What are the prerequisites of communism?

[The Burgundy Rose]

I've been thinking about this for a while and i have come to the conclusion that it is not enough for there to be a crisis in the capitalist system, a financial meltdown, to bring about communism. in fact the knee jerk reaction of most peoples suffering under this crisis seems to be a heavy leaning towards the far right. it is ostensibly fascism that arises from a failure of capitalism rather than communism. And even though there is increased support generally for the far left i have to wonder whether people that lean that way in times of crisis support a democratic system of communism or whether they support a more hard line authoritarian establishment, a gerontocracy is what seems most ubiquitous amongst communist nations.

in my mind it is becoming increasingly evident that the transition from one political ideology to another is almost formulaic, in the sense that if you way up all the factors involved in forming a socio-economic structure of a country and then put them in the context of contemporary pressures and strains then the outcome, the resulting ideological shift, is predetermined, inexorable, and inevitable, as though the whole of politics is an ongoing process, though perhaps one without end.

so what are the prerequisites of real communism; of a democratic form of communism?

[Jimmie Higgins]

I've been thinking about this for a while and i have come to the conclusion that it is not enough for there to be a crisis in the capitalist system, a financial meltdown, to bring about communism. in fact the knee jerk reaction of most peoples suffering under this crisis seems to be a heavy leaning towards the far right. it is ostensibly fascism that arises from a failure of capitalism rather than communism. And even though there is increased support generally for the far left i have to wonder whether people that lean that way in times of crisis support a democratic system of communism or whether they support a more hard line authoritarian establishment, a gerontocracy is what seems most ubiquitous amongst communist nations.

in my mind it is becoming increasingly evident that the transition from one political ideology to another is almost formulaic, in the sense that if you way up all the factors involved in forming a socio-economic structure of a country and then put them in the context of contemporary pressures and strains then the outcome, the resulting ideological shift, is predetermined, inexorable, and inevitable, as though the whole of politics is an ongoing process, though perhaps one without end.

so what are the prerequisites of real communism; of a democratic form of communism?Well the prerequisite for socialist revolution IMO is a combination of on the one hand some kind of crisis which creates an opening in ruling class hegemony (like an economic crisis or war where all the rulers are disorganized and don't know what to do and have no credibility among vast layers of the population. This is basically what we have seen in many situations in our lifetimes from Egypt and Greece to even the former Soviet Block countries IMO. Of course none of these have produced a worker's revolution and so this factor is like wind is to sailing - it can happen regardless of if there is a boat with a sail - let alone a working boat with people who know how to use the sail to get where they want to go... assuming they have a destination in mind anyway. So what's the other part of this analogy then: an organized, independent, and at least somewhat self-conscious working class. Specifically networks of people who have experience in local struggles and strikes (both with revolutionary ideologies as well as just people who in times of crisis begin to draw similar conclusions on their own) who can then work with other organizers and groups and have real connections to working class communities and workplaces. This then is the vehicle for worker's beginning to rule society for themselves in times of crisis - this can become "Duel Power" in a society which then, in a revolution can be used to help organize revolutionary forces.

So crisis for capitalism happens no matter what, but it takes an opposition for the system to actually be challenged from without. Of course this opposition can also be reformers or a different wing of capitalists like in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood who were the group with the connections all over the country when the shit hit the fan and so they were ready to push their agenda forward while strikers were just learning how to organize themselves and street-protesters were just beginning to try and figure out longer-term strategies. So in addition to crisis and an opposition, I think it's important that the opposition be at least tens of thousands (depending on the size of the struggle and the location) of working class revolutionaries with connections to millions of other workers who are not yet revolutionary but can be convinced in a time of crisis when consciousness can take leaps and bounds as we have seen in Egypt and much more in past revolutions where there was a specifically working class part of the general popular revolt.

[sublime]

A revolution? To enact a revolution you need to overthrown the government. In a democracy, this should be easy. You just have to vote it in. However, since the media has such control of people, and because people are generally sheep, the forces of control are stronger than they seem. An of course you need to have a good alternative too. That is where socialists fall down.

[l'Enfermé]

There's no such thing as a "democratic" form of communism, communism abolishes democracy(indeed, there's no such thing as an "undemocratic" form of communism either). Democracy is not a principle, it's a mechanism of organization, a political system. In communism, there are no classes, there is no state, and since politics are an expression of class antagonisms, politics, and thus, by extension, democracy also, cannot exist. There would be no reason for it to exist.

But I didn't answer your questions. A revolution presupposes an existing revolutionary situation. Lenin, in The Collapse of the Second International(Written in the summer of 1915, I believe), writes this regarding the "symptoms" of a revolutionary situation:

To the Marxist it is indisputable that a revolution is impossible without a revolutionary situation; furthermore, it is not every revolutionary situation that leads to revolution. What, generally speaking, are the symptoms of a revolutionary situation? We shall certainly not be mistaken if we indicate the following three major symptoms: (1) when it is impossible for the ruling classes to maintain their rule without any change; when there is a crisis, in one form or another, among the “upper classes”, a crisis in the policy of the ruling class, leading to a fissure through which the discontent and indignation of the oppressed classes burst forth. For a revolution to take place, it is usually insufficient for “the lower classes not to want” to live in the old way; it is also necessary that “the upper classes should be unable” to live in the old way; (2) when the suffering and want of the oppressed classes have grown more acute than usual; (3) when, as a consequence of the above causes, there is a considerable increase in the activity of the masses, who uncomplainingly allow themselves to be robbed in “peace time”, but, in turbulent times, are drawn both by all the circumstances of the crisis and by the “upper classes” themselves into independent historical action.
Without these objective changes, which are independent of the will, not only of individual groups and parties but even of individual classes, a revolution, as a general rule, is impossible. The totality of all these objective changes is called a revolutionary situation. Such a situation existed in 1905 in Russia, and in all revolutionary periods in the West; it also existed in Germany in the sixties of the last century, and in Russia in 1859-61 and 1879-80, although no revolution occurred in these instances. Why was that? It was because it is not every revolutionary situation that gives rise to a revolution; revolution arises only out of a situation in which the above-mentioned objective changes are accompanied by a subjective change, namely, the ability of the revolutionary class to take revolutionary mass action strongenough to break (or dislocate) the old government, which never, not even in a period of crisis, “falls”, if it is not toppled over.
Such are the Marxist views on revolution, views that have been deve]oped many, many times, have been accepted as indisputable by all Marxists, and for us, Russians, were corroborated in a particularly striking fashion by the expe rience of 1905. What, then, did the Basle Manifesto assurme in this respect in 1912, and what took place in 1914-15?

[Marxaveli]

There's no such thing as a "democratic" form of communism, communism abolishes democracy(indeed, there's no such thing as an "undemocratic" form of communism either). Democracy is not a principle, it's a mechanism of organization, a political system. In communism, there are no classes, there is no state, and since politics are an expression of class antagonisms, politics, and thus, by extension, democracy also, cannot exist. There would be no reason for it to exist.

