I need help in a debate

[union6]

ok so basically we have been talking and he thinks that Socialism and Communism are not linked at all, and he said:

Communism at least Marxist theory does not include the abolishing of state but rather the strong state. The socialistic state is strong as well but never as controlling as the communistic state
I said that its a countryless and classless society but he came back and said:

I follow Marxist Theorem only, now Marxist theorem is only limited to the manifesto everything introduced beyond that is theorem of different people aka Stalin and Lenin (in the case of the Soviets) who introduced their own versions of Communist thought.

Marx and Engel did never provide a roadmap to Communism which is why every approach to Communism varies greatly and besides Cuba we have not yet seen a successful country managing with Communistic ideals.

The strong state, means several arms are strong and the government is one part of the state. If the government is not strong then the state is not either. The state is not only the people or a single part of the whole it is the sum, and the weakest link is always the weakest point.
lol i need help, is he right? or are we both right but just from different perspectives??

cheers

[Demogorgon]

What is your own position?

Anyway he is wrong about some stuff. Marx and Engels certainly churned out a hell of a lot more than just the Manifesto.

It is true that they did not provide a programme however.

[Red_or_Dead]

Whats this guy position anyway? I mean, I have never encountered an anti-communist who would claim that Cuba is a succesfull communist country.

And yes, Marx and Engels did write much more than just the Manifesto. Give him a link to Marxist.org, theres loads of their stuff there.



I said that its a countryless and classless society

A stateless and classless society. But anyway, youre right, hes wrong.

[union6]

What is your own position?

well i take bits of everything, from Mao to Trotsky lol
but i do believe that it is a stateless society and that Socialism is the transitional stage to communism.


Whats this guy position anyway? I mean, I have never encountered an anti-communist who would claim that Cuba is a succesfull communist country.

And yes, Marx and Engels did write much more than just the Manifesto. Give him a link to Marxist.org, theres loads of their stuff there.

well from what I can gaver he seems to imply that he is follows Marxism but i think he has probably only read the manifesto lol
Are there any good quotes by Marx or Engels that can debunk his thoughts, ie the stuff about the removal of the state?

[Decolonize The Left]

lol i need help, is he right? or are we both right but just from different perspectives??

cheers

If he will not read Marx's work following the Manifesto, perhaps he will be interested in Engel's work prior to the Manifesto, namely "The Principles of Communism." It can be found online, here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

I would specifically recommend chapter 24, which deals with his interpretation of the difference between Communists and Socialists.

- August

[Red_or_Dead]

well from what I can gaver he seems to imply that he is follows Marxism but i think he has probably only read the manifesto lol
Are there any good quotes by Marx or Engels that can debunk his thoughts, ie the stuff about the removal of the state?

I dont remeber any, but Im sure you can find some, if you look around a bit.

[Led Zeppelin]

He's wrong but I find it funny how he writes as if he knows what he's talking about when in reality he's just making shit up as he goes along.

This should be in Learning though so moved.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Check these out:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch01.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm

http://www.politicsprofessor.com/politicaltheories/withering-away-of-the-state.php

http://www.answers.com/topic/withering-away-of-the-state

[SEKT]

I think you dont have to be worried about if the other person is right, the reason is that it is only repetition of phrases but no dialectical thought at all.

First If the communism is only a "theorem" it is (i don't know the term in english but in spanish is cosificar) converted into a thing what theory is not but precisely thought and action. That is when this dude is wrong because the theory itself is historical it means that depends of the material condiotions of existance that's why there is no one "version" of marxism (and it is good becase it is not a religion) but many theoretical efforts of people around the world using the dialectical-materialism method to study reality. Some as Stalin didn't use it and tried to convince others that their thought was dialectical when it was only about pragmatism (actions are measured by their success, something that ends in an irreflexible thought).

Now because reality has to be theorized depending upon the historical conditions then that´s why Marx and Engels didn't gave us "the magic formula for comunnism". Besides marxism is based in the development of history contradictory, how can be a theory of a stage of the history when the contradictions have been solved???. Something that a marxist has to know is that marxist itself will dissapear when capitalism dissapear. When humans would be free then those humans would have to organize their society rationally based on their needs without any kind of coertion or violence, how they are going to do this no one knows.

About Cuba, this country didn't succeded for many reasons:

-Imperialism of the URSS to all countries under the control of the stalinists.

