Ask a red

[Cheezy the Wiz]

What do you think of the presidential race? Are you going (breaking news ) Obama/Biden or McCain/x?

Seeing as he's Norwegian, and a communist, probably neither.

 

[MamboJoel]

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.

If I can't have the best, I want the worst.
This attitude is frequent within far left-wingers. In fact, we can find it with the far right as well.

This is highly arguable, but here, from a left wing point of view, McCain would be some GW Bush ersatz, the kind of guy that's ok with war waging, and several hundred thousands people killed.
So my questions to a Red are, why people with 1. their heart on the good side and 2. intelligent enough to know what is best for America, when it comes to chose prefere cynism and the killings implied over anything else ? How come so much "Reds" have this same morbid reflex ? Does this accomodating attitude takes its roots in the previous "left leaning" experiences of XXth (cf FredLC's issue) ? How do you guys prevent from falling under the Red-Brown cliché ?

Thank you.

 

[Richard Cribb]

My apology for late responses. Yesterday was ...not good.

Hi.

Earlier in this thread you have identified communist society as one, which is "state- and classless".

I would appreciate further comment on two issues:

1) How do you imagine or define "stateless" society? Say that such society wants to keep free healthcare and free public transport. That would mean that a network of hospitals should be maintained, along with network of roads and number of vehicles. This would certainly require some sort of joint, organized effort. So I suppose we get two voluntary(?) non-profit organizations, committed to keeping healthcare and transportation networks up and running, right? Common sense tells us that to work at maximum efficiency, there must be some kind of cooperation between these organizations. So the actual question: What would actually make the sum of these organizations different from today's democratic state? It seems to me, that unless we want to return to paleolithic period, we can't get rid of "state". Or is there some fallacy in my logic?

No fallacy really, but perhaps a bit too narrow?
I can't see how the state, an institution in a class society can be called democratic in a wide sense. The way communists and socialists see it, it is an instrument for the ruling class. Contrary to a particulary unsavoury myth, the state grants more favours and is more generous to the possessing class in societies of our kind, as an illustration you may have a look of the conservative nanny state-link in my sig.
Anyway, the point which I already have put forward a couple of times in this very thread is that what matters is the basis of power in any society. Like it or not, despite that the most advanced capitalist societies have quite developed political democracies, one important sector is undemocratic, I of course refer to the economical sector. That is why I at best can call such a societal arrangement a limited democracy, rather than the common euphemistic term liberal democracy.
So while I can't in detail tell exactly how organization of important societal tasks will be done, I have no reason to suspect that appointing certain people to certain tasks while letting the power-base be fundamentally in the hands of the people should be less effective than how things are carried out today.

2)If I understand your idea correctly, "classless" society would be one where noone has any inborn privileges. However, I believe there is no argument that both mental and physical capabilities of individual persons are very different. Would (should) one of, say, exceptionally talented mind be able to use his his gifts and achieve considerably higher standard of living for himself in such a society - as a norm? Or would this be against the principle? "Higher standard of living" may include all kinds of material or non-material benefits that one may consider motivating.

As you said yourself, there is no argument. People are equal, but not identical. For instance, I am not as good a chessplayer as Kasparov, but I am a better lover than him.
A common strawman among reactionairies is that communists want a society where everybody are absolutely equal in any way. This is indeed not the case.
People would talents should be allowed to develop them freely, contrary to today's situation where social, economic and material obstacles only grant this privilege to rather a few.
However, there is such a thing as a society. Indeed one could claim that in a certain way there are not such a thing as an individual, because of the mutual dependency betwen the members of any community. This means that everybody also should recognize their duty to their fellow men and use their gifts to the welfare of society. Keep in mind that having the oppotunity to do what you are good at and interested in is not a modest reward in itself. Apart from that it must be up to any society to reward certain especially useful activities as they find approriate. For my own part I think that both certain material as well as other types of rewards can be used, depending on the circumstances.

