Devil's Advocate

[The Grey Blur]

Can somone give a description of the motivations and aims of Communism and what a Communist society would be like?

Then I'll poke holes in it, then you guys fill in those holes with explanations as to why I'm wrong - I really need this, I'm getting quite disillusioned with teh auld Communism and just want a few things cleared up, thanks.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I have proposed making a similar thread in OI on a couple of occasions, but few showed any interest.

I would be more than willing to help.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...t&p=1292030937: (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47116&view=findpost&p=1292030937:) Not exact, but it serves this purpose. This is a link to a thread in here recently where I attempted to clarify communism to some extent for a member.

[Gradualist Fool]

Originally posted by Rage Against The [email protected] 8 2006, 09:22 PM
Can somone give a description of the motivations and aims of Communism and what a Communist society would be like?

Then I'll poke holes in it, then you guys fill in those holes with explanations as to why I'm wrong - I really need this, I'm getting quite disillusioned with teh auld Communism and just want a few things cleared up, thanks.
You treat Communism as if it were a religion, finding it necessary for your comrades to reaffirm your faith. If something doesn't make sense, abandon it. If something does make sense, believe it. Don't ask for people to tell you sweet lies.

Communism is a failure and it always will be a failure, especially Revolutionary Communism. Revolutionary Communism has historically been tried several times now and each time, it turned into a "dictatorship of the proletarian," as Bakunin put it, dissolving into what Trotsky termed State-Capitalism.

However, State-Capitalism is not a system that was establishing by capitalist conspirators disguised as Communists, nor were there any specific circumstances which hijacked the establishment of Communism. But rather, State-Capitalism is the end result of revolutionary Communism. Whenever a group tries to assert its authority over society, in a way in which the people do not agree, it must inherently be authoritarian, which is why Trotsky claimed the necessity for a "vanguard of the proletarian." But once you have a vanguard of the proletarian, that vanguard essentially becomes a new bourgoisie and the authoritarian state exploits and alienates the people no differently than the robber barons running multi-national corporations.

The solution is democracy and moderate Socialism, which accepts the strengths of capitalism. By this, I mean Fabian Socialism and the "Democratic Socialism" which has largely influenced Liberalism. Look into Ordoliberalism and the "social market," and there's your answer.

No, pure Socialism (Communism) cannot work. But we can still try to achieve some Communist goals. Of the 10 suggested policies of the Communist manifesto, all 10 have been implemented in western countries in one form or another. And it's good to end poverty, to help the sick, and the elderly, and the oppressed. But once you delve into the idea that we must have "total wealth distribution," it suddenly becomes far too unrealistic of a goal to accomplish.

50 years after Marx's Communist Manifesto was written, Communists abandoned Communism. As I said -- the Fabian Socialists.

[KC]

You treat Communism as if it were a religion, finding it necessary for your comrades to reaffirm your faith. If something doesn't make sense, abandon it. If something does make sense, believe it. Don't ask for people to tell you sweet lies.

Maybe he doesn't know enough about it and wants to learn more.



Communism is a failure and it always will be a failure, especially Revolutionary Communism.

Revolutionary communism is the only kind of communism. Everything else is utopian socialism.


Revolutionary Communism has historically been tried several times now and each time, it turned into a "dictatorship of the proletarian," as Bakunin put it, dissolving into what Trotsky termed State-Capitalism.

Marxism-Leninism has been tried several times. If you have something against Marxism-Leninism then fine; but that doesn't prove wrong anything about Marxism. Also, it never turned into a dictatorship of the proletariat.


Of the 10 suggested policies of the Communist manifesto, all 10 have been implemented in western countries in one form or another.

Those are obsolete goals of marxism. Even Marx himself said this in the preface to the 2nd edition of the Manifesto.




50 years after Marx's Communist Manifesto was written, Communists abandoned Communism. As I said -- the Fabian Socialists.

That's why we're still around, right? :lol:

[Storming Heaven]

You treat Communism as if it were a religion, finding it necessary for your comrades to reaffirm your faith. If something doesn't make sense, abandon it. If something does make sense, believe it. Don't ask for people to tell you sweet lies.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: I never heard a more ridiculous claim. Rage proposed a critical debate of communism - you propose dogmatic belief! Which sounds more like religion, Comrades?! I think we should adopt a new motto: If something makes sense, question it!!


However, State-Capitalism is not a system that was establishing by capitalist conspirators disguised as Communists, nor were there any specific circumstances which hijacked the establishment of Communism.

I agree that there were not 'capitalist conspirators', although I am not sure where you got this idea from! I think that Stalin and co. truly believed that they were progressing through Socialism towards Communism. They were, of course, mistaken.

