Communism Reputation

[Joseph]

Im a skeptic of communism but i also have no doubt that the struggle towards communism will improve society. That is why i want to help you communists succeed in bringing about equality. Will you be willing to lend me your eyes?

These days, communism's reputation is horrible. Capitalists have taken the failures of the communist leaders of yesterday and successfully tied it to the communist theory. Some questions are: How can this be fixed and how can this be prevented in the future? Why has socialism been plagued by strings of failures.

Most people will not listen to the actual theory and distinguish what is propaganda. Maybe if communists were to have more successes in improving equality without being plagued by shortages of wealth, the people of the world may put their faith in communism. But how can wealth be maintained while improving equality. Equality tends to be a money losing venture believe it or not.

To maintain wealth while improving equality, the economic system has to be kept temporarily and must not be abolished due to the conditions of today. Eventually the economic system will have to be abolished, but it needs to meet a quiet death. After many years of success in the implementation of equality polices, the people may become convinced that the economic system is not needed (this may never happen). Only then should you start getting rid of the economy. This is kind of what China is doing i suppose, but there is still something i don't like about their way. They have human rights problems and censorship problems.

I think the reason socialist countries have been stuck by strings of problems because most socialist governments did not revolve around a democratic system. Most, if not all of them are dictatorships around some sort of influential leader. Communist parties should be forced to work in an environment where failure means losing support and losing control. That way they will not make rash decisions and be trully held accountable to the people. When i say rash, I am talking about the implementation of polices that work theoretically according to marxism but don't work in practice. Marxist thinking must not be blindly follow, no assumptions made. To avoid disasters, everything must be tested empirically and if it doesn't work, should not be implemented on the whole.

Lastly, communists must also be prepared to accept the fact that marx was wrong about human nature if empirical evidence shows it. Marx assumes that greed was caused by the capitalistic system, this may be wrong. The people may never be ready to live in communism and it must not be deliberately forced upon the people.

This will create a win-win situation for both believers and sketics.

[workersunity]

yes that is an urgent problem, of trying to get the truth out about communism, as you can not many people have answers to it, except for just educating the people, albeit many different ways, my eyes are open

[NovelGentry]

When i say rash, I am talking about the implementation of polices that work theoretically according to marxism but don't work in practice. Marxist thinking must not be blindly follow, no assumptions made.

Could you give me an example of the policies you talk about? Marx gave very little hint on how to go about socialism/communism. Every time I hear something like this, I have to question whether or not the person saying/writing it has even read Marx. And I am asking you now, have you even read Marx?

Marxist thinking is contradictory to blind following and assumptions. Marxist thinking is about the progression of man through history through the lense of class struggle, defined by the material necessities of man and the creation of those necessities to generate the conditions of any member of society and thus, society as a whole, from which all aspects of man are designed after. It is the type of thinking that says our very material nature is our master -- mind over matter does not exist in Marxism, not even in the sense that we can become something other than what our environment allows us to become -- at least not truly.


To avoid disasters, everything must be tested empirically and if it doesn't work, should not be implemented on the whole.

And who is to decide whether or not this empirical test succeeds or fails? Indeed, for the bourgeoisie, capitalism has succeeded in their emperical testing, but for the proletarians it is a failure. This is why you see posts in OI of "Free Market Works" -- indeed it does "work." But who does it work for?

The only means to decide what is right for people on a whole is democracy. But we are not interested in the people as a whole -- we are interested in class struggle, and we are to protect the interests of the proletariat, as such, the interests of the bourgeoisie should not be of our concern, nor should they be allowed to foster.

To avoid disaster, we need democracy but at the same time we need a dictatorship. The proletarians will decide the interest of the proletariat, and the proletariat will enforce it in total over the bourgeoisie.

[Joseph]

The whole soviet system of everything going into the state then the state redistributing everything... the people were not ready for this system because they were still driven by the desire to further themselves rather than society... this forced them to enforce quotas and such... altogether the society was too inefficient and collapsed.

Mao Zedong encouraged farmers to produce industrial goods in the communes... this caused a famine.

Mao called for a cultural revolution, the people responded in the wrong way be killing teachers and intellectuals and such.

Assuming that a communist dictatorship is incorruptable led to the foolish setup of socialist governments that ended up totally ruining communist's reputation. This has probably delayed the coming of communism by centuries(if communism is even possible)... who knows when people will have faith in communism again.

All i am saying is test it on small groups of people to see their response against the theory a few times before slowly expanding the policy to include the everyone, no matter how obvious it may seem due to facts proven by marxist theory... if you do not, you could accidentally cause a collapse in wealth or worse.

