Ask A Red V: The Five-Year Plan

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Legit Question: Why do communists continue to try for a failed ideology? Communism or at least the closest form of it that we can get in this world ended in complete failure and ceded to capitalism. Even the Chinese turned away and have an Autocratic Capitalistic society. So why do "Communists" continue to try for a failed ideal? I'm not one to say "True" Communism would be bad, it is in fact Utopia but we have seen that humanity can not attain Utopia.

An identical question could have been asked of liberal republicanism between 1815 and 1848, or even as late as 1871.

As Zhou Enlai said, "it is simply to early to tell."

In the mean time, though, I advise stopping trying to lecture people about the "true nature" of something by quoting trite "dontchasee" slogans at people who have both studied the subject and take an active interest in the "feasibility" of the objective.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Is 2014 too early to tell for democracy and republicanism?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Republicanism isn't the issue at hand, nor is democracy, at least in the abstract sense.

What is at stake is liberalism, and its capacity to answer the capitalist problem. I believe contingencies like ecology, biogenetics, and the looming population crisis demand action rather than patience to "wait and see if liberalism can solve it." Far too much is at stake. We know what the problem is, and we know what the solution, what is required of us to avoid or mitigate the effects of these problems and others.

 

[plarq]

"First time as a tragedy, second time as a farce"
— Karl Marx, 18 Brumaire

Does this apply to communists now?

 

[plarq]

An identical question could have been asked of liberal republicanism between 1815 and 1848, or even as late as 1871.

Even after 1871, most of world powers are monarchy, only US and France are republics.

"it is simply to early to tell."

Answer:

Who are our enemies? Who are our friends? This is a question of the first importance for the revolution.

Basically, those who praise contemporary Chinese Communist Party's "advances in socialism" really don't pass the first criteria of revolution by Chairman Mao.

 

[Tahuti]

Even after 1871, most of world powers are monarchy, only US and France are republics.

Interesting to note is that the Third Republic was formed with the possibility in mind of restoring the Bourbon monarchy, though the Bourbon pretender at the time refused the crown because of the Republic's refusal to abolish the tricolour.

 

[aelf]

Legit Question: Why do communists continue to try for a failed ideology? Communism or at least the closest form of it that we can get in this world ended in complete failure and ceded to capitalism. Even the Chinese turned away and have an Autocratic Capitalistic society. So why do "Communists" continue to try for a failed ideal? I'm not one to say "True" Communism would be bad, it is in fact Utopia but we have seen that humanity can not attain Utopia.

Try reading at least 1 previous page in this thread?

Anyway, I have an answer for you that I think you (or your fellow neoliberals, more like - I'm not sure about you) can understand.

I'm working in the management field and there's this somewhat new and radical idea in management speak: Double-hatting. The idea overturns somewhat the conventional capitalist wisdom of specialisation (hence the necessity of the capitalist) and actually calls for a more 'agile' and flexible system where one person can have multiple roles. It's especially lauded for small and innovative companies, the ideological darlings of modern capitalism. One great example that was discussed recently in the office is about how the top executives in a relatively small but successful firm do actually sell their products as well, and they can 'cross-sell' each other's respective areas without worrying about encroaching on each other's turfs. You know why? Because they all owned stock in the company, their incentive is to make sure the company does well, and if that required all hands on deck and no feudal division of property, then so be it.

Socialism/communism is such an arrangement writ large for the whole society. Ambitious? I thought capitalists love ambition; it's just a different kind of ambition.

 

[Hygro]

Damn that was smooth. A bit of an extrapolation there, but still pretty smooth.

 

[aelf]

Thank you. I'm open to discussing where I'm extrapolating!

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Aelf, come to America and join our revolution. Awesome.

 

[GenMarshall]

First of all, thanks for answering my questions . Second, what are the differences in the schools and flavors of Communism such as Marxist-Leninism, Maoism, and....the-one-North-Korea-has (sorry if I've forgotten another )

 

[Lohrenswald]

"First time as a tragedy, second time as a farce"
— Karl Marx, 18 Brumaire

Does this apply to communists now?

It would if they tried to "replicate" previous revolutions rather than adapting to current conditions.

 

[madviking]

Has anyone read anything by David F. Noble, particularly his Forces of Production? I was doing some research for my thesis and I found his book to be fascinating, in terms of technological Marxism. It traces the history of technological development (in particular an early form of automation: numerical control [NC]) via the overarching idea that the development of automation involves high levels of intellectual arrogance and bureaucratic imperialism; that developers of NC hoped to deskill workers. It examined the managerial drive toward control; technological development as a weapon of management in the deskilling and regimentation of work as essential components instead of a whole, which sounds awfully Marxist, which is why I'm asking y'all.

Additionally, if y'all have any other sources regarding the social implication of automation I would greatly appreciate any help. Thanks.

