Communism: Theory and Practice

[Sidhe]

I really wish more people who like to discuss political systems that don't work such as communism would turn their talents on democracy, it does work but it's far from perfect, why not try and heal something that exists rather than playing the semantics game with a conceptual ideal? Is this a philosophy class

 

[carniflex]

Nazi Germany was neither capitalist nor democratic.

I certainly never said that Nazi Germany was democratic. I said it was capitalist, that is an historical fact. But as you certainly dont know what capitalism and democracy are, you probably cant get the difference between.

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.

You misunderstand Marx'statement.
"Win the battle of democracy" does not mean "end the democracy". It means "get the democracy".

The fact the Marx never uses the term "democracy" to speak about the representative governement or about the capitalism, proves that he does not think they were democratic. Democracy was for Marx something to establish, to get, to conquer.

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.

You have the right to think that democracy is not cotradictory with "economical and political sway of the bourgeois class".
But, please, dont say Marx does think so.

This is right after your quote. Marx here makes it clear that a despotic government will be temporarily necessary. Not a democracy.

I cant find any "despotic government" in your quote of Marx.
However I can find "despotic inroads on the rights of property", that is, in Marx'opinion - and mine - a condition to establish a democracy.

In fact, the capitalist property, that gives an unequal power to each, according to the number of shares you have, is contradictory with the democratic principle: one people, one vote.

After this, according to Marx, the government will wither away and disappear. No government, not a democracy. Marx was anti-democratic.

What Marx is actually saying is that once the capitalists have been expropriated, the organization of the "despotic inroads on the rights of property" will disappear, that is a logical conclusion.

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.

True.
However, according to many people, representative government is no synonymous of democracy.

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

Actually, in your citation, Marx criticizes the methods of the "true socialism" (German socialists that Marx opposed to).

 

[carniflex]

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

Could you give figures (even approximative) of the "nowehere near" ?

 

[carniflex]

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.

Excellent summary

 

[carniflex]

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?

The Labor theory of value is a description of capitalism, not a political program. It cannot be "implemented"

 

[colontos]

I certainly never said that Nazi Germany was democratic. I said it was capitalist, that is an historical fact. But as you certainly dont know what capitalism and democracy are, you probably cant get the difference between.

If you lack the education to understand the economic differences (and they are vast) between fascism and capitalism, then it's going to be very difficult to make you understand my point, or why your own is wrong.

You misunderstand Marx'statement.
"Win the battle of democracy" does not mean "end the democracy". It means "get the democracy".

Hm. You have to work harder to convince me of that. The manifesto implied, repeatedly, that democracy is bourgeois. This assertion without evidence doesn't change my mind.

Workers of the world, get the democracy!

The fact the Marx never uses the term "democracy" to speak about the representative governement or about the capitalism, proves that he does not think they were democratic. Democracy was for Marx something to establish, to get, to conquer.

The word 'democracy' only occurs once in the manifesto, in the phrase 'win the battle of democracy.' So it was not a term that Marx made frequent use of. If he was advocating democracy, I think it would have popped up more often. And the fact that he uses it infrequently does not prove that he did not consider those things democratic. That's an invalid assumption. Give me some evidence to prove your point.

I cant find any "despotic government" in your quote of Marx.
However I can find "despotic inroads on the rights of property", that is, in Marx'opinion - and mine - a condition to establish a democracy.

Wow, remind me not to live in your democracy. How will despotic inroads be achieved? By a democratic government? Doesn't make sense, my friend. If the government's actions are despotic toward a large segment of the population, then it is a despotism.

What Marx is actually saying is that once the capitalists have been expropriated, the organization of the "despotic inroads on the rights of property" will disappear, that is a logical conclusion.

Right. I've mentioned that a number of times. Marx posited a temporary despotic government that would eventually fade away. My point is that the idea that a despotism will ever fade away on its own is ridiculous.

Actually, in your citation, Marx criticizes the methods of the "true socialism" (German socialists that Marx opposed to).

But those protests taken by the true socialists were correct, and Marx clearly says so. He doesn't like the methods of the true socialists, but he considers their attacks on capitalism to be theoretically correct, just not occuring at the right moment in history.

 

[Headline]

The Labor theory of value is a description of capitalism, not a political program. It cannot be "implemented"

Labor theory of value says
The value of goods or services is equal to the amount of labor required to produce them.
Therefore, Marx believes the value of good to be equal to the laboring time. In USSR, value of good is not determine by the market demand but by the laboring time to process each good. Isn't it an implmentation?

 

[AngryPants]

The commies in this thread realize that the Berlin Wall fell over 16 years ago, right? Honestly reading these "communism" threads is like watching a sports team keep playing on the field by themselves hours after they lost the game, all the while mistaking their own solitude for some omen of imminent victory.

 

[Abaddon]

Communism cannot happen due to human nature. There will always be those who want more, and will work harder. Not to forget corruption either.

