Ask a red

[Arwon]

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.

Did he idealise working class culture as less gender-unequal (or actually as gender-equal) or is that more of a vulgar marxist argument?

 

[RedRalph]

Did he idealise working class culture as less gender-unequal (or actually as gender-equal) or is that more of a vulgar marxist argument?

Being no expert I dont have off the top of my head any direct quote or even position I can attribute to Marx himself on this, but I think the general perception among Marxists is that middle-class women had even more differenciated roles to fill in their society than working class women did, and would generally be more subservient to the male as well. I certaintly think this is the case in my society, in the working class women do have a more equal role to men than in middle class environments, I have a fair bit of experience of both classes, so in Ireland thats the way it is IMO. (This is hardly a nuanced and scholarly reply as Lucefarul would give, and is only my interpretation, so dont take it as gospel).

 

[Samson]

Being no expert I dont have off the top of my head any direct quote or even position I can attribute to Marx himself on this, but I think the general perception among Marxists is that middle-class women had even more differenciated roles to fill in their society than working class women did, and would generally be more subservient to the male as well. I certaintly think this is the case in my society, in the working class women do have a more equal role to men than in middle class environments, I have a fair bit of experience of both classes, so in Ireland thats the way it is IMO. (This is hardly a nuanced and scholarly reply as Lucefarul would give, and is only my interpretation, so dont take it as gospel).

I am really supprissed at this. In my personal experience working class jobs, ie. those that you work with your hands like manufacturing, plumbing, car maintianance, farm labouring, building sites etc. are very heavily male dominated. Middle class jobs, ie. those where you work with your mind like IT, science, call centres and the profesions (doctors and lawyers in particular) are pretty equal if not female dominated. I have no figures to back this up, just how it seems to me.

It would be very interesting if this was significantly different in Ireland than England.

 

[Richard Cribb]

I apologize for my neglect of this thread, but something has turned up that demands my attention for a little while. I will try to get some answers posted on Wednesday.

 

[Richard Cribb]

I must apologize again for my neglect, here are just some brief remarks, I hope to fil it out later and to respond to those neglected so far. Also thanks to RRR for his excellent contributions.

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?

I can't really give you a very good example on any country, except that the countries usually mentioned didn't really do so badly when taken into their just historical context and compared to countries with a rather similar socio-economic base (like Russia - Brazil, Bulgaria - Guatemala etc).
But the greatest achievements by socialists and communists are of course the struggle for political, economical and social rights in capitalis countries. Try imaging a world without the impact of labour unions regarding modern democracy, for instance. And those unions were socialist ones.

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?

While it is necessary to consider both the things you mentioned, priority must be given to changing the political-economical structure.
This is because to a large extend we are products of our environment, and because the basis of our existence is material.

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?

As already noted, a communist society is not coming authomathically. I did use the term largely inevitable, because it seems obvious that this is the direction society seems to take. But it is never going to happen if we don't mke an effort for it. The future is never completely given.
I suppose there are some idealist socialist groups which might be what you are asking for, but I don't know them too well.

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?

Yes. As long as one realizes that the basic antagonism in society is the one between labour and capital and as long as one wants to transcend capitalism and has a classless society as one's final goal, then one is 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?

I would think so.

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

No.

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

There is quite a long way to go. Responsible communists are mostly taking part in different kind of responsible political work as I outlined in an earlier post.

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?

Scandinavia and Netherland comes to mind. Advanced capitalist societies with relatively small inequality and a high degree of social freedom. Also with traditionally influental labour unions.

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?

Feminism are not one thing. It can be mixed with virtually any political ideology except fascism.
Personally I regard feminism as a basically bourgeois ideology. While it is a political struggle of importance, it is not really a part of the class struggle. It is worth noting that quite a few capitalists nowadays will never dream of discriminating on the basis of gender or race.
As for the classless society, in itself it is no guarantee against discrimination. But one might assume that a society where basic injustice is removed and more egalitarian values are the ideal ones, there will be less racists and sexists around. And when it comes to raising children, cooking, cleaning and so on, who should do that is up to the society, not me. But I guess a kind of rotating of such tasks could be one way of doing it.

 

[Yeekim]

Thank you for previous answers! I won't give up easily, however!

I suddenly remembered a short passage from one of Vladimir Suvorov's books, which I'll try to reproduce from the top of my head:
Young Suvorov(Rezun) is yet a soldier in Red Army, fulfilling a rather menial task of spreading out manure in some officer's garden together with another conscript. While at that, he expresses his belief about pending arrival of communism (classless society etc). His mate abruptly rebuffs him, saying: "This will never happen."
"But why?"
"Pray tell me, who is going to spread manure in this classless society?"

