Nate:
The US can feed itself, yes, however you must consider several things. Firstly they will loose money from exports of various food goods overseas, for instance Oranges. Secondly, ones diet will change and become worse and far more restricted, as food prices will rise and the working class will only be able to afford the cheapest foodstuffs available. Thirdly, one drough, one bad season and people start starving.
Anomaly:
<<No industrial worker has created communism. Do you really thin, however, that these 'agrarian communes' of which you speak so highly are really what we are aiming at? Is a 'farm commune' our final goal?>>
Are agarian communes our ultimate goal? For the majority of the worlds population, yes. You look at things through a distinctly 'western' view, distorting your view of the peasant. Most of the worlds population are peasants, most of them are completely rurally based. Most of them have never seen a city and most of them have no desire to do so. Thus, for most of the world agarian communes ARE the final goal and the model that is put in place by them can then be used as the basis for urban communes.
<<Is this even the 'communism' of which we speak?>>
And what, exactly, is communism? Ask a thousand Communists and you're likely to get a thousand answers.
In my experience the Communist in the Imperialist World seems to be more interested in study groups and debating the finer points of Das Kapital than doing anything of ever vauge practical benefit. What will win communists mass support- you publishing a nigh indecipherable pamphlet about why Stalin was a dick, or you going to the poorest area of your city and handing out bread and when they ask you why you're doing it you reply "Because we're Communists. This is what we do- try to make people's lives better". Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Bukharin, Negri, Engels, Gramsci, Mao, Kollontai, Marcuse, Fannon, Rousseau- all these people are just vauge names to your average person. Many people won't even know who half of them are, let alone what their ideology was. The bottom of the bottom have little interest in people who died a hundred years ago in a country they will never see who wrote books that mean nothing to them because they can't read. Bread, on the other hand, they understand bread. I believe one of the main Bolshevik slogans of 1917 was "LAND! BREAD! PEACE!"
<<Communes in the third world simply would not have the means available to survive. Separated from the rest of the world, any 'commune' attempted to be constructed in the third world will likely end up like Kerala here.>>
Actually, Agarian communes are generally based around the collective cultivation of agricultural goods- hence the name. Because of this they will be able to feed, thus sustain themselves. If you want to talk about things that don't have the means to survive independently look no further than the 'great' cities of the world- New York, London, Paris...they cannot sustain themselves.
<<They simply do not have the material means to exist. If you are not a materialist, that may explain your view. But if we look at history from the perspective of Marxian materialism, I find it impossible to find your ideas possible.>>
Am I materialist? Yes, I am. However materialism does not instantly mean that I accept orthodox Marxist views. I accept the basic ideas that he put forward, but I have no illusions unto the accuracy of many of his statements about the development and nature of Capitalism, which are often completely wrong when you look at things today. Things have moved on in the last 100 or so years. I have been deeply influenced by Rousseau, as you probably can tell.
<<Marx did not have 'first hand' experience, no, but he had considerable experience from observations.>>
When it comes to peasants, no, no he did not. He also assumed that capitalism was monolithic, thus his observations about British Capitalism do not necessarily ring true when it comes to French, Russian, German, Serbian, whatever, Capitalism.
<<It is quite true that most 'communistic' thinkers, as you call them, were 'utterly bourgeois'. The only reason this is true is because when those 'communistic' thinkers lived, the only group which could get a good education was the bourgeoisie.>>
Not true. If so how did Stalin, the son of a serf, get an education? He went to a seminary. But that's splitting hairs. You seem to imply that only those of high birth are capible of understanding Communist ideas, which is arrogant and incorrect in the extreme. A 'good education' is not at all necessary to understand Marxism, half the problem is that most Organisations refuse to speak in plain english, instead attempting to prove themselves literate by using big words that achive little.
<<Most of these educated bourgeoisie, of course, supported bourgeois ideas.>>
Well, if not the Bourgeois wouldn't exist would the?
<<But a few, very few, resisted. Marx, though he was bourgeois, wrote from a proletarian perspective.>>
No, he wrote from a Bourgeois perspective with proletarian sympathies. Every now and again he slips back into his bourgeois prejudices and shows contempt for those he deems socially inferior to him, for instance his remarks about peasants. Part of the reason that he was able to look at things from a non-Bourgeois point of view was the fact that he had undergone more than a little suffering in his life.
