High School Commie's Guide

[daft punk]

I then got the argument that people want more things. As a status of wealth. Even back in the paleolithic age, if a man got the biggest moose, he's the alpha male. He gets all the women, he is raised as the leader. How would communism remove that desire for more things, bigger things, better than your neighbor?

This guy I'm talking to is really fucking with me. Hahahaha

This is why you need an advanced economy to have socialism, so you can provide everything everyone needs, and most stuff they want. You would gradually change what is available and even the way people think like that would change. People want new cars and stuff because of adverts, and because capitalism encourages all that kinda thinking. In socialism people would think different, just like people in a hunter-gatherer tribe thing different from people in cities.

Actually society was relatively egalitarian in the paleolithic, there were no classes anyway.

If you want status in socialism you train to do an important job that benefits society. You wont get much extra money but you would get prestige.

It's a gradual process remember, it wouldnt happen overnight.

[Q]

I then got the argument that people want more things. As a status of wealth. Even back in the paleolithic age, if a man got the biggest moose, he's the alpha male. He gets all the women, he is raised as the leader. How would communism remove that desire for more things, bigger things, better than your neighbor?

This guy I'm talking to is really fucking with me. Hahahaha

Your friend is rather uneducated on the subject of how humanity lived for 90% of its existence. We, homo sapiens are a revolutionary species that have lived in a communist society for all of our existence before the dawn of class society, about 10 000 years ago. In fact, the revolutionary act of overthrowing the alpha-male system and the explicit anti-hierarchical society that followed it, gave rise to culture and language that makes us distinctly human. It also explains why humans resent authority and why uprisings and revolutions, throughout the history of class society, are also something uniquely human.

I'll refer to the following two articles to get abasic overview of what this was all about:
- Origins of religion and the human revolution (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/798/originsofreligion.php)
- When all the crap began: Part 1 (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004288) and Part 2 (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004297)

You should also check out the Radical Anthropology Group (http://radicalanthropologygroup.org/new/RAG.html).

[daft punk]

Some of the first class societies were overthrown and replaced by deliberate egalitarian ones which survived for thousands of years, google "Cayonu and Catalhoyuk".

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Simpler answers to the original questions.

-Anyone can get rich if they work hard enough!
Yeah, but not everyone works hard to get rich. That explains how you are rich, you lazy ass.

-Do you think it's fair for a doctor to be paid the same as a janitor?
When in the socialist world did a janitor ever get paid more than a doctor?! Some of the best doctors in the world are from Cuba, like Che Guevara's daughter. I think you are talking about communism as a mode of production. Read a book, idiot.
-We should have the freedom to get as rich as we want to.
Yeah, and in your system, everybody is free to get as poor as they want.

-Communism is dead!
I did not get the memo about Cuba leaving the planet.

-If communism and socialism is so great, then why are all socialist countries living
in dire poverty?
If capitalism is so great, then why do capitalist countries have poorer distribution of wealth records than socialist nations?

It's funny because I just had a conversation like this with my rich friend. The friends communists have to make in an ignorant, capitalist world!

[daft punk]

Since when was Cuba communist? I didn't notice the state withering away there. I did notice luxury hotels and swimming pools side by side with poverty.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Since when was Cuba communist? I didn't notice the state withering away there. I did notice luxury hotels and swimming pools side by side with poverty.

Pardon me, but I am a Marxist-Leninist. I actually believe in the Marxist concept that socialism comes before communism. That is all that Marx, Lenin, and even Trotsky (ew) wrote about. First comes prehistoric (or primative) communism, then slave society, then feudalism, then merchant-capitalism, then industrial capitalism, then proletariat revolution, then the dictatorship of the proletariat, then higher socialism, then the withering away of the state, then the communism that you are talking about. Cuba is still early in the stage of the dictatorship of the proletariat, due to the lack of global and financial security. Ever heard about historical materialism? And, by the way, the poverty in Cuba is not substantial if you compare it to the living standards of the poor in other Latin American nations. I have been to El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, and Cuba. In El Salvador and the Dominican Republic, my family could not afford to go to a hotel, so we lived with some poor family members. We did the same thing in Cuba last year, and in Cuba, everyone was a lot better off and a lot more equal. This I can assure you 100%

[daft punk]

Cuba.

Ok, first off, Castro wasnt even a Marxist, he first claimed to be one two years after the revolution. He wanted Cuba to be like America.

He didnt act like a Marxist, he didnt talk like one. Because he wasnt.

However he was forced to turn to the USSR because of America's actions. He also fell out with the right wing of his party. He implemented a lot of nationalisation, well a lot of the industry was owned by Americans and they did want to get away from foreign domination.

Cuba is a deformed workers state, ruled by a bureaucratic elite. It is not democratic and not equal, and is rapidly going capitalist.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Oh, and I forgot to tell you, I am also not a Trotskyist. To me, what you call deformed worker's states are just regular socialist, dictatorship of the proletariat states that could not be as utopian as Trotsky wanted them to be. Socialist states fall on hard times. Do I agree with recent capitalist reforms being done in Cuba. I think that is the one thing that I can agree with you on: I hate them too. Everything else is pretty fine to me considering Cuba is a small island of socialism in a giant global ocean of capitalism. It needs to do what it needs to do to survive. No socialist state is ever going to be absolutely equal or completely democratic (bourgeois parlimentary democracy was never even the goal). Yet, the Republic of Cuba has one of the best female healthcares in the world and the most laws protecting minorities in almost all of Latin America. And the thing you call a bureaucratic elite, I, and most Marxist-Leninists, call a vanguard. Vanguards are necessary for socialists states; even Trotsky said so.

And if you think Fidel Castro is such a fake Marxist, why did he not change Cuba back into a capitalist nation after the Soviet collapse of 1991. If he was really a power hungry dictator, he would have gone to the next world superpower, the United States, for the protection of his power. The United States has been known for supporting dictators. The Cuban people have all they need under socialism, and a lot more than the rest of the proletariat of Latin American. They can definitely improve, but they can only do so after they are secure from capitalist and imperialist aggression. When they have nations to fall back on and no nations right next door ready to support counterrevolution (have you seen the Florida Republican debates from last month), they will become a less deformed worker's state, or whatever you call normal socialist republics. The best thing that could happen for Cuba would be if the United States became a socialist worker's state. It would be the best thing for us, too.

[Rafiq]

Class society, in the end, was always more efficient than the highly debatably even existing primitive communism.

[Rafiq]

Some of the first class societies were overthrown and replaced by deliberate egalitarian ones which survived for thousands of years, google "Cayonu and Catalhoyuk".

I remain cynical. The conclusions that they came to about cayonu and catalhoyuk could not have been made, merely by analysing some mediocre, lost away arcitectre, or buildings. It's pathetic. Can you imagine the absurdity of a person coming to the conclusion that that 10,000 old cayonu had no class or patriarchy (modern concepts) because the "houses" they found were equal? Fucking stupid. Archeology and anthropology are divided by a fine line, somewhere along the lines (in cases where there is no written or recorded evidence, contrary to egypt, etc).

[28350]

Class society, in the end, was always more efficient than the highly debatably even existing primitive communism.

What do you mean when you say efficient?

[daft punk]

I remain cynical. The conclusions that they came to about cayonu and catalhoyuk could not have been made, merely by analysing some mediocre, lost away arcitectre, or buildings. It's pathetic. Can you imagine the absurdity of a person coming to the conclusion that that 10,000 old cayonu had no class or patriarchy (modern concepts) because the "houses" they found were equal? Fucking stupid. Archeology and anthropology are divided by a fine line, somewhere along the lines (in cases where there is no written or recorded evidence, contrary to egypt, etc).

