Successful Communism

[sophie]

When you complained about the smiles instead of countering the argument

Did you actually read any of that post?

I had to

No, you really didn't.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Did you actually read any of that post?





No, you really didn't.

Alright, I'll stop, for your sake.

IT WAS A JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK!

 

[luiz]

Actually, Trotsky thought he was thinking in the spirit of Marx, but was well aware, as was Lenin, that they were entering uncharted territory by even suggesting that the proletarian revolution could or should proceed in Russia at that time.

Well Marx did not leave a complete guidebook of how to handle a socialist country, which means that anyone would go into uncharted territory, even if the revolution was in Germany. The question is whether or not Lenin and Stalin were deviants, and the answer of the overwhelming majority of contemporary Marxists, and of a good deal of them today, is a sound NO.

I am not of the belief that everything Stalin did was for the betterment of socialism, and that only he could have performed that colossal job. But some are. Nonetheless, he was the person who did it, which I regard as a good thing, even though he also did so many bad things. But I also realize that he and others were faced with tough decisions. The trouble is that the tough but necessary decisions so often become conflated with the tough but unnecessary decisions into the singular monolith of Correct Stalinist Necessity.

That's not an unreasonable position, from a Communist POV. I am of the opinion however that his crimes were so monstrous that basically whatever else he did is overshadowed and becomes irrelevant. And naturally I don't think defending socialism is a good thing to begin with.

I dare say most European Marxists. Mandel, Kautsky, Lukacs, Marcuse, Korsch (though I would not call him an orthodox Marxist either), among others. The Franfurtists are especially famous for being critical of the USSR from a non-Trotskyist viewpoint.

Mandel begun his writing and broadcasting career after Stalin was dead, so he is not relevant to this discussion (we are talking of american sovietologist William Mandel, right?).

Kautsky was indeed a harsh critic of Bolshevism. He actually said once that the evils of Boshvist Russia were far greater than those of the capitalist West (and he was among the first to call Soviet Russia a slave state). But that reinforces my point: as I said, there were critics of Bolshevism from the left, but those critics were ostracized by the larger communist movement and treated as renegades. Kautsky ceased to be a leading communist figure shortly after the October Revolution.

Lukacs was hardly a critic of Stalinism during Stalinism. It is very easy and safe to say that Stalin was not a good Marxist after Stalin was dead, but Lukacs never did so while the Georgian Beast was alive. In fact he even helped the Stalinist authorities of Hungary purging independent thinkers from academic life. He was hardly a role model; but rather a coward opportunist with no morality.

Marcuse was a member of the Frankfurt School, and Korsch proves my point, as he was purged from the German Communist Party for criticising the ideolgical preparation of mainstream communists.

I think the examples you posted prove my point - the very few people who did dare to criticize Stalin were purged and ostracized, not only in the USSR (where they were physically exterminated), but also in the West, where their former comrades treated them as pariahs.

I don't think Stalin did understand Marx as well as Trotsky did.

Probably not, but that did not stop him from, as you said, essentially copying Trotsky's ideas and putting them in practice.

You might be fond of The Revolution Betrayed.

Trotsky is too histrionic for my taste.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Well Marx did not leave a complete guidebook of how to handle a socialist country, which means that anyone would go into uncharted territory, even if the revolution was in Germany. The question is whether or not Lenin and Stalin were deviants, and the answer of the overwhelming majority of contemporary Marxists, and of a good deal of them today, is a sound NO.

No, but he did leave a pretty clear idea about the path society would follow. It was from this that the Russians deviated, starting in April 1917, and from that deviation that criticism by orthodox Marxism sprang forth. Stalinism is itself a deviation from that deviation, making it twice-removed from Marx himself.

Personally, I think trying to understand Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, and Mao in terms of which one represents the "true" path of Marxism is quite silly. Each, save for Stalin, had ideas about how to adapt Marxism to specific situations: Trotsky to infant industrial societies, Mao to pre-industrial; Lenin was the most orthodox of the bunch, and I would argue that beginning with his April Theses, he adopted a Trotskyist mindset, for that was the path that rejecting the Provisional Government led to. Stalin's school of thought is essentially a perversion of Trotskyism, with some ideas from Zinoviev and Bukharin. Like I said, the only thing unique to Stalin was Yezhovshchina; before he stole the other peoples' ideas and passed them off as his own, his "program" that he argued for was very vague and really amounted to nothing at all.

And so, since these schools of thought are adaptations of orthodox Marxism, to try to decide which is the inheritor of Marxism is silly and off-base, since all are both the inheritors and deviants of Marxism at the same time. From this, I also think that Trotskyist and Maoist organizations in industrial nations like the US have a myopic understanding of their historical place.

