Question for communists . . . .

[Jack_www]

I have a question for communists here, how do you plain to make communism work the next time you guys have a try at it in some country in the world, if that ever happens? How would you avoid the failings of the Soviet Union?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
I have been convinced the Iraqi war was a HUGE BAD THING, and that clinton was kind of responsible for things today, etc etc....

You on the other hand have admitted to not even considering other views

Actually you are quite mistaken. I changed my views on gay rights.

Really? I know A LOT of people who would disagree with you.....Even right-wingers

Face it tassy, you have no credibility. You are just like the Iraqi Information Minister. Full of talk but never any substance.

[Kuciwalker]

Fez, shut up.l

[MrFun]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Well, at least we all hate each other.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Jack_www
I have a question for communists here, how do you plain to make communism work the next time you guys have a try at it in some country in the world, if that ever happens? How would you avoid the failings of the Soviet Union?

In general communism is not as good at making consumer goods. It's very good at making infrastructure, industry and military goods. Some people here would say that the market should be used to produce consumer goods. Me personally, I don't think that the consumption of consumer goods would be a problem this time. Our productivity is just too high now and we can use the same technology as we do now (computers etc.). Some form of money would have to be used initially. It's just a matter of setting our proirities right and listening to the people.

The Soviet Union really fell apart because of corruption. The Oligarchy started ripping the people off just like the czars did before. It's still not much different now.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Jack_www
I have a question for communists here, how do you plain to make communism work the next time you guys have a try at it in some country in the world, if that ever happens? How would you avoid the failings of the Soviet Union?

That is a great question! Let me see if I can give you some answers.

The short reason that the USSR and other countries fell into despotism is that they were all under seige. The USSR was invaded and suffered terrorism from the begining to the end. Many countries suffered invasions, all suffered from terrorism. Most of the people who decry the despotism of the USSR rationalize it, however, for the Israelis. Israel has killed about 1% of the Palestinian population since 1948, a huge number (more than 30,000 people). Yet, most detractors of the left claim that Israel has to do what it has to do to protect itself. Why does Israel have this right and not the USSR?

Even in the US, we crack down on civil liberties when we feel our society is under attack. Why should countries who are under constant attack not have the same "rights?" Look at all the people who claimed that those who opposed Bush were traitors? People have been beaten, have lost their jobs, have been jailed, just for vocally disagreeing with the the "President." How much worse would it be if it was more than just 9/11, but our bridges and railways and crops and factories were also being attacked, constantly? Do you think we would not be under martial law?

So one of the answers then, is for a revolution to try and build international solidarity. If you can get the imperialists to stop attacking you, you don't have the pressure to become dictatorial. Also, if you an spread the revolution, the imperialist will have to try and put out many fires rather than concentrating simply on yours.

Answer number two is, in my mind, the necessity of building a democratic movement from the start. Many left organizations ban factionalism of any kind. This is in contradiction to the experience of most successful revolutionary groups, including the Russians and even the Bolsheviks. Multi-factional organizations are a necessity before hand. I would rather build an organization where everyone disageed with me than one where everyone did what I said (no matter how correct I am. )

Part of it is beyond our control. The other part is just making sure we have good leadership and an educated membership who holds their leaders feet to the fire and doesn't have any fear of tossing their leaders aside if they get too upppity.

[GePap]

I have to disagree with Che. I think the great misinterpretation of "dictatorship of the proleteriat" was at the root of so much of the failure of "communism" as it came about. Why should all politics be controlled by a single party? and if a single party, why not allow for more diversity in that party? And make everyone a member period, unless they choose actively not to be in it?

Also, I do think that Marx's economic interpretations were wrong. While I tyhink he was right to say that only at a certain point of production can communism come to the fore (points that none of the countries in which communism came to the fore had actually reached), he did not grasp the development of the middle class, he failed to see how its class identity would be as strong as that of the workers, and how with time and the development of capitalism it would eb the middle class that would come to the fore as those industries that are chiefly about the means of production would become secondary to those in which services would come to the fore (lowering the distance between the worker and the output since in the service sector there is really nothing doividing the worker from his output).

[Kidlicious]

Gepap,

Give Marx a break. No economists back then saw the future coming, but Marx's theories were closer than any others. At least Marx has the right ideas, but who could expect him to make 100% predicitons. He wasn't a god.

[Az]

In general communism is not as good at making consumer goods. It's very good at making infrastructure, industry and military goods

How about implementing TQM?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by GePap
I have to disagree with Che. I think the great misinterpretation of "dictatorship of the proleteriat" was at the root of so much of the failure of "communism" as it came about.

