Ask a Red, Second Edition

[Traitorfish]

Only to the extent that every republic operating in the Napoleonic Era was influenced by Napoleon. Or that all of the world was operating under the influence of the Soviet Union.

More so than that, given that almost all of these states established economic and political systems derived directly from the Soviet and Chinese models, so whatever deformations existed in the USSR were inherent in the puppets. The only real exception was Democratic Kampuchea, and the failures of that state were largely down to the fact that is run by a pack of utter psychopaths.

And questions of Bonapartism have plagued liberalism and were a very serious issue debated in liberal circles in the 19th century, and ways to prevent it were worked into most liberal constitutions, seperation of powers, term limits, loyalty to the constitution above the people it represents, etc.

As in socialism. Pretty much everything Trotsky wrote until his death was about why and how Stalin screwed things up, and its been one of the prominent topics of discussion in Lefty circles since.

However, in this case the answer seem to come in the form of "Maybe it won't screw up next time" and "If we had a better starting country, it would have worked." Both seem largely unconvincing.

Well, perhaps if you're talking to a Stalinist or Maoist, but if you ask a Democratic Socialist, an Anarchist, a Libertarian Communist, and even a lot of Leninists- particularlys Trotskyists- they can give you a few reasons why Russia boarded the train to Sucktown.

Oh no no. USSR wasn't a true communist state. In a real communist society there is a classless society with equal pay, equal benefits. You can't claim to be a communist and then decide that some people aren't equal.

The socialist understanding of equality has never been one of literal material equality. Neither "To each according to his contribution" or "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", the ethics of Socialism and Communism, respectively, would even allow such an absurdity. What you proffer is a strawman, nothing more.

 

[lutzj]

Wouldn't workplace democracy be trivially easy to circumvent? Instead of hiring wait service for my restaurant, I subcontract it to the Waiters and Waitresses Collective down the street and pay their entire organization by the hour. Since I am the only employee of my restaurant, I maintain ownership, control, all the profits, etc.

 

[Luckymoose]

The socialist understanding of equality has never been one of literal material equality. Neither "To each according to his contribution" or "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", the ethics of Socialism and Communism, respectively, would even allow such an absurdity. What you proffer is a strawman, nothing more.

"Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand."
— Karl Marx, Grundrisse, 1858

Your own main man seems to think otherwise dawg. Marx argued that everyone should be paid an equal amount because of equal ownership of the societies production. If someone invented a new medicine, he would not have worked to his fullest and thus would not be any more valuable than a farmer. It's material exploitation and Marxism only supports the poor farmers and doesn't give a damn about logic.

 

[ParkCungHee]

More so than that, given that almost all of these states established economic and political systems derived directly from the Soviet and Chinese models, so whatever deformations existed in the USSR were inherent in the puppets.

Well, I'd agree with that. The question is, what are these deformations?

As in socialism. Pretty much everything Trotsky wrote until his death was about why and how Stalin screwed things up, and its been one of the prominent topics of discussion in Lefty circles since.

Yes, and that's a pretty big cause for the lack of good reasons in communist thought in my opinion. The tendency is to scapegoat Stalin into the reason for all of the U.S.S.R.s failings, ignoring the very real problems it had before him, ones that Trotsky played no small part in.

Well, perhaps if you're talking to a Stalinist or Maoist, but if you ask a Democratic Socialist, an Anarchist, a Libertarian Communist, and even a lot of Leninists- particularlys Trotskyists- they can give you a few reasons why Russia boarded the train to Sucktown.

Depends on the Democratic Socialist. If you mean the average person who identifies with parties that are Democratic Socialist, theres such a thin margin between us in comparison, he'd likely look at it the same way. Libertarian Communists tend to fall into two categories: Those that denounce all Communist lead governments as unrecognizable to them, and those that defend the system tend to trot out a few relatively weak answers (Bad luck, Individual Figures, Lack of Economic Development). Anarchists are their own kettle of fish, and tend to spoil any such generalities.

and even a lot of Leninists- particularlys Trotskyists- they can give you a few reasons why Russia boarded the train to Sucktown.

But that's really what I'm saying: The Leninists and particularly Trotskyists can give me a few reasons, but they're really not particularly good ones, and haven't been updated in decades, and it seems that if theres really a chance for Marxist Theory to actually regain some credibility, it's going to take some hard soul-searching answers into the history of worldwide communist movements. And until that happens, Marxist Theoreticians will remain ignored, by the global left more then anyone else.

