Am I welcome here?

[durhamleft]

I appear to agree with my local socialist party on almost all social issues; ending war, ending racism, reducing world poverty etc... but I must say I disagree on economic issues. I am not a communist, or socialist really. The form of ideology that is closest to mine is social democracy.

[Dr Mindbender]

I appear to agree with my local socialist party on almost all social issues; ending war, ending racism, reducing world poverty etc... but I must say I disagree on economic issues. I am not a communist, or socialist really. The form of ideology that is closest to mine is social democracy.

Would you like to explain why you think social democracy is better than communism or socialism?

[Crusade]

I think so. There's a social democrat group on this forum isn't there?

[Crusade]

Would you like to explain why you think social democracy is better than communism or socialism?

I have a feeling we're gonna hear the words "human" and "nature" somewhere in this response. :laugh:

[blackwave]

You're absolutely welcome.

[durhamleft]

I guess its because almost all the communists I have encountered have been very authoritarian in their beliefs, almost like you are not allowed to debate a different opinion, and that certainly strikes me as the case in almost as countries that have had communist governments. Furthermore I guess I feel that with communism people seem to be pushed very much into becoming conformist and having little choice in what they do and say. Its also the fact I would be sceptical as to whether or not communism would just lead to more poverty overall. Just my thoughts.

[durhamleft]

Also, thank you those who welcomed me, I joined as I attended an anti English defence league protest in Newcastle yesterday and had some good fun with some communists and anarchists so thought it would be nice to share debate with you on issues.

[Dr Mindbender]

I guess its because almost all the communists I have encountered have been very authoritarian in their beliefs,

Thats a bit of a sweeping position, isnt it?


almost like you are not allowed to debate a different opinion, and that certainly strikes me as the case in almost as countries that have had communist governments.
Communism hasnt been applied in any countries yet so these examples of which you speak arent imperical evidence.



Furthermore I guess I feel that with communism people seem to be pushed very much into becoming conformist

Dont you think capitalism has been successful in acheiving that?

http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00126/Pg-26-catwalk-alamy_126921s.jpg



Also, thank you those who welcomed me, I joined as I attended an anti English defence league protest in Newcastle yesterday and had some good fun with some communists and anarchists so thought it would be nice to share debate with you on issues.

You should speak to our new EDL pet in OI.

[mikelepore]

I guess its because almost all the communists I have encountered have been very authoritarian in their beliefs, almost like you are not allowed to debate a different opinion, and that certainly strikes me as the case in almost as countries that have had communist governments. Furthermore I guess I feel that with communism people seem to be pushed very much into becoming conformist and having little choice in what they do and say.

It's a mistake to judge an idea according to the personality of someone who speaks about it. Isaac Newton is a jerk, therefore there can't be any gravity. Thomas Edison is a jerk, therefore the light bulb is an impossible idea. We're supposed to say: that person is a jerk, but they made some statements that are true, and we can adapt what they said for our general good.


Its also the fact I would be sceptical as to whether or not communism would just lead to more poverty overall. Just my thoughts.

In the classless society of the future, the dividends of stockholders will no longer be extracted from the wealth produced. That means a higher standard of living for everyone else. If you divide a pie, and someone who used to take a large slice of every pie is no longer being invited, then everyone else will get a larger slice.

[Blake's Baby]

Fun with communists and anarchists... yeah, you'll be alright here.

Many of us here would totally agree that the 'communist countries' you refer too were hugely authoritarian (some people here wouldn't, or might say that they were but it was hardly surprising and they can't be blamed).

And of those who would agree, some of us would say, that's because they weren't really communist countries; they were countries where the communist party had taken power, but none were capable of implimenting communism because that has to be done throughout the world, by the working class, not directed by a party. Without a world revolution, we'd argue, there is no possibility of communism.

Anyway, welcome to RevLeft.

[durhamleft]

In the classless society of the future, the dividends of stockholders will no longer be extracted from the wealth produced. That means a higher standard of living for everyone else. If you divide a pie, and someone who used to take a large slice of every pie is no longer being invited, then everyone else will get a larger slice.

But I'm saying I think the pie would decrease in size.

In essence I am very unlikely to budge on my views, I understand that the communism that has been offered in say Russia, was miles away from pure Marxist communism, but I just can't see how it would end up in the UK.

^ and the "supermodel" picture- while society may pressure them into what they wear, they do have a free choice. I just think democracy is a better way to run things than a more authoritarian dictatorship.

I'm only 16, and I totally respect all your opinions and have fluttered with it in the past, but I can't back it in its entirety. I'm sorry if that's not ok for your forum.

[durhamleft]

Fun with communists and anarchists... yeah, you'll be alright here.

Many of us here would totally agree that the 'communist countries' you refer too were hugely authoritarian (some people here wouldn't, or might say that they were but it was hardly surprising and they can't be blamed).

And of those who would agree, some of us would say, that's because they weren't really communist countries; they were countries where the communist party had taken power, but none were capable of implimenting communism because that has to be done throughout the world, by the working class, not directed by a party. Without a world revolution, we'd argue, there is no possibility of communism.

