Something that struck me today

[Subversive Pessimist]

I was thinking about communism while I was drinking and eating a cake downtown. I was thinking how it would be if work was volentarily and there was no date set for when we were supposed to work. I thought that, what would happen to that resturant if we had no idea when people were supposed to work or not? If no one decided to work. I think that, although we would have a society without money, it could be good to go out some day to a resturant and being served for example Japanese food, which you would normally not know how to make yourself, especially when Japanese cooks often have seven years of education.

What would happen to the hospital if people were only going to work when the nurses suited them? People would die outside of the hospital if no one was to help the sick.

Then I started thinking deeper about what Marx said about people being able to do all kinds of works in one day. People couldn't be a scientist in the morning, or a doctor in the evening if they didn't have any education on what they were doing, and society would become were chaotic if we didn't know when for example people were working as a firefighter, for example.


The only solution that I found was that people had to write up a list of the jobs they were supposed to take that spesific week at the spesific time to a committee or similar that would organize things.

Another possibility would be that people would have a list outside downtown where people could write their names on those spesific days and hours they wanted to work so that things in society would go smoothly... I think actually this would be the best idea. Simple and easy...


Your thoughts?

[comrade_mufasa]

The piont of going to work in a communist society is for the joy of working. if you are a doctor or a sushi chef then you go to work becouse you love to not becouse you need to pay your rent (will I very seldom hear of a doctor having trouble paying there rent). and there would still be structrue in the compiness. People would still have working schedules, but they would be resonable and productive. It is coummunism not anarcy.

[Subversive Pessimist]

The piont of going to work in a communist society is for the joy of working.

As I see it, the point of working is not of doing so for the fun of it. Do you think people would pick up garbage because they love it? No, but because we want to contribute to the community. If you love picking up garbage, then that's fine, but I think it's highly unusal. I that we have to combine the two: What we like and what is considered productive work.

Why do we work? Why do we produce?

There are several reasons why someone would work in a communist society:

1. In order to help and contribute to the community, and in turn, also themselves (for example working in a factory where they produce chocolate)
2. For joy (For examle if you love working in a factory where they produce chocolate)
3. Pressure from the local population (for example if you have been lazy for a while)


People would still have working schedules, but they would be resonable and productive.


That sounds fairly good, but how can we make them be resonable and productive?

How can we avoid the working schedules to be just "okay", or just "fine"?

I think that, considering we are communists, we talk way too little about communism in itself.



It is coummunism not anarcy.

I thought communism was anarchy. A stateless society where people are not forced, unless it would be absolutely neccesary.

[enigma2517]

Whats wrong with having schedules? We could still do that. Hey John, these are the timeslots we have this week, when can you work. People would sign up and come in on the days that they said they would. Its still voluntary, but it can be organized at the same time. Just think about afterschool clubs. Nobody makes kids go to that. They decide on their own when they want to meet and do so.

[redstar2000]

And don't forget "peer pressure"...something very important in communist society.

You know how we feel now about people who are unreliable, who don't come through on their promises, etc. :angry:

A member of some work collective who repeatedly "didn't show up" would get the boot. They wouldn't suffer any material deprivation (you get what you need even if you don't work) -- but their social reputation would be in the toilet.

The next time they go to the community distribution center to pick up some groceries, they might find themselves greeted "Hi there, Comrade Fuckoff, what can we get for you today?" :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I'd like to see you put that argument up against some capitalists, Redstar.

In communism folks would go to work punctually and work hard in order to avoid humiliation and social marginalization

:lol:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 08:24 PM
I'd like to see you put that argument up against some capitalists, Redstar.

In communism folks would go to work punctually and work hard in order to avoid humiliation and social marginalization

:lol:
Think it funny, do you?

I realize that peer pressure doesn't have quite the same appeal to you as a well-run gulag; nevertheless, it is actually quite powerful.

