Communist discussion

[Question everything]

on the thread What is Communism Rosa Lichtenstein said


You are right about what communist parties have done to churches etc., but then I would argue that they were state capitalist.

So I would like to make the counter arguement, why can't you work with Christian socialists and other socialists to perserve religions, and turn them from state capitalist to state communist, just as the capitalist did when they took power over feudalism, and so on. Or even better, actually read through the whole book, rather than omitting the the parts that seem to contradict us.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

QE, I think your question arises from an inadequate understanding of the origin an nature of religion.

Forgive me palming you off again, but if you want to discuss that, you will need to take this to the religion section in the OE forum.

The reference to State Capitalist was to the nature of the state in the USSR post 1928, not to the nature of the church (if I understand the middle part of your question aright).

So, since that question is based on what seems to be a misunderstanding of what I said, I cannot comment further.

And, which book are you referring to?

[Question everything]

I'm sorry I guess I am a bit stuck on religion, I've never been an orthodox catholic, but abandoning religion is still a leap for me and since Canada has no socialist party (excuse me if I'm wrong but socialist accept religion right? I know I heard Hugo Chavez refer to Jesus Christ) and the book I'm refering to is any religious book (bible or Koran) had other question just no time, such as why is communism (at least it appears to in my opinion) appeal to intellectuals more than the working person, now adays? it just does make sense to me... most of my friend friends think of communism as a society full of "lazy, godless" people, some of my friends think of communists as hippies. so how come the working class, think communism is useless...

[cb9's_unity]

(excuse me if I'm wrong but socialist accept religion right? I know I heard Hugo Chavez refer to Jesus Christ)

The term socialist is broad and encompasses many many types of political beliefs. Generally to qualify as a socialist you must simply believe in the destruction of capitalism and proletarian control of the means of production (actually communists and anarchists are both considered socialists). Oh and Chavez is a Democratic (reform) Socialist.


why is communism (at least it appears to in my opinion) appeal to intellectuals more than the working person, now adays? it just does make sense to me... most of my friend friends think of communism as a society full of "lazy, godless" people, some of my friends think of communists as hippies. so how come the working class, think communism is useless...

To say it respectfully your friends and most of society don't know jack shit about communism. There are tons of misconceptions out there mainly because from the time people are born they are told it is a evil totalitarian society that never works. People aren't told that there is no such thing as a "communist state" and Marx was a huge advocate of democracy. Also people aren't told that socialism is only ment to be built on advanced capitalist states and has so far only been tried in poor countries that lack sufficient industrialization.

Sadly most of the working class has been lied to about communism and most of them are only beggining to gain class conciousness. Workers who do understand communism usually fight for it and where did you get that most communists are "intellectuals"? I guess you could talk about the libertarian socialist Noam Chomsky but for every chomsky theres thousands of workers.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

QE: there were times when communist ideas appealed more widely, but the crazy antics and suicidal tactics of most left groups, and the failure of the State Capitalist regimes in the former USSR, E Europe and China, has further alienated most working people.

I set my site up to try to explain this, and to counter it.

On religion, check this out:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8373

And then this:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20...DM.htm#Practice (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm#Practice)

[Where 'DM' stands for 'dialectical materialism'.]

[Ze]

Originally posted by Question [email protected] 14, 2007 07:19 pm
on the thread What is Communism Rosa Lichtenstein said


You are right about what communist parties have done to churches etc., but then I would argue that they were state capitalist.

So I would like to make the counter arguement, why can't you work with Christian socialists and other socialists to perserve religions, and turn them from state capitalist to state communist, just as the capitalist did when they took power over feudalism, and so on. Or even better, actually read through the whole book, rather than omitting the the parts that seem to contradict us.
Communism is the dissolution of the State. There are no states, no borders, no artificial divisions amongst the people (religions).

