The Offtopicgrad Soviet: A Place to Discuss All Things Red

[Ajidica]

Who was the better Soviet composer, Shostakovich or Prokofiev?
Who was the better Soviet director, Eisenstein or Tarkovsky?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Who was the better Soviet composer, Shostakovich or Prokofiev?
Who was the better Soviet director, Eisenstein or Tarkovsky?

Shostakovich. His Leningrad Symphony is without compare.

Eisenstein (Except for Ivan the Terrible... dreadful. But October, Strike, Potemkin and Alexander Nevsky are soooooo good!)

 

[Ajidica]

Any reason you aren't a fan of Ivan the Terrible? It has been a while since I watched it, but I remember liking it.
(Although at least half of the greatness of Alexander Nevsky is Prokofiev's epic score for the Battle on the Ice and the Burning of Pskov.)

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

1. Because most of those socialist models rely on a bribed sector of the workforce at home, and an exploited workforce abroad. They are not run by workers.

How does this apply to say... Sweden?

2. Because the wealthy can't survive without ruthless exploitation, and as long as there are classes, somebody has to wield state power. A socialist system run by a proletarian goverment will enact policies that will redistribute wealth, but based on the principle "if you work, you eat" (i.e., your accumulation of consumer commodities is based on your labor output. Those unable to work, of course, will be taken care of.)

But there are inherent differences between workers where some are more important, knowledgeable, and productive than others. How can these positive attributes be rewarded? How does this system deal with leeches that get their share without doing anything?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Question for hardcore communists here: Why opt for communism instead of a socialist model with heavy amount of wealth distribution? Why equalize the compensation of competent and incompetent individuals?

I presume that you are using "socialism" to mean the Nordic model of welfare capitalism?

Because it's not a cure to the disease, it's just very heavy medication to lessen the pain.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Interesting thread. As part of the old vanguard and currently living in one of the former Eastern Bloc states now having been turned in to a consumerist Utopia, I will probably try to contribute more later in the year.

Who was the better Soviet composer, Shostakovich or Prokofiev?

None of them are really my poison, so this will only be a dillettant's thoughts. They have both produced their fair share of classical hits and epic works. But a feel that Prokofiev is consistently on a higher level, so I will give preference to him. On a personal note I might also add that Shostakovich have some Mahlerian tendencies, which is not a good thing in my book. But honestly I prefer Kabalevsky to both of them...
Who was the better Soviet director, Eisenstein or Tarkovsky?[/QUOTE]
I find it impossible to compare directly, they are both so important in their respective era.

But there are inherent differences between workers where some are more important, knowledgeable, and productive than others. How can these positive attributes be rewarded? How does this system deal with leeches that get their share without doing anything?

As far as I can see, he already answered your last question; those who don't work, shall not eat. As for the first one, more valuable workers will be rewarded materially and socially.

I presume that you are using "socialism" to mean the Nordic model of welfare capitalism?

In that case he is behind his time. One could talk about such a thing in the 70's, but especially under the current Swedish government inequality has increased substantially due to neo-liberal politics. And the current government in Norway is of a similar mold.

Because it's not a cure to the disease, it's just very heavy medication to lessen the pain.

And might I add, it would also seem like peeing in your pants to keep you warm. In other words, a temporary "solution".

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Interesting thread. As part of the old vanguard and currently living in one of the former Eastern Bloc states now having been turned in to a consumerist Utopia, I will probably try to contribute more later in the year.

I am sure you miss the old paradise of the communist society.

As far as I can see, he already answered your last question; those who don't work, shall not eat. As for the first one, more valuable workers will be rewarded materially and socially.

I believe he was referring to a proletarian socialist model rather than how it'd work in a communist model.

I presume that you are using "socialism" to mean the Nordic model of welfare capitalism?

Because it's not a cure to the disease, it's just very heavy medication to lessen the pain.

This answer of your's holds very little utility. We all know you think all these non-communist models out there are not acceptable to hardcore communists so telling us that you think they are bad is not informative in anyway.

I suppose you should start with explaining why this model is bad and why communism provides a better alternative.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I am sure you miss the old paradise of the communist society.

Strangely enough, the only people who use the word "paradise" to describe "communist" countries are their detractors. The people who liked them or who defend them would never use such a phrase. But, it helps to paint your enemies as crazy and fanatical if you want to discredit their ideas, so calling something "paradise" which is obviously considerably less so is a great way to do that.

I believe he was referring to a proletarian socialist model rather than how it'd work in a communist model.

What does this statement even mean?

This answer of your's holds very little utility. We all know you think all these non-communist models out there are not acceptable to hardcore communists so telling us that you think they are bad is not informative in anyway.

I suppose you should start with explaining why this model is bad and why communism provides a better alternative.

This ought to suffice:

In that case he is behind his time. One could talk about such a thing in the 70's, but especially under the current Swedish government inequality has increased substantially due to neo-liberal politics. And the current government in Norway is of a similar mold.


