Socialism/Communism - why is everyone else always doing it wrong?

BalcombeSt4

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Ask any "socialist" in Ireland or elsewhere about any other examples of communism/socialism ever carried out in the world, ever, they say "it's not real socialism".


USSR - wrong
North Korea - wrong
National Socialists (Nazis) in Germany - wrong
Vietnam - wrong
Venuzuala (happening now by the way and once again the people suffer - another collapse) - wrong
etc etc

Isn't it true that the natural human condition is not built for socialism and this is why ultimately the leaders end up as despot dictators and some end up more equal than others?

Can someone give me an example of a regime that did socialism "right"? Just one?

Also if you could tell us why your regime would not descend in to the same despot state and everyone would live equally rich and joyous lives peacefully that would be great!

Because Socialism/Communism has become pretty much irreversibly linked with Marxism-Leninism & Marxism-Leninism-Maoism which neither have nothing to do with real Socialism.

The core principal of Socialism is that workers controlled the means of production. Well workers had no control over anything in Leninist, Stalinist & Maoist states they were virtual slaves. The collapse of the Soviet Union was a victory for Socialism as it was one of the main barriers to true Socialism. Anton Pannekoek & Rosa Luxemburg were people who were closer anyway to real Socialism but they lost & you only remeber the people who won.

I don't know why the Nazis are on your hit list they hated Communism & murdered countless numbers of trade unionists, socialists, communists & social democrats.

And it would have been pretty hard for Vietnam to succed after the country was bombed back to the stone age & then hit with crippling sanctions for removing the Khemer Rouge from Cambodia.

Anongeneric

Every single empire
Most recently the brits, slavery, explotation of others resources, famines, disease, conflict
etc.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It's a little idealistic. However when has Capitalism been implemented in it's most extreme form? We have only known and had pragmatic Capitalism. It seems to work. It encourages innovation, gives people freedom of choice and incentivises creativity and innovation. Has it faults, yes. As much as socialism, no.

Extremes of socialism which is communism has been implemented and has demonstrably failed on every occasion.

Junkyard Tom

Suryavarman wrote: »

All four Scandinavian countries rank higher in the Doing Business Report than Ireland. All 4 rank in the top 25 of the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom. I don't see how socialist countries could achieve such results.

Yes, businesses that are relatively free to operate where education, health, law-and-order, welfare, transport infrastructure, sanitation, communications infrastructure, national security, and so on, are taken care of by the state tend to do well.

the_syco

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Isn't it true that the natural human condition is not built for socialism and this is why ultimately the leaders end up as despot dictators and some end up more equal than others?

If all are equal, there is no need for a leader.

But communism is often brought in control the people.

Suryavarman

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Yes, businesses that are relatively free to operate where education, health, law-and-order, welfare, transport infrastructure, sanitation, communications infrastructure, national security, and so on, are taken care of by the state tend to do well.

And none of that makes a country socialist.

Junkyard Tom

Suryavarman wrote: »

And none of that makes a country socialist.

Do you believe there should be multiple privately built motorways running alongside each other to provide a driver with a price-sensitive choice on how he gets from Cork to Dublin?

Do you think there should be numerous power-grids running alongside one another to every business and home?

Do you believe you there should be multiple sewerage and waters systems running alongside each other to provide competition for the end-user?

Nah, you don't because you know that that makes absolutely no economic sense.

You're a socialist.

BalcombeSt4

I think Chomsky had it right about Marx. He was a 19th century critic of capitalism who had some good ideas & some bad ideas, you should try to learn from the good ideas & disregard the bad ones & not everything he wrote should be taken as some sort of gospel truth.

Jolly Red Giant

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

I think Chomsky had it right about Marx. He was a 19th century critic of capitalism who had some good ideas & some bad ideas, you should try to learn from the good ideas & disregard the bad ones & not everything he wrote should be taken as some sort of gospel truth.

Go and try and find a Marxist who believes that everything Marx wrote should be taken as 'some sort of gospel truth'.

Marx himself formulated many theses only later to revise them or toss them aside as new evidence and/or new developments in society required them to be reassessed.

