"Communism is the greatest evil unleashed on humanity" (1 Viewer)

[Graney]

Compromising the unnecessary and wastefull western lifestyle, for the ability of future generations to simply be able to exist, sustainable, small and peacefully, doesn't seem like a huge loss.

 

[sthcross.dude]

In anything but a purely anarchist system, someone is imposing their opinions on you.

I'd argue that in an anarchist system, certain people are more likely to force their will on others.

But some people seem to think its ok, as long as it isn't a group that can be called a government doing the oppressing.

 

[Graney]

Yeah, I was more thinking in some ideal imagined anarchist utopia. Not anything that would actually happen in reality. There will always be power structures.

 

[Empyrean444]

On the comment about Vietnam being prosperous;
If u go to Vietnam, there are privately owned businesses everywhere - if anything it is more free trade than truly communist

 

[Enteebee]

I'm impressed with Zietgeists posts, hopefully he sticks around to continue to challenge the right on this forum. As for Anarchism, I think for a proper critique we need to move beyond even seeing the state as a necessary evil (i.e. because say we need protection from more oppressive regimes and that protection would better come about through a state-run military) as most philosophical anarchists acknowledge this... but see it as important for us to continue to strive to get rid of these human inadequacies etc etc.

I would argue that the state can be a good on due to two factors:

Time: Setting up regulations which are for our greater good but would take us some time to recognise... for instance aristotle speaks of farming regulations which lead to the best yields. For a farmer to spend his scarce time considering how to manage his farm best he misses out on doing many other things...

Reasonable people may still disagree: Even if everyone were perfectly rational and all followed extremely similar logic, two people could come to two different conclusions so in the end you need an ajudicator no matter how reasonable your population becomes.

 

[Empyrean444]

The State is important as it can act as an aegis for the people; ie if one people/country/military attack or invade your state, the mililtary of your state can defend its people

 

[Zeitgeist308]

You didn't answer my question, you simply avoided it with idealism.

Please explain how I am being idealistic? Did it ever occur to you that it is yourself who is being the idealist by forcing upon me questions of an immaterial future society?

The model you've proposed is unsustainable because it assumes that people will pursue the common good above their own self interest

You are assuming a dichotomy between the self-interest of the individual and cooperative labour and communal ownership. There needs can be more than sufficiently met within such relations and it is in their direct interest to ensure the perpetuation of this scenario.

If I am the best in my field (or even just better than average) I am going to get a better deal by contracting myself out than by throwing my goods onto the heap.

Why do you make this assumption. If you can get what you "need" (noting no clear distinction between needs and wants here) from the drawing upon the "social pot of collective labour" why would you go beyond and outside this pot? What would private individuals have to offer you in exchange for your services beside their own needs?

Your model is unsustainable because there is no incentive for those who possess the greatest degree of skill to remain inside it, and as such you'd likely see the communal labour pool get lower and lower until all that remains is those who are not highly skilled, who would still gain benefit from trading with the rest of society which has split off (would seem to me that these would perform a similar role to trade unions).

Let me take this as an opportunity to say this one last time. I am NOT interested in debating the workability of communist social relations. Marxists are not utopians who wish to prefigure a perfect world and force it onto humanity like a corset.

We proceed from the material world, from the class struggle as it finds practical expression in the "real world". In this struggle we side with the proletariat, the only truly revolutionary class within capitalist society for the abolition of all the current conditions of their lives. We fight for the abolition of wage labour, the abolition of the law of value and of capital as a social relation. We seek to transend the alienating nature that labour assumes under these relations and transform from an activity serving alien powers outside and against ourselves into a free, creative activity for the all-round development of the individual and society.

Now, even assuming that, that which we fight and struggle against is inevitable and humanity is bound to it for all eternity, the class struggle goes on. Even if communism is not sustainable the working class will break out in rebellion. Rebellion against exploitation, rebellion against the dehumanising nature of work, rebellion against the forms and structures assumed by wage labour (ie. management by beuracrats) etc. You can call the interests of the masses and their expression in theory of their militants impossible and unworkable all you like (as has been done for millenia), but good luck on grinding to a halt the class struggle for eternity, it is bound it bite sooner or later.


I am thus from here on no longer interested in engaging in discussion on the workability of communism. If you are however eager for this discussion, please PM me and we can arrange something.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

Capitalist thinking allows for a broad range of personal views without necessarily having them clash with the system

Capitalist production and private ownership as compared with communist production and collective ownership are not "views" they are social relations. It is thus incorrect to say that capitalism can contain within itself different "views" (which are in reality different modes of production) because, as outlined in Capital Vol 1. by Marx in his chapter of Primitive Accumulation, capital is driven to expand and generalise itself across the entire planet, absorbing non-capitalist modes of production. In The Accumulation of Capital, Rosa Luxemburg goes further to claim (as does the ICC, noting that they differ greatly from most of other communist organisations) that non-capitalist markets are necessary for capitalism to expand, without which begins the era of decline characterised above all by inter-imperialist war.

