Ask a red

[Atlas14]

Why should people be entitled to welfare or anything else for that matter?

 

[potatokiosk]

The point is though, that I opened a thread in which I made clear that certain reasonable rules are operative. These are rules that are supposed to be for everybody, even the challenged ones. When I see those very same rules being violated, and no measures are being taken, I see little point in continuing except for the fact that there are some good stuff here. But as long as nobody pays attention to him, I can live with that. If not however, this will very soon become an ex-thread...

Please don't close this thread. I've been reading it and I find it very interesting. I'm skeptical of communism because it's so different and to some extent it seems counterintuitive to me, but if it can be implemented successfully in the future then I find it appealing, so I'm willing to listen to what communists have to say.

 

[Whomp]

Moderator Action: Keep this thread clean of trolling. Thank you.

 

[BasketCase]

Thought I'd ease myself into this discussion with a 'soft' target.

Try Mark1031.

Someone is necessary to 'run' any system, whether it be a transnational corporation or a large public sector organisation like the NHS. The difference is public organisations are held democratically accountable

Accountable to whom? Then those people are the ones with the power. It's still a class system, and still vulnerable to the same kinds of abuse. (quick edit: I see this a lot--people keep responding to my challenge by heaping additional layers of government atop whatever layer was previously at the top. This doesn't change the problem, it just moves it up a layer.)

and are run in the interests of the public good.

Whose public good? One of the hallmarks of human history is that people have never been able to agree on this. For example, a bunch of people in the Middle East want to convert you to Islam; they say that is the public good.


Trust me, Alex--I've been through all this before.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Trust me, Alex--I've been through all this before.

Then you won't mind sitting the rest of this thread out.

 

[BasketCase]

Heheheh. Cheezy, perhaps you remember that other Communism thread where Greenpeace and I went at it for a THOUSAND posts??

The only thing that put a stop to it was when the mods closed it.

So you know what kind of stamina I've got. I'm like a marathon runner when it comes to posting.

 

[holy king]

you're killing the thread. this is "ask a read", not "pathetically try to shatter a read's world view with silly arguments".

 

[Yeekim]

BasketCase, I, too, kindly ask that you refrain from turning this one into an argument thread.
Firstly, it would be simple courtesy. It has merit in itself.
Secondly, the people who run this thread are doing a better job of exposing the true nature of communism, than you or me ever could.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Heheheh. Cheezy, perhaps you remember that other Communism thread where Greenpeace and I went at it for a THOUSAND posts??

The only thing that put a stop to it was when the mods closed it.

So you know what kind of stamina I've got. I'm like a marathon runner when it comes to posting.

This is a question and answer thread, not an argument thread. You are threadjacking. Start a new thread. If you wish to learn, then pose a question; if you wish to argue, then up the wrong tree you are barking.

 

[happy_Alex]

This is a question and answer thread, not an argument thread. You are threadjacking. Start a new thread. If you wish to learn, then pose a question; if you wish to argue, then up the wrong tree you are barking.

Actually yes, my bad for responding...

 

[Richard Cribb]

As promised, here is an attempt to catch up. I will try to expand on this later.

Do modern communists discuss the trustworthiness of Marx' negative view on religion?

Yes. But that said, Marx was more nuanced on religion that he is often given credit for.

And, connected to that, are any modern communist theories developing from Marxism distinguishable, (theoretically) more effecient, or different? What are these theories?

And as a side note, no, I don't blame the original communist theory to be the badass of all political movements, actual I consider classical liberalism rather ineffecient as well compared to social liberalism fx. You might understand my question summarized:

Has the communist theory improved to a more effecient theory based on modern economics, or do you stick to Marx' points?

Most of the marxist concepts have been discussed extensively, such as the labour theory of values, the crisis theory and historical determinism. I will see if I can get some links posted for you, since the topic is to extensive to sum up here.

