the communist good news of the day!

[danyboy27]

sound good for you guys

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7679758.stm

[Vahanian]

Wow. I guess we will have more germans joining?:)

[Algernon]

But he doubted their perseverance: "I doubt they will read it all the way to the end, because it's really arduous."

:lol:

[#FF0000]

:lol:

Hey that shit is no joke. Das Kapital is hardcore.

I'm wondering when Eric Hobsbawm became "all but forgotten", though.

[Algernon]

Yes I know, believe me. I'm not laughing at the people reading it... it's just funny because the book is so notoriously difficult to get through. :cool:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Apparently we're taking over the US too, according to Republican strategists. Someone reported that the family unit is a form of socialism, and it spread like wildfire.

[jake williams]

Apparently we're taking over the US too, according to Republican strategists. Someone reported that the family unit is a form of socialism, and it spread like wildfire.
Ahaha. I'm 17 and starting uni next year probably, and I was thinking for going for one of those Ayn Rand essay contest scholarships arguing that motherhood was socialism. Beaten to the punch. Darn.

[Junius]

This same article was raised on libcom.

As I argued there, it is in the interests of the ruling class to exaggerate how difficult Capital is. Certainly, it has an archaic style in parts. In others it is fresh and humorous. Some parts require re-reading. However, I think it provides a sharp critique of capitalist relations.

Libcom has a study group on Capital, perhaps someone would like to start a study group here?

[mikelepore]

Some of Capital is difficult to read, but Chapter 1 is easy to read. And someone who has read Chapter 1, and has read no other texts on economics, now knows more about economics than someone who has a degree in economics from Harvard but hasn't read any of Capital.

[534634634265]

Some of Capital is difficult to read, but Chapter 1 is easy to read. And someone who has read Chapter 1, and has read no other texts on economics, now knows more about economics than someone who has a degree in economics from Harvard but hasn't read any of Capital.
O RLY?:rolleyes:

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Good news for the communists, but better news for the publi$hers!

[Dust Bunnies]

Win-win!

[Dr Mindbender]

they dont think the younger generation will see it through to the end because ''they will find it very arguous''

wtf sort of ageist patronising shit is that? :confused:

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, I'll wait until people start reading Volumes II and III of Capital (even parts of both, like I have). Volume II talks in one key paragraph about socialist production, and Volume III talks a lot about credit. :(

[RGacky3]

You DO NOT need to read Das Kapital to know about socialism and understand it. Infact a lof of those big theoretical books are pointless unless someone has a basic understanding of the principles of socialism, which can be explained in 5 minutes to a 10 year old.

[Dust Bunnies]

You DO NOT need to read Das Kapital to know about socialism and understand it. Infact a lof of those big theoretical books are pointless unless someone has a basic understanding of the principles of socialism, which can be explained in 5 minutes to a 10 year old.

Woah, 5 minutes?

[Junius]

You DO NOT need to read Das Kapital to know about socialism and understand it.

...because Capital is a critique of capitalism, not socialism.

[RGacky3]

...because Capital is a critique of capitalism, not socialism.

Yeah, I know, I bring that up because a lot of Leftists have this attitude that you have to read a lot of theoretical texts to understand the tennants of socialism.

[534634634265]

thats why most of the -isms are screwed. their politics is boring as fuck, filled with lots of armchair debate over minutiae that matters squat in the real world. those who are ready to act will come together under the common banner of action. the rest can burn their books for warmth.

[Algernon]

^^ well said! Honestly, how many people are going to come come after a 10+ hour shift at work and cozy up to Das Kapital for some "light reading"?

I sometimes find that communists use theory to dodge questions and avoid explaining things in simple terms. Instead of explaining something they just say "read marx".

[Plagueround]

^^ well said! Honestly, how many people are going to come come after a 10+ hour shift at work and cozy up to Das Kapital for some "light reading"?

With the rise in unemployment I'm sure some will find some time between job applications and figuring out which bill can go overdue a bit longer. I wouldn't recommend failing into cracked's assumption that most of us are armchair socialists either.


I sometimes find that communists use theory to dodge questions and avoid explaining things in simple terms.

Well, you have to have some theory behind it or you'll lack substance and will fall into the trap of just spouting empty rhetoric...however I'll agree that people can speak in simpler terms at times. But really, what did you expect from a discussion forum?



Instead of explaining something they just say "read marx".

And here I thought our opposition is always complaining that we don't want people to do things for themselves. :lol:

[Junius]

Yeah, I know, I bring that up because a lot of Leftists have this attitude that you have to read a lot of theoretical texts to understand the tennants of socialism.

What are these tenants?

What someone proclaims to be a tenant may be disputed by another.


thats why most of the -isms are screwed. their politics is boring as fuck,

Since when has politics been about 'having a good time?'

Lots of things are boring. I could boringly point out that your sentences are grammatically incorrect.


filled with lots of armchair debate over minutiae that matters squat in the real world.

I debate the things which I see matter the most in the 'real world': unions and national liberation.


those who are ready to act will come together under the common banner of action. the rest can burn their books for warmth.

Yes, burning books is great fun. :rolleyes:


^^ well said! Honestly, how many people are going to come come after a 10+ hour shift at work and cozy up to Das Kapital for some "light reading"?