My personal opinion is, that if they are allowed to benefit in some way then it is not too different from capitalist system where one can accumulate wealth and use it the way you please... which in turn makes me wonder why should useful and universal converter of values called "money" be abandoned or why would one system be considered morally superior to another.
And if it is not permitted, I'd say it is counter-evolutionary and kind of unfair...

As I see it the great difference is that in the capitalist system some profit on the fruits of other people's labour.
Furthermore, due to the class hierarchy some people have undeserved advantages while (many more) others have undeserved disadvantages. That is something I regard as unfair.

Thanks for the answer. Just a few comments I couldn't resist:



Yes, it was a coup. But it was only possible because Gorbachev had deliberately undermined one of the USSR's power basis (the state apparatus, "bureaucracy", and a prerequisite in an attempt to reform it), and the other one (the security services) fell into disarray after the failed coup against him. And before those events he had unilaterally withdrawn the USSR from all of Eastern Europe. So it's fair to say that at least he was working to reduce his own state's power.
I would have liked to see what happened if those generals hadn't attempted a coup.

I am aware of the circumstances, but nevertheless I think that it is not a very good example.
I will perhaps return to this when having the opportunity.

There's one good thing with the EU, at least - economic an social changes which might be impossible (immediately crushed by outside opposition) in small countries can be attempted there without that particular fear.

Agreed, and that is why I always thought that a European Union based on other ideas and ideals is a great idea.

That's very true, but ownership itself is becoming no more that an ideological front. I think it was Galbraith who put it more clearly in last few books: ownership of big corporations is now irrelevant, as stock holders have no power over who runs them. The justification for our economic system is based on private property, however power is exercised trough organizations, and property has become more a reward given to the loyal members of those organizations (think stock options... and this bit is my opinion) that a source of power by itself. Have you read Galbraith's "The Anatomy of Power"? The trends he identified in the 1980s have become even stronger, or so it seems to me.

I can't agree on that. Ownership is highly relevant, because this is where the power is rooted disregarding who exercises it on a daily basis.

What do you think of the presidential race? Are you going (breaking news ) Obama/Biden or McCain/x?

I would very much prefer another candidate. Anyone with a social-democratic agenda would be fine with me.

And so finally I have decided to also drop a few lines for f monsieur. But in the future I expect, nay demand, a bit less condescense and more careful reading from his part. If I want Bernhard Henri-Levy, I will ask for him.

If I can't have the best, I want the worst.

That is not what I say at all.

This attitude is frequent within far left-wingers. In fact, we can find it with the far right as well.

Houston, we have a problem.
Now read carefully. If somebody claims that something is a fact, then this somebody has to back this up with something substantial. If not, one must suspect some sort of hidden motivation of malevolent character behind such a claim.

This is highly arguable, but here, from a left wing point of view, McCain would be some GW Bush ersatz, the kind of guy that's ok with war waging, and several hundred thousands people killed.

A fact which is not a fact is indeed something highly arguable.
And I don't want to turn this into a Obama discussion thread, but the following (obvioulsy) has to be said.
What shouldn't have escaped anybody, that war waging is not "ok" with me, but very much so with Democrat presidents. And if monsieur really believe that Barrack Obama is going to pull out American forces from the war theatres, disband the military bases all over the world, stop supporting rogue states, cease any kind of diplomatic and economical power projection, take steps domestically and internationally against the prevalent global capitalist regime which is really the big killer and thus turn the USA into a respectable and benevolent member of the world community, then he can write me a PM and I will offer him the Eiffel Tower to retail prize.
There are a few differences between the Republicans and the Democrats, but basically they represent the same. They are not identical, but rather the two wings of the same bussiness elite party. Not only is Obama neither Jesus nor Lenin, he isn't even Olof Palme.

So my questions to a Red are, why people with 1. their heart on the good side and 2. intelligent enough to know what is best for America, when it comes to chose prefere cynism and the killings implied over anything else ?

