The Question of Leftist Framentation

[innonimatu]

In a collectivist, planned system, how can you appraise society and human development without a central moral code? This is why you think most have, "no idea what they're doing." This doesn't happen in a Marxist society as everything is predefined for the people, and every effort is made to ensure that everyone does know what they are doing. Without a moral code, you can't evaluate or measure what the society has accomplished in a Marxist world.

I don't know about what Marx actually thought about the role or morals (though there is one implicit moral idea in the marxist critique, that exploiting the world of other men is bad), but it seems to me that those who later attempted to create marxist societies failed because they did neglect the moral aspects of society. The idea, it seem to me, was that once exploitation was ended and an "economically fair" society built, there would be no more moral problems. Because of that those attempts at applying marxism used an approach "negative on morals": tried to ban any "bad morals", morals which could be used to undermine the desired economic fairness. So religions were persecuted, economic dependency relations were destroyed (shifted, actually). But this backfired, because the ad-hoc replacements for these old moral systems were not popular: state-promoted atheism, state-directed companies which still had managers, as they must, etc.

It seems to me that only looking at the economic aspects and expecting everything else to naturally work out or to be easy to reorganize has been the cause of the soviet failure. When the elites decided to change the system towards "oligarchic capitalism, for their own benefit, there was no resistance. Because there was no moral content left supporting the old system - people didn't identify with it, didn'tbelieve it, enough to defend it against Yeltsin's coup, for example.

 

[aelf]

In a collectivist, planned system, how can you appraise society and human development without a central moral code? This is why you think most have, "no idea what they're doing." This doesn't happen in a Marxist society as everything is predefined for the people, and every effort is made to ensure that everyone does know what they are doing. Without a moral code, you can't evaluate or measure what the society has accomplished in a Marxist world.

I don't know where you get the idea that morality isn't needed in a Marxist world. Rather, it seems to me that Marxism presupposes an existing folk moral code that, to be fair I suppose, might be quite intuitive.

EDIT: x-post with inno.

Also, you're completely lost, since you talk about a planned, collectivist system as if that necessarily follows. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. IMO, where we go isn't something that we can predict with accuracy. Again, what is most important is the critique. Marxism has no fixed programme as much as liberalism does not have one. If you're talking about socialism, then talking about a system would be more relevant, but even then I don't know if a full command economy necessarily follows. And before you start talking about the importance of a fixed programme, all programmes are provisional. Your average sensible economist cannot propose a detailed programme that will not be heavily subject to changes either, nor can he really predict what society will be like in the future.

One last thing. I said people don't know what they are doing in response to a rationalist perspective, which tends to see planning and its consequences everywhere. That obviously isn't confined to Marxism. Rather, it is heavily present in most modern modes of thinking. But society is composed of distinct persons who do things for all sorts of reasons, which defies categorisation into any single rational plan, not even that of using reason. That's why I can't put faith in the ability of any single system or plan to move people in a desired direction. I'm more interested in the ability and need to oppose those who have power and who work for their own interests.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

In a collectivist, planned system, how can you appraise society and human development without a central moral code? This is why you think most have, "no idea what they're doing." This doesn't happen in a Marxist society as everything is predefined for the people, and every effort is made to ensure that everyone does know what they are doing. Without a moral code, you can't evaluate or measure what the society has accomplished in a Marxist world.

You guys need to get this idea of a centrally-planned economy out of your heads. Most communists and socialists today think a mixed economy is best, with certain things nationalized and other functioning in a market system.

 

[pau17]

This is still, ironically, predicated on an idea that there's some sort of coherent and rational planning in society. I don't think so - not even a good approximation of it. Generally, I think people have no idea what they are doing, at least not as a whole society. But I don't really want to get into this now as it will take a lot of time.

