Ask A Red: The IVth International

Status
Not open for further replies.
The answer is that it did not shun democracy, it was simply a democracy that Westerners in a liberal society would not recognize.
...
This is why communism is man's highest calling. It demands that man rise above his primordial "instincts" and behave as his big brain understands is ethical, and not merely what his evolutionary biology unthinkingly commands for survival in the jungle.

Or, rather, since Capitalist teaching would have you believe this was "human nature" (everyone for himself), one of the truest essences of Marx is that ALL governments are class dictatorships -- from the slave system on to socialism. Those governments create a superstructure that reinforces the substructure relationship between the ruling class and everyone else.

See my favorite: The State and Revolution by Lenin -- it is like the Letters of Paul to a Catholic (which I also am). It describes in a nutshell the bourgeois state and the transition (or at least one vision thereof) from capitalism to socialism to communism...
 
I'm certain you don't mean that recommendation to me specifically, seeing as I quoted State and Revolution directly in my post.

Finished it yesterday afternoon. :)

Of Course not. I am just building on your theme.
Do also read Collapse of the Second International. I was going to do a whole thing on it, but the MIA version is missing the Chapter I wanted to heavily cite from, and I am too lazy to type. Get a Progress Publishers version.
Exciting times, indeed. We are in a revolutionary situation...

EDIT: Also, re: Russia -- since NOTHING was legal in the 1895 to 1917 period, save for police unions, the Bolsheviks had to maintain a low profile and build a combination of legal and illegal tactics -- i.e. tactics that contained both the legal and illegal elements of revolutionary activity.
 
Of Course not. I am just building on your theme.
Do also read Collapse of the Second International. I was going to do a whole thing on it, but the MIA version is missing the Chapter I wanted to heavily cite from, and I am too lazy to type. Get a Progress Publishers version.
Exciting times, indeed. We are in a revolutionary situation...

I'm certain I can find it on MIA. What a gold mine that website is!

For the mean time, though, my focus is shifting toward historical monographs, in preparation for the coming semester. S&R was just a nice break between history books that I thought would serve well for subjects to come. Plus, I'd been getting lectured by feminists a lot about correcting unequal power relations, and S&R helped to explain the logic behind some of that.
 
What kind of future socialism/communism will have? Or rather is there a future for them?
 
I'm certain I can find it on MIA. What a gold mine that website is!

For the mean time, though, my focus is shifting toward historical monographs, in preparation for the coming semester. S&R was just a nice break between history books that I thought would serve well for subjects to come. Plus, I'd been getting lectured by feminists a lot about correcting unequal power relations, and S&R helped to explain the logic behind some of that.

Well, then, hit Engels' Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State another excellent source for that same theme. Clearly Marxists have written volumes on gender equality and the "gender question," and attaching the women's movement to the labour movement is just plain good sense.

What kind of future socialism/communism will have? Or rather is there a future for them?
Socialism, then Communism ARE the future. Cf the posts on this thread from the OP on down.

EDIT: that is to say, once we have gotten rid of capitalism, questions of production and consumption can be addressed socially versus privately, as they are often done now.
 
I'm curious about that too Calad. I think that as technology makes everything cheaper to produce, less labor intensive and more ubiquitous, the whole dynamic of how the world economy is going to collapse as it'll be hard to place value on things people can print easily in their own home, etc. It will probably be decades or centuries but I think technology will force social change eventually and we'll end up with some sort of communism. What says the communists?
 
I'm curious about that too Calad. I think that as technology makes everything cheaper to produce, less labor intensive and more ubiquitous, the whole dynamic of how the world economy is going to collapse as it'll be hard to place value on things people can print easily in their own home, etc. It will probably be decades or centuries but I think technology will force social change eventually and we'll end up with some sort of communism. What says the communists?

The technology argument is struck down somewhat easily by the reply "someone has to make the machines."

If there is ever a need for human labor there can always be capitalism. Even if we're just a society of just doctors, engineers, and bankers.

@Reds, I just don't see why you're so confident "revolution is upon us". Having a handful of America's poorest on your side isn't very useful.

What makes you believe it is a better system for the majority of Americans? We have never seen this to be true in the (limited) practice of the system we have seen.

