Ask A Red: The IVth International

[potatokiosk]

This si really a facetious question, do you expect anyone to say that we'd be back in the middle ages?

No, but if life hardly changes at all I don't see why anyone would strive for communism.

 

[Takhisis]

Well, I'll give you a summarised version of the Reds' initial reaction:

 

[ParkCungHee]

I must say, having worked with people who tried to free the Rosenbergs, they do not fall into the category of traitors in the same vain as those who were on trial in the USSR, since allegedly selling atomic secrets to me is kind of like selling someone the secret to gravity -- and the Rosenbergs were convicted on the testimony of a traitor to the party, anyway. I do not think this is the same argument.

So...for example one would not have committed a crime to have sold Nuclear Secrets to the Germans since that simply constitutes the same laws of physics, or sharing the Soviet Code system, since that's a self-evident law of mathematics.

 

[timtofly]

The crime would be in the ability to develope it sooner rather than later. I do not adhere totally with the "information" is power motto. It is just an avoidence/procrastination of the inevitable.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

So what would a typical day be like in a communist society?

Unfortunately, it is hard to say what a typical day is in any society. Look at the US today:the typical day for a farm worker is vastly different from the typical day of an attorney. However, what we srive for is an end to the CLASS divisions of society, so that that farm worker can live past his or her fiftieth birthday, as the attorney is likely to do. For a great many people, life under socialism, as the stage prior to communism, will not be vastly different. So, why strive for communism? For about 60% of the population, they may not -- but then, neither will they fight against it.

It is the ones who have the most to lose under socialism who will fight it. It is a fair question. (I.e. in answer to the query I quote below.

What is 'the fate of traitors'?....


How does the atom bomb help the workers of the world? Or of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact?

Treason in the US is punishable by death. That's one fate. Cheezy's point is in the goal orientation of the traitor. On the one hand, someone who did not make a conscious commitment to the Party and to the USSR did not necessarily qualify as a "traitor.". Class Traitors betray their voluntary class association for another.

First of all, it is debatable that the Rosenbergs gave any secrets to the USSR. Like I said, I worked with a lielong communist who fought for justice for the Rosenbergs, and she -- God rest her soul -- like millions of others, were convnced of their innocence. Secondly, the USSR having the Bomb may have prevented MacArthur from dropping it on North Korea and China like he wanted to. The arms race itself was a Dulles brothers design, since it meant guaranteed jobs for arms manufacturers. Whereas, it broke the USSR trying to keep up.

No, but if life hardly changes at all I don't see why anyone would strive for communism.

See my comment above.

 

[ace99]

so that that farm worker can live past his or her fiftieth birthday, as the attorney is likely to do

On the contrary attorneys have among the highest rates of depression, drug abuse, suicide, alcohol abuse and divorce of most professions.

Lanny Berman, executive director of the American Association of Suicidology, a group devoted to suicide prevention, says risk factors for suicide include depression, anxiety, substance abuse, suicide ideation, divorce and stress. And lawyers experience many of these risk factors at higher rates than the general population, he says

Those factors may be contributing to the increased suicide rate for lawyers, he says. A major study conducted some 20 years ago by the National Institute for Safety and Health found that male lawyers between the ages of 20 and 64 are more than twice as likely to die from suicide than men of the same age in other occupations.

The suicide rate was about 69 deaths per 100,000 population, nearly six times the suicide rate in the general population, according to a study summary.

Most at risk were lawyers and judges aged 48 to 65.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...ies_may_contribute_to_increased_suicide_risk/

Hurrah!

How would socialism or communism help alleviate this? What would the legal profession look like under socialism/communism?

 

[Masada]

I prefer quantitative studies.

 

[ace99]

That''s lifespan, pretty sure the ABA was just talking about suicide.

 

[Masada]

What point were you making then?

 

[lovett]

Rawls didn't change much from traditional liberalism.

Is is not enough to enact the same laws for everyone, if everyone is not equal! It is not enough to claim the intention of distributing resources as to maximally benefit the worst off, if the power structure which makes some worst off than others remains in place. We all know that those intentions turn to dust in reality. Communism is not obsolete, communism does what no liberalism will ever do: aims to extinguish the division between well-off and worst-off.

This is a rather silly set of sentences.

Compare and contrast: Theory of Justice and Mill's On Liberty. There is a world of difference between them. Moreover, the theory of justice Rawls espouses is aimed precisely at extinguishing (morally objectionable) division between the best and the worst off. Part and parcel of this, Rawls explicitly acknowledges, is destroying disequilibriums in power.

I'm interested by the 'communism-as-a-practical-program' thesis but you have no developed it here..

 

[ReindeerThistle]

On the contrary attorneys have among the highest rates of depression, drug abuse, suicide, alcohol abuse and divorce of most professions.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyer_personalities_may_contribute_to_increased_suicide_risk/

Hurrah!

How would socialism or communism help alleviate this? What would the legal profession look like under socialism/communism?

