Ask a red

[Defiant47]

Why do Communist States apprehend dissidents?

Communist states do not have a viewpoint on that, just like capitalist states don't.

It's the authoritarian states that are responsible for such apprehensions.

 

[greenpeace]

Arising from Greenpeace's answers and Luceafarul's combined:
Greenpeace doesn't see the need to ensure that some people specialise in certain jobs, and Luceafarul thinks that universal healthcare is an intrinsic feature of socialist states.
So is it also a feature of communist states?
How will you have universal healthcare if you don't have doctors and nurses?

Well, please cirrect me if I am wrong Luceafarful, but Luceafarul seems to believe in worker's control over each other, whereas I believe in each individual worker's self-control over themselves. You could say worker's have classless control in both cases, but they lead to different results and conclusions. I am sure that a state like mine would probably have some medical knowledge considering it would be a rather scary thought to live without knowing any way to recover from an injury. That said, if people would rather live in complete ignorance of medical treatment than work a little to understand it, than that's what they prefer and this system respects that wish.

Do you believe in redistribution in order to supply everyone with necessities and even luxuries (if any), or should those who do not make what they desire rely on barter?
For example, a doctor would presumably be treating illness, not farming. Would he then get his food via redistribution, or from receiving food from those who were ill, or concerned people?

If somebody is really physically capable of growing food, then they must be provided for according to the law (and if there is a fix to this problem, that fix can be made, of course).

Why does a large black market tend to pop up in such societies and how would you deal with it?

In the society I approve of, I don't see a black market arising because everyone escaped from markets and/or continually wishes to be free from them. If you mean in countries like North Korea, in their case it would be because their management is corrupt and the people are not provided for, and humans have a tendency to not want to starve , and the black market helps them reach that aim.

Do you think socialism will ever stop being a dirty word in the US? at the minute it would be total and utter political suicide for any US politician with an eye on high office to advocate socialism (even is they didnt even mention Marx). what would have to happen before this might change?

I am unsure of how long it will take, probably a very long time. But, if I were trying to convince somebody to come with me to start a commune, I probably would refrain from saying that it is considered a combination of Anarchist and Communist. I can just imagine, "Hey do you like Anarchy and Communism?" . I guess I would get a little more luck where I live, but it is unfortunate that people would not do something because of the connotation of a word that many barely understand the denotation of.

If everyone thought like that through the ages we wouldn't be communicating via the internet today. Cities and civilization wouldn't even come into being as everyone is too laid-back and content in their little mud huts.

I will be gladly giving away the internet and more gladly accept mud huts in the coming years. Keep in mind, however, I have nothing against work per say, if you actually want to build something because you love building it, then that is completely fine. In fact, with much less emphasis on luxury goods, and science being a very interesting field for many, I see it relatively flourishing along with artistic expression (the major drawback being having to produce the resources necessary for these things, without practically forcing people to).

Hammer & Sickle Hero is what we play. You start off harvesting wheat in Ukraine by hand, trying to keep pace with a peasant from the steppes, and work your way all the way up to being a proleterian with a square jaw, handsome but bland good looks and a gaze at some far off point in a supposedly bright future forging steel in a massive metalworks in Magnetogorsk.

What limits should be placed on private ownership (I'm not a red, just curious what your philosophy is)?

Don't worry we aren't secret agents for the super secret McCIArthy.
The major limit is the use of private ownership as incentives, and the fair sharing of land and other natural resources.

 

[scy12]

Well , luceafarul as always an answer to a question can only breed more questions. It is unavoidable.

True communism is a political ideology that strive for a society without a state and classes, thereby also without private property.
A communist society is one as described above.

You have not mentioned any methods so i guess that supporting capitalism and wishing that once in the future there is no need for Private property because Capitalism is just the best system for the advancement of society would make you a communist then ?

I never thought of my self as a communist , actually.

What you describe here are tenets of a socialist society. As mentioned above, there is no state in a communist society.

Ofcourse there is. There is a state in all societies today. If your philosophy has any suggestions about what will happen now, until we reach "true communism" , you have not answered my question.

How should a State that will help transform it self and the world into a "communist society" be ?

Should there be a private sector or not ? Should there be a plurality of media sources or not ? How would the Media be.

 

[greenpeace]

One of my main critiques of communism is that, absent a price / value mechanism, choices involving externalities or macro-policy tend to be sub-optimal.

In that, firstly, via mathematics we know that for economic choices (non-dependent of theory), the sum of the parts does not equal the sum of the whole (this is a flaw within macro-planning. Thus, some outcomes will be non-optimal for some actors.

Well since there the planning is still done largely by the consumer and not an independent body (like a state bureaucracy), that type of problem should not theoretically arise to be much of an issue.

Secondly, throughout history we have seen examples of communal living, communist society, appear to be stable when in small, isolated, confines. As the society grows larger, the strong social bonds tend to weaken, and economic problems such as the commons or like free-ridership tend to render such communities asunder (There's plenty of examples of hippie communes here in the USA, and of the small Christian sects from 100-600AD).

Given those issues, isn't the kind of "man", or actor, need to be in some way fundamentally different at the need/want core than currently is today?

I have the feeling I might be misunderstanding your question. Am I right in concluding that you are basically saying as society grows larger, decentralization causes problems mainly in that people do not follow the law as much? If so, I don't see why it can not fragment into more manageable sized sects. For example, I would definitely think it irrational to have ten thousand people show every time the authority is required, and that it should naturally split up into smaller communities, unless the people are very irrational . Also, given that communities are very little like city-states and very much more like juries, I don't see inter-community problems becoming much of an issue.

Given what I've described, isn't it fundamentally more likely for communal/communistic governnance/economic union more likely to occur in Eastern cultures than in Western culture?