What makes you believe this system will be implemented anytime in the near future? "Middle" future"? Distant future?

Unless you somehow convince a vast majority of Americans this system is better, how would you implement outside of the application of force?
 
I was thinking along the lines of when who owns all the capital is a moot point because everyone owns it in the form of printers or machines that can make nearly all goods - including making more machines to make more goods.
 
Capitalism can no longer address the problems that humanity faces. Capitalism only leads us to what is profitable, not what is necessary. Ignoring useless arguments about matter re-arrangers and robots that make other robots so that humans never produce anything again, communism will come about because capitalism will outrun its ability to be capitalism, and it will have to change.

There is no room for moderation or responsibility in capitalism. It is all about consumption, demand, and the profits that come from meeting those consumptive demands. But our world is running out of many essential resources, including rare earth metals, helium, fossil fuels, and food. Our environments become increasingly polluted, such that it is no longer merely streams that you cannot swim in, and forests killed by acid rain. We are changing the climate itself of the planet. Catastrophic consequences await humanity if it fails to solve any of these problems. And quite simply, with the driving forces behind capitalist social logic being what they are, the system as it presently exists cannot deal with any of these problems adequately.

As for the matter rearrangers and what not...we already live in a post-scarcity world. The issue is not getting in line to wait for when something is produced, it is distributing what is already produced. We already produce so much more than what is needed, and yet so much of humanity struggles on without, or with extremely little. Why is this? It is because capitalism cares only about profits, and less profits are made when all of a product is distributed. Capitalists create artificial scarcity to drive up prices. When distribution is based upon one's ability to exchange money for an item, and the people responsible for giving you the item are also the ones responsible for giving you the money, and they don't give you enough money to get the items you need, then the system is broken. We are literally denying people the produce of society so that the property-owners can generate more profit for themselves. That can't go on. There's literally no reason for it, no justification for it

Further, continuing profits are made via the imperialist system, whereby the Developed World exploits the rest of the planet for raw materials, productive capacity, and commodity dumping grounds (aka, markets for goods). But this trend cannot go on forever. Through this process, other countries are slowly becoming richer, and they in turn are exploiting the poorer ones. We once exploited South America and East Asia, but now many countries like Brazil, South Korea, and China are rich and productive enough that their own capitalist class is imperializing the poorer countries in Africa. Well what will happen when that imperialization enriches the Africans enough and develops their countries enough so that they are ready to imperialize another place, or to make labor laws that prevent imperialism in their countries by the richer countries? What will happen then? The system cannot go on forever, eventually it will run itself out. And when it does, the whole house of cards will tumble.

Capitalism will destroy itself via these processes in time. The duty of the communist is to make sure that we destroy capitalism before it destroys itself, because when it does destroy itself, it's going to take the rest of humanity with it.

I will be honest. I am not optimistic about the future. I do not think we can beat the forces of Capital which keep the people satiated and thinking one-dimensionally, who police our streets for signs of unrest and dissent against the system. I hope for the best, and God knows I struggle for it, but I expect the worst. We can never know until we try.
 
Capitalism can no longer address the problems that humanity faces. Capitalism only leads us to what is profitable, not what is necessary. Ignoring useless arguments about matter re-arrangers and robots that make other robots so that humans never produce anything again, communism will come about because capitalism will outrun its ability to be capitalism, and it will have to change.
kthxbye
 
I was thinking along the lines of when who owns all the capital is a moot point because everyone owns it in the form of printers or machines that can make nearly all goods - including making more machines to make more goods.

We haven't defined the parameters of the machine enough to understand whether or not capitalism could exist then. This could be an interesting topic for another thread though.
 
Guess I answered your question???
No idea, you talked about things that were at best tangentially related to my question as near as I can tell. You missed the essential thrust of my question whilst not forgetting to pause to tell me how useless the question I asked was.


We haven't defined the parameters of the machine enough to understand whether or not capitalism could exist then. This could be an interesting topic for another thread though.
I think it's interesting, I certainly think we're heading for a world where individuals will own their own capital. Or at least a world where enough people own enough capital that the model of capitalism is irrevocably broken. I was curious if that was something that's ever come up here or in communist circles - how does communist philosophy prepare the world for that? Will there be global revolution? How will society organize itself when everyone has access to capital? I thought these issues, which arise from my last question, did pertain to this thread. I was mistaken apparently.
 
