For me?

[red1918]

I have recently become a member of 'revleft' after reading some interesting blogs and threads on the website. I am relatively new to the whole communist ideas and I need to know if it is completely for me?? I am from a strong working class background and have been in employment or education all my life. I am sick and tired of turning the television on and seeing the 'bank bailouts', 'political expenditure spiralling' and the divide between rich and poor continuously growing. Today the 'rich' always seem to be getting richer whereas those who work hard day to day seem to reep no benifits. I feel the growth of drug problems in communities and the rise in crime is can be partially related to capitalism, whereby individuals feel it is difficult to fit into this styl of society. Similarly when there is mass unemployment due to the slump in the capitalist economy the poor are always the first to suffer. However, in the socialist ideals do workers receive rewards etc? Is it true that everyone would be paid the same? Also, would my life drastically change if Communism was to rule in my country? Would Entertainment remain? Would capitalist literature still exist?

I understand concept of 'international workers unite,' and in a way I believe in it. We should all be born as equals, yet I know there are millions of people who work much harder than other for less pay throughout the world. However, from studying a little bit of pacifism I can see that the left's biggest weakness was its inability to unite internationally?? I am referring to the 1910 Internationals which failed to stop the First World War- ps I am not looking for an explanation of the outbreak of WW1!! Finally, I am by no means questioning or finding flaws in the concept, but why did the Socialism of the USSR fall in the late 1980's?
Many thanks

[Blake's Baby]

Ok, lots of stuff there: you're going to get a lot of different answers from different people on the forum. But this is my take on some of your questions.

'In socialism do workers receive rewards?' - as everyone who is able to work, works (though we hope that more sensible organisation of work is going to take a lot of the grind out of it) everyone reaps the rewards of social improvement. Workers aren't 'paid', who would do the 'paying'?

'...if communism was to rule in my country' - communism is impossible until capitalsim has been overthrown, and capitalism is a worldwide system. Capitalism must be done away with everywhere before communism is possible. So it won't happen 'in your country' it'll happen worldwide or not at all.

I'd agree that the Left of the Socialist International and the working class as a whole failed to stop WWI, and that,. if the Left had been more aware of the problems that the Right was implicated in (national chauvinism, 'social patrotism', integration into the state) things would have been different. But it was the Right of the Socialist International that betrayed the working class, not the Left.

'...why did the Socialism of the USSR fail in the late 1980s?' - some of us don't accept that it was socialism, because socialism is a classless, stateless, communal society, and what existed in the USSR wasn't that. It was one form of organising capitalism that filed, and was replaced by a slightly different form of organising capitalism.

Hope some of that helps you steer your way through what you're trying to work out.

[molotovcocktail]

According to what you say, you are clearly a leftist, but what you wrote is so short that it is impossible to say what kind of leftist you are. You also need to understand that communist is a wide term, you will notice that there are several sub-categories of communism. I have been a member of revleft for under a month, so I am not an experienced member.I wish you good luck and hope you will enjoy this forum.:thumbup1:

[Kamos]

However, in the socialist ideals do workers receive rewards etc? Is it true that everyone would be paid the same? Also, would my life drastically change if Communism was to rule in my country? Would Entertainment remain? Would capitalist literature still exist?


Alright, so socialism and communism are different - the latter comes as a consequence of the former. In a communist world, no - it's just a simple "ability-need" thing. In a socialist world, people will get wages. However, instead of certain jobs being worth five times as much as others, the wage gap between high-paying jobs and low-paying jobs will get smaller and will also take individual needs into account. Life will drastically change if even socialism was to rule in your country, yes - this would take long to explain, but think of all the "capitalist" things you know (lots of competing businesses, all the annoying things on TV, rich people getting away with murder); those won't exist anymore. Capitalist literature wouldn't exist because there is no such thing as "capitalist literature". Capitalism is an economic system, not a literature tendency.



I understand concept of 'international workers unite,' and in a way I believe in it. We should all be born as equals, yet I know there are millions of people who work much harder than other for less pay throughout the world. However, from studying a little bit of pacifism I can see that the left's biggest weakness was its inability to unite internationally?? I am referring to the 1910 Internationals which failed to stop the First World War- ps I am not looking for an explanation of the outbreak of WW1!! Finally, I am by no means questioning or finding flaws in the concept, but why did the Socialism of the USSR fall in the late 1980's?
Many thanksSectarianism is a problem, but it will not be a big problem once the real revolutionary wave kicks off. It was and is a problem back then and now because the communist movement isn't popular enough yet. The socialism of the USSR fell in the late '80s because the leaders weren't building socialism well enough. Lenin's idea after the failure of the permanent revolution was that a bit of state capitalism helps build socialism, but then his successors ended up making the state more authoritarian or more capitalist.

