Being a Communist

[MrFun]

I sometimes have nightmares that a commie is hiding under my bed, and that he will jump out and kill my raccoons.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So that's where che has been?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Edit: what's happening in China is that they are building a capitalist state knowing that it will eventually lead to a true communism. They're taking the long view, which is something that capitalists are incapable of doing, and that's another reason why capitalism is doomed to failure.

So, Tingkai, how does it feel to make a Fez worthy statement?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So that's where che has been?

He's the Commie Troll (in the 'under the bridge' sense)

"If you desire liberty, first you must answer these questions three!"

[Imran Siddiqui]

WHAT is your name?

WHAT is your quest?

WHAT is Marx's defintion of materialism?

[Theben]

[notyoueither]

Re: Re: Being a Communist

Oooo. Some good responses.

Originally posted by Spiffor
I disagree. I don't think they'll become far more numerous. There is something strong in the communist idea, something that can be very attractive for some people having serious political ideas. And unless another generous idea of a political system emerges to replace communism, it will continue to exert its attractiveness.

But hasn't socialism done that? People in indutrialised societies can have a measure of social justice without going 'all the way' with Marx.

But our image is extremely bad. We encouter throngs of people who, like you, are prejudiced into believing our political message is stuck in the 20s. It takes a long, long time to explain. And many people, even when interested by the explanations, won't change their prejudices.

Wouldn't part of the problem be that there aren't any examples of a communist state where individual liberties are safe guarded?

You can have a socialist system where individuals still enjoy some freedom to work harder to get themselves ahead, but that doesn't happen in communist states unless those states start to slip towards capitalism.

What will the end result in a place like China be? I'd take even odds that the communist government won't survive for long with the coming of affluence to the people.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Theben
Part of it is for balance. I feel the country is too far to the right, so my ideology helps move the total to the center. If we were an extremely liberal society I might very well be a conservative.

Here it is very liberal, and I tend to drag it back a bit to the right. I like many things that the left has accomplished, but they have to have their feet nailed to the ground. Big government does not mean better, and it all has to be paid for (by this generation, not the next).

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai
What we need is a system where the workers become the owners of production and that is already starting to happen.

I agree we need a system where workers CAN own the means of production. However, that should not be mandated from heaven.

People need to be free to persue the path that suits them. That is where communism fails. It assumes the straight jacket of a single ideology will work for everyone. It doesn't.

[notyoueither]

Re: Re: Being a Communist

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Not so bad. It may be that we will ultimately fail to change the world, in which case I feel sorry for not only our species, but the others as well. The flip side is, our movement has had ebbs and flows. We're in an ebb right now. Doesn't mean we won't flow again.

In 1912, there were 50 members of the Bolshevik organization. Five years later they overthrew the Russian government. In 1952, Castro led an attack on a Cuban police station and was thrown in prison. Seven years later he marched into Havana. In 1927, Mao was being led off to face a firing squad with most of the rest of the leaders of the Communist Party of China. Twenty years later he took over China.

Those kind of stories can help us to "keep the faith" inspite of overwhelming odds.

Your predecessors have already changed the world. Socialism in the west got the kick start from the existence of communist states. However the best parts of your message have been subsumed by other systems (socialism and capitalist, liberal democracies).

What is left to distinguish yours from other offerings available is a future devoid of choice for individuals on how to organise their affairs. Trends are towards greater choices and more freedom. That is why I feel you will be holding that candle in the window for naught.

[Spiffor]

NYE:
First, I'd like to make sure we agree on definitions. To me, "Socialism" means an economy devoid of private property of the means of production. It is the classical marxist definition, and is generall seen as a transition toward "Communism", i.e. a classless society, which is also Stateless. The USSR saw itself as "Socialist", and claimed to aim at "Communism".

What you are talking about seems to be "Social Democracy", i.e the idea of accepting the fundamental mechanisms of capitalism, but while regulating and humanizing the consequences of capitalism.

---

I personally define myself as a "Socialist" in that meaning (i.e. I advocate getting stuck in the transitory system, although my model is very different from the USSR's and China's model). So I could hardly argue that we need to go all the way with Marx.

However, it is true the Social Democrats had great success into making capitalism palatable. And Social Democracy is the main reason why commies and all look-alikes are so few now.

But the fundamental flaw in social democracy is that the capitalists aren't stripped from their power. The capitalists have agreed with socialdemocratic reforms in the past decades, and the fear of the Reds was a very important reason for them to yield.