Cayonu had big temples and slums. They were all torn down and replaced by equal sized houses.

Catalhoyuk is very well preserved and we know there was no violence, men and women were equal, and not only did they have equal sized houses, if your kids left home that part of your house they occupied was made into storage or work space so you didnt have more personal living space than your neighbour.

[Rafiq]

What do you mean when you say efficient?

They furthered the Human productive constraint much farther than primitive communism's display of capabilities.

[Rafiq]

Cayonu had big temples and slums. They were all torn down and replaced by equal sized houses.

Again, there's no way to be sure of it. This still isn't evidence that it was an "egilitarian, non patriarchal society"..


Catalhoyuk is very well preserved and we know there was no violence, men and women were equal, and not only did they have equal sized houses, if your kids left home that part of your house they occupied was made into storage or work space so you didnt have more personal living space than your neighbour.


Might ask you, how do we "know" this? These are very specific details, which you could not come to the conclusion to merely because of the size of buildings (which, for all we know, couldn't be houses at all). If there was recorded evidence, through a means of a written language, that's a whole different story. But there wasn't any, so, one has to be cynical in the face of such "discoveries".

[daft punk]

Again, there's no way to be sure of it. This still isn't evidence that it was an "egilitarian, non patriarchal society"..



Might ask you, how do we "know" this? These are very specific details, which you could not come to the conclusion to merely because of the size of buildings (which, for all we know, couldn't be houses at all). If there was recorded evidence, through a means of a written language, that's a whole different story. But there wasn't any, so, one has to be cynical in the face of such "discoveries".

http://www.urkommunismus.de/catalhueyuek_en.html

read this, it is a summary of dozens of archaeological papers from the 1990s, it is a good starting point if you are interested.

These people buried their dead under the floors in their homes mostly. They are very well preserved. We know that males and females had similar nutrition, both were buried with tools and jewellery, plus there are murals on the houses' walls. There are no signs of violence. The people shared communal roof space. There are no public buildings. It's all there anyway.

Here is a taster, this bit is about Cayonu before the revolution, when a class society had emerged...


This technical progress, however, takes place in a destructive, patriarchal, and hierarchical society of enormous cruelty. Apart from the houses for living and storage, in each of the above-mentioned building levels of Çayönü there was a "special building", rectangular in shape, measuring 8x12 sqm, without windows, dug into a slope which bordered the settlement towards the east (Schirmer 1990: 378). In front of this temple (Özdoğan 2002: 254), there was a rectangular space of 1500 sqm, flanked by monoliths up to 2 m high (Cambel and Braidwood 1983: 162) - all in all a complex of intimidating monumentality.
To the north, this space was terminated by three large, manorial houses that had identical fronts, alignment and distance from each other. These houses stood on an elevated platform on massive foundations made from big hewn blocks and had carefully constructed stone walls, a verandah and stone stairs. In these three houses, the wealth of the society was concentrated: large blocks of crystals, stone sculptures, shells from the Mediterranean Sea and from the Red Sea (!) (Özdoğan 1994: 44) as well as imported weapons of high quality.
In the Western part of the settlement, the houses were only half as large, of distinctly poorer quality, without any additional features and were not built according to a standardized plan. Only the few tools needed for daily living were found there.
If the unequal distribution of wealth and power already becomes evident just by looking at the architecture and treasures discovered, the existence of private ownership of means of production can be proven directly by an extraordinary finding: All resources necessary for producing tools that had to be transported from far-away locations via a long distance trade system - flint and obsidian - were found exclusively in the houses situated near the temple. There they were stored in blocks of up to 5 kilograms. (Bear in mind that the finished tools weighed no more than 4 grams!) What was not found, however, was midden from chipping stones - no trace of any productive activity. The situation in the slums of the west was exactly the opposite. Here no resources were found but in the streets there was workshop debris from the chipping of flint and obsidian. I.e., there was a small group of people who possessed without working and a large group of people who worked without possessing - in other words, there were classes. These facts are presented in a condensed manner by Mehmet and Aslı Özdoğan (1989: 72-74) as well as by Davis (1998), the latter almost in a form of class analysis.

[blake 3:17]

I'm very oblivious to the person and his ideas. So I'm currently reading a book called Bukharin's theory of equilibrium (Pluto Press, 1989, ISBN 0 7453 0292 0) to get a grip on it.

Does anyone have more read-worthy stuff from or on him?

There`s an IS book on him I`m kinda curious about. I tried reading his novel written while awaiting his execution but it was way too depressing.

Against The Current ran a very interesting article years ago from somebody in SP-USA who argued that a large part of the Left Opposition`s problem domestically is that Stalin embraced it`s program on rapid industrialization and collectivization of land.

Heinrich Brandler is an interesting figure in the international Right Opposition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Brandler Isaac deutscher did a great interview with him -- he ended up as a dissident in East Germany. The only online version I`m seeing is from New Left Review which requires too much $. I am sure there are more affordable versions.

[Q]

I actually believe in the Marxist concept that socialism comes before communism.

This is not a Marxist concept at all. Marx and Engels spoke about socialism and communism as interchangeable terms. Furthermore, they spoke about "lower" and "higher" phases of communism. It was Lenin (as far as I'm aware) who made the lower phase of communism synonymous with "socialism".

This is not wrong per se, but it could cause confusion (as is the case with you) in that one might think that socialism is a separate phase of social development. This is however not the case.

Socialism, in the Marxist conception, is the transition between capitalism and communism. A society where the working class rules as a class-collective and there still is a class society. However, it is a dieing class society and the contradictions will be resolved by the working class assimilating the remaining classes (middle layers and petit-bourgeoisie). There is still a "state", but this is only a "state" in the sense that it prevents other classes from monopolizing political power again. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a radical democracy where society mostly governs itself.

So: Socialism is already the beginning of communism, be it with the "birthmarks" of the old capitalist society.

[daft punk]

Yes, you can use the words interchangeably, or you can call the process from capitalism to communism socialism. But socialism doesn't start the day after the revolution, there is a transition period, the dictatorship of the proletariat, before socialism. Cuba is not in that stage, it is a deformed workers state. There is nothing to stop the regime introducing workers democracy. In fact it is the regime itself which is bringing capitalism to Cuba, building luxury hotels and so on.

[Q]

Yes, you can use the words interchangeably, or you can call the process from capitalism to communism socialism. But socialism doesn't start the day after the revolution, there is a transition period, the dictatorship of the proletariat, before socialism. Cuba is not in that stage, it is a deformed workers state. There is nothing to stop the regime introducing workers democracy. In fact it is the regime itself which is bringing capitalism to Cuba, building luxury hotels and so on.

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is not a mode of production. Capitalism and communism are modes of production. Therefore, saying that before socialism/communism we have a transitionary period called the dotp makes no sense.

The dotp is, in contrast, a political expression of how society is run. Likewise, you could say that under capitalism we live in a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie". It is an expression of class hegemony.

So yes, socialism - that is, the transition between capitalism and communism - does start when the working class takes political power.

As for Cuba, we only have to ask one question: Who is in power? Indeed we cannot speak about working class power in any sense. Characterizing Cuba therefore as a "deformed workers state" is problematic, as the state is in no sense a workers state, even if the bureaucracy was not in control. The mere fact that the bureaucracy is so strongly in power implies a top-down state, ideal for the capitalist ruling class.

I'm not saying Cuba is capitalist, that would be too simplistic. But it surely is not a democratic republic either. What remains is a Bonapartist "third way" that is fundamentally unstable.