Anyway, welcome to RevLeft.

I've seen that argued before and I understand it more than the idea that communism in Russia, China, N.Korea were fair and productive.

[durhamleft]

It's a mistake to judge an idea according to the personality of someone who speaks about it. Isaac Newton is a jerk, therefore there can't be any gravity. Thomas Edison is a jerk, therefore the light bulb is an impossible idea. We're supposed to say: that person is a jerk, but they made some statements that are true, and we can adapt what they said for our general good.



In the classless society of the future, the dividends of stockholders will no longer be extracted from the wealth produced. That means a higher standard of living for everyone else. If you divide a pie, and someone who used to take a large slice of every pie is no longer being invited, then everyone else will get a larger slice.

Its not the people as such, its how they present communism, its often seems like "we think this, if you don't agree you're a bad person"- For example I trotted along to the socialist party after school about 6 months ago, and was asked if I wanted a drink, I asked for a black coffee and was told off on the grounds I shouldn't distinguish by colour as it encourages racism. I know thats the people's fault, but it also seems to my as systematic in the very, very far left in the regard that they have beliefs that if you don't agree with it somehow makes your objectionable. Again, just my thoughts.

[Blake's Baby]

But I'm saying I think the pie would decrease in size...

Can't agree with you there, though.

The workers (in the hypothetical bakery) make the pie every day and the boss takes half of it. The rest has to both feed the workers for lunch and be sold to cover expenses. So the bits of pie that are sold need to be as expensive as the whole pie.

When there is no boss, the workers still make the pie (it doesn't get any smaller) but everyone's portion increases in size.

Communism and pies... it's comradlicious.

EDIT: your SPers sound stupid. Which SP was it do you know? There are at least 2 - SPEW (Socialist Party of England and Wales) and SPGB (Socialist Party of Great Britain) - they're very different organisations.

There are also the Socialist Labour Party and the Socialist Workers' Party.

And there might be others too.

[Shinigami]

I just think democracy is a better way to run things than a more authoritarian dictatorship.

Communism isn't an authoritarian dictatorship, it's quite the opposite. The "communism" of Russia/China/etc. wasn't communism, it was government-ordered capitalism.

[Ocean Seal]

I guess its because almost all the communists I have encountered have been very authoritarian in their beliefs, almost like you are not allowed to debate a different opinion, and that certainly strikes me as the case in almost as countries that have had communist governments. Furthermore I guess I feel that with communism people seem to be pushed very much into becoming conformist and having little choice in what they do and say. Its also the fact I would be sceptical as to whether or not communism would just lead to more poverty overall. Just my thoughts.

Perhaps you should look towards council communism, anarchy, or libertarian socialism.
Luxembourgists
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=67
Anarchists
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=2
Libertarians
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=274

And of course if you don't subscribe to any particular belief there are always the http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=130

[durhamleft]

Communism isn't an authoritarian dictatorship, it's quite the opposite. The "communism" of Russia/China/etc. wasn't communism, it was government-ordered capitalism.

So who would run a theoretical communist state?

[Blake's Baby]

There is no 'theoretical communist stae'. After the revolution the entire world will be run by the people who live and work in it. No countries, no governments.

[Weezer]

So who would run a theoretical communist state?

No one. There is no state in communism.

[Zanthorus]

durhamleft, what you have to understand about said regimes is that there were many objective factors, mistakes, and subjective factors that led to their failure. It wasn't an inevitable march towards authoritarianism, and there were many points were such an end point could have been averted if correct steps had been taken. However they wren't, and because of the control that the CPSU gained from being the only party to have succesfully led a workers revolution they gained hegemony over the communist movement for the greater part of the decade.

To give you an idea of the kind of factors we're talking about:

First of all, the Bolsheviks had hinged a lot on the achievment of socialism in other western european countries particularly Germany. When the Social-Democratic party of Germany managed to dissipate and crush the revolution the Bolsheviks were left isolated in a country which had been feudal up until sixty years previously and was only just beggining to develop into a more advanced form of capitalism. There was an incredibly large peasant population. The problem caused by the peasantry was further exacerbated when the Bolsheviks organised land grabs early on in the revolution which broke up the large estates but created a middle and lower class of petty proprietors whose class interest was directly opposed to the achievment of communism. If the land had been nationalised/socialised the Bolsheviks could have brought the interests of the peasants in harmony with the interests of the workers government.

Also they were ravaged by years of civil war funded by western Imperialists.


I just think democracy is a better way to run things than a more authoritarian dictatorship.

No-one here actually supports dictatorship. Not even most of the ones who think that Stalinism was socialist. Most communists support a society even more democratic than our liberal parliamentary democracies.

[Ocean Seal]

Zanthorus is right, an authoritarian state can develop from communism, but it is something that can be ardently avoided. Just because the Soviet Union/China were authoritarian it does not mean that all communist countries have been or will be. Look at Anarchist Catalonia, or now even Cuba which allows now for multiple parties. Socialism can have many forms as seen from all the groups on this site. You don't have to think like every other communist to be one. In fact I can wholeheartedly state that there are a plethora of opinions on this site. The left is very inclusive.