[The Idler]

Alright, so socialism and communism are different - the latter comes as a consequence of the former. In a communist world, no - it's just a simple "ability-need" thing. In a socialist world, people will get wages. However, instead of certain jobs being worth five times as much as others, the wage gap between high-paying jobs and low-paying jobs will get smaller and will also take individual needs into account. Life will drastically change if even socialism was to rule in your country, yes - this would take long to explain, but think of all the "capitalist" things you know (lots of competing businesses, all the annoying things on TV, rich people getting away with murder); those won't exist anymore. Capitalist literature wouldn't exist because there is no such thing as "capitalist literature". Capitalism is an economic system, not a literature tendency.


Sectarianism is a problem, but it will not be a big problem once the real revolutionary wave kicks off. It was and is a problem back then and now because the communist movement isn't popular enough yet. The socialism of the USSR fell in the late '80s because the leaders weren't building socialism well enough. Lenin's idea after the failure of the permanent revolution was that a bit of state capitalism helps build socialism, but then his successors ended up making the state more authoritarian or more capitalist.
In a socialist world, people will not get wages. Reducing wage differentials in the name of greater social equality sounds reformist. Marx used the terms socialism and communism interchangeably. Not sure what you mean by capitalist literature won't exist, but does it mean all copies of Atlas Shrugged will be burned? What the OP wants - all sounds like things capitalism could accomodate if there was enough pressure, but maybe your views will become more radical with further reading.

[Yugo45]

However, in the socialist ideals do workers receive rewards etc?

What do you mean by rewards? It's basically like this, you work (if you can) - you get what you need. (From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.) Everyone works as much as they can, everyone gets as much as they need.


Is it true that everyone would be paid the same?

No, because no one would get paid. In an ideal, true, communist society, there is no money.


Also, would my life drastically change if Communism was to rule in my country?

Everyones life would change drastically (to better), but Communism can't "rule a country". Communism is a stateless society, in which there is no ruling class.


Would Entertainment remain?

I don't see why not.


Would capitalist literature still exist?

What do you mean by capitalist literature? If you mean literature which accumulated a lot of money, well, it's not like we'll burn it or something.. So yes, it will probably remain.


why did the Socialism of the USSR fall in the late 1980's?

There isn't really an easy and short way to explain this.. Most people say that USSR wasn't even socialist/communist by that time. Just browse through the History sub-forum and you'll find this answer there.

[Grenzer]

does it mean all copies of Atlas Shrugged will be burned?

I hope so. The philosophical message of that book was garbage, and from a literary point of view, it was terrible.

[piet11111]

in the socialist ideals do workers receive rewards etc?

If by rewards you mean you get a caddilac if you worked more hours then your neighbor then no.
However as wealth is distributed equally you will be living a lifestyle that currently only millionaires can afford due to rational planning.
For example no factory's making 25 different types of tv instead all of them will make the best possible tv hence everyone will enjoy the top of the line products extend this to healthcare cars retirement and everything you can think of.
Now this might seem utopian but consider the sheer numbers that are unemployed because capitalism can not find profitable employment for them.
Then consider how capitalism limits productivity because more efficient methods (in terms of man hours and resources and pollution and of course the waste by deliberate creation of inferior product due to planned obsolescence) are consider not cost effective.



Is it true that everyone would be paid the same?

Nobody will have anything resembling a salary instead all of their requirements will be provided for along with whatever they require for their hobby's and personal development (you enjoy art then you will be provided raw materials to make your own and if you enjoy restoring classic cars then those materials will be provided obviously the components for restoring classic cars will probably be more "expensive" or resource intensive but would you honestly care if you are not limited in your own pursuit of your hobby ?)


Also, would my life drastically change if Communism was to rule in my country?

Yes you would no longer be slaving your life away to make some rich fuck even richer.


Would Entertainment remain?

Of course who would want to work all day ?
Its leisure time that makes life worth living spending time with your family and to develop yourself.
The criminality of capitalism is that it demands the best years of your life wasting all potential people have.
Can you imagine the amount of Einsteins that have been wasted because they could not afford a proper education ?


Would capitalist literature still exist?

Probably for historic study consider Mein Kampf that is still around even though everyone knows its shit.


why did the Socialism of the USSR fall in the late 1980's?
Many thanks

Socialism is the state being controlled by the working class (dictatorship of the proletariat instead of the current dictatorship of the bourgeois) now can you honestly consider the working class as the ones that where in control of the USSR or North Korea or China etc etc ?