That's not an unreasonable position, from a Communist POV. I am of the opinion however that his crimes were so monstrous that basically whatever else he did is overshadowed and becomes irrelevant. And naturally I don't think defending socialism is a good thing to begin with.

Also understandable point of view. I know we're never going to agree on this.

Mandel begun his writing and broadcasting career after Stalin was dead, so he is not relevant to this discussion (we are talking of american sovietologist William Mandel, right?).

Actually I meant Ernest Mandel, the German Marxist Economist. But I didn't realize that he was 1. much younger than I thought he was and 2. a Trot, which excludes him from the point I was trying to make anyway.

Kautsky was indeed a harsh critic of Bolshevism. He actually said once that the evils of Boshvist Russia were far greater than those of the capitalist West (and he was among the first to call Soviet Russia a slave state). But that reinforces my point: as I said, there were critics of Bolshevism from the left, but those critics were ostracized by the larger communist movement and treated as renegades. Kautsky ceased to be a leading communist figure shortly after the October Revolution.

It didn't help that the German government executed his two strongest allies in that position, persons of great influence among communists in the West.

Lukacs was hardly a critic of Stalinism during Stalinism. It is very easy and safe to say that Stalin was not a good Marxist after Stalin was dead, but Lukacs never did so while the Georgian Beast was alive. In fact he even helped the Stalinist authorities of Hungary purging independent thinkers from academic life. He was hardly a role model; but rather a coward opportunist with no morality.

I am sure he had harsh words to say of Stalin in the 1920s, when he was merely the CPSU chairman.

Marcuse was a member of the Frankfurt School, and Korsch proves my point, as he was purged from the German Communist Party for criticising the ideolgical preparation of mainstream communists.

Korsch did the separation himself, by rejecting orthodox Marxism as historically outmoded. He argued against both Kautsky and Lukacs.

I think the examples you posted prove my point - the very few people who did dare to criticize Stalin were purged and ostracized, not only in the USSR (where they were physically exterminated), but also in the West, where their former comrades treated them as pariahs.

I think it is split. Some were, absolutely, but some were not. However, it is true that most objectors to Stalin abroad were 4th Internationalists, which effectively defeats my point anyhow.

Probably not, but that did not stop him from, as you said, essentially copying Trotsky's ideas and putting them in practice.

Of course. But Trotsky argues, IIRC, that Stalin stole the spirit of his ideas, but failed to implement them correctly. I'm not entirely clear on this, actually, so I can't clarify further.

Trotsky is too histrionic for my taste.

There you and Mr. Cribb can find common ground.

 

[Hakim]

I still don't see how this implies collectivism. The EU leadership is rotated between countries, but you're not suggesting that the EU is collectivised, do you? Ditto for having a committee in charge. I'd think that that's even more common today without so much as the shadow of collectivism entering the picture.

As for fighting the concentration of power and wealth, is redistribution the same as collectivism? Most modern states are redistributive to some extent but are liberal states. I don't believe collectivism would be a meaningful label for them just because they are redistributive.

To me collectivism suggests the obliteration of individuals in favour of the collective, and I don't think that's what Communism aims for. If the individual is not significant, what's the point of fighting for a better society? Who would that fight be for? The collective is a comprised of individuals, and to deny individuality for the collective would be to fall into the same pitfall of abstraction that capitalism/Utilitarianism is stuck in. Hence, I'd say that Communism is in fact aiming for the good of distinct individuals at the price of the unlimited accumulation of capital, the latter which isn't necessarily a loss to individuality.

Well, that accumulation of capital is sometimes considered a result of an individuals work. Even someone born in currency-less society will soon understand if his abilities far exceed those of other citizens and will expect gratification and recognition for this. A communist/socialist society could perhaps give the latter but no material gratification (above anyone else's). This need to be dealt with somehow, and I wouldn't count "he's wrong" or "suck it up" as solutions.

Perhaps my idea of the ultimate socialist state is too extreme though. Reading this thread makes me realize I should leave the exercise to the experts.

 

[Alassius]

All that talk and, sadly, no answer to my objection. No, that individuality motivates people is not an answer. Again, individuality - what you call the sovereignty of the individual - is endogenous to individual well-being. This means it's not that it merely motivates individuals to acquire material wealth for their well-being, but that it's necessary for individual well-being. Funnily enough, I seem to be giving more credence to people's psychological needs than you do here.