And to develop the idea even more, the third question, or actually a statement: no matter how the tasks are divided between the population - I would say that if one's job is to clean gutters while somebody else can be a doctor or a teacher, then there is, de facto, class difference between them, since one can do a nice, safe, and rewarding job while another... well, you get my idea.
How would you comment?

First of all, my apologies for cropping your post, but since RRR already answered the rest satisfactory, I see no harm in it.
I think I will allow myself to a dd a little general observation. Usually, when somebody states that something will never happen, and that has probably been uttered not a few times concerning political, social and economic changes, it is just s much wishful thinking as anything else. Anyway...
Since class is a description of the individauls realtion to the means of production, this is really not what the matter is about. But of course, different activities might be estimated differently, and there is no reason to deny that some tasks are less rewarding intellectually and physically and less comfortable than others. However, a certain rotation of tasks will be beneficial here.
The problem will also be mitigated by the fact that one might suppose that in the process towards a classless society, people's attitudes will have changed. In other words, it is partly a pedagogical matter.

So I have another question for a Red: "How natural is it for a Red to make jokes based upon nationality?"

It comes quite natural, and as far as I can see it doesn't have anything with political affiliation. If that sort of jokes are not malicious, they can be quite funny, and I wouldn't mind for a bit if somebody posted some funny Norwegian ones.
But one need to have a very thin skin indeed to react like this only because I used the probably most famous landmark that indeed have been "sold"(I think Victor Lustig managed to do it three times) to gullible people. I could for instance said the Sigismund column instead, but I doubt that one is so well-known on this board.

What's your favorite color?

The same as Wallenstein's.

What do you think of the Marxist-Leninist theory of imperialism?

It was excellent for its time, but the world has changed since then. At his time threr were quite a few imperialist contenders, today I think we basically can say that there is only one imperialist country to reckon with. For those interested in the topic, Michael Parenti's work is a good introduction to a modern viewpoint.

Quoting from Mark Blaug's Economic Theory in Retrospect( 85 edition pg 259) "By 'imperialism' is meant a foreign policy that seeks political and economic control over backward areas to guarantee the home country an outlet for idle savings and surplus manufactured goods in exchange for strategic raw materials. Marxist theory supposes that a closed capitalist economy must suffer from a chronic insufficiency of effective demand, from a basic imbalance that can only be corrected by the opening of foreign markets. Imperialism, the direct or indirect exploitation of backward areas, is therefore an inherent feature of advanced capitalist economies."

Blaug doesn't find the theory convincing, and he makes good arguments.

Quoting further(pg 263) " The theory is rich in predictions but the real world is rich in refutations of that theory...the war in Vietnam when the USA had in fact few investments in Southeast Asia; the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia for no conceivable economic reason; the prosperity of Sweden and Switzerland, who lack and always have lacked colonies; the increase in the rate of economic growth in Japan, Germany and the Netherlands after they were deprived of their colonies; and so forth. "

I don't know much about Blaut, but I don't find this quote very convincing. For instance, Sweden does inded have a history of agressively military expansion based partly on economical motives (Dominis Mare Baltici, anyone?). "The Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia" was carried out by non-capitailst countries against a non-colony and seems to be just a tendentious example based on the writer's political sympathies. And while former colonies were granted a formal independence, doesn't mean that they were not and are not still exploited. I don't find the term neo-imperialism to be without merit.

What is defined as a modern socialist country?

It is still, as some pages ago a country where the means of production is publically owned.

Is any of Europe socialist?

No.

What country would you say is the closest example to socialism we have today?

Difficult to say. Cuba might qualify as a deformed socialist state. Norway is probably the capitalist country with most socialist traits. The development in Venezuela is interesting, but I think it is too early to pass a verdict on the politics of Chavez yet.

As a communist, do you have a favorite piece of propaganda?

I suppose you mean socialist propaganda? If not, most of the mainstream media is quite funny for the thinking and quite tragic for the feeling human being.
But let's stick to socialism then;
I am quite fond of the collages of John Heartfield:http://www.geh.org/ne/mismi2/heartfield_sld00001.html
And the finest national hymn I ever heard:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaIjxpDFDVM
And the Einheitsfrontlied by Brecht and Eisler: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akvKwWAkf58&feature=related

Interesting, thanks for the reply.

In my mind, the best system would be one where the government guarantees everyone a quality equation if they are intellectually capable of achieving it, so that while some people might still have some arbitrary economic advantages in life, there would essentially be a "level playing field" once people struck out on their own. Would this still be a capitalist system?

As long as you will have a capitalist class, it would be a capitalist system. Capitalism and socialism is basically about production relations.

Do you consider popular appropriation of the means of production to be possible while still retaining private property? I had a talk with Pasi about this on #fiftychat the other night, and he was basically saying that so long as the means of production are in control of the people, that things like private property can still exist, or even small businesses or private farms, since the worker still technically owns the productive means. What do you think of that? I know you're more of a communist than a socialist, and so you tend more towards total collectivization, but is this something you're against, or something you just think we can do better than?

I think I might agree with him, and it might very well be that the agricultural sector in a socialist country could be partly based on self-owning farming unit. What could be the problem is whether this is effiecient or effective, large units of production might have certain advantages. So, as is with quite a few things this is situational. We should never be blinded by iedolgy; remember that the only virtue a communist has is that he struggles for communism.
So to answer your last question, I am not totally against it, but I am not sure if it is the best way to do things. I tend to think not in most cases.

Why should people be entitled to welfare or anything else for that matter?

Because society decide that they are. Rights are always social constructs.

Please don't close this thread. I've been reading it and I find it very interesting. I'm skeptical of communism because it's so different and to some extent it seems counterintuitive to me, but if it can be implemented successfully in the future then I find it appealing, so I'm willing to listen to what communists have to say.

As it seems that the problem recently encountered is contained, it will remain open for the unforeseenable future.
And I will return to FredLC later...

 

[BasketCase]

This is a question and answer thread, not an argument thread.

Yup. And I posted the answers.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Do you think that socialism produces better health care standards?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Yup. And I posted the answers.

I consider it highly unlikely that luce granted you permission to answer questions in this thread.

 

[BasketCase]

No, he definitely did not.

But I answered them anyway.

 

[innonimatu]

Damn it, didn't people agree to certain rules for this thread? I've been abstaining from also complaining so as to not create even more noise, but 11 out of 12 posts Whomp's warning were noise, caused by a single poster.

Will no one rid us of this meddlesome poster?

 

[Fifty]

God you guys have no idea to deal with trolls. As a well-decorated troll, let me explain it to you:

IGNORE THEM. Don't even reply to inform them that you are ignoring them. Don't even acknowledge their existence. Don't make a side reference to how you are ignoring them, don't respond to them just to tell them to go away, don't do anything. Imagine how you would act in the thread if they simply had not posted in there at all, and post like that.

Don't even respond to this post saying that you agree, or thats what you've been trying to say, or anything else. JUST STOP TALKING ABOUT THEM, TO THEM, OR INTERACTING WITH THEM DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER.

Not too difficult, people.

If anybody has any problems figuring out how to deal with trolls, please PM me, and I'll explain it to you, but do not pollute this thread further please.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Do you think that socialism produces better health care standards?

Yes I do. (10X)

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

I haven't decided yet.
The reason for me not posting here for the last few days is a personal and damned good one, and I was intending to pick up the loose ends here tomorrow.
However, when I see the very same troll whom I reported earlier popping up again in post # 153, I realize that he is obviously one of the pets of the moderators and considering that nothing save me haunting him down and breaking a few of the bones in his body will stop him from pestering this thread at leisure, I start to consider if I don't have better things to do some better place.

Is it possible just to ignore him? I, among others, would appreciate more of your time.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Yes I do. (10X)

Explainify!