunism neutral inthis respect?

 

[lutzj]

also, were there gay marriege in the soviet union? is comunism neutral inthis respect?

(additional question) Would marriage even be necessary?

 

[Traitorfish]

I think it depends on their cause of depression. If they have a totally valid, external reasoning, such as someone in their close family just died, sure that's OK with me. But if its because they are insane, they need medical help, and if its just without cause they should have to work.

Well, in this case I'm using "depression" in the "Big-D" sense, referring to a diagnosable mental condition, rather than mere unhappiness.

So what is the position of comunism toward abortion?

Neither Communism nor Socialism has a fundamental stance towards abortion, and the general view has varied between time and place, but most of the Marxist states of the 20th century allowed it.

i lerned lenin permited aborption up to the ninith month

Most of the Marxists states had very late or no legal limit on late term abortions, yes.

also, were there gay marriege in the soviet union? is comunism neutral inthis respect?

Again, there is no unified view, and opinions often depend on other factors. It- and homosexuality in general- were usually frowned upon in the Marxist states (ironically, Marx was somewhat opened minded on the topic, although Engels exhibited the homophobia typical of his era). However, most contemporary Western Socialists- bar, perhaps, some religious ones- support it, unless, as suggested below...

(additional question) Would marriage even be necessary?

Again, this depends, although Anarchists have a history of advocating in favour of Free Love (in the proper sense of removing government presence from romantic and sexual affairs, rather than the bastardised '60s interpretation as something approximate to casual polyamory- although, of course, most fully support this as a personal choice, of course).

 

[RedRalph]

Re: communists; what do communists think about non-communist socialists? Would you accept a socialist state in place?

Well, that depends. Do you mean actually socialist or UK Labour Party? I'd have no problem with a 'socialist' state like Venezuela, obviously.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well, in this case I'm using "depression" in the "Big-D" sense, referring to a diagnosable mental condition, rather than mere unhappiness.

Fair enough.

Neither Communism nor Socialism has a fundamental stance towards abortion, and the general view has varied between time and place, but most of the Marxist states of the 20th century allowed it.

Ugh.

Most of the Marxists states had very late or no legal limit on late term abortions, yes.

Ugh again. Do you actually think abortion should be allowed in the ninth month? Or are you speaking for other Marxists.

Again, there is no unified view, and opinions often depend on other factors. It- and homosexuality in general- were usually frowned upon in the Marxist states (ironically, Marx was somewhat opened minded on the topic, although Engels exhibited the homophobia typical of his era). However, most contemporary Western Socialists- bar, perhaps, some religious ones- support it, unless, as suggested below...

I really don't get this, since they had no religious reasoning at all, being atheist...

Well, that depends. Do you mean actually socialist or UK Labour Party? I'd have no problem with a 'socialist' state like Venezuela, obviously.

You have no problem with Venezuela? Or just their economics?

 

[RedRalph]

You have no problem with Venezuela? Or just their economics?

I'm not saying it's a perfect state, I'm saying it's not a communist country but I still view it favourably. I'm a bit more moderate than I used to be in some ways. Not about what's ideal, but about how to get there.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'm not saying it's a perfect state, I'm saying it's not a communist country but I still view it favourably. I'm a bit more moderate than I used to be in some ways. Not about what's ideal, but about how to get there.

Chavez is a criminal, supports terrorism, and rigs elections. I frankly don't see how you can support that kind of nation.

 

[RedRalph]

Chavez is a criminal, supports terrorism, and rigs elections. I frankly don't see how you can support that kind of nation.

No he isn't, no he doesn't, no he doesn't. In any case, this thread is not a discussion about Hugo Chavez, so if you want to continue it start a thread of your own.

 

[Traitorfish]

Ugh again. Do you actually think abortion should be allowed in the ninth month? Or are you speaking for other Marxists.

Well, personally, I take a relatively moderate stance on abortion, and late-term abortions are in the "iffy" box. Other Socialists are similarly varied in their opinions; I was merely reporting the legal status of things as found in the Marxist-Leninist states of the 20th century.

I really don't get this, since they had no religious reasoning at all, being atheist...

Most of the Marxist-Leninist states seemed to allow their social progress to crystallise sometime in the mid-20th century, and, while they were originally rather radical in regards to Women's Rights, they never really got around to Queer Rights. The prejudice in those days was less heavily tied to religion (and I would suggest that it is essentially a secular prejudice today, given a thin religious veneer), and so was found even among atheists and radicals.

Chavez is a criminal, supports terrorism, and rigs elections. I frankly don't see how you can support that kind of nation.

Lies and slander. But let's not discuss that here.

 

[Tani Coyote]

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.

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.

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.

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.

For miners and whatnot, I imagine the argument is they are merely gleaning from the natural resources, and so it isn't their property, per se. Contrast to a factory worker, whose hard work refines that material into a substance.

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?

 

[Traitorfish]

[Never mind. I know what I think, but my grasp of theory is too weak for me to explain it properly.]

