Ask a red

[jeps]

Tommy Douglas > everyone on that list.

completely seconded on my part. I enjoy OHIP, as crappy as it is, because we could be american and have none. Its not like other services that we complain about because we all have them, but they still suck.

 

[Richard Cribb]

My apologies for keep you waiting so long, especially to greenpeace.
It seems however, that I still know how to party...
I have some problems with my internet connection.
It takes time to type all this.
And, I am not full of excuses....
Just another note. This is not intended to be a discussion thread where I am to be proven right or wrong, so I would prefer people not to be argumentative. We can do that in another thread, of course.But asking for clarification is fully acceptable, especially since some of the things written below are produced in a hurry.
Also, so far I have got two good men on the team, and another good man who might also assist. So eventually the title of this thread will need some change.
I haven't had the time to answer all of you all yet, but during the day I will try to catch up. Patience is a virtue.

What is true communism ?

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.

How can the problem be handled that many that come from a working-class background do not interest themselves in politics, and how could the problem be solved that not many working-class poeple go register for their socialist party and try to run for something?

I can't see any quick fix, the only way I see is continuosly good old-fashioned political work. reclaiming the hegemony of language is important. Also see below.

So in a simple sentence: what can the socialist party do(or how has it to be reformed), to keep in touch with their base, and not be held hostage by a few "pseudoscoialists" who are in an ivory tower and sold-out to the right-wing stances?

Perhaps it should be more aware of people's problems in everyday's life.
I don't know how it is in Belgium, but here it is a problem that the leading figures in parties that claim to be socialist often combines a condescending attitude towards people with a lack of interest in for instance labour issues. They are more concerned with "the economy" and "international solidarity". I think that has a lot to do with their class base.
The only way I can see is that the ordinary members of said parties together with grass root organizations are putting more pressure on the party elites. I might elaborate on this.

I am especially reminded by the local socialist party organisation in where a popular 37-year old women ("babe" won the party elections) over a union leader who was very sincere and pleaded to reform the party, so it doesn't becomes a populist molog that's shoves to the right with each elections.

Could you possibly get me some information about this, it sounds interesting and oh so typical.

In a communist system not only the means of production generally are owned by the state but also the means of transferring Information . The Media. How can one have a plurality of opinions in a communist system and in addition have the state be criticized by several Media (newspapers/radio/TV ) , which are owned for example by people with opposite interests , in a communist system ? Can Criticism against the State ever be viable in a communist system ?

And how do we avoid the Government employing a Secret police to oppress criticism against it , since in there eyes they are protecting their interests by doing so ?

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

What is your take on religion? How does a communist view the role of religion in history? In modern society?

I see religion as basically a personal matter and something that in principle should be left to the individual to accept or reject.
However, it clearly does have an irrational component that might be in conflict with progressive goals, and history teaches us that more often than not religion has sided with the ruling classes, encouraging exploitation and represession of people. Personally I would prefer as few religious people as possible.
But while I myself see no reason why religion should be needed in modern secular societies, I also speaking as a European see no reason why religious people shouldn't embrace radical politics - Jesus for instance might be interpreted as quite a radical political figure.

What state was the closest to "Ideal" Communism in your opinion?

If we stick to modern states, none has been close.
The Scandinavian countries during the 70s and the German Democratic Republic might be those that came closest to socialism, while we will have to wait and see for about 20 years to see where Venezuela is heading.

What's the best vodka mixed drink?

One shouldn't mix good vodka, that is quite tacky, it should be enjoyed pure (Smirnoff and Absolut are not good vodka).
But very well, once in Szczecin I had a Zubrowka mixed with Aquavit and a dash of lime juice. That one was quite good, and something I needed at the time being.

A slightly personal question: What working class does Norway have at the moment?

The same as we always had, basically, those who do all the dirty jobs so that we can study, spend the day in nice offices or discuss things at the internet. They have only disappeared in the minds of certain politicians, journalists and economists.
But we might also say that everybody who has to sell the value of their labour are in a certain sense working class, and we might see a trend of proletarization among quite a few traditionally white-collar professions.

