Ask A Red: The IVth International

[DemonicAppleGuY]

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?

Considering he just ranted about how terrible that situation is, I'm guessing no.

And I agree, it is quite a capitalist thing.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Everyone in the world having the same amount of material value/reward for labor.

Then no.

 

[calad]

Problem of Socialism/Communism is that it is like old corpse only white bones left. It has been unable to reform itself. I can argue that Lenin started the process of killing Socialism and Stalin finished it. If you look how people argue who belive seriously in Socialism you notice language like that doesnt even exist anymore. Capitalism? Owner of production? Imperialism? Really that is archaic way of speaking. And because of all this they cant say anything new, future is dark and markets will collapse and people will be even more exploited. Even books they prefer are older that your grandparents. Cheezy the Wiz is more like a profet than an economist. And it is not very convincing. He cannot say anything specific, new or constructive because Socialism is pretty much a dead ideology. What they need to do is to leave behind Marx, Engels, Lenin and other sociopaths and start on a clean table and belive in future. I belive we all are waiting a person like him who can do that.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Problem of Socialism/Communism is that it is like old corpse only white bones left. It has been unable to reform itself. I can argue that Lenin started the process of killing Socialism and Stalin finished it. If you look how people argue who belive seriously in Socialism you notice language like that doesnt even exist anymore. Capitalism? Owner of production? Imperialism? Really that is archaic way of speaking. And because of all this they cant say anything new, future is dark and markets will collapse and people will be even more exploited. Even books they prefer are older that your grandparents. Cheezy the Wiz is more like a profet than an economist. And it is not very convincing. He cannot say anything specific, new or constructive because Socialism is pretty much a dead ideology. What they need to do is to leave behind Marx, Engels, Lenin and other sociopaths and start on a clean table and belive in future. I belive we all are waiting a person like him who can do that.

Remember that this is a question and answer thread and not for arguments. Critical response is welcome, tirade and polemic are not.

In other news, my copy of Workers' Councils by Anton Pannekoek came today. It is exciting to read about some leftcom ideas from the horse's mouth, as I usually get them through ideological osmosis.

 

[Tahuti]

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.

Who would be the "forces of capital"? I notice that communists rarely feel any direct antipathy towards individual businessmen, and often are businesspeople themselves (Engels being one of them if I remember right). So these are probably somebody else entirely, but whom?

Is capitalism to be exclusively seen as a "system"? Or is it the result of crimes against persons, and thus has identifiable persons responsible for it?

Would you (or any of the other Commies) characterize Communism as being perfectly democratic in the sense of being more democratic than any society that has ever been achieved?

 

[caketastydelish]

Then no.

Please explain the goal, then.

 

[Antilogic]

@DemonicAppleGuy: none of us are asserting union-busting is a "fascist" tactic. You may drop this.

Sorry for introducing that derail, I didn't think it would as controversial as it ended up being (especially with the you-know-what afterwards).

Apparently, he almost moved to the United States, I think specifically to New York, where there was a thriving German-language press and a liberal attitude to political literature. It's interesting to think what might have changed if he had. (Frankly, my sneaking suspicion is that if Marx's work had become less prominent in Europe and more so in the US, and as such became less associated with European social democracy and moreso with American syndicalism, his intellectual legacy could well be in a much better place today.)

Could you tell us a little more about the distinctions between these two traditions, and who you see as the influential voices in the American syndicalist movement? Are you referring to the handful of American socialists like Eugene Debs and Victor Berger who were active in the political arena, or a more union-focused arena?

NB: I am waiting for the lurking history experts to pounce on this, but check the title tag of this post...

I'll apologize for answering a question in advance, but I am lurking and I'll pretend to be a history expert from time-to-time.

