Ask A Red: The IVth International

[ReindeerThistle]

Where do you think a communist theory of justice differs from a liberal egalitarian theory of justice? Concurrently, and this is a very closely related question, why do you think the communist theory is right?

It depends on what you mean by a "liberal egalitarian theory of justice." In the United States of America, it is a commonly held belief that the law applies to all people, citizens or not, and that all are equal under the law -- however in practice that differs greatly, because while it is just as illegal for Bill Gates to sleep under a bridge as it is homeless worker, Bill Gates is less likely to be found sleeping under a bridge. At the same time, the notion that the only difference between guilt or innocence for a defendant is how much they can pay for representation gets a lot of play, too, and if we only had more lawyers working for the poor, there would be less poor criminals. These are wrong, unfortunately.

I am not a lawyer, but I have met with many of them and I have worked with communist lawyers, and I have concluded that systemically, the system of law we have in the United States is NOT a justice system at all. If you are poor, you are bound to get in trouble with the law, if not for outright stealing to feed your family, then for "child endangerment" when you cannot pay your rising heat bill and your children get sick and the school nurse reports you to the government.

Likewise, there are no millionaires on death row int he US and there are no poor US Senators.

The problem is manifold, but it stems from the class-based system of justice -- and in part the use of mandatory minimum sentences to feed a growing prison work force. Where in the US, the CEO of Union Carbide faced no criminal charges for his company's actions that killed thousands of Indians in Bhopal in the 1980s, but in China, the head of a company who knowingly tainted milk with melamine got the death sentence for killing a handful with the tainted product.

Some crimes are universal and should be punished: murder, rape, assault and battery.

In a "communist" system of justice, the goal would be to reduce the incentive for crime by lifting people out of poverty, and by not encouraging corporate graft and theft via a government that favors the working class over the "owning class," If people still commit crimes, the goal then is to reduce the repetition of the criminal offender -- and that takes a community approach and an emphasis on education versus punishment.

See this article on how the Cuban criminal justice system works -- and note that women are treated differently as they are exempted from the death penalty.

This is why I think the communist approach to justice is right.
Thanks for the query.
EDIT: I hadn't read Traitorfish's post before writing this, I hope I am not redundant.

Which brings us to a related question, which I wanted to ask Cheezy in the other thread when he implied the purges were needed:

Lets say, for the sake of the argument, that the purges were in fact necessary (I don't believe that for a second and don't see how anyone can believe in such utter nonsense in good faith, but lets leave that aside for a moment). Why kill the purged ones? If they were not really committed communists, if they had some "dangerous counter-revolutionary" ideas, why not simply expel them from the party, the army or whatever, and let them carry on with their lives? What can possibly justify executing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people to supposedly "save" the nation? Why make up bogus charges of spying, of Trostkyist-fascist links, and things like that which continue to taint the image of communists so many decades afterwards, and rightly ruined the reputation of Western Stalin admirers?

If I may offer critical comment, this sort of attitude ("the purges were necessary") is exactly what makes communists so abhorrent at the eyes of the vast majority of people. You folks come out as sinister and fanatic, and most people don't like that at all. Live and let live.

FYI: I am ignoring the criticial comment, because communists are not "abhorrent in the eyes of the vast majority of people" as you say. But I will answer the queries, since I am the one most vehemently defending Stalin, and I opened up a can of worms by explaining an interior party concern of a party that is not under my jursidiction.

If they were not really committed communists, if they had some "dangerous counter-revolutionary" ideas, why not simply expel them from the party, the army or whatever, and let them carry on with their lives? What can possibly justify executing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people to supposedly "save" the nation?

It was not a question of their commitment. They were, in fact, committed communists. They were in some cases people who were on the front lines of the October Revolution. If you look at my earlier posts (some on the "Ask a Red III" thread) I explained that these were people who were actively organizing against the Party from within the Party and were in violation of the discipline and practices they swore to uphold. The CPSU was a closed, narrow and secret party and this type of party lends itself to sterner membership requirements. What these defendants did was treason, and it was punishable by death -- that was the law. Unfair as it may seem to a non-Communist, to those committed communist in the party, their conviction meant the end of their political life, anyway and for a politician, a professional revolutionary politician, the end of your political life means the end of your life, period. That is why many accepted their sentences.

