Collectivism

[DisIllusion]

The definition of a Marxist economy is a collective one, but when is the right time to put it in use, and how? It seems the Soviet Union forced it on their people too quickly and led to a famine,(though the conditions were bad around the Revolution of 1917).

[ReD_ReBeL]

i would say when the economy is not economically backwards like that of 1917 Russia, i recon a country that backward should of went to a capitalist market economy to get the economy booming and wen it isnt slighty as backward thn start collectivization, thats my opinion though

[Comrade Martin]

The definition of a "Marxist" economy? Do you mean Socialist? If so, then the definition would be Planned, or, state-managed. However, it isn't just state management we're after. We must get the Proletariat in control of the state, through democratizing the means of production, the state, and society itself.

Now, moving on, collectivism isn't a natural corrolory of Socialism, necessarily. Collective farms aren't even Socialist, they're only Semi-Socialist, as those who operate it make a collective profit on its products; much like Petit-Bourgeois farmers now who operate their own farm and profit from their own labor. State "Factory Farms" are more Socialistic, as they involve turning agriculture in to an industry which requires the Proletariat to operate it and control it.

Now, in the Stalin era, Stalin, in his blunderous manner, decided to forcibly collectivise farming, which caused uproar in the Petit-Bourgeois farmers' ranks, who would otherwise have gradually moved towards Socialist farming anyway due to its benefits, but were now instead forced too, causing them to, as their semi-class always does, vacillate to the opposing side: Bourgeois ideology. Stalin ruthlessly crushed farmers opposing collectivization, and then the lack of farming during this persecution not to mention the lack of farmers to operate farms, and the overall stupidity of the Soviet bureacrats (Such as ordering the planting of the wrong crops in the wrong places), caused a famine in the Ukraine which took thousands if not millions of lives.

In Krushchev Remembers, Mr. Khrushchev offers us a horrifying picture of the Ukraine (Which he was the Communist Party head of in the Ukraine district) when he tells of a woman whom Khrushchev had sent an official state representative to meet about low crop outputs. She calmly invited the man to sit down, and then pulled something out of the kitchen oven. As if nothing was wrong, she began cutting it up. When asked what it was, she said it was her daughter, and that they had already eaten another child of hers earlier to survive. Cannibalism became rife, thanks to forced collectivization.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 12:47 AM
The definition of a Marxist economy is a collective one, but when is the right time to put it in use, and how? It seems the Soviet Union forced it on their people too quickly and led to a famine,(though the conditions were bad around the Revolution of 1917).
Collectivism should be voluntary, there shouldn't be "an external minority" imposing it. When man will not be able to hire another man, the people will realize that collectivism is the best decision.

[DisIllusion]

Agreed comrades, but wouldn't it be hard to have everybody willing to participate in a collective economy? Though I also agree that you can't force it on the people, as in the case of Stalin. If so, how is voluntary collectivism possible?

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 12:47 AM
It seems the Soviet Union forced it on their people too quickly and led to a famine,(though the conditions were bad around the Revolution of 1917).
Actually, if you're talking about industrial management, people "forced" it themselves with formation of factory committees and the support of October coup (bolsheviks talking control) which promised them power. What the soviet government did afterwards was to take control out of collective hands and replaced it with individual management. This was rapidly done during the war with the use of arms and with industrial militarization.

If you're talking about agriculture (village), then that's a different story. I figure that proletarian revolution will bring incorporation of higly developed agricultural enterprizes into industrial colective management, where it "naturaly" belongs with the proces of developed capitalism.

[TheComrade]

From my limited knowledge - wouldn't an anarchist society be that of volunatry, locally based collectivisation? I think collectivisation is much easier to impose on smaller communities - that way teaching people the benifits of it is far easier. Unfortunatly globalisation destroys local communities and makes something like collectivisation very difficult. You have to trust the people you are giving everything to and if it's just a figure head on a poster less people are likely to do it.

[ComTom]

I agree, with collectivisation imposed on smaller communities stabilize the situation more than mass collectivisation.

[DisIllusion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 02:50 PM
I agree, with collectivisation imposed on smaller communities stabilize the situation more than mass collectivisation.
But wouldn't you want as many people as possible to live in your communist society? This would mean having a large scale collective economy, after all, if you hand picked who you wanted in your society, that would be pretty elitist.

[TheComrade]

But wouldn't you want as many people as possible to live in your communist society? This would mean having a large scale collective economy, after all, if you hand picked who you wanted in your society, that would be pretty elitist.

I agree. But I don't think that a large scale communist league would be sucessful - at least not from the start. People always disagree and often the only way to change their opinion is to demonstrate how your idea does work - you need to pilot a society I guess...