I may have to attempt to refute my text book

[Rusty Shackleford]

Tomorrow i am attending my Political Science class which is on the subject of American Government for this semester.

Some of the core features of the American government are Constitutionalistm, Democracy, and Capitalism. these are all true. the democracy part could be criticized but this is not the point of this thread.

Here is the problem though. In my textbook's explanation of alternatives to capitalism i talks of socialism. For socialism it uses Sweden as an example.
When the books describes Communism, it says:

Under Communism, which characterized the former Soviet Union and is practiced today in North Korea and a few other countries, the government owns most or all major industries and also takes responsibility for overall management of the economy, including production quotas, supply points, and pricing.The textbook definitions of Socialism and Communism are extremely irritating. if communism were just "the government owns most or all major industries and also takes responsibility for overall management of the economy, including production quotas, supply points, and pricing." i could argue that it could be a monarchy, or even fascistic. it allows for too much leeway.

Though North Korea indeed fits the points of "the government owns most...etc. " it does not make it Communist. Some people on here can liken it to a monarchy, a military totalitarian state, or other non-communistic systems. (i know i have also jokingly said DPRK was a monarchy, but that was chit-chat.)

I want to argue that North Korea is not communist. but i don't think i would have anything that i could back it up with other than "Communism is a classless stateless society(this has to be the 100th time I've said this on here and with friends:rolleyes:" and "Workers do not control the organs of the state and the DPRK is not democratic."

any pointers or tips on either North Korea being or not being communist or even socialist. and also, anything to challenge the textbook definitions without looking like a jackass?



on a side note... speaking of Sweden, i had heard Social Democracies have been criticized as being "Social-Fascists" or maybe i heard wrong. The rationalization i can see for this is that the state still exists, the burgeoisie still control government, and capitalism still reigns supreme. Since the state still exists and acts as a regulator between workers and capitalists which makes it class-collaborationist then is it fascistic?

[scarletghoul]

Well North Korea is one of the most communistic countries. There is collective ownership, and the people have a degree of control over the economy (though not enough but yeah) its certainly not monarchic or fascistic.
I think you need to argue more against the definition that's given, rather than disassociating yourself from particular examples. I'm sure there will be a bunch of responses and maybe another heated debate about whether north korea is socialist or not, which just shows the difficult nature of this. There are so many conflicting views of north korea, and a total absence of objective information. So yeah I'd really start tacklin the definitions

Pretty much any definition from a non-rightwingnutcase source will say that socialism is social(collective) ownership of the means of production, or the ideology/movement that aims for it, and that communism is a classless stateless higher form of socialism, or the ideology/movement that aims for it. Or something like that. Just bring in a copy of the manifesto or something. Or Mao's Red Book. And point out that communists will know what their ideology is better than some stupid amerikan book. Explain that socialism is seen as a stage between capitalism n communism etc etc. In other words just explain the correct definitions to them, and use as your source the fact that almost every communist in history used the same definitions

If you really wanna argue that North Korea is 'not communist' you could always point out that last year they removed all references to communism from their constitution.

And also point out Sweden is capitalist. It has a welfare state, but overall functions on a market economy.

on a side note... speaking of Sweden, i had heard Social Democracies have been criticized as being "Social-Fascists" or maybe i heard wrong. The rationalization i can see for this is that the state still exists, the burgeoisie still control government, and capitalism still reigns supreme. Since the state still exists and acts as a regulator between workers and capitalists which makes it class-collaborationist then is it fascistic?
No, Sweden is not fascist. ALL capitalism is class-colaborationist by its very nature. Fascism is just a perculiar authoritarian nationalist form of capitalism. Sweden is a liberal bourgeois-democracy with a welfare state.fascism's not too relevent.. unless your book lists fascism as an alternative to capitalism, in which case there's some more correctin to do lol

[Kropotkin85]

Social-Fascism is a stalinist term. He used it in the 30's to attack other socialist and communist parties. It came down to the fact that anyone who didn't agree with the partyline and methods of Stalin-Russia, was an agent of fascism. Which is ofcourse utter nonsense.

There never have been real communist countries, only degenerated socialist states (China, Cuba, ...). Communism is the end-goal, and socialism is the middlepart between capitalism and communism, it's a transition-period.

[Muzk]

There never have been real communist countries, only degenerated socialist states (China, Cuba, ...). Communism is the end-goal, and socialism is the middlepart between capitalism and communism, it's a transition-period.

And there won't be any either if you don't stop living in a dream that socialism is some kind of candy-land. Politics aren't as easy and sweet as you might think they are.


Social-Fascism is a stalinist term. He used it in the 30's to attack other socialist and communist parties. It came down to the fact that anyone who didn't agree with the partyline and methods of Stalin-Russia, was an agent of fascism. Which is ofcourse utter nonsense.A little bit of researching (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_fascism)
Are social democrats like the german SPD or the english labour party REALLY socialist/communist? I see them more like a right wing populist movement willing to sell the working class to the enemies.


At the same time, social democratic party of Germany (SPD), under leadership of German chancellor Hermann Müller agreed with anti-communist parties that "red equals brown".Enemies over enemies... yeah, they sure as hell are communists fighting themselves, and their allies, the nazis. Does this make sense to you?

Let's look at Trotsky:

"Worker-Communists, you are hundreds of thousands, millions; you cannot leave for anyplace; there are not enough passports for you. Should fascism come to power, it will ride over your skulls and spines like a terrific tank. Your salvation lies in merciless struggle. And only a fighting unity with the Social Democratic workers can bring victory. Make haste, worker-Communists, you have very little time left!"This goes against the "red equals brown" quote I've showed before, so even the good ol' Trotsky thought the social democrats liked the communists.. or that it was (the communists) who had the choice to team up with them or not.

[Kléber]

"Democracy is indispensable to socialism" - Lenin

"Socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen" - Trotsky

"of late, since [the conservative German Chancellor] Bismarck went in for state ownership of industrial establishments, a kind of spurious socialism has arisen...that without more ado declares all state-ownership, even of the Bismarckian sort, to be socialistic ... if the taking over by the state of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then [French emperor] Napoleon and [right-wing Austrian political leader Prince] Metternich must be numbered among the founders of socialism." - Engels


Communist with an upper case C means of or relating to a "Communist Party" regardless of whether it is Trotskyist Hoxhaist Jucheist Dengistrevisionist or you-name-it-ist it is a technical term relating to a party when you use Socialism or Communism capitalized

communist with a lower case c means classless society

[Tablo]

Well North Korea is one of the most communistic countries. There is collective ownership, and the people have a degree of control over the economy (though not enough but yeah) its certainly not monarchic or fascistic.
You're kidding right? They are a bureaucratic mess with little to no control by the workers. They are quite clearly an Autocracy and are in no way, shape, or form a communist society in any right.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I think you need to argue more against the definition that's given, rather than disassociating yourself from particular examples. I'm sure there will be a bunch of responses and maybe another heated debate about whether north korea is socialist or not, which just shows the difficult nature of this. There are so many conflicting views of north korea, and a total absence of objective information. So yeah I'd really start tacklin the definitions

Pretty much any definition from a non-rightwingnutcase source will say that socialism is social(collective) ownership of the means of production, or the ideology/movement that aims for it, and that communism is a classless stateless higher form of socialism, or the ideology/movement that aims for it. Or something like that. Just bring in a copy of the manifesto or something. Or Mao's Red Book. And point out that communists will know what their ideology is better than some stupid amerikan book. Explain that socialism is seen as a stage between capitalism n communism etc etc. In other words just explain the correct definitions to them, and use as your source the fact that almost every communist in history used the same definitions
If it comes up, i will attempt to tackle the definition. Deciding wheter North Korea, really a place of mystery to me(how conditions are inside the country), is communistic/socialist or not would take more research than 6 hours.

"of late, since [the conservative German Chancellor] Bismarck went in for state ownership of industrial establishments, a kind of spurious socialism has arisen...that without more ado declares all state-ownership, even of the Bismarckian sort, to be socialistic ... if the taking over by the state of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then [French emperor] Napoleon and [right-wing Austrian political leader Prince] Metternich must be numbered among the founders of socialism." - Engels
I'm assuming Engels was joking here, because of this i could say that the definition of Socialism and Communism is not the degree of state ownership of capital. Socialism being proletarian control of industry(which may end up being through the state), and communism being the absence of the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat as classes, and the lack of a state apparatus.


