NationStates Jolt Archive


This is what Marxism/Communist is: (Ignore the other threads by others)

Akh-Horus
14-06-2006, 12:59
Right, if you want clearing it up.

USSR AND CHINA ARE NOT COMMUNIST!!! NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOUR FAILURE OF A GOVERNMENT THINKS!!!

Right, now that is out of the way, we can move onto explaining what Communism is.


MARXISM / COMMUNISM

- Society has the economy as its base
- Capitalism is a fundamental dichotomy of capital and labour, two sides of the ‘contradiction’ of capitalism
- Labour is the ultimate source of all value. Capital is merely accumulated or ‘objectified’ labour
- Capitalist manufacture is based on private property and accumulated capital

- Capitalists are the owners of the means of production, a ‘wage labourer’ is a non-owner of the means of production
- Capitalism had to expand to survive, but as it was competitive, less successful capitalists would be driven out of business while monopolies, cartelization and giant corporations would arise.

- Over time, the workers would realize their oppressed and exploited condition and become political activists to change this
- The major contradiction of capitalism is that as it expands its tendency to collapse increases
- Capitalism can flourish only through the creation of extremes of wealth and poverty
- However, capitalists and workers cannot exist without each other.

‘Labour produces works of wonder for the rich, but nakedness for the worker. It produces palaces, but only hovels for the worker; it produces beauty, but cripples the worker…It produces culture, but also imbecility and cretinism for the worker.’
Marx, Early Texts, p. 136

- In Marx’s political writings capitalists become the bourgeoisie and workers the proletariat
- The bourgeoisies prominence came after a battle with the aristocracy [English Civil War, French Revolution?], then within itself, then internationalised with other bourgeoisies
- Becoming dominant, it now forms a political and legal system to support its hegemony

- The state becomes an apparatus for the oppression of the proletariat, with the police, army and judicial system upholding property laws
- Bourgeois ideology vindicates capitalism, justifies laissez-faire economics, exonerates self-interest as the basis of all actions
- Christianity is the ‘opium of the people’
- But Marx recognises the ‘revolutionary’ contribution of the bourgeoisie.

- Capitalism had a bad effect on people, including the bourgeoisie

‘The impoverishment of workers and the often atrocious conditions under which many of them laboured was the cardinal indictment of the system’ (Goodwin, p. 75)

- In some respects, people were worse off under capitalism than they had been feudalism
- Capitalism destroys Man’s creativity

Under capitalism:
‘The worker relates to the product of his labour as to an alien object…The worker puts his life into the object and this means it no longer belongs to him but to the object.’
Marx, Early Texts, p. 135

- As the object belongs to the employer, the workers’ life belongs to the employer as well
- So the worker is alienated from himself, his product, his fellow men and his ‘species-being’
- But capitalists also have ‘a less than ideal relation to the material world and [their] fellows’

‘the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles’
Marx & Engels, The Communist Manifesto, 1848

- Triumph of capitalism (bourgeoisie) over feudalism (aristocracy) most recently
- Marx thought society could progress materially but regress spiritually
- No inevitability of man’s advance to perfection and happiness

- Over time there would be a polarization of society with the petty bourgeoisie (small businessmen) and failed capitalists pushed into the proletariat
- Marx hoped the intelligentsia would support the proletariat
- The proletariat would now become the most revolutionary class

Marx thought violence may be necessary to allow revolutions, as the bourgeoisie fought to hold on to their control
But revolutions might also be effected through democracy in countries such as Britain
Following the revolution, a democracy would be established which would automatically make the workers the ruling class, so that:

‘the proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State, I.e. of the proletariat organized as the ruling class.’
Marx & Engels, The Communist Manifesto

Ten Point Plan

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture
9. Combination of agriculture and industry, promotion of the gradual elimination of the contradictions between town and countryside
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory work in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

- Marx calls for the abolition of private property (capital)
- But this a developmental process, not instant, through high taxation
- Might even be achieved by democracy, without violent revolution

‘When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared…the public power will lose its political character. Political power…is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another.’
Marx & Engels, The Communist Manifesto

- This supports Marx’s belief that the state would ‘wither away’
- This would occur gradually as the state became a dictatorship of the proletariat (aka dictatorship of the non-owners of production, not a totalitarian state.)

- Now there is a classless society
- The end of a division between mental and physical labour
- As ‘surplus labour’ is abolished, workers will have more time for leisure
- The oppressive political power of the state would now wither away
- Perhaps along the lines of the Paris Commune (1870)

How Ideal Would A Communist Society Be?

- Man, under communism, is a fully developed individual, enjoying many forms of activity
- Experiences the true freedom only available in a cooperative communist society
- Man becomes once again a creative worker in cooperation with his fellow workers
- Alienation disappears as the proper relationship between the worker and what he produces is restored, his labour is satisfying the needs of others
- A communist society would, through its nature, transform man, becoming altruistic and cooperative
- A general acceptance today that environment largely determines character (Goodwin, p. 83)
Tropical Sands
14-06-2006, 13:01
So, have any states ever existed that have been communist according to your criteria? Can you give an example?

