Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tk · 01-03-2003, 07:36 PM

I think I'll leave it to the socialists to figure out a way to implement a "true" communist society which doesn't easily degenerate into a Stalinist dictatorship.

Answerer · 01-03-2003, 07:57 PM

I think the combination of socialism and democracy worked better than communism alone, at least, it wouldn't evolve into a massive killing machine.

Coleman Smith · 01-03-2003, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Why hasn't communism worked?

The Chinese may assert that this question is fallacious.

Coleman Smith

Answerer · 01-03-2003, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Coleman Smith
The Chinese may assert that this question is fallacious.

Coleman Smith

Well, I don't.

August Spies · 01-03-2003, 08:59 PM

IvanK

Quote:

let's say the workers at Company X buy the company and run it themselves. They then "collectively" own the "means of production." Why does this have to be distinctively different from capitalism? In my book, it's not, nor does it need to be.

well this is cause in your book you are confused on some of the fundamentals. Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production and distrobution. Is is NOT the collective ownership of a company.

Your example is of a socialistic company in the midst of capitalism. Clearly this is not a socialist society. Is it an example of socialism? on one level, yes it is. In the same way a picnic whre people share what to bring is socialist. This does not mean capitalism and socialism can co-exist merely because people can still go on picnics.

Quote:

everyone's working all the time because any relaxation could doom the company and with it everyone's means of livelihood.

there are lots of collectivly owned buisnesses. I know people that work in some. Your description is not accurate.

regadless, this, even theoretically, is only a description of a socialist company competeing in a capitalist economy. NOt of socialism its self.

August Spies · 01-03-2003, 09:00 PM

Republicans & democrats posture alot but they are not Idealogical parties.

Martin:

you are of course correct. Sorry to be confusing. By democrat (small "d") I meant someone who blieves in democracy as a political system, not the american political party.

fromtheright · 01-03-2003, 09:53 PM

Lamma,

To perhaps inject a little more specifity into this, are you positing communism as Marxism, as Marxism-Leninism , or as some other theoretical socialism associated with Marx/Engels perhaps?

Psycho Economist · 01-03-2003, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by August Spies
"people evolved to be selfish. "

id call that regression.

Why? We're not more selfish than other animals, just capable of operating on a bigger scale.

You might want to check Robert Wright's Nonzero (and not just because he's a huge fan of Dawkins). It's all about how selfishness drives reciprocity and other forms of interpersonal exchange: an "unsociable sociability" that enables us, each and all, to be better off than if we'd tried to horde everything for ourselves and our kin.

Celsus · 01-04-2003, 07:43 AM

Hi all,

If we're talking Russia, the reason it failed as several point out, is exactly the reasons the anarchists (who were familiar with the Marxists' vanguardism after the First and Second International) knew all along.

Bakunin, always the agitator, fired off the first salvos long before Marx or Lenin had begun to form their "revolutionary proletariat":

Quote:

No individual can recognise his own humanity, and consequently realise it in his lifetime, if not by recognising it in others and cooperating in its realisation for others. No man can achieve his own emancipation without at the same time working for the emancipation of all men around him. My freedom is the freedom of all since I am not truly free in thought and in fact, except when my freedom and my rights are confirmed and approved in the freedom and rights of all men who are my equals.

Then as the Russian Revolution took hold, Volin issued this warning:

Quote:

Once their power has been consolidated and legalized, the Bolsheviks, as state socialists, that is as men who believe in centralized and authoritarian leadership - will start running the life of the country and the people from the top. Your soviets ... will gradually become simple tools of central government ... You will soon see the inauguration of an authoritarian political and state apparatus that will crush all opposition with an iron fist ... 'All power to the Soviets' will become 'All power to the leaders of the party'.
- Volin, 1917

and Kropotkin followed up with:

Quote:

...so long as the country is dominated by the dictatorship of a party, the workers' and peasants' councils naturally lose their significance. They are thereby degraded to the same passive role which the representatives of the estates used to play at the time of the absolute monarchies.
- Kropotkin, 1920

And then it was over less than a year later:

Quote:

[The Russian Revolution] is perpetrating horrors. It is ruining the whole country. In its mad fury it is annihilating human lives. That is why it is a revolution and not a peaceful progress, because it is destroying without regarding what it destroys and whither it goes. And we are powerless for the present to direct it into another channel, until such a time as it will have played itself out. It must wear itself out.
- Kropotkin before he died in Feb 1921

After this, the Kronstadt sailors and workers revolted, were heavily crushed, and the armies of Makhno fought in vain to maintain some libertarian aspects of the revolution. All were crushed by the end of 1921. It is one of the many sad stories of modern Russian history, and one of the tragic experiments stemming from the Enlightenment.

Joel

Bakunin, 1871(?) quoted in Errico Malatesta, 1891, Anarchy
All other quotes from Peter Marshall, 1993, Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism

John Hancock · 01-04-2003, 12:08 PM

Sorry left thread to find this url and well hell we all know pot doesn't effect your memory any way.

Great Russian History Post truth I'm going to copy it.

In attempt to slide post away from Marxism.

Martin Buber

PS. Thanks Celsus.

01-03-2003, 07:36 PM	#21
tk Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Singapore Posts: 158	Hmm... I think I'll leave it to the socialists to figure out a way to implement a "true" communist society which doesn't easily degenerate into a Stalinist dictatorship.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-03-2003, 07:57 PM	#22
Answerer Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Singapore Posts: 3,956	I think the combination of socialism and democracy worked better than communism alone, at least, it wouldn't evolve into a massive killing machine.

01-03-2003, 09:00 PM	#26
August Spies Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The Vine Posts: 12,950	Republicans & democrats posture alot but they are not Idealogical parties. Martin: you are of course correct. Sorry to be confusing. By democrat (small "d") I meant someone who blieves in democracy as a political system, not the american political party.

01-03-2003, 09:53 PM	#27
fromtheright Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 633	Lamma, To perhaps inject a little more specifity into this, are you positing communism as Marxism, as Marxism-Leninism , or as some other theoretical socialism associated with Marx/Engels perhaps?

01-04-2003, 12:08 PM	#30
John Hancock Banned Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Mars Posts: 2,231	Sorry left thread to find this url and well hell we all know pot doesn't effect your memory any way. Great Russian History Post truth I'm going to copy it. In attempt to slide post away from Marxism. Martin Buber PS. Thanks Celsus.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.