Ask A Red V: The Five-Year Plan

[Cheezy the Wiz]

But what is the mechanism used to determine who needs it most? Aren't you de facto admitting that we are not in a post scarcity society if you have to compare who needs something most?

Yes, hence why that statement is in response to the part of your post dealing with a society of scarce products.

I should emphasize, though, that this does not mean that we do not have scarce resources. We do, and very much so. But we readily produce far more than we actually need. There is clearly enough for everyone; that everyone does not have what they need is a consequence of the artificial scarcity generated by private capital in order to extract maximum profits.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

What portion of overall costs do wages constitute in your average "Western" company, anyway?

Actually, it varies from less than 5% of the output dollar for farm worker wages to 14% or so for union-scale jobs.

HOWEVER.... Regardless of whatever percentage workers receive now, it has steadily been on the decline and no "wage" gives workers control over their living and working conditions -- and that is the question Marxists bring to the fore: ownership of the means of production.

What do you think of FARC?

They, like most ERPI-type movements mislocate the enemy. The first goal of the revolution is seizure of state power, not isolation of potential allies. I wish them a better perspective in the future than in the past.

I don't believe all the press about "drug-running," rather the US hss used the "War on Drugs" as a pretext to wage a proxy war agains communism.

I recommend watchingPlan Colombia, a film that lays out the US agenda quite clearly.


Link to video.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

An article to ponder this morning. Let's talk about art for a little bit. What are our thoughts on art? Should there be an art policy? What about constructivism vs. socialist realism?

http://rosswolfe.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/not-art-but-communism/

Not art but communism

.
Early in 1921 the Soviet Commissar of Enlightenment Anatolii Lunacharskii nominated the young avant-garde artist El Lissitzky to serve as the USSR’s cultural ambassador to the West. At the time, the civil war in Russia was still waging, but the end was in sight. Narkompros, the People’s Commissariat of Enlightenment, was ordered by Lenin to prepare to make cultural inroads in Western Europe, where revolution had stalled out but might yet be reignited. When David Shterenberg, the director of IZO (Narkompros’ Fine Arts Department), accused Lissitzky of cynically using the funded trip to Germany and the Netherlands as simply a way to promote UNOVIS, the artistic group to which he belonged at the time, the artist immediately shot back:

We are taking not art but communism to the West.

Despite the reservations expressed by art historians such as Victor Margolin, Margaret Tupitsyn, and Henk Puts about the political intent of Lissitzky’s mission, the late Detlef Mertins uncovered evidence a couple years ago that this indeed was the case. On the surface of things, of course, this statement by Lissitzky seems startlingly naïve. How could revolutionary form automatically convey revolutionary content?



Could an abstract shape (think of Beat the White Circle with the Red Wedge) really communicate a communist message? Fredric Jameson once remarked, in his 1992 lectures on The Seeds of Time, that “t was one of the signal errors of the artistic activism of the 1960s to suppose that there existed, in advance, forms that were in and of themselves endowed with a political, and even revolutionary, potential by virtue of their own intrinsic properties.” The same charge might be made against the 1920s, of course, leveled against the artistic and cultural avant-garde of that era. I should like to propose another option.

Perhaps it was not just delusional exuberance or an overactive imagination that led them to make such rash claims for themselves, but rather in that moment revolutionary form and revolutionary content appeared to have merged. Or at least, things seemed to be approaching this point. Lissitzky and Ehrenberg, in their otherwise apolitical article appended below, on the end of the Western naval blockade against the fledgling Soviet Union, said as much when they wrote that “we are unable to imagine any creation of new forms in art that is not linked to the transformation of social forms.” The two appeared indissolubly interconnected. Afterward, of course, revolutionary forms of art would be banished from most of Western Europe by fascism and from the Soviet Union by Stalinism. It flew across the ocean to Chicago and New York, where the United States was rapidly in the process of becoming a global superpower. Nevertheless, nothing like the revolutionary social content prevailed in the US, and in the USSR, where this revolutionary social content was still present, revolutionary forms of art were absent. The two had become decoupled.

I’d like to thank Aleksandr Strugach for bringing these fabulous images to my attention, and the Petersburg architecture blogger and historian Sergei Babushkin for posting them. You can access his blog by clicking here, and I hope you’ll forgive this brief meditation on my part. Check out posts on PROUN and Lissitzky’s design for a yacht club also. Enjoy!

Follow the link for more articles as well as picture galleries.

 

[plarq]

Hi all, the Economist published an article of "Merry Mao-mas!".

The new Chinese authority looks for legitimacy in Mao's legacy. What is the status of Mao in the world revolutionaries?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Hi all, the Economist published an article of "Merry Mao-mas!".

The new Chinese authority looks for legitimacy in Mao's legacy. What is the status of Mao in the world revolutionaries?

