Our Profound Ignorance of the Crimes of Communism

[Regular_Atheist]

Oh, I don’t know…

youtube.com/watch?v=WrRGotEu_Zw

Haha, Stefan Molyneux. That guy is a total joke. There are actual historians who have argued things like this, like Richard Pipes, so it seems strange to me that the first source you go to is this dude. Still, I’ll try and respond to a few points, but I won’t go through point by point. I’m not even two minutes in and already there are terrible misunderstandings of what socialism is. I’ll do a list of claims from the video or something because I’m not quoting it word for word. The more I watch this the more of a mess it becomes. Molyneux has no understanding of any socialist political theory, I cannot stress this enough, and you are doing yourself a disservice by trying to learn about socialism through him. This isn’t a good analysis because it isn’t historical or looking at actual socialist ideas, it’s attacking a strawman.

Please, please, if you want to understand Marxism/communism, read Marx and read socialist theorists. Don’t watch terrible YouTubers. Start with “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific” by Friedrich Engels. After that move onto some of Marx’s economic pamphlets - “wage labour and capital”, or “value, price and profit.”

Socialism is where the government controls you and you are entirely dependent on the state.

This is a common misconception, and it’s totally wrong. Socialism/communism isn’t where the government controls everything you do. The point of communism is to essentially establish total economic freedom for everyone. It is a society where the individual can perform any act of labour they want whenever they want, without being coerced into doing anything. Under communism, I would contribute labour “according to my ability” and take goods “according to my need.” That is, I would only perform whatever labour I want whenever I want, and would take whatever goods I want whenever I want. I have total control over my labour, as nobody dictates to me when I should work or how I should work. I am not assigned to one job but can take any job I want at any time - “…in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.” Under communism, humans have total control over their labour, and so are truly free, whereas under capitalism I am forced to work for another to survive, performing a narrow set of skills with what labour I perform entirely dictated to me.

For Marx, what makes humans distinct from animals is our ability to engage in labour. Animals only produce things to fulfill a base material need, while we can consciously shape the world based on our desires. I can imagine the world to be different, and then change it through my labour. “A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality.” This process of labour is an inherent part of being human and is how humans interact with the world, but under capitalism we are separated from it and as such can not achieve self-actualization - we are alienated. Labour isn’t something that we do because we want to do it, it is something that we do to keep us alive, and as such we become no better than animals. We lose control over our labour as rather than it being something we do because we’re alive, it becomes the thing that keeps us alive. I only work for wages. The labour itself is unfulfilling as we have no control over how we perform it, but it is instead dictated to us. We also lose control over the product of our labour - what I produce in my job isn’t really mine, it’s appropriated from me by the capitalist. I can’t take pride in the object I’m producing and don’t really see it as my own, or see it as a reflection of myself.

Communism is truly libertarian. Having to work for someone else and having to rely on someone else for your survival, which is what capitalism is, is not free. Under communism, I would have total control over my life and not have to rely on someone else to survive. Communism is the liberation of man from man, a society where nobody has to rely on another to survive or be dictated by another, but all are free to live as they wish without it conflicting with the collective need.

Under communism, the state controls your toothbrush.

I can’t believe Molyneux said this. The abolition of private property refers to the abolition of the relationship between wage labour and capital. Essentially, the abolition of the relationship between those who work for a wage and those who own the means of production (capital) and can live off of the value created by those who work for a wage. A wage labourer may work 8 hours a day and produce $40 worth of exchange value, but will only be paid $20. The last 4 hours of his day, then, is unpaid labour, as the $20 difference is appropriated by the capitalist simply due to their ownership of capital. This is the relationship that communism seeks to destroy, and is what is meant by the “abolition of private property.” It doesn’t mean anything you personally own will be taken from you, like your toothbrush, computer, house, car, etc. To achieve the abolition of this social relation, wage labour and capital must be abolished, and to do this exchange value must be abolished. This means money would cease to exist.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Oh, I don’t know…

youtube.com/watch?v=WrRGotEu_Zw

The state having a monopoly on education, industry, etc. is bad.

