Marxists, please explain China.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Still this is first for communism, is it not? In prior cases, the commies killed the capitalists and landlords, then installed socialism.

No on both counts. In Russia, the landlords and capitalists weren't killed . . . until they revolted and started the Russian Civil War. After the war was over, Lenin successfuly won the party over to his N.E.P., New Economic Policy.

In short what it said was, we've been devestated by war, most of our capital is destroyed, the revolution in Germany has failed so we can't get help abroad, we have to industrial ourselves, therefore, we're going to allow entreprenuers to make a profit in order to build up the nation's capital.

At the time, somce called this a retreat from socialism. While Marx said it's possible for the revolution to take pace in a non-industrialized society, he was always adamant that socialism could not be built in a non-industrialized socety. Socialism has as a precondition, a high level of industrialization. Just as you don't shift from first to fourth gear and expect to get anywhere, you can't build socialism without factories.

When the Russians made the revolution, they did it not in order to build socialism in Russia, but in order to inspire the revolution in Germany. The Russians knew they couldn't do it on their own, but no one expected the level of betrayal by the leaders of German Social Democracy, and so the world found itself with the paradox of a socialist revolution in an agrarian society.

China was no different. In fact, it was only within the last decade that a majority of China's population finally became urbanized. It still is not a majority proletarian country. It is still a developing country, and as Marxists have always agreed, the best way to develop an industralized economy is capitalism.

[David Floyd]

No on both counts. In Russia, the landlords and capitalists weren't killed . . . until they revolted and started the Russian Civil War

OK, so the capitalists weren't killed until they tried to protect their rights and property. Then killing them became OK.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
OK, so the capitalists weren't killed until they tried to protect their rights and property. Then killing them became OK.

Killing someone who tries to kill you is okay, yes, even if you're stealing what they've previously stolen. Theives have no claim on property which must be respected.

[David Floyd]

Killing someone who tries to kill you is okay, yes, even if you're stealing what they've previously stolen. Theives have no claim on property which must be respected.

Perhaps, but even IF they did steal (which I'm not gonna argue, as those in power in Czarist Russia were almost as immoral as the communists anyway), they most likely didn't steal anything from the people who were killing them. If the capitalists had no valid claim on most of their property, neither did the "workers and peasants".

[chequita guevara]

If we appropriate your property, that doesn't give you the right to try and kill someone in return. Only a lethal threat justifies the use of violence. If we take the government from you, and you decide to launch a violent counter-revolution, you have no moral claim against those who try and kill you in response.

I don't want to get into a property rights argument here, since neither one of us will budge one iota, but I don't mind a debate about the right to use force.

[David Floyd]

If we appropriate your property, that doesn't give you the right to try and kill someone in return. Only a lethal threat justifies the use of violence.

There IS a lethal threat, if I refuse to give you my property. Unless you want to say that if the capitalists had refused to give up their property, the communists would have left them alone

If we take the government from you

That isn't the issue. What the government DOES is the issue.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
There IS a lethal threat, if I refuse to give you my property. Unless you want to say that if the capitalists had refused to give up their property, the communists would have left them alone

Certainly not, but they weren't killed when they were expropriated. After all, real property isn't something you can hold or control, like a book. Porperty in land, facotries, etc. are relationships not between men and things, but between men and other men. If we simply no longer allow that relationship to exist, there is no implicit threat of violence, let alone lethality. You are simply no longer "king" of the factory.

That isn't the issue. What the government DOES is the issue.

Libertyrants always like to get away from history when discussing historical events. We're talking about a specifc event, the Russian Revolution, and suddenly, it's no longer what actually happened that matters. The real history is, DF, that the counter-revolution initiated the use of violence. The revolution responded in kind, and eventuraly won, but they didn't start out by attacking the Whites. When the revolution took over from the Provisional Government, they simply arrested the ministers. No one was shot. Even the cannons that were fired from the battleship Aurora, were just firing powder.