Well its hard to say what the Eastern/Western culture would do because it is rather diverse. I think the idea is so heavily against the grain, that the majority of the people it will attract are the people that are so sick of the way they are practically forced into so much work, and/or practically forced into certain culturally excepted norms for behavior that they seek a radical change, and that can come from practically anywhere in the world, with varying levels of the want for union. Basically, since they most likely have gone heavily against their cultural beliefs, that the old culture shouldn't be too much of a foreseeable factor (at least theoretically).

Finally, given that we, as a unit, tend to at extremes abuse and use systems to our own selfish ends, how does prevent said abuse from occuring, as most examples that are commonly held to be attempts at communism end in autocratic rule?

It is very hard to take advantage of a people who escaped mainstream society to avoid being taken advantage of. However, as the generation go by, if the people of a commune start to reject the ways of their society, and prefer a society like America, then they have the full legal right to not live in the society I view optimally, and have little need to abuse the system. Even if they did try and do that, it would be very hard to do, since those that do want to stay in the society would not kindly take to incentives. Becoming popular and letting emotions get in the way of rational decision making could let them take advantage of people, but again that involves people changing their views and they are allowed to do as such (although this can be seen as brain-washing which can be considered as mental damage which can be treated accordingly).

Why do aspiring communist people think that they (if they achieved power) will not submit to the
predictable actions of hoarding total power and crushing dissent, like every commie regime of old?

Why do young commies think that Josef Stalin's bestial regime was unique in it's oppression?

...

Oh I severely mistrust authority in the hands of an elite few, I believe the more people involved the better, and I have gone as far to say that every person who can communicate should be allowed to vote. If you are genuinely interested in why many young Communists follow that train of thought, than my answer would be that it is often more being rebellious than because they actually found it to be the sound logical conclusion.

 

[innonimatu]

This question was already "kind of" asked here, but I'd like to put it another way:

As the final goal is to abolish the state, what kind of power relations will replace it? The state is an entity, an organization, but it doesn't have a will. In the end it's just a vehicle for people to exercise power. Nothing showed this as dramatically as when a supposedly totalitarian empire first withdrew and then disbanded itself, within two years - states do get abolished. The big problem is, what else can we replace them with?

I'm all for splitting the state's power into "smaller fragments", allowing people to actually have a say on how their lives are organized - which now they really haven't, "representative democracy" notwithstanding. That's the main reason I oppose (hopelessly, I fear) these "EU constitution" projects leading to the creation of ever "higher", more faraway power centers. But technology seems to be forcing us on that direction: easier movements, easier communications -> larger organizations. Can these changes be used to distribute power more widely, instead of concentrating it?

The historic examples I know better of attempts at anarchism or socialism, those during the spanish civil war and some ideas during my own country's more recent (1974-5) revolution, really leave me with little hope of escaping the weight of large political organizations (which always seem to be divorced from their supposed "base"). Any attempt to organize states in other terms (other than, as modern states go, single party dictatorship or multi-party "democracy") has been quickly suppressed, or even abandoned by its proponents in fear of violent reactions. Sure, most of these attempts were following the collapse of a single-party system, or happening on backwards regions. But can we really hope to see the alternative suggested by Marx, eventually having the political organizations of a multi-party system abolish themselves (or the state, it amounts to the same thing), ever happen?
(and forgive me if I'm taking some liberties in interpreting Marx for the current world situation)

To make my concerns clear I add that I believe political (power relations) change must precede any change in economic relations, and see the issue of property as secondary (it's just one form or power), addressable only after organization issues are sorted out.
I also think that while the means necessary for any change are an important issue, what has undermines communism/anarchism is the lack of a clear final goal first and foremost. It may seem strange, but anarchists may need a clear proposal for a new social organization if they are to attract a meaningful following. With which the common understanding of the term "anarchism" is at odds.

Sorry for the long questions, but I'll add just one more: why was Marx so bent on attacking everyone who did not toe his line, after the 1840s? His attacks on Max Stirner, Proudhon, Bakunin, etc... culminating with the London conference and the Hague congress of the First International? Or, in other words, was he a power-hungry controlling bastard, or was he reacting to a conspiratorial Bakunin?

 

[Defiant47]

Why do aspiring communist people think that they (if they achieved power) will not submit to the
predictable actions of hoarding total power and crushing dissent, like every commie regime of old?

Democracies tend not to fall into authoritarian states.

Why do young commies think that Josef Stalin's bestial regime was unique in it's oppression?

...

It wasn't and won't be unique: authoritarian governments have come, gone, and will probably keep coming. Authoritarianism and democracy are government models. Capitalism and communism are economic models.

Communism is usually the preferred economic model of choice of a dictator, probably to make people feel better and not want to revolt as much.

 

[Perfection]

The state should wither away when it is no more use for it, that is when the material conditions for a communist societies are a reality.

This seems contrary to how society is headed, and in my mind how it should head. It seems there's a historical trend toward larger more integrated organizations. How can large projects like the mass production of complex electronics, or intercontinental transportation systems be developed in the abscence of large entities like corporations and governments?

I have another question. Let's say we have a warm wonderful blanket factory under some hypothetical red state, how is this factory run and do those who run it determine if they are making too many or too few warm wonderful blankets?

 

[JerichoHill]

greenpeace,

I mean no offense, but I dont think you understood at all what I was referring too. I think Luce would.

To reiterate, part one was pointing out a mathematical proof. The second part was dealing with how social bonds deteriorate as a "group" grows, that is standard psychological theory. Neither are contentious.


Greenpeace, as per your system, here is the problem that you're not realizing. when communism works (typically small, isolated, homogenous groups) , it requires full participation of all group members. Once membership becomes voluntary or folks leave voluntary, the social bonds collapse.

Communism, ironically, at least with how human beings are at this moment in time, is an all or nothing proposition.