There may be a sense of urgency to a problem ie. capitalism, but sometimes the quick solution can cause something worse. It is better to play it slowly and safely.

[Joseph]

I have learned Marxism from a marxist/anarchist friend of mine... is that not good enough?

All theorists have postulates... postulates can be wrong or incomplete

[NovelGentry]

The whole soviet system of everything going into the state then the state redistributing everything... the people were not ready for this system because they were still driven by the desire to further themselves rather than society... this forced them to enforce quotas and such... altogether the society was too inefficient and collapsed.

Mao Zedong encouraged farmers to produce industrial goods in the communes... this caused a famine.

Mao called for a cultural revolution, the people responded in the wrong way be killing teachers and intellectuals and such.

You said something about Marxist policies, in what aspects are these Marxist?

The only list of "policies" I've ever known Marx to put across are the 10 points in the manifesto for what should occur immediately after the revolution, to which he actually says that these will differ depending on the conditions per state. He knew his word was not final, and he knew material conditions would continue to change long after his passing and there would be things he could never have imagined.

However, there is a more fundamental question on whether or not these policies oppose Marxism. Now let's make a KEY separateion here between Marxism and Socialism. To say these actions oppose Marxism would be in essence to say Marxism is wrong. However, in much the same sense, they are not directly supported by Marxism -- As Marxism itself presents nothing beyond the condition that capitalism has had it's time and that the bourgeoisie and proletariat are settled and full-grown in their existence.

Thus these systems do not oppose Marxism itself, in fact, using the same thinking as Marx, one can see why they would turn out the way they do -- but they do not precisely follow Marxism's outline for the progression of class struggle.

They were ineffect, never brought up... and never thrown away, but simply, unanswered.


Assuming that a communist dictatorship is incorruptable led to the foolish setup of socialist governments that ended up totally ruining communist's reputation. This has probably delayed the coming of communism by centuries(if communism is even possible)... who knows when people will have faith in communism again.

The only thing these movements and governments have delayed is the existence of capitalism in their own country.

I have faith in communism because I have faith in Marxism. That is to say, I believe communism will happen, and I believe the actions of Russia and China and Vietnam and Cuba and Angolia and wherever else have done little to set back the progression of communism in countries like Germany, Italy, France, and the US. My faith in communism, however, is completely separate from my desire for communism. And this, I believe, is what separates Marxist thinking from many other radical left ideologies, including supposed "evolutions" of his thinking.

While I do not believe I can stop communism, or efectively start it here... I do believe I can accelerate it's arrival. I believe I can do this by making people aware in the same way I am of the nature of class struggle. I don't expect anyone to just pick up a gun and take over factories and what not without any reasoning, but I expect to help them understand that reasoning -- that is what I am doing here; that is what I am doing with my book; and that is what I will be doing until the day we all decide to do it.

So, whether or not communism's reputation is ruined, I don't believe that's really going to play a role in whether or not we ever see it. Certainly it might prevent me from accelerating that understanding, and thus we may not see it sooner than we must, but at some point we will see it: barring unforseen natural disaster or if some psycho find a means by which to blow up the world.

And this, I think, is about as Marxist as you can get.


There may be a sense of urgency to a problem ie. capitalism, but sometimes the quick solution can cause something worse. It is better to play it slowly and safely.

But my faith in communism is free from this urgency. Only my desire for communism is affected by it -- but indeed, my desire for communism is ALWAYS limited to what I believe to be true, and in beliving Marx's understanding as truth, my desire for communism is severely limited by my understanding of class struggle and how it goes about making itself.

This is what confuses me about your original statements. The Communist Manifesto is not a prayre book, in fact, let me share a little quote with you:


The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.

They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.

Because many people have the tendency to misunderstand Marx (at least I think so) -- let me share my interpretation.

This is strictly about the nature of communist theory -- it is quite simply saying that the conclusion of communists (e.g. that the proletariat will rise up, that it is inevitable, that property relations and the advancement of technology will cause this) are not subjective to a single mans whim. They are not inventions of his morals, or his subjective beliefs, they are not even ideas to be founded -- they are permanent through the history of man, they have existed in every society before us, and they will exist in every society after us. They are fact, science, and inescapable.

Anyone willing to inject moral arguments, subjective beliefs, etc... etc... can quite possibly BE a communist, but these ideas have little to do with the actual "ideology" (if you even want to call it now) expressed by the communists. If indeed you wish to accept Marx's definition of communists and what they present.