I have to somewhat disagree with this: Democracy is not merely a mechanism that can exist in a political context, but it exists in a economic and social one as well. Yes, politics are formed from the creation of class antagonisms, and as such politics itself wouldn't exist in a Communist society. The core problem we currently face is that people, especially in the USA, do not have economic democracy, but nevertheless many are trapped under the false premise that they are "free" because they live in a so-called democratic society where all people (over age 18) can vote for the candidate of choice to represent their needs, all wrapped up in a pretty constitution that they think protects (which to some degree it does, but don't realize it is essentially meaningless since we live in a Capitalist system). In a Communist society, all citizens of the world have economic democracy, which is the fundamental type of democracy that most people people do not understand. They think they have self-determination just because we have so-called political democracy (and even that is questionable, in the wake of Citizens United and the general fact that both parties are for the ruling class), not realizing democracy begins with economic modes of production and organization before all else. In short, Communism, a classless/stateless society, is economic and social democracy (not the political ideology) in its purist form, is it not?

[Positivist]

A revolution? To enact a revolution you need to overthrown the government. In a democracy, this should be easy. You just have to vote it in. However, since the media has such control of people, and because people are generally sheep, the forces of control are stronger than they seem. An of course you need to have a good alternative too. That is where socialists fall down.

Constitutional democracy, especially the American rendition, is nearly impossible to make significant changes in if staying within legal bounds. Public ownership programs, or the implementation of planning institutions would be declared "unconstitutional" and even if they did get through the cracks there would most likely be popular upheaval amongst the bourgiose, and reactionary proletarians. Elections can have formal value though.

[Blake's Baby]

If, by 'democratic' you mean communist, rather than state-capitalist, then the pre-requisites are:

1 - the development of industry to the point where production for human need is possible;
2 - difficulty in the ruling class which weakens them;
3 - the desire by the working class to overthrow the system and replace it with a better one.

That's about the size of it I'd say.

At the moment, we have one, and a bit of two, and little of three. More of three and we could see the revolution. If there isn't a strong desire in the working class to overthrow the system, then there won't be a revolution.

[l'Enfermé]

I have to somewhat disagree with this: Democracy is not merely a mechanism that can exist in a political context, but it exists in a economic and social one as well. Yes, politics are formed from the creation of class antagonisms, and as such politics itself wouldn't exist in a Communist society. The core problem we currently face is that people, especially in the USA, do not have economic democracy, but nevertheless many are trapped under the false premise that they are "free" because they live in a so-called democratic society where all people (over age 18) can vote for the candidate of choice to represent their needs, all wrapped up in a pretty constitution that they think protects (which to some degree it does, but don't realize it is essentially meaningless since we live in a Capitalist system). In a Communist society, all citizens of the world have economic democracy, which is the fundamental type of democracy that most people people do not understand. They think they have self-determination just because we have so-called political democracy (and even that is questionable, in the wake of Citizens United and the general fact that both parties are for the ruling class), not realizing democracy begins with economic modes of production and organization before all else. In short, Communism, a classless/stateless society, is economic and social democracy (not the political ideology) in its purist form, is it not?
Communal ownership of the means of production is no way "economic democracy". What the fuck is economic democracy? Social-corporatism? Market socialism? Please.

Do you actually believe in the main principle of democracy, namely, that the majority is always right and the minority is always wrong?

[Manic Impressive]

A conscious majority in favour of socialism. Without this it is impossible.

[Tim Cornelis]

Communal ownership of the means of production is no way "economic democracy". What the fuck is economic democracy? Social-corporatism? Market socialism? Please.

Economic democracy is any arrangement in which decisions are taken democratically. Thus, workers' self-management, workplace democracy, and what have you. Social-corporatism is by no means 'economic democracy', and market socialism is one variant thereof.
Common ownership of the means of production, I think, necessarily implies some form of economic democracy. After all, common ownership means that the means of production are put at the disposal of the workers, and hence each worker has an equal say in how to run these affairs: economic democracy.


Do you actually believe in the main principle of democracy, namely, that the majority is always right and the minority is always wrong?

No one argues this.

[l'Enfermé]

A conscious majority in favour of socialism. Without this it is impossible.
The majority of workers in Russia were pro-Bolshevik during October, yet that means nothing to you and you still run around yelling ultra-left nonsense.


Economic democracy is any arrangement in which decisions are taken democratically. Thus, workers' self-management, workplace democracy, and what have you. Social-corporatism is by no means 'economic democracy', and market socialism is one variant thereof.
Common ownership of the means of production, I think, necessarily implies some form of economic democracy. After all, common ownership means that the means of production are put at the disposal of the workers, and hence each worker has an equal say in how to run these affairs: economic democracy.

Common ownership doesn't imply "economic democracy". How does each worker have an equal say? Let's say 51 percent of workers vote one way, and 49 the other way. This is still, by definition, economic democracy, but in the end, only 51 percent of workers have a say and 49 have no say. Again, this principle is stupid and wrong.

Communal ownership means that the means of production are the disposal of the community, not individual workers.

[l'Enfermé]

No one argues this.
So you don't actually believe in democracy, you're merely playing devil's advocate?

[Manic Impressive]

The majority of workers in Russia were pro-Bolshevik during October, yet that means nothing to you and you still run around yelling ultra-left nonsense.
No it means nothing. The labour party was supported by most workers when they took power in 1924. BUT this has nothing to do with socialism. It is a political revolution a superfluous changing of the guard.

I don't expect quasi-fascists like you to believe me so how about someone who was actually there.


In Russia the evolution of the ‘Soviet State’ has already created a new and complicated State machine, based on the ‘administration of persons’ as against the ‘administration of things’ based on the opposition of . . . The functionary (official) to the citizen. These antagonisms are in no way different from the antagonisms that characterise the capitalist state

For this and many other reasons cancerous politics like yours must be stamped out if the working class is ever to succeed. Because at the moment people like you suck the life out of the working class movement we call communism.

[Positivist]

Common ownership doesn't imply "economic democracy". How does each worker have an equal say? Let's say 51 percent of workers vote one way, and 49 the other way. This is still, by definition, economic democracy, but in the end, only 51 percent of workers have a say and 49 have no say. Again, this principle is stupid and wrong.

Communal ownership means that the means of production are the disposal of the community, not individual workers.

And how exactly do you suppose that the community determines how to employ the means of production? Democracy is a method of decision making were the course of action is determined by majority vote. This method certainly has flaws, but what alternative one do you propose?

[l'Enfermé]

The labor party wasn't a revolutionary Marxist mass-party. A political revolution, in the Marxist sense, is the overthrow of the old ruling class by a new class. Yet again, you betray your ignorance of Marxism! After February, the ruling class was the bourgeoisie. Did the bourgeoisie then, overthrow the bourgeoisie, and replace bourgeois supremacy with bourgeois supremacy in October? How interesting, I never thought about it like that...

I'm a quasi-fascist? The fact that an ultra-left thinks that only reinforces my views. Back that up, mate, otherwise you're acting like all the other children on RevLeft that think if they throw around words like "sexist! racist! reactionary! liberal! fascist!", that somehow automatically validates their argument. How am I a quasi-fascist, or even, a quasi-quasi-fascist.

Oh, no, a quote from a pro-Kadet, pro-SR, Menshevik! Let's get some anti-Bolshevik quotes from Churchill too, while we're at it. McCarthy could enlighten us even more! When you rely on digging out some quotes from petty-bourgeois intellectuals like Martov to back up your arguments, it's very hard to take you seriously as a socialist.

Marxism is cancerous politics? It must be stamped out if the working class is ever to succeed? Marxists like me suck the life out of the working class movement? Oh, no...