Suicide is NOT the only form of death. No one can refute the fact that the "typical day" of a lawyer and a farm worker would be different in both social systems. See the earlier posts about the justice system, particularly the article about Cuba.

That''s lifespan, pretty sure the ABA was just talking about suicide.

See my comment above.

...I'm interested by the 'communism-as-a-practical-program' thesis but you have no developed it here..

We have no practical large-scale models for a communist legal system, only examples from existing socialist nations. In the socialism I want to build, the people would decide once we had the power to do so. Right now, we have a system designed to benefit a tiny minority -- see my earlier posts viz. "No millionaires on death row, no poor US Senators."

 

[aelf]

I'm interested by the 'communism-as-a-practical-program' thesis but you have no developed it here..

I think (and this opinion might not be shared be all) that you won't find what you're looking for exactly. A large part of the value of Marxist theory so far is its critique of capitalism, how it shows that capitalism is fundamentally unable to create any kind of truly egalitarian society.

Any kind of practical programme cannot be universal and would have to be developed (if it can be 'developed' at all rather than becoming actualised out of pure revolutionary action) according to the time and place, with the end being rather vague. In fact, I'd say it would be quite un-Marxist to claim that there's any single, delineated programme for achieving communism.

 

[lovett]

So you'd gloss the contribution of Marxist thought as mainly critical? I.e. what political theorists should take from Marxism is not a basic normative structure, nor a worked out positive theory of implementation, but the negative thesis that no capitalist society can be a sufficiently egalitarian society?

 

[Lone Wolf]

I'd say that Marxism has, or claims to have, an explanatory, descriptive power.

 

[Traitorfish]

So you'd gloss the contribution of Marxist thought as mainly critical? I.e. what political theorists should take from Marxism is not a basic normative structure, nor a worked out positive theory of implementation, but the negative thesis that no capitalist society can be a sufficiently egalitarian society?

I think Marx's project is primarily critical, but I don't think that's entirely negative. He doesn't offer any programme of change, but he does identify an agent of change, the proletariat. Marx's critique isn't just intended to demonstrate that capitalism is a big pile of pants and that we should therefore want to overthrow it, but that the proletariat is propelled by historical forces towards the overthrow of capitalism.

 

[aelf]

So you'd gloss the contribution of Marxist thought as mainly critical? I.e. what political theorists should take from Marxism is not a basic normative structure, nor a worked out positive theory of implementation, but the negative thesis that no capitalist society can be a sufficiently egalitarian society?

I'm not sufficiently learned to speak with any authority on a positive Marxist theory of implementation. But I think you're underestimating the importance of critique. It's still an uphill task convincing people that we cannot stop at capitalism and hope to have a just society.

You may argue that providing a positive theory of implementation might be more convincing (as if Rawlsian theory of justice has convinced many people - and I say this as a Rawls fan), but without sufficient impetus for progress to begin with, I doubt such a theory could be developed - as I've already suggested earlier when I cast doubt on the idea that a practical programme could be developed outside of an actual revolution.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Here's a great article I found this morning about wealth and income inequality:

http://www.alternet.org/economy/five-ugly-extremes-inequality-america-contrasts-will-drop-your-chin-floor

Five Ugly Extremes of Inequality in America-- The Contrasts Will Drop Your Chin to the Floor
Any of the ten richest Americans could pay a year's rent for all of America's homeless with their 2012 income.


March 24, 2013 |


The first step is to learn the facts, and then to get angry and to ask ourselves, as progressives and caring human beings, what we can do about the relentless transfer of wealth to a small group of well-positioned Americans.

1. $2.13 per hour vs. $3,000,000.00 per hour

Each of the Koch brothers saw his investments grow by $6 billion in one year, which is three million dollars per hour based on a 40-hour 'work' week. They used some of the money to try to kill renewable energystandards around the country.

Their income portrays them, in a society measured by economic status, as a million times more valuable than the restaurant server who cheers up our lunch hours while hoping to make enough in tips to pay the bills.

A comparison of top and bottom salaries within large corporations is much less severe, but a lot more common. For CEOs and minimum-wage workers, the difference is $5,000.00 per hour vs. $7.25 per hour.

2. A single top income could buy housing for every homeless person in the U.S.

On a winter day in 2012 over 633,000 people were homeless in the United States. Based on an annual single room occupancy (SRO) cost of $558 per month, any ONE of the ten richest Americans would have enough with his 2012 income to pay for a room for every homeless person in the U.S. for the entire year. These ten rich men together made more than our entire housing budget.

For anyone still believing "they earned it," it should be noted that most of the Forbes 400 earnings came from minimally-taxed, non-job-creating capital gains.

3. The poorest 47% of Americans have no wealth

In 1983 the poorest 47% of America had $15,000 per family, 2.5 percent of the nation's wealth.

In 2009 the poorest 47% of America owned ZERO PERCENT of the nation's wealth (their debt exceeded their assets).