Opponents of Marxism consistently point to Stalinism and claim that this is the logical outcome of Marxism - it isn't - no more than a fascist dictatorship is the logical outcome of the ideas of the French Revolution or Adam Smith. Furthermore, Stalinism isn't even the logical outcome of 'Leninism' (which is not actually and 'ism').

Marx analysed society and drew certain conclusions from the evidence that existed - the two most important conclusions were that we live in a class based society with a dominant class (the bourgeoisie) exploiting a much larger social class (the proletariat) and that, as with all previous class based societies, and the seeds of it's own destruction are created through the emergence of new social classes - the military and aristocracy that overthrew slave society to create feudalism - the merchants, crafts and industrialists that became the bourgeoisie that overthrew feudalism and created capitalism - and the working class that has the potential to overthrow capitalism and establish a democratically planned socialised economy based on providing for need and not profit. Engels took this further and pointed out that society is travelling full circle - from a society without any class structures (Mesolithic society) through classed based societies, following the emergence of the private ownership of property, of slavery through feudalism, through capitalism, and around to another societal form based on the absence of social classes - communism.

Marxism is not a 'gospel' - unlike organised religions - no more than 'wealth of nations' is a gospel - it is a different way of analysing society and it is a process that constantly changes and evolves.

As for Chomsky - decent bloke and all as he is and he has some good ideas and some bad ones - but he is no Marx.

johnnyskeleton

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Go and try and find a Marxist who believes that everything Marx wrote should be taken as 'some sort of gospel truth'.

If you wander around a university Im sure you'll find many of that stripe. Much like Christianity, where you have fundamentalists, who follow the holy book and ignore everything else, and orthodox followers, who accept the contemporary teachings without question, and the eccentrics, who form their own views are and usually derided, so too with Marxism.

Granted, strict adherence to a centuries old book is a young mans game, most being tempered by pragmatism as they get older, but there are loads of people who still believe that we live in an imperialist capitalist dictatorship and that, by means of violent revolution and a dictatorship of the proletariat, we will achieve a utopian society free from inequality.

Marx himself formulated many theses only later to revise them or toss them aside as new evidence and/or new developments in society required them to be reassessed.

Perhaps, but the core elements of his doctrine stayed the same. Capitalism bad, revolution necessary, socialist dictatorship needed, communist utopia logical end result.

Opponents of Marxism consistently point to Stalinism and claim that this is the logical outcome of Marxism - it isn't - no more than a fascist dictatorship is the logical outcome of the ideas of the French Revolution or Adam Smith. Furthermore, Stalinism isn't even the logical outcome of 'Leninism' (which is not actually and 'ism').

Hold on theres a big difference here. Can I ask you two questions:

1) do you accept that Marx and Engels advocated violently overthrowing the capitalist system and imposing a socialist dictatorship to transition mankind into communism?

2) can you point out anywhere in Adam Smiths works where he advocated dictatorship, facism, or indeed any deviation from parliamentary democracy, freedom of speech and conscience etc?

Maybe Stalin wasnt exactly what Marx had in mind. Certainly the socialism in one country was less in keeping with TCM than Trotskys vision. And I accept that much of the atrocities committed by Stalin were done out of what he perceived to be the necessity to win WWII rather than in furtherance of socialism. But a lot of what he did - imprisoning dissenters and counter revolutionaries, forcibly redistributing property and income, imposing state control over the means of production, restricting elections and the press to people who believed in socialism, etc - were all exactly what Marx said he should do to bring about communism.

So lets be real here. You can say that Marxism is a discredited verison of socialism and should be ignored. I'd accept that as a valid position to take, although its not a popular position. But dictatorship is an essential part of Marxism and we cant just rewrite history!

Marx analysed society and drew certain conclusions from the evidence that existed - the two most important conclusions were that we live in a class based society with a dominant class (the bourgeoisie) exploiting a much larger social class (the proletariat) and that, as with all previous class based societies, and the seeds of it's own destruction are created through the emergence of new social classes

Indeed, and modern socialists try to shoehorn this dynamic onto the modern world. But its difficult to encapsulate all those people who have risen to the top of society (sometimes from an already socially dominant family, sometimes not) into a class. Usually its called the "elite" which is a nebulous collection of politicians, bankers, lawyers, journalists (but not the finan o toole types, they somehow escape the lable of elite despite being on sic figure salaries for the most conservative broadsheet in town) and other dubiously labelled "connected" people.