Working class political hegemony can never be stable in one country alone and Cuba is a point in case, in a deformed way. The imperialist state system will force all states to abide by its rule. Every state outside of that order is an implacable enemy (as was also the case with Libya for example, not exactly a socialist country either).

So, what we need is a global view and, at the very least, continental revolutions. So, for example, we should fight for a Latin American Democratic Republic, as opposed to merely a Cuban or Venezuelan Socialist Republic.

[daft punk]

So yes, socialism - that is, the transition between capitalism and communism - does start when the working class takes political power.



So how come Lenin said it would be a generation or two before they achieved socialism, and that socialism was impossible in one country?

[Q]

So how come Lenin said it would be a generation or two before they achieved socialism, and that socialism was impossible in one country?

Lenin was inconsistent in his use of the word "socialism". At one point he uses it synonymously to the "lower phase of communism", at another point he treats it as a completely separate phase of social development. In the latter case I would argue he was, quite simply, wrong.

But I would agree with him where he stated (just like everyone else in those days) that socialism in one country is impossible and the experiences of the USSR underline that point. The USSR was indeed unable to have a stable working class regime and the Bolsheviks were already in 1918 necessitated to impose restrictions on soviet rule, declare soviet elections invalid (if the workers didn't elect the Bolsheviks) or just disbanded recalcitrant councils.

In other words, the revolution of 1917 was followed by a process of counterrevolution between 1918 (when the first concessions against democracy were made) and 1936 (the point of the "Stalin constitution" that consolidated the bureaucracy). Incidentally, it was exactly in the interests of the counterrevolutionary bureaucracy to treat "socialism" as a separate phase of social development, as it gave their rule legitimacy. Hence Khrushchov's "communism before 1980" phraseology and all that crap. The communist phase just got postponed indefinitely.

[Bolshevik_Guerilla_1917]

-If communism and socialism is so great, then why are all socialist countries living
in dire poverty?

- Well most of the world is capitalist and most of the world is poor
- Also all of the "Socialist" countries arent pure Socialist/Communist

[GuyFawks]

hello, this is my first post on revleft, i am knowledgable on political ideologies, yet i think that i might need some talking to about this site......
:blushing:

[TheGodlessUtopian]

hello, this is my first post on revleft, i am knowledgable on political ideologies, yet i think that i might need some talking to about this site......
:blushing:

What sort of "talking" do you require? :)

[Angry Young and Red]

Well, i'm currently talking politics to some new friends, and it goes good, but there's one major thing we disagree on, and I'm wondering, what do you think are the best ways to counter the following argument(Roughly like this):

"Well, the worker's in the factories needs the bosses to keep the factory going! It's he who starts the factory/buys the material/etc"

I usually counter it by bringing up worker co-operatives, but then I most often get the reply that "You can't base an economy on that, it would be destroyed" and when i bring up actual examples in other countries, I get the reply "It wouldn't work over here".

It would be great with some better way to answer these, as I have some problems with getting over this. It feels like if I could get over the whole "workers need the boss" argument in some smart quick way, it would be much much simplier...

Also, I'm wondering about the best ways to counter the argument of: "If everything is free and there would be no money, why would anyone take any of the hard+boring jobs?" I usually counter this pretty good, but it feels like I could need some shorter and simplier way to do it...

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Well, i'm currently talking politics to some new friends, and it goes good, but there's one major thing we disagree on, and I'm wondering, what do you think are the best ways to counter the following argument(Roughly like this):

"Well, the worker's in the factories needs the bosses to keep the factory going! It's he who starts the factory/buys the material/etc"

I usually counter it by bringing up worker co-operatives, but then I most often get the reply that "You can't base an economy on that, it would be destroyed" and when i bring up actual examples in other countries, I get the reply "It wouldn't work over here".

It would be great with some better way to answer these, as I have some problems with getting over this. It feels like if I could get over the whole "workers need the boss" argument in some smart quick way, it would be much much simplier...

Also, I'm wondering about the best ways to counter the argument of: "If everything is free and there would be no money, why would anyone take any of the hard+boring jobs?" I usually counter this pretty good, but it feels like I could need some shorter and simplier way to do it...

Bring up the inefficiency of bosses and how they do not actually contribute to the productivity of the workers. This argument is based on fear when in reality people work to make a living.

To debunk the last comment what do you usually say?

[Angry Young and Red]

Bring up the inefficiency of bosses and how they do not actually contribute to the productivity of the workers. This argument is based on fear when in reality people work to make a living.

To debunk the last comment what do you usually say?

I don't know if that'll do it though. Another aspect people often bring up along with that argument is that bosses is needed, because they are more educated on managing and organising the work-place itself, and that workers ain't educated enough in management etc. How do you think I can counter this in the best way?

Hmm, it's a bit different from person to person. Recently I've used a slightly zeitgeist-ish argument and said that many of the most boring and riskful jobs will be more and more handled by robots in the near-future. Other than that I just use the old argument that people will simply work with whatever they enjoy working with, rather than working with what gives them the highest profit.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I don't know if that'll do it though. Another aspect people often bring up along with that argument is that bosses is needed, because they are more educated on managing and organising the work-place itself, and that workers ain't educated enough in management etc. How do you think I can counter this in the best way?

Under socialism the workers will be educated in all facets of their employment. your friend's argument that bosses are needed because they know how to do small technical jobs does not,in the slightest, negate anything about socialism. It simply means the workers will need to learn some additional skills (whatever the boss did and only if such actions are beneficial to how a society built on association runs).

Another thing to take in mind is that these bosses rarely see production. They do not know the inner nuances and demands of the job; they work in a office all day usually filling out paperwork and other busy body work. They come out only to order workers and check on superficial structural demands (hierarchy, quotas, etc). They are not nearly as skilled as the workers who fill the positions on a daily basis.


Hmm, it's a bit different from person to person. Recently I've used a slightly zeitgeist-ish argument and said that many of the most boring and riskful jobs will be more and more handled by robots in the near-future. Other than that I just use the old argument that people will simply work with whatever they enjoy working with, rather than working with what gives them the highest profit.

Ditch the robots Zeitgeist stuff, it doesn't really help.

People would work in hard jobs or labor demanding jobs because it serves some use to society: for instance, if you want cell phones and computers you are going to need minerals which are extracted from the earth via mining. Mining is not safe. Yet, if you want such gadgets, you might be persuaded, in conjunction with increased safety procedures and work gear, to mine for a short duration.

Even demanding jobs are not occupations which any one person will spend a significant amount of their life on.Under socialism everyone will be employed and each workplace will have the tools needed to accomplish the job in a orderly fashion. In this light labor intensive jobs such as mining will not be nearly as much as a hassle as they are under capitalism (it still won't be pleasant but it wont be a nightmare).

[daft punk]

Lenin was inconsistent in his use of the word "socialism". At one point he uses it synonymously to the "lower phase of communism", at another point he treats it as a completely separate phase of social development. In the latter case I would argue he was, quite simply, wrong.

But I would agree with him where he stated (just like everyone else in those days) that socialism in one country is impossible and the experiences of the USSR underline that point. The USSR was indeed unable to have a stable working class regime and the Bolsheviks were already in 1918 necessitated to impose restrictions on soviet rule, declare soviet elections invalid (if the workers didn't elect the Bolsheviks) or just disbanded recalcitrant councils.