No. Your ultra-leftism is cancerous politics. You and the rest of the anti-party crowd must be stamped out if the working class is to succeed(and Marx would concur*), this has been long established. It's the anti-partyism that sucks the life out of the worker-class movement, it's the efforts of the likes of you to deprive the proletariat of it's party, effectively de-classing it, that have sucked the life out of the working-class movement, no, actually, it's the likes of you that prevent the working-class movement from appearing(after all, there has been no such movement since the defeat in Spain).

*It was Marx, afterwards, who declared that the only way for the working class to succeed against the collective forces of the ruling class is for the working class to constitute itself into a party -- "Considering, that against this collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes" - Marx in 1870 something.

[Tim Cornelis]

Common ownership doesn't imply "economic democracy". How does each worker have an equal say? Let's say 51 percent of workers vote one way, and 49 the other way. This is still, by definition, economic democracy, but in the end, only 51 percent of workers have a say and 49 have no say. Again, this principle is stupid and wrong.

"An equal say" means one person, one vote.


Communal ownership means that the means of production are the disposal of the community, not individual workers.

The community is not going to get involved in the decision-making of a single workplace. Or do you expect the 350,000 adults of Manchester to get involved in running each and every single workplace?

Moreover, "disposal of the community" and economic democracy are not mutually exclusive.


So you don't actually believe in democracy, you're merely playing devil's advocate?

No one is arguing that the majority is right by virtue of being the majority or whatever Bordigist nonsense you've picket up. The objective and inescapable reality is that social organisation requires a collective decision-making mechanism. And I assert that it is best to spread this necessary collective decision-making to the collective.

[l'Enfermé]

And how exactly do you suppose that the community determines how to employ the means of production? Democracy is a method of decision making were the course of action is determined by majority vote. This method certainly has flaws, but what alternative one do you propose?
There are several ways to employ the means of production? I thought there was only way, namely, employing them to produce! But produce for what, for profit? No, for the good of the entire human community.

[Tim Cornelis]

There are several ways to employ the means of production? I thought there was only way, namely, employing them to produce! But produce for what, for profit? No, for the good of the entire human community.

How to employ them =/= for what to employ them. In any case, you knew very well what he meant and omit the question. So again, what other decision-making mechanism than democracy do you propose?

[l'Enfermé]

How to employ them =/= for what to employ them. In any case, you knew very well what he meant and omit the question. So again, what other decision-making mechanism than democracy do you propose?
Why does there need to be a decision-making mechanism? Someone has to set tax rates, tariffs, decide foreign policy, etc, etc, in a classless, state-less, society? Perhaps in lower-phase communism, which only recently emerged out of capitalism's womb, but not under full communism.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

The Prerequisites for a communist society are quite clear:
To transition from the epoch of capitalism to communism, the international socialist republic needs to be established to organize this transition (similar to the Catholic church in late Rome...). There needs to be a completely socialised economy(1). This is the basic point that many comrades sadly miss, Marx seems to have assumed that capital would monopolise a lot faster than it has. The end goal of course is to get rid of capital/money, but to get to a stateless direct democratic bottom-up communist society all imperialist/capitalist states have to be defeated and the international socialist republic established(2). So assuming that the entire national economy has been turned into one organ, there practically needs to be a form of accounting, labor credits, until not only scarcity is abolished, but until the proportion of manual labor can easily be abolished and production can still fulfill all human needs. But my opinion is that revolutionary socialist advanced countries will not be able to enjoy this luxury of automation until all countries namely the underdeveloped ones, have first to be industrialised and second the current global economy "division of labor" localised. This latter part is becoming a practical reality today with the innovation of the 3D printer. So the advance of the productive forces towards automation for the as much as possible localisation of the global economy are another factor i see as necessary to go from capitalism to socialism to communism(3).

[Positivist]

Why does there need to be a decision-making mechanism? Someone has to set tax rates, tariffs, decide foreign policy, etc, etc, in a classless, state-less, society? Perhaps in lower-phase communism, which only recently emerged out of capitalism's womb, but not under full communism.

How is it determined what is produced, and how it is produced except through democracy is my question.

[l'Enfermé]

Ohhh, that's what you mean, I'm not a fortuneteller, but I thought it's self-explanatory that, given the fact that once the forces of production are no longer fettered and restrained by capitalism, their productiveness will explode through the roof. Once the profit motive is eliminated, once production-for-use is established, the entire process will be automatized and controlled by computers and robots.

I don't know of a reason why humans can't just sit on their asses and have robots do all the work, though sitting on one's ass all the time does sound horribly dull.

[Manic Impressive]

The labor party wasn't a revolutionary Marxist mass-party.
Neither were the Bolsheviks yet they both called themselves socialists they have more in common than you would like to admit. Shit even Lenin told British workers to join the fucking Labour party.


A political revolution, in the Marxist sense, is the overthrow of the old ruling class by a new class. Yet again, you betray your ignorance of Marxism!
Bullshit

Blanqui is essentially a political revolutionist. He is a socialist only through sentiment, through his sympathy with the sufferings of the people, but he has neither a socialist theory nor any definite practical suggestions for social remedies. In his political activity he was mainly a "man of action", believing that a small and well organized minority, who would attempt a political stroke of force at the opportune moment, could carry the mass of the people with them by a few successes at the start and thus make a victorious revolution. Of course, he could organize such a group under Louis Phillippe's reign only as a secret society. Then the thing, which generally happens in the case of conspiracies, naturally took place. His men, tired of beings held off all the time by the empty promises that the outbreak should soon begin, finally lost all patience, became rebellious, and only the alternative remained of either letting the conspiracy fall to pieces or of breaking loose without any apparent provocation. They made a revolution on May 12th, 1839, and were promptly squelched. By the way, this Blanquist conspiracy was the only one, in which the police could never get a foothold. The blow fell out of a clear sky.
From Blanqui's assumption, that any revolution may be made by the outbreak of a small revolutionary minority, follows of itself the necessity of a dictatorship after the success of the venture. This is, of course, a dictatorship, not of the entire revolutionary class, the proletariat, but of the small minority that has made the revolution, and who are themselves previously organized under the dictatorship of one or several individuals.



After February, the ruling class was the bourgeoisie. Did the bourgeoisie then, overthrow the bourgeoisie, and replace bourgeois supremacy with bourgeois supremacy in October? How interesting, I never thought about it like that...
You don't think much at all do you? The bourgeoisie being in power does not mean that a country is ready for revolution. The means of production must be developed first. Lenin knew this, Stalin knew this, Marx certainly knew this yet you seem not to. Unless you are implying that the 8 months that the bourgeoisie were in charge was sufficient for a primarily fuedal economy to transition to a capitalist one.


I'm a quasi-fascist? The fact that an ultra-left thinks that only reinforces my views. Back that up, mate, otherwise you're acting like all the other children on RevLeft that think if they throw around words like "sexist! racist! reactionary! liberal! fascist!", that somehow automatically validates their argument. How am I a quasi-fascist, or even, a quasi-quasi-fascist.
Yes your contempt for democracy is reminisant of Giovanni Gentile's

Fascism denies, in democracy, the absur[d] conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility
Oh, no, a quote from a pro-Kadet, pro-SR, Menshevik! Let's get some anti-Bolshevik quotes from Churchill too, while we're at it. McCarthy could enlighten us even more!
Evidence you don't like is instantly dismissed. Typical, this is why I won't debate with zealots such as yourself. You won't accept statements from the leader of the majority of the party who only lost control through a narrow vote.


Marxism is cancerous politics? It must be stamped out if the working class is ever to succeed? Marxists like me suck the life out of the working class movement? Oh, no...
You are not a Marxist. You are a utopian and an ideologue, both of which means you do not apply scientific analysis to your thought. But rather slavishly follow the failures of your idols. Leninism is cancerous. It strangled genuine working class movements in the crib because for some reason mutherfuckas will support anything with a red flag on it.


No. Your ultra-leftism is cancerous politics. You and the rest of the anti-party crowd must be stamped out if the working class is to succeed(and Marx would concur*), this has been long established. It's the anti-partyism that sucks the life out of the worker-class movement, it's the efforts of the likes of you to deprive the proletariat of it's party, effectively de-classing it, that have sucked the life out of the working-class movement, no, actually, it's the likes of you that prevent the working-class movement from appearing(after all, there has been no such movement since the defeat in Spain).
Well we've already seen the success of your type of parties over the last 100 years. Consistent utter failure. Not to mention the splits when you're not running capitalism for the bourgeoisie. The funny thing is I'm not anti-party at all :lol:. I'm anti your type of parties, capitalist parties, parties who do not represent the working class.

I think you need to go back to the manifesto


All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air.

[Marxaveli]

Why does there need to be a decision-making mechanism? Someone has to set tax rates, tariffs, decide foreign policy, etc, etc, in a classless, state-less, society? Perhaps in lower-phase communism, which only recently emerged out of capitalism's womb, but not under full communism.

Look, even in a Communist society, there are going to be disagreements and decisions to be made. You are painting Communism to be this perfect little utopia where everyone will just live in perfect harmony and there will be no problems, which only feeds reactionary trolls to invoke strawman arguments against us as being utopian. Communism, while certainly a superior and desirable system to what we currently have, will never be totally perfect. We might be able to get CLOSE one day, to a point where any existing problems are trivial, but make no mistake about it, it will never be flawless. And there's nothing wrong with that. It will be better than what we have now, a lot better, and that is reason enough to be a Communist. On the other hand, it won't be utopia either. I'm sure you know Marx rejected utopian philosophies.

Democracy, while not flawless, is the best system would have - and while I'm no Trotskyite, I agree with his statement that "Communism needs Democracy like humans need oxygen" or whatever it was he said. No, the majority is NOT always right - if that were the case, Capitalism would be a just system since most people think that is the best we can do, even though it certainly is not - it is nothing more than Bourgeois Democracy. I would imagine a constitution based on the interests of Socialism would be written to help with decision and law making in a Communist society. I don't know. In any case, you've yet to suggest a superior alternative to Democracy in Socialist society - and that is because there is no superior system - as non-perfect as it may be. But so long as all decisions are made in the interest of Socialism and prevent any reversion to reactionary elements, I think things would be stable. Why wouldn't they be? Socialism, much less full blown Communism, will never be able to function and sustain itself without Democracy.

Also, what do you mean by foreign policy? In Communist society there is no more borders or nation states.

[Baseball]

And how exactly do you suppose that the community determines how to employ the means of production? Democracy is a method of decision making were the course of action is determined by majority vote. This method certainly has flaws, but what alternative one do you propose?

Actually, the socialists would need to expand this. Because it is a fair question to ask themselves.
Look at this way: There has to be content in any sort of democratic decision; there has to be an ability to rationally argue why one course of action is superior to another course of action. There has to be some sort of general consensus- a point where more or less everyone more less agrees. Otherwise they can't have any sort of rational debate. So the socialists have to be able to lay exactly what is the content of the socialism and why specific proposals advances/supports that cause.

So the response of "we don't" or "it doesn't matter" which the socialists like to give to non-socalists in response to their queries what a socialist community has to considered a strike against socialism. Because how can there an"economic democracy" function if the socialists who are defending it have no real idea what to do, what actions best supports/defends/expands socialism?

[l'Enfermé]

Neither were the Bolsheviks yet they both called themselves socialists they have more in common than you would like to admit. Shit even Lenin told British workers to join the fucking Labour party.
Lenin's attitude towards the Labour Party, from 1920, which you try to distort is:
"Of course, most of the Labour Party’s members are workingmen. However, whether or not a party is really a political party of the workers does not depend solely upon a membership of workers but also upon the men that lead it, and the content of its actions and its political tactics. Only this latter determines whether we really have before us a political party of the proletariat. Regarded from this, the only correct, point of view, the Labour Party is a thoroughly bourgeois party, because, although made up of workers, it is led by reactionaries, and the worst kind of reactionaries at that, who act quite in the spirit of the bourgeoisie. It is an organisation of the bourgeoisie, which exists to systematically dupe the workers with the aid of the British Noskes and Scheidemanns. "

Neither were the Bolsheviks? They weren't what? Revolutionary? Really, have you heard of that event called the October Revolution, instigated by Bolshevik and Bolshevik-aligned workers? They weren't Marxist? Certainly you jest, just because you do not understand Marxism that doesn't mean the Bolsheviks weren't Marxists. They weren't a mass-party? Membership statistics indicate otherwise!

You're so full of shit I can smell it across the Atlantic Ocean.


Bullshit
What the fuck does Blanqui have to do with anything? You're even fuller of shit when you try to compare Blanqui to Lenin and the Bolsheviks to Blanquists, as if the Bolsheviks were some sort of minority and a small group of disciplined "conspirators". At the outbreak of revolution, there were, I believe, 250,000 Bolsheviks, which is hardly a small group of disciplined conspirators. 250,000 Blanquists, my god!



You don't think much at all do you? The bourgeoisie being in power does not mean that a country is ready for revolution. The means of production must be developed first. Lenin knew this, Stalin knew this, Marx certainly knew this yet you seem not to. Unless you are implying that the 8 months that the bourgeoisie were in charge was sufficient for a primarily fuedal economy to transition to a capitalist one.
There is no such as being "ready for revolution", bro. Where the fuck did you pull that from? Your ass? The Revolution happened in Moscow and Petrograd, cities more capitalistically advanced in 1917 than Paris was in 1871. Marx, and Marxism, don't judge the maturity for revolution based on which class is in power and how long it has been in power. In 1848, Marx and Engels expected a proletarian revolution to immediately follow the coming bourgeois revolution in Germany. In the 1890s, Plekhanov, one of Marx's most faithful disciples, expected that the revolution in Russia could not be anything but a socialist revolution. In the 1890s!

If the means of production are developed enough that a large, militant, and revolutionary proletariat exists, then how can you say that they are not developed enough for revolution?

If a proletarian revolution happened, as did in October/November of 1917 in Russia, then it's pretty fucking obvious that the country was ready for one. If it wasn't ready for one, no revolution could have possibly occurred. If it wasn't ready for one, the revolution would have been crushed in it's infancy, before it gained momentum.

Yes your contempt for democracy is reminisant of Giovanni Gentile's
I guess Plato was a "quasi-fascist" too! You're a fucking liar. You say, my contempt for democracy(I have no such contempt, this you invented also) is reminiscent of Giovani Gentile's, and then you quote him. Too bad for you that his critique of democracy is in no way similar to mine, at all. They have nothing in common.

You're a racist. Your contempt for Jews is remiscient of Adolf Hitler's.

True story.



Evidence you don't like is instantly dismissed. Typical, this is why I won't debate with zealots such as yourself. You won't accept statements from the leader of the majority of the party who only lost control through a narrow vote.

Martov wasn't a leader of the majority of the party. He was a leader of a minority of a minority of the RSDLP(the anti-war Mensheviks were a minority of the Mensheviks, who themselves were a minority within the bigger party).

When you have to run to fucking Mensheviks, yes, fucking Mensheviks, to back up your argument, don't be surprised when people think you're a joke.



You are not a Marxist. You are a utopian and an ideologue, both of which means you do not apply scientific analysis to your thought. But rather slavishly follow the failures of your idols. Leninism is cancerous. It strangled genuine working class movements in the crib because for some reason mutherfuckas will support anything with a red flag on it.

You haven't explained how I'm a utopian, and how I'm an ideologue. Probably because I'm neither, but making shit up seems to be your thing, s you might try to.



Well we've already seen the success of your type of parties over the last 100 years. Consistent utter failure. Not to mention the splits when you're not running capitalism for the bourgeoisie. The funny thing is I'm not anti-party at all . I'm anti your type of parties, capitalist parties, parties who do not represent the working class.
Yeah we've seen the success of your type of non-party over the last 100 years too and your track record is as bad, so nice argument dipshit.


I think you need to go back to the manifesto
Yeah what the fuck does that mean? That passage from chapter 1 of the Manifesto has shit to do with what we're talking about. I don't you about you but I almost know it by heart in 3 different languages so please keep your advice to yourself. I've actually wrote a message to you on my English copy
http://i.imgur.com/mQLnr.jpg

[l'Enfermé]

Look, even in a Communist society, there are going to be disagreements and decisions to be made. You are painting Communism to be this perfect little utopia where everyone will just live in perfect harmony and there will be no problems, which only feeds reactionary trolls to invoke strawman arguments against us as being utopian. Communism, while certainly a superior and desirable system to what we currently have, will never be totally perfect. We might be able to get CLOSE one day, to a point where any existing problems are trivial, but make no mistake about it, it will never be flawless. And there's nothing wrong with that. It will be better than what we have now, a lot better, and that is reason enough to be a Communist. On the other hand, it won't be utopia either. I'm sure you know Marx rejected utopian philosophies.

Democracy, while not flawless, is the best system would have - and while I'm no Trotskyite, I agree with his statement that "Communism needs Democracy like humans need oxygen" or whatever it was he said. No, the majority is NOT always right - if that were the case, Capitalism would be a just system since most people think that is the best we can do, even though it certainly is not - it is nothing more than Bourgeois Democracy. I would imagine a constitution based on the interests of Socialism would be written to help with decision and law making in a Communist society. I don't know. In any case, you've yet to suggest a superior alternative to Democracy in Socialist society - and that is because there is no superior system - as non-perfect as it may be. But so long as all decisions are made in the interest of Socialism and prevent any reversion to reactionary elements, I think things would be stable. Why wouldn't they be? Socialism, much less full blown Communism, will never be able to function and sustain itself without Democracy.

Also, what do you mean by foreign policy? In Communist society there is no more borders or nation states.
A constitution? Based on the interests of Socialism? Under a communist mode of production? Are you serious? What happened to all that "communism is a stateless society" stuff?

We don't need democracy in communism. We don't need to propose alternatives for it. Simply because democracy can't possible exist in a communist society for there is no state and there are no classes. Politics exist only in societies divided by classes. The question of democracy in communism can't even be raised, it's impossible.

[Tim Cornelis]

We don't need democracy in communism. We don't need to propose alternatives for it. Simply because democracy can't possible exist in a communist society for there is no state and there are no classes. Politics exist only in societies divided by classes. The question of democracy in communism can't even be raised, it's impossible.

This just sounds like a fallacy wrapped into another fallacy.

It makes absolutely no sense as democracy does not imply classes, nor a state for that matter. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that FaSinPat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FaSinPat) or a democratically run household is a state. Collective decision-making is an absolute, axiomatic necessity in any social order, social structure, social institution, or social organisation--it is an undeniable and objective truth.

What you propose, then, is the non-use of collective decision-making and consequently the disintegration of social organisation--an impossibility, unless we wish to send every person on earth to an isolated island by himself. Given the necessity of collective decision-making we do indeed need "to propose alternatives for it."

What we do, unlike you, is first acknowledge the undeniable necessity of collective decision-making in social organisation, and second propose that mechanism of decision-making that enables all adults to participate in the decision-making process. In fact, we do not so much 'propose' it as recognise from the historical praxis of the working class that it is the outcome of their attempts to emancipate themselves, as we can see from several such experiments with participatory, delegative democracy and workers' self-mangement/ While certainly not perfect, it is a necessity, and the best alternative available.

What you suggest (i.e. the absence of collective decision-making--that is to say, the absence of politics) is simply an impossibility. So again, if not democracy, what form of collective decision-making mechanism do you suggest in its place?

[Marxaveli]

A constitution? Based on the interests of Socialism? Under a communist mode of production? Are you serious? What happened to all that "communism is a stateless society" stuff?

We don't need democracy in communism. We don't need to propose alternatives for it. Simply because democracy can't possible exist in a communist society for there is no state and there are no classes. Politics exist only in societies divided by classes. The question of democracy in communism can't even be raised, it's impossible.

You are living in a utopian fantasy world.

A constitution, or some form of general rules that give traction to civil society are required or else things will fall apart very quickly. This holds true EVEN in a classless/stateless society, otherwise it would be prone to reactionary elements that could revert back to Capitalism or worse. You seem to think Communism will be this perfect world where there will be no need for decision making or any rules to be laid down so that society can function....You need Democracy to even GET to Communism, let alone for Communism to function. Again, Democracy does not exist only in a political context, it exists in a economic and social one as well. Even Marx said "Democracy is the road to Socialism".

You are wrong. Plain and simple.

[Tim Cornelis]

You are living in a utopian fantasy world.

A constitution, or some form of general rules that give traction to civil society are required or else things will fall apart very quickly. This holds true EVEN in a classless/stateless society, otherwise it would be prone to reactionary elements that could revert back to Capitalism or worse..

There wouldn't be a need for a constitution because people wouldn't want capitalism anymore. The majority abolishes capitalism, and as we enter a post-capitalist world with better work and living conditions this majority grows and only the rich would want to revert back to it. The next generation will support communism almost unanimously, I'm confident. Communism will be ingrained into the political or social culture, and become custom.

A constitution that forces people to abide by socialism is much like a paper-berlin-wall anyway. If socialism cannot by its own virtues persuade people that it's better, then socialism is not worthy of existing at all.

[l'Enfermé]

This just sounds like a fallacy wrapped into another fallacy.

It makes absolutely no sense as democracy does not imply classes, nor a state for that matter. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that FaSinPat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FaSinPat) or a democratically run household is a state. Collective decision-making is an absolute, axiomatic necessity in any social order, social structure, social institution, or social organisation--it is an undeniable and objective truth.

What you propose, then, is the non-use of collective decision-making and consequently the disintegration of social organisation--an impossibility, unless we wish to send every person on earth to an isolated island by himself. Given the necessity of collective decision-making we do indeed need "to propose alternatives for it."