Two questions:

1. Does communist doctrine extend beyond domestic social and economic organization, to areas like foreign policy?

In principle not.
But of course, one should expect from a society which claims to have communism as a goal that it would act in the interest of repressed and exploited countries abroad in its foreign policy disposals.
However, there might be grim realities that could very well force another course.

2. What sort of things are debated within communist circles? That is, what are some core issues in communist theory in which there is disagreement among mature and intelligent communists?

On your first question, anything from theoretical doctrines to political issues of the day.Also, how to get out to people, what can one learn form other political movements.
On the second, there are quite a few. How to relate to the current parlamentary system, should one particapte in elections or concentrate on non-parlamentary activities such as ad-hoc actions. If one is elected in office, how should one act. Is a vanguard party needed.Or violent revolution. In short, what strategy should be adopted to achieve long-time as well as short-time goals.

This is my question as well. But perhaps extended to "Why would people even bother to work, to save, to excel, or to innovate in a system that provides everything?"

From my limited knowledge it appears to me that communism fails to take into account human nature - people are lazy and selfish by default. And it is rewards (money, prestige, more comfortable life etc.) that motivate people to push themselves harder. Unless the human race evolves into a more genuinely altruistic species such a system will only take away what otherwise motivates achievers to excel, and reward lazy but "safe" behavior.

Prior to the shift to "socialism with Chinese characteristics" that was the way the 'communist' society functioned over here - clerks who wished they were postmen, salesladies who wished they were clerks, postmen who wished they were construction workers etc. etc. Everybody had an "iron rice bowl" and so nobody really cared about their work. As long as you do not commit a grievious offense you cannot be fired. The result is ridiculously bad standards of work all around and economic stagnation.

And this is just in a localized country yet which decides it need not compete with the world. In today's globalized world down that path lies madness and economic ruin. Perhaps if the entire world were communist then the competition factor is eliminated but then won't humanity be doomed to an eternal culture of mediocricy?

I think that this is one extermely common misconceprtion, coming from the assumption that the way people are supposed to behave in a capitalist society is identical with an universal and timeless human nature.
It is true that "greed is good" in a capitalist society. But to go from that to conclude that people are necessarily or basically lazy and selfish disregarding societal circumstances seems to me to be at best ignorant and at worst political demagoguery.
It is of course true that most people would prefer to not have to sell the value of their labour to survive, but does that make them "lazy"?
It is also true that people care for their self-preservation, but does that make them "selfish"?
And even if we agree that this laziness and selfishness are parts of human nature, aren't people also industrious, compassionate, solidaric, emphatic:
It could also be of some use to remember that it took one hell of a job to manage to get people used to a capitalist organization of society, it was not like that people from day one went from feudal subjects to full-fledged homo economicus mode.
When people realize that their basic needs, and with this I mean the basic needs for all, eventually will be met better by socialism, they will also eventually want to make the change.
As for China,I can't really make any qualified comment. No offense, but China is basically today, nowithstanding its impressive culture and history and its status as an aspiring world hegemon a third-world country with a long tradition of authoritarian politics. It might very well be that it needs to go through a phase of capitalist development before it is ready for socialism.

What would anarcho-communists, collectivist anarchists, and/or mutualists, say about Communism as practiced by Lenin, Mao, and Castro? "I told you so"?

Except for the fact that they would not call this socialism or communism, Noam Chomsky for instance has always referred to Lenin and Trotsky as authoritarian capitalists and in a certain sense I think he is right about that, they would indeed.
On a personal note, I see with great chagrin the rift that has been caused between Marxist and anarchists. This is understandable from historical events, but I think the time has come to let old dogs rest and concentrate on a common front aagainst the reactionary forces. This is exactly what failed in the ominous 30s.

Who's red? What makes any/all of the above camps red, or not?

I would say that everybody who wants to abolish the capitalist system and replace it with any sort of more egalitarian and solidaric societal formation, that is any socialist, anarchist or communist would qualify.
Liberals, while welcome as allies in concrete political struggles, may not apply.