How do you look in a dress and high heels, for example? :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I never said a gulag.... maybe some "government encouragement", eh? =D

I do believe that when the working class acquires power, they will judge that it's preferable to manage society through a governing body rather than through the de facto methods you condone. But we'll have to wait an see, I suppose.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 12:33 PM
And don't forget "peer pressure"...something very important in communist society.

You know how we feel now about people who are unreliable, who don't come through on their promises, etc. :angry:

A member of some work collective who repeatedly "didn't show up" would get the boot. They wouldn't suffer any material deprivation (you get what you need even if you don't work) -- but their social reputation would be in the toilet.

The next time they go to the community distribution center to pick up some groceries, they might find themselves greeted "Hi there, Comrade Fuckoff, what can we get for you today?" :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
I agree completely with what redstar2000 said above.

Also, who says that there can't be organisation in a post-capitalist society?

In a restaurant or on a plane, there are no waiters right? Well what might happen is that someone gets up and just distributes the food or drink 'cause they want to. It might be a good way to meet people too. If two people get up to serve food, they might get to talking about how it was in the old days when they had to pay someone to serve food. (Not an original idea, I took it from a SF book, but a good one.)

[Guest1]

Zeppelin? I thought you were a Marxist? What happened to stateless, classless society?

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 22 2004, 03:06 PM
Zeppelin? I thought you were a Marxist? What happened to stateless, classless society?
And you claim I'm not. Your point? You don't know what goes on in my head, how can you know what my ideology is? I just wish people would stop putting these rediculous labels on people. Labels to me are a capitalistic term. If we're all far-leftists, why do we need to break it down more than that. I admitted I wanted the same thing as you, I just don't think a quick (most likely very violent) way of getting there is the way. But assuredly I want the same end result as you (to clear any further misconcepton). ;)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 22 2004, 10:06 AM
Zeppelin? I thought you were a Marxist? What happened to stateless, classless society?
That's a laughable post! :lol:

Stateless and classless means without a ruling class and its political apparatus. A government will by all means exist. Any public organization, I reckon, is a "government". And there will most certainly be a public organization, no?

The public will organize to carry out the actions that they deem necessary. There is no oppression involved.

When the people are left to decide things completely autonomously of any opposing personal interests, I presume they will want people to enforce their will.

Just because the working class as a whole has the same class interest in overthrowing capitalism and establishing capitalism, doesn't mean that everyone will agree on everything, and it's very undemocratic to rely on the de facto methods that Redstar condones.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 08:17 PM
That's a laughable post! :lol:

Stateless and classless means without a ruling class and its political apparatus. A government will by all means exist. Any public organization, I reckon, is a "government". And there will most certainly be a public organization, no?

The public will organize to carry out the actions that they deem necessary. There is no oppression involved.

When the people are left to decide things completely autonomously of any opposing personal interests, I presume they will want people to enforce their will.

Just because the working class as a whole has the same class interest in overthrowing capitalism and establishing capitalism, doesn't mean that everyone will agree on everything, and it's very undemocratic to rely on the de facto methods that Redstar condones.
I fully agree with you, especially the second paragraph:


A government will by all means exist. Any public organization, I reckon, is a "government". And there will most certainly be a public organization

I think in the last paragraph you meant installing communism though? I assume ;) . But you're logic is identical to mine. Somebody will some point a long the way form a quazi-government, and start telling people what they can and can't do.

[Anti-Capitalist1]

I always thought that in a Communist society, if a person refused to work, and to share the beneifts of his labor with others, he would not recieve the benefits of other's labor. Like a doctor, if he refused to work, would not recieve food, clothing, or any of the other products of labor. at first, memories of capitalism would lead to a little resntment, but it would be necesary to work to survive, and eventually, it would be second nature that you work to support the community, which supports you in exchange.

[apathy maybe]

If the community has a surplus of goods, why shouldn't those who do no work not recieve food. Are not all humans equally deserving of the same rights? Surely these rights include food?