The twist of a phrase hasn't a damn thing to do with it. One simply needs study the actual history of the socialist movement to see where, why, and how dictatorship became part of the movement. Up until several years after the Russian Revolution, the Communist Party (and it's Bolshevik predessor) was a multifactional, democratically run party. From 1917 to 1920, there were multiple parties in the Russian Revolution. The constraction of alternate viewpoints has concrete causes: the Civil War, the contraction of the working class, the rise of the bureaucracy, etc. These physical reasons were what cause the Party to ban factions, so that the party could hold on to power until the working class could recover.

Unfortunately, the bureaucracy was able to seize power before the working class recovered, and a bureaucracy has no interest in seeing democracy. From their seat of power in Moscow, the Soviet bureuacracy was able to twist and deform all the other Communist Parties in the word to its own interests. Rather than being for the overthrown of their own governments, they became instruments of Soviet foreign policy, except in the cases of China and Vietnam (the Communist Parties both were independent), no revolution has been led by an official Communist Party.

Also, I do think that Marx's economic interpretations were wrong. While I think he was right to say that only at a certain point of production can communism come to the fore (points that none of the countries in which communism came to the fore had actually reached), he did not grasp the development of the middle class, . . .

Partially this is the result of a mis-translation of the Communist Manifesto. In the English version, it says that the Middle Classes are continually disappeaing. The orginal German has them disappearing and being recreated. Marx died before the development of the labor aristocracy, but Engels dealt with the problem of a section of the working class becoming so comfortable that they lose interest in revolutionary politics.

[GePap]

Why give Marx a break? And he doesn;t need a break. He did come up with many important new breakthorughs and terms. But his economic theories have been disproved to a certain extent, as a s far as they have been disporved, people who believe themselves communists need to stop thinking of him as dogma and do thier own studies, to see how Marx and some of his core notions can be applied to what we now know about eocnomics. Marx saw himself as a sceintist. No self-respecting Scientist will run with a theory that evidence has dispproved.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Partially this is the result of a mis-translation of the [i]Communist Manifesto.[i] In the English version, it says that the Middle Classes are continually disappeaing. The orginal German has them disappearing and being recreated. Marx died before the development of the labor aristocracy, but Engels dealt with the problem of a section of the working class becoming so comfortable that they lose interest in revolutionary politics.

Wow! Marx could not have said that the middle class would increase in size. This would go against his whole theory.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
In general communism is not as good at making consumer goods.

The same factory that made the Trabis also made Mercedes Benzs. The Soviet block wasn't incable of making good comsumer goods. In some cases they chose not too, a choice of everyone having nice cars or promoting public transportation. In orther cases, resources were diverted to defend the state from external aggression. Finally, there was a good deal of sabotage in the socialist world. Western agents burned an entire fleet of busses in East Berlin. Crops and animals were burned and poisoned in Cuba. In Nicaragua, Contras were trained to flush sponges down toilets to stop them up. The list goes on and on.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by GePap
Why give Marx a break? And he doesn;t need a break. He did come up with many important new breakthorughs and terms. But his economic theories have been disproved to a certain extent, as a s far as they have been disporved, people who believe themselves communists need to stop thinking of him as dogma and do thier own studies, to see how Marx and some of his core notions can be applied to what we now know about eocnomics. Marx saw himself as a sceintist. No self-respecting Scientist will run with a theory that evidence has dispproved.

Marx was unorthodox. He didn't recieve a mainstream following so how can you go by the judgement of orthodox economists.

But I don't follow Marx like he was some kind of Ghandi. I just accept the label Marxist, because I tend to think like Marxists. Anyone who just follows Marx like some kind of prophet that could see accurately into the future better get with the times though.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Wow! Marx could not have said that the middle class would increase in size. This would go against his whole theory.

Certainly he could have. Remember, what's important is the economic power of the class. Even if the middle classes grew, the portion of the economy dominated by the productive power of the working class grew much faster. In Russia, in 1917, for example, 5% of the population created 25% of the wealth. It is this economic power which allowed the working class to overthrow the government.

Furthermore, Marx was talking about the destruction of the old middle classes: the farmers, the small shop keepers, the artisans, etc. These classes have indeed largely disappeared. Farming, more and more, is being dominated by a small handful of agricultural companies. The independent farmer is continuing to disappear in the US. Small shop keepers have given way to chains. Artisans are put out of business by mass produced cheap products, though there is always a resurgance in periods of prosperty.

Even if, as some argue, the middle class becomes the majority of the population (which I would not argue), they are parasites off the productivity of the working class. I would, however, argue that the definition of middle class is flawed. In the US, everyone is middle class, unless you're Bill Gates or on welfare. Such a definition is so broad as to be meaningless. Many people would argue that white-collar workers are middle class. This is not true. They are simply a different part of the working class. In some ways more priveledged, but not always. Many white collar workers make less than the best paid blue collar employees.