Why the "That's not Communism" argument exists.

[NovelGentry]

It would seem a day can't go by on che-lives without someone using the line "that's not communism" or "that wasn't communism." For us Marxists, who believe Marx to be something of the father of modern communism, it is an argument we use not for the lack of a better argument, but simply to distinguish the reality of the ideology.

Throughout his works Marx contributes the ideas of, the weathering away of the state, the abolition of money, the abolition of private property, the destruction of classes, to the primary list of what we know communism to be. Much like any other currently theoretical ideology, it is a logical fallacy to credit a simple claim to that ideology, as the practice of that ideology. We've grown up with terms like "Communist Russia" and "Communist China," perpetuated by the current bourgeois media and even at some points, it would seem, by the nations themselves.

Why is it then we cannot call such examples communist? For the same reason it is foolish to consider a social democracy like Sweden socialist. Socialism does not exist without completely socialized production, to the same, Communism does not exist with classes, money, a state (and thus a nation). This may seem like a bit of hypocrisy since we are so quick to call the US, capitalist. However, the defining characteristic of a capitalist society is of course capital, the ongoing generation of capital, and it's productive forces generating overall, more capital. While the US may have minor social institutions and programs, as well as regulated industries, the aspect of what makes it capitalism does not change. What we are, of course, able to destinguish is that it is not free market capitalism, although even that is arguable for some companies who have enough money to avoid such regulation.

The terms "mixed state/economy," also, need not apply. There is nothing mixed about the productive forces and their control under the US. Indeed many of you mistake these minor social programs for "socialism," ignoring the defining characteristic as it relates to the means of production. Socialism is NOT a giant heaping bureacracy of a welfare state.

What we merely ask is that you grasp these terms. It is not by chance that you misunderstand these. It is deep within what you are brought up understanding. You are told in school the USSR was communist, that Cuba is communist, that China and Vietnam are communist. It also remains perpetuated by the media, just the other day I heard reference to "Communist China." Even worse, the economists, political scientists, and social theoreticians who's work you read is filled with perpetuating this misguided interpretation. You argue the same points they do, and suffer from the same flawed definitions.

It can only be our assumption the majority of you have not read Marx, but only the critiques of Marx, which themselves were written by people who seemingly misinterpreted Marx, or the same as Lenin, distorted it in a way that his definitions change.

If it seems as though we are bringing up this argument a lot it is a circumstance of this constant misinterpretation and perpetuation of distortions. Your arguments revert to simple assertions based on a single word, "communism," which carries with it the stigma of Stalin as well as many authoritarian socialists, who's ideas are founded on just as much distortion and misinterpretation. You go so far as to relate "national socialism" (Naziism) to a form of socialism, ignoring it's acceptance and even it's support of the capitalist methods.

When you are faced with the actual ideas of communism, it's true nature and it's true form, you too use the same argument as we, "that's not communism" while you cite examples of what you believe are communism (all examples listed above, and then some). This problem of semantics need not even arise if you were not the first to call it into play, but alas, it is your singular argument of why communism is "wrong" and "evil." Without it, you'd be faced to deal with the true principles of communism, which it seems little of you have the capacity to refute.

[crazyman]

Why is it that "real communism" has never been a reality on a large scale?

[crazyman]

Also how do you know that it will even work?
All you have is theories when I have proof to back me up.

[New Tolerance]

Has capitalism 'truely' existed?

[NovelGentry]

Why is it that "real communism" has never been a reality on a large scale?

Well whether it is large or not depends completely on what it is relative to. Relative to the world, communism has only been implemented on minor scales. Which in themselves are not communist simply because they exist amongst capitalism. There are "communes" and "collectives" of sorts, but they do not escape the realities of the capitalist nations in which they subside. They cannot ignore federal or state law, nor are they really free from the capitalist mode of production ans sustenence as they do not control nearly enough of the means of production to do so.

Real communism will not be implemented until every state has at least seen socialism. Socialism itself will not be instituted until these states have progressed through capitalism, it is not even possible until the material conditions set fourth by capitalism have been enacted. You'd be hard pressed to find the fastidious communist who bases their beliefs on strict moral clause. Marx, as well as anyone who follows Marxism should above all things be an unwavering materialist. Much like feudalism progressed towards the eventual overthrow of it's form of the state by the bourgeoisie, capitalism progresses towards it's eventual overthrow of it's form of the state by the proletariat. It does this on material basis alone, regardless of moral intrigue.

Ignoring the class struggles of history and their reasons will always make you blind to the present day class struggle, as well as it's reasons.


