Has Communism Ever Existed?
The mis-conception of words and ideas are a big problem within todays' society. Usually it is the individuals own mis-interpretation of a fact or belief, which by itself is rarely a life or death factor in day-to-day life. But ocassionaly a word is hi-jacked intentionally and is given a completely different meaning to the original idea for no reason other than politacal propaganda. Anarchism is one example of how those opposed to an idea seek to muddy its' beliefs. But there is a more influencial and important word which is still affecting the "civilised" world, the 300 year old word which still inspires fear into the hearts of the free, Communism.
I will not bore you with a lengthy description of Marxism, most of you wouldn't read it anyway. In a sentence, Communism is the dictatorship of the proletariat. In Capitalism there are two main classes of people, those who have to sell themselves and those who do not, the land owners. The proletariat and the bougouise. Therefore to say Communism is the dictatorship of the proletariat is to say, those who work in a society decide how it is governed. No more interpretation is needed, as we shall see when we examine so-called Communist states.
Starting with Russia, from around 1926 you could effectivly call Russia a dictatorship of Joseph Stalin. The comparrisons between Hitlers' Germany and Stalins' Russia (less the anti-semetics of Hitler) are vast, yet where one is remembered as a tyrant the other is remembered as a Communist Dictator. Hitler was a member of the German socialist party, ever heard of him being called a socialist dictator? Anyway off the point, was Russia a true example of Communism? In comparison to Stalin, Lenin did want to bring Communist ideals to Russia. He failed, although not due to his Communist beliefs (not entirely atleast). It was more a case of trying to implant Communist theory onto feudal peasantry as opposed to capitalist proletariat. Peasants owned land, in reality he was trying to create a capitalist state, the base for a communist revolution. He played the bad guy and the good guy. Civil war, viscous in-party fighting, a nation recovering from the first world war, intervension from capitalist states such as Britton and France and an under-developed and mostly illeterate population prevented Lenin from achieving the Communist ideal, not Communism itself. In the turmoil, step up Joe Stalin and seventy years of tyrany. Dictatorship of the proletariat? Communism? Not in Russia.
Now this is where I argue Communism has never existed in recent history. Firstly it must begin in a developed capitalist system. One country, a handfull of Communist states or half the globe will still have to compete with the capitalist class, eventually re-capitalising the former. Secondly it requires the workers be educated, to realise thier importance and how they are being manipulated into slavery, which requires highly developed communication between the ranks of the proletariat, we're still not there yet. Finaly the bouguise, the capitalist class, will need to be over-thrown in order to take back societies means of production, the land. Show me a place where this has happened and I will show you Communism. Of course most anti-Communist propaganda is hear-say and un-corobarted, not so much for Capitalism;
"When Capital and the ruling classes apologise for: Colonialism, the 14 hour day, Class privilege, the 7 day working week, Children in coal mines, the Opium Wars, the massacre of the Paris Commune, slavery, the Spanish-American war, the Boer War, Apartheid, anti-union laws, the First World War, Flanders, Trench Warfare, Mustard Gas, Aerial bombing, the Soviet intervention, the Armenian Genocide, Chemical weapons, Fascism, the Great Depression, Hunger Marches, Nazism, the Spanish Civil War, Militarism, Asbestosis, Radiation Death, the Massacre of Nanking, the Second World War, Belsen, Dresden, Hiroshima, Rascism, the Mafia, Nuclear Weapons, the Korean War, DDT, McCarthyism, Production Lines, Blacklists, Thalidomide, the Rape of the Third World, Poverty, the Arms Race, the Electric Chair, the Vietnam War, the Military suppression of Greece, India, Malaya, Indonesia, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama and Turkey, the Gulf War, trade in human body parts, Exxon Valdez, Deforestation, Organised Crime, the Heroin and Cocaine Trade, Tuberculosis, the Destruction of the Ozone Layer, Cancer, Exploitation of Labour and the Death's of 50,000,000 Communists and Trade Unionists in this Century Alone, then-and only then-will I consider apologising for the errors of Socialism."
Viva La Revelotion!
- Martin Da Yoica's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
but when will
the "socialists" apologize for 30-40,000,000 deaths in USSR (I won't call it communism but it definitely was economically socialistic/communistic in nature) and 40-50,000,000 deaths in China? I mean that total is higher than anything the Capitalists have accomplished...