And might I add, it would also seem like peeing in your pants to keep you warm. In other words, a temporary "solution".

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Strangely enough, the only people who use the word "paradise" to describe "communist" countries are their detractors. The people who liked them or who defend them would never use such a phrase. But, it helps to paint your enemies as crazy and fanatical if you want to discredit their ideas, so calling something "paradise" which is obviously considerably less so is a great way to do that.

I used that descriptor in response to the usage of "consumerist utopia". I wonder if it helps to paint the capitalist supporters as crazy and fanatical.

What does this statement even mean?

I believe you should take the effort to follow the conversation if you want to cut in mid-way. Here's the quote:

A socialist system run by a proletarian goverment will enact policies that will redistribute wealth, but based on the principle "if you work, you eat" (i.e., your accumulation of consumer commodities is based on your labor output. Those unable to work, of course, will be taken care of.)

This ought to suffice:

My quote referred to the principles instead of the implementation. If you'd like to argue the current implementations do not work well, then I'd also like to point out that the past and present implementations of communism do/did not work very well either (and that's an understatement).

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I used that descriptor in response to the usage of "consumerist utopia". I wonder if it helps to paint the capitalist supporters as crazy and fanatical.

Well to be fair, capitalist defenders do think this is how things should be run and do paint their system as perfect.*


*Obviously everything thinks their own system is the best, but there is much more of a vested interest in proving that things are fine the way they are now, rather than that a future system will be adequate. Also, capitalism never had the social teleology of communism; no one in capitalism considers themselves to be laboring toward a future greater capitalist society than presently exists. This was the predominant narrative in the socialist countries: we are building socialism, and our hard work will pay off later for our grandchildren. Describing it as a paradise would go against this narrative, but describing capitalism as a consumerist paradise fits very well with that predominant narrative.

I believe you should take the effort to follow the conversation if you want to cut in mid-way. Here's the quote:

I'll accept the criticism there.

A socialist system run by a proletarian goverment will enact policies that will redistribute wealth, but based on the principle "if you work, you eat" (i.e., your accumulation of consumer commodities is based on your labor output. Those unable to work, of course, will be taken care of.)

So your question was about how to prevent "leeches" in communism?

You don't. It's that simple. Our productive capacity is so great that most people don't even have to work, at least not full-time. I don't see why we couldn't make do with a 20 hour work week or less, and that will only decrease with time and technology. The only reason we work so hard now is because our bosses benefit materially from our labor, so it's in their interest to maximize our working hours, as this maximizes their profit.

However, you might consider the effect such a relationship has on the human mind. We are selfish and shrewd now because we live in a system where we are the only ones who look out for ourselves, no one else will do so if we don't. This is the "law of the jungle," as it were. We spite the rest of the world, because the rest of the world doesn't care about us. When that relationship no longer exists, and our social interaction becomes one of mutual cooperation, aid, and "being our brothers' keeper," then people are freed of their selfish need to only look after themselves, and are free to contribute to society as needed or desired, not merely as they are forced.

However, this is not something we need to seriously consider at present. Communism is a very long way away, even if the revolution were tomorrow. We should concern ourselves with capitalism and socialism, and leave the transformation toward communism to the children and grandchildren of the revolution, who will have fundamentally different social psyches than us who have matured under the capitalist mode of production and exchange.

My quote referred to the principles instead of the implementation. If you'd like to argue the current implementations do not work well, then I'd also like to point out that the past and present implementations of communism do/did not work very well either (and that's an understatement).

Very well then. The problem is structural. Welfare capitalism depends upon a vast system of safeguards intended to mitigate the problems caused by capitalism: unequal distribution of wealth, plutocracy, etc. However, because these are problems inherent to the system, which are caused by the capitalist ruling class acting in their material interest, such a patchwork of safeguards is perpetually in danger of being rolled back. The case and point is the fate of most European welfare systems, such as those extensive Nordic ones which Cribb described the destruction of (one could also point to the mass sell-offs in France, Britain, and the fate of welfare systems in Eastern Europe after the end of communist rule).

However, socialism, by which I mean proletarian class rule, does not simply protect against these harmful effects with a labyrinth of laws and regulations, but attacks the fundamentals of these problems: namely, private property and the corresponding private ownership of capital. These are the root of the problem, and by replacing them with structures that naturally cause the fair distribution of wealth and the equal sharing of power by all people, we can reach a point where their effects are either mitigated beyond all danger, or eliminated completely. This is why communism is classless: there are no differences in wealth between people, and thus not different classes of people with conflicting material interests**. Welfare capitalism does not eliminate classes or change capitalism in any meaningful way: capital is still utilized by profit-seekers who exploit their workforce, and more developed and powerful countries exploit and abuse less powerful ones economically into similar relationships.