So hence my question: in a classless society, where everyone is free to choose his occupation, where no occupation is more "profitable" than another since money has disappeared and where main factor in choosing an occupation is supposedly this rewarding feeling provided by job you like being well done, there will unevitably still be a number of menial, boring, dirty, dangerous and unhealthy jobs - no matter how technologically advanced such society is. Such jobs as spreading manure or mining for coal, for instance. Who would be doing this?
And in anticipation of an answer that this could be some kind of community effort where everybody takes part; another question.
Every job needs training and practice to be done well. Even the most unpleasant ones. And sometimes the danger factor makes training VERY necessary.
So wouldn't this society be terribly ineffective and wasteful of resources, if a brain surgeon or university professor has to be trained and used to mine coal or fertilize fields?
And to develop the idea even more, the third question, or actually a statement: no matter how the tasks are divided between the population - I would say that if one's job is to clean gutters while somebody else can be a doctor or a teacher, then there is, de facto, class difference between them, since one can do a nice, safe, and rewarding job while another... well, you get my idea.
How would you comment?

 

[RedRalph]

So hence my question: in a classless society, where everyone is free to choose his occupation, where no occupation is more "profitable" than another since money has disappeared and where main factor of choosing an occupation is supposedly this rewarding feeling provided by job you like being well done, there will unevitably still be a number of menial, boring, dirty, dangerous and unhealthy jobs - no matter how technologically advanced such society is. Such jobs as spreading manure or mining for coal, for instance. Who would be doing this?

Yeekim, use your logic. even in the most dreadful, exploitative ultra-captalist societies, people do awful work merely for the good of others, voluntary work, work ridiculously long hours for terrible pay as nurses, drug counsellors etc etc... now if it happens in a society based around competition, greed and exploitation, why wouldnt it happen in a society based around sharing work, working for the common good and helping your fellow man?


And more concisely: I'll do it. If that job needed to be done and it was of benefit to a communist society, then I'll do it, and even if I didnt, theres plenty of others who would. Its human nature.

 

[Yeekim]

Yeekim, use your logic. even in the most dreadful, exploitative ultra-captalist societies, people do awful work merely for the good of others, voluntary work, work ridiculously long hours for terrible pay as nurses, drug counsellors etc etc... now if it happens in a society based around competition, greed and exploitation, why wouldnt it happen in a society based around sharing work, working for the common good and helping your fellow man?


And more concisely: I'll do it. If that job needed to be done and it was of benefit to a communist society, then I'll do it, and even if I didnt, theres plenty of others who would. Its human nature.

Ok, as this thread is not about arguments, I accept your answer for what it is. That would still leave the third question.

 

[RedRalph]

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

No communists are claiming in a communist society absolutely every concievable thing will be equal, of course not. but these divisions wouldnt constitue classes as no one profession, or groups of profession would have any advantages over other professions OUTSIDE the fact that their work was more comfortable. they would enjoy no political or social advantage over anyone else, the teachers, doctors etc couldnt use their professions to manipulate society as landowners, businessmen etc can now. Of course, some jobs would be more pleseant than others, but the fact is those benefits wouldnt translate into political or class advantages, because there would be no associated priviliges or advanatges to them.

I assume what you are talking about is an extremely mature communist society.

 

[MamboJoel]

Indeed. I am in no way obliged to answer snotty and insulting posts.

Nor are you obliged to remain consistent with this éthique obviously:

I will offer him the Eiffel Tower to retail prize

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

Thank you

 

[Perfection]

What's your favorite color?

 

[Huayna Capac357]

I suppose red...

 

[BasketCase]

No communists are claiming in a communist society absolutely every concievable thing will be equal, of course not. but these divisions wouldnt constitue classes as no one profession, or groups of profession would have any advantages over other professions OUTSIDE the fact that their work was more comfortable.

That last part was an advantage right there. More comfortable.

they would enjoy no political or social advantage over anyone else, the teachers, doctors etc couldnt use their professions to manipulate society as landowners, businessmen etc can now. Of course, some jobs would be more pleseant than others, but the fact is those benefits wouldnt translate into political or class advantages, because there would be no associated priviliges or advanatges to them.

Sure there is: the people doing the hiring control who gets the cushier job (in this case a doctor). Leading to....? Anyone wanna guess? How about people offering bribes to get cushy jobs....?


Wanna try again? You go right ahead and scribble up any scenario you like--I will find the class divisions hidden in it. Try all you like, it's impossible to create a system without them. I know, because in the last Communism-related thread, Greenpeace kept trying, again and again, and no matter how contrived and hackneyed his schemes, he just couldn't do it. He had a thousand posts to try, and he failed. So will you.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

What's your favorite color?

Orange, actually.

 

[Elliot]

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

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

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

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

 

[Gelion]

Hope this thread is not over.

 

[Ansar]

What is defined as a modern socialist country?

Is any of Europe socialist?

 

[RedRalph]

What is defined as a modern socialist country?

Is any of Europe socialist?

Some are closer than others, but personally I wouldnt classify any of Europe as socialist at the moment.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

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

 

[Annex]

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