Oh, and I forgot, the first part, about "planning" Under communism, central planning I assume is a must, at least at the state level as there is no private ownership. Its again, just a math proof

 

[potatokiosk]

How is a stateless society possible? Some problems seem to require some form of authority to deal with them, for example, crime. While nobody would need to steal in a society that provides for their needs, some would still do it out of greed, and there would still be the occasional nutter who kills someone or something, so how could that be dealt with without a central authority?

 

[greenpeace]

To reiterate, part one was pointing out a mathematical proof. The second part was dealing with how social bonds deteriorate as a "group" grows, that is standard psychological theory. Neither are contentious.

In the first part you are said:

One of my main critiques of communism is that, absent a price / value mechanism, choices involving externalities or macro-policy tend to be sub-optimal.

In that, firstly, via mathematics we know that for economic choices (non-dependent of theory), the sum of the parts does not equal the sum of the whole (this is a flaw within macro-planning. Thus, some outcomes will be non-optimal for some actors.

You are saying that if there is no price/value system than there is no way to value a whole product relative to its parts. I am saying their is a price/value system in that people will want to produce something that they want.
In your second statement you said:

Secondly, throughout history we have seen examples of communal living, communist society, appear to be stable when in small, isolated, confines. As the society grows larger, the strong social bonds tend to weaken, and economic problems such as the commons or like free-ridership tend to render such communities asunder (There's plenty of examples of hippie communes here in the USA, and of the small Christian sects from 100-600AD).

Given those issues, isn't the kind of "man", or actor, need to be in some way fundamentally different at the need/want core than currently is today?

So you are saying people will be less close socially as there are more people, right? I am saying you do not have to be close to everybody who follows the society you follow. For example, if I am living on a permaculture farm with a comfortable 100 people close and generally deciding the decision that effect my life with those 100 people, what difference does it make if there are another 1000 people living nearby that I have no social bonds with?

Greenpeace, as per your system, here is the problem that you're not realizing. when communism works (typically small, isolated, homogenous groups) , it requires full participation of all group members. Once membership becomes voluntary or folks leave voluntary, the social bonds collapse.

I do not understand exactly what you mean by "requires the full participation of all group members." Do you mean everybody must be working constantly or it all implodes? Do you mean everybody must be involved in the political process? If I built a permaculture farm and a few huts and enough people came to fill those huts, what would be this "full participation" entail?
In that last sentence, you just basically stated if you do not contact someone then you do not contact them, can you please explain the importance of that?

Communism, ironically, at least with how human beings are at this moment in time, is an all or nothing proposition.

What do you mean an "all or nothing" proposition"?

Oh, and I forgot, the first part, about "planning" Under communism, central planning I assume is a must, at least at the state level as there is no private ownership. Its again, just a math proof

Central planning (by which I assume you mean having a group of people deciding how people work) is a must not, and violates core principles. Central planning would violate the rule of "you have the complete ability to do as you please so long as you don't damage others or inhibit others from their ability to do as they please, providing they do not violate others rights and are aware of all the consequences an action may have that you are aware of."

How is a stateless society possible? Some problems seem to require some form of authority to deal with them, for example, crime. While nobody would need to steal in a society that provides for their needs, some would still do it out of greed, and there would still be the occasional nutter who kills someone or something, so how could that be dealt with without a central authority?

That does not require a hierarchy to deal with, if a people directly democratically (that is not by elected representatives) decided how to deal with said issues, than no power holding class emerges.

 

[Perfection]

Greenpeace, how could one through direct democracy alone manage to coordinate the worldwide supply chains that allow for many of the miracles of modern technologies?

 

[Richard Cribb]

Happy birthday! I hope that there's some suitably celebratory foodstuffs that don't contain gluten.

Thanks, and yes there is.
No beer, though...

May I ask what justification anarcho-syndicalists have for their desire for direct action, rather than changing the system from within, such as by using the workers' voting power to elect suitable candidates?

The problems with changing the system from within is that in a capitalist society, the bourgeoisie will have certain privileges which will make it difficult to achieve some real changes by parlamentaric means. An anarcho-syndicalist would say that if there are a majority who support a societal change, then a sudden revolt is justified.
Personally I see this as a bit situational. I think it is possible to use the legal way, but not always.

And also, I wonder whether 'true communism', in your eyes, includes the notion of property, but does not allow privately owned property, or whether the idea of it being morally permissable to control access to and use of an inanimate object is incompatible with communism.
Feel free to substitute your definition of property, by the way. I made that up on the spot.

I answered that already.
You should be free to keep personal items.

First of all, happy birthday!

Thanks.

I have a couple questions:

My understanding of Communism is that the basic argument in its favor is that it's more "fair" than a capitalist society; that there are no poor people because everyone earns the same wages. Is this true, or is there more to it that I don't understand?

That wouldn't necessarily be the basic argument, even if there is something to it.
A typical argument among orthodox marxists would be that communism is an inevitable part of the historical process. I tend to agree on that.
Also, it is a bit unclear to me whether you mean a socialist or a communist society, since there would be no wages in a communist society. In a socialist society there should and would be a certain wage difference.

If the primary concern of Communism is in fact fairness, wouldn't it make more sense to give people equal opportunities, but not necessarily equal results? I'm not trying to debate this with you, I just want to understand the basic underpinnings of why you believe what you do.

Actually that is what it does. By removing traditional hierarchic structures and inborn privilege, it seems to me that you are creating a better base for this as what is the case with today's society, which certainly does not reward due to effort and ability (just look at the president of the USA for a prime example).

How much of your communism is defined in terms of anti-capitalism? Or, well, how much of it could be defined as the opposite of capitalism?

Some. I regard capitalism as basically unfair, inefficient and irrational.
However, my political convictions is more than a spite reaction, it is also based on what I think is right and good.

Do you allow for no market forces at all? Can someone be "paid" for inventing something useful?