I don't think it's about having a "rationally planned" society. That's like the intelligent design crowd saying that our eye is too complex to have evolved without a rational purpose from a designer. It's just extraneous to the tasks at hand. But to continue with the anatomical analogy, surely you can't deny that in the modern capitalist system extremely intricate and interwoven systems of circulation and exchange much like circulatory or vascular systems, that it has built up extremely high levels of interdependency thoughout its gradual evolution and expansion. Whether or not you want to argue that those systems are inherently exploitative or chaotic to some degree does not mean that they don't still carry out some function and that termination can carry with it a high cost even to the exploited. This was already the case on a global level even prior to World War One, that that some strategic planners even prepared for a particularly brutal and quick war to minimize the disruption to international and imperial economic flows.

For me, Marxism is primarily a method for appraising society and human development. It is not a moral code, so it might not be enough to build a society with on its own, I guess - I'm still learning and thinking about it. But the point is Marxism is a critique of political economy. The critique and why it's made is what is central. Creating a revolutionary state and all that, those don't necessarily have to follow.

Fair enough, but hence the question I brought up of what being simply an anti-capitalist means in practice is the very problem of the OP. If you are skeptical of rationally planning a society, and capital itself is not "rationally planned," then aren't you doomed to repeat the same evolutionary process? Why, if we could simply start over from scratch, would any new system be inherently cleaner in its evolution? Unless you are going to put rational strictures around its evolution, as I believe Marxism seeks to do and which carries with it its own problems (e.g. oppressive consolidation or lack of a common positive program) then what is really at debate here? If you start talking about the difference being a rupturist or reformist, you just land back at the original problem in the OP of why different groups won't cooperate with each other.

Marx began Marxism, but he's clearly not its god. He said some stuff that are still very pertinent, but he was also a child of his times. That's suitably Hegelian, isn't it?

And Hegel himself suffers from a few conceivable shortcomings in terms of his account of historical development. For one, Hegel posits a rationalist and progressive universe or a linear time line, while it is very possible to disagree and see the universe as irrational and history as cyclical without heading towards any end point

My pet German philosopher is better than yours, and he just leveled up too.

Joking aside, the bold is not true and the last sentence is actually more Hegelian than anything else. Self-referencing or teleological does not mean that it was necessary before the fact. Hegel lays out what he thinks would be the philosophical framework with which a people free from alienation might approach dealing with reality, but that does not mean that we don't have to actually go out and deal with that reality and make history ourselves; quite the opposite.

"Progressive" is in the soft sense--it's true that society has progressed and advanced but it obviously could also decay and die. You are smuggling in a Christian teleology to Hegel, while in truth he is saying more about how such teleologies come about in the first place. And I don't think that you would argue that in some meaningful sense to you or anyone here that the idea of "progress" isn't a valid one. If you believe that the notion of "progress" exists, well, Hegel would tell you that you need him to fully unpack what you might mean by it. "But Hegel's not scientific then!" "But what is the ultimate nature of economic trends then?" etc. etc...is exactly missing the point. Hegel's positive philosophy is dense but it's not "sit back and let ideas bring us to Valhalla."

So for example, the "truth" of a religion like Christianity is not in its positive doctrine, but rather it's more the case that a certain set of moral, material, aesthetic, political, etc. or, heading to the asymptotic extreme, "spiritual" conditions existed that made the rise of that particular religion with the relevant time and place not a necessary fact, but still somehow appropriate. Hegel's is quite a more nuanced view of religion than say, Marx, Nietzsche, Weber, and many others. The trick is that instead of being a pure relativist (because all things are true because of their local functionality), that we are indeed on some (at least local) path in the progress of freedom (that of course has contradictions). It just so happens that a lot of Western development has been centered around the development of freedom and self-consciousness as Hegel puts it, but to say that it is going on by itself as if we had nothing to do with it, is the opposite of what he says. You do have to (try to) understand the mind, art, religion, history, etc. in order to approach understanding just what alienation or progress really are, and not just assert a causality stemming from one set of phenomena.

But anyway, you can have the last word and then we should stop talking about dead German dudes and more about the present issues in the OP, since that's the whole point of political philosophy...

So I don't think Hegel is necessarily the better philosopher or anything like that. I'd say, as I said earlier, that the two have different foci - Hegel deals more with the metaphysical while Marx deals more with the political/economic (without necessarily having to presuppose a particular metaphysical conception).

I would argue that Hegel is as relevant to practical politics as one can make him out to be; it just so happens that a lot of his thought was swept up in trends that misinterpreted or twisted his general ideas and we're left with no clear idea of what a more positive evolution of his thought in the practical realm could have carried out to be, had his terms been brought through the generations in a different vehicle.

 

[aelf]

I don't think it's about having a "rationally planned" society. That's like the intelligent design crowd saying that our eye is too complex to have evolved without a rational purpose from a designer. It's just extraneous to the tasks at hand. But to continue with the anatomical analogy, surely you can't deny that in the modern capitalist system extremely intricate and interwoven systems of circulation and exchange much like circulatory or vascular systems, that it has built up extremely high levels of interdependency thoughout its gradual evolution and expansion. Whether or not you want to argue that those systems are inherently exploitative or chaotic to some degree does not mean that they don't still carry out some function and that termination can carry with it a high cost even to the exploited. This was already the case on a global level even prior to World War One, that that some strategic planners even prepared for a particularly brutal and quick war to minimize the disruption to international and imperial economic flows.

You're probably right to say so, but I don't think anything there justifies current systems, which is what most rationalist thinking tries to do whether overtly or not (i.e. saying these systems are good because they are essentially big rational schemes that are consistent with rational human ends).

If what you're saying is that it's more beneficial to let them continue to pan out on their own accord rather than destroy them, then read on.

Fair enough, but hence the question I brought up of what being simply an anti-capitalist means in practice is the very problem of the OP. If you are skeptical of rationally planning a society, and capital itself is not "rationally planned," then aren't you doomed to repeat the same evolutionary process? Why, if we could simply start over from scratch, would any new system be inherently cleaner in its evolution? Unless you are going to put rational strictures around its evolution, as I believe Marxism seeks to do and which carries with it its own problems (e.g. oppressive consolidation or lack of a common positive program) then what is really at debate here? If you start talking about the difference being a rupturist or reformist, you just land back at the original problem in the OP of why different groups won't cooperate with each other.

I think you're still thinking in terms of revolution, of a tearing down of society and rebuilding it. That's not very dialectical, is it? From a Marxist dialectical point of view, an antithesis counteracts the thesis, out of which a synthesis that surpasses both arises. I believe Marxism is that antithesis. The thesis and antithesis do not destroy each other à la the Big Bang, nor (IMO anyway) does one overcome the other completely.

Also, I find it strange that you talk about a significant human role in your interpretation of Hegel below, and yet you seem to not want to admit here that human beings have a huge role in determining the systems that govern them. Rather, you seem to be favouring the traditional view that certain natural laws and systemic considerations (e.g. that of stability) govern societies. I don't think the development of a society is merely some sort of natural evolution (as far as we can see human beings as distinct from the natural world), of just constantly reacting to natural laws. I think the fact that we are living in a capitalist world, for example, is largely to do with the fact that certain sorts of people have an interest in its inception and maintenance. However, that doesn't mean that it's a coherent and completely rational or planned scheme either - it's simply the consequence of some groups being powerful enough to press for their interests and get their way most of the time. That is where Marxism comes in: It's a force that puts forward the interests of those who lose out (i.e. to be anti-capitalist), whether or not a comprehensive and perfect alternative social programme can be devised. And, ultimately, the oppressed and the downtrodden themselves have to be able to take up their cause. I'm under no illusions that a revolutionary vanguard can take their place.

I think that's what Marxism is - a philosophy of struggle and the logical conclusion of democracy.

Joking aside, the bold is not true and the last sentence is actually more Hegelian than anything else. Self-referencing or teleological does not mean that it was necessary before the fact. Hegel lays out what he thinks would be the philosophical framework with which a people free from alienation might approach dealing with reality, but that does not mean that we don't have to actually go out and deal with that reality and make history ourselves; quite the opposite.

