My teachers argument - is communism workable?

[Craig_J]

In my AS Sociology lesson at college we've been studying poverty. Basically different defintions of it, what causes it, who's most vulnerable to it and what solutions the UK govenrment have tried to implement to stop it.

We've been studying recently about the welfare state and how it can help lower poverty. We've also talked about the disadvnatages of it.

Today we were asked how do we think we can tackle the mass ammount of unemployed in the UK.

I said that by steadily abolishing the private sector and replacing it with a state owned public sector in which jobs can be made avaliable for people and paying them all equally whilst bringing up the next generations to appreciate that the work they can put in to helping society as a whole progress is far more important than anything they could ever take out of it. I then concluded that they would have pride as a motivation instead of money and that people would probably be inspired by knowing their contribution is going towards a greater cause.

My teacher responded by pointing at a Karl Marx poster and saying that he would agree with me. He then went onto say that although he appreciates Marx's theories and believes that what Marx wanted to achieve was certainly a great thing he doesn't believe that it would be workable in society.

He says this is because we are know in a more global economy where we import goods from nations all across the world and that because of this scoialism wouldn't be able to last. He says we get things imported from other countrys, such as China or Bangledesh, because it's cheaper for us to import and sell over here and that's the way the world goes round.

To be honest I should have asked him afterwards to clarify a few points because I don't understand why the happenings in other nations could stop a socialist state being formed and being able to last.

But if anyone here can work out what he may of meant could you be so kind as to explain to me what it is he means and what counter arugments there are for those points? If so it would be much appreciated!:thumbup1:

[Martin Blank]

http://www.workers-party.com/wr/wr201105.pdf
http://www.workers-party.com/wr/wr201106.pdf

[ZeroNowhere]

That's not an argument, it's just what happens when you put people without possession of intellectual authority in positions of intellectual authority.

[Broletariat]

Just looking at your suggestion, it doesn't look like something Marx would agree with. Sounds like you just want the State to become the employer instead of the individual capitalists? Not really anything to do with eliminating the accumulation of Capital.

[Zealot]

He says this is because we are know in a more global economy where we import goods from nations all across the world and that because of this scoialism wouldn't be able to last.

Which is basically why we are internationalist. Even if it was only the UK that became socialist they would stand a hell of a better chance than it does now.


He says we get things imported from other countrys, such as China or Bangledesh, because it's cheaper for us to import and sell over here and that's the way the world goes round.

In a way he's right; private capitalists are over there exploiting the cheap labour to sell the products at home for a good profit. This is not the way the world goes round it's simply savage exploitation, and if he thinks the world is going to be like that into infinity he better rethink his ideas. Eventually the wages will catch up to the rate of what is paid in the west and they'll have no choice than to wage imperialist wars to keep the status quo or bring the work back home (usually they opt for imperialist wars). If they were in the hands of the state as you suggested there wouldn't be a need to import things which could have been made in your country anyways, which would fix the unemployment like you suggested. As for other things which can only be imported there is no reason why this can't happen.

I think what he's trying to get at is he believes a socialist country has to be self-sufficient like North Korea or maybe Cuba. They are only that way because of blockades etc. So really his argument is just from his own ignorance.

[Craig_J]

Just looking at your suggestion, it doesn't look like something Marx would agree with. Sounds like you just want the State to become the employer instead of the individual capitalists? Not really anything to do with eliminating the accumulation of Capital.

I should calrify that I'm reffering there more to the transitional period than the final result.

[Craig_J]

Which is basically why we are internationalist. Even if it was only the UK that became socialist they would stand a hell of a better chance than it does now.



In a way he's right; private capitalists are over there exploiting the cheap labour to sell the products at home for a good profit. This is not the way the world goes round it's simply savage exploitation, and if he thinks the world is going to be like that into infinity he better rethink his ideas. Eventually the wages will catch up to the rate of what is paid in the west and they'll have no choice than to wage imperialist wars to keep the status quo or bring the work back home (usually they opt for imperialist wars). If they were in the hands of the state as you suggested there wouldn't be a need to import things which could have been made in your country anyways, which would fix the unemployment like you suggested. As for other things which can only be imported there is no reason why this can't happen.

I think what he's trying to get at is he believes a socialist country has to be self-sufficient like North Korea or maybe Cuba. They are only that way because of blockades etc. So really his argument is just from his own ignorance.


Just curious as to what makes you say that eventually wages in other nations will catch up with what we have in the West?

[Broletariat]

I should calrify that I'm reffering there more to the transitional period than the final result.


Ignoring any criticism of your conception of the transitional period.

It IS called a transitional period, meaning it isn't stable. So yea, it'll either collapse back to regular Capitalism or tip over to Communism.

[Zealot]

Just curious as to what makes you say that eventually wages in other nations will catch up with what we have in the West?

Well basically the bourgeoisie have to walk a fine line between keeping workers happy and outright revolution. When enough people get sick of it they usually get some concessions. I remember talking to some bourgeois prick who told me business is starting to go bad in China for him because profits are going down since workers are demanding more pay.

They want to keep people from revolting, which can be done by raising wages, but at the same time they don't want this to cut too much into profits. They can only do this for so long before they have to relocate business elsewhere, like what happened in America during the 70s/80s. The places that this sort of exploitation can keep settling is getting smaller and smaller, kept intact by the state and its army.

What does your teacher think will happen then? Either create new third world countries or forced labour but forced labor would would rally the masses into a revolt, so more likely it would be to create new third world countries like they are currently doing.

[Lanky Wanker]

I'm doing AS sociology too atm, but on educational achievement and social classes. Good ol' Marx is in it, obviously.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

He then went onto say that although he appreciates Marx's theories and believes that what Marx wanted to achieve was certainly a great thing he doesn't believe that it would be workable in society.
I hear that a lot, people who think it sounds good in theory but believe it would never work in practice.

[Marxaveli]

Yes we are globalized, but isnt the point of achieving a Communist society supposed to be global anyway? A Communist society can work, it just has to take place all over instead of just one state. You can't have a Communist state, I'm almost certain even Marx himself said this did he not (or at least implied it)? So, I think your teacher proved Marx right :cool:

[Erratus]

He could have built an argument against communism, but he appears to have stopped after his first major point. Yes, international trade would likely have to happen on some level, though as pointed it, it would drop. Only what cannot be made in the country will be imported. And that really isn't that much of an issue. The government can buy and sell as needed for its people. True, this isn't ideal, but it would be one of the hitches of socialism. Communism will be world-wide and rid of this problem.

I suppose he might want to be going in the direction of embargoes, but it isn't socialism that brings those about, it is capitalist countries that enforce them. And it is possible to be in a position so that they won't occur. China is an example. The U.S. largely considers (take note, I am not taking a stance of if China is or isn't socialist) it a socialist state, yet because of their position trades a lot with China.

More likely, he may be getting at the point that since most of the rest of the world is capitalist, any socialist nation hoping to trade would need some way to make the exchange of commodities between a socialist country and a capitalist one. Again, the ideal situation would be a revolution spanning countries, so that there wouldn't be that awkward socialist-communist transaction. But even if there was, socialism is a transitional period and not meant to the final stage. Some flexibility and adaption is necessary to respond to global changes. Tricky and not ideal, but possible.