Communism: Theory and Practice

[Desmond Hawkins]

Capitalism is worldwide.
Famine also.
You cannot say that the absence of famine in some countries is due to capitalism and its existence in other is not.
Capitalism, defined as private property of means of production, is a system aimed to giving money to an aristocracy: the owners, by taking it from the workers, thus enlarging social inequality and the risk of famine.

No, because without the non-labour capital of production committed by the capitalists, the workers could never have produced as much as they did. Therefore, the workers are not themselves producing all of the value, but are using the value of the capitalists to produce.

As for famine, this almost always occurs in areas WITHOUT a democratic mixed economy. Communist Ethiopia and Maoist China are the places (and eras) to go if you want to find real famine. And yes, it is true communism, since authoritarianism is an extention of determining what people need for them.

Do you think a collective decision can only be bureaucratic and authoritarian ?
Have you ever heard of democracy ?
Anyway, your dramatisation of this question is ludicrous:
When you've understood that infinite accumulation of material goods does not make happiness, there is not much varation about the definition of basic needs any more.

So you want a direct democracy where the value of absolutely everything, in any given circumstance (items have different values relative to their context)? You imagine a committee of debate could handle this? So, I imagine we ditch the direct democracy part, and move onto representative. You want a group of representatives to hash out the exact value of every possible good or service in any circumstance, and then continue to debate to be able to constantly change these values over time? This is impossible. Even trying to use governments to determine a small amount of needs/values has proven to require large bureaucracies, as constant debate on the subject is impossible.

So lets imagine here, a situation where there is a planned economy process, where the decision-making is "frictionless", and the precise level of need and value is perfectly assigned to people given the context of their individual situation. This result would probably look vaguely like the result you get with capitalistic tools. Except of course the difference being that capitalism IS possible, and you are just looking for an impossible way of coming out with the same outcome, which is ludicrous. However, I don't think this is what you are looking for; you believe peoples values can be dictated to them, which is what would happen if the democratic process was used for this. Your say over your values is only 1 out of millions of votes, and thus it is virtually dictated onto you.

And as for me discovering that wealth isn't the only thing in life. If communists believed this to be true, then why is it that their entire theory focuses almost soley on the distribution of wealth? Every problem, and every solution boils down to the distribution of wealth. Workers apparantly not being able to take all the wealth. You are the one who cannot get beyond economics.

As for me, I am really not a pure capitalist. I am not naive enough to think it gives desirable outcomes in all situations. However, I also realize that as a tool, it has provided everyone in society, including the poor, with more wealth than they ever could have enjoyed without it. The places in the world with "true" poverty are places where peoples needs and values are dictated to them by others.

 

[carniflex]

Marxism and Communism do lead to mass murder ("class warfare"), repressive and oppressive government ("the dictatorship of the proletariat"), and hate filled rhetoric and rampant dishonesty and inconsistency(many examples, see my paper).

It can be argued that some minor corruptions occured (Russian nationalism, for example) but Communism/Marxism laid the basis for a great many of the needless deaths of the 20th century through famine(China, Russia, North Korea), repression(all Communist regimes), and war(Russian Civil War, Sino-Vietnamese and Sino-Russian Conflicts, Korean War, War in Afghanistan).

If you feel you can defend Communism/Marxism by any method, I encourage you to reply here

1. Marxism and Communism are not the same thing. Communism is a social system. Marxism, if it can be defined, would be Marx' thinkings. Therefore, expression such as "Marxism and Communism" or "Communism/Marxism" mean nothing.

2. Marxism itself considered as an ideology does not exist as there are contradictions in Marx' writings. Therefore, it does not mean a lot to say that marxism causes this or that without saying what causes what precisely.

3. Saying that Class warfare lead to mass murder is very vague. In fact, no people revolting against capitalism has never massacred itself. However, it's true that aristocracies regularly organize mass murder of workers.

4. "the dictatorship of the proletariat", expression of the Manifesto, does not mean a repressive and oppressive government of the people. It precisely means the exact contrary, a governement of the people, aimed at abolish the capitalist oppression. In fact, in the manifesto, "the dictatorship of the proletariat" and "democracy" are regulary used to represent a unique reality, opposed to "the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie"

5. Nationalism is a major corruption, as the manifesto is clearly internationlist ("Proletarian aller lander, vereinigt euch!"), and is sufficient condition to say that the so called communist countries are neither communist nor marxist. Not mentionning other "minor corruptions" such as bureaucracy and exploitation.

