Europe is Revolting

[Patroklos]

Just another example of Russian aggression

[Cort Haus]

Hang on a minute. I thought that communists generally recognized that capitalism makes a helluva big cake, but divides it poorly. So the claim is that communism will not only distribute the cake properly, it will make a bigger cake? That's quite a claim.

-Arrian

That is precisely the claim. From a Marxist viewpoint (one which depressingly few 'communists' seem to grasp) the key issue is not about distribution, but production. Let us also not confuse the Stalinist USSR with communism, which has so far not been achieved anywhere on planet earth.

Communism is not something that is declared on seizing power, but is (theoretically) a practical and effective system achieved as an end point following a transformation period of socialism. Furthermore, it is something that would be most realistically built on the foundations of advanced industrial capitalism, rather than on backward feudal agrarianism.

The principal behind Marx's vision is that capitalism suffers from inherent contradictions, weaknesses and chronic instabilities that stem from its random, anarchic and chaotic character. His belief in the amazing potential of humanity led him to imagine that a progressive, rational and ordered alternative must be possible which would be more productive and efficient, leading to a far bigger cake.

To me, this is the core of the vision, far more so than the morality of the condition of the working class. Though, it was that condition which, to Marx's mind, made the forces for change seem pressing and inevitable at the time. What actually happened, in the industrial west, was that those forces (together with technological progress) gradually reformed the conditions of capitalism to the point that (current impending capitalist crisis and possible collapse notwithstanding) workers in the 21st century experience drastically better standards of living than their 19th century fore-bearers.

So it's not primarily about distribution or morality but production and efficiency, and how we might build something that frees us from the chaotic uncertainty of anarchic capitalism. Improved distribution and morality would follow. I'm certainly not suggesting it would be easy, and I'm not even sure that it is possible, but I do understand the vision.

[Darius871]

Er, I never suggested anything about the ultimate objective of communists. Obviously the supposed end result is not for everyone to be poor, and therefore there would be no obligation to live like the poor in that sense.

Rather, the context is of a communist living in a capitalist system prior to the revolution (let's call him/her X). In that context X purports to find that system horribly unjust and immoral because of the way that it enslaves some poor people for profit and starves those poor people who are not profitable. Granted, in theory X's ultimate objective would, if accomplished, free those people entirely, but in the meantime there is a huge degree of human suffering going on. How is it that X can consistently maintain his/her moral indignation without first doing all he/she can to at least mitigate the suffering that he/she finds so morally reprehensible as to warrant immediate [and potentially violent] revolution? In other words, if X perceives the pain to be so bad as to require such a drastic solution, how is it consistent for X not to ease that pain as much as possible in the meantime? Or in your analogy, how can X so vehemently pursuing an eventually larger cake for all be morally reconciled with X's selfishly hoarding unneeded quantities of scarce cake until then, while others whom X would supposedly like to "save" get no cake at all?

I suppose you could exempt from my logic those communists who simply find communism more efficient and/or downright inevitable from a dry, deterministic, theoretical point of view and don't purport to give a **** about ending proletarians' present misery for its own sake, but in my experience that subset is very small indeed.

To me, this is the core of the vision, far more so than the morality of the condition of the working class...it's not primarily about distribution or morality but production and efficiency, and how we might build something that frees us from the chaotic uncertainty of anarchic capitalism. Improved distribution and morality would follow.

Ok, then I guess you'd fall into my second category. I think you'd agree, however, that most people who would call themselves communists (whether strict Marxists or post-Marxian) keep moral concerns about workers' material well-being foremost on their minds. It's only they whom I'd consider hypocrites for hoarding luxury, not everyone who accepts communist theory in a strictly academic sense.

[Darius871]

Ok, then I guess you'd fall into my second category. I think you'd agree, however, that most people who would call themselves communists (whether strict Marxists or post-Marxian) keep moral concerns about workers' material well-being foremost on their minds. It's only they whom I'd consider hypocrites for hoarding luxury, not everyone who accepts communist theory in a strictly academic sense.