[Anti-Capitalist1]

Originally posted by Apathy [email protected] 23 2004, 02:40 AM
If the community has a surplus of goods, why shouldn't those who do no work not recieve food. Are not all humans equally deserving of the same rights? Surely these rights include food?
What I meant, was that if an able person was unwilling to work to benefit the community, they would not recieve the food, clothes, etc. Disabled, elderly, young, etc, would receive these things, even if they could not work.

[apathy maybe]

Again, if a person refuses to work at all, they still should be given the minimum, as it is a human right. It has been argued that if a person is unwilling to work, then they are unable to work. Thus they are deserving of what they need.

It is still a human right in my opinion.

[Anti-Capitalist1]

Originally posted by Apathy [email protected] 23 2004, 02:55 AM
Again, if a person refuses to work at all, they still should be given the minimum, as it is a human right. It has been argued that if a person is unwilling to work, then they are unable to work. Thus they are deserving of what they need.

It is still a human right in my opinion.
a capable person, unwilling to make any contribution to the community, should be propped up by that community? I'm willing to allow people physcially unable to work, because they are disable, elderly etc. or the mentally handicapped to do this, but a fully physically capable and mentally capable person refusing to work yet wanting to be supported by the labor of others? that's the definition of a capitalist.

[apathy maybe]

But if we can support them, why shouldn't we? Doesn't mean they will be liked etc. though. How many people do you know who do something that is socially unacceptable? Capitalists are acceptable today, but that sort of person won't be acceptable in a post-capitalist society.

Originally posted by redstar2000

A member of some work collective who repeatedly "didn't show up" would get the boot. They wouldn't suffer any material deprivation (you get what you need even if you don't work) -- but their social reputation would be in the toilet.

The next time they go to the community distribution center to pick up some groceries, they might find themselves greeted "Hi there, Comrade Fuckoff, what can we get for you today?"

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The beauty of anarchism, in my mind, is that we don't need any narrow ideological framework or dogmas to address these issues. Instead, they can be addressed on an individual basis according to specific situations as the needs and desires of individuals dictate. I for one have gladly entertained absolutely "useless" people at my apartment for extended period just for the joy of their company!

Enough with this fetishization of work! There is a surprisingly limited ammount of work to be done and more than enough people to do it (Even working a surprisingly small ammount). Let us focus on fufilment instead of issues of who deserves what under circumstances that don't exist!

When yr collective has an unworking member, deal with it as you will!

[Anti-Capitalist1]

Originally posted by Apathy Maybe+Oct 23 2004, 04:03 AM--> (Apathy Maybe @ Oct 23 2004, 04:03 AM) But if we can support them, why shouldn't we? Doesn't mean they will be liked etc. though. How many people do you know who do something that is socially unacceptable? Capitalists are acceptable today, but that sort of person won't be acceptable in a post-capitalist society.

redstar2000

A member of some work collective who repeatedly "didn't show up" would get the boot. They wouldn't suffer any material deprivation (you get what you need even if you don't work) -- but their social reputation would be in the toilet.

The next time they go to the community distribution center to pick up some groceries, they might find themselves greeted "Hi there, Comrade Fuckoff, what can we get for you today?" [/b]
I suppose you are right, but there are those who wouldn't be persuaded, even by their peer's negative feelings towards them.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov Cocktail
Enough with this fetishization of work!

I quite agree.

Consider how things were in the USSR when "everyone had to work".

The achievement of this goal (and it was achieved) meant the creation of enormous numbers of completely unnecessary "jobs".

In a state store in the USSR, you wrote down what you wanted to buy and gave it to a clerk. Then you went to another area and waited while someone picked your order, packed it, and brought it to the counter. Then you went to a third counter and paid for what you bought.

Soviet hotels had an elderly woman on a desk at the end of every hallway on every floor. She never did anything, she just sat there and watched people leave and return. Three shifts a day, every day of the year.