Who said that quote? Also where did that person get the death of 50,000,000 communists and trade unionists? Or is he blaming capitalists for Stalin's and Mao's murders?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Stalin...
...was a pure autocrat who just happened to inherit a socialist state.
As for the deaths attributed to communism in China- the vast majority of those were due to famine in the "great leap forward" movement (somewhere around 30million deaths). However convincing arguments have been bmade that China after the damage of ww2 and facing population pressures and poor weather was going to have a famine regardless of which system was running the country. That means that these deaths are not directly attributable to chinese communism (as opposed to say the purges which were).
There's an article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_leap_forward
According to it the great Yellow River flood of July 1959 alone killed two million. Obviously chinese communism didn't cause the heavy rains.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
There you go, Ender
Caused primarilly by world war 2, which was caused by economic instabillity from the great depression which is a direct result of a corrupt and corrosive Capitalist economy.
I won't call it communism
I can almost smell the temptation for you to call the USSR Communist. Stalin had advisers, does that make the USSR partly democratic? Communism is living the theory of Marxism, Marxist leaders don't nessecerily have to lead Communist states. Since I argue that the economic and political orientation of Russia has merely been Capitalism in slow motion, then I think you'll find the figures are as close as any death toll can be. Stalin activly oppossing trade unionism and workers co-operatives, sounds really socialist. Interesting the only thing you can comment on is the last line of the argument in relation to a questionale death toll.
Same argument, was the so-called Communist Chinese state really run by the proleteriat of China or a few men, interested in keeping wealth within thier borders in order to compete with the supposed "outside" capitalists? We are living in a capitalist world, in reality socailism hasn't had the chance of destruction the capitalists have "enjoyed" for the last 400 or so years. I believe that is the point the author of the quote is putting across. So in answer to your question, NEVER!
Personally...
..I think communism is just as flawed as capitalism and for basically the same reason. Both systems would work fine if people really dedicated themselves to living the ideal instead of gaming the system, but that's not ever going to happen. The Bill Gates of the world will always try to screw capitalism by monopolistic ventures, and they'll generally succeed. Similarly the Maos and Stalins of the world will screw communism by maintaining an aristocratic class even though it runs entirely contrary to the basic concept.
Neither one is going to work. Hence I'm an anarchist, whch only requires people to do what they think is right. Maybe that too is impossible, but I suspect not. And if it is we're pretty much left with nihilism.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Don't Knock it
till you've tried it. Capitalism is good, if only in the eyes of the ruling class, the bougouise. Infact all systems are "good" for thier ruling classes. That is why we need the next ruling class to be the proleteriat, the workers, then and only then will we know for sure. "Basic" communism has and does work, it is the foundation of todays society and humanity in general. Humans have to have contact with one another, it is about developing a system in which this contact is as fair and as logical as possible.
Apolgies
Maybe you can show how those deaths would not have occured under the Tzar.
Socialisme ou Barbarie!
Why the Tzar?
Why the Tzar? A relic of the old monarchial system who has nothing to with socialism and even less with capitalism. Because he wasn't capitalist doesn't nessecarily make him more favourable. These deaths seemed destined under the capitalist system, just like the great depression and globalisation, but past economic systems have not been much better. I can't say the deaths woudn't have happened under the Tzars rule, but I can understand why they happened under the capitalists. And at the end of the day, what has happened is far more important that what might have done.
Of course communism has existed
on the small scale. But it's just not a feasible system in any society larger than, say, a self-sustaining village. Once a society grows larger and requires an infrastructure, communism simply cannot adjust quickly and efficiently enough to shifting consumer demand.
A mixed economy is still ideal, in my book: capitalism for most daily activities, socialism for infrastructures that can't be left to market devices because a particular goal is more important than profit (health care, minimum wage, etc.)
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I think
that we will be my next post, Can Communism ever exist (on the same scale as capitalism)? In regards to "most daily activities" left to capitalism, how can the mininmum wage NOT be counted as capitalist. The TRUE minimum wage is determined by the ecconomy which is determined by how much the capitalist is willing or able to extort from the worker. It is business which builds the Hospitals, ships over drugs, pays for research ect. Take England as an example of free health care for over 50 years. Everyday pressure to keep hospitals open gains support from the population, does that stop capitalist-style pressure from closing them down? Oil and water. Where there is competition the man with the most money will always win, and thats not the goverments of today, nor will it be those of tommorow. Reforms are quick fixes, I for one am not getting hooked.
