Originally posted by adam warlockInteresting post (although perhaps better suited to the other thread on Marxism?).
There is a documentary called the Soviet Story that is supposed to be about the evils of Marx and socialism. It makes a connection between Marx, Lenin and Hitler. I think that that documentary is pretty interesting since it shows a lot of things that so called marxists, marxists-leninists, and "communists" ignore.
That being said it also has some mista ...[text shortened]... on/ch06.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/index.htm
You're quite right, to my mind, to call Marx an analyst of capitalism (indeed, he's one of the very best such analysts, period, even if his predictive power with regards necessary revolution, etc. was clearly wide of the mark) but I would have to disagree on the socialism thing. Socialism as a political philosophy indeed existed before (and after) Marx, but he did self-identify as a socialist, or at least as a communist, which most take to be a branch of socialism (see Engels' gloss on Marxism Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, but also most of Marx published work, particularly in the mature phase and onwards). He was indeed critical of prior forms and conceptualisations of socialism, but that was because he believed them to have flaws. (He may not have been 'evil' per se, but he was a dreadful megalomaniac.)
Originally posted by FMFI don't know much about him personally; but I don't think his philosophy was evil. It was just... well... wrong; or, more precisely, his idea simply don't work in real life.
Was Marx - for want, perhaps, of a better word - evil? The question is prompted by a conversation with a visiting U.S. instructor at a local airforce academy. Several times I asked him to make it clear whether he meant Marxism or the deeds of self-professed Marxists and not Marx himself, but my flier friend was insistent: both, he said. Karl Marx was an "evil" man. Does anyone concurr?
Originally posted by FMFMy point, the term evil is very broad, and opinions differ.
Define it as you wish. And then, if you wish, answer the question in the context of your own definition. I don't have one to offer you.
In the Biblical sense satan is evil, I don't think Marx fits that.
Good enough?
Originally posted by Hugh GlassWell the guy who used the word "evil" was a self-consciously patriotic U.S. pilot instructor, not me. So that's why I offered it to the forum.
My point, the term evil is very broad, and opinions differ.
In the Biblical sense satan is evil, I don't think Marx fits that.
Good enough?
Originally posted by FMFself consciously Patriotic U.S. pilot instructor...... Humm I have to wrap my mind around that one.
Well the guy who used the word "evil" was a self-consciously patriotic U.S. pilot instructor, not me. So that's why I offered it to the forum.
Can you offer more on that topic?
Originally posted by Hugh GlassFrequent bizarre assertions and assumptions, about himself, me, the topic in hand, everything and anything, seemed to interfere with his cognitive processes and his ability to enter into a genuine discourse.
self consciously Patriotic U.S. pilot instructor...... Humm I have to wrap my mind around that one.
Can you offer more on that topic?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto
10 point program
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. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation 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 waste-lands, 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 with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.[8]
According to the Communist Manifesto, all these were prior conditions for a transition from capitalism to communism, but Marx and Engels later expressed a desire to modernize this passage.[9]
Originally posted by adam warlockThe problem here is obviously two-fold.
There is a documentary called the Soviet Story that is supposed to be about the evils of Marx and socialism. It makes a connection between Marx, Lenin and Hitler.
The first being that Sovietism had nothing to do with Marxism.
The second being that National Socialism is a mis-use of the word socialism.
It's a complicated tangle, here's an article I wrote on the subject a while back:
What is communism exactly?
The average encyclopedia tells us:
“Communism is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general.”
All very well. Most of you will have heard of everybody owning everything and nobody making a profit from someone elses efforts. It, however, doesn’t do the concept of communism justice.
To see where it actually comes from, let me introduce you to Mr. Hegel.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel to be exact.
Georg (who’s parents could well have done better in spelling) introduced us to the wide world of dialectic idealism.
“Dialectic” of course is much older than Georg. It was a method used by the ancient Greek philosophers to find an inconsistancy in an argument and prove that the argument is wrong. For example:
Person A: “All snow is white.”