Expulsion from a closed, narrow and secret party is the harshest sentence that I believe in for a Party member. It is reserved for those who reject the membership requirements -- not for criminals. But I am not a member of a party in power, and any capital jsutice would be vigilante-ism and that is illegal.

Why make up bogus charges of spying, of Trostkyist-fascist links, and things like that which continue to taint the image of communists so many decades afterwards, and rightly ruined the reputation of Western Stalin admirers?

They were not bogus charges, and the link between Trotsky and the fascists is likely true (though tactical on Trotsky's part he meant well), but unfortunately motive was not the basis for a conviction -- evidence was.

I also don't think what Stalin did "tainted" the image of communists so many decades afterwards -- since China remains a socialist nation run by a communist party, as is Viet Nam, DPRK, Cuba, Belarus -- about 1/4 of the world's population and the Vietnamese and Cuban revolutions happened after Kruschev blew the whistle. I have in my library several works of Stalin published in 1973 by the Foreign Languages Press, Beijing. So, maybe the bourgeoisie are shakin' in their boots, but Stalin remains a hero to many.

 

[Masada]

As per your comments concerning the Soviet (economic) system: it collapsed from its own inertia; it already stagnated in the 1960s.

No it had not stagnated by the 1960s, during the 60s was its most comparable time to the West! If there was any time the Soviets could be said to be "winning" the Cold War, it was in the 50s and 60s. As I described, problems really began in the 70s (roughly paralleling the Oil Shock), problems of shortage and economic stagnation which had not existed before then.

The oil crisis actually hid the endemic weakness of the Soviet economy by boosting oil prices. So the glorious leadership leaned back and did nothing. By the 1980s it was too late. You might recall that the USSR turned from a net exporter to a net importer of grain.

I'm confused, can one of the comrades please explain to me JEELEN's positions? Because to a layman, it seems like he's appropriated Cheeezy's point and is now using it against him. And is this normal capitalist behavior?

 

[Traitorfish]

An analogy with Marx's description of capitalism as the dictatorship of dead labour over living labour does suggest itself...

 

[Agent327]

I'm confused, can one of the comrades please explain to me JEELEN's positions?[/URL] Because to a layman, it seems like he's appropriated Cheeezy's point and is now using it against him. And is this normal capitalist behavior?

An inappropriately put question based on incorrect assumption. I'm most interested as to the answer though.

 

[aelf]

Can we just ignore Mouthwash's and JEELEN's posts in these threads? They are obvious recalcitrants who either don't understand or refuse to accept the rules.

Where do you think a communist theory of justice differs from a liberal egalitarian theory of justice? Concurrently, and this is a very closely related question, why do you think the communist theory is right?

*I'm aware that sometimes people like to say the notion of 'justice' is just an ideological veneer imposed by the ruling elite. If you are one of those people, replace 'justice' with the politically overriding normative value of your choice.

I think the communist theory is, if not correct, then more preferable, because if people are people, if they are end and not means, then there's no point at which we can give them so much that they somehow cease to people, and so no point at which we longer have an interest in fulfilling their needs. The liberal position, as I understand it, seems to presume either that there comes a point at which humanity loses its moral consequence, and I don't know how that could be the case, let alone what that point would be.

I think certain kinds of liberal egalitarian theory of justice can suffice as the moral underpinning for Marxist theory, for example one that is very much concerned with the Kantian notion of human beings as kingdoms of ends (which would address Traitorfish's concerns somewhat). To name examples, I think the Rawlsian theory of justice comes close. The main difference is a Marxist is likely to make stronger claims about what is necessary to achieve that notion of egalitarian justice.

 

[Masada]

An inappropriately put question based on incorrect assumption. I'm most interested as to the answer though.

Comrades, this is a question and answer thread, and not a "make statements that make no sense thread" correct?

 

[Agent327]

Can we just ignore Mouthwash's and JEELEN's posts in these threads? They are obvious recalcitrants who either don't understand or refuse to accept the rules.

I've asked (partially unanswered) questions, given constructive criticism, pointed out factual errors. How is that being recalcitrant?

 

[Masada]

Comrades, Is there a history of people acting this stupid in this thread?