[David Floyd]

Certainly not, but they weren't killed when they were expropriated.

Yes, but if they refused to give up control of their property, force would certainly have been used. Look, for example, at the kulaks and the Ukrainian forced famine.

The real history is, DF, that the counter-revolution initiated the use of violence.

Of course, I've never disputed this. The violence was in response to coercion, which, in this case, was initiated by the communists. No, the Czarists weren't moral men, but the "workers and peasants" didn't have any right to the Czarists property (even if the Czarists didn't, either).

When the revolution took over from the Provisional Government, they simply arrested the ministers. No one was shot. Even the cannons that were fired from the battleship Aurora, were just firing powder.

And what do you think would have happened if the Whites protected their property? Oh, wait, we KNOW what happened - the Russian Revolution. Obviously the communists were quite happy to use force to ensure their success.

Now, I'm off to a golf game, so I'll be back later.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Yes, but if they refused to give up control of their property, force would certainly have been used. Look, for example, at the kulaks and the Ukrainian forced famine.

Different period, different government. Furthermore, you cannot justify the actions of some based on something that happened fifteen years later. They had absolutely no way of knowing that would happen. As for what happened to the kulaks, I though you said starvation was natural.

No, the Czarists weren't moral men, but the "workers and peasants" didn't have any right to the Czarists property (even if the Czarists didn't, either).

Rights are social agreements. If society agrees you nolonger have a right, then you no longer have a right. If society agrees we have a right, then we have a right. Therefore, the workers and peasants had a right to take the property of the Tsarists and capitalists.

And what do you think would have happened if the Whites protected their property? Oh, wait, we KNOW what happened - the Russian Revolution. Obviously the communists were quite happy to use force to ensure their success.

There is a difference between force and violence. There are other ways to obstruct what you feel to be an injustace without resorting to killing and bombing. They had representation in the Soviets, they had technical knowledge that made them invaluable, there were many ways they could have responded without tryng to assassinate the government and murder nine million peopele.

Anyway, it was the very act of the war that propelled the expropriations. Had the government not needed to direct every business towards winning the civil war, the Whites supporters would have lasted much, much longer. Lenin's orignal plans called for a gradual policy of expropriation to take place over decades.

Now, I'm off to a golf game, so I'll be back later.

Enjoy.

[Kidlicious]

DF,

Che is right. There is a difference between having your needs met and being treated equally and owning land and factories. Land and factories are owned for the specific purpose of maintaining a specific relationship with those who work there. Therefore taking land and factories is sometimes justified, but using force to get or maintain an exploitive relationship with a lower class is not.

[David Floyd]

che,

Different period, different government.

True, but you missed my point.

Furthermore, you cannot justify the actions of some based on something that happened fifteen years later. They had absolutely no way of knowing that would happen.

Let me reiterate my point. If the capitalists refused to hand over their property, the communists certainly would have used force. Would you agree with that?

As for what happened to the kulaks, I though you said starvation was natural.

It is, when no outside coercion is involved. But when someone is actively stopping you from getting food - either buying it or growing your own - then starvation becomes murder.

Rights are social agreements.

Fine, then the Nazis had every right to gas Jews and murder communists. That's a pretty silly way of looking at rights, though, as you are simply equating rights with power.

...Therefore, the workers and peasants had a right to take the property of the Tsarists and capitalists.

Wait a second. What is society? You seem to think that "society" is some living, breathing entity. Uh-uh. "Society" is simply a word that means a bunch of individuals. What gives one group of individuals the right to take the property of another group of individuals? You can't say "society", because the argument rephrased would run thus: Society gives society the right to take the property of society. That makes no sense. What you really mean is that POWER gives a group of individuals the "right" to take from another group.

Of course, there's a problem here. You already said that "society" defines rights, not power. So if power is ultimately the basis for one group of people taking the property of another group, then you can't say that the first group has any right to take anything.