Or is this version of Marxism/Communism as mythical and nonsensical as "utopianism?"
Akh-Horus
14-06-2006, 13:05
Closest was the Paris Commune.

It makes perfect sense and is realistic.

It is not mine, it is from the man himself, Karl Marx.
Myrmidonisia
14-06-2006, 13:06
Let's see how the United States stacks up against the ten point plan.
#1 -- headed there with the Kelo decision.
#2 -- done
#3 -- headed there with the enormous inheritance taxes.
#4 -- No
#5 -- No
#6 -- No
#7 -- No, but the heavy regulation certainly puts the State on the wrong side
#8 -- No
#9 -- Sort of, fewer and fewer farms are family owned.
#10 -- Bingo! We're there.

Looks like a solid 2/10, with tendancies that would lead to a 6/10.
Certainly the wrong direction for a free market economy to take.

Ten Point Plan

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture
9. Combination of agriculture and industry, promotion of the gradual elimination of the contradictions between town and countryside
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory work in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
Tropical Sands
14-06-2006, 13:11
Closest was the Paris Commune.

It makes perfect sense and is realistic.

It is not mine, it is from the man himself, Karl Marx.

It isn't realistic, because it has never happened in reality.

And the Paris Commune held power via force and executed dissidents, just like Stalin. Do you really want to live someplace like that?
Akh-Horus
14-06-2006, 13:11
Let's see how the United States stacks up against the ten point plan.
#1 -- headed there with the Kelo decision.
#2 -- done
#3 -- headed there with the enormous inheritance taxes.
#4 -- No
#5 -- No
#6 -- No
#7 -- No, but the heavy regulation certainly puts the State on the wrong side
#8 -- No
#9 -- Sort of, fewer and fewer farms are family owned.
#10 -- Bingo! We're there.

Looks like a solid 2/10, with tendancies that would lead to a 6/10.
Certainly the wrong direction for a free market economy to take.

What?

Bush destoryed inheritance taxes and USA has one of the lowest tax's in the world.
Deep Kimchi
14-06-2006, 13:12
What?

Bush destoryed inheritance taxes and USA has one of the lowest tax's in the world.

I guess you don't read the news - the inheritance taxes were not eliminated (it's recent news).
Akh-Horus
14-06-2006, 13:12
It isn't realistic, because it has never happened in reality.

And the Paris Commune held power via force and executed dissidents, just like Stalin. Do you really want to live someplace like that?

So it isn't realistic to have a personal home computer with a 5ghz processor because it hasn't happened yet?

I think you need some help with definitions.
Myrmidonisia
14-06-2006, 13:13
What?

Bush destoryed inheritance taxes and USA has one of the lowest tax's in the world.
Not true. There was a lot of talk about inheritance tax reduction or elimination, but it never happened. The low tax rates aren't permanent, either.
Akh-Horus
14-06-2006, 13:13
I guess you don't read the news - the inheritance taxes were not eliminated (it's recent news).

I am not American, but I remember in Bush's first term he got rid of it, it was nicknamed 'Paris Hilton Tax' or something like that when she complained that she couldn't have Daddies money.
Deep Kimchi
14-06-2006, 13:17
I am not American, but I remember in Bush's first term he got rid of it, it was nicknamed 'Paris Hilton Tax' or something like that when she complained that she couldn't have Daddies money.
Nope. It's alive and well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/10/AR2006061000155.html

You seem remarkably misinformed.

Sunday, June 11, 2006; Page F02

The Death Tax Lives

The Senate rejected legislation to repeal the estate tax, a long-sought goal of conservatives, as it fell three votes short of the 60 needed for a parliamentary procedure to bring it to a vote.
Bottle
14-06-2006, 13:18
Yes, yes, we've all heard the No True Scotsman falacy before. Can we move on, now?
Kanabia
14-06-2006, 13:20
Yes, yes, we've all heard the No True Scotsman falacy before. Can we move on, now?

Not until you come to the belief that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is in fact democratic. ;)
Tropical Sands
14-06-2006, 13:23
So it isn't realistic to have a personal home computer with a 5ghz processor because it hasn't happened yet?

I think you need some help with definitions.

I think you need som help with logic. This is called the fallacy of questionable analogy. A computer and a system of government aren't similar enough that a conclusion can be drawn about the latter from the former.

And yes, it isn't realistic. It has never occured in reality, nor have there ever been any social situations which even remotely demonstrate it as a realistic possibility. Contraty to a 5ghz processor, which from current technology we know is the natural progression.
Bottle
14-06-2006, 13:23
Not until you come to the belief that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is in fact democratic. ;)
In all honesty? I don't care.

If people want to debate the relative merits of a given theoretical system, fine. If people want to argue about the relative merits of how a given country or group has implimented a particular theory or set of theories, fine. But if people want to debate whether or not a certain country gets to use a certain word to describe their particular system...cripes, is there anything less interesting?

That's like debating about whether or not Mormons get to count as "Christians." It's like debating whether or not gay people get to use the word "marriage." WHO THE HELL CARES?