Remember those photographs of elderly people sweeping the snow in front of the Kremlin? As if the USSR had no snowplows or any idea of how to build one and use it properly?

By the end of the Brezhnev era, people had "jobs" where they showed up once or twice a week for an hour or two and spent the rest of their "working day" standing in lines.

I've heard those kinds of stories about Cuba today, as well.

It's just totally irrational. Work that is not actually perceived as useful should not "have" to be done by anybody.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

What about unemployment?
Why should some people have jobs, and the rest not?

I reckon everyone needs to contribute to society. I agree that sitting doesn't really do that, but I see nothing wrong with making more useful jobs, even if what they're making or offering is already available. Look at the United States. We have more of everything than we need, but who cares?

And I don't think that when socialism is 'instated' we'll even have an excess of goods and we will need to work hard just to bring everyone to a standard of living similar to that of Cuba, for example.

We will need workers, I assume, not the other way around. When we see unemployment, there will plenty of land ready to be farmed to provide food for hungry Africans and South Americans.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by RedZeppelin
When we see unemployment, there will plenty of land ready to be farmed to provide food for hungry Africans and South Americans.

Who are you, Pol Pot Jr.? :lol:

You're going to take 10 or 20 or 30 million urban unemployed and march them off into the countryside to grow food for "hungry Africans and South Americans"?

Even though they'd be far less efficient than the mechanized farming that exists today?

That's just wacko!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Well, that's pretty much a given, Redstar.
I don't even think we'll have to worry about that.
Most of the highly productive farms in the third world are already highly technologically advanced. However, there are still millions with no food and water, etc.
There are still thousands of acres of farmland being cultivated by highly inefficient means. They should definitely be mechanized, but that will take place long before any revolutionary action reaches those parts. Only the most advanced capitalist courtiers will experience the proper material conditions for communist rebellion, remember, resdtar?

There will still be lots of work that needs to be done, obviously.

I think we can build up our productivity to approximately the level of today's first world before we consider making it suitable to not hold an occupation. Maybe when that happens we can try something like work rotation, perhaps.

My point was that there was still plenty of work to be done in Russia when they foolishly started giving people pointless jobs.


You're going to take 10 or 20 or 30 million urban unemployed and march them off into the countryside to grow food for "hungry Africans and South Americans"?

As we speak, there are millions of unemployed South Americans living in the cities and going hungry. Folks move to the cities to find jobs and the countryside is left impoverished. That needs to be reversed, no?


Who are you, Pol Pot Jr.?

:lol:
I hope nobody's stupid enough to buy that insult and actually draw a connection between what I said and what Pol Pot has done.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by RedZeppelin
I hope nobody's stupid enough to buy that insult and actually draw a connection between what I said and what Pol Pot has done.
too late ... ;)

I thought that we were talking about a post-revolution world. The problems of unemployment would not exist. If someone wants to work, then I'm sure they could. The thing that we must remember is that people won't need to work for more then a few hours a week; unless they want to.

And always remember the quote "if you think the system is working, ask someone who isn't". If we (being the community) can't find someone a job, then it is our job to look after them.

[Daymare17]

There is total confusion here as usual.

The state machine does not "wither away" on the day after the revolution. Zeppelin is completely wrong when he says that "communism means a stateless, classless society". The USSR was classless: did that mean it was stateless? Far from it. The USSR had one of the most despotic, bureaucratic states. The socialist revolution does away with the ruling class and makes the exploitation of man by man impossible. However, the state did not arise because of the exploitation of man by man. The state arose because of the division of society into rich and poor. There's a slight but important difference. After the revolution, the state and money will still exist, as Marx explained in the Gotha Programme and Lenin in State and Revolution. This is because the new society cannot immediately provide enough for all to consume at will (rather obvious, if you think about it). Work cannot become the prime want of life at once. It's still necessary to spur every worker to produce as much as possible, through the methods of capitalist piecework payment (the more you work, the more you're paid). The gradual dying away of the state proceeds parallel with the growth of the productive forces of society and the corresponding rise in living standards.

