Communism

[Cutlass]

Silly thread, predictable thread, repetitive thread, in short: old porridge.
But it starts to get interesting.

Can't be one either, then, since I usually seem to be in agreement with you.


This begs a few questions, just so an ignorant cove like me can be at least a bit enlightened.
- What works of Plato did you study?
- What works of Marx did you study?
- What part of philosophy did you specialize in?
- What is the criteria for being scientific?


Really? What do most people want then and what did socialists and communists start with then?
And what has really stood the test of time? Quite pompous expression that, by the way.

Ok, you caught me. I'm a dilettante. But the reason I am is that a surface read of it offers.... nothing. Nothing at all. Nothing to suggest that further depth of reading will offer more.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Ok, you caught me. I'm a dilettante. But the reason I am is that a surface read of it offers.... nothing. Nothing at all. Nothing to suggest that further depth of reading will offer more.

Intellectual laziness is not a virtue, lad. Not for my generation or hereabouts, at least.
I don't mean to be disrespectful,or rather more so than yourself, but let me remind you about what good old Lichtenberg noticed about certain books...

 

[Yeekim]

As aelf said, conclusions like this come from an improper understanding of Marxist thought and theory. None of the "communist" nations in history has ever followed it.

This creates an interesting question.
Was it because everyone who ever tried to understand and follow his theory was too damned stupid?
Or was it because this "theory" is just deluded rambling impossible to put into practice?

 

[thekaje]

I'm not sure what you think they didn't follow... The only time Marx ever goes into specific policies, it's with a brief list of policies to be enacted under the "dictatorship of proletariat" immediately post-revolution.

"1) Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3) Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4) Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5) Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6) Centralization of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7) Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing in cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8) Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9) Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of population over the country.
10) Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc., etc."

Now, it could easily be argued that the Soviet Union did these things. So I'm not really sure what people mean by "true" Communism...

 

[Cutlass]

Intellectual laziness is not a virtue, lad. Not for my generation or hereabouts, at least.
I don't mean to be disrespectful,or rather more so than yourself, but let me remind you about what good old Lichtenberg noticed about certain books...

It's not really laziness if there is no substance to the basics which suggest that further research would be of value. Your group, socialists, Marxists, communists, whatever you want to call yourselves, have lost the war for one fundamental reason that precedes even an examination of your theories. And that the whole chance of your success rests entirely on the screw ups of your opponents. Socialism is not attempting to win on the basis of being better than capitalism, it is attempting to win on the basis of capitalism defeating itself.

You simply have no chance of winning that way. Everything else is moot.

And you have allies in that. You have the economic libertarians and the government sucks people and the Bushes and the Greenspans all doing everything in their power to see to it that capitalism fails. They make capitalism as dysfunctional and unjust as they possibly can. And you will still lose. Because you aren't offering an alternative that much of anyone wants.

So all you have to say is that the USSR and China and Vietnam don't represent the real socialism because they were evil totalitarians. Or that Britain and Sweden were not socialist because they voted to leave it behind.

So what is it? You've had 150 years to answer that question. If you haven't done that, then it doesn't matter how much capitalism fails. Because you won't replace it because people don't have a reason to try and figure out what it is you are offering. You haven't done the job of going beyond "social and economic justice is a good thing". In fact you haven't even made a case for that so that most people would understand it.

And you wonder that people don't dive into extremely dense books that never answered that question in the first place hopping to sift out an answer for themselves.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

This creates an interesting question.
Was it because everyone who ever tried to understand and follow his theory was too damned stupid?
Or was it because this "theory" is just deluded rambling impossible to put into practice?

I think it was because they believed they could artificially create the capitalist "phase," or compensate for it, and this proved to be a greater challenge than they anticipated. Though I think it certainly helped that they had a more advanced, rival capitalist society who was actively trying to destroy them.

 

[Richard Cribb]

This creates an interesting question.
Was it because everyone who ever tried to understand and follow his theory was too damned stupid?
Or was it because this "theory" is just deluded rambling impossible to put into practice?

It's not really laziness if there is no substance to the basics which suggest that further research would be of value.

While you may have a splendid carreer ahead of you as an oracle presenting phrases like this, I am afraid there is little in the way of not convincing me that it is indeed a case of intellectual laziness.
That, or some less benevolent explanation which I don't seeany reason to expand on at this point of time.

Your group, socialists, Marxists, communists, whatever you want to call yourselves, have lost the war for one fundamental reason that precedes even an examination of your theories.

I don't have a group and neither have I lost any war. Socialist ideas are alive and well even if they might be extinct in your bubble.

And that the whole chance of your success rests entirely on the screw ups of your opponents. Socialism is not attempting to win on the basis of being better than capitalism, it is attempting to win on the basis of capitalism defeating itself.

It is quite impertinent of you, a non-socialist who openly admitted that he is not aquainted with socialist thory and judging from former post not practice either, to tell me what socialism is attempting to.
You might want to adjust your attitude more than a notch, methinks.

You simply have no chance of winning that way. Everything else is moot.

So I don't have a chance to achieve something in a way not intended. Ah, well...

And you have allies in that. You have the economic libertarians and the government sucks people and the Bushes and the Greenspans all doing everything in their power to see to it that capitalism fails. They make capitalism as dysfunctional and unjust as they possibly can.

