Consequences of a society based on money

[VirgJans12]

Our modern western societies are long based on money. It's the one thing in the center of it. The pearl everyone seems to be after. But there is only a limited amount of it available.


The rich possess most of it. They are the ones that determine our lives and future by holding the highest cards. The proletariat is depending on them to create jobs, thus allowing us to work and build our entire lives with the gained income. However, they are after more money, and paying people costs. Therefore they will create as few of them as they possibly can, thus maximizing their profits.


The problem is that they are a small group of people. And the proletariat counts many, many more. This causes unemployment. And rather than hiring more staff, the bourgeoisie will make their current employees work harder. This causes people to overwork, become stressed, ill, and unhappy. With other consequences such as death (through the illness), divorces, and psychological problems. The ones that do not get employed suffer from poverty. In extreme cases, this causes them to not even have a home or own bed to sleep in. While those few that caused it sleep in huge beds in even bigger houses.


The members of this small group fight each other over the remaining dimes in the pockets of the proletariat. And instead of working together, the masses follow the lead of their 'owners' – they fight each other. This will go on until all the money is in the pockets of one man, and the rest is employed by him. While if the masses would work together, and distribute equally, they would be able to achieve much, much more. And everyone would be able to live in a decent way.


In the most extreme cases, governments will send troops to a foreign country to collect even more money. The imperialistic wars over oil in the Middle-East, for example. Although such acts were much more common in the 17th, 18th, and 19th century, it is still a reality today. The crusades in those old days have caused many countries to become poor, by having the rich western masters stealing their natural recourses. And yet even there, the fight continues. Africa is the poorest continent in the world. Yet there are uncountable wars fought there over power and money. If the peoples of those countries would work together, or even the people of each individual country, they would be able to build a decent society, to a culture and system they see fit. Though it has to be noted that there are also other factors involved in the wars on that continent. Such as racial and group hatred.


This greed of the bourgeoisie has led to many crises, including the one we are in now. As Marx stated, their methods cause a shortage of finances among the people, causing them to not have enough money to buy the products they make.


And they are in control. Political parties are financed by companies. And you have to do as your sponsor tells you, or the money flow will be cut off. Most of them have the same interest. They want high profits by cutting the expenses, on wages for example. The parties will not tell you this literally – they will show it through their actions. What they will tell you is what you want to hear. Politicians make promises to the masses, and act to the will of their sponsors. This is how a capitalist democracy works.


To take them out of control, a law must be written that forbids parties to take money from people and companies. Thus taking away their dependency on them. If instead they are all given the same amount of money out of the national treasure, they will become independent and so become able to do as they promise.


Together with this short term solution, the educational system should be revised. It has to center the humans, teach the students sociality and cooperation. This lays the groundwork for the more long term solutions.


In order to effectively fight the capitalist democratic system, democratic socialism has to be established. A society, where the people vote instead of the politicians. This will cause laws to be passed, and policies to be adopted, that benefit the most of the people. Not the few.


The very long term solution is communism. However, such a society will not be brought to life for at least the next 200 years. It requires a lot of political changes and most of the work to be taken out of the hands of the people.

[Q]

In order to effectively fight the capitalist democratic system, democratic socialism has to be established. A society, where the people vote instead of the politicians. This will cause laws to be passed, and policies to be adopted, that benefit the most of the people. Not the few.
I agree that socialism begins with the political takeover of power by the working class as a collective, implying a radical democratic basis. Economic changes on the level of the whole society (hence political) occur from that point onwards.


The very long term solution is communism. However, such a society will not be brought to life for at least the next 200 years. It requires a lot of political changes and most of the work to be taken out of the hands of the people.
Why do you think it takes such a long time? What exactly is your definition of "communism"?

I see socialism as a transition from the old capitalist society, to the new communist one. I can't imagine the communist transition taking such a huge amount of time. Furthermore, Marx called this transition the "lower phase of communism", so he already viewed this society as communist, be it with the birth marks of the old capitalist society. Of course, Marx isn't the Holy Letter on everything, but I think he makes a good case: Socialism is not a separate developmental stage of society.

So, I don't understand you here.

[VirgJans12]

By communism I mean the actual stateless, moneyless society in which the people determine what to do.

The reason I think it will take so long is because I believe the third world countries will have their revolutions first, as the case was nearly a hundred years ago. After those countries have established socialism, the 2nd world countries will, and then the first. Because the first world has such a high living standard and a poor view on communism by the masses, they will not be quick to follow the 2nd and 3rd world. And then there's still the transition from the lower stage to the higher "pure" communism. That's why I think it'll take so long for first world countries to achieve the highest state.