"Progressive" is in the soft sense--it's true that society has progressed and advanced but it obviously could also decay and die. You are smuggling in a Christian teleology to Hegel, while in truth he is saying more about how such teleologies come about in the first place. And I don't think that you would argue that in some meaningful sense to you or anyone here that the idea of "progress" isn't a valid one. If you believe that the notion of "progress" exists, well, Hegel would tell you that you need him to fully unpack what you might mean by it. "But Hegel's not scientific then!" "But what is the ultimate nature of economic trends then?" etc. etc...is exactly missing the point. Hegel's positive philosophy is dense but it's not "sit back and let ideas bring us to Valhalla."

So for example, the "truth" of a religion like Christianity is not in its positive doctrine, but rather it's more the case that a certain set of moral, material, aesthetic, political, etc. or, heading to the asymptotic extreme, "spiritual" conditions existed that made the rise of that particular religion with the relevant time and place not a necessary fact, but still somehow appropriate. Hegel's is quite a more nuanced view of religion than say, Marx, Nietzsche, Weber, and many others. The trick is that instead of being a pure relativist (because all things are true because of their local functionality), that we are indeed on some (at least local) path in the progress of freedom (that of course has contradictions). It just so happens that a lot of Western development has been centered around the development of freedom and self-consciousness as Hegel puts it, but to say that it is going on by itself as if we had nothing to do with it, is the opposite of what he says. You do have to (try to) understand the mind, art, religion, history, etc. in order to approach understanding just what alienation or progress really are, and not just assert a causality stemming from one set of phenomena.

I really don't disagree with most of what you're saying. However, no matter how you spin it, Hegel's view of human development is still a largely positive one and has a posited end point (which corresponds to the Absolute, something that I think you haven't really been talking about) no matter how vague. This is in contrast with the philosophy of someone like Schopenhauer, who has a negative view of human affairs and posits no possible end point for humanity other than death. You seem to be trying to put Hegel on a similar wavelength with someone like Kant, who is interested in coming up with an objective epistemological doctrine instead of just explaining history from a philosophical point of view. But I would contend that, particularly in Hegel's case, it's still a highly normative metaphysical exercise that is prone to come up against reasonable disagreements.

I would argue that Hegel is as relevant to practical politics as one can make him out to be; it just so happens that a lot of his thought was swept up in trends that misinterpreted or twisted his general ideas and we're left with no clear idea of what a more positive evolution of his thought in the practical realm could have carried out to be, had his terms been brought through the generations in a different vehicle.

I'd say that you shouldn't look at Marxists in particular for this. Like I said, everyone knows Marxism arose from Hegelian philosophy. But even with the concept of dialectics, Marxism went in its own direction.

As for the fact that we've no idea how Hegelian politics might pan out, maybe you have to lay the blame partly on Hegel himself? I haven't studied it myself, but from what I know the political aspect of Hegel isn't very well set out, which may have to do with censorship during his time. Similarly, Marx left Marxists with no clear idea on what a Communist society would look like since he never got down to actually fleshing it out, which may be to the benefit of the movement.

 

[Traitorfish]

Then what was the point of saying that America and the west still exploit the proletariat? Why mention those facts if not to lend some level of credence to Marxist ideologies?

To assume that Marxism, or even simply ideas similar to those express by Marx necessarilly a defence of Maoist economic policy is grossly simplistic, and infantile beyond words.
And that's even assume that my post was a defence of Marxism, which I did not feel it to be, at least not explicitly. Rather, I highlighted the fact that several significant elements of Marx's observations are still relevent in the modern world, even if that is not immediately self-evident.

Except that our economic situation on all levels is light years from that as Marx's day. The only way you arrive at your conclusion is if you look purely at wealth disparity. Which is, quite frankly, ********.