Person Z: “Watch out where the huskies go, don’t you eat that yellow snow.”
Snow can be yellow, so Person A’s argument is debunkt.
Now, if you take Person A’s position on snow and call that the thesis.
And you take Person Z’s position and call that the antithesis, you’ll note; no matter the outcome, that they create friction.
The positions oppose each other and collide. The outcome of that collision, George called “synthesis.”
So, instead of Person A’s thesis being debunkt by Person B’s antithesis, they together create a new situation.
In this case: “Snow can have various colours and perhaps one should be wary of yellow snow.”
A situational detour:
Feudalism is the name given to medievil Europe’s style of government. Basically a King would lend rights and obligations to Lords, who in turn would lend rights and obligations to their own vassals (people lower than them).
This eventually created a two-tier system of large land owners (their lands were large, I’m not suggesting all land owners had large bellies) and people working on those lands.
And parallel to the land owners and farmers, the cities existed of masters and apprentices (chair makers, candlestick makers, bakers, etc.).
These land owners banded together in most countries to form governments to take power away from the Kings. This led to more official structures, rather than the back-slapping, honour bound, feudal system of old.
Mercantalism came about. Basically this meant that businesses were created to make a country richer, by taking what they needed from elsewhere and selling it.
Technology took leaps forward from the mid 1700’s onwards. Farming become more productive and exports became ever more important.
Mercantalism used these changes to break free from the land owners; at that time basically the governments. Private business (industry) was born and so cameth capitalism to bare.
Two ruling classes: land owners (old money) and industrialists (new money).
Two producing classes: farmers (on the land) and the working class (the old master-apprentice system started to fade as the industrialists could use the new technology to mass produce).
Back to dialectics:
The inner cities of Europe industrialized.
The small workshops where apprentices learnt a trade from begin to end; with the hope of finally becoming masters themselves, were now replaced by large factories with hundreds of people working on one section of production.
The industrialists were making a bomb (not literally an explosive…obviously) and the majority of people worked to make that bomb for them, barely keeping enough money to sustain themselves.
Let me introduce you to Mr. Marx.
Karl to his comrades.
Karl studied philosophy and literature and was very interested in history. His approach to history was rooted in looking for the causes and developments which influence people’s living conditions. He drew three distinct conclusions from this:
- People’s living conditions are determined by external factors: social classes, political structures, ideologies, etc.
- People’s living conditions are not determined by how they see life, but how they see life is determined by their living conditions.
- The difference between animals and humans is that humans imagine something before creating it.
Georg’s dialectic idealism suggested that reality was created by how people viewed the world (and that this view changed by means of thesis and antithesis).
Karl noted how dialectics created new situations, but that it was reality which created human thought. Not the other way around.
And dialectic materialism was born.
Industrialization was creating a whole class of people who were alienated from the process of imagining something and then creating it. Basically, industrialists had imagined something and put other people to work to produce it; not even the whole “something”, but just a part of it. So, where once an apprentice was imagining a chair and building it, he was now just making legs.
The industrialist became richer because of the worker’s labour, the labourer was alienated from his core being and poverty was victimizing whole segments of society. A breeding pit of friction if ever there was one.
Karl let loose the hounds of dialectic materialism upon the industrialist model of capitalism and a new form of socialism (in comparison to, say, the socialism of the French revolution) was born.
The friction between worker and boss will change their relationship. To polarize this relationship: the boss wants to maximize production at as little cost as possible and the worker wants as much money / control / creative input as possible for his efforts.
A conclusion you could draw, therefor, is that so long as authority-levels exist with varying priorities in each level, there’s always going to be friction. So long as there is friction there is going to be change.
Add to this the human drive to imagine before creating (removing alienation from the work process) and you’ll see the future of capitalism.
This, in a nutshell, is communism.
Part two...
Part two:
The basic pillars of communism
The above conclusion leads on to various sub-conclusions to which, for the purpose of clarity, I’ll refer to as pillars.