Also how do you know that it will even work?

How did the bourgeoisie know the idea of capitalism would work? How did they know people would want the products that their market made available, and how did they know people would want to acquire them through market dynamics? They didn't. There was a point where the basic principles of capitalism itself were only theory, and they too were considered idealisms, of course by the reactionaries of the feudal day, those that could not see beyond the feudal productive methodology.

It is not a question of whether or not they will work. It is a question first and foremost of whether or not they will come into play, if it does not "work" then it will go the same way of every other previous socio-economic system and will ferment within itself the necessity for revolution and a change of that system. I cannot say for sure that it will work, I believe it will. But just the same I cannot say for sure, and I'm not even so sure I believe that it is the final socio-economic system. There could be something that is, in fact, impossible for us to see at this moment because we do not have the material consciousness brought about by the conditions of communism yet.

Regardless of whether it will "work," we hold one thing for certain capitalism does not "work" and it will at some point fail. Why did feudalism not last indefinitely? Why didn't barbaric systems of slavery last indefinitely? Did they not "work?"


All you have is theories when I have proof to back me up.

Your proof did not exist hundreds of years ago aside from the theories of an arising class that wanted to be free of feudal ties and monarch controls. Get back to me after the revolution, and I'll have all the proof you need.

[progressive thinker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 11:29 PM
Real communism will not be implemented until every state has at least seen socialism.
Ah yes the glorious revolution! That is why we must outlaw guns, so we can gain the upper hand. Whoever said that communism wants to conquer every human life form will be vanquished. Reeducation is a must, so that people do not realize that communism is unattainable and Marx never understood basic algebra. Real genius comes from within and Marx and Engel were the geniuses of geniuses. Nevermind that they never contributed to the advancement of humanity, their genius cannot be realized by mere mortals. They're gone beyond all understanding and that is why we, as communists, must advance this understanding to the lesser life forms. Clever terms like "progressive, reeducation, revolutionary, capitalist pigs, and bougisie" will form a mantra of necessary vocabulary. Nevermind that Lenin and Stalin were fastiduously against capitalism as much as anyone else. By being against capitalism that means they were for it! They are truely the capitalists and therefore not communists.

Nevermind that by using the communism has never been implemented argument defies existance of nature. Maybe we're all not here right now and therefore how could the internet exist? I've reached a bigger expose. Maybe the U.S. government never existed. Freedom never existed. Nothing exists. Doomed, all of us to be tormented by a system that forces us to work harder to compete with others.

[NovelGentry]

Ah yes the glorious revolution! That is why we must outlaw guns, so we can gain the upper hand. Whoever said that communism wants to conquer every human life form will be vanquished. Reeducation is a must, so that people do not realize that communism is unattainable and Marx never understood basic algebra. Real genius comes from within and Marx and Engel were the geniuses of geniuses. Nevermind that they never contributed to the advancement of humanity, their genius cannot be realized by mere mortals. They're gone beyond all understanding and that is why we, as communists, must advance this understanding to the lesser life forms. Clever terms like "progressive, reeducation, revolutionary, capitalist pigs, and bougisie" will form a mantra of necessary vocabulary. Nevermind that Lenin and Stalin were fastiduously against capitalism as much as anyone else. By being against capitalism that means they were for it! They are truely the capitalists and therefore not communists.

Nevermind that by using the communism has never been implemented argument defies existance of nature. Maybe we're all not here right now and therefore how could the internet exist? I've reached a bigger expose. Maybe the U.S. government never existed. Freedom never existed. Nothing exists. Doomed, all of us to be tormented by a system that forces us to work harder to compete with others.

Now that you're rant that has nothing to do with what my statement was about, maybe I can clarify a little.

Capitalism holds an inherently imperialistic nature, not because of "evil" or any such abstract foolishness, but very simply because it is what it needs materially to survive. Cheap labor is a must to increase capital indefinitely, unfortunately there's only so much cheap labor you can squeeze out of a single land mass or geographical regions. As such the capitalist state looks to protect the interest of capitalism by expanding it's control and market domination through force.

Communism, with no state, has no protectiong mechanism from this force aside from the resistence by it's workers. While this may be enough to hold them off, it is not enough to keep capitalists out. They will always seek to expand into such a system as it presents the possibility for that system itself to reemerge as capitalism under it's destruction, thereby creating a new market, both a producer market and a consumer market.