Yes, this is true. That’s why the point of socialism isn’t to establish a government monopoly on the economy, and doing this isn’t in itself socialism. No socialist/communist has ever called for the government to own everything as some kind of monolithic authoritarian entity. The point is to establish workers’ control of the economy, through democratic organs. In the early days of the October Revolution direct workers’ control of the economy was established through people’s courts, factory committees, soldiers’ committees and the soviets. Once the state has been seized by the workers, participation in economic and political activity by everyone in society through these democratic organs leads to the state losing its role as some kind of bureaucratic entity above the rest of society. The state is no longer something that exists for the oppression of the majority by a minority as it is in the class society of capitalism, but becomes something that is utilized for the majority in society. The state withers away, and takes on a mostly administrative role, while in abolishing capitalist economic relations class society is abolished, and the workers abolish themselves. What is left is a stateless, classless society where the means of production are owned in common by everyone.

The government of the USA as it exists now nationalizing the entire economy would not be socialism.

Here is a good quote from Engels:

"But of late, since Bismarck went in for State-ownership of industrial establishments, a kind of spurious Socialism has arisen, degenerating, now and again, into something of flunkyism, that without more ado declares all State-ownership, even of the Bismarkian sort, to be socialistic. Certainly, if the taking over by the State of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon and Metternich must be numbered among the founders of Socialism.

If the Belgian State, for quite ordinary political and financial reasons, itself constructed its chief railway lines; if Bismarck, not under any economic compulsion, took over for the State the chief Prussian lines, simply to be the better able to have them in hand in case of war, to bring up the railway employees as voting cattle for the Government, and especially to create for himself a new source of income independent of parliamentary votes — this was, in no sense, a socialistic measure, directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously. Otherwise, the Royal Maritime Company, the Royal porcelain manufacture, and even the regimental tailor of the army would also be socialistic institutions, or even, as was seriously proposed by a sly dog in Frederick William III’s reign, the taking over by the State of the brothels."

 

[PseuTonym]

The NKVD gave the politburo and Stalin false information, and this false information fueled a perception of non-existent conspiracies and brutal political repression.

Was the NKVD being controlled by capitalists? Or were fellow travelers of Trotsky still working in the NKVD after Trotsky was exiled?

I haven’t studied the “doctors’ plot” in detail, but I get the impression that it fizzled out after Stalin died. Perhaps that was just a coincidence. After all, everybody dies sometime. If nothing is known about the internal functioning of government bureaucracies in the USSR, then nothing is known about what motivated the timing of the actions of those bureaucracies.

Alternatively, perhaps it wasn’t a coincidence. Perhaps the “doctors’ plot” was designed from the beginning specifically to discredit Stalin. Perhaps the plan – based on knowledge of life expectancies and Stalin’s own medical state – was to abruptly bring the “doctors’ plot” episode to an end after Stalin’s death.

 

[Latias]

Communism isn’t so bad. It seems so glorious and desirable. I wouldn’t mind living in the Soviet Union with parades of tanks and road-mounted intercontinental ballistic missiles.

See this.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Communism isn’t so bad. It seems so glorious and desirable. I wouldn’t mind living in the Soviet Union with parades of tanks and road-mounted intercontinental ballistic missiles.

See this.

I hope you are being facetious.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Haha, Stefan Molyneux. That guy is a total joke. There are actual historians who have argued things like this, like Richard Pipes, so it seems strange to me that the first source you go to is this dude. Still, I’ll try and respond to a few points, but I won’t go through point by point. I’m not even two minutes in and already there are terrible misunderstandings of what socialism is.

There is a difference between what socialism pretends or purports to be in a theoretical or ideal sense and what it actually can bring about given the fallen state of human nature. Of course, you are an atheist so fallen human nature is not something you can grasp without doing irreparable harm to your cherished world view.

You provide wonderful, albeit “theoretical” and dreamy depictions of socialism and communism, but can you point to one socialist or communist state in the real world that didn’t involve the deaths of hundreds of thousands or tens of millions to realize its "goals?"

And then there is Venezuela, a real utopia of socialist living.

Yeah, I think Stefan Molyneux pretty much nails it.

What you need to do is research the first year or two on the settlements at Plymouth Rock and Jamestown, both of which started out as socialist dream communities, until the majority of the people in both died of starvation. When they “converted” from socialism to free enterprise by giving each of the remaining settlers their own property both settlements flourished thereafter and never looked back.

My bet is that you are young and took a few liberal courses at university sometime in the past 10-15 years. You have no idea.