People interested in how capitalism works?


I sometimes find that communists use theory to dodge questions and avoid explaining things in simple terms. Instead of explaining something they just say "read marx".

I quote Marx when I think he says something better than what I could.

Apart from that, 'theory' isn't a bad thing.

[RGacky3]

What are these tenants?

What someone proclaims to be a tenant may be disputed by another.

Tenants like: Labor has a right to what it produces, all men are equal, private property is unjustified, common need should drive the economy, not profit.

Those Tenants, pricniples, canbe disputed sure, but those are the main principles (roughly) one which socialism is based, generally those arguments against those principles end up in self-contradiction or moral delemas (they end up defending something they are not willing to defend).

You don't need to read volumes of marx to understand basic principles.


I quote Marx when I think he says something better than what I could.

Apart from that, 'theory' isn't a bad thing.

The problem comes when people say "Marx said this" AS an arugment. I use a lot of what marx wrote, his arguments, his reasonings, but that does'nt mean what he says is more valuble than what someone else might say, as long as that other person says something that makes more sense.


Well, you have to have some theory behind it or you'll lack substance and will fall into the trap of just spouting empty rhetoric...however I'll agree that people can speak in simpler terms at times. But really, what did you expect from a discussion forum?


I disagree, I don't think you need a solid set theory, if anything a solid set theory is a negative thing, its cumbersom, much more prone to mistakes and abuse, much harder to get agreement on.

All you need is a common cause backed up by some basic principles.

Leave the little red books for the Maoists.

[Plagueround]

I disagree, I don't think you need a solid set theory, if anything a solid set theory is a negative thing, its cumbersom, much more prone to mistakes and abuse, much harder to get agreement on.

All you need is a common cause backed up by some basic principles.

That's what I meant by having some theory behind it. We are both meaning to say the same thing, so if you disagree...one of us is confusing the other. :lol:

[Junius]

Labor has a right to what it produces,

What does this mean however - that they get the surplus of what they sell? That they get to keep the products which they make? Couldn't that run into direct contradiction with what is beneficial to society? Wouldn't people lean to jobs that produce products which enable them to obtain more wealth? Where is this 'right' derived from?


all men are equal,

But they aren't...

Do you think that capitalists should be treated equally?

What about women?


private property is unjustified,

What includes private property? How is it unjustified? Will workers own their own businesses or will the state own them on behalf of workers? Or will no-one own businesses?


common need should drive the economy, not profit.

Whom defines what 'common need' is? How should the economy be actually structured?

Clearly we can see that these basic concepts are open to interpretation, and need further justification.


Those Tenants, pricniples, canbe disputed sure, but those are the main principles (roughly) one which socialism is based, generally those arguments against those principles end up in self-contradiction or moral delemas (they end up defending something they are not willing to defend).

I think the most important communist 'principle' is internationalism. But you didn't even include it.


You don't need to read volumes of marx to understand basic principles.

No, but it certainly helps when someone questions the basis of your principles.


The problem comes when people say "Marx said this" AS an arugment. I use a lot of what marx wrote, his arguments, his reasonings, but that does'nt mean what he says is more valuble than what someone else might say, as long as that other person says something that makes more sense.

I agree.

[RGacky3]

That they get to keep the products which they make? Couldn't that run into direct contradiction with what is beneficial to society? Wouldn't people lean to jobs that produce products which enable them to obtain more wealth? Where is this 'right' derived from?


Yes, thats the basic cocept of Socialism, workers have a right to control their workplace, and what they produce, and what they produce will inevtably be to benefit society, because its in their interests to do so, because other people will be doing the same.


Do you think that capitalists should be treated equally?

What about women?

All men and woman are equal.

And yes Capitalists should be treated equally, and once socialism is around, there are no Capitalists or no proletarians, everyone is ultimately a worker and a boss in themselves.


What includes private property? How is it unjustified? Will workers own their own businesses or will the state own them on behalf of workers? Or will no-one own businesses?


Private property meaning the type that needs laws.


Whom defines what 'common need' is? How should the economy be actually structured?

Clearly we can see that these basic concepts are open to interpretation, and need further justification.


The community decides the common need, the economy should be structured economically.


I think the most important communist 'principle' is internationalism. But you didn't even include it.

your right, thats also important. I suppose by that you mean not deviding up the world into states? Or global solidarity.


No, but it certainly helps when someone questions the basis of your principles.

True, but so does reading in general, having general knowledge.

Most of those questions are answered just by common sense, simply logic, the problem I think a lot of people have is they try to over-intelectualize everything, or make a dialectic out of everything, or explain everything in a materialistic way, but sometimes good old common sense based on basic principles work a lot better.


We are both meaning to say the same thing, so if you disagree...one of us is confusing the other.

I see, when I think of theory, I generally think of people that try and set up detailed systems, or specific societal outlines, Stalin was the big guy who started this with the Comintern, where it was all a universal theory, but not only a theory in your sense, universal rules, outlines, specific organizations that were written in stone, that all the communist parties had to go by, thats and extreme form of "universal theory, what that ends up in is people disagreeing on specific things, not being able to reconcile, and splitting up, it also leaves SOO MUCH room for error and abuse.

But I guess your not talking about theory in that sense, so I agree.