Beginner to Communism

[equack]

Hey guys, I'm suprised I came across this forum as there is a lot of meaningful discussion. It also doesn't endorse the idea of some quasi-fascist "communism" as we saw in Soviet Russia and seems to be purely Marxist in the original sense.

So, I just picked up Capital by Marx at my local library and have been trying to get through it. Some of the concepts are familiar, but I just can't grasp the whole interworkings of Marx's thought that well. The language seems to be somewhat dated (well, it was written in the mid-19th century duh!) and conflicts with other definitions of words between other schools of thought. I was wondering if there was any modern Marxist works that could bring me closer to Marx and hopefully allow me to get through it. I know there are study guides, but I'm hoping for an introductory book.

Since I am new to these forums, I'll introduce myself to begin with. My name is Eric and I'm now a senior in high school. My political beliefs aren't really strong, but my sense of exploration is, and thats why I am here. I like to look into new ideas no matter where they come from or what they consist of. I feel everyone has a valid point whether they are left, right, middle, up or down. Intellectually, I've studied only so far market anarchism/anarcho-capitalism/right-wing libertarianism in depth so far. Now, I've seen their ideas and want to get into the other side of things which has taken me here.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ The Principles of Communism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm) by Frederick Engels is a superior read than the Communist Manifesto. :)

[crimsonzephyr]

Welcome!:)

[equack]

Just got done reading Principles of Communism by Engels. A good introduction, but to phrase my original question more specifically. Is there any works that deal with the moral aspects of communism, e.g. Why is it moral to have this? What justifies the system? and the utilitarian aspects which Das Kapital was getting into, e.g. Why does this system produce an increase in satisfation in the lives of all members of society? Why is it more efficient than capitalism or other systems?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Most Marxist works avoid the subject of "moralism." However, you might want to look into Rosa Luxemburg's "socialism or barbarism" stuff for a more necessity-based approach.

[equack]

Well, I'm somewhat an Aristolelian deductivist in my approach to any discipline unfortunately. I have always seen morality as a building block or a foundation since if an action is moral, then it should produce good effects.

Its just hard to put together an idea when you have conflicting ideas already between the schools of thought you have learned. Many classical liberals like Locke, Rosseau and Blackmore based their systems on morals. Does Marxism reject moralism, or does it get around the ideas of morals, or is it a system that transcends it? Why should the workers deserve the means of production? Why is just for them to have it and not for an invidiual, group or even a class?

[BIG BROTHER]

Just got done reading Principles of Communism by Engels. A good introduction, but to phrase my original question more specifically. Is there any works that deal with the moral aspects of communism, e.g. Why is it moral to have this? What justifies the system? and the utilitarian aspects which Das Kapital was getting into, e.g. Why does this system produce an increase in satisfation in the lives of all members of society? Why is it more efficient than capitalism or other systems?

Communism isn't justified morally. It's based on the labor theory of value, which basically means that the proleriat(fancy word for workers) are the ones who give a good its surplus value, but the burgoise(capitalists) are the ones who get most of the profit.

So, since the proleriat is basically getting ripped off and that's how communism is justified.

[equack]

Well, since they are getting ripped off- capitalists taking the surplus value- couldn't we state that stealing is immoral? Thus, we could begin with a theory of property in which you get the full worth of your labour product and its just for you to recieve that? Since, capitalism deducts this surplus value, it is then immoral. Thus, communism gains the moral high ground. Would my analysis be correct then? Or is my assumption that a system needs to be justified with morals a flawed one to begin with?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

If you have been studying capitalist libertarianism so far, once you get into Marxism you will notice that the two ideologies for the most part make different arguments about different issues rather than directly opposing the arguments of the other side. Marxism and libertarianism are not perfect mirror images of each other.

Take morality for example. As Jacob said, Marx himself did not adequately cover that topic, and many Marxists are of the opinion that talk about morality is pointless because most people don't follow any particular moral code most of the time. Mainstream Marxism seeks to describe what people actually do, not so much what they should do. It is not clear whether Marx himself saw communism as an ethical imperative (something that should happen) or the inevitable result of amoral historical forces (something that will happen).

I have read a few books on Marxist ethics, but most of them are by rather obscure authors - your best bet would be to search for Marxist ethics or Marxist philosophy at your local library or on amazon.com.

My own personal ethical justification for communism can be summed up as democratic utilitarianism: Human happiness is the supreme moral value, and the happiness of each individual is equal in value to the happiness of any other individual. Also, an individual is the best judge of his own happiness, but a good society must weigh the happiness of some against the happiness of others. From this, we can conclude that the best society is one where all individuals have an equal amount of power to influence decisions that can affect their happiness - which is to say all political, social and economic decisions. Therefore the best society has an economic system where all economic decisions are taken democratically; and that is communism.

Other forum members advocate communism for radically different ethical reasons, though - and some claim to have no ethical reasons at all - so I can only speak for myself.

[equack]

Well, I'm beginning to see the differences. I think Marx was a realist in the sense that he was a millenial thinker through the dialectic-- Communism was going to be the inevitable result of historical forces despite what conception of morality exists at the time. Classical liberals and their intellectual offspring, modern libertarianisms have a normative approach, how ought people behave and they obviously have many theories to accompany that.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Well, since they are getting ripped off- capitalists taking the surplus value- couldn't we state that stealing is immoral? Thus, we could begin with a theory of property in which you get the full worth of your labour product and its just for you to recieve that? Since, capitalism deducts this surplus value, it is then immoral. Thus, communism gains the moral high ground. Would my analysis be correct then? Or is my assumption that a system needs to be justified with morals a flawed one to begin with?
There are three basic views that Marxists can take on this issue:

View #1: Some form of utilitarianism like I described in my previous post. All human beings are of equal worth, therefore all human beings should have equal power over economic decisions, therefore we should have collective ownership over the means of production and a democratic economic system.

View #2: Some form of rights theory based on the labour theory of value and the idea that individuals have a right to the full value of their labour (which can be derived from a fundamental right to freedom). This is more or less what you were getting at. It doesn't have to be based on a theory of property, though - you don't need to own the product of your labour (or "own your labour" in an abstract sense), you only need to have the right to a compensation equal in value to the labour you expended. Property is a specific form of control; you can have some control over your labour or its product without it being "property" in the usual sense.

View #3: The view that morality is irrelevant, and the only thing that matters is that it is in the interest of the workers to own the means of production and receive the full value of their labour. Therefore workers should support communism. This doesn't provide any good reason for non-workers to support communism, but the people who take this view argue that such reasons don't exist anyway; there is no universal morality, there are only the interests of particular individuals and groups.


Well, I'm beginning to see the differences. I think Marx was a realist in the sense that he was a millenial thinker through the dialectic-- Communism was going to be the inevitable result of historical forces despite what conception of morality exists at the time. Classical liberals and their intellectual offspring, modern libertarianisms have a normative approach, how ought people behave and they obviously have many theories to accompany that.
Yes, that's certainly how Marx saw his own ideas. Not all Marxists agree, though, and you can definitely see a sense of moral indignation in Marx's writings, so there have been speculations that Marx may have based his support for communism on some ethical system but wanted to get rid of it in his published works so that people could be persuaded to support communism no matter what their ethical views may be.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

There's two ethical questions that socialists contend:

1.) Most individuals in contemporary society uphold the principle of positive liberty, or freedom to achieve one's potential. Politicians talk about giving people a fighting chance in the marketplace, even if their proposals flirt with helping the capitalist and petit-class. Positive liberty is probably more important than negative liberty, or freedom from interference, when talking about simple logic. One cannot fashionably say what freedom from interference is without making up arbitrary definitions. Is living in poverty solely due to enforced property relationships interference? Is having your neighbor's music keep you up until 3 o-clock in the morning freedom from interference? Right-libertarians would argue yes and be on there way.

However, for people who do believe in negative liberty, socialism is the only justifiable system of relations. Capitalism denies the majority of the population a stake at achieving their own potential.

2.) Workers are (most of the time) having to sell their labor as a lesser figure. Marginalist theory - claiming price is determined by demand - dominated the later half of the 20th century, and while it does hold some level of credibility the labor theory has learned to adept. It is still true that, if people want a watch for $100, they are not going to want its parts for the same amount. That is because labor went into producing the new watch. Most of the labor is performed by the working class (and petty class, in some instances). Like Marx said, capitalists are vampires. They suck the capital out of production simply because they have favorable property relations.

[Dros]

Hey guys, I'm suprised I came across this forum as there is a lot of meaningful discussion. It also doesn't endorse the idea of some quasi-fascist "communism" as we saw in Soviet Russia and seems to be purely Marxist in the original sense.

This is a forum, not a party. We do not collectively have any line on anything except that capitalism is bad and must be destroyed. Beyond that, this forum has no positions. I for one (and a lot of others too) uphold the Soviet Union as a socialist state.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Communism isn't justified morally.
Murray Bookchin would tell you that anarchism, however, does come from an ethical position.

[Dros]

Murray Bookchin would tell you that anarchism, however, does come from an ethical position.

Meaning an un-materialist one.