Communist Education?

[Ned]

Communists, rather than criticize us for not understanding communism, could you describe its essential features in a few paragraphs? We could then confine ourselves to a debate over what you define communism to be.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

BTW, Ned, when most people go off about Communism, they generally are referring to the USSR. So even if I don't accept the USSR as actual communism (and they never claimed to be anything more than socialist, btw), I can still defend the USSR ion certain areas. Just because it was monstrous in some capacities doesn't make it monstrous in all. Otherwise the U.S. would be nothing but a genocidal land grabbing country, England would be no more than African and Indian butchering pirates, etc.

I guess you and I were thinking along the same lines with our posts.

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


No. Distribution of wealth is a bad thing and offers absolutely no incentive for progress. Expectation that man will work for the greater good is folly.

'Course this has been hashed over ad infinitum.

No. Communism is not about distribution of wealth, nor about surpressing people. I will not quote others who thought that USSR or east Germany were in communism. That is wrong. There may be countries that are/were led by communist parties, but no country was in communism, and will not be for a long, long time. Go back to read your Marx.

In the communism resouces are unlimited because productivity are exceedingly high. And that's because people work as they desire. Those jobs that are not desired by human beings are not done by human beings. Humans use their intelligence to push forward science, technology, arts and other stuff that they are interested. Yes it is what is called Utopia.

[Arrian]

Communism relies on a fundamentally optimistic view of human nature. I don't share that view.

-Arrian

[Chris Wilkinson]

This can be achieved as people are not driven by the search for money, since it does not exist. Getting your head round it is complicated, since we exist is a money-based society. Thinking about it with a capitalist-head obviously doesn't work, so that mask needs to be removed to understand it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
Communists, rather than criticize us for not understanding communism, could you describe its essential features in a few paragraphs? We could then confine ourselves to a debate over what you define communism to be.

Again, which forms?

A few essential features, as I understand them, of Marxism:

1. man is an economic animal- man's identity is based on his class conciousness: class conciousness is built by ones daily economic activities (what you do to live). This one I disgaree with personally.

2. a Hegelian conception of history-hsitory as a synthesis, antithesis, synthesis. Marx sees a historical prograssion through different economic forms- each form creates the seeds of its own distruction: communism is the final stage-capitalism preceeds it.

3. IN capitalism, man is alienated from his work, or specifically the producst of his work. A man may be able to make a tool, machine, or device that they would never be able to afford, or participate in the excercise of making such tools. The beneficiary of the work is the owner of the means of production, who does not actually produce anything but draws all the benefits. The working class is left selling themselves-ie, their time and labor.

now, this one is certainly a mid-19th century critique. Changes in production and labor laws make this less viable- anyone who makes computers can afford to buy one-most car workers make enough to own a car.

4. A few romantic elements that grate with his Scientific approach to history: for example, the notion that each man should be able to do anything they want at any time without having to fear for thier ability to survive....

[Japher]

Thinking about it with a capitalist-head obviously doesn't work, so that mask needs to be removed to understand it.

So in order to understand communism we must think as though we live in Fantasy Land? Ok... I wanna go on the merry-go round first!!!

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by HongHu


No. Communism is not about distribution of wealth, nor about surpressing people. I will not quote others who thought that USSR or east Germany were in communism. That is wrong. There may be countries that are/were led by communist parties, but no country was in communism, and will not be for a long, long time.

You´re correct. They defined themselves as "socialist" and said about themselves they weren´t in communism. The problem here is that in the western hemisphere "socialist" is rather used for "social democratic" in Western European style. So it´s a big confusion

[GePap]

Originally posted by Arrian


Communism relies on a fundamentally optimistic view of human nature. I don't share that view.

-Arrian

Actually, Marx does not seem to have an optimistic view of man at all- specially when his philosophy is at its most "scientific".

Capitalism has existed for only 250 years max-given that human history has been 5500 years long and in the last 300 we have seen immense changes to the modes of production, class structure and so forth- I say that anyone who think we have reached some apex of history (yeah, that right mr Fukiyama!) is a nut.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Then why did your co-thinkers excercise due caution before there were any examples in the world? Why was the Paris Commune drowned in blood? Why was the Russian Revolution invaded by 14 different countries? Why were Red Hungary and Finland by outsiders? If you beat puppy from birth, it will become a cruel beast.