No idea, you talked about things that were at best tangentially related to my question as near as I can tell. You missed the essential thrust of my question whilst not forgetting to pause to tell me how useless the question I asked was.

My point being, the technology question is irrelevant. We don't have to wait until capitalists invent a way to end capitalism (which is what the technology argument says) and save us all. Sorry if you thought that was an insult to you.
 
Well of course you don't have to wait for anything. You are the one telling me that capitalism will destroy itself and I'm the one telling you one way that could happen and asking: then what?
 
Do you think jobs being outsourced to other countries because they're willing to do the same work for half the pay would be an example of us getting closer to Communism?
 
There is no room for moderation or responsibility in capitalism. It is all about consumption, demand, and the profits that come from meeting those consumptive demands. But our world is running out of many essential resources, including rare earth metals, helium, fossil fuels, and food. Our environments become increasingly polluted, such that it is no longer merely streams that you cannot swim in, and forests killed by acid rain. We are changing the climate itself of the planet. Catastrophic consequences await humanity if it fails to solve any of these problems. And quite simply, with the driving forces behind capitalist social logic being what they are, the system as it presently exists cannot deal with any of these problems adequately.
While this is an interesting argument for communism ("The betterment of the planet") and probably the only good argument for communism (if there ever was one) the same argument could be made for a totalitarian government. In fact, the argument works much better for that kind of government. Anyways, would government regulation to protect the environment not suffice?

On "post-scarcity", by definition of scarcity (Unlimited wants in world of limited resources), we'll never be "post-scarcity". In any case, what gives those who produce less for the economy the same right to goods and services as those who produce more? This idea would need to be imposed on people for your system to be implemented.

Further, continuing profits are made via the imperialist system, whereby the Developed World exploits the rest of the planet for raw materials, productive capacity, and commodity dumping grounds (aka, markets for goods). But this trend cannot go on forever. Through this process, other countries are slowly becoming richer, and they in turn are exploiting the poorer ones. We once exploited South America and East Asia, but now many countries like Brazil, South Korea, and China are rich and productive enough that their own capitalist class is imperializing the poorer countries in Africa. Well what will happen when that imperialization enriches the Africans enough and develops their countries enough so that they are ready to imperialize another place, or to make labor laws that prevent imperialism in their countries by the richer countries? What will happen then? The system cannot go on forever, eventually it will run itself out. And when it does, the whole house of cards will tumble.

As George Friedman put it, "There are always countries willing to work for less."

Capitalism will destroy itself via these processes in time. The duty of the communist is to make sure that we destroy capitalism before it destroys itself, because when it does destroy itself, it's going to take the rest of humanity with it.

See what I said about government regulation.

I will be honest. I am not optimistic about the future. I do not think we can beat the forces of Capital which keep the people satiated and thinking one-dimensionally, who police our streets for signs of unrest and dissent against the system. I hope for the best, and God knows I struggle for it, but I expect the worst. We can never know until we try.

I honestly am completely optimistic about our future. Governments are already moving to protect the environment to a fair extent and as our technology advances we'll be able to reduce the toll taken by the environment from our activities. Some really smart people think we're only a few years away from farms of solar collectors in space that beam back down energy. It seems unlikely to me but it's likely to be much cheaper than solar farms here on Earth and with the rising costs of fossil fuels it's unlikely we'll stick with them for too much longer. Either global warming is going to get us or it isn't I think.

In any case, it's more my problem than yours considering you're much older than I am.
 
Well of course you don't have to wait for anything. You are the one telling me that capitalism will destroy itself and I'm the one telling you one way that could happen and asking: then what?

You've answered your own question. If that's a way that we get to socialism, then....that's a way that we get to socialism. But I don't think it will be, is my point.

Do you think jobs being outsourced to other countries because they're willing to do the same work for half the pay would be an example of us getting closer to Communism?

That depends on what "getting closer" means.
 
You've answered your own question. If that's a way that we get to socialism, then....that's a way that we get to socialism. But I don't think it will be, is my point.



That depends on what "getting closer" means.

Everyone in the world having the same amount of material value/reward for labor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom