What about starvation?

[Lithian]

Ok I'm very new to this having only just read the communist manifesto, and the marxist theory.

I was watching the telly with my parents last night and the chance to put my view accross about capitalism came up, however i was servearly beaten in the argument as they made a few quite good points against communism.

One of these points was starvation. If everything is state owned, then the state would be the ones to put a prices on food, they would also have to ration the food, would they not? Therefore people would be queing in the shops and there would be nothing on the shelvs! If one family was bigger than the other then they wouldn't have enough food to feed them, would they not?

I explained to my Dad that he would be better off in a communist government, because he wouldn't be getting exploited by the capitalist, he then turned round and said that communism wouldn't stop us from getting exploited, we would just trade being exploited by the capitalist for being exploited by the government.

Please clear these points up for me, so I can kick arse at the next political debate. :P
I'm also very sorry if these points have already been discussed elsewhere on the site.

Thx.

[h&s]

I explained to my Dad that he would be better off in a communist government

A communist society would have no government. No state, no leaders, nothing. For some reason this is only touched on in the Communist Manifesto (at the end of chapter 2 I think).
Government and the state would only exist in the transition period of socialism (not the 'socialism' practiced by the USSR) after the revolution, but if you are an anarchist you would say that there is no point in this because all power corrupts absolutly, etc, etc.


One of these points was starvation. If everything is state owned, then the state would be the ones to put a prices on food, they would also have to ration the food, would they not? Therefore people would be queing in the shops and there would be nothing on the shelvs! If one family was bigger than the other then they wouldn't have enough food to feed them, would they not?
As there would be no state, it will be the people who ration out the food to each other.
Also, the world produces excess ammounts of food. The EU gives out subsidies to farmers to leave their fields fallow as there are literally mountains of 'excess' grain that get thrown away each year as the EU can not consume it all. Being typical capitalists they refuse to give it away, as it 'would flood the market' and 'drive down prices.' This grain and other wasted foods could easily be used to feed all the world's starving.
This of course would require international co-operation and revolution, so that makes a good case against Stalin's 'socialism in one country!' :P

[Lithian]

Thx mate you've cleared that point up for me. I appologise if that seemed like a stupid question, but it was one that when put to me I couldn't find an answer. Moreover I'm new to communism. :P

Also at first glance at the communist manifesto, there were some points which I found difficult to understand, this might be due to my low IQ, I don't know. :P

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 01:03 PM
Also at first glance at the communist manifesto, there were some points which I found difficult to understand, this might be due to my low IQ, I don't know. :P
The communist manifesto as with most of Karl marx's writing, indeed with most writing of that time, it is very difficult especially if you are starting out. That's why forums like this and FAQ's are so important.

You're not stupid or have a low IQ you are just the same as everyone else was when the first started reading about communist/marxism/anarxhism.

This is what the forum is for, to ask quesitons about things you find complicated. The more you ask and the more you read, eventually it won't be that complicating and you will be able to move on to other works and so on and so on. Don't be afraid to ask questions!

At least you have had the balls to start reading, which is a damn site more than a lot of people.

[Subversive Pessimist]

Welcome! :)


Also at first glance at the communist manifesto, there were some points which I found difficult to understand, this might be due to my low IQ, I don't know.


I don't understand much of Marx's writings. I just feel that we can't communicate, so to speak. :P

After I tried to read Marx, which basically went to shit, I started reading Lenin, and I think he says what needs to be said in a strict, straight forward manner. Here are some that I recommend reading :)

Courses of Marxism (http://www.oneparty.co.uk/index.html?http%3A//www.oneparty.co.uk/html/courses.html), The State And The Revolution (http://www.oneparty.co.uk/index.html?http%3A//www.oneparty.co.uk/html/courses.html), Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/index.htm), and What is communist anarchism? (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)



Check out this page to find more recommended works:

Link (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5983)

[Sabocat]

One of these points was starvation. If everything is state owned, then the state would be the ones to put a prices on food, they would also have to ration the food, would they not? Therefore people would be queing in the shops and there would be nothing on the shelvs! If one family was bigger than the other then they wouldn't have enough food to feed them, would they not?

Production of food is not the issue. There has been, for quite some time enough food produced or the capability to produce enough food to feed the world. Even today grain is allowed to rot in silos in order to keep the prices up.

If capitalism is superior to communism in fighting the disease of starvation, then ask him why anybody is starving in the world today.

Ask him how many people during the depression could have been fed with the grain that the U.S. dumped in the sea!


That there was a great depression in the US in 1930s is a fact of history. In the opinion of the historians of the Marxist school, it was a vindication of Marx's theory of the decline of capitalism due to its own contradictions. The social conditions that prevailed in the US during the great depression has been depicted very well in the famous novel "The grapes of wrath" by Steinbeck.

Though the US Government took several steps as advised by its economists to overcome the depression, nothing much could be achieved. In the words of Galbraith, it was the preparation for the Second World War and its participation, which saved the US from depression.

Yes, a huge military industrial complex was created churning out weapons of war on unprecedented scale. The huge grain surplus, which was dumped into the sea during the depression even as millions were starving (some similarity to the Indian situation presently - the food grain is rotting in the godowns and people are starving) in order to keep the prices up - was utilized for military supply.

Emphasis mine. That doesn't seem like a superior way to deal with starvation to me. This was just a quick blurb I found about this during that time. The practice continues today.

Link (http://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/violence.htm)

[Lithian]

Just want to thank you all, for clearing that up for me. I'm also glad that I'm not the only one who finds Marx, and communism in general hard to understand. I feel I have just scratched the surface, but I am eager to find out more.

Thankyou ComradeStrawberry for the links, and everyone else for their comments.

And WTF is with dumping the grain overboard! Bloody w**kers.

[apathy maybe]

First point. What your father was talking about was what happened in the USSR and still happens in China. This is called "state capitalism", it is were the state exploits (by taking away surplus) the worker rather then individual capitalists.
"State socialism" is a different thing, this is where the state directs the economy, but instead of surplus being taken away for other purposes (such as selling internationally like happened in the USSR), it is shared amongst the people.
"Communism" and "Anarchism" are two variants (or one, depends on who you talk to) of "state-less socialism". That is there is no state at all, rather the people co-operate on a local level and on a large scale, with out an intermediary force.

Just 'cause the USSR and China call[ed] themselves communist doesn't mean shit. Originally both countries were attempting to have a stage in between the capitalist (or rather feudalist) stage and communism. However, in both countries they tried something that didn’t work, so-called democratic centralism (which is no more democratic then the USA or Britain). This lead to the rise of a new ruling class and which is why neither country can be called even socialist. The differentials in wealth and power are too great for it to be called socialist.

Democracy is rule by the people, not by the peoples representatives, especially when they only represent less then 50% of the population which happens when you use first-past-the-post.

[Anti-Capitalist1]

Originally posted by Apathy [email protected] 27 2004, 12:28 AM
Democracy is rule by the people, not by the peoples representatives, especially when they only represent less then 50% of the population which happens when you use first-past-the-post.
This reminds of my favorite cappie counter-arguement: "There has never been a true Communist nation!" Me- "well, there has never been a true Democracy, either!"

Welcome, and about your "low iq" what is your iq, that you consider it low?