Anyone who dismisses other considered and thoughtful human beings as “total jokes,” reveals their lack of commitment to productive discussion.

Clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson provides a few more interesting observations about socialism, here:

youtu.be/04wyGK6k6HE

About three hours long, but very enlightening. Peterson has studied a wide range of ideologies over the course of four decades from the perspective of what these do to the psyches of human beings and why they are so dangerous and always fail. He agrees with Molyneux.

 

[Latias]

There is a difference between what socialism pretends or purports to be in a theoretical or ideal sense and what it actually can bring about given the fallen state of human nature. Of course, you are an atheist so fallen human nature is not something you can grasp without doing irreparable harm to your cherished world view.

You provide wonderful, albeit “theoretical” and dreamy depictions of socialism and communism, but can you point to one socialist or communist state in the real world that didn’t involve the deaths of hundreds of thousands or tens of millions to realize its "goals?"

Many people have been oppressed by colonialism. For instance, millions have died in famines in the British Empire in India and in Ireland. Also, the indigenous people of the US had been displaced and sometimes outright killed in order to full the “Manifest Destiny”. For instance, it is argued that the biggest losers in the US War of 1812 were the indigenous population since they lost their support from the British.

Cuba and East Germany are examples of socialist countries that had been established without gratuitous killing.

Now, let me ask you a question about military dictators. Did General Jaruzelski engage in mass murder or torture? Did Pinochet engage in mass murder or torture? Who was more benign in this case?

What does the early settlements in North America have to do with socialism or capitalism? They simply died because there wasn’t any established infrastructure for them, they did not know how to survive in inhospitable territory, and they lacked supplies.

 

[Peter_Plato]

What does the early settlements in North America have to do with socialism or capitalism? They simply died because there wasn’t any established infrastructure for them, they did not know how to survive in inhospitable territory, and they lacked supplies.

No, they were established under “socialist” ideals of sharing things in common, and failed miserably until free enterprise was instituted. The rules changed which made the difference.

 

[PseuTonym]

Many people have been oppressed by colonialism. For instance, millions have died in famines in …] Ireland.

There’s a difference between causing a famine, and failing to feed those who are suffering from a famine. Empires have existed since ancient times, as have famines. What is the connection between them?

An Empire that not merely promised to feed people, but actually provided food regardless of circumstances might have naturally expanded to include all people who don’t want to starve. However, the motivation for conquest in history rarely seems to be “here are people who need food, and this is an opportunity to also govern them.” For example, Stalin didn’t wait for a famine to arise in Poland before taking the portion of Poland assigned to the USSR under the Aggression Pact Against Poland. Of course, that pact had the official label of a “Non-Aggression Pact” between the aggressor Bolshevik government represented by diplomat Molotov and aggressor Nazi government represented by diplomat Ribbentrop.

There are many species of potato. That only a very narrow amount of that genetic diversity was present in the potato plants grown in Ireland could be thought of as a small, dominant race of colonialist potato plants colonizing Ireland. However, potato plants aren’t people.

What was the connection between policy of the British Empire and the vulnerability of those potato plants to naturally occurring pathogens – a vulnerability arising from the lack of genetic diversity of that group of potato plants?

 

[PseuTonym]

Many people have been oppressed by colonialism. For instance, millions have died in famines in …] Ireland.

When troops loyal to Emperor Hirohito expanded into Nanking, did nobody starve to death? We read about massacres and rapes, not about people starving to death in Nanking. However, it doesn’t seem plausible that the troops loyal to Emperor Hirohito felt that they had a moral obligation to ensure that people in Nanking didn’t starve to death. Furthermore, the troops had no source of food unless it was exported from Japan or stolen locally from civilians in China.

Provided that the people who are killed aren’t farmers, one effect of massacres is to ensure that there’s enough food for everybody. In particular, it would seem that if the troops are to be as well-fed as the locals, then one non-farmer would be killed for every troop.

Frederick Douglass says in his autobiography that he had plenty to eat as a slave. He offered some extra food that he had to non-slave children in return for help to acquire literacy. However, Frederick Douglass certainly didn’t think that slavery in return for plenty to eat is a good trade.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

There is a difference between what socialism pretends or purports to be in a theoretical or ideal sense and what it actually can bring about given the fallen state of human nature. Of course, you are an atheist so fallen human nature is not something you can grasp without doing irreparable harm to your cherished world view.