Marx believed that the revolution would take place in France, Germany and Britain first. He did not think that the revolution would happen first in a backwards country. In other words, socialism presupposes a level of productive forces equal to the most advanced capitalism. The process that gives rise to the State is the poverty of society in consumer goods and the resulting struggle of each against all. In a cultured country with a powerful economy capable of satisfying all basic demands (America for instance), this tendency would obviously remain within civilized limits. The workers' state in the USA will correspond more or less to the norm described by Lenin in State and Revolution. However, in Russia, the poorest country in Europe, which repeatedly regressed to disaster and cannibalism, and which received no help from revolutions in the West, the State reimposed itself on workers' society with a vengeance. This will be inevitable in every revolution that takes place in a backwards country, if it does not receive help from civilised countries. That was what Trotsky concluded in his masterpiece The Revolution Betrayed.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Daymare17
There is total confusion here as usual.

Which you will proceed to embellish. :lol:


Zeppelin is completely wrong when he says that "communism means a stateless, classless society".

No, he actually understands what communism is...he just doesn't much like the idea -- thinks it's "too utopian".


The USSR was classless

It most certainly was not...and even said so. The 1936 USSR Constitution says in so many words that it is a state "of the workers, peasants, and toiling intelligentsia".

The workers and peasants had no political power, owned no means of production, and sold their labor power to the state for wages.

The "toiling intelligentsia" -- aka the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) -- held all political power, effectively controlled all of the means of production, and appropriated the surplus-value produced by the workers and peasants for their own priorities.

In all but name, they were a ruling class...and after 1992, they took the name as well.


The socialist revolution does away with the ruling class and makes the exploitation of man by man impossible.

:lol:

As long as people must sell their labor power in order to live, they are almost certainly being exploited.


However, the state did not arise because of the exploitation of man by man. The state arose because of the division of society into rich and poor.

In part. I suspect that the state may have first arisen to settle disputes within the ranks of the wealthy elite as an alternative to more or less chronic civil war. Of course its utility in keeping the "lower orders" in "their place" must have been immediately obvious as well.


After the revolution, the state and money will still exist, as Marx explained in the [Critique of the] Gotha Programme and Lenin in State and Revolution.

That may have been a reasonable assumption in the western Europe of 1875 or the Russia of 1917.

The world has changed a great deal since then...though, of course, Trotskyism hasn't changed at all.


This is because the new society cannot immediately provide enough for all to consume at will (rather obvious, if you think about it).

No, it's not "rather obvious" at all.

Quite the contrary, in fact.


It's still necessary to spur every worker to produce as much as possible, through the methods of capitalist piecework payment (the more you work, the more you're paid).

Sounds wonderful. :o With an "appeal" like this, it's hardly any wonder that the western working class regards "communism" as about as welcome as a diagnosis of colo-rectal cancer.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The USSR was classless: did that mean it was stateless?

You're simplifying it a little too much.
In socialism the state is used as an apparatus of the working class to suppress the ruling class and its means of oppression. Once the ruling class and all of its tools are phased out, then we can say that it's classless. We can also say that it's stateless, because the government is no longer an apparatus of class dominance.

I do not believe that the Soviet Union was either classless or stateless.


No, he actually understands what communism is...he just doesn't much like the idea -- thinks it's "too utopian".

:lol:
That's rich, redstar!
You, on the other hand, plan on achieving communism, by defeating the bourgeoisie and securing the revolution without a military! For someone who's a historical materialist, you sure don't seem too keen on how class antagonisms are overcome.

[Daymare17]

It most certainly was not...and even said so. The 1936 USSR Constitution says in so many words that it is a state "of the workers, peasants, and toiling intelligentsia".