If you can find enough people who are unhappy with their lives, and they are ready to blame anyone you tell them to blame (so long as they can see them as the "other" and not part of "us") then you will have a ready made market for the modern "whatever youre having yourself" brand of socialism.

The problem is made worse because the genuine have nots and working class people despite socialism and the left. Hence the socially mariginalised vote for Trump and Brexit.

Which in turn is why we now have socialists against wealth taxes!

suicide_circus

The nordic countries are more prudent and charitable due to their protestantism, very little to do with socialism.

mariaalice

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If you wander around a university Im sure you'll find many of that stripe. Much like Christianity, where you have fundamentalists, who follow the holy book and ignore everything else, and orthodox followers, who accept the contemporary teachings without question, and the eccentrics, who form their own views are and usually derided, so too with Marxism.

Granted, strict adherence to a centuries old book is a young mans game, most being tempered by pragmatism as they get older, but there are loads of people who still believe that we live in an imperialist capitalist dictatorship and that, by means of violent revolution and a dictatorship of the proletariat, we will achieve a utopian society free from inequality.



Perhaps, but the core elements of his doctrine stayed the same. Capitalism bad, revolution necessary, socialist dictatorship needed, communist utopia logical end result.



Hold on theres a big difference here. Can I ask you two questions:

1) do you accept that Marx and Engels advocated violently overthrowing the capitalist system and imposing a socialist dictatorship to transition mankind into communism?

2) can you point out anywhere in Adam Smiths works where he advocated dictatorship, facism, or indeed any deviation from parliamentary democracy, freedom of speech and conscience etc?

Maybe Stalin wasnt exactly what Marx had in mind. Certainly the socialism in one country was less in keeping with TCM than Trotskys vision. And I accept that much of the atrocities committed by Stalin were done out of what he perceived to be the necessity to win WWII rather than in furtherance of socialism. But a lot of what he did - imprisoning dissenters and counter revolutionaries, forcibly redistributing property and income, imposing state control over the means of production, restricting elections and the press to people who believed in socialism, etc - were all exactly what Marx said he should do to bring about communism.

So lets be real here. You can say that Marxism is a discredited verison of socialism and should be ignored. I'd accept that as a valid position to take, although its not a popular position. But dictatorship is an essential part of Marxism and we cant just rewrite history!



Indeed, and modern socialists try to shoehorn this dynamic onto the modern world. But its difficult to encapsulate all those people who have risen to the top of society (sometimes from an already socially dominant family, sometimes not) into a class. Usually its called the "elite" which is a nebulous collection of politicians, bankers, lawyers, journalists (but not the finan o toole types, they somehow escape the lable of elite despite being on sic figure salaries for the most conservative broadsheet in town) and other dubiously labelled "connected" people.

If you can find enough people who are unhappy with their lives, and they are ready to blame anyone you tell them to blame (so long as they can see them as the "other" and not part of "us") then you will have a ready made market for the modern "whatever youre having yourself" brand of socialism.

The problem is made worse because the genuine have nots and working class people despite socialism and the left. Hence the socially mariginalised vote for Trump and Brexit.

Which in turn is why we now have socialists against wealth taxes!

The proletariat the Marxists talk about are not actual 'working class' people but an idealised working class that have not been corrupted by consumerism among other things.

johnnyskeleton

mariaalice wrote: »

The proletariat the Marxists talk about are not actual 'working class' people but an idealised working class that have not been corrupted by consumerism among other things.

They were probably very real in the 1840s and 50s, but I agree with you that they probably dont exist in the modern western world.

I'm not sure if youre being sarcastic or not about corruption by consumerism or not but, if not, surely they no longer exist in the West because they fought for and won much needed freedoms and economic protections, and also that we have shipped much of our manual labour over to Asia?

