Communist Education?

[joncha]

hmm... I was wondering... does the CPA have an open membership? ...or do you put prospective members through some kind of trial period to weed out the police agents and agents provocatuers?

jon.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by joncha
hmm... I was wondering... does the CPA have an open membership? ...or do you put prospective members through some kind of trial period to weed out the police agents and agents provocatuers?

jon.

No, AFAIK it's up to Che since he started the party and is first among equals, being the most knowledgeable communist here.

I think I was invited to join after a long thread defending Fidel.

[joncha]

Defending him against US imperialism? or as the protector of Socialism On One Island?

jon.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by joncha
Defending him against US imperialism? or as the protector of Socialism On One Island?

jon.

Among other things.

[joncha]

I never really could get too excited about Cuba. I hear they've got great beaches, though.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
Kid, et al.

Im just going on the description of communism as defined by Che.

It seems to me that workers taking over the means of production, socialism, redistribution of wealth by force, has nothing to do with communism per se. What this is is an attempt to reshape society to look like communisim prior to that ideal state where productivity is so high that everyone is essentially wealthy. The problem this pantomine communism creates, though, is low and/or stagnant productivity. Thus, this pantomine communism is truly a mistake as it prevents true communism from ever coming into being.

Marx predicted that capitalism would collapse. So capitalism is not really a viable option at this time. But a state is needed after the revolution until communist utopia can be achieved.

I personally don't believe in communist utopia, that is society without a state. I do believe in a very highly productive, highly technical future society without nations and classes though.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Saras
Actually, workers owning companies can for some if not most industries be the best model.

True. My expereince shows this is best served in small entrepenurial businesses where it easier to align interest to the common good of the company. As the complexity of the organization changes it becomes increasingly difficult to have an efficient organization.

As an example, W. L. Gore (an entrepenurial company best known for inventing Gore Tex fabrics amongst other products) had a communal approach to management where everyone was an equal partner (some pigs being more equal than other tho'). As they grow their culture is less likely to allow them flexibility to move in rapidly moving market conditions. The communal approach served them well in formative years.

The analogy to be drawn is that in small orgs (business or government) communal behavior seems efficient. In larger orgs much less so.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I do believe in a very highly productive, highly technical future society without nations and classes though.

Sounds to me like your advocating global corporate hegomony.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


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?

First, just to get it out of the way (also partly in response to GePap), I do not think we've reached any sort of "end of history." I don't think capitalism, or whatever you wish to call the current system (sociocapitalism, perhaps?) is the END. Or even necessarily "good." I look at it the way Churchill described democracy: it's a long way from perfect, but it's the best we've come up with yet.

Now, obviously, communists assert they've come up with something even better. There are several reasons for me to be skeptical, however:

1) The implementation of "communism" thus far (I know your counterarguments, and even accept them to a degree, but still the track record is not encouraging, you must admit).

2) Communism does rely on an optimistic view of human nature, when compared to the current system. It assumes that people - billions and billions of individuals - can be convinced to work for the common good. The goal is noble, yes, but I do not believe it to be attainable without coercion... a lot of coercion.

3) You assert "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." I disagree that this is always the case. I can think of lots of situations in which acting in the best interests of the group will result in harm to the individual.

4) We do, to a certain extent, "create our own reality." But only partly. There are many, many things outside our control. You say our history is "created by us." For the most part, yes. But it did not occur in a vaccum. There were other forces at work.

From what I can gather, communism tends to assume "plenty for everyone." I don't think it's that easy. I think you're more likely to ensure "a little for everyone." Granted, you will most likely argue that a little for everyone is better than lots for some and nothing for many (current situation). But going back to your "those human activities that aid the survival of the group are more likely to insure the survival of the individual" idea, consider that if everyone had but a little, you could end up stagnating rather badly, and we might never get off this rock, which, at some point, will mean exinction.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

While I do generally agree that our current system results in a ****load of waste, I'm skeptical of a system that would, I assume, have some sort of decision-making process that decides what people "really need." Who makes those decisions? "The people" would own the means of production, but who tells them what to produce? Each person cannot decide on their own... so that means... the government? So the government decides what to produce?

Like I said, I'm skeptical of that situation. Big time.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I agree. The comon answer heard is that there is plenty to be had so there is no rush to produce. It will be produced if and when it is something someone wants to do.

What this means to me at least, is that there is a general living off the fat/wealth that another more productive system has produced (read at this point capitalism) until such time as scarcity exists and then what? Police state? Forced uncooperative labor? How does one motivate 7 billion individuals to work for the common good (assuming one can define what is the common good).

[Arrian]

I don't buy the "there will be plenty" line. There are too many assumptions in there. Way too many.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Marx predicted that capitalism would collapse. So capitalism is not really a viable option at this time. But a state is needed after the revolution until communist utopia can be achieved.

I personally don't believe in communist utopia, that is society without a state. I do believe in a very highly productive, highly technical future society without nations and classes though.

There is, of course, a difference between collapsing of its own accord and collapsing it by force.

Kid, but this aside, you do seem to share the view that the ultimate goal is a highly productive, highly democratic state where the workers are essentially wealthy themselves and who also own the means of production.

But, if this is your goal, anything that harms increasing productivity has got to be harmful to communism.

State ownership of businesses and suppression of competition demonstratively harms competition. It seemingly advances the goal of democratic control of the means of production, but at a very high cost that ultimately defeats the true goal of high productivity.

What advances Marx's goals best is nearly universal ownership of corporations (in general) by the workers while maintaining competition, as competition brings high and increasing productivity. But this is America, not Cuba.

[JohnT]

Iain Banks came up with a wonderfully appealing Communist society... of course, the human race was using stars as energy sources and all work was automated, done by robots and servitors, and, of course, it was science fiction. But other than that, it should be a template for our society too!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian

2) Communism does rely on an optimistic view of human nature, when compared to the current system.

No it does not. Communism relies on a view of human nature as variant depending on which economic system is in operation.

As I said before, some of the things that seem natural to us would seem deeply strange and disturbing to people living in tribal societies. There is no reason to think that our socio-political beliefs and concepts represent anything necessararily conditioned by nature.

The capitalist claim that there exists a single human nature independently of the kind of socio-political system people live in just amounts to special pleading.

After all we already know that the kind of education and upbringing a person enjoys will bear greatly on their character for the rest of their life. You can see this yourself if you examine your own character.

One might as well say that capitalism takes an excessively pessimistic view of human nature, and then structures society so as to make this a self-fulfilling prophecy.