 

[Traitorfish]

Wouldn't workplace democracy be trivially easy to circumvent? Instead of hiring wait service for my restaurant, I subcontract it to the Waiters and Waitresses Collective down the street and pay their entire organization by the hour. Since I am the only employee of my restaurant, I maintain ownership, control, all the profits, etc.

That assumes the that Waitperson Collective (true socialism is post-sexist! ) is willing to allow itself to be exploited in such a manner or that people would be willing to patronise a company know to engage in exploitative business practices, neither of are foregone conclusions. The proletariat under Socialism is not that under Capitalism- the attainment of class conciousness is the very thing that allows the former to exist!
Nobody every claimed that Socialism was a magical button that would fix all the worlds ills for ever, simply that it is an effective method for attaining and maintain a freer and more equal society. After all, no-one would assume that Liberal Democracy would allow everyone to vote for the Despotism and Genocide Party and expect no negative consequences, so why would you suggest the same of Socialism?

Your own main man seems to think otherwise dawg. Marx argued that everyone should be paid an equal amount because of equal ownership of the societies production. If someone invented a new medicine, he would not have worked to his fullest and thus would not be any more valuable than a farmer. It's material exploitation and Marxism only supports the poor farmers and doesn't give a damn about logic.

Where on Earth did he say that? It certainly isn't present in his famous slogan, "To each according to his ability, to each according to his need." I don't think you actually know very much about Marxism though.

Also, for the record, I'm a Syndicalist, not a Marxist. Whatever his contributions, the man is not the be all and end all of Socialism, or even of Communism.

Well, I'd agree with that. The question is, what are these deformations?

That is a question which I am afraid I shall have to pass over to Cheezy, being far too ignorant as to the details of Marxist theory to give as complete or useful an answer as that deserves.

Yes, and that's a pretty big cause for the lack of good reasons in communist thought in my opinion. The tendency is to scapegoat Stalin into the reason for all of the U.S.S.R.s failings, ignoring the very real problems it had before him, ones that Trotsky played no small part in.

Well, that was just an example- non-Leninist Marxists, especially Libertarian Communists, have also produced a great body of thought on the subject, and with some significantly different opinions on the matter than the Trotskyists. I mean, Luxemburg was criticising Lenin as early as 1917, so there's clearly never been any one opinion on this sort of thing.

Depends on the Democratic Socialist. If you mean the average person who identifies with parties that are Democratic Socialist, theres such a thin margin between us in comparison, he'd likely look at it the same way. Libertarian Communists tend to fall into two categories: Those that denounce all Communist lead governments as unrecognizable to them, and those that defend the system tend to trot out a few relatively weak answers (Bad luck, Individual Figures, Lack of Economic Development). Anarchists are their own kettle of fish, and tend to spoil any such generalities.

Well, yeah, there's a great diversity of opinions. I didn't realise that anything otherwise was expected.

But that's really what I'm saying: The Leninists and particularly Trotskyists can give me a few reasons, but they're really not particularly good ones, and haven't been updated in decades, and it seems that if theres really a chance for Marxist Theory to actually regain some credibility, it's going to take some hard soul-searching answers into the history of worldwide communist movements. And until that happens, Marxist Theoreticians will remain ignored, by the global left more then anyone else.

Quite possibly, but, as I said, there are other reasons offered by Socialists for the failures of the USSR and PRC than "Stalin was a knob-head" (however accurate that may be), so its unfair to over-generalise.

 

[lutzj]

That assumes the that Waitperson Collective (true socialism is post-sexist! ) is willing to allow itself to be exploited in such a manner or that people would be willing to patronise a company know to engage in exploitative business practices, neither of are foregone conclusions. The proletariat under Socialism is not that under Capitalism- the attainment of class conciousness is the very thing that allows the former to exist!
Nobody every claimed that Socialism was a magical button that would fix all the worlds ills for ever, simply that it is an effective method for attaining and maintain a freer and more equal society. After all, no-one would assume that Liberal Democracy would allow everyone to vote for the Despotism and Genocide Party and expect no negative consequences, so why would you suggest the same of Socialism?

Would buying supplies for my widgets from a Widgonium miner entitle him to a say in the production of my widgets? If I sell the widgets to a retailer, am I (or the miner) exploiting the janitor of one of that retailer's shops?

 

[red_elk]

Oh no no. USSR wasn't a true communist state. In a real communist society there is a classless society with equal pay, equal benefits. You can't claim to be a communist and then decide that some people aren't equal.