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by Question [email protected] 16, 2007 02:06 pm
I'm sorry I guess I am a bit stuck on religion, I've never been an orthodox catholic, but abandoning religion is still a leap for me and since Canada has no socialist party (excuse me if I'm wrong but socialist accept religion right? I know I heard Hugo Chavez refer to Jesus Christ) and the book I'm refering to is any religious book (bible or Koran) had other question just no time...
Abandoning a religious outlook was a big leap for me. It took me a long while to understand the world in a scientific-materialist manner but I eventually reached the conclusion that the world is devoid of metaphysical meaning and that the proper lens from which to view it is existentialist. However, long before I reached this viewpoint I considered myself a full-fledged socialist — at times adhering to Trotskyism or anarchism. I think it’s perfectly okay to consider oneself religious and socialist. Many great thinkers have been both — Ali Shariati (Muslim), Sultan Galiev (Muslim), Paulo Freire (Christian), Cornel West (Christian), Hugo Chavez (Christian), and so on.


why is communism (at least it appears to in my opinion) appeal to intellectuals more than the working person, now adays? it just does make sense to me... most of my friend friends think of communism as a society full of "lazy, godless" people, some of my friends think of communists as hippies. so how come the working class, think communism is useless...

That’s because the communism of ‘intellectuals’ is dead. The Soviet experience has taught us two lessons: that state-capitalism cannot breed socialism and that socialism impossible without the self-emancipation of the working class. Soviet communism [Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, most variants of Trotskyism] has appealed to intellectuals because it gives them a special almost god-like status. This ‘communism’ leads to state-capitalism and the re-enslavement of the working class.

The only possible communism, the only real communism is the self-emancipation of the working class. This includes agitation and education by its most conscious members but not the vanguardism of the intellectuals. I think at times working class communists can work together with progressive Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. in order to fight for a particular action that would aid the working class in its struggle.

[Question everything]

Thank you Hopscotch, that was encouraging, I'm glad to heard that, I also understand that religion are often manipulated and sometime created in order to support nationalist goals, still I'm not asking that churchs should be kept or any religion in there current form, I do believe how here there should be an acceptance of a God, and that certain things should be kept in order to allow us to persue that path if we so wish.

As for the intellectual question, I already had come to those conclusions... It still does make sense that the communist cause is taken up by those who are in the upper crust of society when many workers would rather sit and wait to have their job downsized, the Ice caps melt and all hell break loose before the start to fight back...

Oh and by the way Cb9 I understand the term socailist has a wide range of appilcation (although anarchy was a surprise), but I was refering to democractic socailism.

However Hopscotch you were using socialism as an examplehowever here there is only liberals (canada's version of the democrats), and the two Communist Parties (that are non-anarchist socialist)... so now I'm forced to choose between my faith that there is a God or my Ideals of universal equality... sorry if I sound a-bit melodramatic, but I am having trouble with this.

[Question everything]

sorry for double posting, but I just wanted it to appear that I have a new question, on the learning section. How would a de-centralized communist state of workers organize these radical changes proposed universally? how would the abolishment of familys work (THIS IS A BIG QUESTON FOR ME, as to how people would meet to have children?, what would their relationship be?, and who would care for the children/ how would they be cared for), how would important institutions formally controled by capitalists , be protected from radicals who hate capitalism, more than they believe in communism? how would we stop the world from falling into chaos and war-torn anarchy (to any anarchist read this I mean as opposed to a peaceful and ordered anarchy)? What would communism do to the presently existing institutions now used to serve the elite? and finally what would stop different wings of communist and other socialist parties from turning on each other and starting a civil war (as so often seems to happen in post revolutionary society)? here are the questions I have on the establisment of a working communist state...

[More Fire for the People]

How would a de-centralized communist state of workers organize these radical changes proposed universally?
A congress or federation of communes would enact policies and communes could put them into effect.


how would the abolishment of familys work (THIS IS A BIG QUESTON FOR ME, as to how people would meet to have children?, what would their relationship be?, and who would care for the children/ how would they be cared for),
I think the 'abolishment of the family' is taken a little too literally. Under communism, family will be abolished as a system of property relations and patriarchy. Sure, kids will probably cohabitate with their parents but they'll learn from everybody and be subject to the same rights as adults. The key issue Marx had with family was that it served to propogate capital.


how would important institutions formally controled by capitalists , be protected from radicals who hate capitalism, more than they believe in communism?
They wouldn't. Communism isn't just an idea or goal. It's something that actually happens. Workers’ councils and assemblies are communism and defense of all democratic workers’ organisations is task shared by all communists.


how would we stop the world from falling into chaos and war-torn anarchy (to any anarchist read this I mean as opposed to a peaceful and ordered anarchy)?
By being readily armed against counter-revolution. It may happen that after the first wave of revolution [say a large general strike] the bourgeoisie will attack back. It is at this point we, as communists, must aid in the development of workers’ councils, assemblies, and militias.