[NovelGentry]

All theorists have postulates... postulates can be wrong or incomplete

Of course, and I would consider Marx's work extremely incomplete. In fact, in order for it to be complete he would have had to been omnipresent, esisting through the full history of man.

And indeed they may be wrong. But in believing Marx to be wrong, I do not throw away any subjective belief, only the upholding of communism as an end result. That is to say, I could easily say I WANT communism, but it will never happen. This would effectively be saying Marx is wrong. And I do want communism, but even more than I want communism I believe Marx is right. Does this make him right? No. But I base my principles and my own ideology around it. As such, as much as I WANT communism, my ideological presence and my actions will always strive to be in line with what he presented as the general nature of class struggle -- I do not agree that Lenin could say the same about his.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Joseph
Lastly, communists must also be prepared to accept the fact that Marx was wrong about human nature if empirical evidence shows it. Marx assumes that greed was caused by the capitalistic system, this may be wrong. The people may never be ready to live in communism and it must not be deliberately forced upon the people. -- emphasis added.

There's not much in the way of scientific evidence about "human nature". No one, for example, has ever discovered the "greed gene".

And the "empirical evidence" that we do have relates precisely to human behavior in capitalist society. It "makes sense to be greedy" under capitalism...so people do that.

I actually expect people to be "greedy" in communist society...but greedy in a different way. The endless accumulation of wealth far beyond one's needs will be seen as childish if not barbaric -- much the way we look at human behavior in the Middle Ages now.

It is speculative to try and figure out now what people in a communist society would be "greedy for"...but we can safely assume that some folks will have greater status and prestige than others -- based perhaps on their real contributions to improving human life.

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

[Joseph]

I kinda just skimmed the manifesto... i didn't really pick up much from it.. anyway, we don't need anyone who places their confidence before the lives of the people.. not only is it morally wrong, its counterproductive

NovelGentry i don't really see the relevance of what you are telling me... I respect your beliefs... im a confused on why you don't care about the speeding up or slowing down the development of communism... i guess you're not oppressed enough yet ;)


The only thing these movements and governments have delayed is the existence of capitalism in their own country.
Please clarify.


The whole soviet system of everything going into the state then the state redistributing everything... the people were not ready for this system because they were still driven by the desire to further themselves rather than society... this forced them to enforce quotas and such... altogether the society was too inefficient and collapsed.

Mao Zedong encouraged farmers to produce industrial goods in the communes... this caused a famine.

Mao called for a cultural revolution, the people responded in the wrong way be killing teachers and intellectuals and such.
I never said these were marxist policies. They were leninist and maoist(since it was mao's decision). I know marx had no policies and left the method open to interpretation. Im just saying that these interpretations on the methodwere bad ones that had terrible consequences. Consequences that tarnished communism's rep.


I actually expect people to be "greedy" in communist society...but greedy in a different way. The endless accumulation of wealth far beyond one's needs will be seen as childish if not barbaric -- much the way we look at human behavior in the Middle Ages now.

It is speculative to try and figure out now what people in a communist society would be "greedy for"...but we can safely assume that some folks will have greater status and prestige than others -- based perhaps on their real contributions to improving human life.
i guess there will be a new currency to fight over <_<


I think every communist leader of tommorow should learn about economics so they can keep the economy from collapsing while the promote equality... carefully and hopefully election-style-democratically.... because the economy is needed for now

[More Fire for the People]

Communism has no record - except for the short-lived Paris Commune.

What we need to do is educate the masses by distributing copies of the Manifesto, modernising articles of socialist without changing the meaning, and engaging in rigorous grassroots activism.

And of course, the old fashion method of grabbing a gun and overthrowing the capitalist in South America works too.

[Joseph]

There is a slight chance that Marx might be wrong so interpret his teachings with care, unlike what your predecessors did

[Joseph]

What we need to do is educate the masses by distributing copies of the Manifesto, modernising articles of socialist without changing the meaning, and engaging in rigorous grassroots activism.
Who will read it? Even i am too lazy to read it. A better method would be to join the film industry and put subliminal manifesto sentences like every 10 frames or something :)

[More Fire for the People]

Better yet... why not be up front and direct with it?
Making films about Third World exploitation, corporate rape of society, drug-user filled prisons, and the negative aspects of capitalism.

Oh, and it&#39;s not that a long read.
I finished it in 2 days and I was just reading off and on.

Also, explaining the dictatorship of the proletariat would be a wise task.
The common man has a very confused interpretation of the statement as the bourgeoisie media states that the meaning is literal. We should clarrify that it means rather than the bourgeoisie dictating society the proletarian will dictate society via democracy.

