Communists and Reformists - An Outline of Differences

[redstar2000]

Since reformist ideas have recently been expounded at Che-Lives at greater than normal length and frequency, I thought it might be useful to summarize some contrasts between revolutionary communist ideas and the complex of ideas usually known under the rubric reformism.

Although these ideas are all "tied together", I've broken them apart into catagories to make them easier to grasp.

Ultimate Goal

Communists: classless society.

Reformists: unknown

The consistent reformist has no "ultimate goal" and rejects talk of such things as "idealist", "impractical", "dreaming", etc. If pressed, he will speak of "socialism" or use a more innocuous word that means the same thing--upon examination, this usually turns out to mean something not very different from capitalism; "market socialism" for example.

Primary Strategy

Communists: educating the working class to rise up and take direct control of the means of production, smashing the capitalist state machinery, etc.

Reformists: educating the working class and others to vote for a reformist political party in bourgeois elections.

Both trends will, resources permitting, produce as much propaganda as they can and distribute it as widely as they can. Both make strong appeals to rational arguments against capitalism; but communists emphasize resistance while reformists (normally) emphasize voting.

Secondary Strategy

Communists: participating in struggles involving direct resistance to capitalist hegemony.

Reformists: participating in various economic efforts--co-ops, worker-owned enterprises, etc.--to directly build alternatives to capitalism.

Note that primary and secondary strategies, in practice, are often "mixed together", especially for communists.

Defining Event

Communists: the proletarian revolution.

Reformists: winning a parliamentary majority for the reformist party.

Estimated Time Until Defining Event Takes Place

Communists: unknown (50 to 400 years?)

Reformists: unknown (less than 50 years?)

Since there is no known way of predicting the future in useful detail, my numbers, like anyone else's, are just guesswork. It is usually thought, however, that a revolutionary path "takes longer" than an evolutionary path to show measurable results...and I have "guessed" accordingly.

Pace of Significant Change

Communists: virtually zero prior to defining event, extremely rapid thereafter.

Reformists: very slow both before and after the defining event; the "evolutionary" path to socialism.

Post-Defining Event Society

Communists: things will be rather disorganized for a while as the social order is completely reconstructed, top to bottom.

Reformists: things will remain pretty orderly as new socialist elites gradually surplant old capitalist ones.

Unity on the Left

Communists: willing to unify with non-communists around immediate resistance to capitalist hegemony; long-range political unity possible only with the most revolutionary and working-class-oriented strains of anarchism.

Reformists: willing to unify with almost anyone if that will help gain a parliamentary majority...or even a junior partnership in a bourgeois coalition government.

Imperialist War

Communists: always opposed, unconditionally.

Reformists: unknown; may support, be neutral, or oppose, depending on circumstances.

Ideology

Communists: Marxism

Reformists: generally an unstable mixture of bourgeois ideologies with trace elements of Marxism. Ideology (a coherent way of looking at the world) is of only marginal concern to reformists who, by definition, are primarily concerned with the next step "towards" socialism.

The Role of the Working Class

Communists: they will make the revolution and run the new society.

Reformists: they will vote for a reformist party.

Communists rely on an active, class-conscious working class. Reformists are mainly concerned that the class votes the right way and is otherwise responsive to its "leadership".

Track Record (thus far)

Communists: virtually zero success

Reformists: zero success

The working class has held power briefly in a few cases, in line with communist expectations, but has never succeeded in consolidating a classless society.

Reformists have won (temporary) reforms, but they have either never attained the parliamentary majority they sought or, if they did attain it, never made any consistent or serious effort to build socialism.

Realistic Prospects for Success

Communists: unknown

Reformists: unknown

IF Marx was right, then we communists should win "in the long run". IF Marx was wrong, as the reformists maintain, then the prospects for communists are zero while the prospects for reformism remain unknown.

I hope this will be helpful.

:cool:

PS: a note on class and ideas---it was the habit in the 20th century proto-communist movement to characterize ideas directly in terms of the class origins of their proponents. Reformists were called "petty bourgeois" to their faces in an effort to discredit their ideas without bothering to argue against them. I've deliberately avoided that approach here. There may or may not be some kind of statistically significant relationship between one's class origins and the political ideas one embraces...but I have noticed none to speak of in my experience. It's quite possible that one would have to know, in detail, the ideas and the class origins of hundreds of thousands of people in order to establish a meaningful relationship between the two.

[Sabocat]

It is my observation that although Reformists are struggling towards a better system, it is a system of comfort. The reason that it has built such a following, is I believe because many who legitimately want a change from the capitalist environment, want it without too much inconvenience to themselves. A path of least resistance if you will.



A change to a true Communism is certainly one that is going to be fraught with struggle and hardship at the beginning. But afterall, very few great things come without sacrifice and struggle.

This is perhaps a simplistic view of it, but this is what it appears to be to me.

[sc4r]

Its kinda difficult for me to see how you can say that the reformists ultimate goal is unknown to you but that they have had zero success in moving towards it. Especially as you thengo to on to say that the defining event for a reformist is to win a parliamentary election and estimate 50 years as the likely timescale for this event.

I thought you classed the labour party as reformist.

Why dont you title this post 'The difference between a whole lot of people I dont like and my idea of communism as described by me'.

My guess is you wont find anybody who agrees they are a reformist by that set of defintions. And wont find anyone against whom you could actually substantiate even an accusation that they were.

If you want to hold to that definition of reformist then I'd appreciate it if you would withdraw your statement that I'm one; since by that definition I'm nowhere close.

[Saint-Just]

I agree with what you say on reformists RS2000.

Anyway, I thought your post was nice and I made a Marxist-Leninist version:

Ultimate Goal

Communism

Primary Strategy

The forming of a vanguard party by our class and the class and its party destroying the bourgeois system of society and its ideas.

Secondary Strategy

Participating in struggles involving direct resistance to capitalist hegemony.

Defining Event

The proletarian revolution working-class becomes the dominant class in society.

Estimated Time Until Defining Event Takes Place

Could happen at any time, it is believed within the next century.

Pace of Significant Change

Takes years or decades to create a revolution, and possibly centuries to create a communist society.

Post-Defining Event Society

Working-class becomes the dominant class in society. Creates an organised and disciplined society that begins to change the consciousness of the masses and destroy old ideas and practices. This is known as socialism and will be the precursor to a communist society; it will exist when capitalism and imperialism have been defeated.

Unity on the Left

Willing to unify with non-communists around immediate resistance to capitalist hegemony.

Imperialist War

Always opposed, unconditionally.

Ideology

Marxism-Leninism

The Role of the Working Class

Communists: they will make the revolution and run the new society in the way of their own vanguard party and leadership.

Track Record (thus far)

Massive success, at one point almost a third of the world’s population lived in a Marxist-Leninist society. These successes were defeated by imperialism, but we believe this is a stage in history. Capitalism was too strong, but it will become weaker as imperialism reaches its highest stage, as Lenin said.

Anti-Imperialist struggle has had success. In Zimbabwe, Venezuala most notably socialist governments are in place but in difficulty, although not M-L they are progressive. A socialist government was successful in Yugoslavia in the mid-90’s but again was defeated by the Imperialists.

Two M-L states still exist, Cuba and the DPRK. Both are under great pressure from the imperialists.

Realistic Prospects For Success

Unknown


(Edited by Chairman Mao at 4:43 pm on July 21, 2003)

[sc4r]

you are entitled to your opinion mao.

the problem with RS2000's definition of a reformist is that nobody at all is one. Probably few (except perhaps those in peripheral social democratic parties) come anywhere close).

Which means what he is really doing is setting the scene for him to start denouncing people as 'reformists', and hoping that a whole lot of mud will stick to them.

All that will come out of such a definition is a whole lot of argument as Redstar announces that people are reformists and they dispute it. Most people (almost anyone here) will (correctly) percieve it is intended as an insult. Redstar will back the claim up by pointing to some individual aspect of their views which approximates to something he has said there. But he will of course hope that others just see 'reformist' and make the association with other characteristics for themself.

His definition of socialism will alienate millions of 'socialists' who are not Marxists, and impede communication, His definition of reformist would alienate millions of Marxists if he applied it to them. And his definition of communism is not much more than self congratulation.

The purpose of a definition is to communicate. If you set up a definition which people dont actually agree with then all you are doing is creating an argument about terminology.

It is a shabby approach.

I'm halfway expecting someone now to get arsy because 'Sc4r is defending Reformism' when what I am actually doing is nothing of the sort.