(i.e. people can choose to keep their goods, or donate to charity, depending on their preference)

To what degree is giving to charity a "different view" than keeping the entire product of one's earnings? Both are still fundamentally capitalist unfortunately.

He's making assumptions about such shifts occurring, and unless he believes that these views need to be instilled into people by forcible brainwashing (which I'll assume is not the case),

"Shifts" in mentality already exist. They find expression in the proletarian class as it stands in opposition to capitalist production. Further shifts of course will occur, noting that the behaviour and manner in which men interact is determined by their social relations of production (which in turn have their basis in a given development of the forces of production.

then I can't see why he'd not support a move to a free market system where private property is still recognised

Because I support the interest of the proletariat in it's class struggle. Capitalist production (in whatever form it takes whether laissez faire, Keynesian or state monopoly) provides no solution for the class and is diametrically opposed to it's interests qua wage labourers.

(given, in his future, people would forfeit such rights voluntarily).

You misrepresent my views. Marxists recognise that communism can not come from above by bourgeois philanthropy and the like. The capitalist class can not and will not forfeit their own property rights on the basis of "humanity" or "freedom" or "equality" or any other wishy-washy idealist nonsense. The property roots of the bourgeoisie must be forcefully ripped away. It is then and only then can we speak of a "free-association of producers" who foreit not their property but their contribution to the social product which they make with their labour.

It's more of a softly, softly approach to proletariat enlightenment.

This is not entirely true. You seem to be treating Marxism as a dogma that need be imbued in the class. This is what may be called a "Kautskyite-Leninist" understanding of class consciousnous.

Others, like myself, influenced by the Left-Communist tradition see class consciousness as an organic product of the class itself. Consciousness exists in what some may call a "dialectical" relationship to struggle where through the struggle the class acquires a revolutionary consciousness which subsequently determines or at least influences their struggle.

Zeitgeist, our man, is describing a communist thought experiment, and is attempting to raise overall consciousness through it. It's admirable if not somewhat futile.

My motivation is not to raise consciousness, this is after all a freakin student discussion board! But I agree (I'm not sure if in the same way though), the discussion in this thread is seeming to be becoming more and more futile (although there are counterveiling tendencies such as your own contributions).


In reply to Zstar, you've got nothing to offer this discussion. As such I (and I hope others will join me in doing this) will be ignoring all your posts in this thread from now on (including your most recent one).

Herein was where capitalism was born. You take a bit of Nietzsche, add a bit of darwinism and some materialism and you have it.

I'm affraid this is just untrue. Capitalism (like all modes of production) is not the product of a "great mind" or mere ideas. It is the product of historic conditions, in this case the rise of commerce and industry within the constraints of feudal relations which where subsequently superceded as a result of the class struggle between the rising bourgeoisie and the declining aristocracy. Marx puts it as follows in the Communist Manifesto:

We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged...the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder. Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted in it, and the economic and political sway of the bourgeois class.
​

The State is important as it can act as an aegis for the people; ie if one people/country/military attack or invade your state, the mililtary of your state can defend its people

Yes, yes but assumes there are "others" to do the invading/attacking etc. Fundamentally the state is the instrument by which the ruling class expresses its dominance over society and mediates the class struggle in it's interest.

Society thus far, based upon class antagonisms, had need of the state, that is, of an organization of the particular class, which was pro tempore the exploiting class, for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1970/xx/state.html#nxand therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited classes in the condition of oppression corresponding with the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom, wage-labour). The state was the official representative of society as a whole; the gathering of it together into a visible embodiment. But it was this only insofar as it was the state of that class which itself represented, for the time being, society as a whole: in ancient times, the state of slave-owning citizens; in the Middle Ages, the feudal lords; in our own time, the bourgeoisie. When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary [überflüssig, superfluous]. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society-the taking possession of the means of production in the name of the state-this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then withers away of itself [schläft von selbst ein, lit., goes to sleep of itself]; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not “abolished” [abgeschafft]. It withers away [stirbt ab, lit., dies away, dies off]. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase “a free people’s state”, both as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the state out of hand. - Engels, Anti-Duhring quoted in The Death of the State in Marx and Engels, Hal Draper
​

 

[zstar]

Honestly I wish we could partition Australia so you liberal morons could live in your Marxist paradise. Zeigeist can be the Dictator, Call him the little pisshole leader for all I care.

It'll settle this debate once and for all, We'll see who builds the fence first.

 

[jb_nc]

Capitalism is the leading cause of environmental devastation. The market is not sufficent to limit production and consumption to sustainable levels, serious government intervention is needed if civilisation is to continue.

Load based licensing broheem, load based licensing.

 

[jb_nc]

Firstly Bob Brown and Al Gore are not scientists.

And I'm getting the gist that neither are you...

 

[CyanideChrist]

"Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? 'No!' says the man in Washington, 'It belongs to the poor.' 'No!' says the man in Moscow, 'It belongs to everyone.' 'No!' says the man in the Vatican, 'It belongs to God.' I rejected those answers; instead I chose something different, I chose the impossible. I chose...Rapture."

