Communism. Good or bad. What do you really know about Communism?

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

See, now you understand the grand strategy of capitalism. Population attrition through the overconsumption of dangerous things.

Why do it with gulags and KGB thugs when you can do it instead with Ranch Doritos and Coors and Big Macs and supersize fries?

Capitalism still get its Gulag.
Feel free to read this post and ask Chinese children working in smartphones enterprises and African children working in coltan mines, if watching from their perspective, Capitalism is that fun ?

Capitalism is like a Gorgon.

[Arturo2nd]

I am reading Ancient Society by Lewis Henry Morgan. Morgan inspired Marx and Engels. The latter followed up by writing The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. I am going to read Engels' book next and check Marx's writings. (It is my plan to read both Wealth of Nations and Das Kapital so I actually know what these guys said, but I am not sure how much 18th and 19th century prose I can take. I have previously relied on excerpts and synopses.)

Marx and Engels had long been communist revolutionaries before Morgan published in 1877. The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848. My preliminary surmise is that Marx and Engels realized in reading Morgan's work that communism would mark a return to the ancient clan and tribal based systems that had served human beings for millennia before the agricultural revolution brought in slavery,, private property, and the state. Many peasant villages still ran on the tribe/clan communal property and democratic systems even into the 20th century.

It may well be naive to think that humanity can return to a more natural set of social relations. Tribes can only grow so large and the geographical areas they control are necessarily limited. On the one hand, we are witnessing all over the world strong desires of human beings to live in smaller groups more responsive to distinct customs and local control. We also know that historically these smaller groups were militarily at the mercy of the larger and more organized nation states.

One thing becomes crystal clear, however, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. severely misunderstood or perverted the vision of Marx and Engels.

[Wendigo]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Capitalism is like a Gorgon.

No honestly, it is not mythological it exists

Do you mean you can only look at it using a mirror or if you cut its head off a winged horse will appear

[footstep]

Staline is good.
Lenine is good.

One day a man came and says: I know he truth brother.
Years past, millions people dead. The man who came died.
Then another one.
And another one etc..

I love human being...

Zappa said : movement sucks.
Yes it is.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

My preliminary surmise is that Marx and Engels realized in reading Morgan's work that communism would mark a return to the ancient clan and tribal based systems that had served human beings for millennia before the agricultural revolution brought in slavery,, private property, and the state. Many peasant villages still ran on the tribe/clan communal property and democratic systems even into the 20th century.

I would be very surprised if this were the case. Marx and Engels come out of the spirit of the enlightenment and modernity-- they do not look fondly back to some tribal past. Bear in mind, that Marx (thought not Engels) was of Jewish origin, but didn't have even the slightest interest in the religion and its tribal origins. Indeed, Marx's "On the Jewish Question" reads as pretty resoundingly anti-semitic.

Like other enlightenment intellectuals, they saw modernity as sweeping away the horror of ignorance; they were not remotely romantic about what they saw as the illiterate superstitions of the past.

Originally Posted by Brian249x

One thing becomes crystal clear, however, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. severely misunderstood or perverted the vision of Marx and Engels.

Marx and Engels had no practical "vision" at all. No way to put their ideas into practice without monopolizing essentially all power in the hands of the State, which is itself controlled by the Party.

Its precisely that arrangement that produces the totalitarianism of Communism in practice. Marx & Engels' "vision" doesn't include this, because they never had the real world problem of "OK, we've decided to ban private property-- so how to we get farmers to grow and sell food".

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

I would be very surprised if this were the case. Marx and Engels come out of the spirit of the enlightenment and modernity-- they do not look fondly back to some tribal past. Bear in mind, that Marx (thought not Engels) was of Jewish origin, but didn't have even the slightest interest in the religion and its tribal origins. Indeed, Marx's "On the Jewish Question" reads as pretty resoundingly anti-semitic.

Like other enlightenment intellectuals, they saw modernity as sweeping away the horror of ignorance; they were not remotely romantic about what they saw as the illiterate superstitions of the past.



Marx and Engels had no practical "vision" at all. No way to put their ideas into practice without monopolizing essentially all power in the hands of the State, which is itself controlled by the Party.

Its precisely that arrangement that produces the totalitarianism of Communism in practice. Marx & Engels' "vision" doesn't include this, because they never had the real world problem of "OK, we've decided to ban private property-- so how to we get farmers to grow and sell food".

As I mentioned, open field agriculture was still being practiced in many areas of Europe. So Marx and Engels would have immediately realized the antiquity and more natural form of the arrangements that Morgan details. It is important to bear in mind that Marx was constantly learning, revising, and reevaluating his thinking throughout his life. That is why he never finished volumes 2 & 3 of Das Kapital and Engels cleaned up the notes and publisfed then after Marx died.

