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

[Mosco Vito]

I see communism as a variant of religion, but a religion that promises happiness on earth, not in the other world. Of course, this is a very noble idea, but its implementation turned into rivers of blood, suffering and death (Soviet Russia, China, Cambodia). It seems to me that the source of evil is human nature. If we look at the history of mankind, we will see that people throughout their existence only did what they killed, maimed, destroyed and tortured. With the development progress, torments became more sophisticated. I believe that there are idealists who really want to make life better, but the majority of people only want to take the place of oppressors for benefit.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by haroldeye

Not sure about your meaning of Libertarian, it differs from what a Brit would expect but certainly whilst your experience of gangsters and corporate executives is disappointing I can assure you that my experience of the Civil Service and Politicians is not too likely to bring on a feeling of unashamed optimism.

My understanding is that Libertarianism is a benign anarchy where we all get along, live in peace and harmony, and somehow all the public services are provided at affordable prices by private individuals and companies. Civil servants and politicians would be out of work. As I observed about communism, I believe we would need a better grade of human being than we currently have to make it work.

It was disappointing to discover that gangsters were generally more trustworthy and altruistic than corporate executives, even if they were much more likely to beat you up or kill you.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Mosco Vito

[SIZE=2]
I see communism as a variant of religion, but a religion that promises happiness on earth, not in the other world. Of course, this is a very noble idea, but its implementation turned into rivers of blood, suffering and death (Soviet Russia, China, Cambodia).

Communism is the political program that seeks to implement the understanding of power and the economy that comes from Marx.

You can oppose communism -- I do-- while still having an appreciation for some the analytical points that Marx makes. Does "class struggle" exist? Sure. Moreso in some times and places than others, but I don't discount it as intrinsically off base. Its a legitimate and useful way to look at what's happening in the politics and economy of a society; its not the only axis of analysis, but its one of them.

Are there communist regimes that look a lot like religions? Yes . . . if you think of China's "Two Whatevers" = We will resolutely uphold whatever policy decisions Chairman Mao made, and unswervingly follow whatever instructions Chairman Mao gave

. . . that's more like catechism than a political analysis.

But you can find similar sorts of "dittoheads" in other political traditions.

The real failing of communism in power is the the problem of power itself; if the Party comes before the State, then its vulnerable to abuse without check.

[scoundrel]

I am not a big fan of libertarian philosophical principles. The usual libertarian idea is to party on down making loud music at 3am when the neighbours have to go the work next day; and someone else to pay the bills and clean the mess afterwards. "Libertarian" is an alibi for sociopathic selfishness and ignoring duty and responsibility. Many modern right wing politicians typify this despicable pattern and dress it up with smoke screens such as "deregulation", "getting government off the back of the people" etc. Prince John, the Sheriff of Nottingham and Sir Guy of Gisbourne are always with us.

[Mosco Vito]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Does "class struggle" exist? Sure

This is a controversial statement. Here is what he thinks about the class struggle russian philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev:

The logical structure of Marxism in the theory of class struggle is absolutely contradictory and philosophically naive. Marx holds on to extreme scholastic realism of concepts. Abstractions of thought he takes over the reality of being. To characterize as capitalist and bourgeois, some society as a whole with all its sophisticated culture is an abstraction and hypostasis concepts. The same abstraction and hypostasis concepts is the proletariat as a universal class, and the proletarian society and culture. Lenin recognized himself that there can't be proletarian culture, and can only be the introduction of the proletariat to culture and mastery of culture. We will see that the main logical disadvantage of Marx is the uncritical mixing of extreme realism with extreme nomination. The very concept of class and social group cannot be defined only economically, only in relation to production, as Marx wants. Social differentiation of society occurs on other grounds, is determined by other principles.

And here are his thoughts about the religious nature of Marxism:

- strict dogmatic system, despite practical flexibility;
- the division between Orthodoxy and heresy;
- the immutability of the philosophy of science, the Holy Scripture of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, which can only be interpreted, but not questioned;
- division of the world into two parts-believers-faithful and unbelievers-infidels;
-hierarchically organized Communist Church with directives from above; transfer of conscience to the Supreme body of the Communist party, to the Council;
-totalitarianism peculiar only to religions;
-the fanaticism of the faithful;
-excommunication and the execution of heretics;
- prevention of secularization within the group of believers;
-acknowledgement of original sin (exploitation).

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Mosco Vito

This is a controversial statement. Here is what he thinks about the class struggle russian philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev:

[I]The logical structure of Marxism in the theory of class struggle is absolutely contradictory and philosophically naive. Marx holds on to extreme scholastic realism of concepts.

The question is how dogmatically do you take the argument. Marx was looking at the world of the middle of the 19th century, particularly industrial workers in his native Germany. There are all sorts of extrapolations to very different societies -- particularly agrarian ones-- which don't make a lot of sense, for instance Mao who villified minor rural landowners as "landlords" or Stalin who persecuted similar folks as "kulaks". Trying to find a "class struggle" among a rural peasantry who were basically all pretty poor was not only pointless, it was damaging.

But as a historian, I find that Marx added a tremendous amount to how we understand a society. Before Marx, we really don't have a systematic analysis of societies based on "who owns what" . . .after Marx we do.

That's a huge contribution to understanding, even if you're not a "Marxist".

I don't think you can write a useful history of, say, slavery without asking the question "who owned slaves?", "what were they worth?", and "how did this effect free labor economically?"

Similarly, I don't think you can look at the US health insurance system without reference to class interests.