A few observations
I've been meaning to write a diary like this for some time. Nice work though I do take issue with a few of your descriptions.
First off, there are different varieties of communism. Using 'communism' as an all encompassing philosophy is misleading and reductive. This wikipedia article
gets at a few variations that are different than the large-scale 'Marxist' variety I think you are discussing, but as pico said, communism has worked in the past, though a Marxist version has not come to fruition. For example, Native Americans practiced communism as do many other smaller tribes around the globe. In the US, the Amish practice a type of communism.
Since you are speaking about a Marxist variety here, your reference to the terminology of the proletariat (worker) and the bourgeoisie (land owners) is inaccurate. In a true Marxist state, there are no classes so it is not a dictatorship of the proletariat (well, at the beginning stages it is, but not when true Marxist communism takes effect).
With my above clarification, the answer to your question is no; there has never been a true Marxist-type of communism. What we have witnessed are types of oligarchies and dictatorships with various degrees of socialism.
Side note to Ender: communism and socialism are very different political entities. One requires a centralized state to distribute goods evenly (socialism); the other does not because a) there is no state and b) goods are not distributed since there is no such thing as 'ownership' as in 'capital' to distribute. My b) has a few caveats. In Fromm's Marx's Concept Of Man
, he shows in Marx's essay, "Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts" that Marx believed in 'ownership' of houses for example. It is more like Locke's version of the 'commons' in which whatever you build is yours (thus the idea of alienated labor in capitalism in which what you build is actually the capitalist owner's to sell). Nobody owns the system of manufacturing in communism. That is the vital difference: the means of production is different, not so much the ownership of items. Socialism actually prevents communism in the same way that trade unions do. If the workers are appeased through negotiation, they will not overthrow the system of manufacturing by eradicating the idea of ownership of the means of production (capital).
I don't believe Marx had it right, because I think there is no historical determinacy guiding us to communism in a Hegelian dialectical fashion. Teleology to me is a ridiculous notion. History is a product of randomness and chance and not a drive toward a final end.
I do believe in healthy regulation and copious amounts of socialism to modify the excesses and faults of the capitalist system, but I do not think we will ever reach a true Marxist state.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Glad you saw that
It should read;
Although...
I stick by the definition of "Dictatorship of the proleteriat". Also, to clarify, (Marxist) Communism does not denote statelessness. The people (or rather the working people) are the state.
au contraire
It does too, especially in the final stages.
I've been menaing to write a diary about the association of economics and the foundation of the state for some time, especially in the era of globalization and free-market economies (most notably in consideration of Halliburton's move off shores), but I have not had time. Basically, most political philosophers (from Aristotle to Locke to Marx among others) believe the inherent function of the state is economic protectionism at its basis. No market economy as such = no need for the state. (I was going to write about how globalization is going to redefine our conception of the nation-state or lead to a world government. See-the New World Order is the fault of businessmen, not the commies :) ).
Without economic 'competition' as such (from the wikipedia article on Marxism--though it does have some inaccuracies), "Eventually the state will 'wither away' and become obsolete, as people administer their own lives without the need for governments."
I suppose we could squabble about the definition of 'state', but the idea of 'absence of state' is a fundamental notion of Marxism.
That is where the soviets got caught up. Their revolution didn't domino around the world, necessitating 'one-state' communism, which is anti-thetical to Marxism. This 'temporary' step led to totalitarianism and dictatorship since it forced a 'state' for its survival.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Just a small observation.
(Not picking on you specifically, Specter...)
I know that you guys are arguing that you aren't communists and that communism has never really existed, but you also all seem to know a whole lot about what Karl Marx actually wrote/said/thought presumably just off the tops of your heads, and seem to be arguing the finer points thereof.
I don't know that this means anything in particular, but it is perhaps something to be aware of and how it might look to others?
:-)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I've also read Mien Kampf...
does that make me a Nazi?