I might add that what irks me about rich communists isn't just hypocrisy in itself; what's more, I'd posit that communists' being ensconced in a bourgeois or petit-bourgeois lifestyle (both materially and culturally) tends to subtly alienate them from the very masses whose interests they purport to represent (there's a reason why "limousine leftist" and "elitist" have become such popular catchphrases among not just rightwing propaganda, but blue-collar rightists in particular), which is a major reason why the communist movement in the West has mostly been confined to well-off intelligentsia, who chat with each other in coffee shops and pat themselves on the back while the ground-up proletarian class consciousness that Marx found necessary never develops.

I primarily blame this problem on "What is to be Done" insofar as Lenin and the notion of a vanguard still have any credibility in those circles today (which I wish could be just about zero by now). If well-off communists really want to foment class consciousness and revolution amongst the lower classes, they first need to actually identify with them rather than feel or act entitled to direct them, and a good first step to identify with the workers would be not to live the very bourgeois lifestyles the workers are supposed to despise enough to revolt.

To oversimplify I guess the "going native" stereotype is what I'm getting at, not only ideologically but also culturally and materially. Kinda like T.E. Lawrence but the Turks are the bourgeoisie and the Arabs are the proletariat.

[Sirotnikov]

Everyone who thinks that capitalism is the "natural urge" of humankind is dumb as hell.

Care to explain how "selfish-ism" is not the prevalent sociological pattern of people that partake in a society larger than their home-clan?

Top-organized and "benevolent" networks only work in home-clans (family, neighbors, class, fans of same group).

[chequita guevara]

Yet you have no problem using a very expansive definition of "capitalism".

Cuz it's the original definition of capitalism? A society in which private property reigns and production is primarily for sale rather than immediate use. That is pretty distinctive from other types of society. Just because there are many ways to make it work doesn't mean only one of those ways is capitalism and all the rest are something else.

[Velociryx]

But Stalin wasn't a "real" Commie, right?

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

I don't play the "no true Scotsman" game anymore. I haven't for several years, as I realized that if I did so, it left me vulnerable to libertarians claiming that true capitalism has never been tried (although their argument is much weaker than mine had I continued trying to play that game--I'm not redefining something after the fact).

I look at the USSR as an attempt to create real socialism that failed, for many reasons, which we've discussed before. Given the concrete conditions that existed in Russia and the world, I'm not sure it was possible for them to succeed. Perhaps if Trotsky's more aggressive politics to spread world revolution had been followed instead of trying to build socialism in one country, but we can play what if games 'till the cows come home.

The above should not be seen by any means as an attempt to absolve Stalin and the Soviet bureaucracy from the crimes they committed. Trotskyists were the first to point out that something was going deeply wrong with the USSR, and even though I don't consider myself a Trot anymore, I do think they understood better than most what happened. Like Napoleon, Stalin claimed the mantle of the revolution, but betrayed it.

[The Mad Monk]

I question the viability of any economic/political system that requires worldwide acceptance in order to work. It's like saying it's the best alternative as long as no other alternatives exist.

[chequita guevara]

It doesn't need world wide acceptance, it just has to be dominant. Otherwise, the capitalists will try to destroy it.

[chequita guevara]

The List: Sick Men of Europe

By Gregory Shtraks

Posted March 2009
Few regions have been hit harder by the financial crisis than Eastern Europe, with its exposed economies and young democracies. FP runs down five of the region’s worst basket cases.



ILMARS ZNOTINS/AFP/Getty Images

LATVIA

2008 GDP gain/loss: -1.8 percent

Expected 2009 GDP gain/loss: -8 percent

How bad is it? Two weeks ago, the government of this once booming Baltic tiger became the second, after Iceland, to collapse as a result of the financial crisis. In the process of defending its currency, Latvia has been forced to spend about a fifth of its reserves. Whether this controversial policy will work remains unclear, but as creditors come calling and foreign investment dries up, Latvia’s extremely high account deficit as a percentage of GDP will pose significant risks. A governmental collapse is serious enough, but some now fear that Latvia’s young democracy could itself be in danger. New, 37-year-old Prime Minister Valdis Dombrovskis doesn’t really seem like dictator material, but with 400 Latvian citizens signing a letter begging Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich to purchase their country and tens of thousands requesting to be occupied by Sweden, Dombrovskis might just have to consider some unorthodox options.
RAIGO PAJULA/AFP/Getty Images Images