 

[carniflex]

No, because without the non-labour capital of production committed by the capitalists, the workers could never have produced as much as they did. Therefore, the workers are not themselves producing all of the value, but are using the value of the capitalists to produce.

Do you mean that means of production are not made by workers ?

As for famine, this almost always occurs in areas WITHOUT a democratic mixed economy. Communist Ethiopia and Maoist China are the places (and eras) to go if you want to find real famine. And yes, it is true communism, since authoritarianism is an extention of determining what people need for them.

Note the "almost".

So lets imagine here, a situation where there is a planned economy process, where the decision-making is "frictionless", and the precise level of need and value is perfectly assigned to people given the context of their individual situation. This result would probably look vaguely like the result you get with capitalistic tools.

Not really.
Capitalism does all but ensuring that the people needs are provided.

And as for me discovering that wealth isn't the only thing in life. If communists believed this to be true, then why is it that their entire theory focuses almost soley on the distribution of wealth?

Some of a shortcut here.
Focus on the distribution of wealth and discovering that wealth isn't the only thing in life are not contradictory.

 

[colontos]

1. Marxism and Communism are not the same thing. Communism is a social system. Marxism, if it can be defined, would be Marx' thinkings. Therefore, expression such as "Marxism and Communism" or "Communism/Marxism" mean nothing.

On the contrary, it does mean something that I have repeatedly defined. There are other types Communism than Marxism, but I have repeatedly made it clear that I am referring to the Marxist variety, in part because all Communist regimes in history have claimed to be Marxist. Stop playing with semantics and make an argument.

2. Marxism itself considered as an ideology does not exist as there are contradictions in Marx' writings. Therefore, it does not mean a lot to say that marxism causes this or that without saying what causes what precisely.

Again, I have repeatedly stated that what I am dealing with is Communism as theorized by Marx and practiced by avowed Marxists.

3. Saying that Class warfare lead to mass murder is very vague. In fact, no people revolting against capitalism has never massacred itself. However, it's true that aristocracies regularly organize mass murder of workers.

Wow. Give me an example of an aristocracy regularly mass murdering workers in history. Class warfare does lead to mass murder. According to Marx, it must be carried out during and after the proletarian revolution. In some cases it takes the form of a civil war, but when the bourgeois forces are no longer organized, class warfare is still carried out on civilians. Mass executions.

4. "the dictatorship of the proletariat", expression of the Manifesto, does not mean a repressive and oppressive government of the people. It precisely means the exact contrary, a governement of the people, aimed at abolish the capitalist oppression. In fact, in the manifesto, "the dictatorship of the proletariat" and "democracy" are regulary used to represent a unique reality, opposed to "the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie"

It does mean a repressive government. Marx stated that a strong dictatorship would be necessary during a transitional period. Democracy IS NOT compatible with communism. In the manifesto it is very clear that Marx considers democracy to be a bourgeois form of government.

 

[colontos]

Sorry Mac, but it is not that easy. I am fed up with that people like you shall be allowed to throw Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot in my face every time I for instance propose a more even distribution of wealth.
I have shown ad nausem that your last sentence is not true, at least have the decency and fantasy to come up with a fitting term for that sort of political systems.
Hierarchic authoritarian societes are not communist. Period.

Actually, you haven't shown anything, not once. All you've done is argue semantics without anything to back up your assertions. Stalin etc will continue to be thrown into your face if you advocate Marxism, and with good reason. I know you're not a Marxist, so you shouldn't worry too much. But unless your system is fundamentally different and you have real, workable solutions to show, then you're susceptible to the same arguments. As long as you defend Marx, you have to take some responsibility for the results of Marxism.

Communist societies will always be authoritarian. Period. I have arguments to back up my point, and I have made them. You don't, and you haven't.

The defenders of Marx have yet to make a real argument. They are continuously quibbling over semantics and definitions, when I have in fact made my definitions clear. Which suggests to me that they don't really have anything to say.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Do you mean that means of production are not made by workers ?