Yes, you are obviously a Nazi
...and don't dare go reading any radical Islamic websites... you'll get on the Federal Government's naughty persons list so fast it will make your head spin.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
O.K
Then you're a communist for reading this blog
Fortunately for me...
...Communists have fallen out of favor as the villain du jour.
But if the Communists come back into favor, you're definitely more on the hook for writing this. If I hear that they've come for you, I think I'll have enough time to pack my bags and get outta dodge before they come after me ;-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Bring on the hook
To quote one of the greats, "I would rather die having spoken after my manner, than speak in your manner and live."
I do appreciate
your idealism. Have you ever read "We The Living" by Ayn Rand. I think you'd like Andrey. :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I didn't SAY you were a communist.
I didn't even say it IMPLIED that you were a communist.
I just pointed out that to someone who doesn't know you this conversation MIGHT give people the IMPRESSION that you are a communist.
And yes, if people who didn't know you observed you arguing the finer points of Mien Kompf off the top of your head, that they MIGHT get the IMPRESSION that you were a Nazi.
As I said, just a small observation.
I am not even SAYING that you shouldn't HAVE this conversation, please carry on, my only intent was to take an opportune moment to point out why people might THINK you are a communist when you aren't.
I have a new found concern for the left today for some reason. Just trying to be helpful. :-)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Fair question
It got ugly in here fast. Two things before I explain. The first is that impressions are basically implications. If you get the impression that I am a communist, then you probably imply it in your statement. (I assume they come from nearly the same root word but I have no proof of this). The other point is that I do not have a problem with communism in theory, just as I do not have a problem with capitalism in theory. The problem is just that, once it leaves the realm of theory it gets into the messes we have seen historically. I think Marx had good intentions. Of course, the road to hell is paved . . . As a colleague of mine wrote, "Marx: Right about Capitalism, Wrong about Communism".
My specialty is literary theory
(which overlaps with continental philosphy 
), but I was a philosophy major for a while with an emphasis in political philosophy. I used to study religions the same way, but that got boring. I still read political philosophy to this day. I can tell you just as much about Machiavelli or Nietzsche, but it just doesn't come up that much in non-academic discussions such as on-line blogs.
Don't be concerned. Some liberals are communists, but they are far from a majority as I attempt to state above with my 'inductive/deductive logic' comment. Education is never a bad thing IMO.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
To clarify...
Mien Kampf was loosly (and I mean extremely loosly) based on the philosophy of Nietzsche who I hold as one of the great philosophers. In further response, no I am not communist, it simply isn't possible, although in regards to political and economic doctrines I tend to side with Marxian theory because it makes more sense than the bougoise economists retoric.
It's part of a basic education.
I've read the Bible, and I'm certainly not a Christian (it's sad that I know it a lot better than many Christians, but that's another story). If you don't know Marx's theories, you're really inequipped for discussing, among other things, 20th century history. I agree with Specter that Marx's teleological views are so much bull, but historically speaking, they're a natural outgrowth of what was going on in the world of philosophy at the time.
I'm not sure the Mein Kampf comparison that the diarist made is a fair one: Hitler's text hasn't had much impact outside the Nazi movement, but Marx has had enormous importance (for better and worse) on politics, history and historiography, literary theory, economics, philosophy, etc.
So my question to you is: why don't you know Marx?
By the way:
You clearly watch a lot of FOX news. They pull that all the time. :)
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
communism - shommunism
Let me start with a typical Republican argument - none of the countries of the former soviet bloc was communist - at best they called themselves socialist or people's. The system they were running was not communism either - it was self-defined as a "dictatorship of the proletariat".
Be it as it may they were not communist even in their spirit - communism was just a goal on the horizon - it was lurking there, ever evading, along with prosperity, happiness and other things that make human life worthwhile.
Countries of the soviet bloc were de facto corporations - a Pullman style organizations with internal regulations and currency - joined together into a multinational consortium. Western corporate types could sniff their own and never had problems dealing with their corporate equivalents of the evil empire without any problems whatsoever. After all whatever it was that the concentration camp behind the iron curtain was able to deliver (mostly raw resources) was never a subject to delays that might be caused in a free society by events such as a union action, considering that the corporate societies were held in check in a tight iron grip.