Generally I call myself an agnostic so I can avoid actually having a strong stance on the existence of God that I might need to justify.

You provide wonderful, albeit “theoretical” and dreamy depictions of socialism and communism, but can you point to one socialist or communist state in the real world that didn’t involve the deaths of hundreds of thousands or tens of millions to realize its "goals?"

I can’t point to a single healthy socialist state, or anything that I think would be fair to class as socialism. A communist state is a contradiction, and communism undoubtedly has never existed. The fact is that, as I’ll explain further down, socialism comes from the contradictions inherent in capitalism, from working-class revolution, it isn’t something that socialists impose on the world. To see whether socialism is feasible we don’t need to look at “socialist” countries, we need to analyse capitalism, a system which is anarchic, unstable and goes through a continuous cycle of boom and bust periods.

No, they were established under “socialist” ideals of sharing things in common, and failed miserably until free enterprise was instituted. The rules changed which made the difference.

You know Jamestown was founded by a joint-stock company, right? Hardly some prime example of socialism.

At any rate, what occurred at Jamestown really isn’t any kind of problem for Marxian socialism. Marx was very critical of the utopian socialists that tried to make little communes in the middle of nowhere. Robert Owen attempted a similar thing, for example. Marx recognized that socialism had to come from working class revolution originating from the antagonisms inherent within capitalism and had to be an international force. The highly developed means of production that capitalism had wrought would be placed into the ownership of society as a whole, and Marx believed that the communist mode of production could only exist within a highly developed economy. The utopians simply wanted to set up weird little communes and hoped they could just convince the rest of the world that socialism was good.

The fact is that most criticisms of Marxian socialism ignore the fact that, for Marx, it wasn’t a case of convincing people that socialism was good. He felt that the working class would ultimately revolt anyway simply as a result of the contradictions inherent within capitalism. Socialism wouldn’t be established because people would be convinced of the strength of socialism, but would come from the working class revolting against the material conditions they find themselves in. The February revolution of 1917 was a totally autonomous working class revolution, and democratic organs of power were established by the working class itself. It would be the failures of capitalism that would cause people to establish socialism, as they revolt against the material situation they find themselves in. This is what occurred in 1917.

And then there is Venezuela, a real utopia of socialist living.

Venezuela most certainly isn’t socialist. It still has capitalist property relations and never broke with capitalism - there is still a large private sector in the country. Chavez did absurd things like try and impose price controls without seizing industry and businesses.

My bet is that you are young and took a few liberal courses at university sometime in the past 10-15 years. You have no idea.

Probably a bit better than an education mostly consisting of Stefan Molyneux and PragerU YouTube videos.

Anyone who dismisses other considered and thoughtful human beings as “total jokes,” reveals their lack of commitment to productive discussion.

I didn’t dismiss any considered and thoughtful human beings. I dismissed Stefan Molyneux.

Clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson provides a few more interesting observations about socialism, here:

I’ll give this a watch soon, I find this guy funny. All of these people you’ve linked me to are people that I am already familiar with and already have strong prejudices towards. I don’t think any of them are particularly intelligent people that have anything valuable to say. I’m surprised Jordan Peterson wasn’t fired long before this whole fiasco with pronouns. He doesn’t seem to have much of an understanding of things beyond any reactionary YouTuber.

Are you claiming that Stalin created the secret police, or are you saying that secret police, no right to a trial before punishment, etc. are things that people should expect as part of the plan if they support Marxist ideals?

I’m not claiming any of those things. I’m claiming that the slow move away from the democratic organs established in 1917 towards an increasingly bureaucratic one-line one-party state by about 1923 hindered the development of socialism in the USSR, as did the isolated position of the country and the backwards economy.

 

[Peter_Plato]

**To see whether socialism is feasible we don’t need to look at “socialist” countries, **we need to analyse capitalism, a system which is anarchic, unstable and goes through a continuous cycle of boom and bust periods.

So, you don’t trust or (perhaps) understand how capitalism works and despite the fact that socialism has been tried and failed numerous times over the past hundred years or so, yet socialism is still feasible and we’d know that for certain by somehow “analyzing” capitalism and determining that it isn’t very predictable?

And you dismiss Molyneux for not thinking clearly?