<<You say that "Marxism generally degenerates into petty bourgeois reformism or becomes utterly irrelivant in first world countries, because the conditions do not exist in the countries yet." I must say, I do not know where you are getting this.>>
Germany in the 19th century had the largest and strongest self-proclaimed Marxist working class organsation anywhere in the world. Within a decade it had become a reformist organisation. Now you can't blame this on Leninism, as Leninism didn't exist. The same goes for various parties and organisations across the world, the instant they face any sort of revolutionary failure they freak out and start contesting elections.
<<Show me one instance in which Marxism was implemented in a first world nation.>>
Never, which is part of my point really. The industrial worker has systematically failed in every attempt it has ever made, which is few in number anyway. You can count the occations on one hand, in fact.
<<I agree that there must be revolutions in the third world, but these, until they are accompanied by revolutions in the first world, will not have the material abilitiy to develop communism.>>
You keep talking about 'material ability'. Because you need factories in order to build a communist society? To say that the 'third world' is completely incapible of developing Communism without the help of its old colonial masters to guide them once more is chauvanistic arrogance at its best and worst.
<<You are correct that the first world will have to "go through a period of intense suffering". This is exactly what Marx predicted would happen.>>
Quite.
<<I am not speaking of that pathetic 'Leninist socialism' which was implemented by China and Russia.>>
Initially this was what was put in place in China, however by the time of the Cultural Revolution mass communism, completely independent of the party or any central control, was developing across China. This, in my opinion, is one of the greatest achivements made in the history of humanity.
<<Here, I am speaking of socialism as Marx wrote it, that is, the worker's taking control of the state, the dictatorship of the proletariat. However, when speaking of Leninism, your analysis is quite right.>>
When it comes to what Socialism will be like, Marx made few proclimations, most of which were fairly cryptic. He was primarily a philosopher and spent most of his life working as an economist. Both of these are, overally, far removed from the realities of society and the organisation there of. Much of what he said was not his invention, the phrase 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' was first used by Auguste Blanqui. Marx just modified how the Proletariat would take control of the state.
<<So far, perhaps the 'third world' has done far better. But these areas hold no power over the world, and, sooner or later, any third world revolution will sink back to capitalism.>>
Not necessarily, and if enough communes can be built and they show unity and solidarity with one another they will be able to effect the world economy etc. And if an entire region (as in the case of Chapatas) becomes autonomous then there's every chance it will be able to sustain itself.
<<This is happening in China right now.>>
No, what's happening in China is the result of an internal coup in the CCP and the CCP using the army and CCP loyalists to destroy the mass and autonomous worker organisations that were built during the Cultural Revolution. They didn't arm themselves as they didn't see any need to, you see.
<<Perhaps an exception could be the Zapatistas method of autonomism, but this remains to be seen. I do, however, think that autonomism has infinitely more to offer the third world than Leninism.>>
We agree on this.
<<Again, I do not know of what you speak when you say 'first world socialism'. The first world has not yet gone the socialist route, simply because it is not in the self interest of the proletariat yet. they, however, hold the material means of creating socialism and communism. Those in the third world simply do not. In the third world, 'agrarian communes' may help those who create them for a few years, but they will always disappear. It is simply impossible to deny material reality.>>
Agarian communes have existed and thrived for far more than a 'few years' and have shown themselves to be able to form societies far more in keeping with the ideas of Marx. The society created by the Zapatistas has proved itself to be far more Communist than the totalitarian socialism of the Eastern Bloc.
<<No one denies that the peasnats are currently the most revolution group in the world, for the very reasons you mention.>>
Actually, most Communists in the first world seem to. Redstar2000 is a prime example of the attitude held by many 'first world' communists and communist organisations. Part of the reason that I was initially drawn to Maoism was because I agreed with their analysis of the peasantry (I am no longer an orthodox Maoist, my ideas are more close to the mass-communism of the Cultural Revolution, however I still agree with much that Mao had to say)
<<However, they do not have the material means to create any kind of lasting communism.>>
Because Marx says so?