Speaking as the resident Marxist-Leninist, Mao's accomplishments in China have far more impact than his theoretical writings.

I read and practice only 3 of Mao's writings;

1. On Subjectivism
2. Combat Liberalism
3. On Practice.

The first is because it is short and to the point: use objective criteria and don't be ruled by how you feel.

The second is an excellent and short treatise on how to improve in your own work by not being afraid to receive criticism, to criticize, to recognize your own shortcomings and strive to overcome them.

The third is a brilliantly simple explanation of Hegelian dialectics.

I also like "How to be A Good Communist" by Liu Shaoqi, which is repetitive but serves as the Marxist-Leninist version of a political "Boy Scout" manual.

Tendency over time since WWII has been favoring socialism and has been unfavorable to capitalism. Capitalism has found itself in crisis after crisis while socialist nations-- regardless of their ideological differences, have been improving their economies, educating their people and providing health care.

That's how I see it.

 

[Borachio]

Wouldn't you say that "socialist" nations have been improving their economies largely by adopting capitalist practices?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Hi all, the Economist published an article of "Merry Mao-mas!".

The new Chinese authority looks for legitimacy in Mao's legacy. What is the status of Mao in the world revolutionaries?

Mao's legacy, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, and Mao Zedong Thought are three different things. Mao is largely seen as a great leader whose colossal persona was able to squash all criticism of him in later years. MLM and MZT are equally capable of producing, depending on who is speaking, erudite and piercing critiques, or laughably myopic and rather insultingly arrogant platitudes. Mao Zedong Thought is Mao's writings, which were intended not to break with Marxism-Leninism, but solidify a so-called anti-revisionist stance within the movement. MLM is the evolution of thought since Mao which incorporates him and supposedly moves beyond his limitations. I'm not a Maoist, because Mao's thought was not directed toward my society, and I think Maoists (people who seek a Maoist solution) in the First World are delusional. But I don't think the Naxalites, for example, deserve to be lectured by someone from an industrial, imperial country on how to raise revolution against their oppressors. If I had any criticism of Maoism, it would be that it's only ever worked once, and every time since, it's just floundered into another endless struggle which accomplishes nothing. That makes me worry about the ideology which upholds the Mao-era CCP path as an example (which if anyone is guilty of it is MLM). It may be that they are enshrining a historically specific event which cannot and should not be recreated elsewhere. Personally, I don't place much stock in it at any rate, since Mao didn't really base his writings or his actions on Marxism, of which he had only cursory knowledge, and I'm not convinced that it embodies a Marxist, well, anything.

 

[H4run]

This thread have a very nice and understandable commentary on communism, just count me just as a passive observer and appreciator.

But regarding this statement I have one question:

Remember that socialism/communism are directly antithetical to capitalism, and their very existence is a challenge to the capitalist-structured society.

in my understanding (that can be wrong) communism is not an anti-thesis or a counter of capitalism, IIRC Marx said that Capitalism is a phase that required to attain communism. Without capitalism there will be no communism, and again communism not appear as a counter capitalism but as a phase to communism (as a natural reaction of it). Is this statement true according to you?

Even this only look like just a mere abstraction but I thought it effected us to see the relation between capitalism and communism, that further the understanding effected the reaction toward it.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

I'll give Cheezy the first shot at answering this. But I will have things to say later.

 

[classical_hero]

How do you feel about the "Black Book of Communism"?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

I have never read it... dled just now... may have a look.

However pious the critics may be in their denunciation of Communism, Communists I know and work with hold no utopian ideals about class struggle. We view outside criticism with suspicion, inside criticism with constructiveness.

I always point to the work I do with low-paid workers and why... because the bourgeoisie commit plenty of atrocities.

 

[H4run]

I'll give Cheezy the first shot at answering this. But I will have things to say later.

Your opinion will be most welcome I'll be waiting for that.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

in my understanding (that can be wrong) communism is not an anti-thesis or a counter of capitalism, IIRC Marx said that Capitalism is a phase that required to attain communism. Without capitalism there will be no communism, and again communism not appear as a counter capitalism but as a phase to communism (as a natural reaction of it). Is this statement true according to you?

We are saying the same thing. The terminology I uses betrays Marx's Hegelian heritage. Anti-thesis is that which follows the inceptive thesis, and which most directly contradicts it. Socialism is capitalism's antithesis, and will arise, as you said, from capitalism, as a most stark reaction to the principles of capitalism: private property, unequal exchanges of commodities, and the rule of the bourgeois class.

Yes, you are correct that socialism is the phase between capitalism and communism, which replaces one with the other. But that doesn't mean it won't be antithetical. Socialism, as the destroyer of capitalism, must necessarily be founded upon its opposite. Do people not react against something they dislike, and replace it with its opposite?