**There will always being conflicting groups of people, people with different ideas or different uses for the same resources, etc etc, but they will not constitute a political class of people as capitalists or proletarians do.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Well to be fair, capitalist defenders do think this is how things should be run and do paint their system as perfect.*

I somehow find it doubtful that they do not have counterparts in communism during the Cold War.

So your question was about how to prevent "leeches" in communism?

You don't. It's that simple.

Well that runs contrary to what Mister Cribb just said. He appears to suggest that, in a communist system, "those who don't work, shall not eat. As for the first one, more valuable workers will be rewarded materially and socially".

Our productive capacity is so great that most people don't even have to work, at least not full-time. I don't see why we couldn't make do with a 20 hour work week or less, and that will only decrease with time and technology.

Can you cite where the numbers support such a theory? How does that impact the social and technological development of the society?

**There will always being conflicting groups of people, people with different ideas or different uses for the same resources, etc etc, but they will not constitute a political class of people as capitalists or proletarians do.

Then how will it be decided on who makes the decisions?

 

[red_elk]

I somehow find it doubtful that they do not have counterparts in communism during the Cold War.

Official line was that current system is a socialism (transition period) and communism is a goal which must be achieved in next generations. Soviet officials never claimed communism was achieved.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Happy 88th Birthday to Fidel Castro, born 13 August 1926!

He is, imho, the greatest living teacher of Marxism-Leninim.

 

[Gary Childress]

I was looking Karl Popper up yesterday for other reasons and found this on him.

The Marxist account of history too, Popper held, is not scientific, although it differs in certain crucial respects from psychoanalysis. For Marxism, Popper believed, had been initially scientific, in that Marx had postulated a theory which was genuinely predictive. However, when these predictions were not in fact borne out, the theory was saved from falsification by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses which made it compatible with the facts. By this means, Popper asserted, a theory which was initially genuinely scientific degenerated into pseudo-scientific dogma.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#BacHisTho

What are some thoughts from "reds" regarding the passage above. The passage above seems pretty damaging to Marx's credibility given that Marx was very much a believer that his theory is a "Scientific" one.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I think Popper's "understanding" of Marxism is very poor and overly simplistic, because Marxism has successfully predicted many things, and is falsifiable.

However, if you're interested in the topic in more depth, this piece ought to interest you. You'll note that Lakatos specifically rejects Popper's analysis while still being critical of Marxism itself.

Lakatos notes that Marxism is not the only science to be primarily "degenerate," that is, directed toward analyzing and making sense of past actions instead of predicting new ones. Biology, for example, operates in much the same way. Evolutionary biologists are unable to predict with accuracy how a given species will evolve, but they can explain very well why past species evolved and how. We don't think of biology as less of a science for that, so neither is Marxism. Although, as I said, Marxism has made novel predictions; when Marx wrote, for example, he described a world-dominating capitalist society which did not exist yet and arguably did not exist until the latter half of the 20th Century; where craft and cottage industries are wholly replaced by the capitalist mode of mass production, and the old order of aristocrats and nobility is erased, leaving only proletarian and capitalists as defined by the capitalist system. He also identified and described Fascism, albeit not by name (in the figure of Louis Napoleon). Lenin predicted the path of imperialism and finance capital while it was still in its nascent stages as well. These could have easily been refuted by the failure of these changes to materialize and universalize. Marxism may be primarily directed toward analyzing the past, and as I said that is no crime, but it does make novel predictions about the future.

 

[aelf]

What are some thoughts from "reds" regarding the passage above. The passage above seems pretty damaging to Marx's credibility given that Marx was very much a believer that his theory is a "Scientific" one.

Even if it isn't scientific, so what? Marx isn't the Pope of Marxism. Marx isn't Ayn Rand. He could be wrong on some stuff and that's hardly surprising.

That's not even considering that Marx might not always have held that dialectical materialism is scientific. The later Marx seemed less interested in asserting that it was.

 

[brennan]

What are some thoughts from "reds" regarding the passage above.

Refining a theory does not make it inherently unfalsifiable.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Refining a theory does not make it inherently unfalsifiable.

This is a point Lakatos makes also: scientific advancement has often occurred precisely because scientists behaved unscientifically, holding onto ideas for which they had no proof or explanations which were incomplete - like Newton's Theory of Gravity, which the lunar orbit was known at the time to disprove (because Newton did not understand how to solve the three-body problem - and only through subsequent research and thinking did the theory later become refined and more inclusive and precise.

That this principle should suddenly be thrown out the window when judging the social sciences is ludicrous.

 

[brennan]

The scientific method in essence involves iterating hypothesis/theory and experiment/observation.

Falsifiability is just a helpful philosophical addendum.

It is a mistake to equivocate the two.

 

[de Maistre]

The scientific method in essence involves iterating hypothesis/theory and experiment/observation.

Falsifiability is just a helpful philosophical addendum.

It is a mistake to equivocate the two.

Falsification is the experiment bit.