Ask a Red, Second Edition

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I am totally new when it comes to communist theory and am trying to read up on it since my old self was like "lol communism is teh suxxors." So, I guess I have two questions, although they are not related.

We are always proud to be of service. Where appropriately compensated.

1) Good, non-biased (as little as possible, at least) introductions to communism. Any recommendations?

Read The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels for the general idea.
Ernest Mandel's Introduction to Marxist Economic Theory is probably the best thing after that. Short, sweet, and very to the point. An effective substitute for Capital, where one has not the time for it.
After that, One-Dimensional Man by Herbert Marcuse will be entirely indispensable to you. Be warned, it is an extremely tough read.
And then I would round it out with a bit of fiction. A Traveler From Altruria by William Dean Howells should do the trick.

And, of course, a fair perusing of wikipedia can help one to understand the concepts in these books, and lead you to further studies from there.

2) What is the role of luxuries in a communist society? Will I be able to, say, walk down to a store and buy/acquire/whatever a couple video games I've been coveting at will? Etc.

Communism is hard to imagine, it is so far away and so abstract, that knowing finer details like this is something not even communists can do. So let us talk about socialism, the step in between. I see no reason whatsoever to assume that these would go away. Remember that the big change comes in organization of society, not in things like this. So the companies that make video games would be democratically run by their workers, but so long as society deems their products socially necessary (which is does by purchasing them), they are not in danger of going anywhere. And even if you are worried about totalitarian boots crushing silly vidya-gamin mind-rot or whatever, remember that one of the greatest video games in history was created in the USSR: Tetris.

I am clueless to this whole thing. I need to at least understand it before I am to engage in debate with it.

Thanks.

Your wisdom is already greater than many who do debate it, if this is your line of thinking.

I don't know if anyone can post answers in this "ask a...", but as the thread seems anarchic already, I want to answer a previous post:

There is a list in the OP, but you will happily find your name amongst it.

 

[Karalysia]

nvm delete

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Yes all of those are great books as well, but the historical factor is more of the "behind the scenes" of communism. Those Hobsbawm texts are particularly fantastic.

 

[JohnRM]

I don't see how Communism is at all possible (classless society). Isn't that just expecting people to be better than they really are? Do you believe that Communism is possible?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I don't see how Communism is at all possible (classless society). Isn't that just expecting people to be better than they really are? Do you believe that Communism is possible?

There is no reason to assume that what we presently see as being "human nature" is some iron, unchangeable thing. Human societies and their morals, values, and behavior are all constructed. Just as capitalism has taught people its values, so can socialism teach people its values, and communism thereafter. Socialism is the process of building communism, of taking the capitalist obsession with the individual and transforming it into a community-oriented one. It does not expect people to be better than they "really are," merely better than capitalism expects them to be.

So yes, I believe that communism is possible. But I understand that even if there were a revolution tomorrow, I would not see communism within my lifetime. It will be a very long process to reach that type of society.

A society grows great where old men plant trees under whose shade they know they shall never sit. - Greek proverb

 

[Jabarto]

Glad to see some books being mentioned. I don't know as much about Marxism as I probably should, and it's nice to hear stuff other than the "Marx-Engels Reader" being suggested.

I've been lurking in the thread for a while, by the way, and it's nice that it's turned out as well as it has.

 

[bernie14]

There is no reason to assume that what we presently see as being "human nature" is some iron, unchangeable thing. Human societies and their morals, values, and behavior are all constructed. Just as capitalism has taught people its values, so can socialism teach people its values, and communism thereafter. Socialism is the process of building communism, of taking the capitalist obsession with the individual and transforming it into a community-oriented one. It does not expect people to be better than they "really are," merely better than capitalism expects them to be.

So yes, I believe that communism is possible. But I understand that even if there were a revolution tomorrow, I would not see communism within my lifetime. It will be a very long process to reach that type of society.