BTW, Ned, when most people go off about Communism, they generally are referring to the USSR. So even if I don't accept the USSR as actual communism (and they never claimed to be anything more than socialist, btw), I can still defend the USSR ion certain areas. Just because it was monstrous in some capacities doesn't make it monstrous in all. Otherwise the U.S. would be nothing but a genocidal land grabbing country, England would be no more than African and Indian butchering pirates, etc.

It is the nature of all things to have multiple facets, so good, some bad, some irrelevent to your point. Recognition of this does not mean universal approval or condemnation.

You could say the same think about Napoleon's Europe - it was beset on all sides by opponents.

I don't know the details on the Paris Commune.

I don't think communist China was oppressed by anyone. Allegedly, though, the ChiComs killed 35 million landlords. Why?

Why was it necessary to kill so many Russian and Ukrainian peasants? Surely they were not the enemy.

I don't understand your beaten dog analogy unless you mean that Stalin was not a true communist, and neither was Mao, or Ho, or Fidel.

Who was a real communist then. What does communism stand for in reality?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by GePap
3. IN capitalism, man is alienated from his work, or specifically the producst of his work. A man may be able to make a tool, machine, or device that they would never be able to afford, or participate in the excercise of making such tools. The beneficiary of the work is the owner of the means of production, who does not actually produce anything but draws all the benefits. The working class is left selling themselves-ie, their time and labor.

In the command economy of the eastern block that was no different, just theat the elite of the ruling party and bureaucracy took the place of the capitalist.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by BeBro

In the command economy of the eastern block that was no different, just theat the elite of the ruling party and bureaucracy took the place of the capitalist.

Here he echoes many communists I know.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Communists, rather than criticize us for not understanding communism, could you describe its essential features in a few paragraphs? We could then confine ourselves to a debate over what you define communism to be.

According to Marx, communism is the extention of democracy from the political sphere to the economic and social spheres as well. Work, school, church, neighborhoods, relationships, etc., would all be democratic. Now, consider that at the time the 1840s, the idea of a democratic relationship with your wife, family, or church was a very revolutionary idea indeed. Now many families make decisions together, rather than being the property of the father/husband. Now many congregations decide who their pastor is, rather than having him/her handed down from higher authorities, etc.

Later, in the 1870s, Marx elaborated further. Communism is that stage of society when the state has whithered away and when all society can live by the ideal, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." By this Marx was saying that when we reach the point where we can produce so much that there's no point in even charging for it, we will then have reached communism. With property being essentially worthless, there will no longer be a need for a state to protect it. (But that's really a semantic thing, since a state, by definition, exist to protect property rights. We'd still need a government and police, etc.)

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Arrian


Communism relies on a fundamentally optimistic view of human nature. I don't share that view.

-Arrian

That's a mistaken view of our view. We believe two things are essential to human nature. One, humans are social creatures. In other words, we exist as ourselves only through our relationships with other human beings. We learn from each other, we need each other to fullfill psychological needs, and has society gets more developed, we depend increasingly more on each other for our own survival. Alone in the world, we are little match for the elements, preditors, and other groups of humans. We don't even have any instincts beyond infancy.

From this we can infer that those human activities that aid the survival of the group are more likely to insure the survival of the individual, and so are more likely to have been selected via the evolutionary process. Those activities which strengthen bonds between people give us chemical rewards which we call feeling good. Humor, touching, sex, even the simple act of a smile (which is a universal gesture among humans, though it can be used deceiptfully).

The second aspect of human nature which we Marxists assert is essential is that we create our own reality. Consider that the world in which you exist is not one that occurs naturally, but it is one that was made by other humans. No other animal can do this, especially not consciously. We also create the relationships in which we find ourselves. So, such as the one we have with family are forced upon us, but even then, through our actions we create the nature and shape of our reality. It is not dictated by nature. Our laws are created by us. Our history was created by us. The market is our creation. All of these things are relationships and are part of the world in which we operate. And since we create them, we can also change them.

There lies the fundimental difference between Marxists and those who hold that capitalism is the best system ever. We say that people can change themselves, they say we can't. They say people are naturally greedy, we say, yes but we are also naturally giving. They say we are essentially evil, we say we are neither good nor evil but both at the same and have the capicity to choose.

Is that optimistic?

[Ned]

Che, if that is your definition of communism, communism would favor increasing productive capacity until property becomes essentially worthless. In this manner, society would naturally become democratic throughout.

Marx apparently never dealt with the practical consequences of imposing communism on a realtively poor society. Or did he?