Europe is Revolting

[Cort Haus]

10 pound notes? Times are hard in The City. Last time out, they were waving fifties.

[Cort Haus]

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

I don't think that the vanguard need to be detached from proletarian reality, and I'm not extolling any virtue in 'Champagne Socialism'. Of course there will be a moral component to a project which seeks a better life for the overwhelming majority, but the driving force for workers is not morality but self-interest.

Morality may be a bourgeois luxury to motivate those who do not keenly need to raise their material circumstances, but as a core principal it has its limitations and even dangers. They may be a moral case for animal rights, and some 'leftists' get caught up in that kind of thing, but it has no place in a humanist worldview such as Marxism.

[Elok]

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.

MWAHAHA soon Eastern Europe will be Communis...oh, wait, it already spent several decades there, which is at least partially why it's in such crappy shape now. Never mind.

[Darius871]

Of course there will be a moral component to a project which seeks a better life for the overwhelming majority, but the driving force for workers is not morality but self-interest.

I fail to see how that's the case anytime after the capitalists satiated the workers' "self-interest" by throwing the bone known as the welfare state, at least in the West. Since they've become comfortably satisfied with (hell, even grateful for) the bare minimum of "bread and circuses" upgraded to Big Macs, Bud, and TV, self-interest has become a woefully insufficient motivator, and it will continue to be at least as long as capitalism can continue to provide those minimum guarantees (plus the potential for accomplishing something well above those bare minimum guarantees for the individual, or at least for his/her offspring, or at least the illusion of that potential) while the prospect of revolt (or even Fabian reform) risks losing some or all of them, however temporarily. At this point the purely utilitarian cost-benefit analysis is so utterly de-motivating that the moral component is not just relevant, but everything.

In that vein I might add bourgeois-communists' second-biggest failure: framing the communist movement as an adversary to religion when in fact religion could have been its most successful tool. Not only would it fill the aforementioned motivation gap with the most psychologically powerful "moral component" exhibited in the entirety of human history, but furthermore communism would have found itself surprisingly compatible with Christianity (see Acts 2:42-45, Acts 4:32-37, Matthew 19:23-24, Mark 10:24-25, and Luke 18:24-25 for a few obvious examples) and would have had a gigantic demographic from which to draw followers had it tried to associate capitalists' oppression and self-indulgent excesses with Satan's temptation.

I'm not saying Marxists had to become bible-thumpers (which would be contrary to Marx's own views on the subject) nor necessarily even pretend to be (though that certainly would have helped and IMO the end would have justified that means), but FFS they could at least have been politically savvy enough not to appear incompatible with bible-thumpers, let alone so downright hostile as the USSR came to be. The problem ranges from such obvious examples as the familiar footage of Orthodox church demolitions (which handed to the West a huge propaganda coup on a silver ****ing platter) to things as subtle as the typical Western bourgeois-communist's snooty, condescending attitude towards the religious communities that unfortunately just so happen to substantially overlap with the classes he/she purports to represent.

[Kidlicious]

Che, they need a strong central government TO ENFORCE COMMUNISM. Communism is not the natural impulse of humanity; capitalism is (or, more accurately, selfish-ism, which is not identical to capitalism, though their similarities is what allow for capitalism without a strong central government). How exactly could communism operate on a large scale (USSR scale) without a strong central government?

The system of control in the USSR was an oligarchy. The reason why the system had to be enforced was because it was corrupt. A system without corruption, and one that benefited the people would not need to be enforced like that.

[Velociryx]

And thus the reason that Communism is doomed to fail. It creates a vacuum of power that our human natures WILL FILL...every time.

That's why Communism has failed every time it has been tried.

That's why corporations need reigning in, in the Capitalist system, because people and companies run by people will get away with whatever they can.

Until you resolve THAT, communism will never work. The revolution has a ZERO percent chance of producing the results you desire. Sorry bro...that's just the truth.

Someday, something may well replace Capitalism as the preeminent form of economic distribution on this planet. Whatever it is...I don't think it will bear much resemblence to what you call Communism.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

double post hunted down and eaten.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

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.

Marx knew that great wealth would be created in a capitalist system. That's what I would call "leading to a far bigger cake." He knew that self-interest works in the capitalist system, but that it would also work in a communist system. The only difference being that society would be organized in a way that fostered cooperation instead of competition.

So after that "bigger cake" is made, then it's time for all the world to share it.

[Kidlicious]

And thus the reason that Communism is doomed to fail. It creates a vacuum of power that our human natures WILL FILL...every time.

Why do you claim that that's inherent to communism? The USSR just had a ****ed up system.

[Velociryx]

Oh, I'm hardly claiming it's inherent to communism. I'm claiming its inherent to human nature, so ANY system has to deal with it (thus, the comment about the corporations in a capitalist system).

But we can always use some other brand of revolution if you prefer.

Except that there hasn't yet been a successful Red Revolution.

There hasn't been one where the power vacuum WASN'T filled by a dictator of some stripe or another.

-=Vel=-

(I do agree with you on one point tho...they sure did have a ****ed up system!)

[Kidlicious]

There hasn't been one where the power vacuum WASN'T filled by a dictator of some stripe or another.

But that doesn't mean that you can't have a democratic system, just that there hasn't been one.

[Velociryx]

The communist system (at least in every iteration we've had thus far) doesn't allow for other viewpoints. There's "our way" or "gulag." (or worse). A system without multiple viewpoints is, by its definition, undemocratic.

So my question...why hang all your hopes on a system that has produced such spectacular failures and has been proved in the lab of the real world to be a non-starter?

You say you want a revolution...put your thinking cap on and dream up communism's replacement as the new answer to capitalism. I seriously doubt you'll ever be given another shot at "the revolution" - at least not the way you envision it.

So why not come up with something new and different?

-=Vel=-

$0.02

(oh, and we could also say, "just because no one has ever SEEN a unicorn, that doesn't mean they don't exist." And while that's true, I'm not going to spend a lot of time and energy pining away for one, but that's just me).

[Kidlicious]

The communist system (at least in every iteration we've had thus far) doesn't allow for other viewpoints. There's "our way" or "gulag." (or worse). A system without multiple viewpoints is, by its definition, undemocratic.

Not necessarily. The only thing that's required is that dominant viewpoints are represented. If capitalism has failed on such huge scale, and communism is working so beautifully why should the viewpoints of capitalists be represented? The don't need to be to maintain a democratic system.

So my question...why hang all your hopes on a system that has produced such spectacular failures and has been proved in the lab of the real world to be a non-starter?

Because I don't just believe in an anti-capitalist economic system. I believe in democracy. So why would I care if some totalitarian experiments have failed, when it was not something that I believed in in the first place.

[Velociryx]

So we're back to, "those guys weren't REAL commies," again. *big sigh*

Kid...enjoy chasing the white rabbit. You and I have had this discussion I don't know how many times.

We're not going to change each other's minds on the matter...that much is painfully obvious.

Enjoy the hunt.

-=Vel=-

[Patroklos]

Not necessarily. The only thing that's required is that dominant viewpoints are represented. If capitalism has failed on such huge scale, and communism is working so beautifully why should the viewpoints of capitalists be represented? The don't need to be to maintain a democratic system.

I feel the same way about communists today. Up against the wall with you!