If we do face a prolonged civil war it is important for us to struggle against military hiearchy and elitism. All workers’ militias must be organized in way that they are democratic and non-hiearchial.


What would communism do to the presently existing institutions now used to serve the elite?
Abolish them. The police, standing army, and other anti-worker organisations have to go.


and finally what would stop different wings of communist and other socialist parties from turning on each other and starting a civil war (as so often seems to happen in post revolutionary society)?
This is difficult question to answer. The best I can give is that we must have fidelity towards democratic workers’ organisations and be a part, not above, working class politics.

[Question everything]

By being readily armed against counter-revolution. It may happen that after the first wave of revolution [say a large general strike] the bourgeoisie will attack back. It is at this point we, as communists, must aid in the development of workers’ councils, assemblies, and militias.

If we do face a prolonged civil war it is important for us to struggle against military hiearchy and elitism. All workers’ militias must be organized in way that they are democratic and non-hiearchial.

I was refering to prevent revolutionary leaders from turning on each other or seizing power and creating a degenerated worker state?


What would communism do to the presently existing institutions now used to serve the elite?

here I was also refering to luxuries that only the rich can afford, or from a commun attepting to seize power

[Question everything]

(once again sorry for double-posting)

here is my problem everytime I run over the scenario of a workers revolution 90% of the time I come across the 4 same endings...

The capitalist win- the capitalist nip it in the bud, either turn the workers on each other again or buy make false promises which it pretends to keep or revolutionary leader are detained as terrorists... and so on.

The peoples revolution turns into the french revolution- The people with out a solitary leader, turn on each other each fighting for a postition of power, moderate leftist and radicals lead coups, and after a "reign of terror" new "moderate" capitalist rise, they however quickly return to being the enemy.

The communist civil war- this is similar to the previous one except it is between communists, and other socialists who are trying to influence the policies, it ends in a divided (hence the creation of different "communist" states) society.

The dictator- In this scenario a great leader takes hold of the peoples movement and leads the humble movement to greatness, a singleminded voice of the poletarain, however he stays in power (whether with the intention of stablizing the new found worker's state, or for the simple want of power), leading to a new, world wide Soviet Union (or North Korea, Vietnam, China, etc.).

So please try to reassure my doubts on a Worker's uprising...

[RGacky3]

Heres one, the workers revolt, take control of the means of production, and run them collectively, the uprising was done without any innate power figures, so no dictatorship, the uprising was basically just about getting rid of power and oppression (not much room for factionalism there), and hurra, revolution done.

This outcome has happened a couple times, what usually ends up happening is State power, comes in and with violence stops the uprising. Although I think the Zapatistas have come up with a good solution too this, be very media friendly.

[Question everything]

problem, even unions have leaders, the organizers would take control, throw down some "workers victory" propaganda insure them that they are there to ensure the stability of new state, but never leave, from history you have to understand that an effective propaganda campaign can lead the general population to believe anything...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

QE:

I dealt with this earlier; so either stop asking such things, or pinpoint the error.

If a revolution is successful, it will have been achieved by the active (and conscious) intervention of the vast majority on behalf of the vast majority.

These are circumstances wherein any alleged 'leaders' will not be able to force their will on that majority -- since the latter will be the new rulers.

And, if per impossible, they could so impose their will, the class struggle will kick in again, and this will continue until the working class get it right, or the planet is destroyed.

There are no other options.

And you cannot make the vast majority, if they have acted consciously, believe just anything.

Not even in Stalin's USSR (where this was no longer the case) did the majority believe Pravda.

If a trade union leader told you you were well off, and your kids were starving, he'd be an idiot (i.e, for trying to fool you over something so obvious), and you would be worse for believing him.

So, unless the revolution creates a society of morons, your scenario is not feasible.

[Question everything]

I suppose still, Cuba has improved, but Fidel holds power as a dictator...
and I don't see any communist party oppose him... and I'm not sayig revolution breeds stupidity, there are people with starving children now, but there is no revolution...

also a historical question here...

you say that communists support any workers movement right?
many communists did support the U.S.S.R. as well...
but what about the nationalist movement of Poland?
It mobilized workers in support of capitalism and nationalism in support of of an anti-communist movement

so in your opinion do you think that the polish nationalist movement was a positive movement of the workers against tyranny or a victory for capitalism

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by Question [email protected] 25, 2007 06:00 pm
problem, even unions have leaders, the organizers would take control, throw down some "workers victory" propaganda insure them that they are there to ensure the stability of new state, but never leave, from history you have to understand that an effective propaganda campaign can lead the general population to believe anything...
Anarcho-Syndicalist unions don't have 'Leaders', they have elected officials with certain responsibilities, but they cannot make any desicions for the workers without them voting on it. I think the IWW is a great example of this.

