ahhh_money_is_comfort
14th December 2004, 00:54
Originally posted by
[email protected] 13 2004, 06:31 AM
The communist revolutions seem to be taking place in non-industrial countries. Please seem my other thread regarding hippies. I'm trying to find out how this is all supposed to work.
Setting aside my doubts as to your claims of curiosity, I'll indulge you for a moment.
The fact that all "Communist" revolutions have occured in pre-industrial countries is hardly something that escapes us. It is perhaps the largest theoretical uncertainty among the left today.
The reason that these "Communist" revolutions go to shit, at least according to a number of us, goes like this. The biggest factor in any historical change will always be the material conditions. If a society's technology can't support a mode of production, it will regress back to the stage that fits the level of material progress.
One of Marx's biggest concepts was that the material conditions of capitalism would eventually deteriorate to the point where its most downtrodden people would revolt and create a whole new society - communism.
All Marxists accept this as true. The problem is, when you attempt to bring a socialist consciousness to a populace that isn't ready for it, they will either not revolt or actually oppose the revolution. Therefore, as Lenin argued, they need a Party, a state organ which is supposed to represent the proletariat's interests.
This does not happen, as we have seen disastrously over the 20th century. The Party is composed of people, too, with their own material interests at hand. Boom! We still have a class society on our hands.
All the problems of the "Communist" countries of the last century can be distilled to one simple criticism: they tried to rush things.
To work, a Communist society must be global, classless, and in all cases organized from the bottom-up. This isn't a checklist; these all go hand in hand or are completely absent.
Now, all the "Communist" countries who tried to organize their society beyond the means of production that they had are reverting to the mode of production that best suits their conditions: capitalism.
Interestingly, this commune example you keep dragging out over and over again provides an interesting parallel. Here's an excerpt from a High Times article on The Farm site.
Despite surviving the [police] raid, The Farm's future was cloudy in the early 1980s. They lost money during the farm crisis, leaving them over a million dollars in debt, despite hard work and excellent crops. Their other cash cow, the construction company, was all but idle due to the recession. The Farm was down for the count, ironically, not because their experimental collectivism failed, but because of failures within the greater capitalist economy. Faced with losing their land, in 1983 The Farm abruptly changed from a communal to a privatized economy. In order to raise money to pay off the debt, collective businesses were sold and residents were charged fixed membership fees, a sort of regressive tax, to remain on their land. Many who worked on collective Farm projects such as road maintenance suddenly found themselves facing expenses but not having an income. The Farm motor pool was privatized, leaving many residents without transportation to go out and find work.
As I said - to make a stable, lasting communist society, it's gotta be categorical.
Thanks. This has been the most informative post yet. I am looking for explanations on the thoery and what really is going on. If you don't have proof that you are right, don't even you ideas and theory to me. I'm going to jump all over you and ask "show me the money".
To the other communist here, if you try to convince me that you are right based on theory alone; I'm going to jump all over and ask "prove it". Don't insult me by tryint to prove your right on by doctrine alone. I want to see the proof your right. Frankly using the theory as proof that you are right is dark age thinking.