USSR has never even claimed itself to be a communist state, this is common misconception in the West.
It was called socialistic state, USSR, not USCR.

 

[Luckymoose]

USSR has never even claimed itself to be a communist state, this is common misconception in the West.
It was called socialistic state, USSR, not USCR.

Union socialist republic, single-party communist state. Oh wait. When did this turn into a bunch of USSR apologists? Answer my questions or stop calling yourselves Reds. You haven't been very helpful.

@Traitorfish: Syndicalist isn't really communist. They aren't even Red. Why are you posting in this thread? I've read the Communist Manifesto, don't lecture me on Marx.

 

[Crezth]

USSR has never even claimed itself to be a communist state, this is common misconception in the West.
It was called socialistic state, USSR, not USCR.

So why did popular Soviet leaders keep ascribing their beliefs to an interpretation of Marxism-Leninism, and prop their views on a foundation of what they called "communist ideology?"

I'm confused. I thought the Europeans were Socialist and the Soviets were Communist - which dialogue am I supposed to believe? Were they all Socialist? What differentiates Socialism and Communism - and why does your proposed explanation contradict what many living "survivors" of the Soviet-era refer to as communism?

 

[Cu Chulainn]

If that is found to be true, then he will be elected. I worked in a kitchen once that operated on this concept. We picked the kitchen manager for the shift or for the day, and all followed his lead as if he were the indisputable boss, because, well, he was.

Reasonable enough, I suppose.

I guess you don't believe in political democracy, either.

Honestly, the quality of the politicians currently in Washington speaks to the extreme fallibility of political democracy. The only reason I support it as a system is that I cannot think of a better one. If what you're proposing is corporations run with the efficiency and effectiveness of the American government, please count me out.

 

[Traitorfish]

Would buying supplies for my widgets from a Widgonium miner entitle him to a say in the production of my widgets?

Not unless you were both part of a single cooperative, no.

If I sell the widgets to a retailer, am I (or the miner) exploiting the janitor of one of that retailer's shops?

That depends on whether or not the exploitation of the janitor allows greater profits to be passed onto you. If trading with a cooperative retailed would provide you with the same profit, then, no, you are not.

I am not sure what your point was.

@Traitorfish: Syndicalist isn't really communist. They aren't even Red. Why are you posting in this thread?

"Socialist-syndicalist", then, which is hardly a unique position (indeed, some Communists were Syndicalist, such as Daniel De Leon, James Connolly, and John Maclean). This thread isn't "Ask a Marxist", after all, merely "Ask a Red", i.e. a Radical Socialist. You'll note that Civver, an Anarcho-Collectivist, is also posting here.

I've read the Communist Manifesto, don't lecture me on Marx.

Setting aside the inadequacy of that text as a basis for a full understanding of contemporary or historical socialist thought, I honestly can't recall Marx advocating equality of result. It would certainly fly in the face of his greater body of work.

"You believe X." "No, I don't." "Yes you do, shut up." is a discussion which I am getting very tired of having.

So why did popular Soviet leaders keep ascribing their beliefs to an interpretation of Marxism-Leninism, and prop their views on a foundation of what they called "communist ideology?"

Because fundamental to Marxism is the distinction between Communism and Socialism as systems, and so between Communism-as-system and Communism-as-ideology. The government of the USSR was Communist in the sense that it advocated Communist ideology, but the USSR was no Communist, because it was not a Communist society.
That's not a unique distinction- many Western nations have had Socialist governments, but those governments never claimed their societies to be anything other than Capitalist.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I was at the head of the one semester of Russian I took!

Just one? From what I've seen of your obsession with all things Russian, one just will not suffice. I realize you have other concerns in life but I would've thought that, by now, you would've sought out further sources.

 

[_random_]

I don't think people being afraid of their religion being persecuted would be a problem. Or at least, no more of a problem than thinking all socialists secretly want to create a second Stalinist country with themselves on top.

Perhaps not, but anti-religious though is prevalent in the works of many socialists thinkers, and that could easily be misconstrued when the state is set up. Even if the nature of the revolution was not not anti-religious, the scar left on the church by the Bolsheviks and their emulators is deep, and the opponents of the revolution would be more than willing to pour some salt in it if it would keep things capitalist.

 

[Yeekim]

By the way, I think you are missing the point of cooperative enterprises: they won't just be run cooperatively, but they will, by necessity, have to be begun cooperatively. Since, as you have noticed, why would someone begin a business knowing that when they expand it beyond themselves they will lose control?