Of coarse with a Workers revolt, certain elected officials can do propeganda, but their office, or any office has no real power, can't really make desicions. Of coarse they can try convince people to make desicions they think are good, but thats just dialogue.

In a workers revolution, there is no "New State"

[gilhyle]

Its an illusion to think that dictators and civil wars happen just because individuals are greedy. If you think that you will draw the pessimistic conclusion that all progress ends up falling away just because of people's greed. But the civil wars and dictatorships that socialist societies have suffered come from the pressure of the enmity of the capitalist world and from the influuence of surviving internal class forces. The issue there is about completing the revolutionary process, about having a political leadership capable of making the transition from the initial seizure of state power to the use of state power to build stable institutions for mass participation in economic planning and distribution.

The answer to your concern lies in the detail of how such a society builds itself up. The key to success is to have a layer of political militants who are committed to that outcome - but the possibility of success always depends on the context.

Thus you can only judge Castro's Cuba as a form of state which emerged to deal first with AMerican enmity and then the fall of the USSR.

In the long term, Marx's answer as to how the outcomes you fear are avoided is that all such outcomes in history reflect the struggle for power over limited resources. Communism as a stable society will only arise as all significant material need has been eliminated.

[Question everything]

I think I understand what you are saying... and I got some good links to essays on the subject as a PM...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

QE:


there are people with starving children now, but there is no revolution...

I am not sure what this has to do with revolution: starvation can and does make people passive.

But it's not in the interest of the capitalist class (in their own country) to have children starve, but for them to have a minimum standard of health and education (in general) -- paid for by the working class, of course(!) --, so they can be exploited later as workers.

And in doing that -- but not just that --, the capitalists help create their own grave-diggers, for an organised working class can become revolutionary.

And Cuba is State Capitalist. As I note above, improvement in health and education is not a criterion of socialism.

It's workers' power that is, and that has never existed in Cuba. They never made the revolution.

It may or may not have been a popular revolution (in the sense that it was welcomed, not in the sense that the majority took part), but popularity is not a sole criterion of socialism either.

Castro only turned to socialism (later) when he needed the help of the USSR.

[Question everything]

QE:


QUOTE
there are people with starving children now, but there is no revolution...



I am not sure what this has to do with revolution: starvation can and does make people passive.

this was in respondence to somebody commenting on my dictator scenario that people would not believe a socialist state has been established if their children were starving...

and sorry again for being so critical, I still don't uderstand everything about communism but I think I got a good start here. thank you all. if I have any more questions I will be posting here...

[Question everything]

I got a new question what should I call myself?, I'm having trouble finding something that matches my ideals...

1. I hate capitalism... and believe in a moneyless society
2. I think that there should be a federation of communes elected using democracy
3. I believe in God but I oppose organized religion
4. I believe that there must be radical change soon.
5. I'm opposed to any "artifical divisions between the people" (though I'm only opposed to large scale, and organized divisions)

I know these are vague but they are off the top of my head... respond soon, perferable asking for certain scepific details... please help me find an ideal I agree with...

[Janus]

I got a new question what should I call myself?, I'm having trouble finding something that matches my ideals...
I'm not sure why you're so worried about categorizing yourself. It may be more "convenient" but it's highly unlikely that there's a specific tendency that you can always categorize yourself as. It's more likely that they'll have to create a new category in order to describe you. :o


I know these are vague but they are off the top of my head... respond soon, perferable asking for certain scepific details... please help me find an ideal I agree with...
Based on those beliefs alone, I would say libertarian socialist though you'll probably have to list more of your beliefs particularly concerning how to achieve revolution and what to do after it.

[Question everything]

Thanks I'm just trying to figure out symbols I can use, like even though many people recognize the anarchist A I can hardly use it... and despite the fact that I agree with most things communist I have some arguements with it... so I suppose it's more looking for a political party to associtate with and a symbol to stand under... I know this is rather petty, seeking an Identity the same way one clings to nationalism but It's easier for me, to say that I am a Socialist compared to a leftist, you know?