The most important thing about the corporate elite that ruled the soviet bloc is that they definitely were not liberals - their views on personal freedom (for party members), rights of the accused (rights for the enemies of the state - are you a traitor yourself?), state security (what does an honest person have to hide?), government secrecy (we can't give our enemies an adventure of knowing our goals), media and industry consolidation (monopoly = good), modern music (monkey noise), pornography (rots the society), gays (fags) and dissenters (dirty hippies), to name a few could be written without many changes into the GOP platform. There really isn't much that Karl Rove and their masters of sophistry could teach each other - it seems like they all read the same books.
Sic semper tyrannis
Wow, communism deniers, who'd a thunk it?
Please excuse my ignorance of some of the historical points here. I will be glad to go look them up if I must, but perhaps you already know the answers? If so, please provide your perspective...
1) Are the so-called trade unions pro-communism or anti-communism?
2) Were the so-called trade unions pro-Soviet Union or anti-Soviet Union?
3a) Does "nationalizing" land and industry count as "overthrowing the the bouguise, the capitalist class" by your definition?
3b) If your answer to 3a was "yes", does this "nationalizing" have to apply to literally everything or would "nationalizing" only specific parts of society also count?
4) Where does Communist China fit into your model of the pure communist ideal?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I'm not sure
if you are addressing this comment to MDY or if it is open, but I am going to jump in here.
I think you are joking, but in case you are not--you will not find a lot of support for pure communism as a reality among liberals. Are communists liberals? Often times yes. Are liberals communists? Often times no. Are racists often conservative? Yes. Are conservative racists? No. This is a difference between inductive and deductive logic--a product of generalizing from a small sample group.
Your questions:
. Their goals are essentially different. Trade unions believe in working within the system to bring about change. They are both 'worker'-oriented philosophies but that is where the similarities end. Trade unions' goals are far different than an overthrow of the current system of manufacturing. Here is a decent article 
that discusses these ideas. Trade unions mollify and appease workers taking away their anger and potential to rebel.
1) Anti-communist (though some trade-unionists have been communists). See above
2) Some were pro-soviet union and others were not. But asking this question assumes that the soviet union was communist and it wasn't. See the above discussions. Those that were had a reductive and rudimentary understanding of communism as do many in general.
3a) Vague. It is socialist, but it does nothing to overthrow the system of owners of production so it is not communist. Again, they are different entities. Socialism/Nationalization just centralizes the ownership in the state. In communism, there is no state. Again, see some of the above comments especially woodman's.
3b) My answer for 3a is basically a 'no', but I think nationalizing could only refer to minor things without being said to make a socialized state. For example, many things in our society are socialized (education, some medical programs, some farming, defense industries, etc). Would you consider us socialist? Or communist?
4) China is not communist in a Marxist sense. They have a variation called 'Maoism' and even that has many oligarchical and even capitalist institutions/processes. It does not fit into a 'pure communist idea'. It has a state, it has classes, it is socialist in some aspect (again vs. communist), and it has a party that holds itself above the masses (oligarchy). It also has a state-sponsored form of manufacturing instead of manufacturing in the hands of governmental-less collectives/individuals.
I guarantee you that Marxism is not what you have constructed it to mean. And my comments are in no way a support of communism. Communism as I stated above is a pipe-dream, just as pure capitalism is. Impossible to maintain.
Sorry for any spelling/grammatical errors. Wrote this in a rush and I have to go to class now.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
No, it is an open question ...
the more the merrier. I don't have any conscious agenda behind these questions, perhaps a vague sub-conscious one. These are just the immediate ones that came to mind and I recognized that I was not well enough informed on the details of these points to (yet) express an opinion.
Mostly I am information gathering here. I could slog around trying to dig stuff up on my own, or I could simply ask you all for your thoughts as a first pass. This helps me in two ways, it filters the information I need to slog through AND it gives me direct insight into your specific viewpoints in case I decide to truly enter the fray here later on.
Thanks for the reply.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4the main problem with communism for me
is the almost absolute repression of individual self-determination. When everything you can do or be is determined by others (be it the state or a community or the proletariat or a dictator, etc), you are nothing more than a slave.
USSR was one of those types of states and Nazi Germany was the other. Pure Marxism that has never existed would fall in that same category where the system would have complete control over an individual.
Whatever terms people couch it in (common good, sacrifice for the motherland, etc) it is inhuman and will never work because those who love freedom will always rebel. It might take decades or even centuries, but such structures cannot hold. It is against our humanity to repress our individuality.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I have to run
but, as usual, your conception of 'individuality' and 'communism' should include the adjective of 'Ender's version of _______', as their definition/interpretation is only shared by Ender (and maybe a few others who don't know much about the concepts).
I don't know if you read the comments in this thread before you wrote this, but first you would have to argue that, yes, the soviet union was communist and that socialism and communism are the same thing in order for your point to make sense. Tall order.
I will try to write a more extensive apply later, but the wife and kid beckon. :-)
P.S. A quick 'thank you' to you also for sticking around here. It's good to have your participation, though GoRight did a fine job of holding down the fort while you were gone.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
I think you read my comment too quickly
I did not argue that USSR was "communist" but that it was an example of a system where individual's right to self-determination was almost fully suppressed. Why do you think I included Nazi Germany? It does not have to be communist. I simply oppose all systems that suppress individual's right to self-determination.
I also believe Marxism (which I am not arguing has existed) falls into the category of systems that suppress it. What that means is that I believe that Marxism/Communism is vile in theory.
A system where an individual has almost no authority (notice I did not say full authority because that is almost impossible to achieve) over himself, instead surrendering it to "majority", proletariat, groups, dictator, the State, God, etc is a vile system imo.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
When everything you can do
And that differs from capitalism... how? You seem to forget that the proleteriat in communism is YOU. We have no choice but to work in order to live in a communist society. That differs from the capitalist system only in that it is not the capitalist who decides who can work in order to live. You are a slave to your own physical being, no system can change the fact you require food in order to prolong this being. The concept of communism ensures that EVERYBODY in society participates and that nobody lives off the work of another. Is that such a bad thing?
no no
Proletariat in communism is a group of people who feel they have the absolute authority to determine what is good for every individual inside that group. This is also why I view uncontrolled democracy in almost as low a regard as I do communist or Marxist theories.
I'd like to decide on my own whether I want to "participate" whatever that means and do not need anyone forcing me to do so in whatever fashion they deem it appropriate.
Communism leads to a reality in which whatever you achieve on your own will always benefit everyone else, including people who achieved absolutely nothing. Without rewarding those who achieve more (I am not even talking about keeping the fruits of their labor which is minimum fairness to me) you remove the incentive to keep achieving at a high level. Though you do not consider USSR Communist, it did have some marxist elements such as there was very little incentive for people to do better. I am from USSR btw and my family felt it personally.
As for Capitalism here is an example: how is it bad for an individual to create his own business through his own personal idea (that he himself came up with) and after advertising his need for employees to work for a wage, to hire 10 individuals who freely agree to give their time in exchange for objects of value? How is anyone a slave in this scenario?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Ender, the super human
I'll tell you exactly what that means. You don't live as a nomad (I assume), and you do not create or produce everything that you consume, be it the food you eat or the keyboard you use to type. You are a member of a society, a capitalist society. What makes capitalism different from other societies in the past, among many other factors, is the extreme division of labour. This means that instead of spending your time making everything you own by yourself, you specialise in a certian area of work. You do not need to know the ins and outs of construction, as there are builders to do that for you. Similarily, the builder doesn't need to know how to perform open heart surgery because there are doctors who specialise in that DIVISION of LABOUR. Without this division you would be doing EVERYTHING on your own, not merely having to make everything but also invent everything anew. Now imagine that is what you had to do, how much time do you think you'd have to reply to this blog? Let me know when you re-invent your own personal computer and the internet (and discover electricity of course).
One reason societies exist in the first place is because of trade. It is easier and more productive to hunt continuasly for the working day while someone else farms. Can you survive on meat or grain alone? I doubt it. That being the case you decide to trade the excess and (personally) unusable resourses you "own" with that of a different type of producer. Meat for grain, clothing, housing ect. You have entered into an informal contract with another supplier. Now this is a question I want Ender to answer. What makes 200, 300, or 1000 grams of flour equal in price to say, 1 rabbit, 2 deer or 3 wild bore? Why is a certain amount of what I produce equal to a certain amount of what you produce? Answer that and you may begin to understand commuist theory a little better.