But you are right that Marx started out as an arrogant, but brilliant young man without any practical experience. Pragmatic people like myself would have counted on the peasant farmers to organize agriculture in cooperation with researchers, secure in the knowledge that they would be happier and more productive without the nobility taxing them to death. My ancestors were pioneer subsistence farmers in the United States. What we think of as independent family farms were, in the North and Midwest, communities of family farmers that worked together on the labor intensive tasks of plowing, harvesting, barn raising, etc. My paternal great grandfathers were a carpenter and stone mason who built houses, chimneys, barns, churches and schools while their brothers, in-laws, and hired hands did most of the farm work.

I am not clear if you have actually read Marx and Engels works or are simply reiterating the assertions of other authors. As mentioned I have relied on excerpt and synopses other than having read The Communist Manifesto in its entirety several times for various classes. It is quite obvious to me that as "the state withered away," they envisioned decisions being made cooperatively in democratic processes. This was what the workers soviets were supposed to do in Russia, but that pretty much went out the window in the Civil War and subsequent suppression of dissent. Stalin then extended the program into a cult of personality to cement his own dominance. Lenin saw it coming and tried to derail it, but he never recovered from the assassination attempt and Stalin was able to isolate him.

In theory, while only one political party has power in communist countries, the party governs itself democratically. (Which mostly hasn't happened.) In China, eight other parties act in "advisory capacities" to the CPC. Mao followed Stalin's example. The Party tried to change the direction after the failure of "The Great Leap Forward," but Mao rode the "Cultural Revolution" to implement his insane schemes and China spun its wheels for more than a generation. Now you have Xi reverting to dictatorial methods. China was already running out of steam and Xi's program will probably revert to terror and stagnation.

Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and Castro all naively hoped to work with the United States to bring their countries forward with education and technology, but the embedded capitalist interests preferred policies of enmity, isolation, sabotage and warfare. Please also remember that the United States participated in the invasions of Russia the Western powers mounted trying to reverse the revolution. Diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union were not in place until 1933. It was really quite natural and wise for Stalin to be wary of Churchill and the United States.

It really is impossible to sort out how much the problems we associate with Communism are traceable to the fact that the criminal regimes took root in countries with long histories of despotic rule that were lacking in democratic institutions and traditions. Even so, it is a mistake to assume that the citizenry quietly fell into line with Party dictates.

The politics were impossible, but in a world not held captive to capitalist greed and need for dominance it would have been theoretically possible to seek forms of government and social organization that provided more widespread benefits for humanity in general and a whole lot less bloodshed. But, as I have said many times before, we appear to need a better grade of human beings than we currently have to make these idealistic schemes work.

But who knows? Most advanced industrialized nations are able to provide education, healthcare, family leave and vacations, and old age pensions for their people despite the constant propaganda and sabotage by capitalists interests. Chances are that we will soon be one more biological dead end and new species will get their opportunities. But if we can avoid the planet's defense mechanisms against a species run amok, we just might be able to figure something out.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

You do realize that Marx was Jewish don't you? His mother was very religious.

Yes which is why I said so in my post, and which makes his hostility to his own tribe salient with respect to you assertion. He's not remotely interested in antiquity, tribes or clans.

If you read his essay "On the Jewish Question", you'll find that he's extremely hostile to Judaism as a tradition and he's hostile to religion in general. Nothing ambiguous about it.

Originally Posted by Brian249x

I am not clear if you have actually read Marx and Engels works or are simply reiterating the assertions of other authors.

I've read Marx & Engels in considerable depth. The Communist Manifesto, the 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon -- which I've quote at length earlier in this thread, and the aforemention zur Judenfrage. I could never claim to have persevered through Das Kapital -- which I've read in bits.

My observations are not based on "reiterating the assertions of other authors" but rather the observation that

a) Marx and Engels have only the vaguest ideas of how their desired Communist Revolution would actually work, and never have even the remotest practical experience with running anything (Engels father owned a textile factory where he works briefly in his youth, and then again when he's older, the closest association either of them have to the industry they're theorizing about)
b) but they do explicitly require that this State and Party assume all kinds of power
and
c) when people put these ideas into practice, its totalitarianism.

Take one simple point: the State monopoly on capital and investment. Marx & Engels are clear enough on this-- while there might be some very small private property left, job #1 is to seize all banks and investment properties. From the Revolution forward, the only entity you can rent from, borrow from or get an investment from-- is the State. And if the State doesn't want you to . . . its not going to happen. Period. Control of your economic life is necessarily totalitarian-- under the total control of the State and Party.

Marx never had to wrestle with just what that means in practice-- its means "The State makes every consequential decision in the economy. It decides what gets broadcast and by whom, what gets built and by whom, what gets sold at what price to whom".

Armchair Marxists always slide by just how necessarily totalitarian such a system is. But Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot --- they get it just fine. They see crushing small landowners, shopkeepers and pretty much any economy activity not controlled by the State and Party as essential.