What we do, unlike you, is first acknowledge the undeniable necessity of collective decision-making in social organisation, and second propose that mechanism of decision-making that enables all adults to participate in the decision-making process. In fact, we do not so much 'propose' it as recognise from the historical praxis of the working class that it is the outcome of their attempts to emancipate themselves, as we can see from several such experiments with participatory, delegative democracy and workers' self-mangement/ While certainly not perfect, it is a necessity, and the best alternative available.

What you suggest (i.e. the absence of collective decision-making--that is to say, the absence of politics) is simply an impossibility. So again, if not democracy, what form of collective decision-making mechanism do you suggest in its place?
Again with you hopeless utopianism. What collective decision-making mechanism? What sort of decisions?



You are living in a utopian fantasy world.

A constitution, or some form of general rules that give traction to civil society are required or else things will fall apart very quickly. This holds true EVEN in a classless/stateless society, otherwise it would be prone to reactionary elements that could revert back to Capitalism or worse. You seem to think Communism will be this perfect world where there will be no need for decision making or any rules to be laid down so that society can function....You need Democracy to even GET to Communism, let alone for Communism to function. Again, Democracy does not exist only in a political context, it exists in a economic and social one as well. Even Marx said "Democracy is the road to Socialism".

You are wrong. Plain and simple.
Democracy is the road to socialism, it's not socialism. You seem to miss that detail. What the fuck are you gonna do with your stupid fucking constitution if you have no state to enforce it?


There wouldn't be a need for a constitution because people wouldn't want capitalism anymore. The majority abolishes capitalism, and as we enter a post-capitalist world with better work and living conditions this majority grows and only the rich would want to revert back to it. The next generation will support communism almost unanimously, I'm confident. Communism will be ingrained into the political or social culture, and become custom.

A constitution that forces people to abide by socialism is much like a paper-berlin-wall anyway. If socialism cannot by its own virtues persuade people that it's better, then socialism is not worthy of existing at all.
There wouldn't be need for a constitution because a constitution is a set of rules by which a state functions. There's no state in communism. Thus a constitution can't exist.

[Tim Cornelis]

Again with you hopeless utopianism. What collective decision-making mechanism? What sort of decisions?

If working from the assumption that axioms are true is utopianism then I'm indeed a utopian because it is apparently realistic to be utopian. A discussion requires arguments. I see you are not going to use any arguments, so I'm going to stop engaging in this 'discussion' with you.


There wouldn't be need for a constitution because a constitution is a set of rules by which a state functions. There's no state in communism. Thus a constitution can't exist.

Yet another fallacy. The inability of a constitution to exist under communism does not disprove the need thereof.

[The Burgundy Rose]

Thanks for all your replies. :)

The Prerequisites for a communist society are quite clear:
To transition from the epoch of capitalism to communism, the international socialist republic needs to be established to organize this transition (similar to the Catholic church in late Rome...). There needs to be a completely socialised economy(1). This is the basic point that many comrades sadly miss, Marx seems to have assumed that capital would monopolise a lot faster than it has. The end goal of course is to get rid of capital/money, but to get to a stateless direct democratic bottom-up communist society all imperialist/capitalist states have to be defeated and the international socialist republic established(2). So assuming that the entire national economy has been turned into one organ, there practically needs to be a form of accounting, labor credits, until not only scarcity is abolished, but until the proportion of manual labor can easily be abolished and production can still fulfill all human needs. But my opinion is that revolutionary socialist advanced countries will not be able to enjoy this luxury of automation until all countries namely the underdeveloped ones, have first to be industrialised and second the current global economy "division of labor" localised. This latter part is becoming a practical reality today with the innovation of the 3D printer. So the advance of the productive forces towards automation for the as much as possible localisation of the global economy are another factor i see as necessary to go from capitalism to socialism to communism(3).

i have to wonder as to whether we can fully achieve full blown communism from a peaceful transitory process. the way i see things progressing at the moment the uk and usa are heading towards becoming modern plutocracies. in any case i would have thought that a transition towards communism would eventually level off as people became satisfied with some advanced form of socialism.

after thinking about i think it is clear that a failure of capitalism will not bring about communism but conversely fascism. what will, i now think, bring about communism is the protracted existence of a modern plutocracy in which inequality becomes pervasive and ever more obvious without any increase in the standard of living for the proletariat. in fact the standard of living is likely to decrease because of inflation and corruption, which will implement a de facto neo-serfdom. this is in a way happening already in the uk, or at least the very beginnings of it; academies that have recently been established can be funded by local business' resulting in some studies being more specialised in others. for example if an academy were funded by a newspaper then 'english lit and grammar' would be specialised, meaning people are being prepared to work for the parent company. this is part of the system which is beginning to establish itself and i think we will see social mobility decrease more and more and people being rooted in certain areas having to work for a company that dominates their local area. in this scenario people of all cultures and backgrounds would unite against the oppressive forces and this is made inevitable by the very nature of plutocracies themselves, since private companies seek only to make profit, the police (under private ownership) would face as many cutbacks as possible to get away with. what we may then see, in my opinion, is a form of socialistic anarcho-syndicalism or luxembourgism where the prevailing business model will be the cooperative and the companies controlling basic resource supply and production will be state owned and subsidised.

thoughts? ;)

[rti]

How is it determined what is produced, and how it is produced except through democracy is my question.

How about mix of democracy and scientific method.

We ( democracy ) decide what we want and science tells us how to achieve it with maximum efficiency and minimum negative retractions.

[Lowtech]

so what are the prerequisites of real communism; of a democratic form of communism?

to simplify the answer to your question, lets look at how capitalism maintains its foothold: with the advent of modern society, leading all the way back to the early days of ancient roman culture, people are assimilated into conditioned dependence on a market economy. this market economy is controlled by the elites through ownership of the means of production. value is collected by the elites in this market economy via the profit mechanism.

the profit mechanism is the selling of commodities above the cost of production and devaluing of labor.

to change this, you need to

1. free people from dependence on a market economy by re-teaching permaculture (this being a science lost amongst the majority of humans but still practiced by indigenous peoples of the earth)

2. expose the elites as an exploitative entity, showing it is mathematically observable that the rich consume more than they produce; reducing the scarcity they experience by artificially increasing scarcity for everyone else; showing that our arrangement with the rich is a parasitic one.

3. teaching altruism.

4. abolishing the use of money and a market as the primary means of resource exchange.

[Jason]

As Marx stated, advanced capitalism must exist for a true "communist revolution". Other communist revolutions have only produced "state monopoly capitalism"; these were extremely positive gains, but not the real thing.

[Blake's Baby]

'Advanced' capitalism existed in the early 20th century. The first world war was a sign that capitalism had divided up the world, completed the world market in outline at least, and fulfilled its historic task of developing the means of production, to the point that socialism was a possibility. All the revolutionaries of the early 20th century were agreed on that point, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, Pannekoek, Gorter, Bordiga, Bukharin - even the SPGB. The Russian, German, Hungarian revolutionas and the other massive upheavals between 1917-1927 proved that the working class was ready to pose the question of a socialist world (the SPGB wouldn't agree with that, mind).

And some of us would dispute that state monopoly capitalism was any kind of gain for the working class.

[Jason]

And some of us would dispute that state monopoly capitalism was any kind of gain for the working class.


You had free education, healthcare, and employment. Compare those things with what Cubans and Russians had before their revolutions.

Sure capitalism is the transition between feudalism and communism. However, the "state monopoly capitalism" is a lot kinder to the worker than general capitalism. For instance, the majority of East Germans (as in Eastern Germany, not the long gone nation) prefer Communism to their current system of government.

[Blake's Baby]

And? The majority of workers in America prefer capitalism to the discussion of any alternative. A lot of East German workers are racist shitbags. A lot of Polish people are Catholics. What does taking a straw poll of the poulation tell you?

The life expectancy, general health and literacy levels, standards of living and provision of housing of western workers now is better than a century ago. Do you sing the praises of capitalism for that? No.

I remember before German unification, and before 'liberalisation' in Poland, a lot of workers were saying things like 'we want political freedom but we don't want unemployment and youth crime'. The Eastern Bloc was no better than the Western Bloc. Different flavours of shit, but shit nevertheless.

[Jason]

And? The majority of workers in America prefer capitalism to the discussion of any alternative. A lot of East German workers are racist shitbags. A lot of Polish people are Catholics. What does taking a straw poll of the poulation tell you?

East Germans are only human. I think the left has a tendency to demonize ordinary people. They should be trying to win them over to thier side, rather than demonizing them as "rednecks".



I remember before German unification, and before 'liberalisation' in Poland, a lot of workers were saying things like 'we want political freedom but we don't want unemployment and youth crime'. The Eastern Bloc was no better than the Western Bloc. Different flavours of shit, but shit nevertheless.


The eastern bloc nations were better off under Communism than now. They've simply fell back into the third world. Think about it. Latin America and Africa are free of Communism. However, eastern bloc nations before 1990 were much better than those areas. So was the old eastern bloc that bad?

[Blake's Baby]

And therefore your stance is 'the Eastern Bloc was good because it is better than what was before or after, but not as good as what was happening elsewhere at the same time'. So you do sing the praises of western capitalism.

And you think that it's 'dangerous' to give Poles and East Germans political freedom. Seems it's you, not me, demonising workers from the Eastern Bloc as rednecks.

And you believe in 'communist nations' which rather illustrates that you have little understanding of Marxism.

[Jason]

And therefore your stance is 'the Eastern Bloc was good because it is better than what was before or after, but not as good as what was happening elsewhere at the same time'. So you do sing the praises of western capitalism.

No, the western nations were better than the east bloc, because they were favored. The USA, Japan and Western Europe were put in positions of power after World War II. The favored status doesn't extend to the third world. Therefore, the third world masses, in general, will never obtain "The American Dream" in their own lands.

At least the 2nd world (Communist Nations) had it better than the third world, considering they would never be the 1st world.




And you believe in 'communist nations' which rather illustrates that you have little understanding of Marxism.



A real communist revolution comes in advanced capitalist nations as Marx claimed.


And you think that it's 'dangerous' to give Poles and East Germans political freedom. Seems it's you, not me, demonising workers from the Eastern Bloc as rednecks.


Even if newspapers were allowed to print opposing views, they have to compete with communist newspapers and other forms of indoctrination: For instance, children being indoctrinated in communist public schools.

However, it's true the opposing views could win people over, despite the hurdles. Nonetheless, such views would undermine the system itself. Soon the nation would be overthrown and put back in the third world.

[Blake's Baby]

Your understanding of the 'first, second and third worlds' is a little off. The concept was coined in the 1950s - to describe something that had already happened. By that point, the world had already been divided into competing imperialist blocs. That they could never be 'first world' means nothing more than they could never be part of the American bloc. The economic disparities had nothing to do with it - Turkey and South Africa were part of the 'first world' because of their military ties to America. Both had lower standards of living than say East Germany or Czekoslovakia.

I can't see how you could possibly say that the USA, Japan and Western Europe were 'put in positions of power' but the USSR wasn't. Certainly, the USSR suffered heavily from the destruction of WWII, while the USA didn't - but then Germany, France, Japan and to a lesser extent Britain all suffered destruction from the war, so that can't be it. In Britain's case, far from coming out of the war 'in a position of power' it was crippled - forced to divest itself in barely 20 years of the largest empire the world had ever seen.

The question of nations being 'favoured' must provoke the question, favoured by whom? God? Providence? History? The USA?

The notion that countries would be 'overthrown and put back into the third world' is ridiculous. There was no 'third world' that they had 'been brought out of'. Had they exited the 'second world' any country like Poland or East Germany would have been immediately incorporated into the Western bloc - in other words, the first world. That was rather the point of American foreign policy.

[Jason]

Your understanding of the 'first, second and third worlds' is a little off. The concept was coined in the 1950s - to describe something that had already happened. By that point, the world had already been divided into competing imperialist blocs. That they could never be 'first world' means nothing more than they could never be part of the American bloc. The economic disparities had nothing to do with it - Turkey and South Africa were part of the 'first world' because of their military ties to America. Both had lower standards of living than say East Germany or Czekoslovakia.

I can't see how you could possibly say that the USA, Japan and Western Europe were 'put in positions of power' but the USSR wasn't. Certainly, the USSR suffered heavily from the destruction of WWII, while the USA didn't - but then Germany, France, Japan and to a lesser extent Britain all suffered destruction from the war, so that can't be it. In Britain's case, far from coming out of the war 'in a position of power' it was crippled - forced to divest itself in barely 20 years of the largest empire the world had ever seen.

The question of nations being 'favoured' must provoke the question, favoured by whom? God? Providence? History? The USA?

The notion that countries would be 'overthrown and put back into the third world' is ridiculous. There was no 'third world' that they had 'been brought out of'. Had they exited the 'second world' any country like Poland or East Germany would have been immediately incorporated into the Western bloc - in other words, the first world. That was rather the point of American foreign policy.




The west did not oppose the USSR because of totaltarianism. For instance, it's well known the west backed tyrants that supported the western agenda. Therefore, it hated the communist nations from the "get go" because they could not exploit them. The west's goal was to exploit them before Soviet Union and, mark my word, that was their intention after the Cold War ended.

The US gained it's leverage from military power, not some divine providence as religous fundies might think. Even the Soviet Union was somewhat weaker than the US, though it could fight a nuclear war on an equal footing. Western Europe and Japan got their power from America, because they had superior fighting power. Think about it. After World War II, what armies did Japan and Europe possess? The two places were totally in ruins after the war, and they were never rebuilt thier forces to pre-World War II strength. In fact, Japan only had a "self defense force".

So the advanced economies of Japan and Western Europe were a "gift" from the US, a gift protected by US firepower.

Regarding eastern Europe again, the US spoke on and on about "freedom" for the eastern bloc. However, as I said before, the US doesn't fight wars against totaltarian states, it fights against nations opposed to it's trading empire.

[Blake's Baby]

I'm sorry, but your arguments don't make sense.


The west did not oppose the USSR because of totaltarianism. For instance, it's well known the west backed tyrants that supported the western agenda. Therefore, it hated the communist nations from the "get go" because they could not exploit them. The west's goal was to exploit them before Soviet Union and, mark my word, that was their intention after the Cold War ended...

1 - who said anything about 'totalitarianism'? I'm well aware of the US's support for the most vile oppressive regimes;
2 - there was no American Bloc before the Soviet Union existed;
3 - of course capitalist nations seek to exploit each other - my point was that the nations of 'the second world' did not rise from and fall back into the 'third world', the Soviet Bloc pre-existed 'first/second/third world' notions.


...The US gained it's leverage from military power, not some divine providence as religous fundies might think. Even the Soviet Union was somewhat weaker than the US, though it could fight a nuclear war on an equal footing...

