Ask a Red, Second Edition

Status
Not open for further replies.
I know you are a busy man Mr. Cheezy, and I appreciate this thread a lot. It's of exceptional quality and insight. But if you have the time, could you please elaborate on your comments just now? Explain in more certain, concrete, factually based phrases how I compliment "Inno's" quote, how or why you feel jealousy isn't a part of human nature. Discredit my examples if you would. Explain why speculation has grounds in a debate of facts and truths? I hope you have a wonderful day, sir.
 
why has it been a coincidence that the worlds worst dictators were communists?
There's three main points that I would raise in reaction to this:

Firstly, that they were not. There are a great many non-Communist dictators who were utterly vile, the obvious being Hitler and his gaggle of accomplices, but others of lesser renown such as Mobutu, Ne Win, Somoza, and so on. Outside of a few political giants, which dictators you do and do not hear about owes more to the political situation of the era, specifically the contemporary Us vs. Them narratives, than it does to their actual moral standing.

Secondly, there haven't actually been very many Communist dictators, in the proper sense. Most Communist leaders have been senior figures within a party bureaucracy, usually representing a particular faction within the party-state apparatus, but not individual tyrants, something which is institutionally incompatible with the standard Stalinist and Stalinist-derived models. (Stop and think, for a moment: how many Communist dictators can you actually name, given the number and length of time for which such states existed?) Even Stalin and Mao were not dictators in a formal sense, and could be theoretical removed at any time by the party-state apparatus; they owed their position to clever and ruthless power-politics, rather than to a formal accumulation of personal authority.

Thirdly, all such regimes represented Marxism-Leninism forms of some variety, be they "vanilla" ML, so-called "revisionist" ML, Maoism, Hoxhaism, Titoism, or whatever, most of which depart in a number of key regards from anything recognisably Marxist to any Marxists outside of the wretched sects that still claim them as something worth celebrating. Put simply, regimes of this sort say very little of "Bolshevist-Leninism", that is, pre-Stalinist Leninism, or of its derivatives (Trotskyism et al.), let alone of non-Leninist forms of Marxism, such as DeLeonism, Council Communism, and so on.
 
Secondly, there haven't actually been very many Communist dictators, in the proper sense. Most Communist leaders have been senior figures within a party bureaucracy, usually representing a particular faction within the party-state apparatus, but not individual tyrants, something which is institutionally incompatible with the standard Stalinist and Stalinist-derived models. (Stop and think, for a moment: how many Communist dictators can you actually name, given the number and length of time for which such states existed?) Even Stalin and Mao were not dictators in a formal sense, and could be theoretical removed at any time by the party-state apparatus; they owed their position to clever and ruthless power-politics, rather than to a formal accumulation of personal authority.

I would simply say that socialist revolutions everywhere attracted mainly two types of people: idealists out of touch with reality and thugs.
In the aftermath, the first variety got sorted out pretty fast, leaving the others to fight a deathmatch amongst themselves.
EDIT: Uh, I didn't realize this is not a regular discussion thread for a moment there - apologies for "unauthorized" answer. I am obviously not "red", if my above comment could've left any doubt about that :)
 
There's three main points that I would raise in reaction to this:

Firstly, that they were not. There are a great many non-Communist dictators who were utterly vile, the obvious being Hitler and his gaggle of accomplices, but others of lesser renown such as Mobutu, Ne Win, Somoza, and so on. Outside of a few political giants, which dictators you do and do not hear about owes more to the political situation of the era, specifically the contemporary Us vs. Them narratives, than it does to their actual moral standing.

Secondly, there haven't actually been very many Communist dictators, in the proper sense. Most Communist leaders have been senior figures within a party bureaucracy, usually representing a particular faction within the party-state apparatus, but not individual tyrants, something which is institutionally incompatible with the standard Stalinist and Stalinist-derived models. (Stop and think, for a moment: how many Communist dictators can you actually name, given the number and length of time for which such states existed?) Even Stalin and Mao were not dictators in a formal sense, and could be theoretical removed at any time by the party-state apparatus; they owed their position to clever and ruthless power-politics, rather than to a formal accumulation of personal authority.

Thirdly, all such regimes represented Marxism-Leninism forms of some variety, be they "vanilla" ML, so-called "revisionist" ML, Maoism, Hoxhaism, Titoism, or whatever, most of which depart in a number of key regards from anything recognisably Marxist to any Marxists outside of the wretched sects that still claim them as something worth celebrating. Put simply, regimes of this sort say very little of "Bolshevist-Leninism", that is, pre-Stalinist Leninism, or of its derivatives (Trotskyism et al.), let alone of non-Leninist forms of Marxism, such as DeLeonism, Council Communism, and so on.