[Q]

I agree with your definition of communism. But I don't think it'll work like that at all.

While a mass revolution can start in a low developed country, low in the international state pecking order, for the socialist revolution to be successful, it is absolutely crucial for the west - the core of capitalism - to become involved and win.

I think Europe would be the obvious hotspot of necessity here, due to the strength and traditions of the workers movement in many European countries and due to its central role in the capitalist system (the Eurozone is the biggest economy on the planet). Only on a European level can we begin thinking and working towards a positive alternative on capitalism, a luxury that a third world country, or perhaps even a set of countries, do(es) not have.

So, socialism will not be established first in the third world, quite the opposite. It'll lead to bankruptcy, isolation and counterrevolution - just like we saw in Russia.

So the European revolution is essential for the world revolution to succeed, therefore all European communists, in my view, should fight against left forms of national "alternatives" and fight to organise the European working class at a continental level and fight for political power of the working class over Europe as a continent, i.e. a "battle for democracy" on an EU level. Linked to this is the party question, it being a mass movement of the class set out to take power as a collective, being a "state within the state".

Only then can we hope to win the prize.

[W1N5T0N]

On the other hand, do you think the reaction in Europe will ever let this happen?

[Q]

On the other hand, do you think the reaction in Europe will ever let this happen?

Not if they have a say in it. Which then points to the need of organising the working class on a continental level as a mass movement, so they won't have that say ;)

But you raise a good point: The capitalist class will intervene in the workers movement, this is obvious. Our main defenses against that are twofold:
1. Having a clear programme that aims for the seizing of power by the working class, ending capitalism and building a new society. Reformist parties can act just fine without a programme, because their political scope is within the system, of "what is possible", realpolitik. A communist party must have a programme however, as to have a strong reference point of what it is what we're fighting for.
2. A radical democratic and open environment. A free flow of ideas (within the broad framework of the programme). Opportunism, in the first instance, is a spontanious product of working within a society in which the ruling ideas are those of capital. Only by being able to openly critique ideas, can they be corrected. The broader the participation, the opener the clashes, the more the class-collective can gain an understanding of what is needed to serve its own interest.

[VirgJans12]

I agree with your definition of communism. But I don't think it'll work like that at all.

While a mass revolution can start in a low developed country, low in the international state pecking order, for the socialist revolution to be successful, it is absolutely crucial for the west - the core of capitalism - to become involved and win.

I think Europe would be the obvious hotspot of necessity here, due to the strength and traditions of the workers movement in many European countries and due to its central role in the capitalist system (the Eurozone is the biggest economy on the planet). Only on a European level can we begin thinking and working towards a positive alternative on capitalism, a luxury that a third world country, or perhaps even a set of countries, do(es) not have.

So, socialism will not be established first in the third world, quite the opposite. It'll lead to bankruptcy, isolation and counterrevolution - just like we saw in Russia.

So the European revolution is essential for the world revolution to succeed, therefore all European communists, in my view, should fight against left forms of national "alternatives" and fight to organise the European working class at a continental level and fight for political power of the working class over Europe as a continent, i.e. a "battle for democracy" on an EU level. Linked to this is the party question, it being a mass movement of the class set out to take power as a collective, being a "state within the state".

Only then can we hope to win the prize.

Don't you think, that if the 2nd and 3rd world would be socialistic, with the 1st world still in capitalism, they would work together? After all, that is what socialism and communism are all about. If the revolutionized countries cover enough ground and, with that, recourses, they won't need the first world. Then they won't become isolated. In fact, the capitalist world would become isolated itself, and a big part of its economy would be destroyed, because the flow of important imports such as oil and cheap manufacturing abroad would end. Thus allowing the revolution in the west by a dropping economy and dependency on socialistic countries.

[Q]

Don't you think, that if the 2nd and 3rd world would be socialistic, with the 1st world still in capitalism, they would work together? After all, that is what socialism and communism are all about. If the revolutionized countries cover enough ground and, with that, recourses, they won't need the first world. Then they won't become isolated. In fact, the capitalist world would become isolated itself, and a big part of its economy would be destroyed, because the flow of important imports such as oil and cheap manufacturing abroad would end. Thus allowing the revolution in the west by a dropping economy and dependency on socialistic countries.

In a word: No.

