If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
You may not remember...
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
A long, long time ago... I asked a question :
"What do you think of COMMUNISM?"
The last thing I said was:
))
Well here is my answer, (sorry I couldn't post it before...)
Communism can mean one of two things - a theoretical ideal found in the writings of Marx, or the actual governing principles of the self-described Communist states in the modern world. When one finds the label used in a further way, as, for example, in the Communist parties of France, Italy, Britain, etc., it typically refers to a combination of Marxist ideals and support for the Communist governments. As far as the Marxist ideals go, Communism is a slightly shadowy state in which private property has been abolished, equality reigns, and the state has 'withered away' because all men and women live in harmony and co-operation, without classes or any social divisions requiring the exercise of authority. Most post-Marxist writers, and especially the leaders of the Russian Revolution, have believed that there had to be an intermediary phase between the overthrow of capitalism and the full realisation of communism.
This phase is variously described, often as Socialism, but also as the period in which it will be necessary to exercise the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' or where the Communist party will have to act as the 'Vanguard of the Proletariat'. This intermediate phase was, roughly speaking, when the leaders of the USSR and its European allies would have located themselves.
When used as a description of the societies of the USSR and Eastern Europe, or, adding yet another complexity, China and its Asian Communist allies, it is indicating a set of political practices that may not, necessarily, have very much to do with the Marxist theory of Communism.
Communism in this second sense is a system where there is little or no private ownership of major property, this being replaced with state-owned and run enterprises, and where the Communist party rules, non-democratically, both in its own right and through its control, de facto, of the official state administration. Values of equality and social co-operation are stressed, as opposed to individual self-seeking or betterment. The economy will be entirely a planned one, with no serious element of competition, although, especially in agriculture, this is often relaxed in minor ways. A characteristic feature of Communism as we have seen it develop is an inequality based on position in the ruling party, but a genuine equality, and a very thorough social welfare system, throughout the mass of the population.
Other aspects of a Communist state are incidentals, more or less present in different societies. Thus the Communist attitude to religion, something scorned by Marxist theory, can vary from hostility in the old USSR to a major role for the Roman Catholic church in Poland, and the extent of industrial democracy varies from great in Yugoslavia (yes the country still exists) to minimal in Germany. Since the mid-1950s there has been an increasingly bitter conflict between the Eastern European and the Chinese brands of Communism, first with the development of Mao Tse-Tung's Communist views. The reason for this conflict, apart from purely nationalistic territorial conflicts, was that the Chinese Communists were, originally, much less prepared to use the techniques, and the associated professional hierarchies, of modern Western industrial production. So while, to take one example, the USSR continued to make steel in a centralised and authoritative way, the Chinese encouraged all their Communes to build their own small-scale steel plants, and treated professional engineers as undemocratic examples of class status. The USSR remained quite strongly hierarchical, even if the criteria for hiearchy differed from the capitalist societies, being based on party or professional rank rather than inherited wealth, but the Chinese Communists, at least under Mao, worked for a much more total equality. During the Cultural Revolution this rose to a height in which anyone occupying a professional or technocratic job was in danger of being sent off to work as a peasant, if he/she escaped, luckily, Thought Reform.
The only generalisations possible about Communism as an actual political and social system are that Communist regimes are totally controlled by an undemocratic party, abolish most inequalities arising from economic differences, and practise a high degree of economic planning with an efficient welfare state but very little freedom of expression.
(Thank you Proletarian :thumb: )
"What do you think of COMMUNISM?"
The last thing I said was:
(I was talking to Scarlett (Sorry ScarletI will post my opinion for the people that have been polite and patient... not for you. You can piss off.
))Well here is my answer, (sorry I couldn't post it before...)