*Just edited this quickly to say that most of these questions regard communism, in case that wasn't clear.*

Do you believe the state can really wither away, and who do you forsee taking up responsibilities that used to be performed by the state? I'm thinking of things including (but not limited to) defence, diplomacy, the nationwide co-ordination of healthcare and education, etc.

I think that is possible, but I admit that I have certain doubts.
As for who should carry out the different tasks of society, as always people will. There is no reason to assume that a society will just crumble without hierarchy unless one has a glum image of the human race.

How can a state wither away while there is opposition to it? What happens to political parties that do not think communism is the right way? I'm asking since communism lies at the end of a long road of reforms. What's to stop the public from changing their mind before the end is reached?

These are good questions.
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.
What will happen to political parties who disagree with communist goals wil be the same as what happens to political parties in capitalis societies today that disagree with capitalist goals, they will be allowed to carry on with their activity. They will not be enjoying the same special privileges as they are today though, with that I mean the backing-up of powerful economic entities, and I pretty much doubt that their popularity will be that great.
Nothing will stop the public from changing their mind. If communists wants to realize their political goals they have to deliver.

What falls under "means of production" exactly? Would it apply to a little old lady baking cakes in her own kitchen? What about the human mind? Do ideas or creative works become communal property?

The means of production is the combination of the means of labor and the subject of labor used by workers to make products.With the means of labour is meant machines, tools, infrastucture and so on, with subject of labour is meant the material worked on.
The little old lady in her kitchen does indeed own means of production, but since she is not exploiting anybody, nobody will come and take her owen.
As for the human mind, people are still people in a communist society - one could even say that they have more scope for individuality than in any other sort of social arrangement. Their ideas though, as soon as they are brought to the public, is indeed a matter of common interest.

What kind of property is allowed to be owned individually?

The kind of property that is not expoitative, but for your own personal use, as your tootbrush for instance. This is often called possesions.
What amount of personal property you may have depends on how affluent the society is and what you have managed to auire in the preceding socialist phase.

Would a communist system still use a form of currency as a means of exchange?

Preferably not.

If not, what would people do for money while travelling abroad in non-communist countries? How would they be able to travel abroad in the first place?

That sort of question is really impossible to answer. I am sure a solution will be found if the problem ever arrives, though.

PS Happy Birthday

Thanks a lot.

1. Do you believe that there has never been a truly communist state? How do you view the USSR or communist China from several decades ago - totally antithetical to your views, or pseudo-communists, or what

No. As I already stated, a communist state is an oxymoron, it is something like a married bachelor.
As for the socialist states, I prefer to see them as distorted, pre-socialist Russia for instance was basically a third-world country which simply failed to meet the requirements for a transition to a socialist state. On top of that, the country was sabotaged and even invaded by more adbanced and richer capitalist societies. On the other hand, in some ways it produced results which was impressive enough to scare important decision makers in the USA post WW2.
I think that people like Lenin, Trotsky and Ulbricht had the right intentions, I am not so sure about the correctness of the measures they took, but I can hardly see how they could have gone through with anything if they had chosen differently. There is an unfortunate fact that it was the wrong countries that adopted the socialist course first-

2. Do you really think humanity will ever have any sort of classless society? I'm not asking what you hope, but what you honestly think will happen.

Yes I do. but that do admit that there is a bit of wishful thinking in it - I am not all that convinced.

Oh, and happy birthday!

Thanks a lot.

EDIT: Oh, and am I one of the fascists?

Not at all. Admittedly I find some of your poltical views rpulsive, but you are usually rational, polite and respectful. I don't have the habit of calling all I disagree with fascists, and I have certain hopes of getting you over to the dark side.

I knew it. I'm on the list. Admit it.

Yes, you are the worst. You Hitler, you!

Anyway, I guess I could still ask a question...

Since nowadays communism is highly disregarded and seen in extremely negative light in the western countries...what do you think communism or communistic thinking has to offer to the world and what kind of role you could see communism have in the world in the future?