There was no big bourgeoisie. That is what I mean when I say "classless". There was no ruling class to appropriate the surplus value produced by the working class. In your view, society isn't classless until every tiny plot of land and every tiny restaurant is brought under state ownership. Which is true, I guess, but not in the sense I was using.


The workers and peasants had no political power, owned no means of production, and sold their labor power to the state for wages.

The "toiling intelligentsia" -- aka the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) -- held all political power, effectively controlled all of the means of production, and appropriated the surplus-value produced by the workers and peasants for their own priorities.

After you "dispossess" the working class it would be logical to name the bureaucracy as the owners, but you are obviously afraid to do so in the know of the weakness of your own position. We are left in the cold with the ingenious conclusion: the means of production were owned by nobody. Maybe we should try to carry out a serious analysis instead and we wouldn't end up in silly contradictions.

Who owned the means of production in the USSR? The nation. This suggestion might seem absurd - if it is considered by itself. Hegel and Marx said that the properties of things only show themselves in relation to other things. So it is with weight, size, value and property relations. You say:


In all but name, they were a ruling class...and after 1992, they took the name as well.

The logic of your argument is that there is no difference between normal capitalist property and state property that is bureaucratically controlled. The Russian workers might have a different opinion. The five first years of restoration saw a 60% reduction in production. I won't list all the human consequences of this, you can find them out or imagine them yourself. All in all, the Mafia bourgeoisie has probably destroyed more than ten times as much Russian wealth as Hitler.

If the Stalinist bureaucracy was a ruling class, then we are faced with the absurdity of a new type of class society, not foreseen by Marx or anyone else. On the contrary, it was proletarian Bonapartism, a Bonapartist workers' state. Bourgeois Bonapartism means that the state takes control of society since the bourgeoisie is incapable of ruling directly. Chiang Kai-Shek, for instance, clapped the Shanghai bankers in jail and extracted a ransom from them after he had rescued them from the workers. But did that mean that the Shanghai bankers were not the Chinese ruling class? In the same way, the working class was the ruling class of the Soviet Union beginning from November 7, 1917 and until 1990-1996. But since it was incapable of running the country, its own state machine took over the control, with all the fatal consequences of that.


As long as people must sell their labor power in order to live, they are almost certainly being exploited.

What nonsense. Then exploitation would continue even in a healthy, democratic workers' state. Says Marx: "One man is superior to another physically or mentally, and so supplies more labour in the same time, or can labour for a longer time; and labour, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labour. It recognises no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognises unequal individual endowment and thus productive capacity as natural privileges. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right by its very nature can consist only in the application of an equal standard."

As we see, piecework will continue for some time after the revolution, the difference being that the workers sell their labour power to the state, not to private capitalists. Who would be the exploiters then? Marx explained to Lassalle why the workers can't receive the "full product of their labour": it will be necessary to set aside some of the surplus value produced by the working class as an "investment fund" to spend on industry, research and so on. I certainly hope you're not naming that "exploitation".


That may have been a reasonable assumption in the western Europe of 1875 or the Russia of 1917.

The world has changed a great deal since then...though, of course, Trotskyism hasn't changed at all.

You are saying that Marx&#39; critique of the Gotha Programme is no longer valid. You are saying that the means of production are as advanced as is necessary for Lenin&#39;s "communism", Marx&#39; "higher stage of communism". You are saying that the world, at present, has such wealth that every individual may take as much as he or she wants, and work only as much as he or she wishes, for the system to continue existing. <_< I&#39;m afraid your judgement is a tad off.

In all this we see the dangers of using a hodgepodge method instead of the dialectical Marxist one. You don&#39;t pose the question concretely. In your view, the workers make the revolution, wham&#33; The state is abolished&#33; Money is abolished&#33; To each according to his need&#33; (and as fast as you can before the supplies run out&#33;)

No. Phony Bakuninist radicalism enters Redstarite "Marxism" through the back door, on the pathetic pretence that "the world has changed". Bakunin maintained that the state and money would be administratively abolished on the day after the revolution, and so do you. In general, in relation to Marx you play a similar role as Bakunin, although as a farce rather than as a tragedy. He also picked up whatever pieces of Marxism he thought sounded good and fitted them into his own stupid theories, while undermining Marxism and spreading confusion at every step.