-Cuba was the only nation that finished a revolution in America while other countries (their communist movements) where or fighting against stalinists and capitalism or following their doctrine but no one succeded.

-Cuba started to use the doctrine of "Capitalism of State" as the URSS (strongly after Che Guevara's left) with a hierarchical order, workers didn't and not have the control of the means of production. Production is based on the decisions of the elite not by the working class and Castro started to act like Stalin (Hugo Chavez also), and also the URSS didn't support other revolutions in Latin America becase it was considered a territory of the US. (again they acted more like imperialist than communist).

Finally the state is not a thing, is a unity that is formed by the relations that people contract, this unity is dialectical because it is something that depends upon all the relations contracted but is different from all of them (in our case the capitalist system), then the matter of concern is about how communism ( i mean humans) can break this relations and transform them into human relations, not again because this relations have not existed but to make them exist.

I hope it can help you in your debate

PD about "cosificación" you can read History and Class Conciousness of Györgi Lukács (it is available on marxist.com archieve)

[union6]

ok, cheers everyone. I have replied with those links, lol lets see if he even bothers to look at them or weaver he just pretends he already knows them lol

[Decolonize The Left]

ok, cheers everyone. I have replied with those links, lol lets see if he even bothers to look at them or weaver he just pretends he already knows them lol

Did you explore the links yourself? If not, I would suggest that you familiarize yourself with the material you are shipping out in order to defend yourself should he decide to actually engage in debate. If so, well done friend.

- August

[union6]

Did you explore the links yourself? If not, I would suggest that you familiarize yourself with the material you are shipping out in order to defend yourself should he decide to actually engage in debate. If so, well done friend.

- August

yea i did, i read the state and revolution a while ago and looked through The Principles of Communism last night.

well he replied but it doesn’t really make a lot of scene to me, see what you think:

While every of the articles confirmed what I said and know I will just point out one thing that might have been off between the way I write and the articles. If a government is centralized or not does not indicate how strong it is. The centralize-dezentralize curve can be easiest seen in company policy which swing between the two systems every 5-10 years. Trying to find the better of the two organizational systems.

I have read the manifesto thoroughly and my answers are based on that at analytic articles I read in regard to the Manifesto and Communism. Those articles all stemmed from political Science courses and thus are all academic papers that are sufficiently backed by sources. Which I can not perse say for your links because they use a minmalistic number of sources...a first year paper needs three sources (up to 10pages) minimum a second year 7 (up to 10pages) and third 13 (up to 10pages) and I expect those sources to be well based sources (Which have to be shown even in a transcription.) While Selected works from 1919 from the 'Progress Publishing' is known to be mainly a source of propaganda. Which is why I was somewhat surprised when I saw something that was actually somewhat accurate with some clear propaganda tendencies but otherwise reasonably good.
Either Way all it did was confirm what I said it did not in anyway negate what I said.
:confused:

[Decolonize The Left]

yea i did, i read the state and revolution a while ago and looked through The Principles of Communism last night.

well he replied but it doesn’t really make a lot of scene to me, see what you think:

:confused:

It makes "sense" in that I can gather what he is trying to communicate - though it makes no sense in that he is not actually saying anything related to your comments. Upon reading his response to the articles you sent him, I was forced to return to the original post you made. On that note, I wish to add a couple more comments:

ok so basically we have been talking and he thinks that Socialism and Communism are not linked at all, and he said:
Quote:
Communism at least Marxist theory does not include the abolishing of state but rather the strong state. The socialistic state is strong as well but never as controlling as the communistic state

I feel it is vital that you ask him how he (1) defines the communist state, (2) defines the socialist state, and (3) defines a "strong" state.


I said that its a countryless and classless society

I know this has been stated by fellow members, but it is vital that your terminology be precise. Communism/Anarchism advocate a classless, stateless society based on the principle 'to each according to need, from each according to ability.' If this was clear before I apologize, but it is absolutely basic fundamentals.