Communism can mean one of two things - a theoretical ideal found in the writings of Marx, or the actual governing principles of the self-described Communist states in the modern world. When one finds the label used in a further way, as, for example, in the Communist parties of France, Italy, Britain, etc., it typically refers to a combination of Marxist ideals and support for the Communist governments. As far as the Marxist ideals go, Communism is a slightly shadowy state in which private property has been abolished, equality reigns, and the state has 'withered away' because all men and women live in harmony and co-operation, without classes or any social divisions requiring the exercise of authority. Most post-Marxist writers, and especially the leaders of the Russian Revolution, have believed that there had to be an intermediary phase between the overthrow of capitalism and the full realisation of communism.
This phase is variously described, often as Socialism, but also as the period in which it will be necessary to exercise the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' or where the Communist party will have to act as the 'Vanguard of the Proletariat'. This intermediate phase was, roughly speaking, when the leaders of the USSR and its European allies would have located themselves.
When used as a description of the societies of the USSR and Eastern Europe, or, adding yet another complexity, China and its Asian Communist allies, it is indicating a set of political practices that may not, necessarily, have very much to do with the Marxist theory of Communism.
Communism in this second sense is a system where there is little or no private ownership of major property, this being replaced with state-owned and run enterprises, and where the Communist party rules, non-democratically, both in its own right and through its control, de facto, of the official state administration. Values of equality and social co-operation are stressed, as opposed to individual self-seeking or betterment. The economy will be entirely a planned one, with no serious element of competition, although, especially in agriculture, this is often relaxed in minor ways. A characteristic feature of Communism as we have seen it develop is an inequality based on position in the ruling party, but a genuine equality, and a very thorough social welfare system, throughout the mass of the population.
Other aspects of a Communist state are incidentals, more or less present in different societies. Thus the Communist attitude to religion, something scorned by Marxist theory, can vary from hostility in the old USSR to a major role for the Roman Catholic church in Poland, and the extent of industrial democracy varies from great in Yugoslavia (yes the country still exists) to minimal in Germany. Since the mid-1950s there has been an increasingly bitter conflict between the Eastern European and the Chinese brands of Communism, first with the development of Mao Tse-Tung's Communist views. The reason for this conflict, apart from purely nationalistic territorial conflicts, was that the Chinese Communists were, originally, much less prepared to use the techniques, and the associated professional hierarchies, of modern Western industrial production. So while, to take one example, the USSR continued to make steel in a centralised and authoritative way, the Chinese encouraged all their Communes to build their own small-scale steel plants, and treated professional engineers as undemocratic examples of class status. The USSR remained quite strongly hierarchical, even if the criteria for hiearchy differed from the capitalist societies, being based on party or professional rank rather than inherited wealth, but the Chinese Communists, at least under Mao, worked for a much more total equality. During the Cultural Revolution this rose to a height in which anyone occupying a professional or technocratic job was in danger of being sent off to work as a peasant, if he/she escaped, luckily, Thought Reform.
The only generalisations possible about Communism as an actual political and social system are that Communist regimes are totally controlled by an undemocratic party, abolish most inequalities arising from economic differences, and practise a high degree of economic planning with an efficient welfare state but very little freedom of expression.
(Thank you Proletarian :thumb: )
0
Comments
Still, Marxism has never been implemented properly. Russia and China were not heavily capitalist when Marxism was introduced in those nations.
Besides in contemporary capitalist societies there is no 'ruling class' suppressing the 'proletariat'.
He never said he was a communist..........
I was thinking recently that surely communism can be democratic in the way we think of it?
The main difference between the systems is economic, surely it would still be perfectly feasible to have a broadly communist economic system but have an oppurtunity to vote for different administartions to provide government?
What do you think?
That's not communism per se, though. Communism per se involved democratic control of the means of production by the proletariat, and there *are* no bourgeoisie, or ruling classes. Therefore, there need be no elections, since the people are already the government.
Of course, it's all nonsense.
Well, yes, barring the fact that the world exists in a capitalist form, and not communist, and that communism has never worked in a real world application.
Communism is an economic idea, not a political idea of state hood.
Capitalism is an economic idea, not and idea of state hood.
Why would capitalism require no government? Why does an economic policy have to affect the way of government? It doesn't... they are different areas of interest.