Wjat you did Mao is very different. What you did is provide a defintion of what you are. The very worst that can happen in that case is that someone else will claim to be a marxist leninist with different views; in which case we will all know that there is more than one sort of Marxist Leninist.

It always dangerous to define the views of somebody else, particularly someone you disagree with. I would have thought that any Communist or Socialist would have realised this having been told probably 1000 times by capitalists that 'Communism stands for dictatorial terror and poverty' etc. Almost invariably something perjurative is sneaked into such a definition.

The approach of defining and labelling somebody else acording to what you say they are is actually the identical one taken by Racists everywhere. It has the same philosophical flaw and it leads to the same eventual consequences - abitrary hatred and mistrust. It serves no useful purpose at all for anyone who does not want an excuse to attack somebody and a seeming justification for doing so.

Bottom line if you want to know what a reformist believes, ask a reformist, not Redstar.


(Edited by sc4r at 6:10 pm on July 21, 2003)

[Saint-Just]

Sc4r, I wouldn't necessarily call you a reformist, I don't work from the same point of view as Redstar2000. I do agree with what he says about your aims in this post though.

You are two steps apart from me, I don't think you call yourself a Marxist. Redstar2000 is one step apart, since he calls himself a Marxist.

I don't know as much as redstar2000 about your views. But I can see fit with what he calls reformists and some people who have those views, but I do not know if you are this kind of person. I am not suggesting you are a 'reformist' but what I am saying is that I am familiar with what redstar2000 is saying about certain people.

Having said this, I would undoubtedly criticise redstar2000's views more than your own. From what I can tell of your views, one difference I think is that your ideas have more chance of success, but I couldn't care less if they did succceed or not. As to redstar2000's views, we do have the same aims to a large extent, but we disagree on how to achieve them, on an almost polar opposite in fact.

Would you like to make your own version using the framework redstar2000 provided. Since you said the political movement he described does not fit you at all.

[sc4r]

I do call myself a Marxist.

I would label myself a Marxist Market Socialist ideologically (not a person without any ideology as Redstar implies).

I do not call myself a reformist. Though prior to RS's definition I would not have objected greatly to having my views about how change was to be achieved broadly summarised in that way.

Very few (if any) of Redstars characteristics apply to me.

Yet Redstar has very recently called me a reformist (and of course several other highly insulting things , notably an 'imperialist lackey').

And you see he has already suceeded in doing somewhat what I said he was trying to do. What do you agree about? that what he says the aims of a reformist are, are my aims? Or that you would see somebody with those aims as a reformist? or that you would see somebody with those aims as somewhat of a poor socialist? or that you previously saw me as a reformist?

My guess is it is a subtle mix of all of them. And you are probably not one of the more susceptible to that particular form of sneak character attack.

I can flat guarantee that if allowed to stand without comment the result of that post would have been for someone (maybe like you) to have said 'sc4r your views seem reformist' meaning that I advocate at least partly working through established political systems (exactly in fact as Redstar has already done over the last few days and given that as his sole justification), while someone not so clued up will read RS's 'definition' and conclude 'Ahha this bloke Sc4r will cooperate with anybody and has only a marginal desire for marxism, he has no purpose beyond obtaining power' which is of course what Redstar says.

Lets put this in a real context : Redstar called me a reformist 2 days ago. I challenged it because I flat knew it was intended as an insult, and he defended it saying 'but you support change through existing democratic process that is what a reformist is'. whereupon , still rather unhappy, I let that particular issue drop. Turns out I should not have. Because RS did indeed intend rather more than that by it.

Sorry this is spiraling into something very personal indeed. I see the cause of that spiral as being RS's willingness to speak for others coupled with my very strong disdain for his views even about his own beliefs. If I wanted someone else to try and put together a coherent non contradictory summary of my views one of the last people I would choose is RS. In my view he cant make his own views consistent, why would he be able to do so for mine.

I'm not pretending to be a totally innocent and aggrieved party in all this. I did let fly with a much more robust attack on his position than I would ordinarily do about a week ago. I wont go into exactly why, but it is not unconnected to the disparity betweem what he claims to stand for and how I have experience of him behaving.

If he called me an 'imperialist lackey' to my face without a big grin and a wink he might regret it. That puts it in proper context.

(Edited by sc4r at 6:43 pm on July 21, 2003)

[sc4r]

I made a Sc4rist Marxist Market Socialist version:

Ultimate Goal

Marxist Socialism (not communism)

Primary Strategy

A combined subversion/ take over of the political and economic bastions of liberalism in the first world together with support for revolutionary movements in the undeveloped world.

Secondary Strategy

None - It is a unified primary strategy

Defining event.

Enshrining of the principle of common ownership into the laws of a major first world nation.

Estimated Time Until Defining Event Takes Place

Could happen at any time in various places, maybe within 50-100 years or less.

Pace of Significant Change

Gradual (sometimes sporadic) but accelerating because all of the elements of the strategy feed back to reinforce one another.

Post-Defining Event Society

The whole idea of class totally vanished. People regard themselves as free agents and expect and accept that they will be rewarded according to their efforts to improve the lives of others. People accept that a choice between leisure and work must be made and that choosing leisure means lesser reward. But few look down on such a choice. People expect to have influence in social decisions to the extent that they are affected by them. A governing hierarchy exists to manage social affairs but participation in this hierarchy confers no special privilege and is restricted to no special people.

Expertise is regarded as worthy of reward, but reward is not expected to be unlimited.

Unity on the Left

Willing to unify with communists or anyone else committed to the principle of common ownership and equality for all nations. Willing to work even with non political liberal forces on the establishment of economic vanguards. Wary of involvement with liberal political parties, but willing to work even with them on specific issues (such as the institution of direct democracy).

Keen to see all of the left express its purposes as a branching path so that maximum force may be directed towards progress of joint goals until such time as goals become incompatible.

Most Obvious Ally

Anarchists

Lest likely Actual Ally:

Anarchists

Imperialist War

Don’t really give a monkeys. Nothing to do with us I’d say. Use the opportunities they provide to undermine faith in existing political systems of course.

Humanitarian legislation :

Nothing to do with Socialism as such I’d say. Individuals (including me) may support some legislation and oppose others.

The Role of the Working Class

Dont matter if it’s the working class or anyone else who supports it. In practise it’s likely support will come more from the working classes as they have most to gain. This is for people, not the working classes especially, its just that it is the working classes and the third world who are most disadvantaged by liberalism.

Track Record (thus far)

Huge success. Virtually all of the western world (except the USA) has hovered on the brink of becoming Socialist. Everywhere (even including the USA) has social legislation vastly superior to anything that existed 100 years ago.

Suffers right at the moment from scepticism connected to the fall of the USSR and is not currently making much further dramatic progress but has not really stalled for any appreciable length of time and is, of course, facing the really difficult point where further progress to appear dramatic depends upon achieving a threshold from which the ‘defining moment’ can be crossed.

Realistic Prospects For Success

Very high. The main dangers are that an apocalyptic event (like Global warming) will provide the instability for a reversion to feudalistic or Fascist approaches. Or that the movement will be undermined by other less pragmatic socialist movements.

It is just possible that somewhere like China will exert such influence in this direction that the direction of change will come from there rather than from within the first world. This would bother us not at all.

Depends also upon establishing the idea of a free socialist market for full success. This idea is still in its infancy but should help bridge the gap of the defining moment as well as being desirable for its own sake.

Biggest problem

It does not sound anywhere near dramatic enough or martial enough to attract the young and fiery. Slogans are few and far between.

It seems dry and slow paced. A better word would inexorable. It would benefit hugely from having a more dramatically attractive but related movement ally with it while interests co-incided (which would be at least as far off as the defining event) At that point it would be up to people to choose between them.

Defining Character.

Democracy and fair differentiation of reward.

Most Common valid Criticism

Its not fully Marxist in that it does not accept either the ultimate goal of communism, or the labour theory of value as a complete description. Rejects much Marxist polemic as outmoded.

We Say

Who gives a stuff, the idea is to institute a fair, just healthy, society all over the world not to canonise Marx.

Argue with us about whther it is a good idea not whether it is Marxist.


(Edited by sc4r at 7:48 pm on July 21, 2003)

[elijahcraig]

I agree with RS2000, but I think Mao's marxist-leninist version is just as good. Sc4, you are a reformist.

[Sabocat]

Sc4r

It sounds more like Anarcho-Capitalism, with a dash of socialism to make the pill swallow easier.

