Log in

View Full Version : Hello, i'm a noob! ANSWER MY NOOBISH QUESTIONS!



wayward1981
25th June 2011, 02:26
Hi there, i've decided to join revleft for some lively discussion and to learn more about socialism and communism. I tend to approach things at full-mast so i've got a few ideas and questions i'd like to get out straight away.

First my perspective is that Marx posed an excellent critique of the industrial economy and capitalism, but having familiarised myself with the history of the soviet union (particularly lenin, trotsky and stalin but also Yeltsin, Gorbachev and briefly studying other communist countries i do not feel that there is a model of working communism that has been effectively established to achieve its aims.

I'm interested in your opinion over whether a communist microcosm could be established within a capitalist environment and if it was better than capitalism would it not flourish and indeed be 'more profitable'.

In other words, if a bunch of people pooled their resources, bought some land and worked collaboratively for their mutual betterment- would not their society over time naturally grow and their quality of life be better than that of people outside the community causing this way of life to be taken up by others? If you think so- i'd be very interested in hearing how mechanically this society would work- would it have to be agrarian? would the community sell its surplus or skills or would it have to be isolationist to work properly? If you think this idea would not/never work i'd love to hear why.

Does communism have to be established as a top down model as it always seems to be and how i suppose Marx describes it- that is a party in a developed capitalist environment (generally autocratic but with democratic mechanisms) establishing the principle as a function of wider government. Because it seems to me that i can't find one example of this happening without widespread human rights abuses, civil war and immense famine and poverty- making the revolution seem like nasty business indeed and the ultimate goal of living communally to be essentially unnattractive for the immediate lives of the proletariat.

I highly value the input of clever people- so go on, school me.

The Idler
25th June 2011, 14:54
Socialism will be a voluntary "bottom-up" act of a democratic conscious majority globally or it won't be socialism. Socialist Standard December 2008 Robert Owen: paternalist utopian ... (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/dec08/page15.html)

Utopian communities, like the following, are not socialism.

La Reunion (Dallas) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Reunion_%28Dallas%29) (founded in 1855) by Victor Considérant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Consid%C3%A9rant)
Brook Farm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brook_Farm)
North American Phalanx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Phalanx)

Blake's Baby
25th June 2011, 17:47
There's a critique by Kropotkin from about 1890 called something like 'Why utopian communities will always fail', which details why those small scale socialist experiments can't really point the way to socialism. Nothing that has happened in the last 120 years or so has changed the process that Kropotkin describes.

The revolution is fine, but capitalism is a nasty business. I quoted this the other day - in the October Revolution (ie, the siezure of state power by the Military Revolutionary Committee of the Petrograd Soviet) only (I believe) 9 people were killed.

However, in the brutal counter-revolution, the Civil War, and the Intervention, and the famines that accompanied these, hundreds of thousands were killed (to be added to the millions who were killed in World War One).

So it is capitalism's reaction that murders millions, it is the murder of millions that makes revolution necessary in the first place.

As to whether anything established 'top down with great brutality' could be communism - see The Idler's answer above. I'm sure the SPGB managed to explain that socialism is in fact the conscious creation of the working class not a brutal party dictatorship.

Zealot
25th June 2011, 18:13
Marx explicitly stated that the revolution would have to be worldwide if Communism was to ever succeed, preferably starting in the US or Britain. Civil war is almost inevitable any time a new idea replaces the old, especially in this scenario since the capitalists have everything to lose. Poverty and famine, as far as I know, were improved in past socialist revolutions