Well, yeah, America and Russia were both superpowers from the 1950s onwards. I'll agree there.


... Western Europe and Japan got their power from America, because they had superior fighting power. Think about it. After World War II, what armies did Japan and Europe possess? The two places were totally in ruins after the war, and they were never rebuilt thier forces to pre-World War II strength. In fact, Japan only had a "self defense force"...

So America... what? Helped them arm and somehow this made them all rich? Why didn't the same thing work for Russia though? You don't expalin why American firepower means western workers live 15 years longer than eastern workers, why in the 1980s the workers in the Soviet Union had the same standard of living as workers in western Europe in the 1950s, etc.


So the advanced economies of Japan and Western Europe were a "gift" from the US, a gift protected by US firepower...

So, it's possible for Americans (but only Americans) to magically pull money out of guns?

America can't create the 2nd (Japan) and 3rd (Germany) and 4th (UK) biggest economies in the world between 1950 and 1991, out of it's own resources, as a series of 'gifts'. That's a ridiculous thing to say. Really; there's no expression that I can use here that adequately conveys how much I think that your conception is removed from reality. No; America didn't create the 2nd, 3rd and 4th largest economies in the world as 'a gift'.


...Regarding eastern Europe again, the US spoke on and on about "freedom" for the eastern bloc. However, as I said before, the US doesn't fight wars against totaltarian states, it fights against nations opposed to it's trading empire.

I don't disagree at all. That's why I insist that had Poland or East Germany freed itself from the Soviet Bloc it would have bee given immediate status as a favoured trading nation and military ally of the western powers - it would have moved from 'second world' to 'first world' - not 'back' to the third world because the states of Eastern and Central Europe were never part of the third world. Except Yugoslavia, apparently, as part of the Non-aligned Movement.

[Jason]

I don't disagree at all. That's why I insist that had Poland or East Germany freed itself from the Soviet Bloc it would have bee given immediate status as a favoured trading nation and military ally of the western powers - it would have moved from 'second world' to 'first world' - not 'back' to the third world because the states of Eastern and Central Europe were never part of the third world. Except Yugoslavia, apparently, as part of the Non-aligned Movement.

You insist, but that's not what actually happened. Sure they could have been given full equality, but for some reason (I don't know why), the major economic powers were not interested in full economic equality in Europe.

Even East Germany, which technically gained full equality with 1st world economic power West Germany, lagged on in a poor state after re-unification. If you poll East Germans now, as I stated before, a majority preferred the Stalinist system with all it's faults.

When I speak of the 3rd world, I'm referring to the "3rd world" of the early 1900s. Much of Europe outside of nations like Germany and England (as it still is now) were backward. In fact, as you know, Marx never predicted the Communist Revolution to start in Russia. Even Lenin was counting on a revot in Germany (which never happened) to produce the "real revolution".




So, it's possible for Americans (but only Americans) to magically pull money out of guns?

America can't create the 2nd (Japan) and 3rd (Germany) and 4th (UK) biggest economies in the world between 1950 and 1991, out of it's own resources, as a series of 'gifts'. That's a ridiculous thing to say. Really; there's no expression that I can use here that adequately conveys how much I think that your conception is removed from reality. No; America didn't create the 2nd, 3rd and 4th largest economies in the world as 'a gift'.



I probably took this idea too far. Sure, Western Europe and Japan built their capitalist economies via "hard work". However, they were protected by the US from outside forces like the Soviet Union or 3rd world revolutionaries who would have threatened markets (markets for Japanese or Western European products).

You also got to remember that in "favored nations" hard work pays off more than in the third world or the Soviet bloc.



So America... what? Helped them arm and somehow this made them all rich? Why didn't the same thing work for Russia though? You don't expalin why American firepower means western workers live 15 years longer than eastern workers, why in the 1980s the workers in the Soviet Union had the same standard of living as workers in western Europe in the 1950s, etc.



But the Soviets had a way better standard of living then under the Tsars. They had a better standard of living than much of the 3rd world at the time (say the poor masses or Brazil or Haiti). The Western workers only have an extremely high living standard because they live in a favored trading nation.

[Blake's Baby]

You insist, but that's not what actually happened. Sure they could have been given full equality, but for some reason (I don't know why), the major economic powers were not interested in full economic equality in Europe...

What the fuck are you talking about? Neither Poland nor East Germany left the Eastern Bloc. So I don't know where you get the idea that they left but weren't integrated.


Even East Germany, which technically gained full equality with 1st world economic power West Germany, lagged on in a poor state after re-unification. If you poll East Germans now, as I stated before, a majority preferred the Stalinist system with all it's faults...

First world/second world/third world is not a measure of economic success. It's a measure of geopolitics 1950-1990. Turkey and South Africa were 'first world' in that period because they were allied withh the US. East Germany and Czechoslovakia were 'second world' because they were allied with the USSR, even though they were richer than South Africa and Turkey; Yugoslavia was meanwhile 'third world' because it was part of the non-aligned movement.


When I speak of the 3rd world, I'm referring to the "3rd world" of the early 1900s. Much of Europe outside of nations like Germany and England (as it still is now) were backward. In fact, as you know, Marx never predicted the Communist Revolution to start in Russia. Even Lenin was counting on a revot in Germany (which never happened) to produce the "real revolution"...

The 'third world' didn't exist until the 1950s, and it has nothing to do with economics. So... when I speak of the 'communist movement' I'm referring to the vikings. Does that make things any clearer? Thought not.

Of course Lenin was counting on a revolt in Gerrmany. Every Marxist was. Germany, Briatin and America were the main centres of capitalism in the early 20th century. What does that have to do with anything other than the failure of the world revolution?




I probably took this idea too far. Sure, Western Europe and Japan built their capitalist economies via "hard work". However, they were protected by the US from outside forces like the Soviet Union or 3rd world revolutionaries who would have threatened markets (markets for Japanese or Western European products).

You also got to remember that in "favored nations" hard work pays off more than in the third world or the Soviet bloc...

Man, you love capitalism. Hymns to hard work already.




But the Soviets had a way better standard of living then under the Tsars...

So what? Brits in the 1980s had a way better standard of living than under Queen Victoria. What about it? In 100 years, lots of people's living standards improved. It's almost like world capitalism didn't just stand still in the 20th century. 'Look at Russia's successes!' - yeah, they're similar to lots of other countries' successes. Your point?


... They had a better standard of living than much of the 3rd world at the time (say the poor masses or Brazil or Haiti)...

They also had a better standard of living in the 1890s than those places in the 1890s. Russia was the 5th biggest economy in the world in 1913 - it was a major capitalist power. The fact that it didn't lose its position over the period until 1991 is... not so relevent.


The Western workers only have an extremely high living standard because they live in a favored trading nation.

Once more and again, favoured by whom?

If the high living standards of western workers (British, German, American, Japanese) workers come as a result of being 'favoured' then there must be some entity doing the favouring. Where does this entity get the money to do this 'favouring'? Why, by deriving it from the exploitation of those same 'favoured' western workers. Is it the American economy that is able to magically generate this wealth to 'favour' other economies? If so, why can't the Russian economy do the same to 'favour' Poland and Bulgaria and Mongolia? Is it something other than the American economy that causes this process? If so, why can't this be replicated in the Eastern Bloc too? Can't you see that your explanation of 'favoured' economies is a deus ex machina that actually explains nothing?