So, you have a choice. Either power defines rights (that is, the strongest person or people defines the rights of the weaker), or something else does. If your answer is "something else", that gives us a useful avenue to pursue. If your answer is "power", then again, your concept of rights is skewed - the whole point of a right is that it is something that can't be taken away simply on the basis of physical strength.

There is a difference between force and violence. There are other ways to obstruct what you feel to be an injustace without resorting to killing and bombing. They had representation in the Soviets, they had technical knowledge that made them invaluable, there were many ways they could have responded without tryng to assassinate the government and murder nine million peopele.

OK, so your argument is this:

"The Russian peasants peacefully seized the property of the capitalists. They did not initiate violence against the capitalists, or anything of the sort, so therefore the capitalists had no right to respond with violence. If the capitalists didn't like having their property seized (without any semblance, by the way, of due process), then they should have responded by appealing to the "representative body" which happened to be dominated by those doing the stealing."

OK, so here's what we're gonna do. 9 of my friends and I are going to stroll into your house and take your stuff. If you don't like it, you shouldn't fight us, but rather, you should appeal to a court, which just happens to pick the 10 of us as jurors.

As to "murdering 9 million people", if the communists had simply returned the property that didn't belong to them, the Russian Civil War would have been avoided.

Anyway, it was the very act of the war that propelled the expropriations. Had the government not needed to direct every business towards winning the civil war, the Whites supporters would have lasted much, much longer. Lenin's orignal plans called for a gradual policy of expropriation to take place over decades.

Obviously, then, immediate armed resistance was necessary, while the capitalists retained some semblance of strength. This only reinforces MY case, not yours.

Kid,

Land and factories are owned for the specific purpose of maintaining a specific relationship with those who work there.

Actually, I thought the purpose was to a)make money, and b)in the case of land, make money and have a place to live.

Therefore taking land and factories is sometimes justified

Even assuming your assumption about the purpose of owning land/factories is accurate, which it is not, that assumption does not logically lead to the quote above.

using force to get or maintain an exploitive relationship with a lower class is not.

The use of force is only justified in defense.

[Ned]

Somehow, Che, what I see going on in China is something a little bit different from the Communists "using" capitalism to develop the country as a prelude to future nationalization and a return to socialism. The reason I say this is your example of what happened in Russia. When the order for expropriation or the threat of expropriation went forward, it preciptiated a civil war. The Chinese must be awar of this risk of a course reversal. It just may precipitate a civil war that they may not survive.

For this reason, I see China on a genuine road to capitalism but not yet to full freedom. If they allowed freedom, the social structure in China would collapse as millions of poor workers from the hinterlands migrated to the developed cities. This would undermine their ability to further develop and create unacceptable poverty right next to great wealth.

So long as all concerned continue to improve their economic status, the people will continue to support, or at least, to not oppose, the Communist regime. This will let the Communists continue their development of China well into the future. But if they suddenly tried to reinstall socialism, their reign might just well be over.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Somehow, Che, what I see going on in China is something a little bit different from the Communists "using" capitalism to develop the country as a prelude to future nationalization and a return to socialism. The reason I say this is your example of what happened in Russia. When the order for expropriation or the threat of expropriation went forward, it preciptiated a civil war

One, as I have said three times now, I do not believe that is what is happening in China, only a possibility. The3re are multiple possibilities. They might decide to restore the emperor. How likely do you think that is? Possibility does not equal probabilty.

Two, you misquote me. The revolt precipitated the expropriations, not the other way around. There's an implicit threat, given that socialists main program is the socialization of property, but it doesn't have to be carried out immediately, burtally, or without compensation of some kind.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Kid,



Actually, I thought the purpose was to a)make money, and b)in the case of land, make money and have a place to live.

Making money and maintaining a exploitive relationship with the people who work the land are not mutually exclusive.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
The use of force is only justified in defense.

In defense of property, right? That's the main difference bewteen libertarians and communists. We believe in property rights, but not just blindly defending a govenrment that defends property that is used to exploit workers and maintain inequality.