On the first, no.
On the second, while nobody should be paid in a communist society, there might be other ways to reward extraordinary efforts. But that is not up to me, since I am not a part of such a society.

Would you allow for pay scales that reflected the amount of education and effort that went into a job? Say, someone that needs to take an extra 8 years of school gets paid 1.5x the base, someone that has to work longer hours gets paid appropriately? Obviously, no 100x base pay, but some people seem to work a lot harder and should be compensated for their extra effort. I think that failing to do so would raise issues of equality and fairness actually.

As stated already, in a socialst society I think there should be a certain wage difference. I don't think many disagree on that even. It is obvious as as long as traditional structures remain, there must be rewards to people who put in extra efforts, either by working better and longer, or by taking up positions which are either very important or very risky (miners could for instance be an example here.)
However your example is a bit difficult to understand. Any socialist society would provide gifted individuals with free education, as a matter of fact the GDR even gave students salaries. Academical education is also in many cases and in some ways a reward in itself.

Do you have money in this system at all?[/QOUTE]
No.

How do you handle marketing, if at all?

I think that a society which has gotten rid of the capitalis mindset would certainly have got rid of this as well.

Free press?

Yes, in contrast of today's situation.

Can people create non-profit organizations that would compete in the marketplace?

Yes, they can.

Do you support some sort of coummist revolution?

That depends on the situation, I am not an armchair revolutionary and I never owned a T-shirt with Che Guevara.
A revolution is a drastic measure, and should only find place when other attempts to change a system has failed. But sometimes it is necessary.

if no how to do you expect communism to take off after it has failed so many times?

"Communism" or more correctly "socialism" hasn't really failed considering the concrete historical circumstances.
But in an advanced capitalist socity with a limited democracy, one can perhaps change the system from within with legal means. Another way could be through a general strike, for instance.

if yes how do you justify forcing the overwhelming majority of your populace into a government system that they do not support?

I most certainly do not support such a thing.
Socialism should only be implemented if it is the wish of the people.

How would you get people to become highly trained specialists like engineers, doctors, scientists etc etc when they will make the same as someone bagging groceries? Or would you have different pay scales(would this qualify as truly communist?)

Actually I answered on that above, in a socialist society I would accept certain wage differences.
That said, I think there could be other motivations for pursuing an academic or artistic carreer than just wages. or what would you prefer. Honestly?

First, I'd like to point out that I'm not entirely sure this particular format is the most fruitful to a debate, because the theme chosen is too wide and encompassing, and this is worsened by quite a bit of both misunderstanding and bias, regarding the topic, by a significant part of the audience.

I tend to agree, and I am open for suggestions of improvement.

IMHO, a good study begins with a methodological cut, in which the range of the topic is delimited to a manageable size. I fear that you might have taken too large a step at once, but at the same time, I wish you luck – prove me wrong, and do make this fruitful.

Thanks.

After this, to my inquiry, which derives from a previous talk we had on the thread Why is racism associated with Right-Wing Ideology, a conversation that, I feel, never reached proper closure.

In Post 77, I have given my own systematic classification to the terminology of “Right-Wing” and “Left-Wing”, based on the archetype of the political compass, which you later have denounced as narrow, and too formulaic. I actually don't agree much with that criticism, and I think that the classification was very useful as a learning tool to at least finish the many contradicting use of the terms, considering our audience... but it's not to re-evaluate the merit of my graphic that I seek you now.

My interest in this instance is that, in Post 88, as you have delivered your criticism, you have also sent the following excerpt:



This particular bit interests me a lot (for the purposes of a thread such as the present), as it appears to exemplify a major point of contempt between the right-wing ideologues and the left-wing ideologues, and generate a never-ending side debate, about the real world experiences being, or not, examples of “communism” or “socialism”.

But you push this even further, as you deny not only that those were examples of “communism” or “socialism”, but you deny alignement in an even more structural level – you deny even that those events were “left-leaning” (what leads to assume that you think they were right-leaning, or at the very least, neutral). Contrary to what the excerpt states, the reasons for that opinion aren't clear, at least not in that thread.

I think that solving this issue is paramount to any hope of fruition in this topic, otherwise it will, like many others, be drowned by a never-ending debate of definitions, left-leaning trying to separate the purity of their ideals from the practise that they deny should be associated with them, while at the same time the right-leaning will insist endlessly that not only these indeed were true “communist-socialist” developments, but were also the natural (if theoretically unexpected) development of these ideas, and what we should expect from “eventual” future attempts.

Yes, you caught me there. Alas, this is from my period of left-deviation, and I have moderated my position regarding the USSR and the socialist states in the Eastern Bloc. So while your questions are both important and relevant, you must excuse me for not exploring this any further, i moved on from that.

- What are your criterias to identify a given theory or a given practice as “leftist” or “right-winged”?

A leftist practice would, I think, be one which seeks to in at least some way redistribute wealth and power downwards by transcending the current system either violently or gradually. To clarify that, a social-democrat (and by this I mean one in the traditional sense, not a Blairite) belongs to the left, since she/he has as the goal to phase out capitalism. A liberal does not, since she/he only wants to make capitalism more "human" but at the same time wants to preserve it.
A right-winger would be one who basically accepts status quo and seeks to preserve or even increase existing economical and social differences and also the preservation of the basic societal structure.

- What are your criterias to identify a given theory or a given practice as “socialist” or “communist”?

As a theory it has as it goal or vision at least as socialist society, that is one where the means of production are owned by the public. It is fully possible to be a socialist without being a communist.
A practice is more difficult, since socialists and communists may also partake in political actions which not neccesarily has any fundamental societal change as its goal, but is about important decisions within the framework of capitalism (like referendas about the EU, wage conflicts, specific local conflicts etc.).

I expect that proper answer to these will also force the delivering of a watertight definition of “marxism” and of “communism”, and also of “left” and “right” - and at the same token, I ask also for a definition of capitalism. All of these, I think, will help this thread to function.