[Zingu]

Joseph; what I think you aren&#39;t grasping here; and what Gent was trying to explain, is that Marxism in itself; is not a political ideology&#33;

Its simply a tool to interpreting society and its evolution; Trotsky said something like "Marxism is the tool with which we will forge history" or something of the sort. Think of Marxism like a science; its a unbiased, analytical account that identifies what makes society move ("the moving forces of society" as Marx put it).

So, what gent means about the "slowing down and speeding up of Communism" is that it will invetiably happen; no matter how marred the name of Communism actually is; it will happen in some way or an other. Even if Communist and Marxist philosophy and ideology are forgotten forever; it will still happen.
Think of this analogy:
Just because we didn&#39;t know cells divided within us; didn&#39;t mean it never happened, it did without us being conscience of it; same with Marxism.

Kind of hard to explain; I probably didn&#39;t help...

[NovelGentry]

NovelGentry i don&#39;t really see the relevance of what you are telling me... I respect your beliefs... im a confused on why you don&#39;t care about the speeding up or slowing down the development of communism... i guess you&#39;re not oppressed enough yet wink.gif

I&#39;m not sure you really understand what I&#39;m saying then. It has nothing to do with what I want. I can want communism till I&#39;m red in the eyes... and I do -- but there are other forces that I believe to be at work here.

The flaws of my predecessors (by which I can only assume you mean: Lenin and the likes) are that they either failed to understand, or simply did not wish to adhere to this idea. Instead they would force an attempt of socialism onto societies that were only on the verge of capitalism -- and they were wrong.

Does that mean their cause was bogus? No, I do not believe so, it simply means it couldn&#39;t be done, and we should examine why, and whether or not they thought their attempts were in line with Marxism, Marxism tells us the reasons why.


Please clarify.

You cannot skip capitalism.


I never said these were marxist policies. They were leninist and maoist(since it was mao&#39;s decision). I know marx had no policies and left the method open to interpretation. Im just saying that these interpretations on the methodwere bad ones that had terrible consequences. Consequences that tarnished communism&#39;s rep.

So I can ignore when you said, "I am talking about the implementation of polices that work theoretically according to marxism..." ?

And I agree, they were really poor interpretations.


I think every communist leader of tommorow should learn about economics so they can keep the economy from collapsing while the promote equality... carefully and hopefully election-style-democratically.... because the economy is needed for now

I&#39;m not sure how sure the existing economic structures can account for what we intend to change. There are theories on planned economies vs. market economies.. etc. But whether or not any of these can be proven valid for our system is impossible to say. Most existing planned economies have grown out of revolution in horribly underdeveloped capitalist societies.

The best economics I&#39;ve seen comes from a paper which I post frequently, so I&#39;ll refrain to do so again -- as I&#39;m sure you won&#39;t take the time to read it. I&#39;m not going to pretend I know a lot about economics, and I&#39;m not going to pretend it is intensley detailed, but it is far stronger and in line with what we are doing than any economic work I know to this date.

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 01:54 AM


Most people will not listen to the actual theory and distinguish what is propaganda. Maybe if communists were to have more successes in improving equality without being plagued by shortages of wealth, the people of the world may put their faith in communism. But how can wealth be maintained while improving equality. Equality tends to be a money losing venture believe it or not.




Oh brother :rolleyes:
What a load of malarky&#33;
OK first off there has never been a pure Communist state by Marxist terms, it hasn&#39;t happened yet, whether or not Marxist philosophy implies a state is secondary, he didn&#39;t get into a lot of detail on end results.

Second, your argument is ridiculous, it infers that there is only one way of doing things and the other way is wrong&#33; As if not every molecule on the planet is not owned by some temporary owner until his death it won&#39;t work :D and anyone that thinks that everything like the sun and the moon can be shared is crazy.

No one charges you for your oxygen yet to increase GNP or GDP, similar to the way the ejido lands existed, they were not part of GNP, yet greedy economists calculated how much money they could gain by privatizing and marketing something which was public. Has there been an economic collapse of the oxygen market? NO because the oxygen market does not exist, you can not collapse something that does not exist. Has there been hunger in Mexico due to the selling of the ejido lands? Yes. But no one is measuring that as important, entirely ridiculous, if you are saying that things should be the basis of happieness.

To say that you can not have Communism because it would cause a collapse of the Capitalist markets is a contradiction in terms :lol: Capital wouldn&#39;t matter, because that would no longer be the system, the communal system of preservation of resources for the common good would be in place.