For communism's short history on this earth there are a whole lot of "dictators" that I can name. And all your defense of them being "not real dictators" can be applied to any right wing, or any other dictator on this earth as well. No dictator can stand without a functioning party apparatus supporting him. No theocracy, no fascist tyrant, no individual can maintain that kind of power as dictators in a formal sense.
 
what do you think about "agrarian communism" aka Cambodian Communism (but without the murders and stuff).
 
For communism's short history on this earth there are a whole lot of "dictators" that I can name.
Of course there are, but there are more states that proclaimed a Marxist-Leninist character, and a longer time period than those dictators fill. At this point, Marxism-Leninism runs well behind even anti-colonial nationalism as an ideology prone to produce dictators- not least because most of the "Communist" dictators adhere to some sort of anti-colonial nationalism as well.

And all your defense of them being "not real dictators" can be applied to any right wing, or any other dictator on this earth as well. No dictator can stand without a functioning party apparatus supporting him. No theocracy, no fascist tyrant, no individual can maintain that kind of power as dictators in a formal sense.
My point wasn't that dictators can't have a support base- they quite obviously must- it's that most Marxist-Leninists heads of state did not wield dictatorial powers, but, rather, acted as the leader or even simply chairman of a ruling bureaucratic clique, and/or faction within the party-state bureaucracy. This includes even those with a high public presence, such as Castro or Brezhnev. Only a handful can meaningfully have said to have been "dictators", if the word is to mean anything beyond "politician we don't like".
This isn't a defence or a redeeming factor, by the way, simply an observation that the bureaucratic-collectivist mindset that accompanies Marxism-Leninism tends not to produce out-and-out dictators, as the more individualistically-prone ideologies associated with the far right do.

I would simply say that socialist revolutions everywhere attracted mainly two types of people: idealists out of touch with reality and thugs.
In the aftermath, the first variety got sorted out pretty fast, leaving the others to fight a deathmatch amongst themselves.
That describes the establishment of artificial regimes fairly well, but there's very few genuine revolutions that adhered to that pattern, and none that were authentically proletarian, rather than intellectual-lead and agrarian. In China, for example, the immediate product of the (intellectual-lead, agrarian) Chinese Revolution was a class of tweedy bureaucrats, who were later ousted by idealist thugs out of touch with reality, something which flies right in the face of your schema.
 
That describes the establishment of artificial regimes fairly well, but there's very few genuine revolutions that adhered to that pattern, and none that were authentically proletarian, rather than intellectual-lead and agrarian.
Aren't Russian revolutions of early 20th century good examples of that scenario?
EDIT: Well, I won't claim much expertise as far as China is concerned.
 
Aren't Russian revolutions of early 20th century good examples of that scenario?
Not really. The Russian Revolution can be very broadly described as a general proletarian and peasant uprising, followed by a prolonged Civil War during which the Bolsheviks developed a monopoly on political power within the RSFSR, which produced a number of internal power struggles between "left-Reds" and the Bolshevik centre, and then after the death of Lenin, a number of factional struggles within the Bolshevik party, eventually leading to the victory of the Stalinist faction. Very little of that can be characterised as simple "idealists and thugs", at least not without zooming so far out as to lose all meaningful detail.
 
what do you think about "agrarian communism" aka Cambodian Communism (but without the murders and stuff).

Laughably pre-industrial. Wholly without purpose in our world today.

Incidentally, this type of thinking actually predated Marxist socialism, and indeed even the words "socialism" and "communism." Most ironically of all is that this was most common in the United States, of all places! Rousseau (French, I'm aware) thought that the farmer and agrarian worker were the most natural and virtuous of occupations for men. Thomas Jefferson agreed with him. His dream was a democratic nation of yeoman farmers. And here also were the utopian socialist followers of Charles Fourier and Etienne Cabet, who built such perfectly constructed societies out in the wilderness, which were largely agrarian in nature, and not unlike the Russian obshchini, or I guess the term selskoe obshchesvto would be more appropriate. And then later there were the Distributionists and Land Reformists, who up to the 1920s still made their political slogan "three acres and a cow."

Being from the country myself, I sympathize immensely with this idea, but in our industrialized, urbanized, mass-producing, mass-consuming world it is utterly impossible. But then those ideas I described above were all more or less the product of vivid daydreams and brainstorms about "well wouldn't it be a great place to live if things went this way?" Which isn't an entirely bad way of doing things! But it was supplanted by something far better. When Marx came around with his historical materialism, he was able to suggest something still better: not that "society would be better if it were this way," but rather that "because of the observable rules of history, society would inevitably turn out this way."