If we are talking about Marx's influence on the North, it was not inconsequential. There were a large number of German immigrants to the American Midwest and New York during the lead-up to the Civil War, many of them radicals fleeing the failed revolutions in Europe around 1848. For the longest time, the only place you could read Marx in the United States were in the German immigrant communities and the handful of Republican newspapers that carried Marx's writings in English (I have joked off-line that Karl Marx was the 1850's Republican Party's Paul Krugman). The Free Soil and Free Labor movements that bolstered the Republican Party also arguably had Marxist influences; it wasn't just a moral issue of anti-slavery, but also an economic one for the heath of the working class.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Who would be the "forces of capital"?

Capitalists and their defenders, and the defenders of their system.

I notice that communists rarely feel any direct antipathy towards individual businessmen, and often are businesspeople themselves (Engels being one of them if I remember right). So these are probably somebody else entirely, but whom?

Is capitalism to be exclusively seen as a "system"? Or is it the result of crimes against persons, and thus has identifiable persons responsible for it?

Focusing the attack on individuals risks making the crimes and exploitation of capitalism seem like an individual moral failure, rather than a systemic one. It also risks becoming shrill and irritating. And finally, it just isn't very productive, as the individuals themselves are of little importance. Remove any individual capitalist, and another will rise to take his place, if the system that produced him remains.

Would you (or any of the other Commies) characterize Communism as being perfectly democratic in the sense of being more democratic than any society that has ever been achieved?

Not perfectly, no.

Please explain the goal, then.

The question you asked was, whether I thought outsourcing brought us closer to communism. You seemed to think that this will cause the equalization of wealth. It will not.

 

[caketastydelish]

Capitalists and their defenders, and the defenders of their system.



Focusing the attack on individuals risks making the crimes and exploitation of capitalism seem like an individual moral failure, rather than a systemic one. It also risks becoming shrill and irritating. And finally, it just isn't very productive, as the individuals themselves are of little importance. Remove any individual capitalist, and another will rise to take his place, if the system that produced him remains.



Not perfectly, no.



The question you asked was, whether I thought outsourcing brought us closer to communism. You seemed to think that this will cause the equalization of wealth. It will not.

No i meant what is the goal of Communism.

Anyway, the way 'outsourcing' works means it's more efficient to pay someone that is willing to work for half the money (or less to whatever degree) over someone that demands more.

Communism, as Traitorfish explained is that it only exists if the entire world is involved with it (in other words, not just one particular area, as 'communist country' is self contradictory).

So if the problem of the capitalist system is that people in richer countries are getting paid a lot more money for the same (or even less) amount of labor as people in poorer countries, wouldn't outsourcing even things out until people in all countries are getting paid the same for the same type/amount of labor? Granted, that still isn't true equality because even in a world where geographical area made no difference on pay, there are still many other factors should as the kind of labor, if the person has connections/talent, etc.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Communism, as Traitorfish explained is that it only exists if the entire world is involved with it (in other words, not just one particular area, as 'communist country' is self contradictory).

Communism is not something we will ever see. If there were a world revolution tomorrow, no one reading this thread today would live to see it. We have the whole of capitalism to erode first. To speak of the global necessities of communism today is useless. That is a problem for the great-grandchildren of the revolutionaries.

So if the problem of the capitalist system is that people in richer countries are getting paid a lot more money for the same (or even less) amount of labor as people in poorer countries, wouldn't outsourcing even things out until people in all countries are getting paid the same for the same type/amount of labor? Granted, that still isn't true equality because even in a world where geographical area made no difference on pay, there are still many other factors should as the kind of labor, if the person has connections/talent, etc.

I'm not sure how to begin addressing this. The goal isn't equal pay for everyone. The reduction in payrolls achieved by outsourcing is not "efficient" for anyone but the capitalists. Impoverishing everyone equally is not a step toward communism any more than chopping off tall peoples' legs at the knee makes short people better at basketball. But equal poverty is not what outsourcing creates anyway. Permanent large-scale unemployment at home is what outsourcing creates. Destruction of labor unions is what outsourcing creates. Further mystification of production is what outsourcing creates. The ridiculous idea that we are a "post-industrial" society is what it perpetuates. If anything, outsourcing is the single most dangerous thing to the domestic worker. Although any act by Capital is of potential propagandistic use to us, so there's always some kind of silver lining, though I would prefer to not have to look for it in the first place.

 

[caketastydelish]

I disagree. I don't feel like digging up specific sources, but I'm pretty darn sure a big part of why America and even western european countries have such a high standard of living (even today) is because they are exploiting the resources of third world countries (i.e, the average american can afford a gas guzzler truck because the average African can't afford a car period).

The reason our standard of living is so high is directly related to why it's so low in other places if you ask me. Americans whine about bad customer service at walmart (yet shop there every week because it's supposedly 'the only thing they can afford') where as third worlders complain because they want enough food to stay alive and a humane (and I'm using that word in the loosest sense of the term) place to live.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Sorry for introducing that derail, I didn't think it would as controversial as it ended up being (especially with the you-know-what afterwards).

No harm done. Posters are entitled to their questions, too.

I'll apologize for answering a question in advance, but I am lurking and I'll pretend to be a history expert from time-to-time.

If we are talking about Marx's influence on the North, it was not inconsequential. There were a large number of German immigrants to the American Midwest and New York during the lead-up to the Civil War, many of them radicals fleeing the failed revolutions in Europe around 1848. For the longest time, the only place you could read Marx in the United States were in the German immigrant communities and the handful of Republican newspapers that carried Marx's writings in English (I have joked off-line that Karl Marx was the 1850's Republican Party's Paul Krugman). The Free Soil and Free Labor movements that bolstered the Republican Party also arguably had Marxist influences; it wasn't just a moral issue of anti-slavery, but also an economic one for the heath of the working class.

Antilogic, are you sure I didn't catch you at the last Party Plenary Session (jk, I'm in a clandestine group, we don't do plenary sessions.)

However, you are correct about Marx' influence. It was one reason Dana fired him from the Observer staff. Too radical for the American audience who were just starting to get the activist sea legs, so to speak.

Have you seen the director's cut of Heaven's Gate -- only the best Western ever made and with class warfare totally on the agenda. I recommend it highly.

 

[peter grimes]

I was listening to the radio and stumbled onto a talk:

http://www.alternativeradio.org/collections/latest-programs/products/wolr007

He discusses worker directed enterprises as the most democratic and progressive way of structuring economic activity. Is this a flavor of communism, or is it not far enough in your True Red eyes?

The talk was very inspiring, I thought.

 

[Falconiano]

Cheezy, as a comrade I will tell you my take on this.
I believe most of the current society's shortcomings are due to lack of regulation of resource allocation and ownership.
In most capitalistic nations you can see the extent to which an oligarchy of corporates controls the whole.
If a group or even a single person are allowed to own the media and thus public opinion, have the power to buy politicians and buy their way out of the court, there is little limit to the damage they can do.
And all this just to give the 95% of citizen a hope that through a false meritocracy they will come to be part of the 5% who controls the nation?
I much prefer a nation where everyone must work but nobody has a chance to own enough money to be detrimental to the society.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

I was listening to the radio and stumbled onto a talk:

http://www.alternativeradio.org/collections/latest-programs/products/wolr007

He discusses worker directed enterprises as the most democratic and progressive way of structuring economic activity. Is this a flavor of communism, or is it not far enough in your True Red eyes?

The talk was very inspiring, I thought.

In deference to what Flaconiano above says, in my Marxist-Leninist view, to put it simply: I have no problem with any worker-directed enterprise done within the current structure, and I wish them well. However, it is NOT the solution, since it still leaves the capitalist class -- more like .01% -- or about 400 families in the US -- in power.

Interestingly enough, I am a Marxist-Leninist, but I hold no prejudices, of building a DOP works, I am for it.

Check out this extract from Dario Azulini's Comunas en Construccion in spanish with english subs

Link to video.

See also if you can find Five Factories which shows worker control of Factories (aluminum, paper, ketchup, textiles (IIRC) and my favorite -- chocolate) and how they are building a dictatorship of the proletariat. Quite cool. No purge trials or firing squads and the communists are part of the coalition.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I disagree. I don't feel like digging up specific sources, but I'm pretty darn sure a big part of why America and even western european countries have such a high standard of living (even today) is because they are exploiting the resources of third world countries (i.e, the average american can afford a gas guzzler truck because the average African can't afford a car period).

The reason our standard of living is so high is directly related to why it's so low in other places if you ask me. Americans whine about bad customer service at walmart (yet shop there every week because it's supposedly 'the only thing they can afford') where as third worlders complain because they want enough food to stay alive and a humane (and I'm using that word in the loosest sense of the term) place to live.

I think you're confused. You were just arguing that outsourcing balances wages and brings us closer to communism.

Further, your post doesn't disprove or even argue against anything I said. Please re-read our conversation before responding.

Cheezy, as a comrade I will tell you my take on this.
I believe most of the current society's shortcomings are due to lack of regulation of resource allocation and ownership.
In most capitalistic nations you can see the extent to which an oligarchy of corporates controls the whole.
If a group or even a single person are allowed to own the media and thus public opinion, have the power to buy politicians and buy their way out of the court, there is little limit to the damage they can do.
And all this just to give the 95% of citizen a hope that through a false meritocracy they will come to be part of the 5% who controls the nation?
I much prefer a nation where everyone must work but nobody has a chance to own enough money to be detrimental to the society.

That's interesting. But I would like for this thread to find its way back to our question and answer format, it's getting too discussion-y and opinion-y.

--------------

Please bring forward questions for Reds!

 

[Ajidica]

I've noticed that ReindeerThistle is quite, errr, vocal in his support of the CCP. Is this a common trend among American commies?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

I've noticed that ReindeerThistle is quite, errr, vocal in his support of the CCP. Is this a common trend among American commies?

No. Not at all.
It is CPC, btw. CCP refers to the Cuban Communist Party -- which I also support -- publicly. It does the movement NO good to air my problems and concerns with other Communist Parties, if for no other reason I have not succeeded in my country.

I will let the other panel members speak for themselves and their views, of course. That is why I title my posts in this thread, so you can see my post from my tendency only.

The Communist, Left, Socialist revolutionary movements have been fraught with divisions from the start, and prejudices and factionalization in all forms, from 1848 on. This is not a bad thing, it is healthy for a movement to have differences of opinion and differences of tactics in pursuit of their strategy. It is particularly helpful when dealing from one nation to another.

China came to its revolution in a way different than Russia. Cuba different from Vietnam. Bolivia and the BRV -- not led by Communist parties, btw -- also came about their changes differently. As I said, I hold no prejudices. If socialism as a transition to communism works -- even if it is not led by a Marxist-Leninist Party -- I will and do support it. It will NOT fail because I did not do what I could in THIS country (USA) to succeed so that theirs could also succeed.

China has been criticized for being "state-run" capitalism, or whatever. I respect what people have to say, like the other Reds, I just disagree. One thing we all have in common: we have not won in our nations, that I can tell. So, imho, I have nothing to say. I don't have a billion-point-three people to feed every day.

I also feel that we have something to learn from every successful revolution, from 1789 on. I trace my revolutionary roots back to Babeuf and the Conspiracy of Equals. I do not believe that we can merely eidetically copy any one revolution and graft it onto your own. There is no PLA in the USA; there are no Marxist-Leninist guerrillas in the Rockies, and we do not have Soviets being built in American cities (actually, we do, strike that last point - that's one of my group's programs).

It is for the above reasons that I do not engage in competitive polemic with the other Reds in the open. No room for that. I wish them all well. We need more workers organization, not less.

That's the word from the old Red.

 

[Masada]

CCP might be in reference to the Chinese Communist Party, RT.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

CCP might be in reference to the Chinese Communist Party, RT.

I know -- and Ajidica is referring to my vocal support of th e Communist Party of China, but in their own English Language literature the Communist Party of China refers to themselves as CPC.
CCP usually denotes the Cubans.
I was clearing it up for the audience, is all.