In other words, the revolution of 1917 was followed by a process of counterrevolution between 1918 (when the first concessions against democracy were made) and 1936 (the point of the "Stalin constitution" that consolidated the bureaucracy). Incidentally, it was exactly in the interests of the counterrevolutionary bureaucracy to treat "socialism" as a separate phase of social development, as it gave their rule legitimacy. Hence Khrushchov's "communism before 1980" phraseology and all that crap. The communist phase just got postponed indefinitely.

Are you sure you're in the CWI? Nobody in the CWI would agree that the counter-revolution was started by the Bolsheviks in 1918 and continued to 1936. That is a ridiculous thing to say. The counter-revolution evolved after Lenin died and Stalin managed to get control of the party.

[Angry Young and Red]

Also, I thought up two other arguments I have a hard time getting around in an easy way..

First one is the: "But nothing prevents you from going into the woods and living as an anarchist, you can stop living under capitalism if you want". The reason that this is a hard nut to crack is because the response "what about if I don't want to do that and live like now, but without capitalism?" isn't really doing it...

Also, what's the best way to deal with consumer-power people? Like for example, those who claim that we'll solve everything by consuming green and participating in Earth Hour and that "if we just all do a little thing, we'll solve the enviromental crisis".

I normally bring up the fact that most of the worst pollution comes from fossile energy and corporations cutting down on outcomes by avoiding to work in an enviromental-friendly manner, and that we should focus on this, but then I often get the reply that "We can't just go from 0 to 1000, we must start out small blah blah save energy"

[Q]

Are you sure you're in the CWI?
Aren't you getting tired of this "argument"? Stop trying so hard to portray the CWI as a sect where everyone thinks the same on everything. It is really not recruiting anyone, despite what you may think.


Nobody in the CWI would agree that the counter-revolution was started by the Bolsheviks in 1918 and continued to 1936.
You sure you asked everyone?


That is a ridiculous thing to say.
Thank you for your opinion.


The counter-revolution evolved after Lenin died and Stalin managed to get control of the party.
Three points here:
1. Even Lenin recognized "bureaucratic deformations" in his last years.
2. Putting the blame solely on Stalin is heading the non-Marxist way of the "great men of history". This is not the argument Trotsky made for example.
3. I was not putting a personal blame on anyone, I was pointing out that in 1918 the first concessions were made against democracy (such as declaring votes illegal were the Mensheviks or Social-Revolutionaries were elected again or just dissolving whole soviets where they couldn't pull that). I'm not saying that they did wrong in this - it was quite possibly the only correct thing they could do, given the circumstances - but I am saying that those concessions did put down the basis on which the bureaucracy could take power and on which Stalin could murder every one of the old Bolsheviks.

[Thirsty Crow]

"Well, the worker's in the factories needs the bosses to keep the factory going! It's he who starts the factory/buys the material/etc"

Tautology.
There is no argument here except for the assertion that workers need bosses because currently bosses keep the factory going, buy the materials etc.


I usually counter it by bringing up worker co-operatives, but then I most often get the reply that "You can't base an economy on that, it would be destroyed" and when i bring up actual examples in other countries, I get the reply "It wouldn't work over here".Again, you can't counter a non-argument. Ask the why they think it wouldn't work "here" and why would it be destroyed.



It would be great with some better way to answer these, as I have some problems with getting over this. It feels like if I could get over the whole "workers need the boss" argument in some smart quick way, it would be much much simplier...YOu did get over this. You demonstrated that there is no "natural" necessity for managerial hierarchy within the (capitalist) workplace, and your opponents didn't reply with anything except for vague unsubstantiated assertions. I wonder why would you let them do that, continue the disucssion and then treat their "contribution" as if it were anything other than mere negation of your arguments, without any kind of a substantive point at that (I mean what the hell, "it wouldn't work!!"; that's not discussing, that's being an idiot pretending to be engaged in a discussion while you're actually dismissing the person you're talking to).
Press harder for them to provide something akin to a thought out argument.

[daft punk]

Aren't you getting tired of this "argument"? Stop trying so hard to portray the CWI as a sect where everyone thinks the same on everything. It is really not recruiting anyone, despite what you may think.

Half the stuff you post is at odds with the CWI.



You sure you asked everyone?

Well, I joined in 1984, ie 28 years ago, so I have a fair idea. Just read their articles. No Trotskyist organisation thinks the counter-revolution started in 1918 for god's sake, it was started by Stalin around 1927.

You say "when the first concessions against democracy were made" - blaming the Bolsheviks for counter revolution! It is quite incredible. They were in a civil war trying to save the revolution.





Three points here:
1. Even Lenin recognized "bureaucratic deformations" in his last years.

What do you mean 'even' Lenin? Of course he recognised bureaucratic deformations. They existed and he was honest. Doesnt mean he accused himself of leading a counter-revolution against his own revolution!





2. Putting the blame solely on Stalin is heading the non-Marxist way of the "great men of history". This is not the argument Trotsky made for example.


I have never put the fucking blame solely on Stalin. For fuck's sake. That is the sort of stupid argument that you hear all the time on here, but it should not come from a Trot, especially CWI.

However Stalin personified the counter-revolution in the way Hitler personified the mood of the ruined, embittered petty-bourgeois in Germany.

The counter revolution started in 1918, but it was started by the White armies and the rich peasants and the pro-capitalist elements. Not the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks won the civil war but then they faced a new battle. The battle against the capitalists, the kulaks and the bureaucrats on a more subtle level, for a time anyway. For instance in 1922 Lenin talked about the bureaucrats running rings around the communists who were basically a bit clueless at how to run the country and the economy. This was a battle between socialism and capitalism. Lenin wanted to keep the capitalists down by heavily taxing and regulating them. Stalin did the opposite after Lenin died, and encouraged them to get rich. He aimed his fire not to the right, as Lenin wanted, but to the left, to stop Trotsky being in charge of the party. Stalin's personal greed for power meant he had to base himself on Trotsky's enemies and Trotsky's enemies were the kulaks, the capitalist and the bureaucracy, the people making money. So Stalin allowed them to make money. He realised that the revolution had run out of steam, eg the working class was smaller, the masses were worn out, and so he started coming up with ideas like socialism in one country, in 1924, to avoid having to think about world revolution.

His lack of faith in the masses and his desire to collaborate with the capitalists ruined the Chinese revolution. Trotsky was proved right, but the defeat weakened his (revolutionary) position.



3. I was not putting a personal blame on anyone, I was pointing out that in 1918 the first concessions were made against democracy (such as declaring votes illegal were the Mensheviks or Social-Revolutionaries were elected again or just dissolving whole soviets where they couldn't pull that). I'm not saying that they did wrong in this - it was quite possibly the only correct thing they could do, given the circumstances - but I am saying that those concessions did put down the basis on which the bureaucracy could take power and on which Stalin could murder every one of the old Bolsheviks.

You have to be very careful with this, or it sounds like the line used by Stalinists, the bourgeois in the west, the anarchists and the left coms, who all say Stalinism was a continuation of Bolshevism. Any acts against democracy by the Bolsheviks were revolutionary, not counter-revolutionary, forced on them by the counter-revolutionaries. Later this did turn into a mechanism for counter-revolution, because Stalin chose to use these tools for his battle against Trotsky and that ended up as a battle against socialism itself.

Everything changed when Lenin died. Lenin's death was the tipping point. Stalin had been scared that Lenin would ruin his career and now he was scared of his testament, so he went full steam ahead thanks to the historical decision of Kamenev and Zinoviev to back him. He had to act quickly to suppress the testament, suppress the Left Opposition, and move towards dictatorship. So yeah, he took the anti-democratic measures designed to save the revolution and used them in his own interests, which gradually evolved into outright counter-revolution. Even Stalin wasnt consciously counter-revolutionary in 1924, he was just consciously pro-Stalin and balanced between Bukharin and Trotsky in words, while holding hands with Bukharin in deeds.

The cause of the degeneration was the isolation of the revolution in a backward country. Whoever personified that stood a good chance of running the show. Stalin was well up for it. Trotsky was fighting a losing battle. Stalin won because the counter revolution won, but he also helped it to win.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

First one is the: "But nothing prevents you from going into the woods and living as an anarchist, you can stop living under capitalism if you want". The reason that this is a hard nut to crack is because the response "what about if I don't want to do that and live like now, but without capitalism?" isn't really doing it...

First of all, your friend as no idea what Anarchism is. Second, people, under socialism, will be free to do as they want: what is the problem with this? People already chose to live out their lives in isolation this is not something which will change under socialism. This is in stark obliviousness to the fact that your friend is trying to imply that under socialism everyone would want to do such a life when it is far from the truth,


Also, what's the best way to deal with consumer-power people? Like for example, those who claim that we'll solve everything by consuming green and participating in Earth Hour and that "if we just all do a little thing, we'll solve the enviromental crisis".

The nonsense spewed by Al Gore will not solve the ecological crisis; the only things which will is a full blown socialist revolution; corporations are not interested in saving the world, only making profits on whatever popular trend they can.

Read this: http://books.google.com/books?id=fX2Uuk2knoIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=socialism+and+ecology&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8454T4KnI7KN0QHtkYDUCg&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=socialism%20and%20ecology&f=false


I normally bring up the fact that most of the worst pollution comes from fossile energy and corporations cutting down on outcomes by avoiding to work in an enviromental-friendly manner, and that we should focus on this, but then I often get the reply that "We can't just go from 0 to 1000, we must start out small blah blah save energy"

Start out small and gradually move up to the complete elimination of fossil fuels. Your friend is conflating personal actions in regards to the environment and and corporate attacks on the environment. People changing small habits about themselves will not solve the crisis;it will slow it down, but not stop it. Only when corporations,the meat industry and fossil fuels are eliminated will there be any sort of lasting progress.

[Red_sickle]

Most people in my history classes belive comunism is where the goverment owns everything and we did a compare against communism and capitalism and how much them books lied , pile of bull crap
And it always anrages me when the history teacher gives false ideas on it and the old " good on paper bad in real life " :cool:

[Rosasharn]

If I had a dollar for every time I heard "Good on paper but doesn't work in real life"

I would be a member of the ruling class.

Really, that phrase is pretty much in twined with the "Human Nature" argument which I am 99.9% certain has had to be debunked somewhere in this thread up to this point.

[Q]

If I had a dollar for every time I heard "Good on paper but doesn't work in real life"

I would be a member of the ruling class.

Really, that phrase is pretty much in twined with the "Human Nature" argument which I am 99.9% certain has had to be debunked somewhere in this thread up to this point.

Yes, I made a post for example at post #1002 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/high-school-commie-t22370/index.html?p=2355210#post2355210). I hope it helps.

[Rakeesh]

First of all, your friend as no idea what Anarchism is. Second, people, under socialism, will be free to do as they want: what is the problem with this? People already chose to live out their lives in isolation this is not something which will change under socialism. This is in stark obliviousness to the fact that your friend is trying to imply that under socialism everyone would want to do such a life when it is far from the truth,

Wait does this mean that, under socialism, me and my world of warcraft guild can keep playing and other people will still feed us anyways?

Dude sign me up. Two of my guildmates have already lost their homes to foreclosure for not paying their bills after they got fired for being late to work too many times because they stay up late raiding, sign them up too.

Also my dad doesn't want to be a mechanic anymore, he is really good at it, so it pays him a lot (about $110k/year,) but he wouldn't do it if it didn't pay anything. He wants to spend his days flying his one seat ultralight instead (he's doesn't want to fly anything bigger.) Can he do that too under socialism?

[p0is0n]

-If communism and socialism is so great, then why are all socialist countries living
in dire poverty?

- Well most of the world is capitalist and most of the world is poor
- Also all of the "Socialist" countries arent pure Socialist/Communist
An addition to this:

Not being a Marxist-Leninist, I'd be lying if I said that I believed most Warsaw Pact-countries to be truly socialist societies, but my own ideological stance aside, if you look at statistics such as HDI, average income and the living prices, you will notice that most of the people in said countries did not live in dire poverty, but were ok/well-off. Not versus the rest of the world perhaps, but versus their own internal economies.

One aspect of socialism (and communism) is to eventually abolish currency, and a way of getting there is lowering the value of money, aswell as the value of products and services. And in said countries, the value of money had lowered pretty heavily, and as such, so had the prices of products and services.

For example, in Yugoslavia, the average person earned around 5000 dollars a year. And granted, that isn't a lot by western standards - but products and services were on par with that. For example, a luxuary dinner at a restaurant, with traditional wines included, went for around 5 dollars a head.

It is worth noting that the average income of US households at this same time was around 19000 dollars.

Unless my math is terrible which, granted, it may be, that means you could in theory afford around 3 luxuary dinners a day, for an entire year with the 5000-dollar/year salary the average person made.

In America, per my google search, an average dinner out will run you about 30-40 dollars, and a luxuary dinner is around 100 dollars (2005). Since I am generous, let us ignore the fact that in Yugoslavia, you got a luxuary dinner. Today, in America, the average household income is 46000 dollars. So, assuming that the average dinner costs 35 dollars, you could in theory eat around 4 average meals at a restaurant, a day, with said income.


What does all this half-assed math tell us? That life in Yugoslavia, and probably other countries that classified themself as socialist, during the cold war, was not as terrible as right-wing intelligentsia would have us believe.

[Skyhilist]

Main arguments I hear against communism:

"What would stop someone from seizing power (without the use of violence) as in communist states in the past?"

"If people get rewarded equally for working and not working, what incentive will the most lazy people have to work?"

"Why don't I deserve to own anything?"

"Without money, how would the value of items be determined?"

"What would stop people from mooching off of the system?"

"What makes communism any better than other failed government systems such as socialism?"

"When you take away my right to choose what I buy, everything that everyone has becomes uniform and the same. Look at the USSR where you couldn't choose what types of things to buy and everyone simply had to buy the same thing. If everyone has to be the same, how can anyone be unique?"

"If everyone is the same, how will people value themselves as important in society when everyone else shares the same status?"

"How would communism be democratic? It's either democratic or un-democratic. If un-democratic, then what would make it any more effective than a dictatorship?"

"If communism was democratic, how would you keep people in the minority from being oppressed due to mob mentality?"

"Why should I have to pay for somebody else's life when I have nothing to gain from it myself?"

"Why should people accept the lack of personal choices caused by communism in comparison to other systems such as socialism and capitalism?"

"Why haven't communist governments worked in the past?"

"In very large populations, who will keep things from getting out of control in times of communism? IF there are elected people, then wont that create different classes of people? If not, then my first question remains."

"What would stop war and conflict from breaking out in times of communism?"

"What will stop people from rebelling against and overthrowing a communist government without the use of violence?"

While some of these questions are a little easier to handle than others, I often have a lot of trouble answering these questions in debates? Can anyone answer these for me please? Thanks!:)

[Skyhilist]

Two ones I forgot:

"Why shouldn't I be able to start my own small business as long as I run it ethically?"

"Who will be in charge of the distribution of services? Wont the people who do this be in a position of power? If not, then why not?"