The influence of this early agrarian "communism" (it is interesting to note that the word "communism" means "commune -ism," referring to the French word for a village, i.e. an -ism of villages or hamlets) can still be seen even in the industrial-thinking Marx, who foresaw that mature communism would see the dissolution of town, city, and country, and the countryside would consist of equal plots of land for each person.

Aren't Russian revolutions of early 20th century good examples of that scenario?

Not quite. There may have been some intellectuals directing things from the top of the revolutionary organizations, but they could do nothing without mass-movements, and the Russian revolutionaries, especially the Bolsheviks, purposefully waited until they enjoyed that support, and mostly capitalized on events that were already happening via popular movement, not beforehand-planned xanatos gambit coups.
 
Because it merits reposting:

Traitorfish said:
Because private accumulation is an exploitative, oppression, spiritually destructive process. Is that not enough for you to find some issues with it?

Explain why it's any of things.


Exploitative: Labour is the source of all value; therefore, the appropriation of value is the exploitation of labour. In the capitalist mode of production, profit is generated by the application of labour power, bought at a certain cost, to capital, producing commodities which are then sold on for more than the original labour cost (taking into account the overheads of capital). This is described as M-C-M', in which "M" is the original investment, "C" is the commodity produced, and "M'" is the exchange value of that commodity. M is comprised of the costs of capital and the costs of labour, while M' is comprised of both of these, and of additional value, "surplus value". As capital cannot create value- it can only facilitate the creation of value- that surplus value must have been created by labour. Yet the labour power, the commodified form of labour, was bought for less than the value it generated; a part of the value of the labour is never returned to the labourer herself, but is instead snatched up by the capitalist through uneven commercial transactions; it is appropriated, and therefore exploited.
That's a simple summary, of course; a video offering a more detailed explanation can be found here.

Oppressive: Humanity is a labouring creature- homo laborans, as you say- who makes and remakes his material surroundings, who creates his experience of the world through his labour. Autonomy demands freedom of labour. Thus, for the majority of the human race to be placed in a position where they do not have freedom of labour, but are obliged to sell their labour to a property-owning elite, is an oppressive state of affairs. The attainment or human liberty therefore demands the reclamation of labour as a free endeavour, unhampered by capitalist parasites, through the re-appropriation of the means of production by the labouring masses.
Beyond this, socialists make an additional claim, which sets them apart from individualist anarchists (who is not the same thing as "anarcho-capitalists"), distributists, and so forth, is the claim that production is a social process, and that no one individual's labour can be meaningfully removed from the social context which allows that labour. The capitalists, in taking control of the process of production, usurp this social process, and so not only engage in individual oppression, but in social oppression, that is, of the subjugation of society as a whole to capitalist interests. Therefore, the reclamation of free labour must be a reclamation of social labour, which means that the means of production must not simply be re-appropriated, but socialised, which is to say, must be placed under the control of the community, dissolving capitalist social relations and thus preventing the restoration of the capitalist class. (The failure of the Bolsheviks to dissolve these relations in Russia, and the subsequent emergence of a state-capitalist regime, demonstrates their necessity.)

Spiritually Destructive: This follows on, to a large extent, from the above. Man the labourer, again, is a creator, and defines himself through the creation and recreation of his material environment. Free people create as they wish, and so are able to strive for self-fulfilment on their own terms, while unfree people do not create as they wish, and are able to strive for self-fulfilment only- in the majority of cases- in the margins of their productive experience, if at all. They make seek satisfaction in their work, or through hobbies or volunteering, but ultimately they are bound to the profit-motives of capital, which pays no regard for individual well-being, and instead places human self-fulfilment entirely secondary to the process of accumulation.
Furthermore, if we accept the socialist proposition that labour is a social process, then this self-fulfilment and self-realisation is also a social process. Capitalism, as a system which atomises individuals and breaks them apart, stifles this process, preventing not only the individual pursuit of self-fulfilment through the monopolisation of individual labour, but by preventing the emergence of social conditions which allow a true self-fulfilment to be achieved. As social liberation is the pre-requisite of individual liberation, social conditions allowing for self-fulfilment is the pre-requisite of individual conditions allowing for self-fulfilment.

:hatsoff:

Alternatively:
communist.gif
 
what about "dictatorship of the proletarian" that doesnt sound to Democratic.

I disagree. Kinda almost implying a society based on direct democracy, where the multitude (workers) have a say on what it should be.

I would love to see the how other people view on this, and maybe expand a little bit more on that.
 
I disagree. Kinda almost implying a society based on direct democracy, where the multitude (workers) have a say on what it should be.

I would love to see the how other people view on this, and maybe expand a little bit more on that.

Direct democracy never really sounded like that great of an idea though. The workers in the majority sure get to enjoy it, but those with minority views get shelved.