 

[carniflex]

If you lack the education to understand the economic differences (and they are vast) between fascism, and communism, then it's going to be very difficult to make you understand my point, or why your own is wrong.

Can you quote where I said that there are no economic differences between fascism and communism ?

What I actually said is that fascism was a type of capitalism. Slightly different, is it not ?

Hm. You have to work harder to convince me of that. The manifesto implied, repeatedly, that democracy is bourgeois.

The manifesto actually never says that "democracy is bourgeois."

How will despotic inroads be achieved? By a democratic government? Doesn't make sense, my friend. If the government's actions are despotic toward a large segment of the population, then it is a despotism.

But owners of the means of production are actually not a large segment of the population.

That's why a governement of the workers - a large segment of the population - and hostile to the owners of the means of production, that Marx calls "dictatorship of the proletariat" is democratic whereas the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is not.

Workers of the world, get the democracy!

A statement I agree with.

 

[fing0lfin]

Communism cannot happen due to human nature. There will always be those who want more, and will work harder. Not to forget corruption either.

I agree. The communism can't work here. All communist countries were ruined by the communism. There was no real communism anywhere. Everywhere the communist party was above the other part of the society. The communism is an utopia.

There is one joke here about the communism(in Bulgarian the word for human and person is the same).
One men asked another:
What is the phylosophy of the communism ?
We give every thing in the name of the human so that he could live better, have good health and etc.
A third man said:
Oh yeah, it's true ! I even know the name of the human(=person)- T. Jivkov(the communist leader here in Bulgaria).

 

[carniflex]

In USSR, value of good is determine [...] by the laboring time to process each good.

I doubt it was.
Weren't prices arbitrary fixed according to the objectives of the regime ?

 

[carniflex]

The commies in this thread realize that the Berlin Wall fell over 16 years ago, right?

The commies in this thread realize that the soviet bloc was not communist.

 

[colontos]

Can you quote where I said that there are no economic differences between fascism and communism ?

What I actually said is that fascism was a type of capitalism. Slightly different, is it not ?

Oops, my mistake. That 'communism' should have read 'capitalism.' It's a bit of a stretch to call fascism a kind of capitalism, is what I meant to say. There are large differences between the two. To call Nazi Germany 'capitalist' is distorting the truth. Maybe from your side of the Iron Curtain it looks that way, but there are big differences.

To call fascism and capitalism the same is akin to ignorant folks in capitalist countries who call communism and fascism the same.

But owners of the means of production are actually not a large segment of the population.

That's why a governement of the workers - a large segment of the population - and hostile to the owners of the means of production, that Marx calls "dictatorship of the proletariat" is democratic whereas the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is not.

You yourself said earlier that democracy means 'one person, one vote.' This ideal is quickly subverted by saying 'except the bourgeoisie.' The communists in the USSR etc simply took this farther by saying 'except non-party members.' In the modern world, where it's generally accepted that (some kind of) democracy is the best form of government, the communists like to claim to be it. (The Democratic People's Republic of (North) Korea ) But they're not, and in fact Marx was not a democrat.

 

[carniflex]

To call Nazi Germany 'capitalist' is distorting the truth.

Not at all.
Private property of means of production was never threatened in Nazi Germany.
Salaries stagnated and profit rate had raised during this period.
Commies and all opponents to capitalism were crushed.
So, Nazi Germany can easily be called capitalist.

You yourself said earlier that democracy means 'one person, one vote.'

Yes.

This ideal is quickly subverted by saying 'except the bourgeoisie.'

But in a socialist country, there is no more bourgeoisie. Therefore, in a socialist country, 'one person, one vote, except the bourgeoisie.' would equal 'one person, one vote.'

In other words, "dictatorship of the proletariat" does not mean that a part of the population - the bourgeoisie - should be definetely without vote. Socialism means that the private property of means of production should be abolished, and therefore the bourgeoisie should disappear as a class. The expression "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a social analysis of what could abolish the private property of means of production: despotic inroads of the workers as a class.

The communists in the USSR etc simply took this farther by saying 'except non-party members.'

Not exactly. The non-party members did vote in the USSR.

In the modern world, where it's generally accepted that (some kind of) democracy is the best form of government, the communists like to claim to be it.

In most of european countries (including Marx'Germany) in the mid 19th century, it was not generally accepted that democracy is the best form of government. Most of European countries had not even representative governements. "Democrat", as "socialist", was a word to speak about the far left. Democracy was often used as a synonymous of anarchy. Democracy was rarely used to speak about the current types of governement. And yet, communists liked to claim to favor democracy, as we can see in the manifesto:
"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."

 

[colontos]

Not at all.
Private property of means of production was never threatened in Nazi Germany.
Salaries stagnated and profit rate had raised during this period.
Commies and all opponents to capitalism were crushed.
So, Nazi Germany can easily be called capitalist.