So anarchism is laughable then?
Yes. Entirely. And?
I think anarchism has at least SOME merit. And?
What?
When Marx wrote his theories of course Britain's economy was not more laissez-faire than today...:rolleyes:
When Max wrote his theories, pray tell me which of these events which shape the world's economy today had happened;
Hmmm.
Relevant
When Marx wrote his theories Britain WAS more laissez-faire than today!!
Stating events which you claim shaped economic history is false. WWII had little effect on the global economy. It simply reinforced the US' position as the world's leading economic power (which it had been after WWI when it usurped the UK).
I do apologise for contrasting your learned economic musings, oh great one.
But I would like to ask where you studied economics? Why does a huge world war not affect global economies? Don't you think that (a) the trade loss, (b) the economic cost of war, (c) the cost in terms of lives lost, (d) the restructuring of the politic-economic systems et al. had an effect then?
As a highly trained intellectual economist, you will no doubt have heard of Professor Jeffrey Sachs. Oddly, those are criteria he listed as factors in global economic change related to economic world systems in a recent lecture he gave which I attended. You disagree with one of the world's most influential economists? Perhaps you would like to give us all the benefit of your learned wisdom?
I'm not a 'great one', though you claim to be a student in your profile so I'd just think you're a dick for knocking me about learning things (and rebuking me about morality when evidently you have none yourself).
My reasoning comes from the fact that the UK economy GREW during WWII!!
I am indeed a student. I accept that I can never know it all, and hence that I am continually learning, accepting of my own positionality and self imposed constructs of learning. I claim to be someone who is learning, not learned. Look up the difference if the epistemology is beyond you.
I have no morality? Where in hell does that absurd statement come from? Half way out of thin air, like all your other claims? Ignore the rest of this thread. I challenge you to prove that I have no morality. Quotes from the site, please, with thread references. That's all I'd like you to do.
Prove that assertion, or take it back.
Your call.
Even still I won't 'take back' my comment. If it hurts you then so be it.
Reading your threads has lead me to ascertain your character. You see someone who rebukes other for being 'immoral' a thread shouldn't (in my view anyway) misguidedly attempt to belittle others by thinking others feign intelligence (shit...such things hurt me bad..:rolleyes:).
Anyhow, such actions only reinforce my view to steer clear of certain people.
Do you realise that:
(a) that makes no sense whatsoever?
and
(b) You've not even approached my point and answered the challenge?
No? Thought not...
Though the only purpose of my answering the question is so you can feel at rest about accusations made about you.
As I said, I don't WANT 'retract' my statement. I'm only doing so to cease feeling bad at being insulted.
Does this make sense to any one else?
Am I the stupid one?
I suggest cracking a history book or two.
Rare as it is, I agree with Greenhat; onenatcons you clearly have no understanding of history whatsoever if you think that is the case.
Oh, and on the subject of DJP, he's an undergraduate at Oxford whilst I seem to remember you're not even at university but are considering such highly-regarded institutions as Greenwich.
Which one of you two do you think is the pseudo-intellectual then? (Hint: it isn't DJP)
As I said I don't respect people who claim to be moral yet then feel superior to others (as DJP attempting to do).
I suppose we could analyse each other's character's until the cows come home if you choose...:)
Since when has he ever 'mocked' anyone for being 'less intelligent'?!! When he criticises a statement it's usually because there has been no thought behind it. Sweeping general statements have no place in a reasoned debate, and if you choose to participate in a debate you must think about your argument, rather than making statements you can't back up. It has nothing to do with intelligence, just common sense and logic, which you claim to have but rarely (if ever) show.
I will not defend DJP because he does not need it. He is a respected poster on these boards, and a much better person than you will ever be.
Constant references to being 'pseudo-intellctual' spring to mind. Anyhow if he doesn't like his character being analysed by me I don't care. I like those who treat others as they wish to be treated.
Well, I need a lot..and why should I stretch my abilities when I'll get what I need anyway?