EDIT: That is if the dictatorship of the proletariat is a direct democracy. If it isn't, then the above can be ignored.
 
Let me know if this is a fair question, but this seems like the best place to ask: What the hell happened to Traitorfish?
 
He disappeared. I assumed he was sent to room 101.
And if you've read 1984, you'll know that my return here does not rule that out one way or the other. :mischief:

But, basically, I just went away from the internet from a little bit, dealt with some personal stuff. Nothing major, just ironing things out a bit. :)
 
And if you've read 1984, you'll know that my return here does not rule that out one way or the other. :mischief:
Well, yeah, if you weren't back, I'd have gone with a different reference. Maybe Our Friend The Computer found out you were a Mutant Commie Traitor(which doesn't seem to hard to figure out, maybe he really wanted to confirm the mutant part).

But, basically, I just went away from the internet from a little bit, dealt with some personal stuff. Nothing major, just ironing things out a bit. :)
Glad to hear it was for good reasons.
 
Traitorfish said:
And if you've read 1984, you'll know that my return here does not rule that out one way or the other.

Ah, secret policeman.
 
I disagree. Kinda almost implying a society based on direct democracy, where the multitude (workers) have a say on what it should be.

I would love to see the how other people view on this, and maybe expand a little bit more on that.
Well, essentially, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" refers to the point in class struggle at which the proletariat, the worker-class, seize political power. It is democratic, but it is not a liberal democracy; the worker-class will, during this period, act to oppress the bourgeois through the reappropriation of property, the suppression of bourgeois political institutions, the suppression of bourgeois media and propaganda outlets, and so forth. (The exact scale of oppression is debated, of course, with theorists such as Rosa Luxemburg arguing for an "extreme democracy" that would see the bourgeoisie muscled out of the public sphere, rather than directly repressed.) It is a dictatorship in the proper sense of the word, but one of class, and not of any party or individual.
The form of organisation predicted and/or advocated varies, but broadly speaking, most centre on a system of delegative democracy, a partially-direct, partially-representative system of democratic organisation, in which councils based in workplaces, in neighbourhoods, and so on organise in a directly democratic fashion, while sending instantly-recallable delegates to collective assemblies, and so on and so forth up the chain. It's a grass-roots, bottom-up- "subsidiaritarian", to use the five-dollar word- form of organisation, in which communities maintain fundamental autonomy, delegating decision making to higher bodies as necessary, while retaining a radically democratic control over those bodies (to an extent notably absent from the elitist representative system of bourgeois democracies).
Traditionally, the basic political unit of the dictatorship of the proletariat is understood to be the autonomous municipality, first represented by the autonomous Arrondissements of the Paris Commune, organised in a federal fashion. This was the model adopted by the soviets of the revolutionary period of 1917-19, the federal organisations generally being referred to as "social republics" or "soviet republics". However, there are three broad departures from this: Leninism, council communism, and syndicalist communism. The first, Leninism (and its derivatives, such as Trotskyism), places a greater emphasis on "democratic centralism", attributing a greater level of decision-making responsibility, and political authority in general, to the higher levels of the soviet republican system. The second, council communism, places a greater emphasis on the autonomy of workplace and neighbourhood councils, and stresses horizontal association over pyramidal forms of organisation, even bottom-up ones, advocating greater accountability and lessened authority for delegates and delegative assemblies. The third, syndicalism, sees revolutionary trade unions, rather than municipal or communal bodies, as the primary organs of revolutionary activity, advocating the formation of such unions- and generally an accompanying "Socialist Labour Party" or "Communist Labour Party"- as the pre-condition of revolution. (This third tendency was once quite influential, particularly in the Anglo-American world, but suffered from the general collapse of syndicalism during and immediately after WW1 and is today very marginal.)

Direct democracy never really sounded like that great of an idea though. The workers in the majority sure get to enjoy it, but those with minority views get shelved.

EDIT: That is if the dictatorship of the proletariat is a direct democracy. If it isn't, then the above can be ignored.
It seems to me that what you're taking issue with here isn't actually direct democracy, or at least not as such, but of unbridled majoritarianism. The obvious solution to such issues is, just as in liberal democratic forms, the introduction of various constitutional restraints on majority power. These are not all incompatible with even extremely devolved councilist forms, and the assumption that only neat and ordered state powers are capable of avoiding "mob rule" is essentially an upper-class prejudice against the "swinish multitude" which the average punter like you and I, being of that same multitude, would be best to reject as elitist and anti-democratic. In practice, powerful and well-organised minorities pose the greater threat to democracy, as illustrated today by corporate influence in government, and in historical revolutionary situations by the ascendency of party bureaucrats. The "tyrannical majority" is, in the list of reasonable concerns, very much a distant second.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom