Communism's Good Ideas?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Odin
I am a socialist, but not really of the Marxist type. My brand of socialism retains the market, but the bussiness are co-ops, with the money for investing comming from government-run banks. The problem with Soviet-style Communism was the assuption that one could change human nature.

One can change "human nature" in the relevant sense. One just has to look at the differences between how people behaved 250 years ago and now. Do you not think that there was a reason why punishments were so severe in the London of 1755 as opposed to now?

Many of our beliefs that we consider to be "natural" are in fact cultural constructions and nothing more. The example of free will and responsibility is a good example of a cultural concept that does not cohere with our best knowledge of the way the world works – yet people still believe it and think that free will is natural.

[Bereta_Eder]

_The problem with Soviet-style Communism was the assuption that one could change human nature.


Depends what you think human nature is. If you think it is basically altruistic then liberalism or free markets is what actually corrupts human nature and turns it into self centered.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by paiktis22
if i know this right communism is the end of the socialist road.

That's what Communists say. Obviously, Socialists disagree.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Do you have a problem with the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie under which you live right now?

No, I don't.

Do not the leaders of the proletariat automatically become bourgeoisie on assumption of power?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by St Leo
Do not the leaders of the proletariat automatically become bourgeoisie on assumption of power?

You're right, thus rejecting any system on the basis that it will be a dictatorship of "someone" is a meaningless attitude.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by St Leo
Do not the leaders of the proletariat automatically become bourgeoisie on assumption of power?

No. The bourgeoisie is defined by its ownership of capital. The bourgeoisie existed before it took power from the aristocracy, thus ruling is not part of the definition.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Communism's Good Ideas?

Originally posted by BeBro
Because you could experience very well what "dictatorship of the proletariat" meaned, while OTOH you could not experience much democracy back then....

That doesn't answer my question. They called themselves a democracy and you disagree. They said they were the dictatorship of the proletariet, and you believe them. Why are they wrong in the first, but not wrong in the second? Why do you assume they were telling the truth at all?

I want political competition, and that is something we hadn't before, but have now.

That's possible under the dicatorship of the proletariat. Why assume only one party has all the answers?

[Spiffor]

Che:

The dictatorship of the proletariat, even in an ideal democratic form (i.e one where parties freely compete for power) would still be extremely imperfect, as a part of the population (namely, the bourgeois, and the many middle-class people who wouldn't bve considered as proles) would be out of the loop politically.

[Dracon II]

Good to see you're sourcing an Australian University

1) dictatorship of the proletariat;

Until it so happens that communism is a viable option, I would prefer the kind of system upon which the Chinese revolution was founded (but soon betrayed), whereby power was shared between the workers, peasants, the national and petty bourgeoisie. As things currently stand, I don't people will accept the dramatic destruction of the social and economic fabric that a revolution would create. And it would be difficult defining just who the proletariat is in most western societies... a large number of workers are now officially middle class, with a material stake in the existing social system... and the effects of Globalization would make the transition extremely difficult. Until a revolution can be conducted globally... I see no way out.

2) free love, marriage is oppression of women; and

Something resembling free love has been achieved in the developed world. Marriage is no longer the ball and chain it once was... at least for the middling and upper classes. Economic dependence may be a problem for poorer women... if wages are lower for them than men, and if there are no welfare options for single mothers.

3) from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

Difficult to implement, but a noble ideal. I'm not sure if an efficient system of purely decommodified distribution has existed... but if there has, let me know.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

Communists have to overcome the problem of incentive and not rely on voluntarism (reliance on the human will to work selflessly) as Mao did. You can't for very long get a large number of people to do something if they don't see it as being in their interest.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Implemented, a good idea... but also creates problems for incentive... one of the reasons why it's being tweaked.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Good idea. Democracy over dynasty. There should at the very least be a tax on inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Not so sure about this one.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

The state should at least have some control over credit. The provision of low interest credit for urgent projects is a good idea. The problem in democratic countries however is when Government's manipulate interest rates in order to win elections.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

The state should at least have control over the basic infrastructure, in order to make sure it is available to less densely populated areas/lower income areas etc. Public television is a good idea... but an independent press is a necessity also. Likewise, the state should have control over transport infrastructure for the same reasons as given intially.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Not bad ideas. The Australian Government in particular should really be taking the initiative in rescuing the failing soils and rivers of our farmlands.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Good idea for times of high unemployment and depression. Not sure as to its necessity in good times though.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

Industrial agriculture has been realized. The equable distribution of the populace is probably not very practical however.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

Implemented in the 1st world... still waiting for the 3rd world to catch up though.... *cough*Nike!!*cough*

[Lancer]

11. Really effective border controls.

All the left leaning people around here complaining about the minutemen and the border with Mexico generally, should have seen the border between east and west Germany. On the commie side, concrete guard towers with snipers and machine guns, razor wire, bouncing betty mines, overlapping fields of fire, all run by sadistic guards that would shoot their mother or anyone's family, children and all, in the name of the people. Ah yes, I remember it too well.

Communists.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Lancer
All the left leaning people around here complaining about the minutemen and the border with Mexico generally, should have seen the border between east and west Germany.

We don't like it either

[Lancer]

You should have seen it though.

Spif, are half the French still commies?

[Spiffor]

I wish. Only about 10 to 15%, and I'm using a broad definition

[Lancer]

In the 60s and 70s it was much higher wasn't it? That's why France pulled out of their military commitment to NATO, yes?

[Spiffor]

It was much higher (25% commies at our peak, by using a narrow definition), but it's not the reason why we pulled out of NATO. It's the right wing that decided it, for nationalistic reasons, not Commie ones.

[Lancer]

I see, thanks. DeGaulle