At the other extreme, the 400 wealthiest Americans own as much wealth as 80 million families -- 62% of America. The reason, once again, is the stock market. Since 1980 the American GDP has approximately doubled. Inflation-adjusted wages have gone down. But the stock market has increased by over ten times, and the richest quintile of Americans owns 93% of it.

4. The U.S. is nearly the most wealth-unequal country in the entire world

Out of 141 countries, the U.S. has the 4th-highest degree of wealth inequality in the world, trailing only Russia, Ukraine, and Lebanon.

Yet the financial industry keeps creating new wealth for its millionaires. According to the authors of the Global Wealth Report, the world's wealth has doubled in ten years, from $113 trillion to $223 trillion, and is expected to reach $330 trillion by 2017.

5. A can of soup for a black or Hispanic woman, a mansion and yacht for the businessman

That's literally true. For every one dollar of assets owned by a single black or Hispanic woman, a member of the Forbes 400 has over forty million dollars.

Minority families once had substantial equity in their homes, but after Wall Street caused the housing crash, median wealth fell 66% for Hispanic households and 53% for black households. Now the average single black or Hispanic woman has about $100 in net worth.

What to do?

End the capital gains giveaway, which benefits the wealthy almost exclusively.

Institute a Financial Speculation Tax, both to raise needed funds from a currently untaxed subsidy on stock purchases, and to reduce the risk of the irresponsible trading that nearly brought down the economy.

Perhaps above all, we progressives have to choose one strategy and pursue it in a cohesive, unrelenting attack on greed. Only this will heal the ugly gash of inequality that has split our country in two.

Now, I disagree with the "solutions," as they are typical of the "progressive" political program, which basically consists of being an angrier-than-usual liberal, but the issues raised by the article highlight just part of the crisis we now face.

I'm not sure what to think about progressives. On the one hand, they can be useful allies, providing valuable support in more concrete arguments, and they're more willing than us, for the most part, to dive into the dirt with conservatives. On the other hand, they've got that "so close, yet so far" problem, of more or less grasping the moral imperatives of socialists, but still insisting that the liberal solutions are worthwhile. This hints to me that perhaps they don't have as good a grasp on things as we might think, given their rhetoric. After all, a defender of capitalism who unabashedly triumphs the virtues of selfishness and inequality, and attacks the democratic foundation of liberal society, is in every way square with his beliefs. He understands his place and social role, and the shape of that which he defends. There is no masquerading, he is what he is. But in many liberals, by which I also mean classical liberals who utilize messages of egalitarianism in their defense of capitalism, and particularly in progressives, I see a cognitive dissonance that shows that they don't truly understand what the words they're using mean, or what the ideology their defending entails. A great example is the above article's proposed solution: after demonstrating the incredible wealth and power that a very small number of people have, they insist on a solution that can be easily quashed by the power they just proved these people have. They play an unfair game by the rules, with the expectation that by playing fair against people who the rules favor and who are willing to go still further and break those rules, and imagine that they can win.

What causes this conflict of idea and reality? Is it an inability to think outside the box they've been taught exists, or does it betray more ulterior motives? My question essentially becomes, then: are progressives simply misguided socialists, or are they misguided liberals? Because their beliefs are so similar to ours, are they deserving of less of our attention so that we can focus on bringing more people to the Left, or because their beliefs are so close yet still so far, are they deserving of more of our attention so that we can bring them "all the way" over?

Your thoughts, fellow Reds!

 

[lovett]

Thanks for the replies.

I'm sure you're both entirely right about the importance of critique in the practical problem of motivating actual political change. I do, on the other hand, wonder whether keeping the label of 'marxist' or 'communist' is the best marketing ploy in this task, given the unfortunate associations that (mainly wrongly) cling to these terms. I suppose that this is an empirical question that couldn't be resolved here.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

I'm interested by the 'communism-as-a-practical-program' thesis but you have no developed it here..

To add to my earlier comment, aelf,Traitorfish amd I all agree that there is no universal path or programme for achieving communism. However, it IS up to the people jn an historic arena of determination, such as Russia, China, the US -- WHATEVER you would consider an arena (NB: I am not limiting this to the Stalinist definition of nation) to make the revolution.

The issues of the struggle, and its leadership, arise from the struggle itself.

So you'd gloss the contribution of Marxist thought as mainly critical? I.e. what political theorists should take from Marxism is not a basic normative structure, nor a worked out positive theory of implementation, but the negative thesis that no capitalist society can be a sufficiently egalitarian society?

Again, aelf, Traitorfish and I are in accord on this, as it dovetails into the above point nicely. Marx tried to form revolutionary organizations and the main theme was emancipation of the working class -- this implies an oppressor, and Marx wrote thousands of pages of erudition on who that oppressor WAS and how they worked -- so that people could then determine an alternative.

 

[Azale]

Any opinions on Robert Vincent Daniels?

I picked up A Documentary History of Communism in Russia and it seems to be heavy with his own interpretations, so I was wondering if any of you had come into contact with his work before.