Now in regards to his comments, he wrote:

Marx and Engel did never provide a roadmap to Communism which is why every approach to Communism varies greatly and besides Cuba we have not yet seen a successful country managing with Communistic ideals.
You would need to know what he means by "roadmap," but even in the Manifesto Marx and Engels made very clear several characteristics of a socialist state (which could be considered a roadmap by some). Here is a direct link to the third part of the Manifesto - if you scroll down to the near bottom you will find a numerical listing of general characteristics:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

I hope this is helpful,
- August

[union6]

thanks for those, i have asked him the questions and said about the "roadmap"


I know this has been stated by fellow members, but it is vital that your terminology be precise. Communism/Anarchism advocate a classless, stateless society based on the principle 'to each according to need, from each according to ability.' If this was clear before I apologize, but it is absolutely basic fundamentals.
yea, i think i corrected myself to him in a previous post about that cheers. I would like to know what the difference is in regards to the State and the Country

[Decolonize The Left]

yea, i think i corrected myself to him in a previous post about that cheers. I would like to know what the difference is in regards to the State and the Country

A "state" according to political science (and most anarchists) is an institution with control over the legitimate (in regards to law) use of force.
A "state" according to Marxists means the organ of class oppression. Thus there exists the capitalist state, and there can exist the proletarian state (should there be a revolution).

A country is merely lines in the ground/water that have been agreed upon by states. A country refers to the territory 'owned' or 'possessed' by the state in question, and all the resources there within. In common terms, country/state/nation are often used interchangeably.

- August

[union6]

ah right cheers, i get it now.

right he answered the questions:


1. A communist state is a state that follows a version of the Marx and Engels thought. In a Communistic state everyone is equal in oppertunity. There is no inequalty beyond that what you by your actions lack. There is almost no Free Enterprise since that would lead back to the Capitalism.

2. A Socialistic state is a state which supports the population with Public Health Care, Free Education etc. It does so through taxation but does not undermine or stop Free Enterprise. Inequality is very possible especially against women, but also if a class system in prevallent against the people in lower classes. (This is mostly visible in Professional oppertunity and social acknowledgement.) I personally regard the socialistic state as the most stable because it does not force any extremes on the population. Most European Countries are socialistic as is Canada and many other countries.

3. A Strong state is defined by the involvment it has in Economics, the people and general policy. The Strong state will limit and control the economy, or rather the companies in it. It will implement strong regulations against any actions that might be deemed bad for the country or the people. The people will be supported by the state but also be controlled by having to have ID on them from a certain age on which clearly identifies them. (See for Example the German Personal Ausweiss which has to be on the person from the Age of 16.) The people also see themselves as part of the state and will generally support the rules of the state and get involved in political activities to gain what ever they deem needed.

Some claim that yes, however Marx and Engels (I' am going from memory here because I just can't find my copy of the Manifesto...damn Packing) never said this will happen then the next step and here we are at Communism. They described a certain state of tension and conflict they used Socialism because it was beginning to be the prevallent mode of operation in most European conntries at their time, while still seeming revolutionary. However what happened was that Socialism stabilised the countries and that the states developed into what we now know to be Europe. While the countries without Socialistic development who were still stuck at a status quo and the conflict caused by that were taken by the 'Revolutionary' theme of the Manifesto and tada we had USSR and China. But I' am digressing, those who claim that Marx and Engels had a Roadmap to Communism are generally strong Marxist advocates who try to make their case stronger by giving Marx more foresight. However Marx was a dreamer, which is not a bad thing, but he envisioned a world which had all the wrongs rightened that he was seeing now in the wake of the second industrial revolution. I wrote of the workers rising and the exploiters being cast down. He then wrote of the justice and equality in the Communistic state. He however did not describe how to form a fair government or how to stabilise the state after the Revolution. He did not state what prerequisites a state needed to be a good candidate for Communism but for the will of the workers to go against the system. We know that he was thinking of the industrial European states but ultimately if someone in a different country read the manifesto and did not know who Marx and Engels were then he could not know that Marx had thought of a then Modern Industrial state because Marx never wrote that down in the Manifesto. The Manifesto is an inspired work of envisioning a fair state but it does not include practical guide lines or instructions. You can't say the Manifesto includes this this and this if it is based on information that we in our society regard as common knowledge because that is not part of the Manifesto but only that what is written in it and not any interpretation of it. The Manifesto itself is around 40 pages long on A5 seized paper.
Its not a long work but an inspired work.

I hope that that answers your questions.

[BIG BROTHER]

To be honest that guy sounds like a retard who thinks is a genius. Public health care, freed education through taxation doesn't make a state socialist. It could be just a social democrat state, or a welfare state.