The problem with the Russian revolution was not that they didn't have enough resources - the Russian empire spanned over 1/7th of the globe! The problem was that on its own it couldn't possibly achieve socialism. Why not? Two factors:
1. The Russian proletariat was only a tiny minority of the population. This made the regime fundamentally unstable and therefore prone to bureaucratic cliques. While the proletariat of many contempory third world countries is a lot bigger, it still plays a factor.
2. More importantly Russia was only a peripheral country in the international state system. It had some cores of industry, but these were completely dependant on the worldmarket. In contempory third world countries this is also the case. In fact, the first thing the financial overlords did after the 2008 crisis broke out, was to retract investment funds from "risky" third world ventures, back to "safe" first world ones. A genuine revolution in, say, India, will probably isolate that country in no time.

Unity, as you argue, is possible in the abstract sense. But this would be unity in poverty as they lack the material basis to overcome capitalism.

So yes, the socialist revolution has to start in the core of the capitalist state system, if it is to go anywhere. I would even be so bold as to argue that we only really need a revolution in Europe, North-America, China, Russia and Japan (the latter two aren't even really needed I think, China though is due to its central role as producer of the world), for a socialist revolution to be completely successful and start building a fully communist society.

Why? Because if these core countries go, the rest can only but follow. The rest of the world will also want that "next step" of development. The capitalist system will cease to function too in a practical sense, or at least will be severely weakened and crisisriven.

I'm not saying that your strategy is necessarily wrong, but I believe there are too many "points of failure" of where it can go wrong. It is, like you said, also a very drawn out strategy.

In one sentence: Your strategy may lead us to communism in 200 years, my strategy will probably lead us to communism in 1/10th that time. I think we should focus on the most efficient route to our goal.

As an aside, I believe that European communists (like yourself) should focus on where we are, as opposed to "supporting" (whatever that means?) from a far, far away distance.

[VirgJans12]

Okay, your points seem legit and well thought through.

There's one more point, though. You think the revolution should start in Europe, and that it could happen twenty years from now. However, most people's minds are so set on 'our system is great', 'we don't care', and 'communism is bad because the history books say Stalin killed a lot of people', that it will be difficult to convince people that socialism and communism aren't the evil ideologies they think they are. Most people will want to steer towards a more democratically oriented form of politics and economics as an alternative to our current system, but won't want go as far as socialism. Let alone communism.

So how are the people to be convinced that our ideologies are good alternatives, that can actually work in practice?

[Q]

There's one more point, though. You think the revolution should start in Europe, and that it could happen twenty years from now.
No, I said that once the working class takes power in the capitalist core it could be as fast as 20 years before we have fully fledged communism :)


However, most people's minds are so set on 'our system is great' ...
That number is dwindling fast.


... 'we don't care' ...
This group will be sizable for a time. They will become active once there is a politicised movement fighting for something else.


... and 'communism is bad because the history books say Stalin killed a lot of people' ...
If people are open for our arguments, why not explain the issues? The other day I had this argument with two people from the 15 October movement in Maastricht. But they were open minded and so I could easily make my point.


... that it will be difficult to convince people that socialism and communism aren't the evil ideologies they think they are. Most people will want to steer towards a more democratically oriented form of politics and economics as an alternative to our current system ...
This is more or less my argument at this stage of the Occupy movement. I fight for radical democracy, the working class taking over power as a class (sometimes using the phrase "99%" instead). From there on, we can rebuild society to one based on human need, not profit.

This is all what socialism is about. The only major point I haven't touched yet is the party question, i.e. forming this movement to a conscious movement that has its own programme to transcend capitalism.


... but won't want go as far as socialism. Let alone communism.
If people ask me about socialism or communism (which are interchangable words anyway), I won't shy away from it. You can also always recognize me as a "red". As said, people are open to it, especially young people. But we also need to reach out to older people as well.

As an aside: This is why the Occupy movement is so cool. Finally people are going on the streets and talk about politics! Maybe they are confused, but that doesn't matter. It gives us ample opportunity to make our case and try to let this movement explicitly start fighting for socialism :)


So how are the people to be convinced that our ideologies are good alternatives, that can actually work in practice?
The point is to let the movement assimilate the socialist programme. Make it their own agenda. If people are fighting for it themselves, then it is their "property", not some alien thing from Russia of times long past.

This is btw the essense of party building: Not as a sect that grows infinitely, but a movement of people fighting for what they think is right. The point is to convince the movement of our programme, not to recruit the "ones and twos" from this broad layer for our narrow purposes.

That said, the Occupy movement as it exists today is very immature and will most likely dissipate within the next few weeks. Does this matter? Not at all! Coming spring there will be a new movement starting up and the people that participate now in the Occupy movement will carry on the lessons to that stage, so that movement already starts at a higher level. This is why socialists intervene :)