Nationality
Nationhood has nothing to do with your core drive and if anything only leads to alienation.
Labour
That which is created by labour is worth more than money (google “surplus value” for an extensive explanation on this one).
Education
Schooling should be aimed at teaching you to realize your full potential.
Health
Your full potential can only be realized when you’re is as healthy as possible.
Religion
Religion is idealistic by nature and doesn’t change your living conditions.
Common ownership
The thesis and antithesis “property and lack of property” within the capitalist context can be translated as “capital and labour”. The two create friction (dialectics) and will lead to a new situation.
When the means of production, land, air and water are in the hands of a few, there will be constant friction. Therefor ownership of the means of production (and resources in general) will come into the hands of all.
Because everything is owned by everyone, everyone has the right to eduction, health, work, etc.
Property
Everything is produced. With the means of production (labour) in common ownership, Everything that is produced is in common ownership as well.
Private possession
This is separate from the issue of common ownership and property (which is about who actually owns something). Basically, there’s a difference between owning a house and having the singular right to live in it. The same can be said about cars, clothes, etc.
Everybody owns everything, therefor everybody can have a house, a car, and TV for singular purposes without it resulting in a dialectic struggle.
Economy
Common ownership means that labour is not used to create wealth for a few, but to benefit everyone. The use of labour is therefor planned.
Government
Ultimately, dialects will lead to a Stateless situation (so long as authority-levels exist with varying priorities in each level, there will be friction). This is called anarchy. It does not mean there are no rules. The economy, for example is planned. Anarchy in this context (and used by anarchists at demonstrations and the like) means that the State has been replaced by the workforce (think Star Trek on this one).
The transition from capitalism to anarchy is called “The dictatorship of the proletariat”.
This does not mean there’s a dictator. This means that the ruling class (the dictatorship of the rich) is replaced by the workforce. Technically this is a temporary situation wherein a government is needed. It’s a government which does what the workforce wants and drives “the revolution” forward.
A brief history of 19th and early 20th century Russia
Okay, okay. I admit it. The explanation of communism was winded, long and quite complicated.
As you’ve seen though, it’s important to understand dialectics, because it forms the basis for a political, social and economic system.
After the Byzantine empire collapsed with the fall of Constantinople in the 15th century, the Grand Dutchy of Moscow claimed succession to the legacy of Eastern Roman empire.
In the middle of the the 16th century Ivan the terrible conquered the khanates (basically post-Mongolian empires) and he became the first Tsar of Russia (tsar being a translation from the Latin “Ceasar” which means emperor).
Russia, if you haven’t by chance noticed, is massive. Even though they had a mentionable industry going by the end of the 1800’s (due to their abolition of serfdom act), the majority of Russians still worked on the land.
The Russian ruling classes became ever more restrictive and violent after the 1825 revolt. This, together with millions dying of disease and reoccuring droughts, famines and wars, left Tsar Nicholas II with a country full of animosity towards the ruling classes as the 20th century fell upon them.
To make matters worse for his dynasty, Rasputin (that’s the mad monk from the Boney M song&hellip😉 had his house hold in sway, which didn’t do his reputation much good either.
In 1914 Serbian nationalists shot Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo. Arch duke Franz was the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne and Austro-Hungary didn’t take well to this assissination. When they deemed Serbia not willing enough to comply in the prosecution of the assissinators, they declared war.
Russia had a protective pact with Serbia. They declared war on Austro-Hungary.
Germany had a protective pact with Austro-Hungary and declared war on Russia.
France had a protective pact with Russia. Germany assumed that France was going to declare war on them (France was still fuming from losing land to Germany after the Franco-Prussian war in 1870), so they moved to protect their Western flank… by parking in Belgium.
Britain had a pact with Belgium vouching for its neutralism; this led to Britain and France declaring war on Germany.
The first world war began.
By 1916 Russian war costs were spiraling out of control and their death toll was ever mounting (their nation suffered the highest losses of the allied (entete) forces in world war 1).