However, you are mistaken that communism requires capitalism first. It is merely that the dialectical path of societies from capitalism will necessarily lead to communism. It's not that communism couldn't have happened pre-capitalism, but rather that capitalism will cause it to follow.

Even this only look like just a mere abstraction but I thought it effected us to see the relation between capitalism and communism, that further the understanding effected the reaction toward it.

I hope I have done so.

How do you feel about the "Black Book of Communism"?

Hackery, quackery, and gum-smackery.

 

[aelf]

Wouldn't you say that "socialist" nations have been improving their economies largely by adopting capitalist practices?

The question is for how long? Did Thatcher improve the British economy by adopting capitalist practices? It's a contentious question, but some would vehemently argue so. Well, how has her legacy turned out recently?

Capitalism is good for 'growing' quickly. However, there's little question that it destroys lives sooner or later while serving the needs of an elite few. But not many are willing to look at it critically, preferring instead to look at the ghosts of the Cold War and 20th century upheavals that happened without needing Marxism to cause them.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

This thread have a very nice and understandable commentary on communism, just count me just as a passive observer and appreciator.

But regarding this statement I have one question:



in my understanding (that can be wrong) communism is not an anti-thesis or a counter of capitalism, IIRC Marx said that Capitalism is a phase that required to attain communism. Without capitalism there will be no communism, and again communism not appear as a counter capitalism but as a phase to communism (as a natural reaction of it). Is this statement true according to you?

Your opinion will be most welcome I'll be waiting for that.

As requested:

First of all, what Cheezy said.

Secondly, history itself has no "subject," but there are social forces and leaders of history who are subjects IN history. JV Stalin pointed out (rather succinctly) in his "Strategy and Tactics" lecture that each stage of the Russian revolution had particular main and reserve forces and strategic objectives... which, of course, he is pointing out in hindsight... while it was happening, it was hard to say where it was going to end up.

That said, Vera Zasulich wrote to Engels asking if Russia, with nearly non-existent capitalism, no parliament and a miniscule proletariat... could have a socialist revolution.

And Engels said "Yes..." It would be like a palace coup... lighting a powder keg where the ignitors would be blown away with the palace and wherafter the revolutionary period of building socialism would and could develop.

Removing the state maintaining the old system is the prerequisite.

I recommend State and Revolution by VI Lenin.

Hope this helps.

 

[Richard Cribb]

My apologies, partly for forgetting this thread, and partly for this rather confused post which just is an attempt to clear up a few things regarding my previous post. I promise to try not to tax your patience here all too often.

Indeed. It is a thread to learn more about communism and socialism from those who are experts on it. The contributors are those who have demonstrated expertise on that subject, who we, the communists, feel accurately enough represent our position on things to be able to voice them on our behalf. Although for all the scoffing you may do that that policy, it was you who introduced it, allowing Fred to post on your behalf once upon a yesteryear.

What scoffing? Do I scoff? I think not. I just pointed out a very simple fact. I was happy to allow Fred to answer, since I know him well enough to have full confidence in him. If I ever kill somebody (which is a possibility I can in no way exclude), I would want to be represented by his equal in court. He is worth a dozen or so of "bright young democratic socialists" as far as I am concerned. In my age you should learn to appreciate drabness, you know.

In my defense I have left many of the names standing who no longer contribute: Bast, Ralph, civver, etc. I have only officially removed people who have direct cause to be removed, i.e. people who actively demonstrated they do not contribute to the goal of this thread.

Fine. That is no concern of mine, anyway, and I have no problems with it.

Also, you may have had a bad past with Azale, but I have seem him grow into a bright young democratic socialist. It was he who introduced me to Jacobin, for example, and he is arguably more directly involved in The Fight in America than I am today, and not merely because of my geographic location.

I really think you should give me a bit more credit than that. Yes, he is a brat, and yes I would be sorry if any of my sons grew up to be like him, but this is not personal. He will learn soon enough in real life the consequences of such behaviour.
However, I have yet to see him provide anything valuable, here or elsewhere on this forum. So it is quite simple, when he starts to be constructive, I will withdraw my objections entirely.

But then the only people who really answer questions these days are RT and myself, with the occasional appearance from Aelf, Azale, and TF, although he seems to be more concerned with his anarchist thread he opened with more questionable characters. So really the ratio, even being unforgiving, is more like 3:2, which puts the communists in the majority.

I think comrade Hygro is active here,not only being glib as below, but sometimes posting things of value, so to be pedantic it is still 3:3. A good thing that I am not active here, then. Because as you can see, brother Park is in doubt about my communist credentials. So I remember was brother Traitorfish. So the only thing missing is that their comrade-in-arms amadeus will drop by and give his vote, and my fate will be sealed. I am seriously going to lose sleep over this.