I see. :jrbirdman:

 

[Regular_Atheist]

So, you don’t trust or (perhaps) understand how capitalism works

I understand how capitalism works perfectly. Marx offers a very profound and attractive economic analysis of capitalism, and I recommend you read it. Briefly and imperfectly explained, the most important factor is the tendency of capitalism to enter crises of overproduction. That is, periods where the purchasing power of the market falls below the supply of goods in the market. This causes the value of commodities to fall, leading to loss of profits, which in turn leads to job loss, which in turn causes the purchasing power of the market to fall even further. These periods are inherent to the workings of capitalism and can’t be resolved while capitalism exists - capitalism is a constant cycle of crises of overproduction and periods of recovery, followed by more crises. Eventually the working-class will revolt against this system, not as a conscious effort to install socialism but simply as a revolt against the material conditions they find themselves in, as their life becomes noticeably worse during these crises. In this sense socialism isn’t something for Marxists to “try” or to impose on the world themselves. It comes from the working-class movement as a result of the inherent contradictions within capitalism. Capitalism produces socialism as a result of its inner-workings. These contradictions must resolve themselves somehow, and this will either be through the establishment of socialism or the destruction of human society as we know it, and the regression to an earlier mode of production. “Socialism or barbarism”, as Rosa Luxemburg put it.

Of course, his analysis is much more complex than this and you should honestly read Marx, but I can’t write more than that without writing an essay and losing your interest. The crisis of overproduction is a significant element, at least.

and despite the fact that socialism has been tried and failed numerous times over the past hundred years or so, yet socialism is still feasible and we’d know that for certain by somehow “analyzing” capitalism and determining that it isn’t very predictable?

I’ve already explained how socialism isn’t something to be “tried”, but understand that all of Marx’s analysis is a critique of capitalism rather than simply a defence of socialism. Of course implicit in that is the implication that socialism is a better system, but he was arguing that it was the failures of capitalism that bring about socialism. As Marx’s critique is of capitalism, the failures of any nominally “socialist” state do not detract from his analysis. It does not make him wrong. As far as I can tell, capitalism has not managed to resolve those contradictions inherent within it, and so socialism is still something that will be brought about through them.

Besides, no state that has existed has managed to produce socialism. If socialism is to exist it will be an international phenomenon, and can’t be produced in an isolated country with a backwards economy. What we saw in the USSR by the 1920s was the working-class robbed of its revolution. The USSR was a defeat of socialism, not a fulfillment of it. The bureaucracy of the country did more to impede the development of socialism than anyone else.

And you dismiss Molyneux for not thinking clearly?

I dismiss him because of the things he says. Like most propertarians, it’s obvious he has no understanding of socialism or Marxism beyond a strawman he likes to attack.

 

[Bill_Martin]

It’s simple. They like Communism. They’ll call it by more euphemistic names of course because they don’t want to admit it, but the idea is attractive. Thus, they must ignore the mountain of evidence that it is both a proven colossal failure and the piles of bodies that rack up in every society that tries it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Of course, his analysis is much more complex than this and you should honestly read Marx, but I can’t write more than that without writing an essay and losing your interest. The crisis of overproduction is a significant element, at least.

I read Marx over forty years ago. Engels as well. Oh, and Hegel. I didn’t find him convincing then and I don’t today.

I’ve already explained how socialism isn’t something to be “tried”, but understand that all of Marx’s analysis is a critique of capitalism rather than simply a defence of socialism. Of course implicit in that is the implication that socialism is a better system, but he was arguing that it was the failures of capitalism that bring about socialism. As Marx’s critique is of capitalism, the failures of any nominally “socialist” state do not detract from his analysis. It does not make him wrong. As far as I can tell, capitalism has not managed to resolve those contradictions inherent within it, and so socialism is still something that will be brought about through them.

The evils that bring down capitalism still exist in a communist state, but instead of being dispersed across the population they are centralized within the government. This is why socialism and communism will always fail and always result in many casualties.

Besides, no state that has existed has managed to produce socialism. If socialism is to exist it will be an international phenomenon, and can’t be produced in an isolated country with a backwards economy. What we saw in the USSR by the 1920s was the working-class robbed of its revolution. The USSR was a defeat of socialism, not a fulfillment of it. The bureaucracy of the country did more to impede the development of socialism than anyone else.