[La Peur Rouge]

However, in the socialist ideals do workers receive rewards etc? Is it true that everyone would be paid the same?

Here you have to look beyond wages. The wage system is a form of slavery. You're going to get different answers from different people: labor vouchers/free-access/etc. But money would not exist in a communist society.



Also, would my life drastically change if Communism was to rule in my country?That depends. If you're working class then your life will definitely change. There would be no bosses, politicians, landowners, everything would be run democratically. You wouldn't have to worry about not having food, housing, or healthcare. If you're a capitalist then obviously you wouldn't own private property anymore, or ridiculously sized houses that could be used for more than one family, you'd just become a worker.


Would Entertainment remain?Absolutely. Anyone can make art and entertain people, much more so in a communist society where more people have access to the means to do these things.


Would capitalist literature still exist?Probably, feudal literature still exists today so capitalist literature will most likely be around.
Finally, I am by no means questioning or finding flaws in the concept, but why did the Socialism of the USSR fall in the late 1980's?Again you're going to get different answers here, personally I don't believe the USSR was ever socialist.

[NewLeft]

I hope so. The philosophical message of that book was garbage, and from a literary point of view, it was terrible.

I read a few of her books and they were pretty dull, but they're not worth burning.

[Grenzer]

I read a few of her books and they were pretty dull, but they're not worth burning.

It was a joke. In all seriousness though, a lot of people(at least here in the United States) are picking up Atlas Shrugged and making it their personal bible. This is dangerous thinking, more people are beginning to believe that they will have greater liberty by surrendering more of their power and wealth toe the bourgeoisie. Randian thought is the complete antithesis of Communism.

[Kamos]

In a socialist world, people will not get wages. Reducing wage differentials in the name of greater social equality sounds reformist. Marx used the terms socialism and communism interchangeably.

Well, the two aren't really interchangeable. The revolution has several stages; in the early one we'll have to have wages of sorts. Maybe not in the way like in capitalism, but it's difficult to build socialism without an incentive to work early on. Then again, the OP was probably more interested in actual communism.

[Veovis]

Well, the two aren't really interchangeable. The revolution has several stages; in the early one we'll have to have wages of sorts. Maybe not in the way like in capitalism, but it's difficult to build socialism without an incentive to work early on. Then again, the OP was probably more interested in actual communism.

Sure, there would be incentive, but it sure as hell won't be WORK OR STARVE, FREEZE AND DIE like it is under the current system.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, the two aren't really interchangeable...

Well, they are.


... The revolution has several stages; in the early one we'll have to have wages of sorts...

That doesn't mean you should call it 'socialism'. Because you don't believe that communism is possible upon the instant, that's no reason to use another term that means the same thing and claim it means something different.


... Maybe not in the way like in capitalism, but it's difficult to build socialism without an incentive to work early on...

Surely, building socialism is an incentive in itself. If it isn't, you have to assume that the woirking class is going to make a revolution we don't want and then go 'damn better world! I'm going to sit on my ass until someone starts to exploit me!' which I don't really think is reasonable.



...Then again, the OP was probably more interested in actual communism.

Maybe. As they asked about 'rewards' and being 'paid the same' I'd suppose they'd be more likely be talking about the transition period than about socialism proper. I think 'from each according to his needs' is fairly clear about the higher phase of communism, a classless moneyless stateless society. It's only the lower phase of communism, the transitional phase, that may perhaps need a retention of some capitalist features (for the record I don't think it will need wages or rewards or even labour-time vouchers).

[Kamos]

That doesn't mean you should call it 'socialism'. Because you don't believe that communism is possible upon the instant, that's no reason to use another term that means the same thing and claim it means something different.

It wasn't my idea, lots of other people call the transitional stage socialism and the end result communism.


Surely, building socialism is an incentive in itself. If it isn't, you have to assume that the woirking class is going to make a revolution we don't want and then go 'damn better world! I'm going to sit on my ass until someone starts to exploit me!' which I don't really think is reasonable.

You may have a point. You see, I'm not an expert on economics, so I figured that a form of reward system would be the easiest and most obvious way to keep the fledgling socialist economies stable. "Building socialism", after all, is a bit vague - one will need a more detailed strategy in practice.

[piet11111]

I am disappointed red1918 has not posted a response.

[The Idler]

It wasn't my idea, lots of other people call the transitional stage socialism and the end result communism.

Marx repeatedly made it clear that socialism, in both its phases, was a non-market, production-solely-and-directly-for-use society.The Myth of The Transitional Society (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/myth-transitional-society)