Could you explain the worker being the "free agent"?

[sc4r]

Quote: from elijahcraig on 10:48 pm on July 21, 2003
I agree with RS2000, but I think Mao's marxist-leninist version is just as good. Sc4, you are a reformist.



Not according to RS's definition I'm not. Make your mind up is his definition a pile of cack or am i a reformist ? cant be both.

You are the same person who assured everyone that you debate only substance 2 days ago are you? The one who never indulges in name calling or any sort?


(Edited by sc4r at 11:18 pm on July 21, 2003)

[sc4r]

Quote: from Disgustapated on 11:02 pm on July 21, 2003
Sc4r

It sounds more like Anarcho-Capitalism, with a dash of socialism to make the pill swallow easier.

Could you explain the worker being the "free agent"?


I bet you wont find an anarcho-capitalist anywhere in the world to agree with you.

I think that most of them would regard the total elimination of private property rights in the means of production and the institution of a democracy which could intervene in absolutely any aspect of either society or economics as being rather a lot more than 'dash' of socialism.

What do you actually object to : the word market? or what a market does? Do you know what a market does?
Not what the capitalist market does but what a market in general does. Do you know what a market is for? or why it might be desirable?

Or do you object to something else?

I'd like to know before I even attempt to explain; because if you know almost nothing of how economic systems function, or what the problems are, my explanation will have to be at a very different level than if you do.

To be honest if you dont know economics, and have already concluded that the inclusion of a market must be a bad thing, then it will be an uphill struggle to re-educate you out of bad dogmatic habits. It will possibly take years, depending on how dogmatic you are.

The problem stems from the fact that market theory was very poorly enunicated and understood in Marx's day. The only half way decent expositions came from people who were clearly Capilalists or Liberals and who themselves assumed almost as an article of faith that 'liberal property rights' were an integral part of the universe. So Marx attacked markets because thats what Capitalists defended. He didnt need to consider that the alternative might not be terribly efficient because in part economies were so much simpler that you possibly could just about scrape by without, and in part because he had , of course, never had the opportunity to witness what happens without them.

In short the problem arises with people who have read Marx, or read people who have read Marx, and regard it as sacrosanct, before they have understood economics. Its a special problem if they are predisposed to accepting abitrary notions of morality. This leads them to demand perfection without really explaining how such perfection could be achieved. They tend to make giant leaps of faith when questioned on such matters (e.g. million of people co-ordinating themselves).

'Free agent' as I used it just means that the person can choose for themselves what they consume and what they do. All such terms are non absolute; one can only ever choose what you do within the parameters society sets.

[apathy maybe]

I consider myself a communist, meaning that I would support a classless society where there is no 'private' property or recognisable government. But I also recognise that socialism, is more likely and is more realistic then communism.

I consider my self a reformer. That is I don't support a revulution and do support getting a majority in a parliament. Once in we can make it a true democracy and implement our ideas.

The track record of people who support a similear idea to me is pretty good. Free education and health in many places. Half way decent democracy in many places. Etc.

The role of the working class is the same as that for the middle and upper class. Support the democracy and support the reforms. Gradualy there won't be an upper class. After that the middle and working classes will merge and we will have a classless society.

[redstar2000]

Yes, sc4r, I do think a reasonable description of your views is contained within the word reformist as I have defined it.

That is based on three of the characteristics in particular:

1. Your stated intentions to attain power through victory in capitalist elections.

2. Your stated perspective of "buying out" the capitalist class over an extended period of time.

3. Your stated intention of introducing "market socialism".

I have no doubt that all the other things you express about your goals and purposes are meant sincerely; but that's not really the point.

When you say this...

Virtually all of the western world (except the USA) has hovered on the brink of becoming Socialist. Everywhere (even including the USA) has social legislation vastly superior to anything that existed 100 years ago.

...you have done everything short of having "reformist" tatooed on your forehead. What more is required?

Your ambiguous attitude towards imperialist war also fits my definition--I did not "call" you a "lackey of imperialism", but I did suggest that your expressed willingness to support imperialist war "under certain circumstances" was certainly a big step in that direction.

You may have, at least in your own eyes, perfectly good reasons for the views you embrace; but by all reasonable definitions of the word "reformism"...you fit.

I don't understand your unwillingness to accept the logical consequences of your views...except, perhaps, you regard the word "reformist" as an "image" or "marketing" problem.

It does not sound anywhere near dramatic enough or martial enough to attract the young and fiery.

Yes, "re-branding" sounds like it would help your cause a good deal; I can't help you much there but I understand there are corporations that specialize in that sort of thing which you might want to consult.

It would benefit hugely from having a more dramatically attractive but related movement ally with it while interests co-incided (which would be at least as far off as the defining event)...

Yes, I dare say it would. It has often been the ambition of reformists to "use" revolutionaries as "bait" while preparing the "switch" to a far less radical scenario.

But I don't think that "works" any more.

:cool:

PS: Believe it or not, folks, I really did attempt to make my summary definitions as fair and balanced as possible.

[apathy maybe]

The problem with your first thread, redstar2000, is that you seem to think reformists and communists can not be the same.

[Sandanista]

Reformists and the working class (not communists) can never be the same, reformists are part of the state and must be smashed, whereas the working class being the under class are in oppossition to the state as it is the mechanism which holds down the workers.

Sc4r you've shown how little you know by sayin marxist socialism (not communsim), marxist socialism is communism considering they are the same thing.

You cannnot be a communist if you are a reformist, its pure and simple marxism, the working class can only take power by the forceable overthrow of the capitalist class, and this must be the act of the united working class and nt done on behalf of them by a small elite guerilla force or small collar and tie party.

[elijahcraig]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: from elijahcraig on 10:48 pm on July 21, 2003
I agree with RS2000, but I think Mao's marxist-leninist version is just as good. Sc4, you are a reformist.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Not according to RS's definition I'm not. Make your mind up is his definition a pile of cack or am i a reformist ? cant be both.

You are the same person who assured everyone that you debate only substance 2 days ago are you? The one who never indulges in name calling or any sort?

I think RS2000 cleared this up in his post, so I won't go into it. I didn't insult you, unless you consider "reformist" on parallel with "ass". You are a reformist though.

[sc4r]

Oh no! I'm not letting this drop.

Redstar might say I do fit 3 of his criteria (actually 2 because the third one about market socialism is something he has just introduced now); but fitting a few criteria out of about a dozen is not what anyone would call a close fit.

He is doing exactly what he has done before - saying I am a reformist; justifying it on the basis of things I would agree; but then defining reformist to include a whole lot of other things (notably an absence of ideology, a defining moment vastly more pathetic than the one I actually cite, Defining a primary strategy which is vastly weaker too, being willing to unify with almost anyone,). That would be sufficient to piss me off, but there are a whole lot of other more subtly derogatories included in his 'definition' and his rhetoric. Just one example is the statement that I'll participate in Capitalist elections. Theres no such thing. He means Liberal elections, but to say so would not allow him to get in a sly dig.

This sort of thing always happens whenever someone has the arrogance to define the ideas of another, without the humility and integrity to alter it when told it is wrong.

If I wanted to declare myself a reformist then I would say Redstars definition is wank. Since I dont I only say that it is probably wank in that I doubt anybody calling themself a reformist would accept it.

In fact all Redstar has done is define a bad name he can call people. He has done what dishonest people with a determination to denigrate others have always done. The exact same thing Racists do.

An alligator has 4 legs, a tail, and teeth; but it is not a cat.

Frankly this is very basic logic.

I did not specially mind being called a reformist prior to RS's definition (except that I knew it would be interpreted as meaning a whole lot more than the justification) but I certainly do object most strongly to it now.

'Reformist' by RS definition is most definitely an insult as far as I'm concerned.
.
.
Sandanista : before you call me uneducated you might like to just check a little. If you think Marxist Socialism and Communism are one and the same thing I can only suggest that you join in the arguments in OI when the subject next comes up. You will be joining in on the side of the more ignorant cappies. 'Marxist socialism' can include communism, or may refer to the type of society that Marx saw as ushering in communism depending on context. But either way it is not the same thing.
.
.
I have no real expectation of convincing you lot. You (like the racist) want to be able to denigrate people and probably cannot see what an appallingly dishonest and insulting methodology you are using to allow you to do so.

I will be flat amazed if sometime during the next month someone does not dismiss what I say on the basis of 'dont listen to him he is a reformist' , this is exactly parrallel to 'dont trust him he is a {the N word meaning vaguely black}.