I am saying they only contribute part of the means of production. There is other capital that is required, that is provided by previously created capital. But I mean, if you cannot understand that, then perhaps I should end the discussion.

Note the "almost".

You are missing the point. Capitalism isn't perfect at providing these "needs", but its track record is far better than those who want to communize the entire economy. The fact that it is almost always (and I cannot even think of a democratic mixed economy with a famine in the modern world) countries without significant free market mechanisms that have the large famines should say something to you.

Not really.
Capitalism does all but ensuring that the people needs are provided.

Well, again, needs are impossible to have an agreed definition on, but using the common "definition" of water and food, I have shown that the heavily capitalistic west, if anything has a problem of people having their basic needs met a little too well, if you know what I mean. Unless of course you are just trolling...

Some of a shortcut here.
Focus on the distribution of wealth and discovering that wealth isn't the only thing in life are not contradictory.

But to communists, the entire theory is about the fair distribution of wealth. It is supposed to be a wholistic theory, and yet it would suggest that the only thing to be concerned with is wealth. If all the communists were not just full of it, then they would be happy with their "basic needs" of food and water and be content.

 

[carniflex]

Wow. Give me an example of an aristocracy regularly mass murdering workers in history.

Any repression of a social revolution will do. But it's the part of history you surely dont even imagine the existence.

Let's give you one example i know a bit.
Paris, summer 1871, workers seize the power and create a direct democracy.
May 1871, the bourgeoisie send the army to take Paris. 100.000 civilians executed.

when the bourgeois forces are no longer organized, class warfare is still carried out on civilians. Mass executions.

When the burgeois forces are no longer organized, proletarians executes themselves ?

In the manifesto it is very clear that Marx considers democracy to be a bourgeois form of government.

Have you read it ?

 

[colontos]

Let's give you one example i know a bit.
Paris, summer 1871, workers seize the power and create a direct democracy.
May 1871, the bourgeoisie send the army to take Paris. 100.000 civilians executed.

That's not 'regularly.' Of course there are instances, but has it ever become systematized as it was in the USSR?

When the burgeois forces are no longer organized, proletarians executes themselves ?

Yeah, actually. They did do that. But what I was referring to was the idea in Soviet Russia for example that a person class background was the most important consideration in a criminal trial. After the civil war is over, there are still a lot of bourgeoisie hanging around. Class warfare mean getting rid of them in some way, and the bullet has often been the way chosen.

Have you read it ?

If you take a look at my paper, you'll note that its written based on a close examination of the manifesto. I have read it probably 4 or 5 times and examined it very closely, read secondary literature about it, looked at other important Communist works, and studied the effects it had on history.

So, yes, I have read it. Have you?

 

[Kosez]

Anti-Leninist Marxism has never been put into practice. In my view, this is because it's impossible. I claim that Lenin's adjustments of Marxism are logical outgrowths because they make the possibility of Communist revolution more realistic. Anti-Leninist Marxists have never accomplished anything, because their theory renders them unable. Marxism does not work without Leninism. Leninism does not work without Stalinism. That is my point.

Not true. It has been, in Yugoslavia from 1951 to 1972, the system was known as market-socialism, or more correct ˝samoupravni socializem˝, if I try to translate that to english it would mean somtehing like self-management socialism. It was very successful, especially in 60's, but then the oil crisis happened, and leaders thought economic system was coming too close to market economy, so they invented ˝dogovorni socializem˝ or agreement socialism, which was less successful.

I have read your paper, and I must say you are right on many points. I too don't like parts of Marx's work, where he speaks about necessity of workers revolution. I don't like revolutions very much, but sometimes they do seem inevitable (look at the situation in Belarus), it looks like Marx thought workers have caught themselves in an endless circle, from which they won't be able to escape. From that point of view I understand him.

I am more familiar with economy part of his work, and I have to say he was a brilliant guy. But he made some fatal mistakes, most obvious is off course underestimating the importance of capital relocation process. He thought that this is not work and thus should not be paid. But he was wrong, as all of communist state's have showed. State is not good at this job, central planners are not good enough investers. And all communist state's have proven us this. Without proper investments there is no economic progress, and to make investments proper is a lot harder to achieve than to operate a machine. Marx's idea was to put economy into service of society, so society could evolve, and his idea of evolution was not that some have plenty, many have nothing. I agree with him, but as I said, this cannot be done without people that relocate the capital, and are paid to do it properly (nowadays we call them enterpreneurs but Marx may have called them capitalists).