Consumerism, and indeed the luxury of critising consumerism, are symptoms of just how well off everyone in 21st century Western countries are. Even someone on the dole is immeasurably better off than the person at the lowest rung in the 1840s Europe or indeed in modern day China.

Yourself isit

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Go and try and find a Marxist who believes that everything Marx wrote should be taken as 'some sort of gospel truth'.

Marx himself formulated many theses only later to revise them or toss them aside as new evidence and/or new developments in society required them to be reassessed.

Opponents of Marxism consistently point to Stalinism and claim that this is the logical outcome of Marxism - it isn't - no more than a fascist dictatorship is the logical outcome of the ideas of the French Revolution or Adam Smith. Furthermore, Stalinism isn't even the logical outcome of 'Leninism' (which is not actually and 'ism').

Marx analysed society and drew certain conclusions from the evidence that existed - the two most important conclusions were that we live in a class based society with a dominant class (the bourgeoisie) exploiting a much larger social class (the proletariat) and that, as with all previous class based societies, and the seeds of it's own destruction are created through the emergence of new social classes - the military and aristocracy that overthrew slave society to create feudalism - the merchants, crafts and industrialists that became the bourgeoisie that overthrew feudalism and created capitalism - and the working class that has the potential to overthrow capitalism and establish a democratically planned socialised economy based on providing for need and not profit. Engels took this further and pointed out that society is travelling full circle - from a society without any class structures (Mesolithic society) through classed based societies, following the emergence of the private ownership of property, of slavery through feudalism, through capitalism, and around to another societal form based on the absence of social classes - communism.

Marxism is not a 'gospel' - unlike organised religions - no more than 'wealth of nations' is a gospel - it is a different way of analysing society and it is a process that constantly changes and evolves.

As for Chomsky - decent bloke and all as he is and he has some good ideas and some bad ones - but he is no Marx.

While that's probably a good summary of Marxist histograpy, it isn't actual history. Slave societies weren't overthrown by aristocracies or the military - they work well together. The bourgeoisie didn't overthrow the aristocracies anywhere except France and certainly not in Britain, the proletariat isn't a revolutionary class, and capitalism didn't immiserate the petit bourgeoisie, a large middle class developed. Oh and Mesolithic society had no classes because it had no wealth.

Yourself isit

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

They were probably very real in the 1840s and 50s, but I agree with you that they probably dont exist in the modern western world.

I'm not sure if youre being sarcastic or not about corruption by consumerism or not but, if not, surely they no longer exist in the West because they fought for and won much needed freedoms and economic protections, and also that we have shipped much of our manual labour over to Asia?

Consumerism, and indeed the luxury of critising consumerism, are symptoms of just how well off everyone in 21st century Western countries are. Even someone on the dole is immeasurably better off than the person at the lowest rung in the 1840s Europe or indeed in modern day China.

I don't agree with this either. People who work and have to work for someone else to earn a reasonable income are working class.

I don't see why people are happy with being called workers but not working class.

johnnyskeleton

Yourself isit wrote: »

I don't agree with this either. People who work and have to work for someone else to earn a reasonable income are working class.

I was responding to a poster suggesting that the proletariat that Marx described was an idealised proletariat. I would accept Marx' bona fides that he described the situation as he saw it, but just that his description of the proletariat probably doesnt describe many people in the West today.

As regards redefining "working class" as being anyone who works for someone else, I dont think thats helpful. I agree that the phrase "working class" is of limited use in our modern service economy, but there is no practical benefit to redefining working class to mean someone who works for someone else. Does that mean that the Taoiseach, consultant surgeons and the head of Microsoft Ireland are all working class, but a self employed electrician or someone who owns a shop but takes home less than the average industrial wage are in a different, presumably socially superior, class?

I don't see why people are happy with being called workers but not working class.

On the contrary, everyone wants to be working class because they are the good hard working oppressed majority. By contrast, no one wants to be prt of the burgeoises. It doesnt pay nearly as well as it used to, you get none of the welfare benefits of being an employee and everyone still hates you for being a greedy capitalist pig, even if you give lots of money to charity and vote for centre left parties.