The world certainly has changed, but it&#39;s still a capitalist world. And the current means of production are not sufficient for "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". We&#39;ll need a period of expansion under a democratic planned economy first. And so long as it&#39;s impossible to guarantee enough for all, then the state will exist as the safeguard of inequality. The level of state repression will depend on the level of inequality.

In general, vulgar thought thinks that every qualitative change is carried out by a "wham&#33;". A cat is a cat is a cat is not a cat. It can&#39;t picture the process as it actually flows, in all its quantitative as well as qualitative changes. Because of this it is forever doomed to flabby impotence.

Always keep in mind that the present is the unity of the past and the future. That might sound obvious and silly, but you forget it all the time.


No, it&#39;s not "rather obvious" at all.

Quite the contrary, in fact.

...

Sounds wonderful. With an "appeal" like this, it&#39;s hardly any wonder that the western working class regards "communism" as about as welcome as a diagnosis of colo-rectal cancer.

See above. Obviously, in a healthy workers&#39; state, "spurring" the workers doesn&#39;t mean threatening them with shooting or anything like that. It just means that the more you work, the more you get. And it&#39;s necessary in the transitional period. That&#39;s an objective fact that must not be concealed to the workers. Unless you are in the habit of lying to them, of course. Trotsky once remarked that there can be no greater downfall than that, for a revolutionary politican. But I&#39;m not so sure if it would be so terrible in your case. After all, you never were one in the first place.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Daymare17+--> (Daymare17)In your view, society isn&#39;t classless until every tiny plot of land and every tiny restaurant is brought under state ownership.[/b]

No, "state ownership" has nothing to do with classlessness.

There is no state apparatus in a classless society.

"Ownership" is actually a meaningless concept in communist society.


We are left in the cold with the ingenious conclusion: the means of production were owned by nobody.

In capitalist society, the bourgeoisie own the means of production as a matter of (bourgeois) law...but their ownership is demonstrated in the act of effective control buttressed with the armed forces of the state apparatus.

In Leninist socialism, the law proclaims that the means of production is "owned" by the state apparatus itself...it is, in fact, an integral part of that state apparatus.

So yes, it&#39;s meaningless to talk about the "ownership" of the means of production in the USSR...the concept didn&#39;t exist in Soviet law.

But it was the CPSU(B) that totally controlled the state apparatus and made all the decisions that a large capitalist would make in a capitalist society.

They functioned as if they were the "owners".

Marxists, of course, are not deceived by formalities but look instead to the real class relationships.

Something you might want to consider.


The logic of your argument is that there is no difference between normal capitalist property and state property that is bureaucratically controlled.

None of substance...though details may vary, of course.


If the Stalinist bureaucracy was a ruling class, then we are faced with the absurdity of a new type of class society, not foreseen by Marx or anyone else.

Not so much a "new type of class society" but rather a variant on an existing type...state monopoly capitalism, to be precise.


On the contrary, it was proletarian Bonapartism...

Certainly there were parallels between Stalin&#39;s regime and that of both Napoleon I and Napoleon III.

But, aside from the rhetoric and some social welfare measures, what was "proletarian" about the USSR after 1922?


Then exploitation would continue even in a healthy, democratic workers&#39; state.

Well, recall that I said almost certainly exploited.

It would all depend on how rapidly your "healthy, democratic workers&#39; state" would degenerate into state monopoly capitalism.

Very early on, it might not be too bad.


Marx
It recognises no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognises unequal individual endowment and thus productive capacity as natural privileges.

Marx is speaking here of the early period of post-revolutionary society. The problem he overlooked is that the "natural privilege" of superior "endowment" will, if not restrained, lead to the restoration of class society.