The other thing is individuality and individualism are, again, different things. However, for some reason you seem to insist on lumping the two together. Could this be a weak link in the argument? Perhaps by means of such equivocation, people like you seek to argue for individualism by simply taking on the much easier task of defending individuality? Well, not so fast, buddy.

Honestly I don't get what you are objecting. You were saying individual well-being incorporates individuality. I'm fine with that. You said communism aims for individuality too, I'm fine with that too. What I was saying was that the implementations of communism treated individualities of each individual as expendable, in the name of seeking fuller, better, aggregated individualities of all individuals.

I don't even disagree that suppression of individuality can sometimes help individuals become better off, or that there are occasions where this suppression is justified. My problem is that Marx did not define when this should be the case, leaving a huge gap to be exploited by the bureaucrats.

Which one? I wonder how much of the crimes the majority would've seen if they were on tours organized by the Stalinists.

1984 was published in 1949. The Road to Serfdom in 1944. Those crimes certainly were not a secret back then.

Well, that accumulation of capital is sometimes considered a result of an individuals work. Even someone born in currency-less society will soon understand if his abilities far exceed those of other citizens and will expect gratification and recognition for this. A communist/socialist society could perhaps give the latter but no material gratification (above anyone else's). This need to be dealt with somehow, and I wouldn't count "he's wrong" or "suck it up" as solutions.

Perhaps my idea of the ultimate socialist state is too extreme though. Reading this thread makes me realize I should leave the exercise to the experts.

For Marx, gratification and recognition is the act of working per se. This is a tricky concept that's rarely understood. It's also related to another strangely little debated idea: material abundance. The argument so goes:

1. Most labour would be replaced by machinery;
2. Because of the advance in mode of production, the productive force becomes so advanced, that it far exceeds the need of the entire society.
3. From 1 and 2 it follows that working will no longer be essential for survival;
4. Because the purpose of working can no longer be for survival, the only reason people work would have to be for the joy of working itself.

Hence, in a communist society it is not necessary to provide external gratification and recognition, any more than your own eagerness to work. In fact, it's not possible to give any material gratification: you can already get whatever you need anyway, because of material abundance.

You asked me where Stalinist departed from Marxism, and I did. I was not under the impression that alt.hist hypotheticals would be demanded, nor, to be honest, I am the one to give them. I merely noted that any adherent of Marxism or it's derivatives (up to and including the bastard child that is Maoism) will tell you that Stalinism does not and has never represented Marxism, any more than Napoleon's empire represented radical republicanism.

It doesn't take much intellectualism to say "Stalinism is not Marxism". Explaining where Stalinism did deviate, and what could have been done to avoid that deformed outcome, is a lot harder - something that communists have consistently failed at. That is the main reason communism is no longer a mainstream ideology. They did not offer a plausible alternative to Stalinism.

Again, you neglect to acknowledge the world outside of the developed; the "upper proletariat" to which I refer is almost the entire proletarian class of the developed world (noting that the lumpenproletariat is a distinct class), yet only a small minority of that in the developing world.

So you do agree that almost every proletarian in the rich world does indeed benefit from welfare? Now, suppose the developing world also develops welfare capitalism, would it not be plausible that the under proletariat in those countries would be converted to upper proletariat as well?

You misunderstand the nature of the proletarian class; it is not one of social and economic status, but of relationship to the process of production. A proletarian can be a wealthy individual with bountiful security, what defines him is his productive, rather than exploitative nature. What you describe are the contemporary realities of Marx's day, but not the atemporal realities of the social classes he divide.

You misunderstand the concept of the petite-bourgeoisie; again, it is based on relationship to the production process. The petite-bourgeoisie are essentially a class of small, independent businessmen and professionals who own their means of production, yet fulfil a productive role within it; the owner and head chef of an independent restaurant, say, or the head of an engineering firm. They are economically enfranchised, but politically disenfranchised or partially enfranchised.

Two problems with using whether you're being exploited to classify people. The first is that it's reasonable these days to expect anyone in the rich world with sufficient determination can start a small business, which would have turned them into petite bourgeois anyway. That is, unlike Marx's proletarians, today's working class are not really deprived of means of production, which could mean as little as a few computers and a garage. Particularly not so for wealthy individuals.

The second is that when Marx argued for the inevitability of communism, he did not rely on merely the fact of workers being exploited. Rather, he was arguing that workers' dependency on being exploited was the reason capitalism could not sustain. If an English miner did not work, he would surely have starved. That means he did not get to be picky about who he worked for, which in turn means labour would always be a buyer's market. Because labour supply always outstripped demand, a mine owner would not have to offer a wage any higher than absolutely essential to keep the miner alive. Consequently the working class won't have much purchasing power, so any advancement of technology would only cause more overproduction, which leads to more commercial crises, then more unemployment, then more competition in the labour market, then even less wages, then even more overproduction. It was this vicious circle that Marx thought capitalism incapable to escape. This dependency and today's "[dependency] on the generosity of the capitalist class" are very different. The latter is much weaker. Don't like your boss? Tell him to screw himself and leave. You can find another job, or you can live on welfare. Neither was quite as viable two hundred years ago.