As for the Social-Fascist thing, thanks for clearing that up, all of you!

[Raúl Duke]

[QUOTE][Under Communism, which characterized the former Soviet Union and is practiced today in North Korea and a few other countries, the government owns most or all major industries and also takes responsibility for overall management of the economy, including production quotas, supply points, and pricing./QUOTE]

Wow, what a shitty definition. I although I always had very little hope on American poli sci majors/poli sci field.

Just explained that these countries are self-labeled/correctly labeled socialist (if you want throw degenerate worker's state or state-capitalism in their) and that communism is state-less, class-less, etc according to Marxists/Communists.

[Kléber]

I'm assuming Engels was joking here, because of this i could say that the definition of Socialism and Communism is not the degree of state ownership of capital. Socialism being proletarian control of industry(which may end up being through the state), and communism being the absence of the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat as classes, and the lack of a state apparatus.Engels was not joking. If socialism and communism were defined by the state ownership of capital, feudal mercantilist empires would be more socialist than anything we have seen since. Socialism is democratic control, not state control. There has never been a socialist country because none of the governments who claimed to have established socialism have permitted political freedom for the working class, let alone established relative equality in wages.

High up managers got paid in excess of 10 times as much as workers, greatly in excess in the case of the biggest robbers, in those "socialist" countries. Lenin denounced such exploitative relations as "state capitalist" but Stalin renamed the same system "socialist" in the 1930's. To associate socialism with state ownership and state ownership alone is to buck Marx, Engels and Lenin in favor of Stalinist revisionism, which American academia (right and left) is all to eager to do.

[syndicat]

Under Communism, which characterized the former Soviet Union and is practiced today in North Korea and a few other countries, the government owns most or all major industries and also takes responsibility for overall management of the economy, including production quotas, supply points, and pricing./

well, there was a social formation which this does describe. I would prefer to describe it as the bureaucratic class mode of production. It was (is) certainly not socialist if socialism is a mode of production in which there is no longer a class division and workers manage social production.

Also, the use of "socialism" to refer to social-democratic welfare statism and government regulation of capitalism is also quite common in the USA.

And words acquire their meanings through the dominant use in the language users...so these have become *actual* meanings of these words...even if we don't like it. Now, to get around this, we can point out there are other interpretations, and other forms of what socialism would be, as proposed by various socialist tendencies. We can use terms like "genuinely democratic socialism" or "libertarian socialism" or "worker-managed socialism" or whatever to refer to them.

Thus the appropriate way to counter this sort of bourgois propaganda, masquerading as "objective' academic description, is to point out what's missing: the fact that many...perhaps most nowadays...socialists don't conceive of socialism or communism in that way, and don't consider those social formations to be authentically socialist or communist.

[BobKKKindle$]

I would prefer to describe it as the bureaucratic class mode of production

Why not the capitalist mode of production? If, assuming you're broadly operating within historical materialism, you believe that capitalism is not the final stage of class society, and that capitalist relations of production can and will give way to a new mode of production, then, given that relations of production change when they no longer allow for the development of the productive forces, doesn't that mean socialism isn't yet on the agenda, and that the world will have to go through a post-capitalist class system before the abolition of class antagonisms is possible?

I of course believe that North Korea is a capitalist society, because workers do not exercise democratic control over the means of production - it is the absolute separation of the producers from the means of production alongside them being able to sell their labour power that defines capitalism, and not the judicial recognition of private property, or the existence of markets.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Engels was not joking. If socialism and communism were defined by the state ownership of capital, feudal mercantilist empires would be more socialist than anything we have seen since. Socialism is democratic control, not state control. There has never been a socialist country because none of the governments who claimed to have established socialism have permitted political freedom for the working class, let alone established relative equality in wages.

High up managers got paid in excess of 10 times as much as workers, greatly in excess in the case of the biggest robbers, in those "socialist" countries. Lenin denounced such exploitative relations as "state capitalist" but Stalin renamed the same system "socialist" in the 1930's. To associate socialism with state ownership and state ownership alone is to buck Marx, Engels and Lenin in favor of Stalinist revisionism, which American academia (right and left) is all to eager to do.

This is what i was saying about North Korea. If North Korea were to be labelled socialist by the definition i gave earlier, they could be any form of authoritative government.

As for me saying engels was joking, i meant he was being satirical or poking fun at the definition of socialism as merely being state ownership. i guess i read it out of context.

Though the issue did not come up in today's discussion it may soon in the future. In my Sociology class we are studying the origins of sociology right now and we will be covering Marx heavily. I know for a fact that a student is going to bring up this definition of socialism that lies in our textbooks.


I did take Scarletghouls advice and bring the Communist Manifesto to college. but, i did not take it out or reference it in class since the subject did not come up. I did take a bit of time to read through the section "Proletarians and Communists" again though.(for me it is the most important chapter)



5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
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.

these 3 points give the greatest justification for the textbook definition of socialism. the State is what confuses many many people. From my understanding, and with Lenin's elaboration on the state, the state would consist of workers. The pre-revolutionary state would not exist and the organs for the old state would be gutted and replaced by the new workers state. Because the lack of general knowledge of the "Worker's State" the Bourgeois state is kept in mind, and because of this, any bourgeois state accumulating or nationalizing the means of production is socialist.

[Kléber]

i meant he was being satirical or poking fun at the definition of socialism as merely being state ownership. i guess i read it out of context.Ohh, sorry, I didn't get what you meant either.


these 3 points give the greatest justification for the textbook definition of socialism. the State is what confuses many many people.Yes. Marx's views were primitive and flawed in the Manifesto, he said later that he wished he could have rewritten it. The book is thus a sort of "weak point" for us, since anti-communists love to pick it apart. If you find yourself waging a protracted defense of a weird Manifesto passage it may be best to retreat with a dismissive "Well, he hadn't even formulated his economic views by 1848. He was still a Ricardian."

One argument that I find very useful in situations like yours, where you have to defend socialism against misrepresentations, is a good old argument that will stump your enemies 99% of the time: "Same goes for Christianity/democracy/Insert good idea that some asshole or group of assholes have misrepresented."

The people red-baiting you are guaranteed to all believe in either Christianity or democracy, or both. So all you have to do when they associate socialism with Stalinism is ask if they are Christians or democrats (or "believe in democracy" to avoid the party confusion), and when they say yes, bring up the Spanish Inquisition which claimed to be Christian or the Napoleonic French Empire, whose phony plebiscites and brutal conquests were done in the name of the democratic revolution. My high school history textbook quoted Napoleon calling himself "the revolution on horseback" which was very useful. Also, revolutionary violence during civil wars can be justified with comparisons to Washington and Lincoln both of whose gov'ts suspended civil liberties and executed suspected traitors.

[The Idler]

Depending on your school and teacher, you'll have a hard time disputing that North Korea is communist or that Sweden is socialist. Most teachers will probably not be persuaded by a student or even some guy off the internet. The best advice, then, would be to ask them to compare the attitudes of leading socialist and communist academics. None would describe Sweden as socialist. Most of those academics without vested interests in North Korea would not describe it as communist.

[Floyce White]

I don't see how such an argument will help you get an 'A.' And getting an 'A' is the point of your classroom activity, isn't it? Sure, raise an issue in discussion, raise your hand a second time to reinforce your position, then let it go.

Ideas are more impressive if they come from someone who has a sense of proportion. Basically, the political student needs to be a good conversationalist.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I don't see how such an argument will help you get an 'A.' And getting an 'A' is the point of your classroom activity, isn't it? Sure, raise an issue in discussion, raise your hand a second time to reinforce your position, then let it go.

Ideas are more impressive if they come from someone who has a sense of proportion. Basically, the political student needs to be a good conversationalist.

this isnt about getting an A, this is about correcting false information.

as for being a good conversationalist, im working on it

[Chambered Word]

And there won't be any either if you don't stop living in a dream that socialism is some kind of candy-land. Politics aren't as easy and sweet as you might think they are.


I love hearing this argument from so-called 'socialists'. We might as well accept the propaganda that capitalism is the only realistic system and socialism is just a pipe-dream, eh?

Really socialist of you! :rolleyes: