Ask a communist
 

Well, I thought I'd join in the trend.

I am probably the furthest left person on this site. I genuinely believe that if I live my three score and twelve I will die in a communist world state... so go ahead and ask ay questions you like. If you want to get into the labour theory of value of Hegelian philosophy... well its been a while since I was at uni. But I can guarantee I will answer all questions as a human being.

What's your take on the role of women in marxist communism?

That it is not fundamentally different from the role of men.

Of course there are biological differences between men and woman, but both are workers and both must be empowered by communism.

The differences today in the conditions and treatment of the genders are a function of a "divide and conquer" mentality which the master class inflicts on the working class - in the same was as ethnicity is.

A communist society is to me very simply a democratically planned one, where each member gives what they can, and takes what they need. For each person there are differences in both regards, but I dont see that there are intrinisic differences between men and women other than in very heavy work and certain health and care jobs.

---------- Post added at 07:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:05 PM ----------

1 - My view is that there are no existing communist states in modern history: that Russia and the Russian empire was not properly a communist state, but in fact a kind of state feudalism

2 - They cannot be reconciled in my opinion. Capitalism is a flawed and self destructive system of economy and the management of resources. Even in the greatest superpower of the some people do not have housing, do not have access to health care, do not even have enough to eat. By human standards we have no possibility but to judge a system that produces this affect in even the most powerful and wealthy state as utterly failed.

Capitalism cannot prevent exploitation, cannot prevent misery, cannot help it us but to rashly pollute our world, cannot distribute resources is a way that is acceptable by human standards. As the crashes and the failures of capitalism become worse and worse, a communistic method of managing the economy becomes a reality simply because it is the only possibility.

3 & 4 - The distinction between socialism and communism which Lenin made is to me a false one. A kind of state managed capitalism can only be a very very temporary measure - it is not to my mind an alternative to communism, or a real stepping stone to communism - it is just a mutation of capitalism. In all countries the state makes some intervention in the market - to regulate behaviour, to enforce laws other than the law of accumulation... a country like Cuba is merely a more democratic form of capitalism, but still a flawed society.

How do you explain the huge body counts in communist nations. Places like CHina probally has the most at 100 million from forced starvations, then Stalinist Russia, Cambodia, Vietnam, and look at how many fled Fidel's Cuba. Why the need for such horrid purges in the worker's paradises?

Was the Federation in Star Trek a communist state?

(actually, should say, Will it be)

[/COLOR]Again, I do not consider that there has been any existing communist states in modern history. I do not consider China, Russia, Cambodia, Vietnam, or Cuba to have been communist states.

Having said that, most of the people who fled Cuba were crooks ad gangsters of course

---------- Post added at 07:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:16 PM ----------


I dont know enough about Star Trek to say for sure - but I think for human society to exist and flourish to this point without destroying itself - then necessarily it would be a communist state.

There is of course one alternative to communism, which is the collapse of civilisation and a world conflict which destroys the structure of society comletely.

The same can be said about capitalism. All states are more or less mixed economies. Some more capitalist, others more communist (well, socialist, really). It is my idea that communism seeks to have government control all means of production, while socialism seeks to control major aspects of production, while relinquishing much of the minor means to the public. Capitalism seeks a completely free market where individuals have power over production and property. The thing to remember is that these are economic systems, not government or moral systems per se. This is why mixed economies come about: the picture is muddied by the public's demand for government to protect the people.

That said, are you willing to accept that a mixed economy is the only feasible mode for a nation's economy to be run? If a purely communist economy is only a very temporary measure, does this not mean socialism (or a socialist-heavy mixed economy) is the way to go?

Both economic systems are flawed. This is why they must be reconciled. Again, with the mixed economies: Is there a mixed economy that exists today that you view as the best model so far to fulfill what you see as an ideal means for organizing a nation's economy?

I dont believe that it is practical to say that a state of affairs which has never existing is flawed and unworkable.

The states which exist today are not mixed economies, they are capitalist economies with more or less interferance by the state and to a lesser degree the workers. As long as the accumulation of capital is the fundamental law of the distribution of products, then the state is capitalist - whether the state is the master class, or private people.

A communist society is a society where the production of goods is based on a co-operation of empowered workers, where each worker contributes their skills to the overall productivity of society in an unalinated way: and where the distibution of goods is based on a democratic basis of socially defined need.

All existing societiesto some degree reward individuals on the basis of their skill, their effort, their birthright, or their might. In this way they are no part communist socities. They are not mixed, or partially communist, they are in my opinion capitalist.

But even America is far from being purely capitalist. One merely has to look as far back as the 19th century of Robber Barons and Tycoons to see the difference. Even back then, it wasn't purely capitalist. Want to know why? There were severe tariffs preventing international competition in the U.S. That's right, the American government was protecting these few but very rich companies of the 19th century. That is not pure capitalism. That is a highly capitalistic economy governed by a socialist measure: government protectionism. It was all going so well until the public pressured the government to step in to fight exploitation of workers and unfair competition practices. The rest is history.

Even in America—the most capitalistic nation in the world—deals in worker unions, labour laws, economic protectionism, socialized benefits, regulation, etc, etc. America, even in its capitalistic glory, is a mixed economy. This is a technical fact.

That said, we deal with mixed economies because what you call "interferences" are much more deeply ingrained and complex than that. It is strict and far-reaching government control of aspects of production and ownership. These economies have socialist aspects to them. That's what they are in essence. It is this combination that makes them technically mixed economies. For them to be technically capitalist, they'd need to have no government intervention whatsoever (e.g. goodbye unions, labour laws, minimum wages, safety regulations, maximum work hours, statutory holidays, etc.). As we know, government intervention is well established pretty much everywhere.

Another question: If there has been no working model for communism, how do you know it's not flawed? Hasn't it been attempted? Does that not mean it's flawed?

Based on an understanding and experience of humanity that guides us to believe that a life based on co-operation is better than one based on competition.

---------- Post added at 08:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:44 PM ----------

On the first point, simply it is my understanding that while there are substantional differences in the experience of the people - robber baron capitalism and social capitalism are both flawed and exploitative systems. I do not consider the state of post collapse Russia - ruled by Mafiya and Plutocrats to be fundamentally different to the social capitaistic state of Sweden... the basic conditions of economic inefficiency, inequality and exploitation exist all the same.

You dodged. You claim to speak for a philosophy but your pat responce is, " i can't give you an answer as it never really existed."

I guess you can also speak for all dragons and unicorns too, since they never existed either?

Not at all. I can speak about what a communist state will be like in general terms.

What I do say is that a criticism of Stalin or Pol Pot is NOT a criticism of communism - anymore than one can attack vegetarians by the example of the actions of Hitler

How old were you when you first read Das Capital (or indeed, have you read it).

I note that you use communist with a lower case "c", so wonder if you don't use the "C" version due to not agreeing with any particular "doctrinal style" of communism.

Who, philosophically, gives your style of communism guidance?

You have stated a number of countries that you class as NOT communist, what people, communities, organisations or whatever would you say WERE communists.

I read Das Kapital when I was 18 or 19 (although there were parts of volume 2 I skipped), and also the main part of my masters degree was Marxist theory, so we were all the covering different parts of what Marx wrote through the year. I personally dont regard as some kind of biblical prophet (which is the explanation Tony Benn gave), as a person he was deeply flawed (mildly racist, a bully, staggering insensitive, responsible for filling some of his theories with baffling algebra, incapable of holding down a job as a clerk, and a guy who spent most his life smoking a revolting brand of cigars that were so cheap he claimed that smoking them actually made him richer)... but I think in amongst his obsession with Hegel he did crack onto a true understanding of how the system of economy determines the system of society, he accurately understood the inherent flaws of capitaism (and painted a vivid picture of the evil effects of this system), and in my was one of many theorists who understood the only possible solution to the problem of society that is acceptable in human terms.

I would say my beliefs are based on the theories of Thomas Hobbes first, Karl Marx second, and a guy called Anton Pannokiek third (that probably isnt the right way to spell his name)

I would say the closest example to a communist state existing in the world presently would be the Kibbutz (which is of course not much like the great leviathan)

Hey that's funny. You don't strike me as the commie type...at all. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

(if these questions have been already been asked just say answered and ill look for em)

1. How do you or whomever makes the society plan to over come greed? Like what is going to keep people from taking whatever they want?
2. What current country do you see as most likely to convert to communism and be successful, i.e. like who's your pick for next successful communist country?

i don't agree with you,so i don't know how to persuade you

1-What is the difference between 'working' class and 'middle' class?
2-How do communists view small business entrepreneurship?

1 - greed is nota natural element of human pyshcology in my opinion, it is conditione by a society which rewards greed. In a communist society people would be motivated by the goals of that society

2 - in my opinion, USA - because it is the most advanced captalist state, therefore were capitalism is closest to collapse.

---------- Post added at 01:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:33 PM ----------

1 - I see no essential difference at all

2 - It is one of the only outlets of creative intellectual force allowed in capitalism. Under a communist state far more fulfilling and co-operative outlets for this force will exist.