I disagree. We are not "lightyears" away from the situation Marx observed, we have merely introduced geographic distance along side economic and social distance. The industrial manufacturing class, the core of Marx's proletariat, still exists, filling largely the same role and under very similar conditions, it is simply not as heavily in evidence in Western nation as it once was. The real difference, rather, is the expansion of the skilled proletariat, a sub-class comprised of skilled blue collar workers and non-professional or lower-ranking white collar workers, something which Marx and his contemporaries- leftist or otherwise- foresaw as a result of the increasing levels of automation, and the burdens of administrative, managerial and clerical work resulting from increased industrialisation. Given that the bourgeois class is as powerful and influential as ever- culturally and economically, if not politically- we see a fairly similar basic template, with class relations, rather than the class themselves, being the major differencde.
Now, this changes things, of course, but not beyond recognition. It suggests a greater potential for progress, given the larger "informed proletariat", you might say, comprised of skilled workers- who often have an inherent partial control of the means of production, in the form of their skills and knowledge- but lessens the oppurtunity by geographically removing the unskilled workers who traditionally supported the movement. There's also the shift in class-identity in the West, at least partially inspired by the American cultural and ideological investment in the "American Dream", and its spread to other nations, which presents the skilled employee as a member of the middle class, and a natural opponent of working-class progress.

 

[Munch]

Most communists and socialists today think a mixed economy is best

Fascinating; this is generally what I think. Got a link?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Fascinating; this is generally what I think. Got a link?

Much of the "evidence" for that statement is anecdotal, but here is one example.

Mixed of course, means much more so than today.

 

[Munch]

Mixed of course, means much more so than today.

I appreciate that, and am in favour of many things being nationalised (although that is really irrelevant here). I also appreciate similarly that the US is very much less of a mixed economy than many places. Perhaps that is why that very long webpage you linked seemed quite strange to me, in that it seemed more of a broad-left piece (e.g. more akin to our Old Labour) than something I would have expected from the CPUSA (of course that is why I asked you about the support for a mixed economy in the first place). I am wondering now whether it is the case that since the US has more considerable "entrenched capitalist ruling classes" than most places, the platform of the CPUSA must naturally be (for want of a better description) less ambitious in its aims, compared to other CPs. Or perhaps it is just my wrongheaded assumptions about what CPs would be fighting for.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I think its because the US is a fully industrialized nation; it has completed its transformation, and thus does not require the forced "catch-up" development that the Soviet Union and other socialist nations did, which by nature necessitates considerable state guidance ( just look at Japan or South Korea, and how they accelerated post-war). It was always understood that decentralization could occur once that essential catch-up had been completed, but since we are already there, the need for a totally planned economy is essentially non-existent in the United States, or in any industrialized nation for that matter.

We also have the benefit of seeing some of the shortcomings of central planning, though those were often amplified in the Eastern Bloc as certain parts of the economy took precedence over others. It is also true that Stalinists and other communist conservatives resisted attempts at expanding consumer goods sectors, which partly contributed to the shortcomings there. But then things were not so bad as they are perceived to have been by the West; the crying Polish babushkas who fed their children dog food are far louder than the more honest and reasonable people like this.

 

[Merkinball]

You guys need to get this idea of a centrally-planned economy out of your heads. Most communists and socialists today think a mixed economy is best, with certain things nationalized and other functioning in a market system.

Those people aren't socialists or communists then. Those are people that believe welfare states. Socialism and communism by definition requires a centrally planned economy.

How come the arguments for centralizing the economy in old times do not apply to an industrialized nation? Or nation much more advanced than the one we are living in? Why do the social aspects disappear?

 

[Traitorfish]

Those people aren't socialists or communists then. Those are people that believe welfare states. Socialism and communism by definition requires a centrally planned economy.

Actually, they merely demand that control of the means of production be placed in the hands of the worker, on a use-as-ownership sort of basis. Perhaps certain forms of socialism demand it, but most, if they even suggest it, see it as a means to and end, nothing more.

I'm always fascinated by the many colourful attempts by the more rightward leaning members of this forum to inform the lefitsts as to what their own beliefs actually are. Constructing strawmen is nothing new, certainly, but ordering your opponent to shove hay down his shirt and put on a floppy hat is certainly a unique approach.