<<The Zapatistas have not created socialism or communism, but they certainly progressed. The peasants may well soon take up the 'banner of modern communism', but, do to simple material realities, they cannot create any kind of lasting communism.>>
Communism is built with the hearts, minds and hands of the people. Peasants are willing to dedicate these three things to the revolution and thus have all the means that they need to build communism. Steel is not necessary to the building of communism, neither are 'consumer goods'.
<<If you want to say 'fuck it' to Marxian materialism, you should provide some evidence of lasting, meaningful communism in the third world.>>
If you want to defend Marxist Materialism you should provide some evidence of lasting, meaningful communism in the 'first world'.
<<According to Marxian materialism, the revolutions you mention will not bring communism. Now, if they do bring communism to those areas, then perhaps you have something on which to lean.>>
As I've said, areas of Nepal, Colombia, Mexico, Argentina, Turkey and Kurdistan are operating along the lines that I've described. I probably would count the Kibbutz, however bringing them up does also bring up the mantle of Zionism- somthing I wish to avoid. However there are, at present, 267 Kibbutz operating in Israel- however not all of them operate acording to strict Kibbutz lines (as many now require money as they are not charged for electricty- meaning that they must have a cash economy in order to pay power bills, which means bank accounts and so on), but some of the oldest are nearly 100 years old.
<<But, presently, your view is simply idealist.>>
Ah ha, the old stick of Idealism has come out.
<<You know, 'communistic' is not the same as communism. No one says that the peasants cannot build something 'communistic', that is, such as an 'agrarian commune' or something like that, or even autonomism, but these will all, and have in the past, regressed back into the capitalist system.>>
And everything adhering to Marxist Socialist goals have regressed back to Capitalism, or have been smashed by bourgeois forces. My ideas and your ideas are about on par.
<<They do not last, and it is due to material reality. Steel works is not what is needed. It is the capability of building communism and making it last, that is what is needed. Technology is nice, but what is needed is the economic power, which technology certainly helps. If a group has no economic power, they will regress back to capitalism.>>
So Communism could not be built in New Zealand as it has no real economic power even though it is a developed capitalist nation?
<<This is what happened in China, and these other peasant revolutions will do the same.>>
The situation in China was far more complicated than you make it out to be. Capitalism was reestablished because of the actions and decisions within the party which, sadly, had the PLA at its disposal to destroy all the progress made during the Cultural Revolution. These decisions were spearheaded by Deng, who was not a peasant, he was urbanite bourgeoise. The peasants resisted Dengs 'reforms', but in the end their resistance was crushed, once again, by the PLA. China did not 'slip back to Capitalism', it was driven back to capitalism by capitalists within the party.
<<The people of a society need the simple material capability to make communism last. The people of the third world simply do not have this. Again, you seem to be advancing a rather idealist viewpoint. And no one is saying 'west is best', we are simply saying that third world nations do not have the material capability to create communism.>>
You are measuring things from a western point of view, you are saying that in order for those poor, backwards peasants to create a Communist world they must first go through the motions of Capitalism, a western invention. It's like saying we should infect people with the flu, treat them and then they'll have an immunity to it- some of them may die, but hey, it's all for the best instead of giving them a vaccination which will do the same with far fewer risks, pain and suffering.
I am no more idealistic than you are, we just take different opinions of people. Out of interest, have you read anything by Rousseau? (I'm curious, I'm not intending trying to be condecending)
<<Third world revolutions simply have not shown the capability to destroy the entire capitalist infrastructure, as you suggest.>>
They can't destroy it, they can make it collapse. The Imperialist world exists because it has the Oppressed world to feed off. Taking its resources away won't instantly cause it to die, it will slow it, weaken it and finally it will no longer function at all.
As for the 'third world' revolutions not being able to shake up the capitalist world, well, they have. However the problem has been that they have been willing to cooperate with the Imperialist World and there has never been a situation when a particularly important resource has fallen into the hands of the workers. If there were workers revolutions in say, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iran and Algeria this would send major ripples through the Imperialist world as some of the biggest exporters of oil, which is absolutely crucial to Imperialist nations, would have turned the taps off. The same goes if there was a workers revolution in Australia, there would be ripples sent through the Imperialist world as they would have lost one of the major exporters of Iron-Ore.