Marxism would be the political philosophy based on the thinking of Karl Marx, pure and simple.
Communism is a political philosophy which has as its vision and goal a communist society, that is a state- and classless society.I think marxists of all kinds as well as anarchists can be termed as communists.
As for capitalism I would say that it is a social system based on private ownership of the means of production, production of commodities for profits, and the extraction of value from labour.

But there is one last thing. This whole exercise could, perhaps not without reason, be interpreted by the right-leaning part of our audience as giving you control of engagement, allowing you to set only definitions that suit your purpose.

Of course it gives me control.
- This is a thread I opened deliberatedly and consequently I had a purpose with it.
- There already exists a right-wing counterpart to this thread. It is called "Ask an economist".It works pretty much in the same way. It is a good thread.
- As for my purpose, it is just an attempt to clearify certain matters. While there are topics in politics which are debatable, there are also certain things that is not. Whenever I define some term, I seek as far as possible to do so by using one that is generally accepted among people who are knowledgeable about said topic. If not, I will usually bring attention to that fact.

To get this out of the way, I also would like to ask this: once your criterias to what is “left”, “communism” and “socialism” are laid bare, is there any possible way that it can be implemented in the real world, than turn malevolent, and still fall within these classifications? Or, to shorten, is there a dark side to your ideals that can arise? Or will you understand, and interpret, any perversion as de-naturalization and denial of the very concept? Is indeed the arriving of anything communism-like only possible when it's absolutely perfect (the end of history, to keep with marxist jargon)?

In my opinion a socialist system could indeed turn malevolent, and then people would have the right to overturn it if they wish. Also, a communist system will is not the end of history, it will not come by itself and there is always a danger that it could turn malevolent as well. As far as I can see, even if he didn't write much about this, this is also what Marx thought.

While there is more I want to explore later, these are what I primarily want to see answered, so I'll keep a few ammo for when you start shooting back.

Very well. I think I will have to get back to this myself, as I can't give it my full attention with so many others in the cue.

Regards .

Would a communist government be willing to be the first to use nuclear weapons in an international conflict?

Impossible for me to answer. That is up to any society if they want to take such a drastic step or not. It could also be situational. For my own part, I would like to see nuclear weapons abolished entirely.

Do you think the Republican party, so far away from Communsm, should change from red to green, the anti-red?

I thought blue was the anti-red. And no, that is not an important matter, I think most people easily will spot the difference.

Do you think the NDP, the Canadian socialist Party who brought us Socialized Health Care, should switch colours from Orange and Green to Red?

Tht's is entirely up to them.

or does being a red not mean anything, just being a socialist/communist?

it is just a popular term, I think. I had to give the thread some title. Initially I tried the satan icon, but it didn't show up properly.

Are there any examples in the world, of significant size, of relatively mature communism? Have there ever been? Do you see it happening in the near future (not 1000 years from now).

I don't know of any.
I think that while I will not even see a socialist society appear, I think that in say in 100 years from now it will be a distinct possibility.

Do you think that communism/socialism can be implmented within the framework of a western style liberal democracy?

Yes I think so. But there are problems with this. The ruling elites, which will still keep the control of the state, might not give up their privileges deliberatedly. There is also the problem with how other capitalist states will react.
Perhaps the best candidate for a peaceful transition is indeed the one in which you are living.

Why do you support John McCain for President of the United States?

I don't support him, I prefer him. If I had been a citizen of the USA, I would surely have voted for a third candidate.
And just to clarify: I regard Barack Obama as the better person than John McCain in practically any way, both personally and politically.
However, sometimes one needs to be a bit cynical in political matters. While Obama is better, he is in no way good. My fear is that he will become a new Clinton, a staunch supporter of business and empire with a liberal mask whom the European sunshine liberals will cue up to reclaim their status as American lapdogs. Furthermore, the American people deserves a really radical person to create real change, and it seems that another dose of bitter regressive medicine is needed before that will be a possibility.
I do like and admire a lot of things with your country (honestly) but the political system is not one of them. The USA is as far as I can see the world's foremost rogue state, as dangerous as Nazi Germany in the late 30s. It is important that it is still regarded correctly as such, and McCain is exactly to man for keeping this up.

 

[Arwon]

What do you think of Eric Hobsbawm?

 

[Richard Cribb]

Plese do.
Ask, and ye shall receive. Awaiting your comment.
http://www.marxist.com/belgium-socialist-left-candidate-elections140907.htm

Spoiler :

Belgium: Socialist Left candidate nominated for elections of party chairperson!
By Wim Benda
Friday, 14 September 2007
On Saturday, 8 September a minor earthquake shook Belgian politics. Erik De Bruyn was nominated by the Antwerp Socialist Party branch - the biggest in Flanders - for the position of national chairperson of the Socialist Party (SP.a). Since then the media has been giving wide coverage about the left wing candidate and the crisis in the Socialist leadership on a daily basis.


Erik De Bruyn
Erik De Bruyn was interviewed by all the major papers and was the chief guest on Terzake, the most important in-depth TV news programme viewed by almost a quarter of a million people. He spoke about the need to go back to the roots of Socialism, the domination of people's lives by the profit motive, longer working hours, the relevance of Marx today, the nationalisation of the energy sector, the need to win back workers' votes from the extreme right, etc.

People received this message as a breath of fresh air in a political debate that has been dominated for too long by the right wing. As one person wrote on an Internet discussion forum, "I like this guy from the SP.a. We urgently need some people with guts on stage. They will make society more attractive again. So people can recognise themselves in a project for which they dare to go on the barricades."

Electoral defeat
On June 10 the Socialists were severely beaten in the elections. The PS, the Socialist Party in the French speaking area, got 29,5 percent, their worst result in more than a century. In Flanders the defeat was even more devastating. The Flemish SP.a only garnered 16 percent, the worst result ever, even worse than the 15 percent of 1999 since they are now in an alliance with Spirit, a small Flemish nationalist party. This triggered a deep crisis, especially since the party leadership learned nothing from the defeat.