This, I suspect, is what 'communism' a la redstar would be like. Lots of intolerance, Lots of denunciations, a complete absence of rigorous thinking, and ultimately a society that turned on itself. Not that it will happen; in my opinion the true prospects of sucess for his plan (which BTW departs very radically from Marx's plan) are zero. He wont convince anyone much; because they, like me, will object to being called things they are not.

Many of you (certainly including Redstar) do the same sort of thing when talking about Capitalists and Liberal democrats - You call them things they are not; things they would not accept. Then you probably wonder why you cannot convince them of anything. Of course you cant, you've shown you dont actually understand their POV right away, why should they listen to you.

Which leaves you only the option of fighting them. And if you ever did in the first world you lose so fast and easy its not even amusing.

What you are really going to do is pose; with lots of martial sounding declarations. just as RS does. But someone who sounds martial, gets sanctimonious about things like the death penalty, and suggests a time period for any action beyond 'educate' of 100's of years actually sounds like an utter pillock to me.




(Edited by sc4r at 7:08 am on July 22, 2003)


(Edited by sc4r at 10:01 am on July 22, 2003)


(Edited by sc4r at 10:06 am on July 22, 2003)

[elijahcraig]

Oh no! I'm not letting this drop.

Redstar might say I do fit 3 of his criteria (actually 2 because the third one about market socialism is something he has just introduced now); but fitting a few criteria out of about a dozen is not what anyone would call a close fit.

He is doing exactly what he has done before - saying I am a reformist; justifying it on the basis of things I would agree; but then defining reformist to include a whole lot of other things (notably an absence of ideology, a defining moment vastly more pathetic than the one I actually cite, Defining a primary strategy which is vastly weaker too, being willing to unify with almost anyone,). That would be sufficient to piss me off, but there are a whole lot of other more subtly derogatories included in his 'definition'.

This sort of thing always happens whenever someone has the arrogance to define the ideas of another, without the humility and integrity to alter it when told it is wrong.

If I wanted to declare myself a reformist then I would say Redstars definition is wank. Since I dont I only say that it is probably wank in that I doubt anybody calling themself a reformist would accept it.

In fact all Redstar has done is define a bad name he can call people. He has done what dishonest people with a determination to denigrate others have always done. The exact same thing Racists do.

An alligator has 4 legs, a tail, and teeth; but it is not a cat.

Frankly this is very basic logic.

I did not specially mind being called a reformist prior to RS's definition (except that I knew it would be interpreted as meaning a whole lot more than the justification) but I certainly do object most strongly to it now.

'Reformist' by RS definition is most definitely an insult as far as I'm concerned.
.
.
Sandanista : before you call me uneducated you might like to just check a little. If you think Marxist Socialism and Communism are one and the same thing I can only suggest that you join in the arguments in OI when the subject next comes up. You will be joining in on the side of the more ignorant cappies.
.
.
I have no real expectation of convincing you lot. You (like the racist) want to be able to denigrate people and probably cannot see what an appallingly dishonest and insulting methodology you are using to allow you to do so.

I will be flat amazed if sometime during the next month someone does not dismiss what I say on the basis of 'dont listen to him he is a reformist' , this is exactly parrallel to 'dont trust him he is a {the N word meaning vaguely black}.

This, I suspect, is what 'communism' a la redstar would be like. Lots of intolerance, Lots of denunciations, a complete absence of rigorous thinking, and ultimately a society that turned on itself. Not that it will happen; in my opinion the true prospects of sucess for his plan (which BTW departs very radically from Marx's plan) are zero. He wont convince anyone much; because they, like me, will object to being called things they are not.

Many of you (certainly including Redstar) do the same sort of thing when talking about Capitalists and Liberal democrats - You call them things they are not; things they would not accept. Then you probably wonder why you cannot convince them of anything. Of course you cant, you've shown you dont actually understand their POV right away, why should they listen to you.

Which leaves you only the option of fighting them. And if you ever did in the first world you lose so fast and easy its not even amusing.

What you are really going to do is pose; with lots of martial sounding declarations. just as RS does. But someone who sounds martial, gets sanctimonious about things like the death penalty, and suggests a time period for any action beyond 'educate' of 100's of years actually sounds like an utter pillock to me.

Nope, you're a reformist, by ANY Communist's standards.

[Blackberry]

Quote: from elijahcraig on 7:23 am on July 22, 2003

Nope, you're a reformist, by ANY Communist's standards.

Agreed.

[sc4r]

Well then I guess you are just going to have to fight me arent you. Since I cannot imagine that you think 'a reformist' is someone you want to be buddies with and I certainly have no desire for buddies whose very definition of me distorts my message.

Sensible people are you not. You are going to fight on the basis not of what I am, but on the basis of a label which is wrong.

Covert an ally to an opponent. excellent strategy boys. This must give you true hope that your education programs will take when it comes to converting opponents to allies.

As far as I'm concerned you've just called me a bad word. You've stereotyped me, and stereotyped me wrongly, and continued to so after being corrected. You have, as far as I'm concerned, done just what Racists do to people. The only difference is that in this case its me not you that actually has the biggest backing (not here but in the wider world).

What do you think would happen to a small gang of Racists who started spouting off in Southall? Thats pretty much whats going to happen to you. Your plans will get stomped, but good.





(Edited by sc4r at 8:59 am on July 22, 2003)


(Edited by sc4r at 10:10 am on July 22, 2003)

[redstar2000]

An amusing footnote...

His definition of socialism will alienate millions of 'socialists' who are not Marxists, and impede communication, His definition of reformist would alienate millions of Marxists if he applied it to them.

I mean, just imagine, there are "millions" and "millions" of people who care about what I think?

Wow!

:cool:

[sc4r]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 11:28 am on July 22, 2003
An amusing footnote...

His definition of socialism will alienate millions of 'socialists' who are not Marxists, and impede communication, His definition of reformist would alienate millions of Marxists if he applied it to them.

I mean, just imagine, there are "millions" and "millions" of people who care about what I think?

But a more germaine footnote is that pedants who are either so dumb or so unbelievably up their own wotsits that they cannot see that the simple substitution of 'would' for 'will' changes this totally; and have nothing more substantive to contribute than a bit of schoolboy mockery are probably not any more capable of seeing what actually matters elsewhere.

No RS your thoughts will not influence millions. They will influence a few dozens all of whom will probably grow out of it. The only sadness is that some of them might not grow out of Socialism and straight into the establishment if presented with something a bit less airy fairy and ill founded than your ideological candy.

What you do with your definitions is create rifts. They dont do anything else at all. You have provided some custard pies for you audience to throw, and bieng young and enthusiastic they will throw them with gay abandon.

When they get bored with custard pies they'll ask themselves 'hmmm how did that help anything?'. They will conclude that it didn't seem to, and look for other amusements. Some might take to setting up pie stands of their own, some might just go home. None of them will do anything that might make socialism or communism a little more likely; and in 10 years time they will say 'O Y I was involved with a communist group once, all they mainly do is argue with each other about what to call things and who to denounce'.

(Edited by sc4r at 12:34 pm on July 22, 2003)

[Saint-Just]

This is what redstar2000 said about Sc4r and what Sc4r has said about himself.

Ultimate Goal

‘Reformists’: unknown

Sc4r: Marxist Socialism (not communism)

Primary Strategy

‘Reformists’: educating the working class and others to vote for a reformist political party in bourgeois elections.

Sc4r: A combined subversion/ take over of the political and economic bastions of liberalism in the first world together with support for revolutionary movements in the undeveloped world.

Secondary Strategy

’Reformist’s’: participating in various economic efforts--co-ops, worker-owned enterprises, etc.--to directly build alternatives to capitalism.

Sc4r: None - It is a unified primary strategy

Defining Event

’Reformists’: winning a parliamentary majority for the reformist party.

Sc4r: Enshrining of the principle of common ownership into the laws of a major first world nation.

Estimated Time Until Defining Event Takes Place

’Reformists’: unknown (less than 50 years?)

Sc4r: Could happen at any time in various places, maybe within 50-100 years or less.

Pace of Significant Change

‘Reformists’: very slow both before and after the defining event; the "evolutionary" path to socialism.

Sc4r: Gradual (sometimes sporadic) but accelerating because all of the elements of the strategy feed back to reinforce one another.

Post-Defining Event Society

’Reformists’: things will remain pretty orderly as new socialist elites gradually surplant old capitalist ones.

Sc4r: The whole idea of class totally vanished. People regard themselves as free agents and expect and accept that they will be rewarded according to their efforts to improve the lives of others. People accept that a choice between leisure and work must be made and that choosing leisure means lesser reward. But few look down on such a choice. People expect to have influence in social decisions to the extent that they are affected by them. A governing hierarchy exists to manage social affairs but participation in this hierarchy confers no special privilege and is restricted to no special people.

Expertise is regarded as worthy of reward, but reward is not expected to be unlimited.

Unity on the Left

’Reformists’: willing to unify with almost anyone if that will help gain a parliamentary majority...or even a junior partnership in a bourgeois coalition government.

Sc4r: Willing to unify with communists or anyone else committed to the principle of common ownership and equality for all nations. Willing to work even with non political liberal forces on the establishment of economic vanguards. Wary of involvement with liberal political parties, but willing to work even with them on specific issues (such as the institution of direct democracy).

Keen to see all of the left express its purposes as a branching path so that maximum force may be directed towards progress of joint goals until such time as goals become incompatible.

Imperialist War

’Reformists’: unknown; may support, be neutral, or oppose, depending on circumstances.

Sc4r: Don’t really give a monkeys. Nothing to do with us I’d say. Use the opportunities they provide to undermine faith in existing political systems of course.

Ideology

’Reformists’: generally an unstable mixture of bourgeois ideologies with trace elements of Marxism. Ideology (a coherent way of looking at the world) is of only marginal concern to reformists who, by definition, are primarily concerned with the next step "towards" socialism.

Sc4r: -

The Role of the Working Class

’Reformists’: they will vote for a reformist party.

Sc4r: Dont matter if it’s the working class or anyone else who supports it. In practise it’s likely support will come more from the working classes as they have most to gain. This is for people, not the working classes especially, its just that it is the working classes and the third world who are most disadvantaged by liberalism.

Track Record (thus far)

’Reformists’: zero success

Sc4r: Huge success. Virtually all of the western world (except the USA) has hovered on the brink of becoming Socialist. Everywhere (even including the USA) has social legislation vastly superior to anything that existed 100 years ago.

Suffers right at the moment from scepticism connected to the fall of the USSR and is not currently making much further dramatic progress but has not really stalled for any appreciable length of time and is, of course, facing the really difficult point where further progress to appear dramatic depends upon achieving a threshold from which the ‘defining moment’ can be crossed.

Realistic Prospects for Success

Reformists: unknown

Sc4r: Very high. The main dangers are that an apocalyptic event (like Global warming) will provide the instability for a reversion to feudalistic or Fascist approaches. Or that the movement will be undermined by other less pragmatic socialist movements.

It is just possible that somewhere like China will exert such influence in this direction that the direction of change will come from there rather than from within the first world. This would bother us not at all.

Depends also upon establishing the idea of a free socialist market for full success. This idea is still in its infancy but should help bridge the gap of the defining moment as well as being desirable for its own sake.


Marx on petty-bourgeois socialism: ’ fluctuating between proletariat and bourgeoisie, and ever renewing itself a supplementary part of bourgeois society. The individual members of this class, however, as being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition’

Bourgeois socialism: ’A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society.’

‘hole-and-corner reformers’

‘The socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie naturally conceives the world in which it is supreme to be the best; and bourgeois socialism develops this comfortable conception into various more or less complete systems. In requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and thereby to march straightaway into the social New Jerusalem, it but requires in reality that the proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie.’

‘this form of socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations; reforms, therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between capital and labor, but, at the best, lessen the cost, and simplify the administrative work of bourgeois government.’

redstar2000: ‘Reformists were called "petty bourgeois" to their faces in an effort to discredit their ideas without bothering to argue against them.’

Marx: ‘Bourgeois socialism attains adequate expression when, and only when, it becomes a mere figure of speech.’

Free trade: for the benefit of the working class. Protective duties: for the benefit of the working class.

It is summed up in the phrase: the bourgeois is a bourgeois -- for the benefit of the working class.

Redstar2000: ‘There may or may not be some kind of statistically significant relationship between one's class origins and the political ideas one embraces’

Marx: ’ petty bourgeois, and from the standpoint of these intermediate classes, should take up the cudgels for the working class. Thus arose petty-bourgeois socialism.’

[sc4r]

I cant argue with that mao. It says what it says.

However, I will make a comment about the last part of your post dealing with bourgeois and petty bourgeois socialism. I dont know of course whether it was intended to imply that this is what I am. But I'm fairly sure some will read it that way, so I'm going to say what I actually am.

Marx is talking about Social Democrats. About those who would in the USA vernacular now be termed Liberals and in the Uk perhaps liberals or maybe just Socialists (meaning a member of the labour party in all probability).

This means people who would retain liberal private property rights in the means of production but who would allow those rights to be somewhat constrained by law so as to moderate the worst excesses of uncontrolled capitalism. This includes taxation on profits so as to fund social initiatives.

I do not wish to retain liberal property rights in any way shape or form. I am 100% behind the concept of common ownership in the means of production. Not 99% : 100%.

Market socialism (my version of it anyway, like just about every tag there are dozens of versions) means only that a market mechanism is used to regulate production and assign goods to people and enterprises according to the use value they place on them.

There is no element of private profit in this. Rights to methods of production are not traded in the market between individuals.

Why? because without a market mechanism you are left with several uncomfortable questions about what happens when the supply of consumables is not infinite ans also with serious (but subtle) questions about determining what production goods (not consumer goods) to actually make and how to best deploy them.

For example :

If you make one pair of shoes fewer than people want what do you do without a market? Simply have a ballot about who will do without? even though this person may in fact be the most in need. Perhaps you make so many shoes that the issue never arises (very wasteful) or make people apply for shoes months in advance. Do you vote on who will do without? What?

And this is multiplied across every consumable, of which in a modern society there are thousands at least.

How do you actually track changes in demand and moderate your production without a market. Guesswork about what is important and what is not?

Now the idea is that in a fully mature communist society these sorts of questions wont arise because there will be a sort of empathy between people which moderates the tendency for them to shout 'No I'm the one who really needs them' if they do not. Fine, I cant see it ever happening, but it is an explanation of sorts.

But this is definitely not going to be the situation in a brand new marxist socialist society springing up in the first world (all existing marxist leninist states have arisen in places essentially emerging from oppressive feualism where even the chance for a pair of shoes is a luxury not faced the problem at anything approaching maximum intensity).

I also have no problem with the idea of a complimentary market in labour and skills. This allows people the freedom to choose how much they work, what at, and to be rewarded according to how highly their contribution is valued by society.

In principle there might be no reason to set an upper limit on earnings through such a market. I personally would however set an upper limit (and a lower one).

This is not how Marx saw things, I'm not pretending it is. I doubt frankly if he even considered that regulating supply and demand was much of a problem (it would have been much simpler to do in his day) or that he so much as conceptualised a 'socialist market'. He also of course seemed pretty hostile towards any recognition of use value. Whether this was born out of a considered evaluation of its legitimacy for humans, or more because Labour value highlighted the injustice of liberal property rights I'm not sure and ont realy care. Both have a part to play.

The issue is not whether Marx thought the socialist market a good idea, but whether we do. Marx is not a god, his ideas are not religious doctrine (or should not be). All they are is a set of what seems to me mainly pretty sound suggestions.

To denounce something only because it is not marxist is to be guilty of the worst sort of Dogma. When it is in almost all respects in total conformance with the main Marxist principles it is plain dumb.



(Edited by sc4r at 6:29 pm on July 22, 2003)

[Lefty]

I'm what I call a pragmatic socialist. I realize that if violent revolution were to occur, the majority of the people in the world today would not support it, even if it would benefit them in the long run, because they have been sufficiently "brainwashed," if you will. Therefore, if people are schooled over time to be more and more progressive, and the government gradually shifts to the left, the end result will be the same as what RS2000 describes for the marxists, only the means of achieving it will have mass support, instead of alienating the masses.

[redstar2000]

Chairman Mao highlights a single characteristic of reformism that sc4r and myself apparently disagree on...the matter of "ultimate goal"; as well as the matters of track record & prospects for success...which sc4r spins in a highly positive direction whereas my evaluation is neutral.

Sc4r says that he wants complete public ownership of the means of production and a market mechanisim in place to determine production, distribution, and compensation...this is what he means by the goal of "market socialism".