In a class society, some of those with "superior endowment" will accumulate material surpluses...potential capital. In the old USSR, the black market absorbed such investments.

But more interesting is what happens "towards the top" of this "healthy, democratic workers&#39; state". The party/state leadership consider themselves to be "naturally endowed" with the greatest "superiority" and feel they should be rewarded accordingly (because "Marx said it was ok").

Well, you know where things go from there.


As we see, piecework will continue for some time after the revolution, the difference being that the workers sell their labour power to the state, not to private capitalists. Who would be the exploiters then?

Those who control the state apparatus, obviously.


You are saying that the world, at present, has such wealth that every individual may take as much as he or she wants, and work only as much as he or she wishes, for the system to continue existing.

Not "the world", the advanced capitalist countries.

And not necessarily "at present", but at such time as conditions mature for proletarian revolution in the advanced capitalist countries.

Clear?


In all this we see the dangers of using a hodgepodge method instead of the dialectical Marxist one.

In all your remarks, we see the dangers of treating Marxism as theology.


You don&#39;t pose the question concretely. In your view, the workers make the revolution, wham&#33; The state is abolished&#33; Money is abolished&#33; To each according to his need&#33;

No one expects those things to happen "wham&#33;" or instantaneously.

The difference between me and the theological "Marxists" (Leninists) is in answering the question: what do we try to do after a successful proletarian revolution?

Do we deliberately build up a new and massive state apparatus that "owns" everything, run by a vanguard elite, and make the workers work even harder?

Or do we keep "state power" (such of it as remains) localized, in the hands of workers&#39; assemblies? Do we drastically shorten the working day (down to 8 hours per week, perhaps) by abolishing unnecessary/harmful "work"? Do we immediately begin distributing basic necessities according to communist principles (according to need), phasing out the use of money? And so on.

In other words, do we start building communism or do we take the detour that all the 20th century Leninist regimes took?

Sure, it can always be said that 20th century Leninism failed because capitalism was "on history&#39;s agenda" in those backward countries and nothing anyone could have done would have changed the outcome.

But why take the chance?

Most of the things they did are things that are no longer necessary.


Bakunin maintained that the state and money would be administratively abolished on the day after the revolution, and so do you.

No, I don&#39;t "say that".

But Marx and Bakunin both agreed that the bourgeois state apparatus had to be smashed immediately after the revolution.

I agree with that. :D


[Bakunin] also picked up whatever pieces of Marxism he thought sounded good and fitted them into his own stupid theories, while undermining Marxism and spreading confusion at every step.

The same could be said of Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Tito, Mao, etc.

Every serious revolutionary "cherry picks" from the corpus of revolutionary theory and experience...in fact, Marx and Engels did it too. They borrowed selectively from German philosophy (unfortunately&#33;), French revolutionary experience, and English political economy. They took what they thought was useful and ignored the rest.

They never bothered with what was "orthodox".

Neither should we.


And the current means of production are not sufficient for "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

Would people think me a "vulgar Marxist" if I suggested that the root of such an assertion is your concern over the privileges you anticipate for yourself after the revolution?

Forget that dacha, son, you&#39;re way down on the list.


Always keep in mind that the present is the unity of the past and the future. That might sound obvious and silly, but you forget it all the time.

I&#39;ll forget it because it is silly.


Obviously, in a healthy workers&#39; state, "spurring" the workers doesn&#39;t mean threatening them with shooting or anything like that. It just means that the more you work, the more you get...That&#39;s an objective fact that must not be concealed from the workers.

No, the more you work, the more the party/state leadership gets. And you may as well admit it because everybody knows.


After all, you never were [a revolutionary politician] in the first place.

"Revolutionary politician" is an oxymoron.

But I do thank you for the (unintended) compliment; I have indeed never been a politician...or a scab, a cop, a mercenary.

Too bad the same can&#39;t be said for you.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas