Europe is Revolting

[The Mad Monk]

Again, why would communists seize power in a place so self-evidently not ready for communism?

[BeBMan]

You basically just need world communism to have a successful communist revolution

[chequita guevara]

Since 1918, you mean?

In the mid 60s, Baran and Sweezey studied the topic and concluded that more than half of all work in the United States was waste work. In the 1980s, another analyst reexamined society, and concluded that waste work had increased as a portion of the economy. By waste, these analysts meant work like advertising, military production, etc.

Again, why would communists seize power in a place so self-evidently not ready for communism?

Two reasons, one which the communists didn't know in 1918, but has become obvious since.

First, Europe was a overripe for revolution. The Bolshevik revolution in 1917 led to revolts all across Europe, which not only ended WWI, but established workers power, temporarily, in several countries: Bavaria, Hungary, Finland, etc. In Northern Italy, the workers occupied the factories and ran them for two years. The largest strike wave to hit the U.S. to that point swept the U.S. Germany was teetering on the edge. The revolutionaries in Russia knew they couldn't survive on their own. They hoped that by establishing workers power in Russia, that Germany would have a revolution, which it almost did. The surprise for everyone was that they held power while the German revolution failed. The balance of forces in the world, led to the establishment of a bureaucracy, which then assumed power for itself in Russia.

The second reason why revolutions have continued to happen in countries not able to make them is that if you have the ability to make a revolution, and you fail to do so, it gives the reactionaries enough time to reorganized and smash the revolutionary sectors of society. In Germany, Italy, and Spain, they turned to the fascists to save them from the Reds. If you don't make the revolution when you can, you get fascism.

[chequita guevara]

Kid, I know that there are nearly as many "flavors" of communism as there are communists, so I must ask this question to see where you stand on one of the central issues of the utopia.

Private property rights?

We're obviously opposed to private property in the means of production. In many capitalist countries, land ownership is held by the state, with leases given to individuals to use. In a democratic socialist society, property would be held in common and its use would be determined democratically.

There are lots of ideas about what the future society might look like. I have my own, but really it won't be decided until we get there. If it's going to be democratic, then what I say it should look like right now won't make a whit of difference.

And in the West, it will definitely be democratic. Our peoples have a long history of multi-party democracy (even as stunted as it is in the U.S.). The people wouldn't stand for a one party state. It's a non-starter.

The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has been engaging in a discussion with a sectarian cult in the United States, the Revolutionary Communist Party. The Nepali communists, in a country not known for democracy, are insisting that the revolution be democratic and that multiparty democracy is necessary for building socialism, and they're leading the government right now, having just abolished the monarchy last year. They fought a ten year guerrilla war, and with military victory in sight, they worked out an armistice with the government, had elections, and won. I'm not saying we follow the Nepali's in every detail, but it's clear that some communists, even ones in positions of power, have learned the lessons of the 20th Century.

[Kidlicious]

...that does not in any way address or refute what BC said. If anything, it reinforces it. But even supposing the revolution is achieved perfectly and all real opposition is gone, how do you imagine a Communist Utopia would work, in the nuts and bolts? Who makes the decisions, and how?

The decision making would be decentralised. But at the same time there would be regulatory bodies to ensure that people who abuse the system are prosecuted.

I guarantee I can find at least one loophole for corruption, no matter how you arrange it. Probably more like five, because in order to prevent the accumulation of power in the hands of resourceful individuals you need even greater power in the hands of regulatory authorities, and if you're going to prevent the regulators from abusing their power you'll need regulators for the regulators, and regulators for regulators of regulators...and so on.

No what you need to do is make sure the regulatory agency is not captured by the agencies that they are suppose to regulate. It's the same in a capitalist system. It's not at all clear the distinction you are making with a communist system.

Capitalism "works" (at least, better than communism ever has) because it turns the selfish portions of human nature against each other. It's like the U.S. government system of checks and balances, for the economy. It's not perfect, and it needs its watchdogs, but it works better than Marxist naivete.

It doesn't work that way. You want selfish regulators?! You can't see how insane that is? What we need is regulators who do their duty.

[Kidlicious]

Care to take a stab at the rest, or do those not exist, yella?

You asked me what should be done about the people who call for property rights. The idea that property rights benefit the poor is a myth. I expect all rational people to come to that rationalization. The remains won't be a problem.

[Kidlicious]

You're ignoring the fact they wouldn't have been recognized as communists had they not declared themselves as such from the outset.

What would you expect them to declare themselves as?

[Kidlicious]

Again, why would communists seize power in a place so self-evidently not ready for communism?

Because they could.

[Velociryx]

You asked me what should be done about the people who call for property rights. The idea that property rights benefit the poor is a myth. I expect all rational people to come to that rationalization. The remains won't be a problem.

Way to ignore the questions in the thread, and about as expected. Take a lesson from Che. Although I disagree with him and consider what he wants to achieve a pipe dream, at least he's coherent about it, and doesn't run from the questions.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

You asked me what should be done about the people who call for property rights. The idea that property rights benefit the poor is a myth. I expect all rational people to come to that rationalization. The remains won't be a problem.

Way to ignore the questions in the thread, and about as expected. Take a lesson from Che. Although I disagree with him and consider what he wants to achieve a pipe dream, at least he's coherent about it, and doesn't run from the questions.

-=Vel=-

This is your question bud.

"How should people be handled who are wary of giving up their right to own property?"

Have you no integrity left?

[Velociryx]

We're obviously opposed to private property in the means of production. In many capitalist countries, land ownership is held by the state, with leases given to individuals to use. In a democratic socialist society, property would be held in common and its use would be determined democratically.

There are lots of ideas about what the future society might look like. I have my own, but really it won't be decided until we get there. If it's going to be democratic, then what I say it should look like right now won't make a whit of difference.

And in the West, it will definitely be democratic. Our peoples have a long history of multi-party democracy (even as stunted as it is in the U.S.). The people wouldn't stand for a one party state. It's a non-starter.

The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has been engaging in a discussion with a sectarian cult in the United States, the Revolutionary Communist Party. The Nepali communists, in a country not known for democracy, are insisting that the revolution be democratic and that multiparty democracy is necessary for building socialism, and they're leading the government right now, having just abolished the monarchy last year. They fought a ten year guerrilla war, and with military victory in sight, they worked out an armistice with the government, had elections, and won. I'm not saying we follow the Nepali's in every detail, but it's clear that some communists, even ones in positions of power, have learned the lessons of the 20th Century.

I appreciate your candor and honesty, as always, even though I disagree with you on a number of levels.

As ever, the lab of the real world will reveal whether or not this latest dance of the big red pony has legs or not, and to be fair, the people trying it, living in a fairly homogenous society, DO have a few advantages.

It remains to be seen if the elected leadership will refrain from cementing their power though (as has happened all too often before), and how well said leadership will be able to contain unrest and see to the needs of the people.

The proof, as ever, will be in the pudding.

I, for one, seriously doubt that any lasting good will come of it, but am willing to be proved wrong.

We'll see.

-=Vel=-

[Patroklos]

The decision making would be decentralised. But at the same time there would be regulatory bodies to ensure that people who abuse the system are prosecuted.

Ah, I see you plan on using magic. Seems reasonable.

They fought a ten year guerrilla war, and with military victory in sight, they worked out an armistice with the government, had elections, and won. I'm not saying we follow the Nepali's in every detail, but it's clear that some communists, even ones in positions of power, have learned the lessons of the 20th Century.

Have they gotten around to forcibly confiscating everyones property yet? No? Let me know how things go when they start that.

[Velociryx]

This is your question bud.

"How should people be handled who are wary of giving up their right to own property?"

Have you no integrity left?

It was a multipart question, which you conveniently ignore. And saying that "the idea that property rights benefit the poor is a myth" is a total non-answer, as (even if you're right), it's a myth held dear to millions of hearts.

What do you propose to do with those millions?

Ahhh, but you don't want to answer that question, and we all know why. It's just entertaining to call you on it now and again to keep you honest.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

It was a multipart question, which you conveniently ignore. And saying that "the idea that property rights benefit the poor is a myth" is a total non-answer, as (even if you're right), it's a myth held dear to millions of hearts.

What do you propose to do with those millions?

Ahhh, but you don't want to answer that question, and we all know why. It's just entertaining to call you on it now and again to keep you honest.

-=Vel=-

Did you hit your head today? "the idea that property rights benefit the poor is a myth" answers all of your questions.

[Velociryx]

I'm getting off the Kidicious Crack Pipe Merry Go Round now.

My God...what was wrong with me that I ever considered this fun...

-=Vel=-

so then, let's say you're right and it's a myth...that still doesn't answer the question "what do you propose to do with them" (you know...all the millions of myth-believers). Still dodging, but NM...I have no more patience for you.