To paraphrase a quote, social excusion comes in the name of social inclusion.

Yourself isit

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I was responding to a poster suggesting that the proletariat that Marx described was an idealised proletariat. I would accept Marx' bona fides that he described the situation as he saw it, but just that his description of the proletariat probably doesnt describe many people in the West today.

As regards redefining "working class" as being anyone who works for someone else, I dont think thats helpful. I agree that the phrase "working class" is of limited use in our modern service economy, but there is no practical benefit to redefining working class to mean someone who works for someone else. Does that mean that the Taoiseach, consultant surgeons and the head of Microsoft Ireland are all working class, but a self employed electrician or someone who owns a shop but takes home less than the average industrial wage are in a different, presumably socially superior, class?

I should probably have specified "works for someone in the private sector". And no a CEO is not working class because he will have enough money to live well after about a year on the job.

And yes the self employed are a different class to the employed.

On the contrary, everyone wants to be working class because they are the good hard working oppressed majority. By contrast, no one wants to be prt of the burgeoises. It doesnt pay nearly as well as it used to, you get none of the welfare benefits of being an employee and everyone still hates you for being a greedy capitalist pig, even if you give lots of money to charity and vote for centre left parties.

I dont think you understand the terms you are using ( to be fair many Marxists use the term bourgeois incorrectly as well - to mean their political enemies). The bourgeoisie own capital and more specifically the means of production. It's not just a worker on good income.

To paraphrase a quote, social excusion comes in the name of social inclusion.

Not sure what that means.

johnnyskeleton

Yourself isit wrote: »

I should probably have specified "works for someone in the private sector". And no a CEO is not working class because he will have enough money to live well after about a year on the job.

Ok. I hope you realise that that flatly contradicts your previous definition, but under this new definition working class is someone who cannot live well after a year on the job? Not sure if you mean that a CEO can live comfortably for their entire lives from one year's salary but that would be extremely few CEOs. However, if that is the dividing line then the definition is pretty illusory. If they have enough to live off but gamble it away to they become working class again?

I think perhaps rich and poor would be a better way of categorising what you describe here.

And yes the self employed are a different class to the employed.

A different social class? Why?

I dont think you understand the terms you are using ( to be fair many Marxists use the term bourgeois incorrectly as well - to mean their political enemies). The bourgeoisie own capital and more specifically the means of production. It's not just a worker on good income.

I think this proves my point really that your definition of what is now working class doesnt hold water. More generally, I was deriding the way in which modern socialists are trying to find a class of bad guys that they can rebel against in the way that they could rebel against the land owning class in the industrial revolution.

Not sure what that means.

That socialists are trying to oppress people that they have arbitrarily deemed to be the other, and they justify it by making specious arguments as to how they are in fact the ones who are oppressed. Hence the whole we can send them to a gulag because they are enemies of the people and would send us to the gulag given half a chance logic.

Yourself isit

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Ok. I hope you realise that that flatly contradicts your previous definition, but under this new definition working class is someone who cannot live well after a year on the job? Not sure if you mean that a CEO can live comfortably for their entire lives from one year's salary but that would be extremely few CEOs. However, if that is the dividing line then the definition is pretty illusory. If they have enough to live off but gamble it away to they become working class again?

I clearly said has to work to earn a reasonable income in my original post. You probably don't realise what CEOs earn if you think most would be poor after a year. As for somebody who then spends money and becomes poor, who has ever denied that involves a change in class? An aristocrat can become a pauper.

I think perhaps rich and poor would be a better way of categorising what you describe here.

Im specifically distinguishing between the poor who have to work and the rich who don't but might well work precisely because you asked about rich workers. Or rather rich people who worked.

A different social class? Why?

Because they are not employees or employers but self employed.

I think this proves my point really that your definition of what is now working class doesnt hold water.

You haven't proved anything. I personally think private sector employees who don't see themselves as working class are fooling themselves.

That socialists are trying to oppress people that they have arbitrarily deemed to be the other, and they justify it by making specious arguments as to how they are in fact the ones who are oppressed. Hence the whole we can send them to a gulag because they are enemies of the people and would send us to the gulag given half a chance logic.