It might be disregarded, but it is far from dead.
I think that when the going will get really tough and when people see that opportunist right-wing extremists are wrong in putting all the responsibility for societal ills on the welfare proletariat and the immigrants, they will eventually tilt towards the red camp again. I think we already see signs of that.
It is also worth noting that even if many may support said parties, polls indicate that they often have political opinions that is pretty radical. In my country, Norway,for instance, the biggest political party is currently one typical right-wing opportunist one. However, in economical questions, it turns out that a substantial part of those who support that party are to the left of the leaders of the dominant party in government, the so-called Labour Party (Armani-socialists).

And happy birthday good old big red machine!

Thanks a lot.

EDIT: And don't forget the History Quiz question.

Ouch! I see to it when I have time. Actually, I do have a life oustide this board, believe it or not.

Can you put this myth down once and for all that Scandinavia and Europe as a whole are not socialist?

I certainly hope so. people can just read the facts.
Europe basically consists of capitalist societies. Heck, the European Union has even capitalism as a basic principle, kindly consult the "four freedoms" and their attempts to form a constitution.
Despite the fact that some key socialist principles has been implemented, as for instance in health care and basic education, a substantial part of the means of production are firmly on private hands. I also think that any intelligent capitalist would admit that an advanced capitalist society would not work well without a strong state and a well developed public sector.
It is true that Scandinavia during the 60s and 70s due to the strong influence of its labout unions (which is more important for a country's politics than what government one has) had quite generous welfare states. But all of them adopted more neo-liberal practices
from the 80s, and Denmark and Sweden even joined the European Union.

I see this thrown around the forums like it somehow makes the United States better to scream that Sweden is a socialist state.

Yep.
It is quite pathetic and fully ignorable.
I suppose those people would call the monarchy of Louis XIV socialist as well, due to its econamically interventionist character.

What are the main obstacles to implementing communism? Can they be overcome right now or do you see communism as a long term goal?

A long term goal.
A society must first reach a certain level technologically and materially, and the hegemony of the bourgeoisie must be abolished. Because of this, one needs a socialist phase first, where the means of production are dominantly owned by the public. In principle, there can only be a success if such a change takes place in the more advanced capitalist states.

PS: To the two last posters, please don't spam.

 

[greenpeace]

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

Because he is so damn sexy!

lol.

so, for my complete understanding of both you beliefs and personal preferences, could you please:

RANK FROM FAVOURITE TO LEAST FAVOURITE:
1)Stalin
2)Mao
3)McCarthy
4)Tito
5)Luxemburg
6)Lenin
7)Douglas

1. Tommy Douglas
2. Rosa Luxemburg (although I honestly don't know enough about her)
3. Tito
4. McCarthy
5. Stalin/Mao
If you want me to explain further, just say so.

Please rank in order of closest to your viewpoint to furthest:
Trotsky
Stalin
Mao
Tito
Douglas
Lenin
Marx/Engels

1. Trotsky (purely on what he said when attempting to gain power in opposition to Stalin, which I understand would be decentralized democratic self-controlled communes).
2. Douglas/Tito
3. Lenin/Marx
4. Stalin/Mao
However, I have to admit I am somewhat ignorant on the exact views of these people. Also, I'm pretty sure I greatly overlooked something(s), on accident. Suffice to say they are all very different from my views.

and, if you had to run in a Canadian Election, would you run for
the socialist NDP, the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada, or the Communist Party of Canada?

They are too different from my views for me to really support any particular one.

 

[jeps]

I think I understand where you are coming from now. and wow, McCarthy over Mao. I kinda was expecting that one

 

[greenpeace]

I think I understand where you are coming from now. and wow, McCarthy over Mao. I kinda was expecting that one

Mao Zedong was much more brutal than McCarthy in his treatment towards opposition (and tolerated less opposition), although that isn't saying much. By the way, I was about to put McCarthy on top because I thought you wrote McCartney .

 

[Tee Kay]

Well while we're on comparisons...

Mao Zedong or Deng Xiaopeng?

Who's more "communist", who's imho the better leader overall?