 

[Merkinball]

Actually, they merely demand that control of the means of production be placed in the hands of the worker, on a use-as-ownership sort of basis. Perhaps certain forms of socialism demand it, but most, if they even suggest it, see it as a means to and end, nothing more.

I'm always fascinated by the many colourful attempts by the more rightward leaning members of this forum to inform the lefitsts as to what their own beliefs actually are. Constructing strawmen is nothing new, certainly, but ordering your opponent to shove hay down his shirt and put on a floppy hat is certainly a unique approach.

I'm not strawmanning as I'm not really arguing a point. Just bringing about clarification. Nor am I telling you what you or Cheezy believe. I know what Cheezy believes and I'd never put words in his mouth. I admire Cheezy's beliefs on many levels, but voraciously disagree with the means to his ends.

so⋅cial⋅ism
  /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
Use socialism in a Sentence
See web results for socialism
See images of socialism
–noun

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

The key word to me is community. IE: government.

com⋅mu⋅nism

  /ˈkɒmyəˌnɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kom-yuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
Use communism in a Sentence
See web results for communism
See images of communism
–noun

1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

In this system there is no way in hell you can possibly reach your ends without the state.

You guys believe in quasi-socialism communism just as I believe in quasi-libertarianism. In the end, using these terms absolutely is matter of convenience to define ourselves. But it's important to keep their actual definitions clear. Particularly when you have a discussion that is as involved and technical as this one.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Those people aren't socialists or communists then. Those are people that believe welfare states. Socialism and communism by definition requires a centrally planned economy.

This statement is 100% false. Neither have ever "called" for a centralized or planned economy. Hell, communism is in itself anarchist, which is the complete antithesis of centralized control!

How come the arguments for centralizing the economy in old times do not apply to an industrialized nation?

What are you talking about "in old times?" What old times?

Or nation much more advanced than the one we are living in? Why do the social aspects disappear?

This quoted part makes no sense.

 

[Ecofarm]

since the US has more considerable "entrenched capitalist ruling classes" than most places

House of Lords?

Kings and Queens?

Theocracies?

Dictatorships?

Cuba?

Russian mob?

Africa?

CCP?

Indian caste system?

IPCC?


Spare me.

 

[Bill3000]

House of Lords?

Kings and Queens?

Theocracies?

Dictatorships?

Cuba?

Russian mob?

Africa?

CCP?

Indian caste system?

IPCC?


Spare me.

...other than the fact that what you listed aren't capitalist classes, he wasn't making a value judgement with that statement, as represented by his use of quotation marks. He was just saying that the US communist party has to be less ambitious than other parties because the US is so capitalist.

 

[Merkinball]

This statement is 100% false. Neither have ever "called" for a centralized or planned economy. Hell, communism is in itself anarchist, which is the complete antithesis of centralized control! - Cheezy

Cheezy, who said, "To who, by whom?" It's a very anarchist thought. Do you really want to bring up dozens of quotes from dozens of socialist/communist dictators, philosophers, politicians, and professors to show that central planning is a pervasive widespread thought in the ideology?

What are you talking about "in old times?" What old times? - Cheezy

The times of Marx and the Bolsheviks, the times of agrarian Russia.

Also: Or a nation/society much more advanced than the one we are living in? Why do the social aspects disappear?

 

[Munch]

Spare me.

I was indeed trying to spare you, from exposing yourself to the CPUSA article, since that is what I was quoting.

 

[Traitorfish]

so⋅cial⋅ism
  /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
Use socialism in a Sentence
See web results for socialism
See images of socialism
–noun

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

The key word to me is community. IE: government.

You make too highly questionable assumptions here: the first is to assume that collective ownership necessarilly involves a centralised state, and the second is to assume that, even if such a state were to exist, that it would necessarilyundertaken a centrally planned economic program. Neither of thos logically follow from the definition give, or from each other. You've essentially equated "sharing" to "centrally planned market", which is a hell of a leap.

com⋅mu⋅nism

  /ˈkɒmyəˌnɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kom-yuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
Use communism in a Sentence
See web results for communism
See images of communism
–noun

1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

In this system there is no way in hell you can possibly reach your ends without the state.