We don't "prefer" "cynism" and "killings". We will get it disregarding which of the two pro-empire, pro imperialists which will take ofice. The only ones who have the power and opportunity to do something with that is the American people. What we can at least hope for is that our own domestic elites will be so scared of their own people that they will be reluctant to be vasalls for the Americans. That might in the long run save us a few killings.

How come so much "Reds" have this same morbid reflex ? Does this accomodating attitude takes its roots in the previous "left leaning" experiences of XXth (cf FredLC's issue) ? How do you guys prevent from falling under the Red-Brown cliché ?

Kindly read my OP (eventually again if you just read it with your face).
The only thing I think deserves any comment regarding this is that a course in elementary history should make one more concerned about the Blue-Brown connection.

Thank you.

Indeed. I am in no way obliged to answer snotty and insulting posts. Please don't try my patience further with a repeat performance.

 

[philippe]

I am still awaiting your response on my question and the article i posted when you asked for an explanation of the local situation.

 

[Dann]

I have another question.

Theories and theorists and people who live comfortable lives in 1st world countries and thus have the time for such philisophical pursuits aside, how can proponents of communism claim that an affluent society will 'inevitably shift' towards communism when history has shown us that it is always only the poor, the dispossessed, the oppressed, and those who already have nothing to lose who will willingly embrace this philosophy and take up arms to make their dream a reality? The more affluent and comfortable segments of society certainly don't seem to want to give away their possessions and to live a life dependent on other people. If anything the trend is that people with a measure of material wealth will only get even greedier and materialistic, all for even more financial freedom and independence (i.e. money). For them they have everything to lose with communism and nothing to gain. Remember the boat people phenomena after the fall of South Vietnam where anyone who has the means to escape did so by hook and by crook?

 

[Lokolus]

I don't know if this question was already asked so I'll ask it anyway:
Is Communism really possible? I don't think it can function in today's Democracies because of party changes. So my question is, can "real" Communism with all it's features can happen in a non-Totalitarian state? The wealthy classes will not accept Communism and you can only make them join with force.

 

[RedRalph]

I have another question.

Theories and theorists and people who live comfortable lives in 1st world countries and thus have the time for such philisophical pursuits aside, how can proponents of communism claim that an affluent society will 'inevitably shift' towards communism when history has shown us that it is always only the poor, the dispossessed, the oppressed, and those who already have nothing to lose who will willingly embrace this philosophy and take up arms to make their dream a reality? The more affluent and comfortable segments of society certainly don't seem to want to give away their possessions and to live a life dependent on other people. If anything the trend is that people with a measure of material wealth will only get even greedier and materialistic, all for even more financial freedom and independence (i.e. money). For them they have everything to lose with communism and nothing to gain. Remember the boat people phenomena after the fall of South Vietnam where anyone who has the means to escape did so by hook and by crook?

Actually more affluent societies are not always more greedy (think Scandinavia, they threat their disadvantaged and poor relatively well compared to most developed countries, yet are incredibly wealthy themselves). Also the advent of the welfare state (not real socialism but a step in the right direction) came about in some of the wealthiest countries in the world.

As regards the boat people, Vietnam was a completely devestated country after years, nay decades of war. Regardless of govt type it was not going to be a nice place to live at that stage in time.

 

[Gelion]

I have a question. Is a Utopian society possible today with the technological achievments and psychological knowledge we currently posses?
Details if you could

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I have a question. Is a Utopian society possible today with the technological achievments and psychological knowledge we currently posses?
Details if you could

Just a small word on this, since I was thinking about it the other day.

The more capable technologies we develop, the easier it will get. Even today, many jobs that once required workers in a factory assembling things are done by automated robots; because of this, the lowest common denominator of ownership by a human is the overseers of the factory. Automation has reduced the costs of productiong immesurably. If the owners of that company or corporation were not so set on maximizing profits, they would be able to make as much money as before their automations manufactured for them, while paying their employees significantly more. Not that any company will ever do this on its own, that is why the state must do it for them, but the potential is there, because of those technological advances. And this will only get easier.