.


Well that escalated quickly. One minute a polite discussion on classes, next minute your are off to the gulags.

I'm not a Marxist by the way, in fact I think it's always going to be authoritarian in practice - but very few philosophies are totally bunk and his class analysis is good.

johnnyskeleton

Yourself isit wrote: »

I clearly said has to work to earn a reasonable income in my original post. You probably don't realise what CEOs earn if you think most would be poor after a year. As for somebody who then spends money and becomes poor, who has ever denied that involves a change in class? An aristocrat can become a pauper.

I disagree. A social class is a distinction based on perceptions of social background and status rather than current financial status. An aristocrat may become a pauper but is still an aristocract. Someone from a humble background can become a multi billionare but they dont become an aristocrat.

Im specifically distinguishing between the poor who have to work and the rich who don't but might well work precisely because you asked about rich workers. Or rather rich people who worked.

Is the definition of working class then someone who has to work? Most people have to work, it being a very small number who are so wealthy that they can choose not to for their entire lives and a lager but still relatively small number who will be on welfare benefits their entire lives.

This seems to be too broad a definition. Besides, most people earning over 100k still have to work to oay for mortgages etc, yet socialists believe that this geoup of people, who pay marginal rates of tax in excess of 50% already, should pay even more tax. Under your definition socialists would favour taxing part of the working class which would be contradictory of the class struggle that is essential to Marxist theory

Because they are not employees or employers but self employed.

This makes no sense to me. Hard working self employed people who earn a modest wage are not working class but if they took a better paying job working for someone else they would? What's so special about working for someone else?

You haven't proved anything. I personally think private sector employees who don't see themselves as working class are fooling themselves.

I think the old concepts of class are outdated myself, but the less people who are duped into believing that they are part of an opposed class in the class struggle the better.

Well that escalated quickly. One minute a polite discussion on classes, next minute your are off to the gulags.

Not really, its been my point all along that certain actions of Stalin and others cant be dismissed as not being part of socialist theory, such as biolent revolution and the need to silence political dissenters.

I'm not a Marxist by the way, in fact I think it's always going to be authoritarian in practice - but very few philosophies are totally bunk and his class analysis is good.

I feel like we have come full circle to the post you originally took issue with. His analysis of class and class struggle were probably accurate for the 1840s and 50s, but I dont think it can be applied to the modern world.

stefanovich

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Can someone give me an example of a regime that did socialism "right"? Just one?

On a very small scale it can be successful I believe. I'm thinking Kibbutzim in Israel for example.

Jolly Red Giant

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If you wander around a university Im sure you'll find many of that stripe. Much like Christianity, where you have fundamentalists, who follow the holy book and ignore everything else, and orthodox followers, who accept the contemporary teachings without question, and the eccentrics, who form their own views are and usually derided, so too with Marxism.

This is actual rubbish - adherents of neo-liberalism and other right-wing outlooks just as likely to be 'of that stripe' as any Marxist.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Granted, strict adherence to a centuries old book is a young mans game, most being tempered by pragmatism as they get older, but there are loads of people who still believe that we live in an imperialist capitalist dictatorship and that, by means of violent revolution and a dictatorship of the proletariat, we will achieve a utopian society free from inequality.

Are you talking about the bible here - because Marxism is not 'centuries old'

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Perhaps, but the core elements of his doctrine stayed the same. Capitalism bad, revolution necessary, socialist dictatorship needed, communist utopia logical end result.

And clearly you don't have any preconceived notions about Marxism :rolleyes:

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Hold on theres a big difference here. Can I ask you two questions:

1) do you accept that Marx and Engels advocated violently overthrowing the capitalist system and imposing a socialist dictatorship to transition mankind into communism?

No - Marx and Engels did not advocate 'violently overthrowing the capitalist system' or 'imposing a socialist dictatorship' - they advocated the use of an armed uprising if necessary - i.e. if the bourgeois class violently resisted the democratic desire of the working class to change society - and they advocated the establishment of a democratically planned socialised economy.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

2) can you point out anywhere in Adam Smiths works where he advocated dictatorship, facism, or indeed any deviation from parliamentary democracy, freedom of speech and conscience etc?