[Brother No. 1]

You could just as easily call it "revolution".

simple answer: No

Long answer: The revolution is already done in some sense so the development can still be called 'revolution' but only on a internal scale due to the classes still being there (i.e. kulaks snd such) since no one has ever had a revolution in which there were no remainders of the bourgeoisie, or classes that took up the role of bourgeoisie, in their society. So to simply call it 'revolution' is ignoring the fact that after said revolution( wait isnt then the revolution of the revolution?) and seeing that revolution is "the most authoritarian act one can due, revolution is where one class overthrows and imposes its will apon the other"-friedrick engles.



Why does everything need fit into some catchy slogan?

Are you refering to solgans like "workers of the world unite!" or something else that really doesnt need to be up for this discussion?




It's not really a "stage" though.

So this transitional (insertnamethatisntstagehere) is not a 'stage' but rather just a transition of society which society has had stages but apperently there are no stages of society so then what do we call them? phases? seqeuences? periods?

[Zanthorus]

lol

I don't see what's so funny about your Leninist revisionism of Marx. For Marx the transitional workers state is different to both the lower and higher phases of communism. He never refers to the existence of a "state" in the lower phase of communism and there is very little to justify the existence of the state in a society without classes apart from Lenin's incredibly weak arguments from the existence of "bourgeois right" (i.e distribution of goods according to work done).

[Dr Mindbender]

^ and the "supermodel" picture- while society may pressure them into what they wear, they do have a free choice.

Yes you're right, they have a choice- to conform to a norm or be socially ostracised for not conforming to these norms due to social conditioning put in place by capitalism.

Not that different from the 'choice' that minimum wage workers face every day between clocking on to do a miserable 8 hour chore and being evicted from their home and starving.

Capitalism doesnt need to force people by whip or gun because it has simply replaced these weapons with scarcity and mass social conditioning.

[Brother No. 1]

I don't see what's so funny about your Leninist revisionism of Marx.

So, you want to try the paris commune in its pure form and not try to think of the new conditions that might not have been there during marx's life time(i.e. the expansion of imperialism, growth of militarism and bueacratism in the US and other states,etc) but rather try to fit it into an old style?



..little to justify the existence of the state in a society without classes
And this would be..?

[Zanthorus]

Uh oh, looks like all the posts didn't get cleared up properly. There's a new thread on this here;

http://www.revleft.com/vb/stages-socialism-communism-t136254/index.html

[gorillafuck]

You should stick around and lurk on and contribute to our conversations. We might turn you to socialism. And if not that then you'd at least learn which is always good.

[ContrarianLemming]

You should stick around and lurk on and contribute to our conversations. We might turn you to socialism. And if not that then you'd at least learn which is always good.

I agree
you're not one of us, but we are more open minded then you have claimed we are.

We can be called authoritarians, but we are not authoritarians, we are radically unreasonable, the reasonable man wishs to conform himself to the rest of the world, we shall change the world to conform with our wishs, so all progress is based on the unreasonable man. We are communists because we recognise it is not a vice to be radically democractic, which we are, and it is not a virtue to seek moderation in liberty. We are anarchists, anarchy, mother of stability and daughter of liberty, and Marxists, forever at the forefront of human struggle against few, for we are many.

[28350]

We can be called authoritarians, but we are not authoritarians, we are radically unreasonable, the reasonable man wishs to conform himself to the rest of the world, we shall change the world to conform with our wishs, so all progress is based on the unreasonable man. We are communists because we recognise it is not a vice to be radically democractic, which we are, and it is not a virtue to seek moderation in liberty. We are anarchists, anarchy, mother of stability and daughter of liberty, and Marxists, forever at the forefront of human struggle against few, for we are many.

Except for me. I'm an authoritarian bureaucrat whose sole interest in leftism is perpetuating the senseless borderline-Lovecraftian horror and Kafka-esque alienation one experiences at the DMV.
:mad: grr fear me.

[blake 3:17]

Welcome!

[Klaatu]

Communism isn't an authoritarian dictatorship, it's quite the opposite. The "communism" of Russia/China/etc. wasn't communism, it was government-ordered capitalism.

Spot On :D

Josef Stalin was a paranoid cold-blooded murderer, who had ruined the good name of Socialism. Marx might spin in his grave,
if he knew how his good ideas had become rejected by the masses, thanks to corrupt, selfish, arrogant 20th century iron-fisted
dictators who have turned public opinion against such an originally well-envisioned system as Socialism!

[mikelepore]

But I'm saying I think the pie would decrease in size.

We have to identify who does what, and who gets what. Under capitalism, the employees of the company perform all of the productive work, and they get paid flat hourly wages or annual wages that are not linked to the rate of productivity. The owners of the company receive profits that are closely linked to the rate of productivity, but they don't perform the productive work. Therefore, how could the elimination of profits for owners cause a decrease in productivity?