The downside is that the benefits of it are not likely to be felt by the proletarians until socialism forces it to, via nationalization. However, it means extremely low prices for those goods, which is a good thing, objectively speaking.

 

[Richard Cribb]

I am still awaiting your response on my question and the article i posted when you asked for an explanation of the local situation.

Oh dear. That is what happen when you grow . My apologies.
I had rather an extensive answer ready for you, but I can't seem to find it. So for now, and in a nutshell; today's so-called "socialists" seem not be concerned about problems common people face in their everyday life, they have quite a negative opinion about said people and they avoid mentioning that ugly 5-letter word beginning with a c. As for that local sisuation, I will get back to it (honestly).

I have another question.

Theories and theorists and people who live comfortable lives in 1st world countries and thus have the time for such philisophical pursuits aside, how can proponents of communism claim that an affluent society will 'inevitably shift' towards communism when history has shown us that it is always only the poor, the dispossessed, the oppressed, and those who already have nothing to lose who will willingly embrace this philosophy and take up arms to make their dream a reality?

This is not entirely correct.
First of all, an attentive reader is always rewarded. I already made clear that it is more about the dominant trend in history to move towards greater equality. But it is not going to happen authomatically.
Secondly, history on the contrary shows us that most important revolutions and rebellions have either been lead or had as important actors elements from privileged classes.
Thirdly, it is necessary that exploited people liberate themselves. Freedom is not a merciful gift to be granted from above, it should be something one takes through one's own struggle and effort.

The more affluent and comfortable segments of society certainly don't seem to want to give away their possessions and to live a life dependent on other people.

Now they don't. That is why usually some kind of struggle is necessary, either political or in more extreme cases even a violent one.

If anything the trend is that people with a measure of material wealth will only get even greedier and materialistic, all for even more financial freedom and independence (i.e. money). For them they have everything to lose with communism and nothing to gain.

Not so sure about the last sentence really. There is more to life than commodity fetishism and the accumulation of capital, remember that there is such things as intellectual and spiritual poverty as well as the (more basic)material one.

Remember the boat people phenomena after the fall of South Vietnam where anyone who has the means to escape did so by hook and by crook?

Of course I do, I happen to know quite a few of those people. As a continuation of the Vietnamese War, they were VIP refugees.
It is breaking in open doors to point out that people, especially from certain layers of society, will always try to get to more affluent societies. Which is why, as mentioned not few times already, a critria for the successful implementation of socialism is that it takes place in the most advnaced and richest countries.

I don't know if this question was already asked so I'll ask it anyway:
Is Communism really possible? I don't think it can function in today's Democracies because of party changes. So my question is, can "real" Communism with all it's features can happen in a non-Totalitarian state? The wealthy classes will not accept Communism and you can only make them join with force.

It has more or less been asked before, yes.
It should be possible to implement socialism, but of course the resistance from the old ruling elite is a problem. I can't really say whether use of physical force will be necessary or not, depends on each specific case. Also see my answer just above.

I have a question. Is a Utopian society possible today with the technological achievments and psychological knowledge we currently posses?
Details if you could

Depends on your Utopia.
But if you mean a classless and stateless society based on mutual aid, no. We are quite a few steps from it. It is true that modern technology is mostly a blessing, and that it relieves us form many an arduous and dangerous task. But as long as the means of production is mainly in the possession of a handful of wealthy drones, the social advances will be limited. To repeat, what always matters is where power is rooted.
As for psychology. While people are better than what pseudocynics on internet boards always seem to claim, a transition to any social systems is always telling. It is true that humans have remarkable abilities to adapt, but to turn from consumer into citizen is going to be tough, at least for some (obviously).
I always say that Rome was not destroyed on one day. While we should never lose sight of the ultimate goal, we must be patient and while progressing even accept the occasional setback.

 

[downtown]

It is not completely clear to me what you mean with this.
,

Sorry, I don't think I was very clear.

If a Capitalist was argueing against communisim, for good or for ill, they will likely mention the USSR, Cuba, North Korea, etc. as "failed state" examples, or something to the effect.

I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to domestic Communist movements, so I was wonderng what examples each side of the "political involvement" might cite...

For example, just making things up here off the top of my head, would a Communist who opposed typical political incorperation be able to say "well, we tried being involved in the political process in Italy in 1980, and look how that turned out", or would somebody who supported it go "yeah, but look what we were able to get done in Hungary in 1993", etc etc.

Is there some sort of shining example for sucessful Communist political incorperation/spectacular failure?

 

[Dann]

This is not entirely correct.
First of all, an attentive reader is always rewarded. I already made clear that it is more about the dominant trend in history to move towards greater equality. But it is not going to happen authomatically.

No argument there.

Secondly, history on the contrary shows us that most important revolutions and rebellions have either been lead or had as important actors elements from privileged classes.

The leaders have to be from the privileged class. For only the privileged will have the education, the free time to ponder philosophically, the idealism, the charisma and the glib tongues to convince people to start a rebellion. But the masses of warm bodies who fight for the revolutions are always from the bottom of society - serfs, village peasants, slum dwellers. Show me a communist revolution pushed by middle class urban folk.

Thirdly, it is necessary that exploited people liberate themselves. Freedom is not a merciful gift to be granted from above, it should be something one takes through one's own struggle and effort.

Now they don't. That is why usually some kind of struggle is necessary, either political or in more extreme cases even a violent one.

After so much proof of the inviability of the system from the last century, you would want the violence of that last century repeated again just for one more chance to see if it will finally work?

Not so sure about the last sentence really. There is more to life than commodity fetishism and the accumulation of capital, remember that there is such things as intellectual and spiritual poverty as well as the (more basic)material one.

Perhaps, for you who are living in an affluent country and am already free from material wants, and would have to be really messed up in the head somehow to ever end up penniless and sleeping on the streets. But for us people in poorer countries only the material world matters. For now.

Of course I do, I happen to know quite a few of those people. As a continuation of the Vietnamese War, they were VIP refugees.

I see we are talking about 2 completely different classes of Vietnamese boat people. Obviously those who could make it to Europe and America (the VIP refugees) were the movers and shakers of their country back in the day. What we the neighboring countries received in bulk were but the ordinary middle class folk. Fearful people who hocked all their possessions and allowed their daughters to be raped in exchange for a ride in rickety boats across typhoon and pirate infested waters. To arrive at shores that were not particularly welcoming and herded them into camps. To live the rest of their lives as 2nd class citizens away from their ancestral homeland. But it's still worth it because hey, at least they will still own the shirts on their backs. (I won't go on about the cliched 'freedom' bit)

It is breaking in open doors to point out that people, especially from certain layers of society, will always try to get to more affluent societies. Which is why, as mentioned not few times already, a critria for the successful implementation of socialism is that it takes place in the most advnaced and richest countries.

And when that happens I'm sure some of the rich will then escape to a poor but capitalist country where their wealth will allow them to live as kings. I know I would if I were in such a situation.

 

[m4gill4]

I enjoyed your response to JericoHill's good question about the social bonds necessary for a successful communist society. I would like to explore that a bit further.

Your reply was something along the lines of how societies will need to learn new forms of social relationships, just as they have in the past i.e. transition from feudalism to mercantilism/capitalism.

That sounds about right to me, so here is my question. To the modern communist, is the priority to affect political change, or social? Do they focus on changing the government, or the people themselves? Would it be a fair assessment to say that previous communist movements/countries focused too much on political/economic change without the necessary underlying social/ideological changes to the mindset of the population?

If communism (some form of it) is as you say, inevitable, then why the focus on immediate political/economic change rather than the long-term goal of improving the ethics and social bonds of the population through education/outreach/social movements? Are there communist groups in existence who emphasize the latter which I am just not aware of?

I'm picturing a person who doesn't vote or advocate revolution, who is confident as you are that egalitarian society is inevitable, I'm picturing him at an airport handing out free literature which promotes peace and equality (not overtly political) sort of like a hare krishna, organizing community projects of a non-political sort, just in general trying to bring people together in a spirit of community and equality.