Soldiers, peasants and workers started revolting in the homeland which led to the February revolution in 1917. By that October the coalition of political parties had failed to bring about any change worth mentioning and another revolution took place. In that October. And, pure coincidentally, it was called the October revolution. It was led by Lenin (not be mistaken for a Beatle&hellip😉.
Civil war broke out. The simplist way to view it is “communist revolution” versus “the white armies”. The white armies being pro-capitalism and financed for a great part by the rest of Europe and the US. This civil war greatly influenced what was happening to the revolution.
An example is the trial of the tsar. Nicholas was ready for trial, but the white armies looked set to free him. Instead of letting him escape, he and his family were shot. Another example is the paranoia it brought within the Bolshevik gouvernment.
Trotsky was basically in control of the army and Stalin disagreed with many of his tactics. Stalin, or uncle Joe as he’s referred to, went about executing everybody and everything who he didn’t like, opposed him or he thought might be anti-revolutionary.
At the end of 1920 Trotsky wanted the party to take control over the industrial sector (effectively nationalising them), Lenin thought it too soon and banded with uncle Joe to thwart Trotsky.
As Lenin became ever more ill, Stalin managed to secure his position and marginalize Trotsky.
The Bolshevik paranoia leading to excessive powers in the secret service and the control of large parts of the army led to Stalin being able to grab absolute power.
The paranoia was justified, because the white armies were out to destroy the Bolshevik revolution; proving once again that just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.
Why Russian communism failed
Communism is not an alternative for capitalism. As dialectics show, it’s an evolution from capitalism. This evolution needs a working class, a ruling class and enough people understanding that the way they see life is dictated by their environment.
The majority of Russians had little to no education.
The majority of Russians were farmers.
A large chunk of the working classes were wiped out in WWI and the civil war against the white armies.
The consequences for a revolution with a backdrop of this magnitude can be made clear by doing what the Bolshevik leaders failed to do: let loose the hounds of dialetic materialism on it.
The farmers wanted land for themselves, not the nationalization of their land.
Everybody wanted new leadership (well, perhaps Nicholas II wasn’t too pleased with that one&hellip😉.
Massive gaps in the country’s demographic build up createing internal frictions within industry.
This can be read in dialectic terms as:
Leadership without enough people comprehending the dialectics of situation.
Not enough people with the understanding of the revolution to be able to back it up.
Friction from the onset between food production and interim leadership.
Starting with first:
Either the leadership will not be carried by enough people or the leadership will take complete control (cult of personality or oligarchy). Stalin could take control.
The second:
Without enough people to back up a revolution it will either fail or a small group of people need to enforce it. The secret service was created and controlled by Stalin.
The third:
Absolute control and the use of force / secret services to secure food production is going to create continual friction. Which will eventually lead to a new situation (synthesis).
On to part three...
Part three:
A communist view of the Soviet Union
Stalin did call himself a communist and the rest of the world were more than eager to call the Soviet Union a communist State.
However, the Soviet Union had a large communist minority which opposed the Stalinist regime. Most of them were either deported (like Trotsky) or sent to the Goulag to rot.
Stalin’s gouvernment effectively took over the Tsar’s role in running Russia. Ultimately, one can even argue that the Soviet regime took on the responsibilities that the corporations in the West would achieve in the second half of the 20th century.
If you look at Western capitalism and call it Corporate capitalism (business decides what’s supposed to happen), you can call the Soviet Union State capitalism.
The great majority of people had no say in what was best for the country. There was no common ownership of the means of production or resources (the State owned it and dictated to the workforce what should happen to it, instead of visa-versa). There were no steps taken to move from transitional gouvernment to anarchy.
The Soviet Union had no chance of becoming communist, let alone anarchist. It was failed from the onset due to the circumstances it found itself in. As dialectics prove, friction led to change. And that friction still exists today.
Communism in recent history
I’ll just end my essay of sorts by mentioning a couple of communist views and actions from the recent past, so you can place them in perspective.