 

[carniflex]

Of course there are instances, but has it ever become systematized as it was in the USSR?

USSR had its proper aristocracy and its proper mass murder. However, saying that mass murder is systematic in USSR whereas there are only instances in the capitalist countries, such as nazi Germany, is nothing more than basic anticommunist propaganda.

If you take a look at my paper, you'll note that its written based on a close examination of the manifesto. I have read it probably 4 or 5 times and examined it very closely, read secondary literature about it, looked at other important Communist works, and studied the effects it had on history.

So, yes, I have read it. Have you?

In fact, your statement "In the manifesto it is very clear that Marx considers democracy to be a bourgeois form of government" proves you read anticommunist literature about it such the as paper you gave a link of.

However, the real Manifesto is far different: "We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy."

 

[HawkeyeGS]

@colontos

I think you are reading a bit too deeply into Marx. Sure he 'launched' the communist movement of the last century but that doesn't mean he is communism incarnate. Marx is still simply a follower of communism. My argument has been that you cannot hate the ideal of communism simply due to a bunch of a-holes that adopted and distorted it. It didn't work and capitalism still doesn't work. Capitalism is meant to allow growth in industry and hence the poor will be handed a bone in the form of a job. This however is seen not to work in the US where they have the highest rates of poverty and the largest and most rapidly growing gap between rich and poor of a developed country. I say if communism was given a fair go with some competent and sane leaders adopting it without extern pressure from capitalist nations it would get far better results and may even put the capitalist system to shame. The point is we don't know and no one knows. So how about we all stop the commie bashing and the other debatable ism bashing and focus on simply making this world a slightly nicer place to live where no one runs out the back into their homemade bomb shelter through fear of having an economic system imposed upon them. Politics should not be about right and left but about what single policy will best improve the life of the citizens both of this country and all the others.

The whole communist-Capitalist 'War' is an illusion to prevent people from seeing that the US and the USSR were superpowers fighting for global dominance. Nothing more. The wall has fallen so how about bring down our prejudices as well.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Except that Nazi Germany was not democratic, and the state held much guidance over production for its own goals.

However, I think you should read the last paragraph of Kosez's post as further proof of the value of the capitalist's contribution.

 

[colontos]

USSR had its proper aristocracy and its proper mass murder. However, saying that mass murder is systematic in USSR whereas there are only instances in the capitalist countries, such as nazi Germany, is nothing more than basic anticommunist propaganda.

Nazi Germany was neither capitalist nor democratic. It was fascist and authoritarian, and the USSR was also authoritarian.

In fact, your statement "In the manifesto it is very clear that Marx considers democracy to be a bourgeois form of government" proves you read anticommunist literature about it such the as paper you gave a link of.

First of all, I wrote that paper! It's mine! Anyway, no, you're wrong. See below.

However, the real Manifesto is far different: "We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy."

Yes, they need to win the battle of democracy (says Marx). Democracy is a battle that needs to be won by the proletariat and then ended. I'll give you some quotes from the manifesto to prove my point:

After talking about the bourgeoisie's defeat of feudalism, Marx writes: "Into [the feudal lords'] place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted to it, and by the economical and political sway of the bourgeois class." ***democracy/republicanism is suited to a free capitalist economy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by
degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all
instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the
proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the
total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by
means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on
the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures,
therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable,
but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves,
necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are
unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of
production.

This is right after your quote. Marx here makes it clear that a despotic government will be temporarily necessary. Not a democracy. After this, according to Marx, the government will wither away and disappear. No government, not a democracy. Marx was anti-democratic.

Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied
by a corresponding political advance of that class. An
oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an
armed and self-governing association in the mediaeval commune;
here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany),
there taxable "third estate" of the monarchy (as in France),
afterwards, in the period of manufacture proper, serving either
the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise
against the nobility, and, in fact, corner-stone of the great
monarchies in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the
establishment of Modern Industry and of the world-market,
conquered for itself, in the modern representative State,
exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern State is
but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole
bourgeoisie.