He further sees any "reform" or small change in the direction of his ultimate goal as a step "towards" that goal. Any political party that emerges with this goal to campaign in capitalist elections will perforce campaign on the need to take steps "towards" this goal. Likewise, the independent economic formations--"socialist businesses--that he proposes to establish would also be steps "towards" the goal of "market socialism".

This seems to me to be reformist by any meaningful definition of the word.

After all, the "ultimate goal" seems to me to be capitalism without capitalists. There is still a "strong state" apparatus--to make sure that competition is "fair". There is still success and failure in the marketplace and differential rewards and punishments for same. There is still the requirement that one must sell one's labor power to an employer (whether a collective of other workers or directly to the state does not make any difference), and surplus value will still be generated. It will be distributed differently; the workers in a "profitable" collective will presumably vote themselves additional compensation...the workers in an "unprofitable" collective will disperse with little or no reward for their efforts.

There will be no capitalist class per se...but the secondary effects of capitalism should all be present...the desire to accumulate wealth by any means necessary, inheritance, the wish to enhance market share through dishonest advertising, the use of the state apparatus to acquire special privilege, etc. However nominally "classless" this society might be on paper, divisions between fortunate and unfortunate (or competent/incompetent) collectives will be present from the beginning and can only grow sharper with the passage of time.

A "strong state" apparatus can mitigate these effects quite a bit for a while; and since the "losers" will outnumber the "winners", if the state is even moderately democratic, there will be a good deal of pressure on the "socialist parliament" to do so.

But there's also another kind of pressure involved. The successful collectives will accumulate surpluses...at some point, a part of this surplus will be used to "invest" in the political process to enhance the possibilities of accumulating even greater surpluses. It will seem advantageous to "lock in" existing gains through "law" as well as try for even more.

And thus a new capitalist class is born. It's far from being a "ruling class" and may not even be fully conscious yet of what it is really doing. Careful observers in that era may even warn the population of what is starting to happen...and that could slow the process considerably.

But the market is insatiable and, given time, devours all in its path; capitalism without capitalists will become capitalism with capitalists.


On the matter of "track record", sc4r simply "takes credit" for all the pro-working class reforms of the period 1880-1955 (roughly). He assumes that these are all steps "towards" his ultimate goal...even though few of these reforms were adopted by "socialist majorities"--they were instituted during periods of intense class struggle to "cool down" a turbulent working class.

On the matter of "realistic prospects for success", sc4r assumes that another period of "reforms" is a practical possibility...even though recent history suggests a trend in the opposite direction...reforms that benefitted workers are being dismantled, reduced in scope and funding, etc. Privitization and abolition of the "social safety net" seem to be the "wave of the future" for modern capitalism. The major reformist political parties are "on the defensive"...trying to save as much as they can, rather than striking out for further steps "towards" socialism.

I think there are sound material reasons for this; capitalism today is not the healthy and vigorous youth that it was prior to, say, 1950. If you read the intelligent capitalist viewpoints today (The Economist is a good source), they seem to be talking more about crisis than opportunity. And their general attitude toward the working class is one of growing hostility...rather than one that would feel sufficiently confidant to grant fresh pro-worker reforms.

Thus, it's my view that there will be no more steps "towards" socialism. That was something capitalists used to think they could tolerate; they don't seem to think that way any more.


The quotations from Karl Marx were, as always, most interesting. I think they applied more to his time (when class structure was still quite fluid) than to the present...but it's certainly not impossible that they could become relevant again in the future, provided that late 21st century capitalism resembles late 19th century capitalism more than it resembles 20th century capitalism. And that's a real possibility.

I think Marx's observation that some bourgeois would like capitalism without a proletariat is quite perceptive...we are a pain in the ass, aren't we?

:cool:

[sc4r]

And I think that you ought to find out, before you start defining, what other people’s views and ideas are.

1.By definition any progress towards a goal is a step towards it. This does not mean that any change away from capitalism is a step towards Marxism; still less that any improvement in electoral prospects for a 'market socialist party' is. I already tried to make it clear that contrary to your assertions I would not cooperate with just anybody on just anything.

Only on things that make it more likely socialism will be instituted.

2. If it is no longer necessary to conform to your original definition to be 'reformist' according to you then the fucking definition is a bit pointless.


3. The supposed 'desire to accumulate wealth through any means available' you refer to is an attitude of people. It either does exist in them or it does not. This says nothing about whether the economic system will actually allow them to do it. Market socialism certainly does not.

It is not so bad postulating that a ransformation in attitudes might occur after a prolonged change in social relations as Marx does. After all if it doesn’t come about, then all that happens is you never move quite that far. But to suggest as you do making no change until suddenly overnight everyone has to think and behave like this is just a giant leap of faith. I’ve read fairy stories that were more credible.

4. You don’t seem to properly understand what ‘ownership’ means. Ownership means you control where profits go, amongst other things. They do not get left with the enterprise or with individuals to do with as they wish - they go into the public treasury. Which disposes of almost every one of your objections, because without you being right on this fundamental thing almost none of your other implications follows.

And this is exactly what ‘common ownership’ always has meant.

6. Who said anything about inheritance, I did not. There would be none.

7.If as you say ‘no further steps towards socialism are possible’ you are rather knackered are you not? What do you think your ‘education’ is?

Quite a bit of your ridicule was directed at the notion that significant further social change may not actually occur through parliamentary process. Quite, this is why I suggest a few additional programs. Its also why I said that movement in this direction would not seem to progress much now until we can bridge the defining event.

The bottom line of all this is that we frequently get arsy with Capitalists for dissing us without having a clue really about what we are saying. I feel exactly the same. You have not got much of a clue about what I’m talking about.

This is also why you cant and wont communicate or peruade 'neutrals'. they are not interested in whether such and such a notion is 'Marxist'; they are only interested in whether it makes sense and could work.


(Edited by sc4r at 12:43 pm on July 23, 2003)

[redstar2000]

There appear to be ongoing contradictions in your views that admittedly make an informed critique difficult.

For example, if all profits from enterprises go directly to the "socialist state" instead of remaining with the individual enterprises, what purpose does the "market" serve?

Who is "competing" if it makes no difference? If there are no competitive enterprises, why bother with prices or money at all...just give the stuff away.

Likewise, you initially suggested that individuals could accumulate wealth based on their productivity...but if you can't invest it, purchase luxury goods with it, or leave it to your heirs, what's the point? Why have it at all?

If the central "socialist state" accumulates all surpluses (profits), then presumably it will have considerable incentive to directly intervene in the management of the means of production. Given that, we have a convergence with the situation in the old USSR...where a political elite gains the opportunity to siphon off some of that surplus for its own benefit.

Of course, you propose a much more democratic variant of "strong-state socialism" than the Leninists constructed...so it's quite possible that an extended period of time will pass before this elite begins to "firm up" and become "corrupted".

Nevertheless, I think that's the most probable outcome of the new "ultimate goal" that you have proposed. People would attempt to campaign and vote against special privileges, etc. There would be, as a consequence, renewed class struggle.

But, as I indicated in my initial essay on this thread, what would really exist would not be all that different from capitalism...and would, most likely, devolve into capitalism at a later date.


The question of how revolutionary class consciousness develops prior to the revolution is a difficult one...but if we can postulate that it does (otherwise there'd be no revolution), then very dramatic changes would be "practical" simply because people saw that as one of the crucial reasons for making the revolution in the first place.

Historically, in revolutionary periods, people are "suddenly" quite willing to "question everything"...and the dramatic change in people's consciousness that you find so unbelievable is actually common and nearly universal.

Perhaps that is something that has to be seen to be believed; I certainly got a brief taste of it in the late 1960s. I understand that people in France are still slightly in awe of May 1968...when they had a brief glimpse of an entirely different world.

Thus, what seems quite literally unimaginable (a fairy tale) to the consciousness of a reformist is something that has (briefly) been demonstrated to exist.


When I suggested that no further steps towards socialism were possible, I referred, of course, to the kinds of reforms that would be consistent with your general outlook.

There are certainly "steps" toward the development of revolutionary consciousness that are possible, practical, and taking place even as we speak...the growth of active resistance to globalization and imperialist war being two of them. The spread of revolutionary ideas on the internet is helping things along as well. Those kinds of steps may not seem important to you at all...they have no "reforms" to their credit and, if any do happen to result, they will be seen as an incidental by-product of a more important process.

That being, of course, preparing for communist revolution and classless society.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 2:07 pm on July 23, 2003)

[sc4r]

If you dont know what a market is for, then you cannot really criticise it honestly can you ? Basically uoui cannot make an informed critique because you are not very informed.