 

[Traitorfish]

I haven't encountered Noble, but it sounds like he's building on the work of the Labour process school, a group of American Marxists from the 1970s, particularly Harry Braverman's Labor & Monopoly Capitalism.

By way of other sources, you might want to look into some of the work of the Italian workerists/autonomists from Italy- there's a lot of stuff on libcom.org. I don't know how far it'll be useful, because most of it was published in various radical journals, so it's not necessarily going to meet scholarly standards, but there's a few studies of the attitudes of workers in the big Turinese auto factories that might be of interest.

 

[madviking]

I was reading some reviews of the book and one of them mentioned Noble's book in relation to that Breverman book. I'll have to go check him out. Thanks.

 

[Gary Childress]

From reading some of the posts here in CFC lately regarding the "left" I really get the impression that there is a great deal of concern on the behalf of at least some of those opposed to it that at the heart of Marxism and other similar movements is a resentment of those who have "profited" off the "status quo" (for lack of a better way to put it) and that the motivation for revenge is somehow the "essence" of many movements which concern themselves with grass roots democracy and social justice.

I have to admit that I'm a bit squeamish myself and not much of a fan of social upheaval and suffering that can result from it, however, I do think that there are many things that need to change in many societies.

My questions to the various "panelists" here are, what are your thoughts on such concerns? Are such fears of persecution at the hands of the "masses" justified or not justified? And if they are justified, then what is the solution to such a problem? Should we all press forward toward a "better" future regardless of how many "eggs" get broken in the process to make it? Is there a way to make social change less painful and chaotic?

 

[brennan]

People whose greed, abuse and impoverishment of others makes them worried that they'll be the next in the queue for the guillotine should listen to criticism of their actions and mend their ways, not plead victimisation.

 

[Gary Childress]

People whose greed, abuse and impoverishment of others makes them worried that they'll be the next in the queue for the guillotine should listen to criticism of their actions and mend their ways, not plead victimisation.

I definitely hear what you say. But what about those who really haven't done much of anything other than, say, be successful in the stock market? For example, suppose someone does very well in investments. They didn't knowingly go out and screw the workers. All they did, suppose, is just invest their money wisely. CEOs, chairpersons of investment and people like that maybe move their companies overseas and maybe disrupt local economies but perhaps they do so to attract investors in order to preserve the success of the company against their rivals. Maybe the choice is either leave and disrupt the local economy or shut down and disband the corporation. In effect maybe what we have is not people knowingly doing "evil" but rather a system which practically demands it sometimes. I don't know.

I suppose there are some people out there who knowingly do terrible things in the name of profit but isn't it more likely that most simply "play the game" as it is supposed to be played? I mean what is the solution to such a problem? Won't some people always do evil no matter what form society takes? Won't some people always be oppressed no matter whether a society is "capitalist", "communist" or "socialist"?

The only alternative seems to me is to turn to "anarchism". But is "anarchism" sustainable? For example, I saw an article a while back on how the "anarchists" in Catalonia, during the Spanish Civil War apparently couldn't meet the needs of war time production to stop Franco's army. And even to stop Hitler it was necessary for every nation fighting him to resort to totalitarian measures on the home front to meet the requirements of "total war".

Of course it would have been nice had Franco or Hitler never existed but the reality seems to be that there will be evil in the world and evil will destroy even the best laid plans of those who want peace and prosperity for all.

[NOTE: To make it easier, I've highlighted the direct questions in my text above so it is easier to address them.]

 

[brennan]

Anarchy is not the only alternative. As I repeatedly point out, we've just lived through a roughly 70 year golden age, the key feature of which has been widespread socialist policies in all major economies. The redistribution from which, universal healthcare and education, has been the underpinning of historically unprecedented economic growth. The capitalists have been waging a rhetorical war on socialism, using the cold war as a convenient proxy for their empty claims that socialism is bankrupt. But there will be a reverse - wealth inequality is going back up and things will end in tears for the capitalists unless they learn the lessons of history.

 

[Tahuti]

Anarchy is not the only alternative. As I repeatedly point out, we've just lived through a roughly 70 year golden age, the key feature of which has been widespread socialist policies in all major economies. The redistribution from which, universal healthcare and education, has been the underpinning of historically unprecedented economic growth. The capitalists have been waging a rhetorical war on socialism, using the cold war as a convenient proxy for their empty claims that socialism is bankrupt. But there will be a reverse - wealth inequality is going back up and things will end in tears for the capitalists unless they learn the lessons of history.

The sobering of government programmes had nothing to do with the Cold War - though it happened in the same timeframe. Rather, government intervention was blamed for exarcebating the economic downturn in the 1970s. Nor is capitalism the same as unfettered free markets, as the 1945-1970 government policies were arguably capitalist as well, just in another way.