I don't think that communism can work, because there is no one to regulate the system without becoming corrupt. However, a purely capitalist system won't work either, due to market failures (e.g. environmental damage). Instead, a mix of both is preferable.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

The quote should read like this:

"Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? 'No!' says the man in Washington, 'It belongs to your employer.' 'No!' says the man in Moscow, 'It belongs to state.' 'No!' says the man in the Vatican, 'It belongs to God.' I rejected those answers; instead I chose something different, I chose the "impossible". I choose communism.

I don't think that communism can work, because there is no one to regulate the system without becoming corrupt.

Except that is the entire conscious, working population as a whole.

Instead, a mix of both is preferable.

You can't mix capitalism and communism. Whilst you can have state intervention of the market, it presents no solution to the working class.

 

[KFunk]

Except that is the entire conscious, working population as a whole.

So how is this class consciousness supposed to work / how does it emerge? Is it democratically directed? Do people merely rally around a figurehead whose rhetoric manages to characterise the collective sentiment? etc...

 

[bigboyjames]

Alot of people have said that capitalism works, to be honest the only country in which it has successfully worked is USA, cant think of another country that thrived on rich getting richer and poor getting poorer. USA is an exception because of the amount of natural resources it has and the type of leadership they got. Pure capitalism cannot survive a single day in 3rd word countries, allot of these 3rd world countries are already being sold to outsiders due to capitalism which consequently leaves nothing for those government having anything for themselves.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

So how is this class consciousness supposed to work / how does it emerge?

As I stated previously, those like myself, influenced by the Left-Communist tradition see class consciousness as an organic product of the class itself. Consciousness exists in what some may call a "dialectical" relationship to struggle where it is only through the struggle that the class acquires a revolutionary consciousness, but this consciousness does subsequently determines/influences their struggle (it's aims and methods).

Is it democratically directed?

Class consciousness is not and can not be "democratic" by definition, as it's not something that is decreed or decided upon by a mere majority vote.

Do people merely rally around a figurehead whose rhetoric manages to characterise the collective sentiment?

Haha, no of course not. Class consciousness is not demagogy. As mentioned above, class consciousness is an organic product of the class struggle and need not be brought from outside the movement and imbued in the workers as in the "Kautskyite-Leninist" conception.

If your keen to know more on the topic an interesting and entertaining article to read on the subject is The "Renegade" Kautsky and his Disciple Lenin by Gilles Dauve (aka Jean Barrot) - a Left-communist.

Alot of people have said that capitalism works, to be honest the only country in which it has successfully worked is USA, cant think of another country that thrived on rich getting richer and poor getting poorer.

Well that's not true I'm afraid. Britain for example was the birth place of modern capitalism and was immensely prosperous throughout the 19th Century. Today there is not a single nation on earth which is not integrated into the world market and operating within a capitalist mode of production.

USA is an exception because of the amount of natural resources it has and the type of leadership they got.

This is true to a degree, but the lack of a native availability of natural resources is not necessarily a barrier to the development of capitalism. Britain, for example, (aswell as the other colonial power) found the resources necessary for it's growth in the appropriation and plundering of the colonies. You are also correct to a degree in your latter claim since the lack of a revolutionary movement against feudal political and economic relations in places such as Germany and Russia (which in turn lead to the distortion and set back of the development of capitalism there) may be put down to the inability of the bourgeoisie to organise effectively.

Pure capitalism cannot survive a single day in 3rd word countries, allot of these 3rd world countries are already being sold to outsiders due to capitalism which consequently leaves nothing for those government having anything for themselves.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

 

[Betty Zhang]

Communism...The idea that everyone will be equal in terms of cash and status is a great idea; if only it works. Communism in China clearly doesn't work, no offence to those who think otherwise. The government is corrupt....certain websites are blocked...news cover the truth, etc. You see what I mean?

 

[bigboyjames]

Communism...The idea that everyone will be equal in terms of cash and status is a great idea; if only it works. Communism in China clearly doesn't work, no offence to those who think otherwise. The government is corrupt....certain websites are blocked...news cover the truth, etc. You see what I mean?

how is that related to communism?

 

[KFunk]

As I stated previously, those like myself, influenced by the Left-Communist tradition see class consciousness as an organic product of the class itself. Consciousness exists in what some may call a "dialectical" relationship to struggle where it is only through the struggle that the class acquires a revolutionary consciousness, but this consciousness does subsequently determines/influences their struggle (it's aims and methods).

I'm still trying to pinpoint the concept. Presumably it is not a subconscious zeitgeist which guides everyone towards a common goal (to me this would be a case of metaphysics gone bad). As you have indicated there is not a single leader, nor single set of democratically elected principles.

Is it then, perhaps, a revolutionary dialectic which evolves over time within the relevant class? What forces do you (or the theorists you favour) suggest restrict the form which such a consciousness may take?

 

[Enteebee]

Fairly interesting discussion on the evolution of the moral consciousness of the left and the right:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html