Fascism
Considering fascist doctrine on issues such as the role of the State, nationality and equality, it will come as no surprise that communism totally opposes it. Fascism aims to end friction by creating a situation in which harmony is brought about by destroying everything else. The end station is complete control by a minority.
Hence the communists opposing Hitler and being the first people sent to the work camps.
Woman’s rights
There is no distinction between genders. Everyone is equal. Everyone has the right to live to their full potential.
Because religion is of no importance, religious views on women are viewed as idealistic and realistic and should be judged as such.
Communism doesn’t have an opinion about abortion. Most communists, however, agree that it’s a woman’s choice what she does with her own body. Until the child is not solely dependant on the mother (still in the womb), what the woman does to herself is up to her.
Treatment of minorities
Everybody is equal. Communism opposes the maltreatment of minorities. Together with nationality playing no role what-so-ever in communism (no borders), there is no reason for a minority to be seen as such. Everybody can be productive (a worker) and everybody has the right to live to their full potential.
Hence you’ve seen communists oppose the treatment of Jews in the 30’s, the treatment of gays in the 50’s, the situations in Cambodia and Vietnam in the 60’s and 70’s and oppose the treatment of Palestinians at the current time.
War
Communism is not opposed to war. But, communism opposes wars which aim to benefit a minority of the population (no borders remember… so even a nation can be a minority on this one) by grabbing more land, resources and wealth. These wars booster the current situation which only leads to friction and synthesis. Without the proper elements in place to create a non-frictional future for the productive people in society, this friction easily leads to dispotic regimes, fear, hatred, fascism and poverty.
Hence the communist opposition to wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.
================
I hope that managed to clear things up.
Originally posted by shavixmirUh?! Marx himself never used the word anarchy to refer to the final stage in the evolution of societies, Marx totally abhorred the anarchist notions, and quite often Marx ridiculed the anarchist ideal. Marx himself expelled Bakunin from the First International so I really don't know where you got this idea of mixing communist ideals and anarchist ideals.
Government
Ultimately, dialects will lead to a Stateless situation (so long as authority-levels exist with varying priorities in each level, there will be friction). This is called anarchy. It does not mean there are no rules. The economy, for example is planned. Anarchy in this context (and used by anarchists at demonstrations and the like) means that the S ...[text shortened]... eded. It’s a government which does what the workforce wants and drives “the revolution” forward.[/b]
The transition form capitalism from to communism (the term Marx himself used) was called the dictatorship of the proletariat. Notice that Marx himself never used the word socialism in none of this. Some people nowadays say that socialism is the state that precedes communism, but Marx never said that because the man wasn't a socialist. Or at least he wasn't a socialist theoretician.
Other than that I've also written a text about that documentary. A pretty schematic one, and I hope I have the time to write something more complete than that, but here you go:
http://diatribesemsoliloqio.blogspot.com/2009/12/pena-e-o-marx-ter-tido-muito-pouco-ver.html
It is in portuguese but I think that it is possible to arrange a decent translation:
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=pt-PT&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdiatribesemsoliloqio.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F12%2Fpena-e-o-marx-ter-tido-muito-pouco-ver.html&sl=pt&tl=en
and on the concept of dialectics I always loved this quote from Marx: "It's possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way."
This tell me all I need to know about dialectics.
Edit: "By that October the coalition of political parties had failed to bring about any change worth mentioning" why do you say this?
"Why Russian communism failed " because it was never tried! It's simple really. To call to what happened in Russia to be communism or socialism is really an act of madness. The one time socialism was really tried was between the February and the October revolution and as soon as Lenin and his cronies took power all of ti was down the drain.
Originally posted by adam warlockHow would you describe the ultimate society without dialectic conflict between boss and worker?
Uh?! Marx himself never used the word anarchy to refer to the final stage in the evolution of societies, Marx totally abhorred the anarchist notions, and quite often Marx ridiculed the anarchist ideal.
In essence, the outcome is a form of anarchism, no matter what you call it.