You could fairly easily have started to get a grasp of what it is for if you had bothered to try answering the questions about shoe production. But because you wont ever look at such awckward questions (and those, believe me ,are the easy versions) you feel able to invent any practicality and conclusions that you like.

Lets try and dispel a few of your misconceptions :

1) A market in effect provides a pretty finely tuned communication mechanism for telling producers what to produce. It allows a means of discerning between two people who both say 'I need that' which of them actually needs it or want it more, and whether either can in fact use an alternative. When its just two people they could probably discuss it, but we are talking of billions of people having this discussion about thousands or even millions of products.

Even assuming total goodwill a communication mechanism is needed. Whats yours?

Which also answers your question about 'why not give it away' - because if you do nothing tells you how much of it to produce in the first place or who to give it to.

You know what actually happens when you officially do without a market? You get one anyway, as the various black markets all over the world confirm.

2. Yes I would allow individuals to accumulate wealth based on their productivity. And I'd allow them to purchase luxury goods. It rather shows your lack of understanding of the subject that you seem unaware that this is what wealth actually is. $1m dollars is a right to aquire wealth. If you cant spend it then it is worth absolutely zero.

This isn't any part of the market socialism mechanism. MS can work either with or without differential reward. But it is my view that differential reward is better for people and more acceptable to them. If in a market socialist society I was outvoted I'd accept it.

Buit no they could not invest. Thats exactly what forbidding private ownership in the means of production means you divvy.

3. Personally I probably would advocate a very limited amount of inherritance. But thats really got nothing to do with this. The market socialism argument works equally well with or without it.

4. The central functions of the state (which is of course merely the executive represention of all of society) does indeed have a lot to do with investment decisions.

It is undeniably true that people who have control over anything can be susceptible to using it in their own interests. The trick is of course to ensure that there are controls on their power and controls on the controls.

The difference is that I while I say 'Y OK this is an unavoidable risk, lets find a way to contain it' You say 'lets ignore the practicalities and pretend they dont exist'.

How would your society without a central admin of any sort decide what to invest in ? Who would fund it ? why ?

And even more basic than this really is a single telling point. Your 'society' is entirely predicated on the notion of people co-operating honestly and behaving without excess greed. Yet your basic objection to a state is that people cannot behave even approximately like this even when they are bieng monitored to ensure they do. Well, which is it ? If mine cant work; yours definitely cant.

5. Frankly you merely saying that market socialism would be little different from capitalism means nothing. It actually implies that 'common ownership' is a trivial point as far as you are concerned. A strange sentiment from an avowed Marxist.

And quite simply, to repeat the first point : someone who does not even approximately grasp what a market actually does, but only knows some of the results of a market with particular rules, is in no position to offer up didactic unexplained opinions.

P.S. Dont get me wrong. Market socialism may not deliver the exact type of society you want. Its intended to optimise equitibility and dignity for people not to make everyone exactly equal. Nor does it , by itself right all the worlds wrongs in the particular manner you think they should be righted.

But it most definitely is basically Marxist and in my opinion far far more practical than your 'system'; which to my eye does not look look a system at all, just a lot of unconnected wishes.

To my eye you are saying to people 'what would you ideally want' and then simply promising them they will get it without any deep thought really as to how.

An honest project manager says 'what would you ideally want' and then says 'hmmm well we cant deliver all that straight away, how about this'. That is what Marx did; It's what the various Marxist Lenininst do; and it's what I do. But it is not what you do.

P.S. I missed that in your last but one post you assert that mao has identified only one difference between what I say and what you sat reformists say. This is not so. That particular one is an extremely clear difference in what is by far and away the most telling category - The Goal. But in every category there are major differences (examples U say - 'will work with anybody on almost anything' ; I say 'very wary of any involvement with liberal political parties'. You say 'defining event - get elected' I say 'to institute comon ownership'). In fact there is only two categories in which agreement is close - timescale and even this is of course not true agreement since its a timescale for a different thing; - and imperial war (which frankly is such a vague category that it could be defined in multiple ways anyway). I would concieveably support some wars involving nations who some people would call 'imperialist' is all it means.

AND not only that but your input into categories is frequently not even a factual statement but merely a value judgement made by you (e.g. unstable mix of bourgeois policies). It is self evident that nobody of any persuasion is going to agree that about themselves.

(Edited by sc4r at 1:41 am on July 24, 2003)

[redstar2000]

Actually, the purpose of a "market" is to reward and punish; those who produce what people "want"--or can be persuaded to "want"--are rewarded; those who don't, are punished. That's the purpose of competition in the marketplace.

A "market" without competition--which is what you now seem to suggest--would simply be a replication of the system of the old USSR. People are rewarded regardless of whether their products are desired or not.

So my impression of your "ultimate goal" is now a more democratic version of the USSR...that is, a society which had democratic parliamentary elections, an "independent" news media (like the BBC?), a "rule of law", etc.

Your "defining event" would be the formal and legal nationalization of the means of production, passed by a parliamentary majority of a party elected to do this. (I'm guessing that you would allow the capitalist class to be compensated for their nationalized property and may even insist on it...it would be consistent with the "rule of law".)

It's difficult to imagine how anyone could object to such a smooth and near-seamless transition...indeed, I wonder who would notice?

To keep this new order from devolving back into capitalism, you propose rules and guardians piled atop rules and guardians...somehow, I suspect this version of socialism would become less democratic with the passage of time, as power drifted into the hands of the "guardians" or the "guardians of the guardians". That is, after all, what did happen in the USSR.

You reply, in engineering terms, "that's the best we can do...anything more is beyond the state of the art".

It reminds me of a maxim that engineering students are taught: "In engineering there are three options: fast, cheap, good--you get to pick two out of the three."

You want something good and you want it right now...it will cost out the ass.

Communist revolution is expensive...it costs people a lot, both materially and psychologically. And it takes people a long time before they're ready to do that, ready to pay the price for genuine liberation from wage-slavery.

Your methods are "faster" and "cheaper"...but I submit that the outcome of your "product development" represents no significant change from what we have now.

I think it "un-Marxist" to confuse nationalization of the means of production with communism; it seems to me that Marx intended that to be the first step in a sequence of many steps to follow, and follow rapidly.

But regardless of his opinion, it is obvious to me that much more is required than nationalization--in fact, nationalization is actually trivial. What is required is real working class power over the totality of the new society...preferably via direct democracy wherever practical. What that power must do is proceed at once to destroy all of the institutions of the old order and create new ones that are consistent with the new relations of production.

Yes, I know, that's just a "fairy tale" to you. Every reformist--including (as you noted) nearly all Leninists--would agree.

And what kind of engineer, social or otherwise--upon seeing a caterpillar, would ever imagine that it could turn itself into a butterfly?

Or that slaves could be free?

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 1:53 am on July 24, 2003)

[sc4r]

The purpose of a market is to communicate demand. It is that straightforward. No market rewards (still less punishes) anybody in any sense. Why? because the market itself does not determine what price to give you for your offerings or what price you pay for the offerings of others. People do that. The market merely tracks what these offerings are and indicates how to optimise them within whatever optimisation parameters (laws) it is run under.

The closest you can get to a notion that it doles out reward and punishment is that the market helps other people to decide whether or not to actually take your offering. In other words it tells them whether you are any good at what you do, and in a situation where they 'own' your production facility (as they do in market socialism) whether to shut you down or not.

Maybe you dont see this as a good thing. In which case I have yet another question for you - how are you intending to judge which of your collectives is aiding progress by producing stuff people want ? or are you not going to bother doing that at all, and just assume they all will be desirable.

The 'unjust reward' element associated with the capitalist market comes not because of the way the market functions, but because of what may be traded within it - Private rights to the means of production, which put another way means rights to other peoples future production. Precisely because these rights automatically mean that when trading in the future one will do so from a position of advantage they deliver a cumulative advantage. It is this cumulative advantage which is inherrently unfair. No such cumulative advantage is associated with the 'socialist market'.

Now I see you are talking about a market without competition. I never said this, its a pretty meaningless idea, yes the socialist market involves competition (more accurately the market itself monitors competion). I've already indicated quite explicitly that it does. The question is competition for what?

Unlimited potential indicidual wealth ? Nope.

Moderate earning differential? Not neccessarily, although I think this would be a good thing personally and I think without this being in place initially you';d have a devil of a job selling the idea.

Social funding for increased investment in 'your' communal ? yep.

A personal sense of pride through contributing more than others do? Yep.