See!! The bourgeoisie establishes a representative state to look after their own interests. It exists for the purpose of aiding the bourgeoisie. Marx was anti-representative government.

By this, the long wished-for opportunity was offered to "True"
Socialism of confronting the political movement with the
Socialist demands, of hurling the traditional anathemas
against liberalism, against representative government, against
bourgeois competition, bourgeois freedom of the press, bourgeois
legislation, bourgeois liberty and equality, and of preaching to
the masses that they had nothing to gain, and everything to lose,
by this bourgeois movement.

And again. Liberalism, representative government, human freedoms, etc. Marx was against all these things.

I think that's enough for right now.

 

[Shaihulud]

Well, that's an interesting point, but Washington and Jefferson didn't have to murder thousands of people when they were figuring things out. Also, China today is in the fourth generation, and is still marked by political repression and lack of basic freedoms. Russia in the fourth generation (Brezhnev) was still marked by the same problems. The USSR was nicer in 1980 than in 1930, but it still wasn't nice

I was more thinking of the Greek City States as a precursor of democracy, but the Americas was a different story. It was a dangerous new land with space to spare and natural resources, America's founding father had a wealth of experience from previous democracies and republics to help them create a new system of government.

Marx wrote his theory on Communist and class struggles amidst crushing oppression and poverty among the low classes, this I believed soured his disposition and may have contributed to the brutalities and excesses of the Coummunist revolutions. The whole of Asia is rife with political oppression and lack of basic freedom. I believe that this has much to do with poverty in those regions, freedom should lie very high on Maslow heirachy of needs, "Fill the belly first than we can talk about freedom", political freedom lies even hifer in my opinion.

I did not say they were democracies. I am familiar with Sen's work, which is enough reason to disregard it. The study I assume you are refering to, called
More than 100 Million Women are Missing, is a criticism of gender inequality in Asia. It has nothing to do with capitalism.

Im not familiar with the work, but I think the point is, that a democracy allows it to happen. Is the same argument that communist government allows famine and mass murder to happen, the atrocities are not representative of both form of governance and it is inappropriate to use them as examples.

 

[JollyRoger]

Well, that's an interesting point, but Washington and Jefferson didn't have to murder thousands of people when they were figuring things out.

Except the British, Native Americans, and uppity slaves.

 

[GinandTonic]

Just as there has never been a democratic nation (only representative) there has never been a communist nation. For much the same reasions. No nation on earth lives under a free market

Is everyone who dies of poverty under a capitalist system the victim of that system in the same way as under comunism?

Holding Marx responsible for tiananmen square is as daft as blaiming Adam Smith for the AIDS pamdemic.

What we should look at with regards to all this is not (resolved) political conflicts but the most incicive analysis of the nature of the free market ever. Marx is economics 101.

 

[colontos]

Is everyone who dies of poverty under a capitalist system the victim of that system in the same way as under comunism?

Even if they are, the numbers are nowehere near the victims of communism.

Holding Marx responsible for tiananmen square is as daft as blaiming Adam Smith for the AIDS pamdemic.

I don't see the connection between Adam Smith/Capitalism and AIDS.

I do see the connection between Marx and Tiananmen Square: what did the students want? Democracy. What did Marx say about democracy? That it is a bourgeois system of government (see above post). The students, therefore, were bourgeois sympathizers, or counterrevolutionaries. What did Marx say to do with the bourgeoisie and counterrevolutionaries? Class warfare, despotic inroads, etc (see above post). I think the connection is clear.

 

[Headline]

Marxist's
Labor theory of value
was implemented in the USSR.

So why do pp think the USSR is not a good representation of Marxism?

 

[jamiethearcher]

It is my belief that theoretical "perfect" communism can never be attained in the real world. I think its concept of leveling everyone to the same level just doesn't mesh with human nature. As such, it will always result in a few of the party elite dominating the rest a la the USSR.

EDIT: "leveling everyone to the same level"....brilliant jamie, absolutly freaking brialliant. I should be an author or something

 

[AngryPants]

I see the communist sympathizers and laugh. There ideology was pwned by a B-Movie actor with Alzheimers.