If socialism were to exist as a global phenomenon it won’t exist for very long as a global phenomenon, and most of us will be dead as a result.

No, what we saw in the USSR were the natural consequences of treating human beings “equally” and through a materialist lens as if economic reality is all that matters.

Your “dream” for socialism being global would be my definition of humanity’s worst nightmare. Power centralized in the hands of very few and everyone else treated like property with no rights except an absolute responsibility to the state.

It is very interesting that leftist globalism is being pushed by many, even most, of the wealthy elites in the modern world. Ever wonder why? You don’t honestly think it is because these crony capitalists are benevolent, do you? No it’s because they are applying to government the same economic model they use to build companies that eat up their competition and become global players with a lion’s share of the market place. Socialism would be WalMart writ large, except that we would all be employees, the media would be the greeters and the shelves would be mostly empty.

I dismiss him because of the things he says. Like most propertarians, it’s obvious he has no understanding of socialism or Marxism beyond a strawman he likes to attack.

Oh, he understands socialism and Marxism all right. The difference is that he is honest in his assessment. Along with the fact that he has a better grasp of human nature than most have.

Property ownership, like power and ideological influence is better distributed among the many than centralized in the hands of a few, precisely because human beings are so easily corruptible.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

I’ve had to split my posts in two because of length. Please take the time to read them, though.

I read Marx over forty years ago. Engels as well. Oh, and Hegel. I didn’t find him convincing then and I don’t today.

I don’t believe you have, based on your answers. You don’t understand what socialism or communism was to Marx.

The evils that bring down capitalism still exist in a communist state, but instead of being dispersed across the population they are centralized within the government. This is why socialism and communism will always fail and always result in many casualties.

No, they don’t. The contradictions that Marx talks about are economic in nature, and you would know this if you had read Marx. The point of communism is to abolish exchange value, the relative value between commodities in a market economy, wage labour, and capital, capital being sets of commodities that interact with wage labour to produce new exchange values. A dormant factory is a commodity, and like all commodities will have a certain exchange value, and may be equal in value to a house. An active factory, one in which workers are interacting with it to produce new commodities, becomes capital, as it not only maintains its value through interaction with wage labour but produces new exchange values on top of that. The contradictions under capitalism that Marx describes boil down to contradictions between wage labour and capital. The way to solve this contradiction would be to establish an economy in which exchange value does not exist.

If you had read Marx you would also know that the state would not exist under communism proper.

If socialism were to exist as a global phenomenon it won’t exist for very long as a global phenomenon, and most of us will be dead as a result.

Could you elaborate?

No, what we saw in the USSR were the natural consequences of treating human beings “equally” and through a materialist lens as if economic reality is all that matters.

Could you elaborate? How did the USSR treat people equally? A bureaucracy developed that lived much better than most of the population, the peasants and workers were treated badly, and there was all kinds of ethnic cleansing going on. There really isn’t much going there in the way of equality.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by “through a materialist lens as if economic reality is all that matters?” I am aware that you’re trying to criticize dialectical/historical materialism, but what is it about the USSR that you specifically feel embodies the failure of this perspective?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Your “dream” for socialism being global would be my definition of humanity’s worst nightmare. Power centralized in the hands of very few and everyone else treated like property with no rights except an absolute responsibility to the state.

You need to drop this idea that socialism is where the state controls everything. That’s not what I’m arguing for. I won’t be able to continue the discussion if you keep attacking this strawman position that I have clearly said I do not support, nor does any Marxist. Please respond to or acknowledge in some way the paragraphs I’ve written below.

Under socialism, power would be held by everyone, not the few. It is under capitalism where a minority own property, while the majority do not and have to work for those who own property. Under socialism the “workers” (insofar as they could be called workers, as class society would soon be abolished. It would make more sense to say nobody would be a worker) would own the workplace themselves, controlling it democratically perhaps through some system of workers councils or factory committees. Rather than having a bureaucratic private enterprise in which orders are dictated to the workers, decisions could be made democratically by the workers themselves. Under capitalism, the economy is controlled by a minority, the capitalists, despite being such an important part of life. How is this democratic? If political life should be democratic, why not economic life? Similarly political life should be democratized as much as possible. All positions should exist as elected positions, both in the economy and politics, and should be subject to immediate recall at anytime.