However, there were circumstances that 'hijacked' the establishment of communism and led to the development of the bureaucratic State that was the USSR. The most important of these was the devastating civil war and the corresponding failure of the revolution in Germany. This left Russia impoverished with no-one to help her out. A co-operative, democratic society is impossible if people are squabbling over who should get a loaf of bread to eat.


Whenever a group tries to assert its authority over society, in a way in which the people do not agree, it must inherently be authoritarian, which is why Trotsky claimed the necessity for a "vanguard of the proletarian." But once you have a vanguard of the proletarian, that vanguard essentially becomes a new bourgoisie and the authoritarian state exploits and alienates the people no differently than the robber barons running multi-national corporations.

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat isn't about the one group of people asserting their authority over society. It's about the proletariat destroying post-revolutionary remnants of bourgeois society, and building the material relationships, links and conditions necessary for the emergence of a communist society. Hence the need for a radical democracy, where each person truly receives one vote, and one vote only; where no one person has power over another.


The solution is democracy and moderate Socialism, which accepts the strengths of capitalism. By this, I mean Fabian Socialism and the "Democratic Socialism" which has largely influenced Liberalism.

What exactly are these 'strengths of capitalism' that you would seek to incorporate into a Socialist society? Your point on democracy and liberalism is also an interesting one - why is it that Liberals such as yourself propose a form of 'democracy' so curtailed and limited in comparison with that proposed by many Marxists?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Rage Against The [email protected] 8 2006, 09:25 PM
... what a Communist society would be like?
Emmm... no. I never bother guessing what communist society will look like because frankly that's just what it is - guessing. We're in the position of the minor merchant six or seven centuries ago trying to guess what capitalism would be like. We know the very broadest outlines (ie the class structure of this future society) but everything else is quite probably unimaginable to us. Could that feudal merchant possibly know about industrialisation or computers or social welfare or happy slapping etc etc?

We know that communism is a society in which there are no classes. That's it. From that statement you can make a few decent stabs at how the economy or political superstructure will operate but its all pure conjecture really.

[TomRK1089]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 02:39 AM

We know that communism is a society in which there are no classes. That's it. From that statement you can make a few decent stabs at how the economy or political superstructure will operate but its all pure conjecture really.
The idea is to take it beyond conjecture and "What-if?" and into implementation.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 02:55 AM
The idea is to take it beyond conjecture and "What-if?" and into implementation.
Something that neither you or I are in any position to do. We can make some fairly confident predictions and plans of action for socialism but communism is simply too far removed from today's society.

[TomRK1089]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Mar 11 2006, 08:10 PM--> (ComradeOm @ Mar 11 2006, 08:10 PM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 02:55 AM
The idea is to take it beyond conjecture and "What-if?" and into implementation.
Something that neither you or I are in any position to do. We can make some fairly confident predictions and plans of action for socialism but communism is simply too far removed from today's society. [/b]
Well, not to exaggerate too much, but I think we can do more than that re: implementation. See the first link in my sig.

The idea isn't to come up with a theoretical solution and then never try to do anything with it. Theory is a necessary component, but it isn't the be-all and end-all.

[Storming Heaven]

Then I'll poke holes in it, then you guys fill in those holes with explanations as to why I'm wrong - I really need this, I'm getting quite disillusioned with teh auld Communism and just want a few things cleared up, thanks.

What exactly is disillusioning you? What problems do you see with the idea of communism? Perhaps it would be better for you to announce your criticisms immediatly, rather than waiting for someone to give you a statement...

[LoneRed]

No, pure Socialism (Communism) cannot work. But we can still try to achieve some Communist goals. Of the 10 suggested policies of the Communist manifesto, all 10 have been implemented in western countries in one form or another. And it's good to end poverty, to help the sick, and the elderly, and the oppressed. But once you delve into the idea that we must have "total wealth distribution," it suddenly becomes far too unrealistic of a goal to accomplish.


you have failed to prove that socialism or communism cant work, also the parenthesis dont work there, as they are quite different things. resorting to the Ussr, or china etc.. does nothing to prove your point, In those societies bourgeois(progressive) revolutions successfully smashed the feudalism, bringing in the necessary stage of capitalism, keep on reading kid. your ignorance like the rest of the capitalists rears its head once again. you cant just "implement" those measures and call it communism, there has to be a certain mode of production that allows these to work.just having those points, which we drastically do not, does not make it communism. No one is calling for "total wealth distribution", once again you are failing to show what you know communism is. even if you understood the manifesto you would know that that is not what communism is.