The classic battleground for Marxist vs liberal and other interpretations of history is the French Revolution; I don't take the Marxists as being "the last word" -- there are "classic" historians who have compelling interpretations too . . . but there's no way you could say that you can ignore people like Albert Soboul. And Marx himself writes a terrific analysis of Louis Napoleon, called "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon " --- which is really incisive reporting on contemporary events (for Marx).

[Mosco Vito]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

The question is how dogmatically do you take the argument. Marx was looking at the world of the middle of the 19th century, particularly industrial workers in his native Germany. There are all sorts of extrapolations to very different societies -- particularly agrarian ones-- which don't make a lot of sense, for instance Mao who villified minor rural landowners as "landlords" or Stalin who persecuted similar folks as "kulaks". Trying to find a "class struggle" among a rural peasantry who were basically all pretty poor was not only pointless, it was damaging.

But as a historian, I find that Marx added a tremendous amount to how we understand a society. Before Marx, we really don't have a systematic analysis of societies based on "who owns what" . . .after Marx we do.

That's a huge contribution to understanding, even if you're not a "Marxist".

I don't think you can write a useful history of, say, slavery without asking the question "who owned slaves?", "what were they worth?", and "how did this effect free labor economically?"

Similarly, I don't think you can look at the US health insurance system without reference to class interests.

The classic battleground for Marxist vs liberal and other interpretations of history is the French Revolution; I don't take the Marxists as being "the last word" -- there are "classic" historians who have compelling interpretations too . . . but there's no way you could say that you can ignore people like Albert Soboul. And Marx himself writes a terrific analysis of Louis Napoleon, called "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon " --- which is really incisive reporting on contemporary events (for Marx).

Yes, Marx made a great contribution to the development of sociology, no doubt. The same Berdyaev (he was once a Marxist) all his life thought of Marx as a genius. But I often see that the works of Marx make dogma, a "sacred cow". I prefer to look at the class struggle as simply one of the manifestations of the evil nature of man.
　
What do you think about the malthusianism/neo-malthusianism? Can this doctrines help to fight poverty?

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Mosco Vito

Yes, Marx made a great contribution to the development of sociology, no doubt. The same Berdyaev (he was once a Marxist) all his life thought of Marx as a genius.

I'm good with that

Originally Posted by Mosco Vito

But I often see that the works of Marx make dogma, a "sacred cow".

Halfway agree. Its something which is useful, but only to a point. Not "useful everywhere always" -- but useful where appropriate.

Originally Posted by Mosco Vito

I prefer to look at the class struggle as simply one of the manifestations of the evil nature of man.

Disagree there. The essence of the Marxist analysis of history is that "good and evil" are irrelevant; essentially Marx is the extension of Machiavelli to financial affairs: people will do what's "in their interest"-- its not because they're good or bad, its because if, say, you own property, you have one set of interests, if you don't-- then you have different interests.

Originally Posted by Mosco Vito

What do you think about the malthusianism/neo-malthusianism? Can this doctrines help to fight poverty?

A different topic, really. I don't find it compelling for the most part. Malthus didn't foresee a world where it was so easy to produce food that the problem in the poorest nations is not starvation, its obesity.

Malthus seems to me far less relevant and interesting than Marx. In his 18th Brumaire Marx writes

Originally Posted by Karl Marx

Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language.

just my two cents' worth, but this is really brilliant stuff. It still reads well, but when he wrote it, it was even more novel, more remarkable.

[Mosco Vito]

Communists of many countries saw Marxism not as a theory, but as a tool to change the negative reality, the key component of which was the poverty of the masses. I mentioned Malthus as a thinker who called for control over the population. His main idea was developed. For example, the Italian philosopher Julius Evola wrote:
　
Overpopulation exacerbates the problem of unemployment, just as inevitable (due to their very nature) intensification of production processes leading to increased economic obsession, the further enslavement of man, the reduction of free area... Zombart rightly believed that the decline in the population could be one of the few means to inflict a fatal blow to large capitalism.

Ok, we can not call the torment of one another "evil" and "the realization of financial interests", but the essence will be the same.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Mosco Vito

Communists of many countries saw Marxism not as a theory, but as a tool to change the negative reality, the key component of which was the poverty of the masses.

Blaming Marx -- who never ran anything-- for the failings of communists in power is a bit like blaming Freud for every dumb thing that folks did that somehow was attributed to psychoanalytic theory.

They're both men whose ideas advance our understanding of the world in important ways, bu they're not prophets; its pointless to blame them for not being.

Originally Posted by Mosco Vito

I mentioned Malthus as a thinker who called for control over the population. His main idea was developed. For example, the Italian philosopher Julius Evola wrote:
　
Overpopulation exacerbates the problem of unemployment, just as inevitable (due to their very nature) intensification of production processes leading to increased economic obsession, the further enslavement of man, the reduction of free area... Zombart rightly believed that the decline in the population could be one of the few means to inflict a fatal blow to large capitalism.

I think that's irrelevant and provably wrong from historical examples. We've had precipitous declines in population in the past -- economic historians view the Black Death as having given rise to capitalism, because labor shortages created money wages in place of serfdom.

And as for today, you can see population falling rapidly in advanced industrial nations like Japan (and soon Korea and China) without changing the economic system in any way.

So its off base in the 13th century and its wrong in the 21st century too.

In general, you can't trust vague philosophers ruminating on the end of capitalism . . . its just pointless. The world has adopted markets, of different flavors in China than the US, Germany and Chile-- but with the exception of a few desperate states like Venezuela and North Korea, there's really no place that tries to replace the market with state control for allocating capital.