I'm afraid I don't understand the question, and that I have never heard of Lakatos. However, I don't think Marxism is a hard science like biology or physics.

This is highly unfortunate, and I must express disappointment in that fact. On this sort of threads there has been some rather irrelevant critique of Marxism, such as that of Popper (quite an important thinker in his own right, but not the greatest authority on Marx, to put it mildly), or that old calculation chestnut of Herr von Mises. I don't see any of these of being much to be concerned over.
However, the critique of Lakatos (a very important philosopher of science) bothers me - a lot. In short; Lakatos, in his philosophy of science, distinguishes between progressive and degenerative research programs. A research program is a program with a core set of hypothesis protected from refutations by a complex exterior shell or auxiliary hypotheses. If such a program can predict novel facts, it is progressive. If, however, it explains facts after they occured, it is degenerative. I recommend reading the following transcript of a lecture held by Lakatos in 1970 as a good introduction:http://www.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/About/lakatos/scienceAndPseudoscienceTranscript.aspx
The problem is, then, that clearly Marxism loses a lot of its lustre if it does not possess the power to predict societal developments, even if it might still be a useful analytical tool. However, it should be a concern for all sympathetic to Marxism to try to restore its status as a progressive research program. As far as I can see, the most important attempts have failed (Lenin and in extention to him Stalin, Trotsky, Althusser, Analytical Marxists in the 70s and 80s). You might of course say that this is also a problem for social sciences in general; but I am not knowledgeable enough in regard to psychology or economics to be able to have a qualified opinion on that.

Of course if you were to return, then you would still very much be the learned gentleman...

That is kind of you, but apart from my musical taste and my gallant ways with the ladies I am in no way a gentleman. Nor particulary learned. Many of you seem to read more in a year than I did in 20. Looking at that reading thread here, some people even seem to be able to read about 5 books simultanously. I am not up to that task, poorly equipped as I am with only one pair of rather weary eyes...

As always, my old friend,

Likewise, young friend wise beyond your years.

 

[gay_Aleks]

While reading this thread I came upon this Wikipedia article . It's quite clear and concise (after all, hanging all kulaks sure does send a message), except for the last part:

"Find some truly hard people"

I don't get it. Maybe it's a mistranslation, but that seemed weird when I saw it, because after all, why would you need "some truly hard people"? Aren't all Communists, by default, ready to kill their mortal enemy, the kulak?

 

[Traitorfish]

No, most communists are not psychopaths.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

While reading this thread I came upon this Wikipedia article . It's quite clear and concise (after all, hanging all kulaks sure does send a message), except for the last part:

"Find some truly hard people"

I don't get it. Maybe it's a mistranslation, but that seemed weird when I saw it, because after all, why would you need "some truly hard people"? Aren't all Communists, by default, ready to kill their mortal enemy, the kulak?

No... Read Bruce Franklin's The Essential Stalin Introduction. And read Anna Louise Strong's The Stalin Era for an on-site, non-infammatory overview on Stalin.


And, now, a word from Fidel, the greatest living example of Marxism-Leninism:

I want to remind you that Cuba is a socialist country, Marxist-Leninist, whose final objective is commumism. We are proud of this! On the basis of that concept of human society, we determine our domestic and foreign policies. We are, above all, loyal to the principles of proletarian internationalism, and my words will be consistent with those ideas. All revolutionaries are duty-bound to defend their views in a valiant fashion, and that is what I propose to do here as briefly as possible...

... To our way of thinking, the world is divided into capitalist and socialist countries, imperialist and neocolonized countries, colonialist and colonialized countries, reactionary and progressive countries -- governments, in a word, that back imperialism, colonialism, neocolonialism and racism, and governments that oppose imperialism, colonialism, neocolonialism and racism...

...The theory of "two imperialisms," one headed by the United States and the other allegedly by the Soviet Union, encouraged by the theoreticians of capitalism, has been echoed at times deliberately and at others through ignorance of history and the realities of the present-day world, by leaders and spokesmen of non-aligned countries. This is fostered, of course, by those who regrettably betray the cause of internationalism from supposedly revolutionary positions.

]
from "Speech by Fidel Castro at the 4th Conference of Non-Aligned Nations, Algiers, September 7, 1973"

That is how I view China-bashing, DPRK-bashing, etc., when it comes from the "left" supposedly "revolutionary" position.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

So, um, kulaks were wealthy peasants who took advantage of the land reform, which was meant to help poorer peasants get some land by dividing up the large estates, in order to grab some more land for themselves. They're not a political class, they were a specific phenomenon related to a particular event in a particular place at a particular time. I suppose it's possible to turn that action into a more generalized form, by identifying people who are better off than some others, but nonetheless take advantage of programs or actions designed to help the worse off, but that doesn't make them a class, it makes them a social category delineated by having performed a specific action. They're not anyone's "mortal enemy."