Immediately after the elections, chairman Johan Vande Lanotte resigned, but he immediately passed the throne to Caroline Gennez. As a consequence the rank and file revolted and demanded the chairperson be elected. The leadership retreated and promised elections for October 21. Traditionally such elections are just for show because the leadership has a firm control over the party apparatus. For decades we have not seen contenders, but just one candidate. In fact, for decades there has not been an organised left inside the party, until Erik De Bruyn took the initiative of launching SP.a Rood in the autumn of 2005.

The autumn of 2005 saw one of the biggest workers' mobilisations in Belgian history, with two general strikes in October and a demonstration of 100,000 workers in Brussels (read Belgium: 100,000 workers march through streets of Brussels). Their anger was aimed at the so-called Generation Pact, a government package aimed at getting rid of early retirement schemes and in general achieving a greater flexibility of the labour market. What infuriated them even more was the role played by the leadership of the Socialist Parties (SP.a and PS) as the main advocates of this Generation Pact. In the "Purple" coalition government of Liberals and Socialists, the ministers of the SP.a and PS were pushed to the front to sell this capitalist package to the labour movement. Although the Pact was eventually passed by parliament, they failed to convince their rank and file. The anger lingered on for two years and came to the surface, first in the electoral defeat and now in the nomination of Erik De Bruyn.

In October 2005, at the time of the general strikes, Erik De Bruyn took the initiative of bringing together a group of rank and file Socialists that protested together with the trade unions against the conduct of the Socialist Party leadership. Erik De Bruyn is known as a long-standing Socialist and trade union activist and as a prominent Marxist of Vonk. The left wing group was baptised "SP.a Rood" and issued a call against the party line, signed by 15 local party members and trade union leaders. This immediately attracted attention from within the labour movement and the media, especially since a former Socialist MP, Jef Sleeckx, had joined.

However, some months later Sleeckx split from the party and lost himself in an alliance with the ultra-left (that ended in an electoral fiasco and crisis, as usual). Although the rest of SP.a Rood stayed in the party, this adventure of Sleeckx had the effect of portraying them as splitters. In Flanders, with its traditional domination by the right wing, splitters are not seen well inside the Socialist Party. But gradually over time the group became more accepted by the party ranks, through some good campaigns like the municipal elections of 2006 (with several SP.a Rood candidates being elected), the party's "ideological" congress (in which some SP.a Rood amendments were passed) and the general election campaign of 2007. However, it was the crushing defeat of the SP.a that marked a qualitatively new period in which all the previously small issues came together as one.

Up until then SP.a Rood was marginalised in the mainstream media. Sometimes it was possible to break through this wall via smart campaigns like actions against the privatisation of public services (post, rubbish collection, swimming pools, etc.) or the defence of trade union rights and of refugees. But often the left-wing tendency was described in the bourgeois media as a "marginal, ultra left group inside the SP.a" - if they were mentioned at all.

From zero to hero
Immediately after the elections, SP.a Rood launched a call in which it pointed to the Blairite line as the main cause of the defeat. In the same press release they announced that they would put forward their own candidates for party leadership. In July it was decided that Erik De Bruyn, as leading spokesperson of the tendency, would take up the challenge with Elke Heirman as running-mate, a young SP.a councillor and one of the initial 15 SP.a Rood members. Because of the crisis inside the SP.a, the media gave some attention to this challenge, but again it was described as marginal without any real possibility of becoming a real challenge or with any chance of getting nominated. After all, according to the party rules these relatively unknown candidates had to overcome the obstacle of getting the support from at least ten different branches, in at least two different provinces, counting on at least 5,000 members (the party has 55,000 members). Until then SP.a Rood had mainly been based in Antwerp (where the party leadership had a firm control, or so they thought) and in Brussels (where the Flemish SP.a is quite small and a large part of SP.a Rood sympathisers chose to alter their membership from SP.a to the French speaking PS, seen as being a bit more to the left of the SP.a).

In spite of this difficult starting position, SP.a Rood began to contact several party branches during the summer. Erik De Bruyn and Elke Heirman were invited to speak and quickly it became evident that many among the rank and file had a similar analysis of the situation. Even before the earthquake had happened in Antwerp, already more than 15 branches in the municipalities and small towns had had the courage to support the nomination of SP.a Rood. The party leadership felt something was happening, and in a bid to present itself more to the left, Dirk Van der Maelen was chosen as running mate of Caroline Gennez. Van der Maelen is the previous leader of the SP.a fraction in parliament and has a reputation of being more to the left, although he has never really had much influence in developing the line of the party, in spite of his leading position - or possibly because of his leading position. (We should remember that he was leader of the SP.a fraction in parliament when it voted for the Generation Pact...) Through this manoeuvre the leadership thought it had secured its left flank.

Then last Saturday, apparently out of the blue, the general assembly of the big Antwerp party branch nominated Erik and Elke with 59 percent, against 38 percent for the official candidates. This happened against the proposal of the local party executive and of the popular mayor of Antwerp. It was indeed quite an exceptional general assembly. The leadership had printed only 75 copies of the "declaration of intent" of both candidates. They were surprised when 193 members showed up. The reason is quite clear: for the leadership it was business as usual, but the rank and file felt that this time their vote could count. It was remarkable how all the ordinary people who spoke during the meeting, spoke in support of Erik De Bruyn, often with a lot of emotion. Erik also received support from "Old Labour" when Bob Cools, ex-mayor of Antwerp, gave a fiery speech about state ownership of the strategic sectors of the economy, François Mitterand, George Bush, "the banana republic of Belgium", the capitalist Albert Frère and the October Revolution (!). One had to see the faces of the leadership and apparatus after the vote was counted... It was indeed a very cold shower for them!