Nowadays, the Commies don't scare anybody in the West. And since our western societies have no risk of major unrest or revolution anytime soon, the capitalists feel they can take back part of what they granted in the past decade. In France, there is a strong advocacy by the business leaders to give up much of our welfare State. They wield a huge power over our jobs and our prosperity, and they don't hesitate to use it for pressure. I expect the situation to be similar in every country whose welfare system is suffering.
Socialdemocrats can hardly do anything about it. Conservative Chirac and Socialdemocrat Schröder are deciding very, very similar policies when it comes to wrecking retirement funds, and healthcare. Socialdemocrat Jospin is the prime minister who privatized the most in our whole history.

And actually, the Socialdemocrats' acceptance of concession after concession will result in the rise of the far left. In its several possible engagements. Jospin suffered a huge electoral defeat because many left-wing voters, many disgruntled workers and unemployed, decided to vote for the radical left instead of him. Schröder is immensely impopular, and should a credible far left party emerge in Germany, he'll have trouble keeping many votes of his side. I expect Zapatero to suffer the same after one or two terms, since his economic policy will be extremely liberal, as opposed to what he should stand for.

The day the west will see a revolution, or the day we will see a surge of communist votes is still very far off. But should the socialdemocrats continue to bend over like they do, the rise will only happen.

[notyoueither]

We can agree. I use socialism to describe your social democracies where capitalism is fused with a desire for social justice, and communism to describe your economies devoid of private property. I don;t see a distinction for classless, since in the absense of property all are drones.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I don;t see a distinction for classless, since in the absense of property all are drones.

Well, I can't depict the classless society very well, since I never was interested in what I hold for a fairy tale, but the difference is that there is no State, no classes, and the system works harmoniously.
"Socialism" does require regulations, it does require a State.

And Socialism doesn't advocate the end of all private property. Only the property of the means of production. Your house remains yours, like your computer, your car, your watch and so on. I don't think communism calls for the abolition of personal property either, but don't quote me on that.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Spiffor
However, it is true the Social Democrats had great success into making capitalism palatable. And Social Democracy is the main reason why commies and all look-alikes are so few now.

But the fundamental flaw in social democracy is that the capitalists aren't stripped from their power. The capitalists have agreed with socialdemocratic reforms in the past decades, and the fear of the Reds was a very important reason for them to yield.

Nowadays, the Commies don't scare anybody in the West. And since our western societies have no risk of major unrest or revolution anytime soon, the capitalists feel they can take back part of what they granted in the past decade. In France, there is a strong advocacy by the business leaders to give up much of our welfare State. They wield a huge power over our jobs and our prosperity, and they don't hesitate to use it for pressure. I expect the situation to be similar in every country whose welfare system is suffering.
Socialdemocrats can hardly do anything about it. Conservative Chirac and Socialdemocrat Schröder are deciding very, very similar policies when it comes to wrecking retirement funds, and healthcare. Socialdemocrat Jospin is the prime minister who privatized the most in our whole history.

And actually, the Socialdemocrats' acceptance of concession after concession will result in the rise of the far left. In its several possible engagements. Jospin suffered a huge electoral defeat because many left-wing voters, many disgruntled workers and unemployed, decided to vote for the radical left instead of him. Schröder is immensely impopular, and should a credible far left party emerge in Germany, he'll have trouble keeping many votes of his side. I expect Zapatero to suffer the same after one or two terms, since his economic policy will be extremely liberal, as opposed to what he should stand for.

The day the west will see a revolution, or the day we will see a surge of communist votes is still very far off. But should the socialdemocrats continue to bend over like they do, the rise will only happen.

It seems to me that your dream requires more than one major failing for it to be realised.

One, capitalism would have to suffer a catastrophe on a scale of the Great Depression, or worse. That could well happen, and the middle class could be severely affected and look for change. Where would they look?

Would they look to moderates who propose a Newer Deal, or would they look to radicals who would overturn the foundations of the comfort the middle class themselves enjoy in better times?

Your dream requires an implosion of capitalism to be accompanied by a complete failure of the political classes to take any action to ameliorate conditions. I find it unlikely that such a situation will ever come to pass.

[Bereta_Eder]

I like to think of communism in everyday matters such as workers rights and yes the maintanance of the welfare system.

high brow ideas never held much sway over me. what the future brings noone knows but the today it's reality, it's now and here.

and since i'm pretty sure that the capital will never give to the peoples/worker etc unless forced to, this gives communism always a reason d'etre to use a spiffor complimentary french phrase (cant put accents though).

apart from that communism is discredited but always a useful voice at least in greece.