A society grows great where old men plant trees under whose shade they know they shall never sit. - Greek proverb

sorry i have not read the whole thread.... but i would have to disagree with this point for one simple reason, no matter how much u teach someone, there is no way u can ever get anyone to see through someone elses eyes, that is, each persons perception is theirs and theres alone, it's all subjective and other than that, what we will agree on....commuinism will be possible when we are all hooked up to some borg-like hive, which may not be an unlikely future.....as psychologically imperfect as we are, in general, we all tend to some narcissism, if only secondary to self preservation, we all tend to think we deserve a little more, are a little better or a little smarter than the other guy, etc...

 

[pat4]

I think my questions fell of the thread.

I've read most of this thread but not all of it carefully so sorry if these questions have been posted already.

We all know that in your various ism's the profits of a company are split between the workers. But what happens when the company suffers a loss? Do the workers have to pay that loss. If so what happens when a company suffers huge losses ala BP.

Lets say I have three frieds and we decide to start a business run by the four of us. We all invest x amount of money to start the business. However me and two of my friens are scrooges and very spartan in our tastes and have plenty of spare money so at the next agm when what is to be done with the profits is to be decided me and my two friends vote to re-invest it in the business. Now my third friend has a large family and isn't so wise with his money. If he doesn't get his share of the profits his family will go hungry. What is to stop a situation such as this?

Also there could still easily be huge differences in wealth. A small company of programmers could make millions in profit while a large group of miners might not make anywhere near that.
You may say that education is free and anyone can lift themselves (a very capatilist idea), but free education does not stop the rich kids from doing the best in school due to a steady home and access to other education tools.

Again sorry if these have been answered already.

Pat

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

commuinism will be possible when we are all hooked up to some borg-like hive, which may not be an unlikely future.....as psychologically imperfect as we are, in general, we all tend to some narcissism, if only secondary to self preservation, we all tend to think we deserve a little more, are a little better or a little smarter than the other guy, etc...

I tire of this "hive mind" analogy. Someone else just compared communism to the Tyranids in another thread. Communists don't expect people to become like ants, with absolutely no regard for their personal selves, and soldiering forth selflessly in defense of the collective. What we ask is that people reconsider the idea that man is not an island, that he is in fact a part of a larger society, and that it may be more beneficial to him in the long-run to cooperate with other parts of that society than to try and soldier on alone. The motive behind this cooperation may be entirely selfish; "I am working with others not because I care about them, but because I see that I will be bettered in the end." The end result is the same, when everyone takes others into account, everyone is bettered in the end.

Or if not, you're free to try yourself alone on the mountaintop! But don't expect any of the benefits of society, since you reject membership thereof.

The fundamental difference between communism and Tyranidism, which I think I may take to referring to it as, is that communism recognizes the unique value of the individual. Hive minds see no individual.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

We all know that in your various ism's the profits of a company are split between the workers. But what happens when the company suffers a loss? Do the workers have to pay that loss. If so what happens when a company suffers huge losses ala BP.

Presumably any large corporation like BP would have some sort of savings system. All large corporations do, by necessity. So they would of course pay out of that.

But for smaller operations, you mean? Yes, it would be exactly analogous to present share-holding. Each person owns a small part of their company, and thus suffers only limited loss in proportion. This is unlike a private proprietorship in which the company is regarded as an extension of the person, and his property can be reclaimed by the State if he fails to fully pay up his damages. So you might say this is another incentive for companies to start collectively.

Lets say I have three frieds and we decide to start a business run by the four of us. We all invest x amount of money to start the business. However me and two of my friens are scrooges and very spartan in our tastes and have plenty of spare money so at the next agm when what is to be done with the profits is to be decided me and my two friends vote to re-invest it in the business. Now my third friend has a large family and isn't so wise with his money. If he doesn't get his share of the profits his family will go hungry. What is to stop a situation such as this?

Well you could try and convince him otherwise! But in this case, this is simply a bad situation. The best situation is probably that they get their half of the profits and you get yours, to do with as you wish.

But I would advise you to pick better business partners in the future.

Also there could still easily be huge differences in wealth. A small company of programmers could make millions in profit while a large group of miners might not make anywhere near that.

Yes that is probably so.