You then go on to dispute the Humanist ideals of the Enlightenment era that people are basically good at heart. What are you not a patriot of whatever country you live in? Because the constitutions of most Northern "First World" countries were written by Enlightenment thinkers inspired by such blokes as John Lockes, thats why you&#39;re not working someone&#39;s field right now for your room and board. ie.) improvements can be made, and Marxism shows us how to change things that they will be more igaletarian, it is a different system entirely, even more so than the change from feudalism to capitalism, which especially during the Industrial Revolution was small.

Don&#39;t let them fool you, anyone that tells you most people are evil, is probably one of those few people that really does not do good for others and constantly blames others for their problems.

Speaking of which, the main reason for shortages of wealth has to do with:

a.) necessary military spending to ward off Capitalist countries from invading.
b.) As Keynes noted, and Che grimanced and exhaled as he reported, those who hold a lot of capital don&#39;t like to share, and they run away with the money leaving everyone else in the society flat broke.
c.)Worse yet, countries that were allowed to even try socialism in former colonial holdings in say Africa and Latin America (although in Latin America such deviations were attacked by the United States after Europe finally let go of the rope) were left in full defecit usually after being plundered for every national resource easily reached, and were only allowed any power over themselves, although mostly through holding up hierarchy still for world power families, once there resources were mostly shipped out for years in a "grab the cash" codification.

Anyway, thats a basis from my limited perspective of where to begin.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 10:29 PM
yes that is an urgent problem, of trying to get the truth out about communism, as you can not many people have answers to it, except for just educating the people, albeit many different ways, my eyes are open
Yeha I know, it&#39;s frightening how the media has managed to brain wash most of the population.

[Tupac-Amaru]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 05:06 AM
As Keynes noted, and Che grimanced and exhaled as he reported, those who hold a lot of capital don&#39;t like to share, and they run away with the money leaving everyone else in the society flat broke.

Dude wtf are you talking about? keynes died in 1946...che was born in &#39;28...meaning Che was 18 when keynes died...how could che have been there when Keynes made that comment??? He had never left Argentina at that age&#33;&#33;&#33;

And besides...ive looked around and i havent found any such quote by Keynes. Please tell me...where did you get this from?



Who will read it?

Just because your either too stupid or too lazy to read it doesnt mean no-one else will&#33;&#33;&#33; Its such a short book, you can read it in about 1 or 2 hours. <_< <_<

[Tupac-Amaru]

I have learned Marxism from a marxist/anarchist friend of mine... is that not good enough?


I kinda just skimmed the manifesto... i didn&#39;t really pick up much from it..


Who will read it?

Joseph, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously if you admit being totaly nescient about Marxist theory???

No dissrespect or anything, but im gonna be blunt:...you dont know shit&#33; So how do you expect people follow your idea if you dont know anything about Marxism in the first place???

Why dont you come back to us after you&#39;ve read a couple of books? ;)

[red_che]

Communism did not fail. What failed in the former Socialist States was Modern Revisionism. In Russia (or the former USSR), as soon as Kruschev grabbed the leadership of the Party and the Socialist State, Socialism programs were stopped. While posturing as a Communist, Kruschev systematically revised the New Economic Program by Lenin and all the other programs initiated by Stalin. Instead, Kruschev waged a de-Stalinization attack which is meant not only to criticize Stalin, but to advance its own programs which are, in effect, transforming the Russian society into a Capitalist society.

Kruschev and his successors (Brezhnev, Gorbachev) wasted the advances made in the society by the Socialist programs of Lenin and Stalin. These revisionists used Marxist-Leninist doctrines and teachings only to show they are communists. But they only gave a lip-service attention to socialism.

Same is true with China. When Chairman Mao died, Deng Xiaoping waged a coup d&#39;etat to grab power and killed those who are loyal to Chairman Mao and his teachings. The Gang of Four were dismantled to prevent them from advancing Chairman Mao&#39;s programs. Like their Russian counterparts, the Chinese revisionists put into waste the programs and advances made in the Socialist China under the leadership of Chairman Mao Tsetung. Deng and his successors created a China far different from a Socialist China envisioned by Mao and the Red Guards of the Culutral Revolution.

Due to Modern Revisionism, which was strongly criticized by Mao Zedong, the former USSR, China and other former Socialist countries took the road towards capitalism and that made their demise. Socialism or Marxism did not collapse, for in the first place, these revisionists did not follow it, instead they made their own theories and that was the cause of their collapse.