More importantly, nobody would be able to live off of the labour of others. Under capitalism, the property owner doesn’t actually engage in any labour or produce any value, they can just live off of the labour of the workers. Let’s say I work a six hour shift in a factory and I’m paid $40 a day, but I produce $80 worth of goods. There is a $40 difference between what I am paid and what I produce, despite me being the one to produce all of that value. That $40 difference is appropriated by the capitalist despite not playing a part in the production of that value simply by virtue of “owning” capital - that is, it is taken from me, the producer. This means that, under capitalism, the worker is exploited by the capitalist - they are not paid the full value of what they produce. Socialism/communism would end this exploitation by abolishing exchange value.

Finally, property rights in themselves are oppressive and rely on the threat of violence to enforce. If I own a factory, what ensures that I maintain my ownership over it? What is it that makes people acknowledge it as my own? What is to prevent the workers occupying it and deciding that, since they are the ones engaging in the labour that makes the factory profitable, they should have it? Violence, or the threat of it. People recognize my property rights because, if they refuse to, the police or the army will be called in to rough them up. Violence from the state is what legitimizes my property rights, and so in order to maintain their property the capitalists need to maintain a monopoly on violence. This wouldn’t be the case under socialism, where all property is held in common by all. If I come in and declare my ownership over the factory, the workers would just laugh at me. Private property is inherently violent and involves the subjugation of those without property to enforce ownership of it.

It is very interesting that leftist globalism is being pushed by many, even most, of the wealthy elites in the modern world. Ever wonder why? You don’t honestly think it is because these crony capitalists are benevolent, do you? No it’s because they are applying to government the same economic model they use to build companies that eat up their competition and become global players with a lion’s share of the market place.

Yeah, and this isn’t what socialism is. These people you describe aren’t calling for direct democracy in the workplace, the abolition of private property, the abolition of wage labour, the abolition of capital, the abolition of exchange value, the withering away of the state, or anything that is communist. They’re calling for a global market economy in which large companies can dominate the globe, unhindered in their ability to make money and exploit the world for its natural resources. In fact, what they are calling for is capitalism taken to its natural end. If you allow capital to accumulate in fewer and fewer hands, then eventually you will end up with a corporatist economy where capital is owner by fewer and fewer people with incredible influence over the state. Those people you describe would be the ones fueling the reaction against communism should ever a significant working-class revolt occur.

Property ownership, like power and ideological influence is better distributed among the many than centralized in the hands of a few, precisely because human beings are so easily corruptible.

Property is better distributed among the many, I agree. That’s what communism is! You agree with me! Communism is where property is held in common by all, where everybody owns all property. It is capitalism that centralizes property in the hands of a few through private ownership, where only some own property while the majority are wage labourers and have to work for those who own property.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You need to drop this idea that socialism is where the state controls everything. That’s not what I’m arguing for. I won’t be able to continue the discussion if you keep attacking this strawman position that I have clearly said I do not support, nor does any Marxist. Please respond to or acknowledge in some way the paragraphs I’ve written below.

Under socialism, power would be held by everyone, not the few. It is under capitalism where a minority own property, while the majority do not and have to work for those who own property. Under socialism the “workers” (insofar as they could be called workers, as class society would soon be abolished. It would make more sense to say nobody would be a worker) would own the workplace themselves, controlling it democratically perhaps through some system of workers councils or factory committees. Rather than having a bureaucratic private enterprise in which orders are dictated to the workers, decisions could be made democratically by the workers themselves. Under capitalism, the economy is controlled by a minority, the capitalists, despite being such an important part of life. How is this democratic? If political life should be democratic, why not economic life? Similarly political life should be democratized as much as possible. All positions should exist as elected positions, both in the economy and politics, and should be subject to immediate recall at anytime.

More importantly, nobody would be able to live off of the labour of others. Under capitalism, the property owner doesn’t actually engage in any labour or produce any value, they can just live off of the labour of the workers. Let’s say I work a six hour shift in a factory and I’m paid $40 a day, but I produce $80 worth of goods. There is a $40 difference between what I am paid and what I produce, despite me being the one to produce all of that value. That $40 difference is appropriated by the capitalist despite not playing a part in the production of that value simply by virtue of “owning” capital - that is, it is taken from me, the producer. This means that, under capitalism, the worker is exploited by the capitalist - they are not paid the full value of what they produce. Socialism/communism would end this exploitation by abolishing exchange value.