As I said, this vicious circle was plainly not what has happened. Marx did not care for division of labour. He thought machinery would become powerful enough to replace mostly anything we do, including skilled work, and all that a worker had to do was to operate a machine in the manner of Charlie Chaplin in Modern Times. Employers therefore won't need to compete for skills and brains. In the real world they had to, which led to increasing wages and mass-education. Marx also thought a government controlled by the bourgeoisie would never do anything serious to improve workers' life, because, well, anything the bourgeoisie did must be solely for the benefit of the bourgeoisie (and that the bourgeoisie was apparently too shortsighted to see the virtues of an affluent working class). So minimal wage, unemployment benefits, etc. were all out of question. In the real world, progressive reforms did happen, and today's working class are now much less enslaved to working than Marx's contemporaries.

Even if you can argue that, by Marx's definition, workers are still being exploited today, the conditions of the working class that would necessitate a communist revolution no longer exist in the rich world. The proletarians today have a lot of things to lose, not much of which are chains.

Strawman strawman strawman.

The "Dictatorship" of the Proletariat is democratic empowerment of the working class. It is the anarchistic power that replaces the liberal Capitalist plutocracy.

From the pamphlet I asked you to read, which you obviously did not:

Look, what you think, or Kautsky thought, about the meaning of that phrase is irrelevant. What matters is what the communist ruling elite interpreted it. Historically the phrase was used to suppress dissidents. The biggest unsolved problem of communism is exactly how to reconcile the ideal and the reality. You can't just talk about how it should be. You need a way to make sure the next revolutionaries think of it as you do. If they don't listen to you, and insist on thinking a dictatorship means a dictatorship, what you get can only be the blood of hundreds of thousands all over again.

Of course not. Do you know why? Because he has fought for those rights. It was not glorious capitalism that gave workers rights and better pay: it was the blood and audacity of socialists and anarchists who so made the plutocracy tremble that they were given no other choice and feared for their heads.

You ought to know that Marx himself would have ostracised you, just for mentioning the possibility of wrestling capitalism into giving workers rights and better pay, don't you?

Because they will have ceased to be the political elite. They will join us or they will die. Socialism is governed by a "those who work, eat" philosophy: if the bourgeoisie will not work side by side with their proletarian brothers, then they will not reap the benefits thereof, and they will starve.

That's not what I'm talking about. I meant the newly privileged bureaucracy. You have to have someone to organise production, don't you? To distribute products? To tell you that you should be working instead of slacking? If you need someone to do these things, they will necessarily have more freedom than others who follow orders. Or are you going to say that these jobs were rather more burden than freedom, like Napoleon did?

Also, be careful: "and they will starve" sounds suspiciously like what Stalin would've told gulag prisoners. Any idea how you are going to prevent those in the next revolution? Or do you think gulags were a good thing?

You seem unable to grasp the idea that extant socialist countries are ultimately about as comparable to the socialism that would arise from a mature capitalist society as unleavened and leavened bread.

At any rate, no, it wasn't the argument that was used in "communist" countries. It was the argument that Western propagandists used against communism. I'm not really surprised to find you dull-mouthing their slogans and nonsense.

Pray tell, exactly how different are they? For precisely what reason would "socialism that would arise from a mature capitalist society" be any better?

You spoke to them with the same tone? Oh my, you are the rude one!

If I remember correctly, you were the usual one who sides with their oppressors, not me.

 

[Yeekim]

Alassius, you should post here more often.

 

[Leoreth]

Yes, that was awesome. It's amazing how this thread turned into an interesting debate about communism with good and eloquent points on both sides.

 

[Traitorfish]

Various things.

Well, I'm going to have to concede at this point that I really can't keep up. I simply don't understand Marxist theory well enough to argue it, nor I am a formal adherent in the first place. I was probably playing devil's advocate, for the most part; a reasonable, informed critique of Marx isn't something that I expected, nor something I'm really qualified to engage with.

So, I concede the field to you, hand over my sword, bow, and so and so forth. I shall leave you and Cheezy, a far more able pinko than I, to slug it out.