Now, since it seems to be the actual competition you object to, suppose you tell me just what exactly motivates your system? While you are at it you could try answering the other questions about it.

No! capitalists would not be 'compensated' for 'their' nationalised property. If you properly understood what wealth actually means, you'd see how ridiculous that idea is.

In Britain and some other countries capitalists were compensated when industries were nationalised; but this was only possible because most things were not nationalised at the same time. Have a think about what compensation could actually mean in a situation of completely abolishing private interests.

Bill gates , for example, would have to be given the rights to consume $50bn of consumer goods. I doubt if he would actually want it even if you were daft enough to offer, what could he do with this mountain of produce?

In fact even the nationalisations that did take place were very different in character to what I'm proposing. Control was 'nationalised' for sure, and noone could actually invest directly in the industries for profit. But to some extent thet actually remained as generators of private profit. Why ? because while you could not invest in the industry directly you could invest in the whole nation via bonds etc. In short our capitatists could take their 'compensation' and put it straight back to work generating unearned income derived in part from the very thing they had just 'sold'.

Unlike you I hardly see a smooth and seamless transition as something to be despised. But regrettably I very much doubt that the transition would be especially smooth and seamless. I dont think that all our capitalist barons and their supporters are going to shrug sagely and just accept it.

Yes to prevent this new order becoming something else I propose checks and balances. Of course I could, like you, just assume that no checks and balances are needed. I could just say 'oh everyone will want it and nobody actually will ever step out of line'. Thats all you do.

And in fact if the people in my new order decided that they did not after all like market socialism they can change it. My meta goal is to give people what they want. Yours appears to be the abitrary imposition of 'anarcho-communism'.

So to repeat a point made before - If your system can work mine definitely can, but the reverse is not true.

Its just your subjective opinion (based on nothing as far as I can see) that my suggestions are fast and cheap rather than good. It doesnt convey anything of substance whatsoever.

Engineers dont automatically designate a solution (whether it works or not) as 'good' merely because the proposing contractor says it will take a long time mate.

My opinion about your plan is that it is slow, cheap, and fucking useless.

See how pointless that sort of comment is ?


(Edited by sc4r at 4:00 pm on July 24, 2003)

[sc4r]

A note to others about evaluating ideas :

Evaluating ideas or plans can obviously be very difficult because to do so often really requires quite a bit of expertise. If I had to choose between which of two bridges to build, and I did not know for sure which, if either, of them would stay up, chances I could not Because to evaluate you need specific engineering knowledge.

It would not be a good idea for me to simply pick the bridge which the designer said would carry more traffic unless I was pretty sure that his bridge would actually stay up.

In other words before you assess benefit you must actually check fundamental feasibility.

But there is a little test you can apply even without detailed knowlege which helps a bit.

If someone gives you an explanation (such as the amarchist one that their communes would be 'producing for use') have a look and see if it could equally be applied to the alternatives .

If it could it tells you nothing. Mostly it will actually be a non explanation, just a claim. Often such claims will be dressed up in hideously complex language. This again is a warning sign to beware. Look very very closely at such 'explanations'.

You can choose to believe me or not but I have been around socialism for a pretty long time, I have a background in both economics and project evaluations (all sorts including very technical ones that I did not understand the detail of); I've loved the concept of Anarchism, I'd like it to be feasible. But the fact is that in 15 years of looking I have never seen a believable Anarchist scheme. Far far too mnay loose ends are always left about why things should work and why the system would remain stable.

I'm probably as close to an expert in evaluating socio-economic plans as you are going to see on this board. And my considered opinion is that Redstars 'direct to Anarcho-socialism' plan is not credible.

You may have a different evaluation, you may be right, but if you are truly honest with yourselves I think you'll see that there is an awful lot of rhetoric and 'just so' dogma substituting for genuine explanation.

At the very least you should ask the difficult questions and demand to get non dogma answers.

The Marxist Leninists and Stalinists etc are different. Their plans are indeed credible. The questions to ask about those plans are whether you actually want what they offer; not whether they can concievably deliver it.

(Edited by sc4r at 3:32 pm on July 24, 2003)

[redstar2000]

I'm probably as close to an expert in evaluating socio-economic plans as you are going to see on this board. And my considered opinion is that Redstars 'direct to Anarcho-socialism' plan is not credible.

Without disputing your "expertise", sc4r, aren't you in the position of a naval engineer trying to evaluate aircraft design?

After all, you are a reformist. Your expertise, such as it may be, is in the area of making credible modifications in the prevailing social order, modifications that are "obvious" and will "work".

Post-revolutionary societies are outside your field.

Obviously.

:cool:

[sc4r]

Not really mate. I think you missed a bit; I'm not expert in special systems; I'm expert in evaluating things I often dont understand. There's ways of doing this.

To evaluate whether a totally novel form of society will work or not you need to know:

1) What things work in general , and very crucially why.
2) What the specific proposal is.

You then look for where the controls are to ensure that the types of behaviour required by the proposal happen.

You examine How those controls work (are they negative or positive feedback and how direct is the feedback)

And you end up with a list of things which are not controlled at all, just assumed. The problem with your proposal in a nutshell is that almost everything important seems to depend on an assumption not a control of any sort. And they are intuitively very implausible assumptions (e.g. that millions of people who have never before lived in a cooperative environment and who have in fact just fought a bloody revolution will settle down without too much acrimony into peaceful harmony with each other. That your communes will somehow 'just know' what to produce; etc. etc.)

I said I'm probably as close to an expert as you will find on this board. I probably am. Someone who knows loads about what the assumtions are in any particular society would be in a position to work with me to produce an even better evaluation.

So heres an offer - We can carry on slagging each other and each others ideas off in public like this or we could go to email / messenger. You tell me honestly what the assumtions are in your idea according to you, and I'll dig to see if there are others you may be blinded by familiarity to.

Then in a month or so I'll make a completely honest statement about how I see it.

Its up to you. Like I say I can continue picking at problems if you like, and you will be flat out amazed at how persuasive and hard nosed about it I can be If I really try, or we can do something a bit less openly hostile.

Up to you, the offers there.





(Edited by sc4r at 8:20 pm on July 24, 2003)


(Edited by sc4r at 8:28 pm on July 24, 2003)

[redstar2000]

I'm expert in evaluating things I often dont understand. There's ways of doing this.

To evaluate whether a totally novel form of society will work or not you need to know:

1) What things work in general , and very crucially why.
2) What the specific proposal is.

You then look for where the controls are to ensure that the types of behaviour required by the proposal happen.

You examine How those controls work (are they negative or positive feedback and how direct is the feedback)

And you end up with a list of things which are not controlled at all, just assumed.

Sounds like an interesting way to make a living. Do people actually pay you for this???

But seriously now, how would you be in a position to "evaluate" the plausibility of classless society when, by your own admission, you are an "expert" in "how things work" in class society?

The "assumptions" that I make would inevitably look and feel "wrong" to you...rather like an orange criticizing a grape's small size and weak skin. A grape isn't just a different (and inferior) kind of orange; classless society is not just a "different" kind of class society.

I'm quite willing to concede your good intentions; you want, in practice, a more humane form of class society...indeed, you see that as a necessary intervening stage on the way to what I want. In fact, one of your crucial assumptions is that change is incremental...based on observation and experience in class society.

If you are right in that assumption, then that's what will happen, and I can grumble and growl until I turn red in the face and it will make no difference whatsoever.

I just think you're wrong.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 9:11 am on July 25, 2003)

[sc4r]

Lets be clear I am not claiming to be 'an expert' in evaluating any sort of society. I am claiming to have probably more expertise in evaluating economic systems in general than most people here are likely to have.

An economic system does not neccessarily mean 'a large complex Socio economic system'. An economic system is one where through some mechanism demand and supply are aligned. The more types of demand and methods of supply, and the more indirect the links are, the more complex.

Nobody is an expert in 'classless societies' ; nobody has ever seen one. Some people (you I was suggesting) may have expertise in 'classless society theories'. I assume you can see the difference.

So what we are interested in is whether a 'classless society theory' stacks up against what we do know now in general, and against absolute limitations.

If you say 'people will co-ordinate themselves', I'm going to ask 'how will they communicate their different requirements? how will they decide what is the optimum approach to reconciling those differences?' etc.

If you reply 'they just will blah bla blah' Thats an assumption. Its a very high level assumption indeed.

and so on.

I take it you dont want to accept the offer. OK.

(Edited by sc4r at 7:52 pm on July 25, 2003)