The reason communism cannot be realized until all other nations are socialist is very simply because materially speaking, no capitalist nation would allow it. Even if came in the form of economic drain through a "cold war." Even further, it is against the very definition of statelessness (something capitalism looks to uphold) that you could have a singular communist nation. The world and only the world can progress towards communism and classlessness, but in order to do that they must first have their time with capitalism, and socialism.

This is not a statement that we must "expand" socialist nations. Rapidly progressing early capitalist nations directly to socialism would not be to our benefit, and when the world was united in classlessness and statelessness we would face possible scarcity issues in doing so.

[encephalon]

you are an ass.

[progressive thinker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 12:50 AM
you are an ass.
Alright I'll stop being sarcastic (I'm assuming you're refering to me, since both you and novelgentry have resorted to using personal attacks).

[NovelGentry]

I have no problem with personal attacks against trolls. Your sarcasm is little more than an attempt to bait further personal attacks because you have no real argument.

[Dead Mike]

you are an ass.
now ive seen it all, donkeys using computers! what will they think of next :D

[progressive thinker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 02:52 AM
I have no problem with personal attacks against trolls. Your sarcasm is little more than an attempt to bait further personal attacks because you have no real argument.
Ok so from your previous post your entire argument against capitalism is:
capitalism = enslaving people through a non-living wage

This is not necessarily true of capitalism. There are businesses which exist which do exploit populations in recessed regions of the world, however there are also businesses which do take care of their workers and treat them like humans.

One specific example I can think of is Henry Ford. When he employed workers in his factory he increased their wages so that the wives of his workers would not have to go out and get a job. He thought that since the man was the primary breadwinner in the family, he needed a salary to provide for his entire family. And a really good business will look upon its workers like that.

Two other examples I know of are from Pat Buchanan's The Great Betrayal. I don't remember the exact businesses/leaders, but here are the stories. One company in North Carolina that dealt with textiles had its plant burn down. This plant was the primary source of income for all the families in the area, so when it burnt down all of the men and women were out of work. So the CEO of the company flew down and assessed how long it would take to have a new plant built. While the new plant was being built he asked any worker who wanted to continue to be employed if they wouldn't mind relocating to a plant in the north or helping out with the construction of the new plant. So he flew a whole bunch of people north so they could continue to earn money for their families while the plant was built.

The other example also deals with fire and another manufacturing plant burning down. In this one however, the CEO decided that since the plant had burned down there was nothing he could do except keep people on the payroll. He continued to pay them their regular salaries for four or five months until the new plant was built or the people found jobs.

Those are all examples of how capitalism is the best kind of system for people. And I hope that constitutes enough of a "real argument" in your eyes.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by progressive thinker+--> (progressive thinker)One specific example I can think of is Henry Ford.[/b]

How sweet.


Lee Iacocca
He was so worried that his workers would go crazy with their five bucks a day that he set up a "Sociological Department" to make sure that they didn't blow the money on booze and vice. He banned smoking...

He was violently opposed to labor organizers, whom he saw as "the worst thing that ever struck the earth," and entirely unnecessary...

In the prewar years there was no intelligent management at Ford. When I arrived at the end of the war, the company was a monolithic dictatorship. Its balance sheet was still being kept on the back of an envelope, and the guys in purchasing had to weigh the invoices to count them. College kids, managers, anyone with book learning was viewed with some kind of suspicion. Ford had done so many screwy things — from terrorizing his own lieutenants to canonizing Adolf Hitler — that the company's image was as low as it could go...

http://www.time.com/time/time100/builder/profile/ford3.html

Henry Ford -- the anti-semite...

http://allfreeessays.com/student/Henry_For...nti-Semite.html (http://allfreeessays.com/student/Henry_FordPortrait_of_an_Anti-Semite.html)

Henry Ford -- labor "relations"...

http://www.hfmgv.org/exhibits/fmc/battle.asp

One of the great bastards of the 20th century!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[NovelGentry]

Ok so from your previous post your entire argument against capitalism is:
capitalism = enslaving people through a non-living wage

Correction:

capitalism = enslaving people through a wage

This is why we use the term wage slave. Period. The level of exploitation makes it no less of an exploitation. It's ability is driven through private property and capital (one constituting the other's existence).

If there is some way in which you can prove to me private property is justified materially (not morally), that is, if you can show me that the property of capitalists is indeed their own personal property and they have a right to privately hold it, then I will drop communism on the floor.

The property which maintains this private characteristic is the combined effort of the working class and it's existence, as I've said many times before, dates back to the original control over what could only be considered the original means of production: Land.

[Zingu]

The only difference between a worker in a capitalist society and a slave is that the work gets to choose his own master.