 

[Agent327]

EDIT: Nevermind, not worth it.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Which brings us to a related question, which I wanted to ask Cheezy in the other thread when he implied the purges were needed:

Lets say, for the sake of the argument, that the purges were in fact necessary (I don't believe that for a second and don't see how anyone can believe in such utter nonsense in good faith, but lets leave that aside for a moment). Why kill the purged ones?

I don't believe I've voiced approval at their treatment. A purge is the removal from an organization, that's all. There was talk just the other week of a possible GOP purge of Tea Party elements, no one for a second thought Michelle Bachman might be looking at the back of a shed soon.

But I have no problem with the discharge of unwanted elements from an organization, when and if people are found to be mismatched with the goals or values of said organization. Nor do I have a problem with found traitors meeting the fate of traitors. But I have already said that I don't believe the majority of the accusations thrown against people purged in the 1930s, or with the show trials. Some of it was legit (an investigation during Yagoda's purging turned up his massive embezzlement, for example), but even in cases like that, simple purging from an organization should not mean physical punishment for someone, much less for their family.

But I thought I had made all that clear already.

Can we just ignore Mouthwash's and JEELEN's posts in these threads? They are obvious recalcitrants who either don't understand or refuse to accept the rules.

If we all agree, we can quite easily ignore them together.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Nor do I have a problem with found traitors meeting the fate of traitors.

Does this apply to say Julius and Ethel Rosenberg?

 

[Mouthwash]

If we all agree, we can quite easily ignore them together.

It's funny how the issue was totally dropped (at my request) until aelf decided to bring it back up.

 

[lovett]

I think the difference is that liberals tend to understand "justice" in terms of a set of minimum requirements a society must meet to be considered "just", beyond which everyone is left to shamble along as they will, or can. Once the minimum requirements of "justice" are fulfilled, we experience no further obligations to our neighbours beyond leaving them alone. A communist theory of justice, such as it is, is concerned with the fulfilment of human needs for their own sake, and there's not really a point at which you can say "yep, we have fulfilled all the needs", so there's not a point at which your obligations to others are dissolved. If more can be done, more must be done, regardless of what has been done until now.

I think the communist theory is, if not correct, then more preferable, because if people are people, if they are end and not means, then there's no point at which we can give them so much that they somehow cease to people, and so no point at which we longer have an interest in fulfilling their needs. The liberal position, as I understand it, seems to presume either that there comes a point at which humanity loses its moral consequence, and I don't know how that could be the case, let alone what that point would be.

I think certain kinds of liberal egalitarian theory of justice can suffice as the moral underpinning for Marxist theory, for example one that is very much concerned with the Kantian notion of human beings as kingdoms of ends (which would address Traitorfish's concerns somewhat). To name examples, I think the Rawlsian theory of justice comes close. The main difference is a Marxist is likely to make stronger claims about what is necessary to achieve that notion of egalitarian justice.

As Aelf surmises, I am talking about theories of justice along the Rawlsian stripe. To be explicit, Rawls' theory of justice holds that i) Each person is to have the most extensive set of rights compatible with others having set*, and; ii) Resources should be so distributed as to maximally benefit the worst off. This sort of liberal theory doesn't really guarantee only a 'social minimum', at least not in any normatively objectionable sense.

So, if Communism is compatible with this sort of theory (and pipe up if you don't think it is!), what does communism add? That is, why should I be a communist in addition to a liberal egalitarian?

To give you some background, I ask these questions because I am a liberal egalitarian (not precisely of Rawlsian stripe, but near enough in the grande scheme of political theory). I am a liberal egalitarian who has never been particularly interested in communism because, whenever I have read any of the literature, it has always seemed obsolete. Liberal egalitarianism has always seemed a more normatively cohesive and better grounded theory. Perhaps this is because I am inclined to be more concerned about basic normative questions then questions of implementation, and perhaps communism just is a theory about implementation. It could be I'm comparing theories of two different types. In any case, I'm sure you can shed some light with your response.



*Where 'rights' includes things like the bases of self-esteem, and so on.

 

[potatokiosk]

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

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Does this apply to say Julius and Ethel Rosenberg?

Only in the respect that they got caught. Naturally I approve of something if it furthers the cause of communism, and I think passing the secrets of The Bomb to the people most likely to otherwise be the recipient of said Bomb passes moral muster, for anyone but the most crass of capitalist proponents.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think certain kinds of liberal egalitarian theory of justice can suffice as the moral underpinning for Marxist theory, for example one that is very much concerned with the Kantian notion of human beings as kingdoms of ends (which would address Traitorfish's concerns somewhat). To name examples, I think the Rawlsian theory of justice comes close. The main difference is a Marxist is likely to make stronger claims about what is necessary to achieve that notion of egalitarian justice.

That's also quite true, yeah!

As Aelf surmises, I am talking about theories of justice along the Rawlsian stripe. To be explicit, Rawls' theory of justice holds that i) Each person is to have the most extensive set of rights compatible with others having set*, and; ii) Resources should be so distributed as to maximally benefit the worst off. This sort of liberal theory doesn't really guarantee only a 'social minimum', at least not in any normatively objectionable sense.

So, if Communism is compatible with this sort of theory (and pipe up if you don't think it is!), what does communism add? That is, why should I be a communist in addition to a liberal egalitarian?

To give you some background, I ask these questions because I am a liberal egalitarian (not precisely of Rawlsian stripe, but near enough in the grande scheme of political theory). I am a liberal egalitarian who has never been particularly interested in communism because, whenever I have read any of the literature, it has always seemed obsolete. Liberal egalitarianism has always seemed a more normatively cohesive and better grounded theory. Perhaps this is because I am inclined to be more concerned about basic normative questions then questions of implementation, and perhaps communism just is a theory about implementation. It could be I'm comparing theories of two different types. In any case, I'm sure you can shed some light with your response.



*Where 'rights' includes things like the bases of self-esteem, and so on.

If we're assuming a more or less interchangeable theory of justice, then as Aelf said the difference is probably in the implementation. If you think liberalism, or social democracy, or whatever, is capable of producing a just society, then communism is just going to seem like a lot of over-excitedness. If you don't think they're capable of producing just society, then communism might be up your alley.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'm confused, can one of the comrades please explain to me JEELEN's positions? Because to a layman, it seems like he's appropriated Cheeezy's point and is now using it against him. And is this normal capitalist behavior?

Moderator Action: Stop being a jerk.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Can we just ignore Mouthwash's and JEELEN's posts in these threads? They are obvious recalcitrants who either don't understand or refuse to accept the rules.

Moderator Action: You too.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Comrades, Is there a history of people acting this stupid in this thread?

Moderator Action: Probably, and you might be continuing in that tradition.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

If we all agree, we can quite easily ignore them together.

Moderator Action: Not very helpful.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Nor do I have a problem with found traitors meeting the fate of traitors.

Does this apply to say Julius and Ethel Rosenberg?

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.

 

[innonimatu]

As Aelf surmises, I am talking about theories of justice along the Rawlsian stripe. To be explicit, Rawls' theory of justice holds that i) Each person is to have the most extensive set of rights compatible with others having set*, and; ii) Resources should be so distributed as to maximally benefit the worst off. This sort of liberal theory doesn't really guarantee only a 'social minimum', at least not in any normatively objectionable sense.

So, if Communism is compatible with this sort of theory (and pipe up if you don't think it is!), what does communism add? That is, why should I be a communist in addition to a liberal egalitarian?

Because communism includes a practical program to achieve justice?

Rawls didn't change much from traditional liberalism. And of traditional liberalism Anatole France was remarking, in "Le Lys Rouge" back in 1894, that:

"Autre motif d’orgueuil, que d’être citoyen! Cela consiste pour les pauvres à soutenir et à conserver les riches dans leur puissance et leur oisivité. Ils y doivent travailler devant la majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain."

"[Is there] Another reason for pride than being a citizen! For the poor that consists of supporting and sustaining the rich in their power and idleness. They must labour under the majestic equality of the laws, which forbid rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread.

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.

Unrelated to this, but somewhat related to all the arguments about Stalin's actions, another quote attributed to Anatole France (this one I know not the real original) could well serve as food for thought, for all sides involved.

It is the certainty that they possess the truth that makes men cruel.

 

[Takhisis]

Nor do I have a problem with found traitors meeting the fate of traitors.

What is 'the fate of traitors'?

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

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

Naturally I approve of something if it furthers the cause of communism, and I think passing the secrets of The Bomb to the people most likely to otherwise be the recipient of said Bomb passes moral muster, for anyone but the most crass of capitalist proponents.

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