[Aussie Trotskyist]

I'm a Marxist in highschool (going into my junior year) and I've pretty much hit a snag.

I go to school with a LOT of rich kids, who naturally are always reading books on
business and how to get rich fast.

Problems, of course, come up all the time between myself (the only Marxist in school!) and the hordes of righties I confront sporadically in debates.

The usual lines I get?

-Anyone can get rich if they work hard enough!
-Do you think it's fair for a doctor to be paid the same as a janitor?
-We should have the freedom to get as rich as we want to.
-Communism is dead!
-If communism and socialism is so great, then why are all socialist countries living
in dire poverty?

You get the idea. I was thinking, instead of EVERY SINGLE TIME someone brought this
up in a debate, and me debunking it through a long explanation, that there should
be quick, 'snappy' answers to ignorant statements and questions like these.

My REQUEST, really, is that you perhaps give a go at writing some kind of 'guideline'
for us younger Marxists who have to deal with this kind of bullshit every day.

Just thought you might want to consider it.

-Snitz

As a High School communist, if face a few similar issues.

At my school, most people don't seem to care (unless I start ranting). However, there is just one person that keeps bringing up McCarthyist arguments. I have reason to believe he is just doing it to annoy me, but a few of the younger students (not many) seem to believe him.

My usual response to him in particular is "Do you even know what you are talking about?" To the few people who actually believe him I try and explain a very basic form of communism by saying something like:

"Communism is where people live in self sufficient 'communes' where money doesn't exist and resources are distributed as people need them."

It may take a bit more explaining on why money isn't there, but that usually gets them to think a bit differently (a junior asked me today what communism was, and I told him that and it worked).

[Minyent]

As a resident in a highly-populated Conservative area, I am also concerned about high school. Everybody who I speak with is against me for my political beliefs. I am a natural debater, but I don't want to lose high school friends because of that.

[Aussie Trotskyist]

You may see if not bringing up the subject helps. Hopefully when you get to year 10/11, people will become more accepting.

[Positivist]

Thankfully I live in a highly ignorant area, where most peoples religious beliefs are "Merica!" So they either don't have political beliefs or I can shut them down with one or two sentences.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

As a resident in a highly-populated Conservative area, I am also concerned about high school. Everybody who I speak with is against me for my political beliefs. I am a natural debater, but I don't want to lose high school friends because of that.

Generally speaking if they are not going to be your friends because of your leftism than they probably aren't the best people to hang around with anyways.They do not have to be leftist themselves but to not have anything to do with you simply because of your beliefs equals petty people.

[Aussie Trotskyist]

I may not have experienced being completely rejected by everyone because of my beliefs (albeit, when I first became a communist, I did hide it for a while).

However, I will offer this advice. Try and get to know the more intelligent people, and get to, and stay in, the higher level classes (which, if you can read Marx, shouldn't be so much of a problem at High School level). Hopefully people in these classes (teachers and students, particularly when you get to the higher grades) should be able to accept your beliefs. Or at the very least, have a reason not to support them.

Furthermore, if you are in a 'social science' class (history, law etc) and communism is a topic being studied, you could try talking with the teacher to make sure its not a biased 'communism is evil' subject, and that leftism is represented fairly.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I remember that one time when I was skulking the hallways of my high school in-between breaks in my night school class I came upon this project done by the day school students.The project was a "Right-to-Left" map in which students identified various figures within each current.The project was typical and though many of the responses had images and figures one would expect I am reminded of the few pictures in which it displayed socialism in a positive light (whether intentional or not).

[nihilust]

youre argument suffices when money is a considerate driving source in a persons work ethic etc ie capitalism

[TheGodlessUtopian]

The following piece might be of value to the youth here when they are trying to organize a study group for Marxist texts...

http://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1924/class.htm

Also see the study guide to it which I made: http://www.revleft.com/vb/organize-and-conduct-t174057/index.html?t=174057

[bluepilgrim]

There is about 800 posts in this thread I haven't read yet -- I ran out of steam -- so maybe someone mentioned this before, but a great site to learn about Marxist economics and related topics, with updates on the current situation, is rdwolff.com. Dr. Richard Wolff is a highly respected professor of economics (currently teaching at the New School in NY), educated at Harvard, Yale, and Stanford, who is an expert on the subject -- and yet very easy to read and listen to. There is a lot of material at his site, including courses (in different levels of detail) in Marxist economics. The man is a national treasure who should be known by everyone on this site.

[darris]

But, to put it simply its could be explained as easily as: when you buy somthing in the store that cost a dollar you take the dollar out of your pocket and give it to the vedor. One dollar less for you, one dollar more for him.
Usually the capitalist argument is that you neither loses anything because the thing you bought is worth one dollar, so worst-case scenario, you lose nothing.

[darris]

Property is theft. ;)
I don't want my first two posts to sound like I'm a right-winger but the statement property is theft doesn't make any sense.
Theft requires the existence of property. If there were no property there could be no theft.
I guess it could make sense if you're saying that property is an untenable position and it can only exist by breaking its own rules, but that's not what I thought Proudhon was saying.
PRIVATE property could be theft because all property should be common, but that leaves the question Proudhon was attempting to lay to rest unanswered.

[Aussie Trotskyist]

In a few weeks, I won't be a High School Commie any more.:crying:

I'll be the interim between a High School Commie, and a University Marxist.

[den röde skogshuggaren]

Oh ,the anti-science and the anti-evolution...


Well, Human nature is not something that you can define easily, it changes according to a society's material conditions.

"Human nature is the concept that there is a set of inherent distinguishing characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling and acting, that humans tend to have."

Human nature does not change, but instead the human CONDITION does(which is where society's material conditions come in). They are two different things.



Also "Human nature", which im sure you basically equate to Greed only exists as long as the insentive for it exists, if money does not exist, what is there to be greedy over?

Resources and land are good examples but I don't know 100%.

I believe people can still be Marxists and believe in human nature, since I believe that humans are generally decent and good at working together.

[den röde skogshuggaren]

There's no such thing as human nature!

Of course there is. It is brought about through the molecular and biological processes of evolution.


And if the cappie disputes that assertion, invite him to prove it. (He can't!)

Can you prove it doesn't? Doesn't seem like it. Also, I suggest asking a biologist or simply reading for yourself.


"Human nature" in the sense that they use the word must mean something common to all humans at all times...as, for example, the "stalk & pounce" impulse is common to all felines at all times.


Yes, the instincts and impulses that are natural to human beings(and other animals). That isn't how they use the word, that's THE word.

This is an absolute slap in the face of evolution(if you even believe in that).

[Geiseric]

Of course there is. It is brought about through the molecular and biological processes of evolution.



Can you prove it doesn't? Doesn't seem like it. Also, I suggest asking a biologist or simply reading for yourself.




Yes, the instincts and impulses that are natural to human beings(and other animals). That isn't how they use the word, that's THE word.

This is an absolute slap in the face of evolution(if you even believe in that).

Yeah there's human nature, if altruism wasn't part of it we wouldn't have a society though would we? Do you think people are just dicks to each other and for some reason they live in cities, cramped with 6 people in a house? No they care about those other 5 people, or at least are interdependent.

If anything "human nature" for 300000 years was egalitarian, pre private property, hunter gatherer tribes, who had no sense of heirarchy whatsoever. In fact it's very likely that women who got 80% of the tribes diet through gathering were the ones in charge, and eventually classes developed once there was a different division of labor due to farming.

[Owl]

I believe people can still be Marxists and believe in human nature, since I believe that humans are generally decent and good at working together.