You may say that education is free and anyone can lift themselves (a very capatilist idea),

That is not a capitalist idea at all. It is part of the capitalist mantra, designed to make people think the system is fair.

but free education does not stop the rich kids from doing the best in school due to a steady home and access to other education tools.

Yes that would be true at first. But as wealth becomes more equalized across society, as the wealth of the rich is eroded, then things will get better. In the Soviet Union, for example, even relatively poor families had access to tutors, and their children regularly ascended into good state universities. Leonid Brezhnev, for example, was born to a metalworker in Dneprodzerzhinsk, but he went to the Metallurgical School and made a life for himself. And Khrushchev was born to poor peasantry, but became a metal worker and was only able to rise higher because the Soviet state helped him become educated (he refused a promotion to chief of a mining operation so that he could go to an accelerated secondary school, because he only had 4 years of schooling) so that he could go to the Technical School and get a degree in his trade.

Again sorry if these have been answered already.

Pat

 

[bernie14]

I tire of this "hive mind" analogy. Someone else just compared communism to the Tyranids in another thread. Communists don't expect people to become like ants, with absolutely no regard for their personal selves, and soldiering forth selflessly in defense of the collective. What we ask is that people reconsider the idea that man is not an island, that he is in fact a part of a larger society, and that it may be more beneficial to him in the long-run to cooperate with other parts of that society than to try and soldier on alone.

i think u missed my point regarding human perspective, but i find it very interesting that to counter the "hive" analogy u use the totally extreme example; as if individuals do not consider themselves as part of a society, and if only they did, well then we would all just get along fine.....actually, given our innate/unconscious imperfection, i am often pleasently surprised as to how well we actually do get along......

The motive behind this cooperation may be entirely selfish; "I am working with others not because I care about them, but because I see that I will be bettered in the end." The end result is the same, when everyone takes others into account, everyone is bettered in the end.

Or if not, you're free to try yourself alone on the mountaintop! But don't expect any of the benefits of society, since you reject membership thereof.

narcissism (unconsious selfishness) does not work in the way u describe, and in any case, "averaging" everyone, is not the same as "bettering" everyone

The fundamental difference between communism and Tyranidism, which I think I may take to referring to it as, is that communism recognizes the unique value of the individual. Hive minds see no individual.

i think it again depends on perspective, of course, i can only see things from my point of view, but as i see it, communism may recognize the unique value of the individual in as far as that individual provides and/or cooperates with others, this is a limitation on the individual. i think that a society that limits it's individuals does not better them collectively in the long run.

 

[Karalysia]

nvm delete

 

[Traitorfish]

i think it again depends on perspective, of course, i can only see things from my point of view, but as i see it, communism may recognize the unique value of the individual in as far as that individual provides and/or cooperates with others, this is a limitation on the individual. i think that a society that limits it's individuals does not better them collectively in the long run.

You're fooling yourself if you think that contemporary society does not limit individual behaviour- or have you never encountered a police officer? Society necessarily limits its members, whether by totalitarian means or by an entirely pacifistic refusal of association; that is simply a necessary part of peaceful interaction. The key is organise these limitations so as to create the greatest liberty and opportunity for all, not to simply abandon them in favour of egoistic chaos.

Enslaving a nation with guns and blades is tyranny, but refusing to let you into the village because you keep pooping in the well is not. A distinction worth remembering, I think.

 

[bernie14]

You're fooling yourself if you think that contemporary society does not limit individual behaviour- or have you never encountered a police officer? Society necessarily limits its members, whether by totalitarian means or by an entirely pacifistic refusal of association; that is simply a necessary part of peaceful interaction. The key is organise these limitations so as to create the greatest liberty and opportunity for all, not to simply abandon them in favour of egoistic chaos.