I think you are correct here and I think this is going to be a major obstacle in the way of starting them. EDIT: Especially while it is said that finding a good business partner is more difficult than finding a good wife.
I have difficulties seeing why worker-owners of cooperative enterprises would ever wish to invest into expanding them, which is probably going to be a major hurdle in a way to development; they'd all become extremely static.
Mondragon, which I brought up in another thread recently, has solved the problem by basically issuing and selling a new share to every new joiner. The price is currently over € 13,000. I guess that seriously limits the circle of those who could join them.

I guess the part in bold is my question...

 

[Traitorfish]

Perhaps not, but anti-religious though is prevalent in the works of many socialists thinkers, and that could easily be misconstrued when the state is set up. Even if the nature of the revolution was not not anti-religious, the scar left on the church by the Bolsheviks and their emulators is deep, and the opponents of the revolution would be more than willing to pour some salt in it if it would keep things capitalist.

But, equally, some prominent Socialists have been deeply religious, particularly in the United Kingdom, where the Christian Socialism of many Independent Protestants, Presbyterians and Catholics played a significant role in the Socialist and Trade Union movements, while today left-wing forms of Catholicism, such as Liberation Theology, are of increasing influence in much of Latin America, Africa and South Asia. Socialism and organised religion need not conflict to any greater extent than a Church insists upon the retention of a reactionary hierarchy.

I think it is a peculiarly American quirk to see "Christian" and "socialist" as self-evidently contradictory, perhaps owing to the lack of a major Socialist presence in the country; in the United Kingdom, and particularly in the North of England, Scotland, and in Wales, Socialism is, at least traditionally, regarded as the natural conclusion of Christian ethics.

I have difficulties seeing why worker-owners of cooperative enterprises would ever wish to invest into expanding them, which is probably going to be a major hurdle in a way to development; they'd all become extremely static.

Well, the John Lewis Partnership, a major British workers retail cooperative, began as a single London department store in 1905, was cooperativised in 1920, and now consists of 28 department stores and 223 branches of the Waitrose supermarket, so there must be something to it.

 

[Luckymoose]

My questions were not answered. Anarcho-collectivists and syndicalist are not communists. How bland.

 

[_random_]

My questions were not answered. Anarcho-collectivists and syndicalist are not communists. How bland.

Communism or not, syndicalism is intriguing to me. Any recommended reading?

 

[Tani Coyote]

While the various proposals laid out by the contributing communists/socialists here end income inequality, what about wealth inequality?

What happens to the wealthy's yachts, planes, and mansions? There's not enough to go around, unlike say, the income that allowed these to be purchased in the first place. The image of a rich class will never go away with these luxuries still in the hands of the few. People will ask, "Why do they get to live with such better accommodations?"

 

[Traitorfish]

My questions were not answered. Anarcho-collectivists and syndicalist are not communists. How bland.

Again, this thread is not "Ask a Marx-Leninist", but "Ask a Red", the latter being a generic term used in reference all forms of Socialism and Communism. Don't go to a Dog Show and start complaining because not all of them are Labradors.

Communism or not, syndicalism is intriguing to me. Any recommended reading?

Principles of Syndicalism by Tom Brown is a decent introduction to Socialist Syndicalism, although the particular description given leans towards a somewhat more revolutionary form than would necessarily be the case, and so doesn't properly address the possibility of market or participatory models of distribution.

While the various proposals laid out by the contributing communists/socialists here end income inequality, what about wealth inequality?

What happens to the wealthy's yachts, planes, and mansions? There's not enough to go around, unlike say, the income that allowed these to be purchased in the first place. The image of a rich class will never go away with these luxuries still in the hands of the few.

That seems to assume that such goods would stay in the hands of the once-wealthy, which isn't a foregone conclusion, especially when they lack the wealth to sustain such luxuries. Now, I'll readily admit that exactly what one does with these surplus luxuries is far from certain, and really depends on the property in question- a mansion is easily re-purposed as a collective housing, a luxury sports car less so- but it's really not the crux of the issue. Just as 18th century Republicans addressed the surplus of Royal Palaces, silk pantaloons and elaborate rococo furniture once they had resolved the more pressing issue of Absolute Monarchy, so we'll address yachts and planes and stretch hummers when we are in a position to do so.

People will ask, "Why do they get to live with such better accommodations?"

Y'know, that's actually why I became a Socialist.

 

[Masada]

We can only conclude that support for monarchism + communism = bat-turd insane.

Different conception of a King. It doesn't really sit all that awkward.