Could this person be considered a communist?

Are there many communists who are like this person, who are more interested in bettering people in general than in immediate political catharsis?

In your opinion, is this kind of social change a necesary prerequisite for a successful communist society?

How far off are we, and what are communists currently doing to get society ready for this kind of change?

Are there any countries/societies which you think are further along in this social development than others i.e. are more ready for communism/egalitarianism than others? Which and why?

 

[BasketCase]

I have a question. Is a Utopian society possible today with the technological achievments and psychological knowledge we currently posses?
Details if you could

No. Well, depends what you mean by Utopia. If you mean "equal"--no.

In any technologically advanced world, you can have a better lifestyle than your neighbor simply by having more techno-goodies. In a society without money? No problem--steal the techno-goodies.

 

[Richard Cribb]

@downtown and m4gill4; I will get back to your good and relevant questions later.
Now I feel that it is necessary to carry out some heavier duties, unfortunately.
First this to Dann, and I want a lot of you to think that they are Dann just in this very moment concerning this very issue:
First of all, and read it carefully, then say it aloud three times and preferably also tattoo it on your chest:
This. is. not. an. argument. thread.
That means... I will in the future not respond to any wisecracks. I will debate nothing. Furthermore if this continues to be violated I will discontinue this thread.

No argument there.

The leaders have to be from the privileged class. For only the privileged will have the education, the free time to ponder philosophically, the idealism, the charisma and the glib tongues to convince people to start a rebellion. But the masses of warm bodies who fight for the revolutions are always from the bottom of society - serfs, village peasants, slum dwellers. Show me a communist revolution pushed by middle class urban folk.

Nobody denies this. It is quite obvious really.

After so much proof of the inviability of the system from the last century, you would want the violence of that last century repeated again just for one more chance to see if it will finally work?

A bit less smugness might suit you better, if that is possible.
I can hardly see any "much proof of the inviability of the system" when "the system" did not exist.
Thinking of it, it wouldn't hurt you to read more carefully, either. I hate to repeat this ad nauseam, and I apologize for this to those of you who actually manage to read and understand a text, but here we go - again.
A successful implementation of a socialist system has as one of its preconditions that the society that implements it is an advanced, capitalist and preferably powerful society.
I wish somebody could set music to that, that might make it easier to grasp.
What I think we see though, is the inviability of the current dominant societal system. But to repeat basic facts about that is really beating a dead horse.

Perhaps, for you who are living in an affluent country and am already free from material wants, and would have to be really messed up in the head somehow to ever end up penniless and sleeping on the streets. But for us people in poorer countries only the material world matters. For now.

Again, read more carefully. And in context please.
Here is what I wrote.

There is more to life than commodity fetishism and the accumulation of capital, remember that there is such things as intellectual and spiritual poverty as well as the (more basic)material one.

Did you notice the bolded part, I did it just for you. Material condition are the basic ones. But what I responded to in the quote above was your question about what the ruling class,
not "us people in poorer countries" had to gain from a communist society. You are insulting my intelligence, don't do that again.
And don't try some feeble trolling either. I am not the most active poster here, but few things escape my attention, and I surely know my Pappenheimers. Your previous boasting hasn't gone unnoticed. I don't know if I am richer than you, I don't know how relevant that is regarding this either, but indeed I have for a period lived penniless on the street. And that in a rich country with capitalism with a human face. If you think that being "really messed up in your head" is a neccessary precondition for getting into such a situation, then I have nothing more to tell you. As I said in the OP, there are certain types of people I don't suffer easily.