The simple fact is, if you do not produce you do not survive, or if you survive it is from the work of others. But how do you survive from the labour of others without those others realising and getting pissed off as you steal the fruits of thier labour? If I walked into your house and started taking stuff out your refridgerator, you wouldn't mind?
The answer is quite simple, either you force people to labour for you, which if I am correct in terminology is referred to as slavery, or you claim ownership over that which others require to produce, the means of production. If you have no land or resourses to create value for yourself, ie; food, clothing, building materials, then what are you left to trade? Your ability to work, your productive power itself.
For capitalism and capital to exist requires another factor. Man can live almost entirely as a nomad even within a group, but this, in terms of productivity is very low. His time is spent working to be able to work in the near future. With the development of society and the division of labour, productivity increases. That was a simplistic explanation of the theory of surplus value, value created which has no other use than to be traded or sold (or left to rot). As the division of labour becomes ever more divided and revelutionized, so the surplus value of this labour increases. All which makes life in society more comfortable than that of the nomad is the increased surplus value. I could survive on the bare minimum but why should I have to? You can answer that Ender when (if) you answer the first question.
Needless to say, that is where the working class are heading. To work someone to the grave is pointless in the eyes of the capitalist since in reality he is destroying his means of production, the workers surplus value. He is obliged to keep you alive for his own survival, but the standards of our survival are of little concern. The more surplus value the richer the capitalist. The lower the standards of living (without killing us) the richer the capitalist. The more land owned, guess what, the richer the capitalist. It is moronic to say that everybody has a chance to become one of the capitalist class, who would produce for you?
Then you have three choices in todays society. Either you work, you steal or you die.
How it is "bad"
I missed this question. How is it bad? Firstly the last point since I've covered it alot recently. If the choice of the worker was to take home his full productivity in the form of a commodity, or surrender 60-70% to the capitalist, who would freely choose any wage? Secondly, in order for any business to get off the ground requires capital. You have to have money to make money. Ideas are a dime a dozen. Thirdly, what "objects of value" are you paying your workers? Do you mean to say money, the same money in my second point which came into existence from thin air?
Lastly, how is anyone a slave in this scenario?
Ask YOUR 10 workers. We live in a democracy until we clock in for work, and then it's a dictatorship for the rest of the day till we clock out. Still, it's not as if we're working for like three quarters of our time we spend awake.
Follow-up question.
I have been bitten recently by assuming that we have a common understanding of the meanings of certain words. When you ask the question, "Has Communism Ever Existed?", what is your definition of the word "Existed"?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Exist
Being as opposed to not being. The actual instead of the potential. The word exist is not easily (if atall possible) to validate beyond the borders of thought. If you want a clearer definition I would say first hand experience, but in relation to this blog a mere understanding of the ideas portrayed is sufficient (which is experience of the ideas), that is what we are using as first hand experience. Logic and reason will fill in the blanks
-isms
Germany was socialist under Hitler, and did lots of awful things.
Now, Hitler is gone, and they're even more socialist, but are the most liberal, PC, panty-waist country on the planet.
This is as apt an illustration as I can find to show that there are deeper sources of evil than money. Just as democracies are free to elect terrorists, communists, socialists, and capitalists are free to be good or evil.
Socialisme ou Barbarie!
Excellent points!
I'm only half stupid
Bigger Picture
Why was Hitler elected in the first place? Here's a date, October 29th 1929. I don't claim capitalism to be the only evil in this world, but I believe it to be the one with the most potential for destruction. All I get from your above post is that things are the way they are and that's how it is. Gr8 philosophy!
What? Hitlers' Germany was Socialist? Was Ghengis Khan a democrat? Germany under the Nazi party was a dictatorship(ism). If I called myself a carrot would you say that I was a carrot or that I was a man who called himself a carrot? This really annoys me, and it's why I wrote the diary in the first place. If your going to talk about an idea, understand it first. A spade is a spade, not a comunist/anarchal dictatorship.
The Communist Party here in the United States
was never very strong to begin with, but that doesn't mean Communists have never existed. They provided strength in certain movements for justice, such as for Unions, etc, and, when the Communists got kicked out, things began to go wrong.