It is a tad naive to lump politically illiterate trust-fund babies together with the former American president.
The former are incompetent morons, the latter actually did a sterling job for those who gave him the office. Rather than making capitalism dysfunctional, he made it work splendidly according to its own criterias. But perhaps you didn't study to many capitalist thinkers either?
I know by now that you resent old books, but a quick look aroundthe world should suggest that capitalism might not be chiefly about justice, unless you by justice mean that each and everyone get what they deserve according to what they can manage to get through their power and strength. i am sorry again, but solidarity, empathy, care for the weak and feeble, the right to the fruits of your won labour is not - I repeat not - basic tenets or ideals of capitalism no matter how much you sugarcoat it.
Admittedly Bush has been of some use for those of us who want to get rid of this putrid societal system. He has exposed the true nature of capitalism to a certain degree. But I am afraid you are fooling yourself if you think that this wouldn't have happened otherwise. In the long run capitalism is doomed. Last time it was critical you had the fascists to save you. I suppose that is what you will eventually have to resort to again. But one is allowed to hope that they will be unable to succeed this time.

And you will still lose. Because you aren't offering an alternative that much of anyone wants.

I think there is a certain disproportionality between your knowledge and experience and your assertations.
I happen to think quite a few want the alternative I offer. That is based, on a not small degree on my own experience.
May I be so bold to suggest that there might be a world outside bourgeoise academia in the USA?

So all you have to say is that the USSR and China and Vietnam don't represent the real socialism because they were evil totalitarians.

Not quite. As an historian I might offer other explanations.
But I happen to live in a capitalist society and therefore there are limits for how many free lessons I can hand out. I have written about this umpteen times on this very forum. I see no reason to repeat myself yet again.

Or that Britain and Sweden were not socialist because they voted to leave it behind.

Actually what those two countries show, and my own for that matter, is the inadequacy of welfare capitalism, capitalism with a human face or whatever you want to call it.
Have written a lot about that before as well.

So what is it? You've had 150 years to answer that question. If you haven't done that, then it doesn't matter how much capitalism fails. Because you won't replace it because people don't have a reason to try and figure out what it is you are offering. You haven't done the job of going beyond "social and economic justice is a good thing".

Funny, that one.
You admitted that you haven't bothered to deal with what socialism is and so you are angry because you were not informed? Want me to ram it down your throat.
I am sorry, but I presume you are big lad now. Some things you must manage yourself.
Very sorry for having to break that to you, but it is a tough world.
Something your dear capitalists have not the least responsibility for.

In fact you haven't even made a case for that so that most people would understand it.

Again I think this is an assertation that is not founded in anything but water and sugar.

And you wonder that people don't dive into extremely dense books that never answered that question in the first place hopping to sift out an answer for themselves.

I did? Where did I do such a thing?
I think I rather called your bluff when you made a sweeping statement about two famous thinkers.
I also think that it is not an unreasonable demand that people should make the small effort to try to think for themselves. Or to realize that aquiring knowledge might sometimes demand a bit of effort. But I now see that it is obviously to much to ask for.
Consequently I see no reason to continue this exchange of words either. Debates should have certain standards. Basic knowledge about the topic in question is one of those.
Fianlly I think some people are better off sticking to discussion between "conservatives" and "liberals". They are so safe, predictable and much less straining for delicate nerves and duff heads.

 

[Yeekim]

While you may have a splendid carreer ahead of you as an oracle presenting phrases like this, I am afraid there is little in the way of not convincing me that it is indeed a case of intellectual laziness.
That, or some less benevolent explanation which I don't see any reason to expand on at this point of time.

How was that related to my post you quoted? I was not predicting future but rather asked a question pertaining to the past.

I happen to think quite a few want the alternative I offer. That is based, on a not small degree on my own experience.

Well, this must be the reason why Marxist communes and enterprises are sprouting up left, right and middle...

 

[Richard Cribb]

How was that related to my post you quoted? I was not predicting future but rather asked a question pertaining to the past.

My apologies.
I didn't intend to quote you, and have no idea how it happened. I really think I am too old for this forum.
That said, it is actually another great example on intellectual laziness...

Well, this must be the reason why Marxist communes and enterprises are sprouting up left, right and middle...

It is far more complex than that, and while I am quite brilliant I don't think I will be overthrowing the whole socio-economic structure single-handedly.
However, when you go out in real life and talk with real people you find that many people in fact want a lot of things that socialists proposes. It is only that they, to use a term by Bourdieu, live in a doxic chamber which makes them sceptical to socialism.
But don't you worry, that is only a temporary phenomena, we are heading in that direction.

 

[Camikaze]

However, when you go out in real life and talk with real people you find that many people in fact want a lot of things that socialists proposes.

Don't you think they might want those socialistic policies within the construct of a capitalist system, in order to be able to accumulate wealth whilst working towards the more humanitarian goal at the same time? I mean, sure, everyone wants the equality that is proposed, so long as it can occur with the possibility of an improvement in wealth.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Don't you think they might want those socialistic policies within the construct of a capitalist system, in order to be able to accumulate wealth whilst working towards the more humanitarian goal at the same time? I mean, sure, everyone wants the equality that is proposed, so long as it can occur with the possibility of an improvement in wealth.

I can't honestly answer this conclusively even if I think you have a point.
Many people may, due to education, media exposure or even objective interests (the academic bourgeoise) harbour such peculiar opinions. In that case they might be in for another rude awakening. As far as I am concerned welfare capitalism, capitalism with a human face or whatever one calls this as a system that only can succeed as a transistory phase towards real socialism, which recent history should indeed indicate. This due to the inherent contradiction in capitalism as well as its undemocratic nature. I have written about this on several occasions and feel no need to elaborate on it for the moment.
What I can conclude is that if your assertation is more or less correct, people like me face a pedagogical challenge of no modest size.