On the evidence, they're reading Marx more carefully than you have.

See Stalin's "History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union [short course]" for a deep look into how Stalin understood Marx. Like Mao and Pol Pot, he spent a long time reading and thinking about Marx. "The Short Course" is essential reading, if you want to understand how Communists in power understood what it meant to take Marx from paper and ideas and make it real.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Bear in mind, that Marx (thought not Engels) was of Jewish origin, but didn't have even the slightest interest in the religion and its tribal origins. Indeed, Marx's "On the Jewish Question" reads as pretty resoundingly anti-semitic.

Did you read it?


Here is a small analysis (google translate) written by the Professor of History : "Lionel Richard"

In 1843, Bruno Bauer, who had just lost his teaching at the University of Bonn because of his anti-religious diatribes, published two books: The Jewish Question, then The Ability of Jews and Christians today to become free . He questions the claims of the Jews of Germany to claim their political emancipation.

Germany, at that time, is a conglomerate of autonomous states, different in their legislation, and the Jews do not have civil rights over the whole of its territory. These rights will be granted to them only with the realization of German unity by Bismarck, in 1871, while revolutionary France had granted them more than three quarters of a century before.

Given the segregation to which his Jewish compatriots are still subjected, what is Bauer's attitude? Protestant religion by baptism and atheist, even anticlerical, he strives to demonstrate that members of Jewish communities, given their religious precepts, face obstacles to integrate into modern states. And especially to those where Christianity, this enemy of Judaism, has been promoted to official religion. The only possibility to free oneself, to get out of the "barriers of religion".

Against Bauer's argument, a polemic was immediately engaged by some Jewish intellectuals: Gabriel Riesser, Samuel Hirsch, Gustav Philippson. In turn, Karl Marx, aged 25, recently promoted doctor in philosophy, decides to intervene. He wrote an article which appeared in February 1844 in the only issue of a journal he had just helped to found in Paris, Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher. His title ? "About the Jewish question" - and not "The Jewish question", as we have been accustomed to indicate it in France.

Marx knew Bauer very well, since the latter, though nine years older than himself, belonged, like him, to Hegel's circle of critical disciples, the Young Hegelians. In 1841, both had written in collaboration, relying on Hegel and against his recovery in Prussia by the well-thinking, an anonymous manifesto in favor of atheism. Marx had not hesitated, in the face of attacks on Bauer as a teacher, to defend him publicly. If he breaks this alliance, it is because he deems it essential to distance himself from theories that he does not share.

[...]

[Marx], unlike Bauer, posits in principle that Jews are able to emancipate without "detaching completely and permanently from Judaism." He believes, however, that they also need to realize that securing civil rights would be a stumbling block if they did not fight for a society rejecting the establishment of a state religion, guaranteeing religious freedom as an imprescriptible right of the citizen.

In front of Bauer's second book, Marx continues to reflect on the nature of emancipation that he believes should be achieved. The emancipation of the Jews, he explains, can not be reduced, as Bauer suggests, to "a philosophical-theological act." What, according to him, conditions the "everyday Jew"? Not his religion, but life practices that have been imposed on him, historically, by the state powers. The latter locked him into "traffic" and "money", creating a social caricature of "Judaism". Given the place arbitrarily given to it in bourgeois society, the Jew is no more than the "Judaism" of this society, a "caricature" erected under the "empire of private property and money". Conclusion: "The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of the society of Judaism."

[...]

The historian Robert Mandrou already pointed out in 1968 that the texts of Marx against Bauer, too often dishonestly quoted "by the scorchers of Marxism who are apologetic to the anti-Semitic Jew", were worth reading "with attention and probity".

Lionel Richard

Historian, professor emeritus at the University of Picardy.
Author of Goebbels. Portrait of a manipulator, (André Versaille publisher, Brussels, 2008), Nazism and barbarism (Complex, Brussels, 2006),

Originally Posted by footstep

Zappa said : movement sucks.
Yes it is.

But today, totalitarianism movement called Capitalism sucks.

So what is the alternative?

[Wendigo]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Did you read it?

I refer the honourable member to the answer he gave some moments ago

Originally Posted by deepsepia

If you read his essay "On the Jewish Question", you'll find that he's extremely hostile to Judaism as a tradition and he's hostile to religion in general. Nothing ambiguous about it.

I've read Marx & Engels in considerable depth. The Communist Manifesto, the 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon -- which I've quote at length earlier in this thread, and the aforemention zur Judenfrage. I could never claim to have persevered through Das Kapital -- which I've read in bits.

Pay attention at the back of the class please and stop picking your nose

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by Wendigo

I refer the honourable member to the answer he gave some moments ago




Pay attention at the back of the class please and stop picking your nose

Sorry, but that's my right to contradict wrong informations.