ESTONIA

2008 GDP gain/loss: -2.8 percent

Expected 2009 GDP gain/loss: -5 percent

How bad is it? Estonia’s short-term debt as a percentage of foreign exchange reserves is about -250 percent. This means that if foreign investment dries up, the north Baltic country will be completely unable to repay its creditors. The fourth quarter of 2008 was disastrous for Estonia, with a 6.4 percent decline in manufacturing and a 9.4 percent GDP loss. Fortunately, the country still enjoys a high level of foreign direct investment (FDI), largely from neighboring Finland. In what looks like a desperation move, Estonia’s cash-strapped Parliament is now considering a measure to rescind taxes on alcohol to attract tourists and return to the good-old days when Tallinn was named Party Capital of the Year by the New York Times in 2006. Lately, Estonians have had very little to celebrate.
BORYANA KATSAROVA/AFP/Getty Images

UKRAINE

2008 GDP gain/loss: +2.1 percent

Expected 2009 GDP gain/loss: -6 percent

How bad is it? The global crisis has battered Ukraine’s economy, with industrial output down more than 30 percent and the currency losing 50 percent of its value. Finance Minister Viktor Pynzenyk, an ally of Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, resigned in February, and the foreign minister, an ally of President Viktor Yushchenko, was sacked by parliament on March 2. The infighting within the government is preventing Ukraine from forming a coherent fiscal and monetary strategy. For instance, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently refused to dish out the second part of a $16.4 billion loan after Ukraine failed to hold up its part of the agreement by passing too large a budget deficit. As things stand, the fragile Ukrainian coalition government could be the next to follow Iceland and Latvia, but it will probably hold until the second half of the loan is granted.
ATTILA KISBENEDEK/AFP/Getty Images

HUNGARY

2008 GDP gain/loss: +0.8 percent

Expected 2009 GDP gain/loss: -4.5 percent

How bad is it? Short-term debt as a percentage of the foreign exchange reserves of Hungary, whose economy is much larger those that of Estonia and Latvia, has ballooned to 79 percent. Hungary is now facing GDP losses that would constitute the worst recession since the end of communism and potentially exceed the projected contractions of some of its neighbors (Romania, Slovakia, Austria, and Croatia). Hungary has already secured a $12.5 billion loan from the IMF and a €6.5 billion credit line from the EU. So far there has been no unrest comparable to the antigovernment riots of 2006, but with Hungary’s history of protests, the danger of political turmoil always lurks around the corner.
DIMITAR DILKOFF/AFP/Getty Images

BULGARIA

2008 GDP gain/loss: +5.4 percent

Expected 2009 GDP gain/loss: -0.6 percent

How bad is it? Perhaps no country has woken up from the party with a worse hangover than Bulgaria. In 2007 Bulgaria’s FDI inflows were 16.7 percent of GDP and despite a small fourth-quarter contraction, the country enjoyed decent economic growth in 2008. However, Bulgaria has always struggled with corruption, and in November 2008 the EU rescinded €220 million in promised payments because Bulgaria has failed to tackle “problems” in its government. “Other countries have the mafia,” a member of the Bulgarian parliament told the New York Times. “In Bulgaria, the mafia has the country.” Bulgaria is not mired in debt and thus has fiscal policy alternatives such as increasing public spending, but as long as FDI accounts for one third of the country’s GDP, Bulgaria’s economic future remains dicey.

For related FP content, check out: The Next Iceland

[Asher]

So, how about those idiotic anarchists, communists, and environmentalists protesting?

They wonder why no one listens. Clearly, anyone with those ideals is crazy.

[Wezil]

I presume you mean the G20 in London...

I was amused by this bit:

Fearing they would be targeted by protesters, some bankers swapped their pinstripe suits for casual wear and others stayed home. Bolder financial workers leaned out their office windows Wednesday, taunting demonstrators and waving 10 pound notes at them.

[Dauphin]

Almost no-one wore a suit in the City today. Only saw two suit wearers all day. Saw lots of twattish protesters though.

[The Mad Monk]

I presume you mean the G20 in London...

I was amused by this bit:

Fearing they would be targeted by protesters, some bankers swapped their pinstripe suits for casual wear and others stayed home. Bolder financial workers leaned out their office windows Wednesday, taunting demonstrators and waving 10 pound notes at them.

I wonder where Laz was today...