Marxists can believe in the negative aspects of greed as well. ;)

Under capitalism, greed and exploitation are incentived, under communism, society discourages them. Through mutual reliance, that is.

[FidelMaestro]

One thing I always get is "Why should everyone get paid the same" I try to explain that this isn't what we believe, but to no avail.
And "There's no incentive to work"

[Aussie Trotskyist]

And "There's no incentive to work"

Bullshit:
http://www.sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=7671:when-sydney-was-under-workers-control&Itemid=413

http://blog.occupiedlondon.org/2013/02/11/occupied-greek-factory-begins-production-under-workers-control/

[kalpona]

Great idea about capitalism.
I was a bit confused but got some issues fixed now from here.
And yes. You are true - "We should have the freedom to get as rich as we want to".:)

[rezzza]

Hello everyone. In the area I live I often come up against wealthy kids in heated debates. I am very passionate about my political views and thus I never stand down against a challenge posed by these kids.

This one kid asked me some questions and I was totally unprepared. He is very good at economics and accounting, and I do not have great knowledge of these fields. Does anyone have any comprehensive answers to his questions and objections about/regarding communism.

1) How would resources be allocated rationally under communism? The free-market solution is the price mechanism.

2) How would technological progress advance without market competition?

3) What's to say the loss of material incentives would not reduce productivity?

4) Communism devalues the individual and gives rights to groups of people and not individuals.

5) How would democratically controlled workplaces, such as the nature of communism would encourage, act on information as efficiently as capitalist firms, due to their lacking of a hard budget constraint, in other words a lack of a profit/loss system/mechanism?

6) Greed is a good thing, as a greedy capitalist wants certain things, and in order to obtain those certain things, he is providing the consumer with things the consumer wants. Greed is giving people what they want in return for what you want.

7) How can you deny the rise in living standards globally over the last 50years. Economic freedom correlates with prosperity; for example Chinese workers were on the brink of starvation, but once their economic liberalization took place, living standards skyrocketed and China will soon surpass the U.S. as the largest economy in the world.

8) How can you claim capitalism is exploitation if a) labor contracts are voluntary. b) the labour contract benefits both the capitalist and worker. c) the market mechanism allows workers to always benefit from economic productivity, as this translates to increases in wages and competition for laborers from firms.

He has asked me many of these questions overtime, and I would like to pwn him with answers from some of the experts on this site :)

[Tim Cornelis]

Hello everyone. In the area I live I often come up against wealthy kids in heated debates. I am very passionate about my political views and thus I never stand down against a challenge posed by these kids.

This one kid asked me some questions and I was totally unprepared. He is very good at economics and accounting, and I do not have great knowledge of these fields. Does anyone have any comprehensive answers to his questions and objections about/regarding communism.

1) How would resources be allocated rationally under communism? The free-market solution is the price mechanism.

I explained this a bit here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2618369&postcount=4


2) How would technological progress advance without market competition?

Ditto: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2618369&postcount=4


3) What's to say the loss of material incentives would not reduce productivity?

First, I've seen three different researches which confirm participation in the workplace increases productivity. Second, the work day can be significantly cut to a few hours (with the financial sector and competition eliminated, and technology applied far more). Third, labour points or credits could be introduced id this poses a problem.


4) Communism devalues the individual and gives rights to groups of people and not individuals.

Communism would be the closest approximation of complete individual sovereignty as hierarchy would be eliminated as much as possible. The collective would be used to the benefit of the individual and vice versa.


5) How would democratically controlled workplaces, such as the nature of communism would encourage, act on information as efficiently as capitalist firms, due to their lacking of a hard budget constraint, in other words a lack of a profit/loss system/mechanism?

"Social bookkeeping" would take account of the average socially necessary labour time needed for the reproduction of work.


6) Greed is a good thing, as a greedy capitalist wants certain things, and in order to obtain those certain things, he is providing the consumer with things the consumer wants. Greed is giving people what they want in return for what you want.

Those consumer wants are only fulfilled if they are financially backed, which often is not the case with even basic means of life. My opposition to capitalism is not "greed" an sich, so I can't really answer this.


7) How can you deny the rise in living standards globally over the last 50years. Economic freedom correlates with prosperity; for example Chinese workers were on the brink of starvation, but once their economic liberalization took place, living standards skyrocketed and China will soon surpass the U.S. as the largest economy in the world.

In 1910 Russia and Mexico had about the same GDP per capita. In 1990 the GDP per capita of Russia was 50% larger despite famines, a civil war, two world wars, and maintenance of a superpower military. But indeed, capitalism enhances the potential to produce means of life, and thus we can take that potential and redirect it toward the satisfaction of human needs.


8) How can you claim capitalism is exploitation if a) labor contracts are voluntary. b) the labour contract benefits both the capitalist and worker. c) the market mechanism allows workers to always benefit from economic productivity, as this translates to increases in wages and competition for laborers from firms.

a) There can be no freedom without equality. All of society is dependent upon the productive resources for access to the very means of life and wealth, yet they are owned and controlled by a minority, the capitalist. Ownership of productive resources is a source of power, and unless it is equally distributed, a source of domination. The majority of workers are dependent on the capitalist class, while that class has immense bargaining power, in essence over means of life, which logically puts the worker at an immense bargaining disadvantage. Thus, while labour contracts are "voluntary" in the strictest sense of the word, they reflect an immense inequality before and after. Signed into it, the worker has become subject to the will and domination of the capitalist and his authority. He lends this authority from ownership.

b) They benefit both, but that does not mean it's not exploitation. This is only relevant if there is equality. Slavery may benefit both the owner and slave, but since there is no equality and freedom involved, it's not justified. With wage-labour, it benefits both, but in the absence of equality, it can still be considered exploitative and unjustified.

c) Productivity has risen since the 1960s, wages have stagnated.


He has asked me many of these questions overtime, and I would like to pwn him with answers from some of the experts on this site :)

Well you have an excellent memory with all that exact memorising of highly specific questions, are you sure you're not a capitalist ideologue that is testing our counter-arguments while posing as commie? We have an Opposing Views forum for them you know.

[egalitarian]

I have a question, Redstar and the others:
The doctor would have put a lot more time down on studying, than the janitor. He did get paid by this studying, by the high salary he has. So why should the janitor has the equal wage as the doctor, when the doctor has studied for years, and the janitor probably hasnt't.. I don't know if janitors have a lot study to do, but take it as an example.


In a socialist society the education would be communal. Meaning that the community would have committed the educational resources to have a needed doctor, along with room and board for the years of nonproductive study. In those same years the janitor would be putting in the same effort, doing what s/he was able, in exchange for what s/he needs.


When the doctor is ready to be productive, they would be on the same playing field.

[KarlLeft]

One thing I always get is "Why should everyone get paid the same" I try to explain that this isn't what we believe, but to no avail.
And "There's no incentive to work"

Try going a month with no garbage collection or try spending time in your favorite public building after a month with no janitorial service and then see if you still believe so-called "menial" labor isn't as important as, say, being a doctor! I don't know if that means a garbage collector or janitor should be paid the same as a doctor but each job in society is important and the compensation received for each job should reflect that.

Regarding there being no incentive to work, the ultimate long-range goal should be the creation of a new human sensibility where the primary motivation of work is the well-being of society as a whole. That's a pretty difficult thing to envision at this point in history because the senses of most workers have been brutalized by capitalism which treats them like so many disposable, replaceable parts of a machine designed to create wealth for someone else.

But you've got to be able to imagine something before you can make it happen. Che understood that it was necessary to change not only the economic system a person works in but the cooperative attitude of the person him/herself. That's why, when he was working in Cuba after the revolution, he donated his free weekends to doing manual labor on public works projects. He was leading by example.