Finally, property rights in themselves are oppressive and rely on the threat of violence to enforce. If I own a factory, what ensures that I maintain my ownership over it? What is it that makes people acknowledge it as my own? What is to prevent the workers occupying it and deciding that, since they are the ones engaging in the labour that makes the factory profitable, they should have it? Violence, or the threat of it. People recognize my property rights because, if they refuse to, the police or the army will be called in to rough them up. Violence from the state is what legitimizes my property rights, and so in order to maintain their property the capitalists need to maintain a monopoly on violence. This wouldn’t be the case under socialism, where all property is held in common by all. If I come in and declare my ownership over the factory, the workers would just laugh at me. Private property is inherently violent and involves the subjugation of those without property to enforce ownership of it.

Yeah, and this isn’t what socialism is. These people you describe aren’t calling for direct democracy in the workplace, the abolition of private property, the abolition of wage labour, the abolition of capital, the abolition of exchange value, the withering away of the state, or anything that is communist. They’re calling for a global market economy in which large companies can dominate the globe, unhindered in their ability to make money and exploit the world for its natural resources. In fact, what they are calling for is capitalism taken to its natural end. If you allow capital to accumulate in fewer and fewer hands, then eventually you will end up with a corporatist economy where capital is owner by fewer and fewer people with incredible influence over the state. Those people you describe would be the ones fueling the reaction against communism should ever a significant working-class revolt occur.

Property is better distributed among the many, I agree. That’s what communism is! You agree with me! Communism is where property is held in common by all, where everybody owns all property. It is capitalism that centralizes property in the hands of a few through private ownership, where only some own property while the majority are wage labourers and have to work for those who own property.

Well, no, if you are going to promote socialism as a form of governance, then you are going to have to allow that the State – even if you want to define ‘state’ as the embodied will of the people themselves – is going to control everything. If you are going to argue that the distribution of property is mandated in some sense in order to be realized, then who or what is going to do that, if not the state?

What you are arguing for, it seems, is a kind of libertarianism where the people agree among themselves to share resources. Okay, then that will depend upon people freely agreeing to do so OR it will be somehow mandated by the ruling authority.

In the first instance you don’t have socialism, you have libertarianism fully and freely implemented and government is irrelevant. In the second instance, what if some or most do not wish to relinquish the results of their hard work? Who will force them to? If no one, then you still have libertarianism. If the government, then you have an autocracy of some kind.

What you seem to be arguing for is not government in any traditional sense of an authority that imposes rule or law, but a self-determining body of enterprising individuals who choose to work and share together. Again, that is libertarianism of some flavour, not socialism as a form of governance.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t believe you have, based on your answers. You don’t understand what socialism or communism was to Marx.

What you “believe” about what I have or have not read is as grounded in the real world as your beliefs about communism and socialism.

And of course, you know precisely what socialism or communism meant “to Marx.”

As to whether “what socialism or communism was to Marx” is at all a possibility in the real world has not been established by you.

Oh sure, it continues to live and flourish in your dreams, but reality has a way of crashing through the illusion of the dream worlds we construct while we sleep intellectually.

 

[RCinMT]

If the pro-communist posters would be so kind as to answer a few questions, I’d appreciate it:

1. As to why the Russian soldiers fought in WWII:
   a. Do you think the government was broadcasting mass deportations and murders?
   b. Those who didn’t fight were often shot on the battlefield: if one held a gun to your head (after murdering people standing around you) and told you to charge or be shot, wouldn’t your take your chances that charging the enemy would at least provide some chance of survival?
   c. Given the Nazi framing of the war, namely their intent to have a final battle with the Slavs which would result in the annihilation of one race or the other, would you not fight? Is that not a fairly compelling reason to take up arms?
2. As to the goodness of communism in Cuba and elsewhere:
   a. Why are people willing to die in life rafts to reach America or other foreign shores?
   b. Why did the Germans tear down the Berlin Wall?
   c. Why did the Russian people participate in the tearing down of communism?
   d. Why did the Chinese students protest in Tienanmen Square?
   e. Why don’t capitalistic countries turn their armies on protesting citizens?
   f. Why do communist countries need to repress religion?