You are so wrong that I'm having trouble seeing straight. To put it really simply for you: Fascism, including Nazism, is a strictly controlled and regulated economy. It favors certain big business (usually militarily inclined ones) and ignores or even suppresses others. Because of the degree of regulation of the economy, it is inaccurate to say that the means of production are private property. Your understanding of economic systems is very shallow and seems to have been corrupted by communist propaganda. This is the explanation I can think of for you to consider fascism and capitalism the same. They are vastly different. Fascism is a command economy, capitalism is not.

But in a socialist country, there is no more bourgeoisie. Therefore, in a socialist country, 'one person, one vote, except the bourgeoisie.' would equal 'one person, one vote.'

In other words, "dictatorship of the proletariat" does not mean that a part of the population - the bourgeoisie - should be definetely without vote. Socialism means that the private property of means of production should be abolished, and therefore the bourgeoisie should disappear as a class. The expression "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a social analysis of what could abolish the private property of means of production: despotic inroads of the workers as a class.

However, the bourgeoisie doesn't just disappear the day after the revolution. They still exist as a class, and, as history shows, they are repressed and discriminated against. Start thinking realistically.

In most of european countries (including Marx'Germany) in the mid 19th century, it was not generally accepted that democracy is the best form of government. Most of European countries had not even representative governements. "Democrat", as "socialist", was a word to speak about the far left. Democracy was often used as a synonymous of anarchy. Democracy was rarely used to speak about the current types of governement. And yet, communists liked to claim to favor democracy, as we can see in the manifesto:
"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."

You haven't been able to back up your claim that Marx was pro-democracy except by this one unclear citation, which I have contested and you haven't defended. You'll notice I said 'communist today' like to claim to be democrats, not back in the 1850's, when they didn't claim to be so. Unless you have more citations, you can't just keep asserting the same thing.

The main thing, though, is that my question really hasn't been addressed. My thesis is that Marxism leads inexorably to the kind of atrocities that occured in the 20th century and continue to occur today. No one has addressed this argument.

 

[Commodore]

Damn! I wandered into this thread half expecting an intelligent discussion about how Communism could be practically implemented; and not the bickering and stereotype-flinging from both sides that I have seen.

Silly me!

EDIT: To see how I feel about these kinds of internet debates, please refer to the second quote in my sig.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Damn! I wandered into this thread half expecting an intelligent discussion about how Communism could be practically implemented; and not the bickering and stereotype-flinging from both sides that I have seen.

Silly me!

On hindsight I regret my involvment in this thread, considering the juvenile OP.
However, I would be very interested in you being a bit more concrete about how an intelligent discussion should be conducted.

EDIT: To see how I feel about these kinds of internet debates, please refer to the second quote in my sig.

I don't approve of that sort of things.

 

[Commodore]

On hindsight I regret my involvment in this thread, considering the juvenile OP.
However, I would be very interested in you being a bit more concrete about how an intelligent discussion should be conducted.


I don't approve of that sort of things.

Sorry, just wanted to try my hand at spamming a thread. As for the reference to my sig, I just wanted to take the opportunity to use that lovely quote.

 

[carniflex]

This is the explanation I can think of for you to consider fascism and capitalism the same.

Once again, what I actually said is that fascism was a type of capitalism.

However, the bourgeoisie doesn't just disappear the day after the revolution. They still exist as a class

The bourgeoisie as a class does just disappear the day after the revolution.

By bourgeoisie is meant the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production [...] (Engels)
Once the private property of the means of production is abolished, bourgeoisie does disappear as a class.

You haven't been able to back up your claim that Marx was pro-democracy except by this one unclear citation, which I have contested and you haven't defended. You'll notice I said 'communist today' like to claim to be democrats, not back in the 1850's, when they didn't claim to be so. Unless you have more citations, you can't just keep asserting the same thing.

Here's a pro-democracy citation from Lenin:
"Ce serait une erreur capitale de croire que la lutte pour la démocratie est susceptible de détourner le prolétariat de la révolution socialiste ou d’éclipser celle-ci, de l’estomper, etc. Au contraire, de même qu’il est impossible de concevoir un socialisme victorieux qui ne réal:iserait pas la démocratie intégrale, de même le prolétariat ne peut se préparer à la victoire sur la bourgeoisie s’il ne mène pas une lutte générale, systématique et révolutionnaire pour la démocratie", Lénine, La révolution socialiste et le droit des nations à disposer d’elles-mêmes, 1916

I would give many thanks to the CFC-user who would give the good translation in English that I cannot do.

This citation, as Marx'one, cannot be understood unless you've understood that there are two "definitions" for democracy:

1. the rightist one, that defines democracy as a representative governement, where the power of the people is mainly restricted to (s)elect what party will rule the country for some years, instead of the people itself. This definition fits with current "western democracies"

2. the leftist one, that is also the etymological one, that defines democracy as the direct and permanent exercice of the power by the people and in the interest of the people. This definition is in contraction with the "exclusive political sway of the bourgeoisie" (Marx). This definition is the one Marx and Lenin refer to.