Of course the democratically taken decision of the Antwerp branch provoked some sour comments on the part of the leadership. Ex-chairman Louis Tobback criticised the Antwerp leadership for organising a general assembly. "No party branch is obliged to put forward a candidate for chairman to its members. It seems that the Antwerp leadership was convinced Gennez would get elected." In other words, if you are not sure about an election outcome, why organise an election? Truly the words of a dictator!

For his part, Patrick Janssens, the mayor of Antwerp and party leader, laid stress on the fact that although the members had voted for Erik De Bruyn, "all the SP.a people known to the electorate are 100 percent behind Gennez". To which Erik De Bruyn replied in the paper De Morgen (September 11): "It is a pity that Patrick Janssens has invented a new division inside the party: it seems the unimportant SP.a members in Antwerp have voted SP.a Rood while the important members support Caroline Gennez."

And what can we say of the reaction of Gennez herself? "Either the SP.a members vote for an open party that looks with confidence to the future and wants to be a broad Flemish Socialist party, or they vote for a communist-inspired ultra-left party." Erik replied on TV and in the papers: "It is as if Gennez wants to go back to the fifties when the Socialist leaders called everybody that did not agree with their party line ‘a dirty communist'."


Erik on the frontpage of De Morgen
His analysis of the Antwerp vote was summed-up in De Standaard (September 10): "It was the first time in years that the rank and file has had a chance to express its opinion, and I know what the atmosphere has been over there for some time now. For a long time party members have had the feeling of being caught offside in their own party. My project is a clear Socialism that differs from the other parties. It is a protest against the unequal economic power relations in society." And in De Morgen he added (September 11): "Socialists denounce the unequal economic power relations. Marx is still relevant today. The party discourse on ‘equal opportunities' [the main ideological line of the leadership, Ed.] was not totally bad, but it is too light to carry a real Socialist ideology. Socialists cannot agree with a society dominated by one-sided economic motives such as the accumulation of profit and capital." And on the regional TV (ATV, September 10): "It is not just about money. It is also about the daily lives of people, about the daily rat-race, the fact that people have to work harder and longer, that their family life is under pressure, the increasing aggression and stress in society, and the fact that as a consequence values such as solidarity are disappearing. It is also about those issues."

The sudden appearance of such a Socialist message on the Flemish political stage has altered the situation. Probably the call for nationalisation of the energy sector made the bosses tremble as if they had seen the ghost of a dead person. But the Socialism of SP.a Rood has been greeted with joy inside the labour movement. One of the main trade union news websites has been covering the news extensively, although the socialist trade union leadership says "they do not take sides". The media now have reported that even in the town of Mechelen, home base of Caroline Gennez, a local councillor has openly declared himself for SP.a Rood. And while writing, the news keeps coming in: SP.a Bruges has also voted for SP.a Rood (68% against 20%, with 11% for another left wing candidate); SP.a Aalst (the backyard of Dirk Van der Maelen) has said that for the moment it is not supporting any candidate, which is an indirect indication of support for Erik De Bruyn; in Ostend (the town of chairman Vande Lanotte) Sp.a Rood got a respectable 31 percent, and in Sint-Niklaas a respectable 35 percent although the popular "left-wing" mayor called for support for Gennez.

Break through right wing demagogy

Media coverage: "Who will save socialism?"
All this is happening at a time of deep political crisis in Belgium. More than three months after the general elections, Belgium still has no government, although the right wing won a decisive victory on June 10. It was written in the stars that for the first time since the eighties a homogenous right wing government would be formed, between the Christian-Democrats and the Liberals. For the first time in two decades the Socialists will be out of government, so the bosses have the opportunity of launching an all-out attack against working and living conditions. And yet, with such an opportunity, the right-wing parties are unable to form a government coalition, essentially because of the national question. They are quarrelling among themselves because they are divided over how to implement a harsh capitalist programme. Traditionally this has always been done through the national Belgian state, but for a growing part of the Flemish bourgeoisie this is not moving fast enough and they blame the "inertia" of French-speaking Belgium and the strength of the PS there. Because the right wing is stronger in Flanders, they are hoping to be able to better implement their capitalist agenda through further division of Belgium, beginning by breaking up the Social Security system between the two regions. Splitting the Social Security system along regional lines is a first step to further dismantling welfare and pushing through privatisation.

When such a right-wing government is finally formed, it will undoubtedly start by attacking the living standards, just as we saw in the Netherlands under the devout Christian Prime Minister Balkenende. However, the trade unions can see the threatened attack on Social Security, and even the Christian trade union leadership has issued warnings, in spite of "their" party being the main winner of the elections and the leader of the future government. A right-wing government would be riddled with severe contradictions - the same contradictions that are now making a coalition so difficult. It would be quite easy for the Socialist Parties to cut across the government's plans and bring it down, if only the Socialists dared to fight on the basis of a programme centred on the contradiction between labour and capital (and not on that between Flanders and Wallonia). On the contrary, it seems the current party leadership wishes down the same road. Johan Vande Lanotte has said that, although they are now in opposition in parliament, they wish to give support to the government's plan for further reform of the state (in the current context this means a further division of Belgium and of the Social Security system). They have learned nothing. In this situation the message of SP.a Rood comes across as a fresh approach to solving the workers' problems. Many ordinary people are suffering the stresses of capitalism and are looking for a way out.


Erik De Bruyn, Elke Heirman and Rudy Kennes,
convenor at the GM car factory
Whatever the outcome of the elections for party chairperson, the left will be significantly stronger than before and Erik De Bruyn will be regarded as an opinion maker and left leader. The workers see this is a different kind of politics, which genuinely cares about their conditions and lives. That explains why the Socialist trade union delegation of the GM car factory in Antwerp has invited Erik and Elke to the factory to talk with them and explain their demands. Two of the biggest anti-war organisations (Vrede and Forum voor Vredesactie) have done the same. This is only a small indication of the level of support that exists for a Socialist Party that is genuinely rooted in the movement, in the factories and in the neighbourhoods.