<<And again, Marx certainly did predict that those in the first world would 'suffer' before they revolted. Indeed, this suffering is the catalyst of revolution. But this 'suffering' will not be caused by third world revolutions.>>
Yes it will. In fact that's probably the only thing that will cause the sort of suffering required to build a revolutionary spirit within the hearts and minds of the '1st world' urbanite. Every Imperialist country's eocnomy is fueled by the blood and toil of the '3rd world'. Without these things they collapse. The Imperialist world has shifted away from primary production and this has been sped up as globalisation has become the latest right wing ecnomic ideal. The '3rd world' provides the primary resources which are then shipped to the Imperialist world to be used in secondary and tertiary production. The secondary and tertiary sector can be built, the primary sector can't be. This is the biggest weak point in the Imperialist economy- their utter dependence on those they exploit. Just as bosses have no power without workers to produce, the Imperialist world has no power if it does not have the '3rd world' to leech off.
<<Things are bad enough in the third world that if group A revolts against their capitalist masters and attempts to create 'communism', group B will be more than happy to take their jobs. This is one reason these third world revolutions will not only fail to bring socialism and communism, but they will also fail to harm capitalism in any substantial way. We have to hit capitalism 'where it hurts': the first world.>>
And I am saying that this is impossible until there is a strong revolutionary spirit among this world and that this revolutionary spirit can only be fostered if there is a period of suffering inflicted on the Imperialist world, suffering on a scale that can only be created by massive disruptions to the Imperialist economy. The best way to do this is to cut off the supplies of primary resources, which is the only thing that the '3rd world' has a definate advantage over the Imperialist world in (from an economic point of view).
<<I never said the peasants of the third world were dumb peons.>>
However you, like Redstar2000 and the other urbanites, imply it.
<<I am simply saying that Marxian materialism tells us that it is impossible for communism to develop here.>>
And traditional Marxian materialism has been wrong before and it'll be wrong again. It gives a broad outline that is generally correct, however it is not a magical crystal ball. The workers of the Imperialist world have, to be brutally honest, failed in their role in bringing about world communism. They have been bought off by capitalist decadence and the excesses of capitalism. They have become so dilluded and seperated from the realities of the world that they see no reason for change, they honestly believe that things are just jolly as they are now and if they don't think this is so, chances are they think that a different form of bourgeois governance will make a significant differance.
<<And Marxian materialism has certainly been correct in the past. Yes, when the proletariat begin revolting in the first world, it is quite hopeful, and perhaps neccesary, as you suggest (might I also add that it is inevitable) that peasants in the third world will also revolt.>>
And why does it have to be that way around. Capitalism has complete dominance and saying that it is cracking and weakening is naive in the extreme. Besides, it was apparantly cracking and its collapse was imminent in the 50s. And the 60s. And the 70s. Now, capitalism, by its very nature, will collapse of its own accord. However it will well and truely fuck over the world in doing so. It may even destroy the world if nukes start flying round, so I personally would not like it to get to that point. The workers of the Imperialist world are not going to revolt any time in the near future in any meaningful way, nor will they kick start any sort of revolutionary movement. They have systematically failed in the past and they will systematically fail in the future until capitalism is weakened to the point that those within can actually do some damage. This task falls in the lap of the peasants and the '3rd world'. The workers of the Imperialist worlds job is to exterminate the last vestiges of capitalisms existance within their part of the world.
<<But the peasants cannot do it themselves, not because they're 'dumb' or 'backward', but because material reality is such that communism (anything lasting and meaningful) in the third world is impossible.>>
Absolutes are a dangerous thing my friend.
<<The peasant revolutions will not accomplish what you suggest, simply because if one peasant revolts, another starving peasant will gladly take his job for some food. You cannot deny material reality. That seems to be your only flaw.>>
Because the peasant in inheirantly selfish? The peasant is unable to grasp the concept of class unity or solidarity? The peasant cannot wage a class war, a people's war, an economic war? History has shown that they can do these things a hell of a lot better than any urbanite can. There has never been a revolution in the Imperialist world. There have been several coups, numerous military take overs and many invasions. The only Communist regime installed with true mass support was the Tito regime in Yugoslavia (more peasants at work).