Enslaving a nation with guns and blades is tyranny, but refusing to let you into the village because you keep pooping in the well is not. A distinction worth remembering, I think.

lets see if i can be less concrete.....i apologize if i may have been understood to be making a black or white statement.....

think it again depends on perspective, of course, i can only see things from my point of view, but as i see it, communism may recognize the unique value of the individual in as far as that individual provides and/or cooperates with others, this is an additional limitation on the individual. i think that a society that further limits it's individuals does not better them collectively in the long run.

i was assuming common sense, i apologize for that as well

 

[Traitorfish]

lets see if i can be less concrete.....i apologize if i may have been understood to be making a black or white statement.....

think it again depends on perspective, of course, i can only see things from my point of view, but as i see it, communism may recognize the unique value of the individual in as far as that individual provides and/or cooperates with others, this is an additional limitation on the individual. i think that a society that further limits it's individuals does not better them collectively in the long run.

i was assuming common sense, i apologize for that as well

"Additional"? In addition to what? Let's not assume that contemporary capitalism is some sort of blank slate onto which other systems are drawn. It has many particular limitations of its own.

 

[bernie14]

"Additional"? In addition to what? Let's not assume that contemporary capitalism is some sort of blank slate onto which other systems are drawn. It has many particular limitations of its own.

again with the absolutes.....

think it again depends on perspective, of course, i can only see things from my point of view, but as i see it, communism may recognize the unique value of the individual in as far as that individual provides and/or cooperates with others, this is an additional limitation on the individual. i think that a society that further limits it's individuals does not better them collectively in the long run.

this additional limitation....more specifically, the in as far, part, it limits choice, and thus, limits the individuals motivation, whether that motivation would, ultimately benefit others, or the self is irrelevent. of course, u could agrue the opposite, that the motivation would be for the detrement of self or others, either way, communism places this additional limitation....therefore, u cannot just say that collectivism will better society, it will average it, it will stagnate society, as it does to it's individuals....this is why the theory has never worked, wil never work and has always led to tyrrany and/or stagnation

 

[Traitorfish]

think it again depends on perspective, of course, i can only see things from my point of view, but as i see it, communism may recognize the unique value of the individual in as far as that individual provides and/or cooperates with others, this is an additional limitation on the individual. i think that a society that further limits it's individuals does not better them collectively in the long run.

But society, by its very nature, a collective endeavour; a society who's members do no cooperate is not a society, but a fight. All that Socialism does is recognise the inevitably of this cooperation, remove the distortions in power introduced by its denial, and seek to order and rationalise these limits in a manner which provides the greater liberty, security and opportunity for all.

Anarcho-capitalism is as much a cooperative enterprise as Anarcho-communism. The former merely claims otherwise, and in doing so allows the participants to screw each other over under the banner of liberty. It's not as if the Anarcho-caps imagine that we shall all retreat into the woods and play Davy Crockett. I mean, the Libertarians, maybe, but that's just them...

this additional limitation....more specifically, the in as far, part, it limits choice, and thus, limits the individuals motivation, whether that motivation would, ultimately benefit others, or the self is irrelevent. of course, u could agrue the opposite, that the motivation would be for the detrement of self or others, either way, communism places this additional limitation....therefore, u cannot just say that collectivism will better society, it will average it, it will stagnate society, as it does to it's individuals....

You do realise that Socialism is not inherently totalitarian, don't you? Why, then, must it be any more limiting in the opportunities it offers than Capitalism, beyond those opportunities to exploit others?

I honestly never really understand the "innovation" argument, anyway- isn't most new technology developed by waged engineers and scientists, working for corporations or the state? I know that Americans love the inventor-entrepreneur myth, but, really, let's try to be realistic.

this is why the theory has never worked, wil never work and has always led to tyrrany and/or stagnation

Given that there were only two properly independent implementations, both representing a sub-set of a sub-set of Socialist thought- and the second a particularly ill-considered and deformed sub-set of that- I'm not sure it's fair to make such blanket generalisations. One may as well observe the Cromwellian Protectorate and the Jacobin Directory, and declare Liberalism a hopeless tyrannical ideology. Certainly, those briefs attempts at more libertarian models- the Paris Commune, Anarchist Catalonia, and so on- didn't show the tyrannical tendencies you declare.

 

[Jabarto]

I honestly never really understand the "innovation" argument, anyway- isn't most new technology developed by waged engineers and scientists, working for corporations or the state? I know that Americans love the inventor-entrepreneur myth, but, really, let's try to be realistic.