[lassy]

well, maybe i should sticky this!

[Cameron]

I see where your coming from, RedStar. I go to a Private School in the US, probably 85% of the students are GOP supporters, well because they are rich and don't give a living crap about anyone except each other. The others are Democrats and maybe 1% are socialist/communist like me. (Well I am a socialist) :)

[bluemangroup]

One thing I always get is "Why should everyone get paid the same" I try to explain that this isn't what we believe, but to no avail.
And "There's no incentive to work"

Which isn't what socialism, as a transition stage prior to communism, entails as an economic and political system.

Lenin said in his The State and Revolution that under socialism inequality would still exist alongside class struggle in the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Hence unequal wages between workers in a socialist society; socialism doesn't and hasn't entailed that everyone will get "paid the same." This is a major misconception propagated by those who don't take the time to read up on basic Marxist doctrine (even a quick Google search will show this misconception to be untrue)

Furthermore, as a pet peeve of mine, its also common for people to argue that "under communism" it is said that the society is a "workers' paradise" which furthermore "works well in theory but not in practice."

The Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. all claimed to be practicing socialism and hence inequality was still said to exist, echoing Lenin; nor did these societies ever claim to be workers' paradises, for the simple reason that socialism was far from having been a paradise. (communism, as an end goal of these 20th century socialist societies, was more akin to a "workers' paradise" then socialism)

All of these statements by those ignorant of Marxism and its basic tenants can be chalked up to a lack of research into what actually constitutes Marxism and apathy.

[JonathanMichael]

I firmly believe that training our brain in the belief that one has the capacity to be the best he can will be the key to understanding how to solve these issues.:)

[lassy]

love this post!

[smith123]

Hi,
I read your post. I think your post very well for every people and I have a small website. Through which you can learn English online. If you like it, please go to this site around once.
Thank

[servusmoderni]

There are some good answers there. When I am told that anyone who works hard enough can get rich, well, I work very hard but I am not rich and I doubt I ever will be.

You're surely not working hard enough. Try getting a third job and barter your internal organs for food.

[ArcturusAscendant]

\
"This is a democracy. It is a government created by and for the people. We have the rule of law, not some anarchy dictatorship"

I don't know said this, but the statement is manifestly idiotic.
Anarchy is basically the opposite of a dictatorship, and they cannot ever
coexist. This person was obviously just using words with negative connotations to generate a bandwagon appeal.

[共产主义不放松]

I'm from China

[Nemul]

Hello Comrades.
I need help with "How would art works be destribuited among people if they have no value?" (why shouldn't someone take the best art piece, in a non-existent economic system?)

[G4b3n]

Hello Comrades.
I need help with "How would art works be destribuited among people if they have no value?" (why shouldn't someone take the best art piece, in a non-existent economic system?)

The distribution of art works as always varied depending upon historical context and the given social system. These are questions that socialists try not to concern themselves with honestly, there is no point in trying to polish your crystal ball to see into the socialist future when the problem of capitalism is at hand.

[4thInter]

"Work hard and anyone can get rich!" my ass
What about the sweatshop workers of India who after working day have to sell their bodies...:mad:

[Max]

Reading this has been very informative. As I am in high school, this has helped me fend off the capitalists and usually defeat them.

[4thInter]

Reading this has been very informative. As I am in high school, this has helped me fend off the capitalists and usually defeat them.
Ask those bloodsuckers if they know about the imperialist shit the US pulls off in Gabon. Being ex-anonymous i learned how we has a nation get cheap oil off them, and in return we don't invade them for their leaders eating their children for good luck. :grin:

If you do message me their reaction rich snobs! :laugh:

[Junaidmon]

I thought it was going to be some boring old post, but it really compensated for my time. I will post a link to this page on my blog. I am sure my visitors will find that very useful.

[JackCoulson]

I've just come into this whole Communism-Socialism thing, and don't really understand it. At all. I've read some stuff and a little of the Communist manifesto by Marx but can't understand it. Can somebody explain why Socialism is the way forward? :hammersickle:

[Patron Saint Awesome]

In one of my textbooks it said communists wanted a straight up dictatorship. World of straw.

[Patron Saint Awesome]

Socialism is the way forward due to following reasons: it produces for use a supposed to exchange (I.e. Micheal bay films exist only for exchange). The lack of crisis (doesn't have contradictions, lack need to constantly expand profits and the need for exploitation [getting paid less than your labor], and is free of stock market bubbles. Lastly, it unites the people for the common good, free all peoples, regardless of religion, orgin, gender, or orientation, all in the name of working together. I hope you're journey into communist theory is as exciting as mine is! Sub note: types of communists include, Trotskyist (permenant revolution), marxists(orthodox economic analysis) marx leninist (socialism in one country) and anarchism (skips to end goal through revolutionary hard restart).

[MonsterMan]

any of you guys into George Novack? awesome stuff and plenty on marxists dot org (not sure if you can give links here?):)

[flouPOWER]

If im not mistaken Norway and Sweeden are socialist. Finland and Denmark too possibly. The UK is a mixture of Capitalism and Socialism and its doing quite well.
Answering about UK.
I think that's called Socialdemocracy :P

[Infectious Cure]

I am currently a senior in high school. I did a video report on communism for my AP US History class last year. I chose communism because I realized that we had never really been given a clear explanation of communism, and I wanted to learn more about it. I immediately checked out "The Communist Manifesto" from my school library and brought it everywhere with me until I had to turn it back in. It bothers me that we are, as young students, given information about communism that is simply untrue. This situation has sparked a strong passion for communism in me, and I do my best to leave my peers well informed on the true form of communism!

[Bolshevik800]

There is nothing to learn being a Socialist when you've grown up in a Welsh Minnig village which was called little Moscow during it's heyday , it was hard poverty was rife and your taught to hate at a very young age and I mean hate conservatism and the capitalist .
At home granddad , and my Dad and uncles would chat about the government and great Socialist's like Nye Bevan who started the NHS in Britain .

[Centriops]

I don't really fully subscribe myself to leftist ideology. I am a centrist who is leaning more towards Marxist doctrines. I do believe in a classless, stateless society, but I am against the fact that absolutely everyone in a communist society should be paid the same. I think different branches of work (e.g. medicine or engineering) should pay people the same amount of money, regardless of their position/rank in that particular work branch. For instance, in a medical branch everyone (doctors, nurses and technicians) could be paid 60k while engineers could be paid 40k.

[Yugoslav Partisan]

-Anyone can get rich if they work hard enough!
Easy for you to say when you have rich parents. Bourgeoise bureaucratic system will always stop an ''intruder'' from getting rich.

-Do you think it's fair for a doctor to be paid the same as a janitor?
There is no equal pay in Socialism, and there is no pay in Communism. In Socialism, the doctor can get richer than the janitor. In Communism, why does it matter who gets more, when college is free and you can get whatever you need nonetheless?

-We should have the freedom to get as rich as we want to.
You mean to be* rich.

-Communism is dead!
Greece, Italy, Spain

-If communism and socialism is so great, then why are all socialist countries living in dire poverty?
Eastern Europe was heaven on Earth before the transition to Capitalism, which brought chav culture and rich, corrupt tycoons controlling the country.

[etiennel]

The most important thing is to highlight what communism actually is, which is not what people are brainwashed to believe it is.

[thamexper]

There are some good answers there. When I am told that anyone who works hard enough can get rich, well, I work very hard but I am not rich and I doubt I ever will be.