 

[philippe]

I can't see any quick fix, the only way I see is continuosly good old-fashioned political work. reclaiming the hegemony of language is important. Also see below.


Perhaps it should be more aware of people's problems in everyday's life.
I don't know how it is in Belgium, but here it is a problem that the leading figures in parties that claim to be socialist often combines a condescending attitude towards people with a lack of interest in for instance labour issues. They are more concerned with "the economy" and "international solidarity". I think that has a lot to do with their class base.

The only way I can see is that the ordinary members of said parties together with grass root organizations are putting more pressure on the party elites. I might elaborate on this.

Please do.

Could you possibly get me some information about this, it sounds interesting and oh so typical.


PS: To the two last posters, please don't spam.

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.

 

[plarq]

Well while we're on comparisons...

Mao Zedong or Deng Xiaopeng?

Who's more "communist", who's imho the better leader overall?

That's a pretty hard question to answer, esp. the definition of "better" is still up in question.

From my personal observation, most people admire Mao politically, and Deng economically, which equals they believe in Mao and practicing Deng.

 

[Brighteye]

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?

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?

 

[silver 2039]

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

 

[Richard Cribb]

Sorry folks, but something turned up so the rest of you will have to wait until tomorrow.
I promise that I will deliver another mammooth post very early tomorrow.

 

[RedRalph]

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?

 

[Dann]

Living on a perma-culture farm in a hut, doing practically nothing except what I wish to do is living life happily and stress-free, even if you find it to be economic stagnation.

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.

And even if we agree that this laziness and selfishness are parts of human nature, aren't people also industrious, compassionate, solidaric, emphatic:

They are when they know they will be rewarded for their efforts, and that they will suffer if they behave otherwise.

Would you be willing to work for no return at all? (It need not even be material. Volunteers work for "free" but their reward is a personal "feel good" thingy afterwards.)

It could also be of some use to remember that it took one hell of a job to manage to get people used to a capitalist organization of society, it was not like that people from day one went from feudal subjects to full-fledged homo economicus mode.

There isn't much difference between feudalism and capitalism as far as ordinary people are concerned. If you slack off today you starve. If you slack off during Medieval times you starve and receive a beating. That is all.

When people realize that their basic needs, and with this I mean the basic needs for all, eventually will be met better by socialism, they will also eventually want to make the change.

This I can agree with, but only partially. A degree of socialism is indeed better than pure capitalism as the existence of some sort of "safety net" is necessary in order to take care of the weakest segments of society.

Now before you other capitalist posters pounce on me let me ask you this: Would you rather a system exists to keep these people content or that they become so desperate as to riot and revolt? Thought so.

But this system should not be too excessive as to stifle all capitalist endeavors. For the simple reason that not everyone is created equal. Examples:
(1) Two average Joes given the same amount of money could result in very different outcomes. One could just spend it overnight on booze while the other one would know how to roll that initial capital a hundredfold.
(2) Due to competition inherent in capitalism Bubba has to rack his brain and thus discover a new way to produce a certain merchandise more efficiently. He could then either patent his idea, or sell it to a company, or set up his own factory. Under communism there wouldn't be any competition at all and thus there wouldn't even be any need for him to think. True communism will stifle creativity.

We (humanity) need to have a system in place where these eh... "superior" people can make whatever resources we have work even more efficiently. And to provide innovation.

As for China,I can't really make any qualified comment. No offense, but China is basically today, nowithstanding its impressive culture and history and its status as an aspiring world hegemon a third-world country with a long tradition of authoritarian politics. It might very well be that it needs to go through a phase of capitalist development before it is ready for socialism.

Indeed it is. But having enjoyed the fruits of capitalism I doubt that the Chinese people would want to return to "the good old days". A fusion of both systems is perhaps more feasible.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

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?

 

[holy king]

of course, but definitly no marxist.

 

[Newbunkle]

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.

 

[RedRalph]

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.

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.

 

[GoodGame]

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

 

[JerichoHill]

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.

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?

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?

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?

 

[CurtSibling]

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?

...