The second, certainly, but that is a practical, not ideological definition- and, to be frank, an incorrect one. It refers to the tendency to refer to those states administered by (nominally) "communist" parties to arrange themselves along totalitarian state-socialist (or, in many cases, state-capitalist) lines, rather than the actual system in place. Despite this, all Marxist regimes to emerge so far have describd themselves as "socialist", rather than "communist", in accordance with Marxist theory, "communism" being stateless by definition.
The first is simply the same definition as "socialism", merely re-worded slightly, and so the same critique applies, with the additional mention that, as I have mentioned, communism is stateless be definition, and so that reference to state-ownership shoudl be considered incorrect.

You guys believe in quasi-socialism communism just as I believe in quasi-libertarianism. In the end, using these terms absolutely is matter of convenience to define ourselves. But it's important to keep their actual definitions clear. Particularly when you have a discussion that is as involved and technical as this one.

But the definitions you give merely serve to cloud our understanding of the terms. You have arbitrarily and without evidence or good reason chosen to elevate a particular mechanic which is characteristic of a particular avenue of socialist thought, and asserted it as the single defining feature of all socialist ideolgy, regarldess of the fact that the majority of forms make no demands for such a mechanic, and many actively refuse it! Regardless of where you sit on the political spectrum- I have yet to give my own views, you'll note- this does not hold water. I may as well assert that the flat tax is a fundamental and defining characteristic of capitalist thought, or that fascism is based entirely around the wearing of jackboots and brightly coloured armbands.

 

[Merkinball]

You make too highly questionable assumptions here: the first is to assume that collective ownership necessarilly involves a centralised state, and the second is to assume that, even if such a state were to exist, that it would necessarilyundertaken a centrally planned economic program. Neither of thos logically follow from the definition give, or from each other. You've essentially equated "sharing" to "centrally planned market", which is a hell of a leap. - Traitor

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if you actually open a history book and take a look at what actually transpires in socialist/communist nations, it does logically flow. In fact, it brings us back around to the beginning of this thread, which is leftist fragmentation and my original comments on the subject. It logically follows that central planning at a state level will happen specifically because of elements of anarchy and fragmentation. While a great deal of communists and socialists will insist that central planning is not a requirement, it is simply not practical on any level, and history shows this. Else, this world would be full of autonomous communist micro-societies interspersed between the capitalist monolith.

The second, certainly, but that is a practical, not ideological definition - Traitor

What good is ideology if it isn't practical? I'm happy to admit that you and Cheezy don't believe in a central planning state. I'm just saying that socialism and communism have an inevitable conclusion OF totalitarianism. It is the only way for it to have any practicality. It's a shame that you guys haven't learned from many prominent socialists in the past that this is an inevitability.

It refers to the tendency to refer to those states administered by (nominally) "communist" parties to arrange themselves along totalitarian state-socialist (or, in many cases, state-capitalist) lines, rather than the actual system in place. Despite this, all Marxist regimes to emerge so far have describd themselves as "socialist", rather than "communist", in accordance with Marxist theory, "communism" being stateless by definition. - Traitor

I would like you to explain to me why you think a stateless communist system is at all possible? How does the flow of goods occur? How does production happen? How do you achieve equality considering that some people in some autonomous communities will make much more money than those in other autonomous communities? How can you share the land and means of production WITHOUT central planning? I'm sorry, but it's pure folley once you start talking about whole nations. It would basically require the destruction of a modern economy, and for to piddle along at best.

Regardless of where you sit on the political spectrum- I have yet to give my own views, you'll note- this does not hold water. I may as well assert that the flat tax is a fundamental and defining characteristic of capitalist thought, or that fascism is based entirely around the wearing of jackboots and brightly coloured armbands. - Traitorfish

Yeah, thanks for driving my point home.