 

[Fifty]

I think that either is a possibility. I don't pretend to know the future. I think revolution is more effective, but incrementally (by which I presume you mean legislation through present venues) is safer. I don't think an American revolution would yield a dictatorship, but revolution in the French tradition is just not a reality these days. Too bad.

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.

If people are as self-interested as capitalists think they are, then capitalism's fate is more sealed than even Marxists think it is. What reason is there to respect someone else's private property and other rights, if it interferes with your self-interest? Respecting private property and the laws that make our society cohesive are as "unnatural" as socialist proposals. That's just part of the Social Contract.

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 with any luck, the Glenn Becks of the world will either have heart attacks and die on the spot, or rise up in some sort of stupid counterrevolution and be mercilessly put down.

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

I more or less described it in my superpost on the last page. Yes I do believe it. It could be falsified by providing a demonstrable motive force that explains the movements of history that isn't class struggle. I am sure there are others but I cannot think of them now.

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.



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.

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.?

 

[Yeekim]

also, were there gay marriege in the soviet union?

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.

 

[Traitorfish]

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.

I can't speak for Cheezy, but, for my part, I see Syndicalism as a route to societal change; by taking control of production the proletarian gains greater political autonomy, and so is more able to reshape the world as they sees fit. Additionally, by leading individuals to invest more greatly in cooperatives, collectives and other immediate communities, rather than in grand abstracts such as the nation-state, the culture or the ethnicity, it allows a more stable basis for the development of a libertarian, bottom-up system of government.

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

In reference to the above, the Syndicalist form of Socialism assumes the gradual "awakening", for want of a better word, of the proletarian class, which would to the Becks of this world being discarded as a matter of course. Others may differ on this; personally, I am sceptical of Vanguardist ideologies for just the reasons detailed above.

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.

Because most of the problems addressed by Socialism are ultimately structural, and so cannot be fully resolved by approaching them in a piecemeal manner, and, unlike in, say, Feminism, the nature of the problems means that the desired end result can not merely be described in terms of an absence of problems.
That said, I would agree that it's possible to over-invest in a particular proposed model, as some Socialists have done and there is a need to remain pragmatic in both moving towards and establishing a Socialist society. That is why I, personally, favour Syndicalism, which is much closer to a set of principals than a formal proposal, and am accepting of the retention of the market until a form effective form of distribution, assuming one exists, is developed.

 

[Fifty]

Traitorfish: Since your responses mostly involve Syndicalism, and since I know literally nothing about Syndicalism, could you post an informative link about what Syndicalism is, or describe it yourself if you're feeling wordy?

 

[civver_764]

What if they had one before the revolution? Are you going to take it away?

If they don't work.

Lies and slander. But let's not discuss that here.

Lol.

I really don't get this, since they had no religious reasoning at all, being atheist...

People don't hate gays for religious reasons.

^Syndicalism is just a society where worker's cooperatives/syndicates/unions/collectives/whatever are the main political bodies.

 

[Traitorfish]

Traitorfish: Since your responses mostly involve Syndicalism, and since I know literally nothing about Syndicalism, could you post an informative link about what Syndicalism is, or describe it yourself if you're feeling wordy?

It's a model in which the main political and economic bodies are Trade Unions, Workers Cooperatives and Worker's Collectives; politicised Trade Unionism, in essence. It's usually seen as a transitional system rather than an end goal, usually with Anarcho-Collectivism or Anarcho-Communism as the presumed end goal, although that isn't always specified. In a certain sense, it is a method by which Socialism is to be attained, rather than Socialism itself; it has been described as "the school of Socialism", through which the proletariat will learn the art of self-government. Introductions to the generic and Anarchist forms can be found here and here.

 

[amadeus]

Then they would either have to labour individually- which is entirely permitted, provided that no exploitation takes place- or leave. Nobody is going to force them to join a cooperative or collective, any more than anyone in Capitalism is going to force people to seek employment. They'd just have to live with the consequences.

If by labor individually, do I then get the choice to sell my labor to someone else at a price I think is fair? If someone runs a shop out of their garage assembling computers for gaming hobbyists and he wants someone to handle the sales and technical support while he focuses on assembling the computers, could I choose to work for him?

 

[Perfection]

Your thinking of this in the context of a capitalist society. If someone has a good idea the community will pay them to develop it.

How do we determine which ideas are good or not? With capitalism I have a lot more freedom into how I can peddle my ideas. I'm not at the mercy of a couple of committees. I can develop stuff on my own and sell it. That's a huge freedom, that I'm not going to give up to be pushed around by some committee

But then later they don't get all the money from the people who produce it, that just doesn't make any sense.

They don't already. The people who produce it get paid. Entrepreneurship is hugely risky. Most startups fail and you end up losing money. That's why in my view the entrepreneurs should have a reward structure that compliments that risk.

I don't think it's unfair that if you can create something amazing that you shouldn't be very handsomely rewarded.

All who design innovative new technologies? News to me.

Absolutely. In fact I am one of them! I am developing new kinds of test equipment on a folding table in my apartment.

In fact much of our recent technological development has come from government programs like NASA.

Yeah, and a whole lot more from trying to cram more stuff into cell phones.