 

[aelf]

Well, that accumulation of capital is sometimes considered a result of an individuals work. Even someone born in currency-less society will soon understand if his abilities far exceed those of other citizens and will expect gratification and recognition for this. A communist/socialist society could perhaps give the latter but no material gratification (above anyone else's). This need to be dealt with somehow, and I wouldn't count "he's wrong" or "suck it up" as solutions.

But people already are 'punished' for getting wealthy in modern societies through higher tax brackets. It simply turns out that we live in a social setting where communal interests play a significant part in our lives. It's not surprising, really.

If absolute equality is not the goal - and personally I don't think it is - this isn't necessarily an issue that is specific to Communism.

Honestly I don't get what you are objecting. You were saying individual well-being incorporates individuality. I'm fine with that. You said communism aims for individuality too, I'm fine with that too. What I was saying was that the implementations of communism treated individualities of each individual as expendable, in the name of seeking fuller, better, aggregated individualities of all individuals.

How do you suppress individuality for greater individuality? Are you suggesting that people have different levels of individuality and that some people's individuality may have to be suppressed to increase others'? Can you think of a way in which this makes sense in real life?

I don't even disagree that suppression of individuality can sometimes help individuals become better off, or that there are occasions where this suppression is justified. My problem is that Marx did not define when this should be the case, leaving a huge gap to be exploited by the bureaucrats.

Did any liberal philosopher specify what exact policies societies are supposed to come up with and implement? Might each society's preferences not be decided in each individual society?

 

[Leoreth]

How do you suppress individuality for greater individuality? Are you suggesting that people have different levels of individuality and that some people's individuality may have to be suppressed to increase others'? Can you think of a way in which this makes sense in real life?

Individuality is an inherently individual () concept. Such conflicts happen in society all the time.

Example: Your government is thinking about banning access to adult internet sites. Obviously, the individuality of people enjoying such sites would be limited. On the other hand, parents who had to forbid their children to use the internet before, fearing they would accidentally come across such sites, can now allow it, so the freedom of their children to carry out their individuality has increased.
No matter how you decide, someone's individuality will be surpressed.

 

[aelf]

Individuality is an inherently individual () concept.

Yeah, which is why it makes no sense to talk as if there are levels of individuality that are commensurable and as if they constitute quantities that can be traded between one another.

Such conflicts happen in society all the time.

Example: Your government is thinking about banning access to adult internet sites. Obviously, the individuality of people enjoying such sites would be limited. On the other hand, parents who had to forbid their children to use the internet before, fearing they would accidentally come across such sites, can now allow it, so the freedom of their children to carry out their individuality has increased.
No matter how you decide, someone's individuality will be surpressed.

Individuality = individual freedom?

 

[Cutlass]

But people already are 'punished' for getting wealthy in modern societies through higher tax brackets. It simply turns out that we live in a social setting where communal interests play a significant part in our lives. It's not surprising, really.

In the US the rich do not pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes than the middle class does.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Alassius, you should post here more often.

This.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

In the US the rich do not pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes than the middle class does.

I'm in favor of the Motorhead wealth redistribution policy, outlined here (language warning?):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCyFkjBRrbo

 

[GhostWriter16]

In the US the rich do not pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes than the middle class does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_US

If you're going to argue social security and stuff, I don't think the rich even get it, so why should they pay for it? But if they don't, it dies (Wait, its already dying, its in the red) therefore it should be done away with, along with at least 3/4ths of the US Fed Govt. (And I'm not talking about people, but area in which they encompass. In other words, three fourths of what the Fed Govt. does, they should do no longer.

 

[civ_king]

I hope no one is honestly trying to use the income tax brackets as proof the upper class are over taxed, because most true upper class people get their income from Capital which is only taxed at 15%

 

[Ahovking]

Communism is still young

Democracy has been around sense Ancient Greece and in history is and 50ist yuor old man but communism is a new form of Gavermant born just over 100 years ago its still young 3 year old and like a 3 year old will try to stange try new thing Democry has a over 1000 year

communism will be Successful

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Communism isn't a form of government.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

One major problem I have with communism is the proposed way in which to implement it; I can't imagine investing sole power in a dictator and then expecting that person to give up all that power and dismantle the government. Anyone less than a saint would not want to give that up, in my estimation. For the record, I think living in a communist society is the most moral way to live. I just can't see any country ever really getting there.

Also, wouldn't the entire world pretty much have to be communist in order for it to work? I mean, if one country has successfully achieved communism for itself and another has not, wouldn't the non-communist country be able to easily conquer the neighboring utopia?

Forgive my noobishness. I only started sincerely learning about this subject last week. They never even taught us Marxist theory in literary theory, although I suspect they will in the graduate school I'll be attending.