Besides, if one group of peasants revolts and starts working together there's every chance that they'll be able to say "Why join our enemy for food when you can join you comrades, who will give you food for nothing, food that we will all grow with our own hands- free of the landlords and other parasites". If that was the case there would not have been a revolution in Vietnam. There would not have been a revolution in Laos. There would not have been a revolution in China, Nepal, Turkey, Peru, Columbia, Cambodia (although that did turn into an absolute cluster-fuck) and so on.
<<Do you think it is at all feasible that the peantry of the world will unite? And is it in their self interest? To both questions, I must say no!>>
And I say yes to both. Firstly, if the peasantry unite and pool both their resources and land and work communally in cooperatives then they will be able to produce more and none of what they produce will be taken off them by landlords etc. In addition to this they will be able to obtain things that they need in bulk, thus pay less and if they will be able to afford more advanced or expensive tools etc to improve their output.
<<Indeed, the first world will die if the peantry of the third world simply stops working. This is highly unlikely, but if it were to happen, it would be true. But if the peasants 'stop working', they don't have the means to defend against pressure from the first world (military and economic pressure), and they don't have the means to create lasting communism.>>
The human requires 3 basic things in order to survive:
1) Food. The peasant community can provide for itself in this regard, particularly if it frees itself from the Imperialist world and thus stop growing excessive amounts of cash crops instead of growing food. The peasant can also raise animals and if this is done communally more animals can be kept and thus there will be more milk and meat in ones diet. This is good, as calcium and iron are important.
2) Shelter. The peasant can build his own shelter and working together as a community houses will be able to be built relatively quickly. They even may be able to be built larger and better if the community works together.
3) Warmth. The peasant can build fires.
From a military point of view, the peasant would be forced to wage a guerrilla war, which they are suited to doing. Many peasants have guns, generally shotguns or hunting rifles, and often they are quite good shots with them as teh pests they have to shoot are often quite small. Some will have experience with explosives, for instance TNT, which is often used in small amounts to remove large treestumps, rocks too large to remove etc. Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos has proved that the peasant makes just as gooder soldier as any urbanite, in fact in a guerrilla war they may even prove to be better.
<<The peasants need income and other things from the first world. They work currently for a reason.>>
They have to work because of the intergrationist policies forced on them by their governments and often their former colonial masters. Samir Amin has written about this, essentially by intergrating '3rd world' economies into the global economy they are forced to start producing things that will export well, for instance cash crops in order to get foreign currency. This means that they start to grow more and more cash crops and less and less food and other basic crops. In addition to this they start to import goods, for instance clothes, destroying any local industry that may exist. These countries can support themselves, they just need to be restructured in a way that moves away from intergration with the global capitalist economy towards a model that creates a sustainable community. All areas should try to be as self-sufficent as possible (note: I am not advocating a North Korean style self inflicted embargo, I am saying that if you can grow wheat then you should grow wheat- you should not grow tobacco and buy wheat from the other side of the world).
<<Thus, it is not in the peasants' self interest to 'destroy it all', not to mention they do not have the capability to destroy it all if they wanted to. Again, material reality is a difficult thing to ignore.>>
If they were to destroy it and not replace it with anything, then no, it would not be in their best interest. If they combine destroying capitalism with the installation of a communist society and economy then it is in their best interest.
<<I do not take anything as' holy'. But Marxian materialism has been true throughout history, with perhaps its greatest evidence as the entire 20th century. You deny Marxian materialism, and put forward something that smells like idealism. Idealism is a load of bullshit.>>
Marxist Materialism has proved itself to be correct in many ways. It has also proved itself to be utterly flawed and incorrect in others. What I put forward is no more idealistic than anything Marx said.
<<To conclude, you can prove me and everyone else wrong. Well, you canlt, but the peasantry can. If they do create lasting communism, and they do 'bring the Imperialists to their knees', then they have proven Marxian materialism wrong. But don't count on it. Marxian materialism has quite a record. Peasant revolutions have a terrible record of creating lasting communism.>>
And the workers of the Imperialist World can prove me wrong, but they have systematically failed to do so for the last 150 odd years and every year that passes they retreat more and more into their bubble, their capitalist haven. The rural dweller and the urbanite are equally important on the greater scale of things, it's just that the rural dweller, particularly teh peasant, has shown themselves to be far more revolutionary than any urbanite, anywhere in the world.
In other news, I am so very, very tired.