Such a party would easily cut across all the right wing demagogy. As Erik De Bruyn stated in De Morgen (September 11): "I am a bit annoyed because the party no longer cares about all those workers that used to vote for us, but who now vote for the extreme right Vlaams Belang. The SP.a leadership considers them as ‘lost forever'. I really would like us to develop a strategy to win them back. My ambition is to gain ground at the expense of the extreme right not just by gathering around us all the people that are against the extreme right, as was done in the electoral victory in Antwerp [when last year the SP.a for the first time in years polled more votes than the Vlaams Belang, Editor]." Indeed, with a bold programme and mobilising drive in the popular neighbourhoods and factories the Socialists would be able to win back the hearts they lost in the past.

Thanks for the link.
Will return to you a bit later.

Why does a large black market tend to pop up in such societies and how would you deal with it?

Historically, socialism has been implemented in less advanced societies which has been disadvantaged in the world economy.
There is no reason why a socialist society, properly implemented, should experience this as a substantial problem.

Do you think socialism will ever stop being a dirty word in the US?

Yes, it will only be a matter of reaching a certain political maturity. To a large degree this is an aftermath of the Cold War as well as the dominant position of corporate media.

at the minute it would be total and utter political suicide for any US politician with an eye on high office to advocate socialism (even is they didnt even mention Marx). what would have to happen before this might change?

We shouldn't underestimate the Americans. With all their flaws, they also have some admirable qualities.
This is a part of the struggle for hegemony of language. I think that if it was just presented in other terms, a lot of Americans would indeed embrace basic socialist ideas.
According to a poll I read about once (I can't unfortunately find the reference right now, but I will look for it) a majority of the people asked thought that the phrase "from each according to their ability to each according to their needs" was from the American Constitution. Other polls also indicates that the reactionary American is to a certain extent a stereotype.
As to what would happen, history teaches us that it is always impossible to say what will cause radical societal change. The deepening of the current crise should produce a counter-reaction, which might very well be a radical one.
My apologies for being so vague, but I don't want to be to cocksure about such issues.

I believe in a communist economic system but disagree with Marx and Lenin on religion and democracy (I am supportive of both). Am I still a communist?

Yes.

Ok sorry for the short reply, but I should be working. I'm just browsing the forum while I wait for some info that I need. Most of the answers were what I expected, but I wasn't 100% sure so I asked anyway. I noticed a couple of things that still seem odd to me, but this isn't the right thread to go on about that. Thanks for replying. I'll let you get back to playing with your presents now - Guitar Hero or whatever.

You are welcome.
And I just received BTS, for the moment I try out how it is to be Imperialist and Protective...

What limits should be placed on private ownership (I'm not a red, just curious what your philosophy is)?

Already answered that a couple of times on this very thread.

BTW, if anybody answers anything without my strict permission, this thread will be closed immediately and the perpetrators of said crime dealt with according to old-fashioned socialist principles.

 

[Richard Cribb]

I will return to the thread later for the rest, but since this just poped up

What do you think of Eric Hobsbawm?

He is a very good historian.

 

[JerichoHill]

@@greenpeace

So you are saying people will be less close socially as there are more people, right? I am saying you do not have to be close to everybody who follows the society you follow.
At higher levels of aggregation, yes, you have to have close knit bonds to keep communal groups intact. That comes straight out of studies on sectarian behavior (Rodney Stark)

For example, if I am living on a permaculture farm with a comfortable 100 people close and generally deciding the decision that effect my life with those 100 people, what difference does it make if there are another 1000 people living nearby that I have no social bonds with?
Do you treat strangers differently than friends?

I do not understand exactly what you mean by "requires the full participation of all group members." Do you mean everybody must be working constantly or it all implodes?
In the simplest example, you and Bob are work a permaculture farm. Both you and Bob have the same abilities/habits etc. Really, the only differences are that you might like the Detriot Lions and he likes the Cleveland Browns.

Since everything is split down the middle, you and Bob rely on each other to put forth similiar efforts to optimize production. If Bob starts to shirk, because no matter what you both split the output, youre going to get upset. That's the bond breaking down. In the very small group (2 dudes), the bond isn't likely to breakdown, because there are things called credible threats.

Now make that example 30 people. Someone can shirk and hide.


Central planning (by which I assume you mean having a group of people deciding how people work) is a must not, and violates core principles. Central planning would violate the rule of "you have the complete ability to do as you please so long as you don't damage others or inhibit others from their ability to do as they please, providing they do not violate others rights and are aware of all the consequences an action may have that you are aware of."
What mechanism then, do you have in your idyllic communistic society, to allocate resources amongst communities, groups, etc? There is no market, so no price mechanism. You just ruled out a command mechanism.


That does not require a hierarchy to deal with, if a people directly democratically (that is not by elected representatives) decided how to deal with said issues, than no power holding class emerges.
Direct democracy leads to rule by the mob. Mobocracy isn't exactly ideal either. Granted, direct democracy could work efficiently if every voter had full and complete information on every problem, to divying up fertilizier to the soy and corn farms, to defense, to social law. But you need perfect information, amongst all. That's just mathemetics again.

 

[holy king]

what do you think about marx' idea that the state would just die off after the revolution?

 

[jeps]

There is red in purple and orange, but none in green. they are complimentary, and hence green SHOULD BE the anti-red.

 

[holy king]

There is red in purple and orange, but none in green. they are complimentary, and hence green SHOULD BE the anti-red.

what about white?

 

[jeps]

black and white. red and green. purple and yellow. blue and orange. yellow-green and red-purple. etc.