I know I'm not approved to answer questions but I really want everyone to understand this point that Traitorfish just made. The idea that free markets encourage innnovation is patently false; the best way to turn a profit is not to innovate, but to get the maximum return on existing infrastructure. This always happens when you privatise things and it's why almost every major medical advance comes from government funded labs while the private ones are busy making up first-world luxury diseases.

 

[bernie14]

But society, by its very nature, a collective endeavour; a society who's members do no cooperate is not a society, but a fight.

Again, u seem to be dealing in extremes and not degrees, there will ALWAYS be members within a society that do not cooperate…..and I am quite sure that you and I will justify varying degrees of uncooperativeness most likely at opposite ends of various spectrums. U however miss the point completely that the “nature of society” exists soley on the individual’s benefit to survive. In general, the wellbeing of each individual within a society will always be more important to that individual than the wellbeing of the society it belong to, which leads me to the initial point I made in this thread…..as psychologically imperfect as we are, we all tend to some narcissism, if only secondary to self preservation, we all tend to think we deserve a little more, are a little better or a little smarter than the other guy, etc...

All that Socialism does is recognise the inevitably of this cooperation , remove the distortions in power introduced by its denial, and seek to order and rationalise these limits in a manner which provides the greater liberty, security and opportunity for all.

And how exactly is this inevitable recognition going to take place? Suddenly or over a long course of evolution or indoctrination human beings are going to realize that other’s urges, hungers, ecstasies, despairs ethics and morals are as important as mine? Not likely…..this (to me) sounds just as delusional as those waiting for christ to establish his second kingdom… “yeah, then we will all get along”

Anarcho-capitalism is as much a cooperative enterprise as Anarcho-communism. The former merely claims otherwise, and in doing so allows the participants to screw each other over under the banner of liberty. It's not as if the Anarcho-caps imagine that we shall all retreat into the woods and play Davy Crockett. I mean, the Libertarians, maybe, but that's just them...

Yes and communists will get along just dandy because there brain chemistry or lofty morals will make them super human and incapable of screwing themselves over (hypothetically speaking of course because the statement has nothing to do with fact)

You do realise that Socialism is not inherently totalitarian, don't you? Why, then, must it be any more limiting in the opportunities it offers than Capitalism, beyond those opportunities to exploit others?

You do realize that you sound very condescending when u ask silly rhetorical questions don’t you? but in any case, it has nothing to do with your hypothetical view of socialism. Opportunities will exist under any system, but it’s the benefit of reward that motivates action on opportunities.

I honestly never really understand the "innovation" argument, anyway- isn't most new technology developed by waged engineers and scientists, working for corporations or the state? I know that Americans love the inventor-entrepreneur myth, but, really, let's try to be realistic.

Really?, r u typing on a pc a mac or other os? Who was been more successful?, if the American “lnventor-entrepreneur” model is a myth, the “anarcho-communist benefit to the world” model is a fantasy, myths are at least, based on reality

Given that there were only two properly independent implementations, both representing a sub-set of a sub-set of Socialist thought- and the second a particularly ill-considered and deformed sub-set of that- I'm not sure it's fair to make such blanket generalisations. One may as well observe the Cromwellian Protectorate and the Jacobin Directory, and declare Liberalism a hopeless tyrannical ideology. Certainly, those briefs attempts at more libertarian models- the Paris Commune, Anarchist Catalonia, and so on- didn't show the tyrannical tendencies you declare.

Sorry, to me, u seem to be arguing against your point, if I understand u correctly, u say that the only two properly implements of socialism, was SO impossible to apply practically, that only sub-sets of sub-sets could be implemented, were dreadful FAILURES…as far as the protectorate and jacobin directory, to me, your definition of liberalism seems quite distorted…

 

[Yeekim]

I know I'm not approved to answer questions but I really want everyone to understand this point that Traitorfish just made. The idea that free markets encourage innnovation is patently false; the best way to turn a profit is not to innovate, but to get the maximum return on existing infrastructure. This always happens when you privatise things and it's why almost every major medical advance comes from government funded labs while the private ones are busy making up first-world luxury diseases.

Medicine is a pretty special case though, is it not?