I see we are talking about 2 completely different classes of Vietnamese boat people. Obviously those who could make it to Europe and America (the VIP refugees) were the movers and shakers of their country back in the day. What we the neighboring countries received in bulk were but the ordinary middle class folk. Fearful people who hocked all their possessions and allowed their daughters to be raped in exchange for a ride in rickety boats across typhoon and pirate infested waters. To arrive at shores that were not particularly welcoming and herded them into camps. To live the rest of their lives as 2nd class citizens away from their ancestral homeland. But it's still worth it because hey, at least they will still own the shirts on their backs. (I won't go on about the cliched 'freedom' bit)

Clearly you misunderstod my term. VIP in this case does not mean in the economic, but in the political sense. With this I mean that everybody from Vietnam was authomatically granted the status of a political refugee and given asylum, just as well fed people from the Eastern Bloc was regarded as a worthy victims in the West. For people who suffered political persecution, but who were unfortunate enough to live in a country which had friendly relations with our Big Friend, it was often quite a different story.

And when that happens I'm sure some of the rich will then escape to a poor but capitalist country where their wealth will allow them to live as kings. I know I would if I were in such a situation.

That's nice. That's really nice. Now go and tell that to somebody who cares.

And if anybody thought that was bad, what about this;

No. Well, depends what you mean by Utopia. If you mean "equal"--no.

In any technologically advanced world, you can have a better lifestyle than your neighbor simply by having more techno-goodies. In a society without money? No problem--steal the techno-goodies.

Ladies and gentlemen, a triple violation.
This individual, who is one of the few I completely ignore, even has the nerve to without permission present an answer.
I do realize that there is probably some medical condition involved, and that his goal is to ruin this thread.
He has been reported, and I can only ask anybody involved in this thread to ignore this person completely.

 

[Dann]

*sigh* Hey man don't get riled so easily I meant no malice. I rarely join discussions in OT nowadays.

Anyway for the thread's sake I'll take my leave now...

 

[Arwon]

I've got a bit to ask about the relationship between marxism/socialism/etc and feminism. Or, if you like, between class and gender.

I recently had an argument with a Marxist who basically said that gender differences are a product of class distinctions and that they can only disappear with a classless society. I couldn't agree and I think this argument is rather self-serving, and to me it seems perfectly possible that there can be a classless society which is still unequal in gender terms.

Though I'm interested in a more educated Marxist opinion than a 2nd year arts student could give. Do you agree with the idea that women are a "sex class"? And, is this a subset of class difference, a different and independent axis of subjugation and domination altogether, or is it some other relationship? Or in other words, in a classless society, who raises the kids, cooks, cleans, and so forth?

 

[Angst]

Do modern communists discuss the trustworthiness of Marx' negative view on religion? And, connected to that, are any modern communist theories developing from Marxism distinguishable, (theoretically) more effecient, or different? What are these theories?

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

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

 

[RedRalph]

I recently had an argument with a Marxist who basically said that gender differences are a product of class distinctions and that they can only disappear with a classless society. I couldn't agree and I think this argument is rather self-serving, and to me it seems perfectly possible that there can be a classless society which is still unequal in gender terms.

Though I'm interested in a more educated Marxist opinion than a 2nd year arts student could give. Do you agree with the idea that women are a "sex class"? And, is this a subset of class difference, a different and independent axis of subjugation and domination altogether, or is it some other relationship? Or in other words, in a classless society, who raises the kids, cooks, cleans, and so forth?

FWIW, one thing that has to be born in mind is that Marx's ideas on gender and class really only applied to societies where that class structure existed. the relation between women, men and the means of production is not going to be the same in Germany as it is in Borneo.

I think its fair to say that in the ideal classless society you would not be born with duties ascribed to you because of gender.

 

[RedRalph]

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

Not generally, in my experience. There is a Christian Marxist movement, and Arab socialism, while not really Marxist and certaintly not Islam-based, certaintly in practice combined elements of both (or at least didnt view religion with total distain as most European and Asian marxists do).

I think a lot of Marx's views on religion have become mainstream views nowadays held by people who arent Marxists at all; maybe not expressed the same way Lenin did, but basically rthe same thing, that religion is a crutch, and it distracts people form more important things in life by providing them with an imagined consolation. Radical views in Marx's time, pretty common currency now.