This is the problem with trying to discuss these topics with someone who has preconceived notions about Marxism - and really hasn't a clue about anything they are trying to talk about.

The term 'dictatorship of the proletariat' does not refer to a dictatorship in the sense of dictatorships under the control of one (or a small group) of individuals - as in the dictatorships like Pinochet in Chile, Franco in Spain, the Greek Colonels, or current dictatorships like Mugabe or the Arab Sheiks or Nazarbayev in Kazakhstan - it refers to the working class as a social class controlling society rather than what exists at the moment - a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie - where society is controlled by those who privately own and control the means of production.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Maybe Stalin wasnt exactly what Marx had in mind. Certainly the socialism in one country was less in keeping with TCM than Trotskys vision.

Stalin has no more in common with Marxism than you do

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

And I accept that much of the atrocities committed by Stalin were done out of what he perceived to be the necessity to win WWII rather than in furtherance of socialism.

Wrong again - the atrocities committed by the Stalinist regime in the USSR were designed to remove political opponents (the Left Opposition and others) and to consolidate the dictatorship.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But a lot of what he did - imprisoning dissenters and counter revolutionaries, forcibly redistributing property and income, imposing state control over the means of production, restricting elections and the press to people who believed in socialism, etc - were all exactly what Marx said he should do to bring about communism.

And you can produce evidence for this assertion -

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So lets be real here. You can say that Marxism is a discredited verison of socialism and should be ignored. I'd accept that as a valid position to take, although its not a popular position.

I never said that Marxism is a 'discredited version of socialism' - I said that Stalinism has nothing to do with Marxism. I would argue that Marxism as a political philosophy is nothing more than a method of analysing society and a pointer as to how a future society, where divisions between social classes no longer exist, could be organised.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But dictatorship is an essential part of Marxism and we cant just rewrite history!

Again - evidence - and that isn't just copying and pasting 'dictatorship of the proletariat'

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Indeed, and modern socialists try to shoehorn this dynamic onto the modern world. But its difficult to encapsulate all those people who have risen to the top of society (sometimes from an already socially dominant family, sometimes not) into a class. Usually its called the "elite" which is a nebulous collection of politicians, bankers, lawyers, journalists (but not the finan o toole types, they somehow escape the lable of elite despite being on sic figure salaries for the most conservative broadsheet in town) and other dubiously labelled "connected" people.

If you can find enough people who are unhappy with their lives, and they are ready to blame anyone you tell them to blame (so long as they can see them as the "other" and not part of "us") then you will have a ready made market for the modern "whatever youre having yourself" brand of socialism.

Is this the best you can do - it is an incoherent rant that has zero analytical content within it.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The problem is made worse because the genuine have nots and working class people despite socialism and the left. Hence the socially mariginalised vote for Trump and Brexit.

'despite' socialism - you need to fix your internal spell checker there

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Which in turn is why we now have socialists against wealth taxes!

Ah come on - I am 100% in full support for a wealth tax - a real wealth tax based on ability to pay - let's say a 5% tax on all wealth over €1million.

Jolly Red Giant

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Ok. I hope you realise that that flatly contradicts your previous definition, but under this new definition working class is someone who cannot live well after a year on the job? Not sure if you mean that a CEO can live comfortably for their entire lives from one year's salary but that would be extremely few CEOs. However, if that is the dividing line then the definition is pretty illusory. If they have enough to live off but gamble it away to they become working class again?

I think perhaps rich and poor would be a better way of categorising what you describe here.

A member of the working class can best be described as someone who works using their hand or brain for a wage.

The basis of social classes is determined by the relationship of the social class to ownership of the means of production.

Some members of the working class can be relatively well paid - some who own and control the means of production can have a low income.

So - no - your classification as 'rich' and 'poor' is not a classification that works.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

A different social class? Why?

Because one works for a wage - the other does not.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I think this proves my point really that your definition of what is now working class doesnt hold water. More generally, I was deriding the way in which modern socialists are trying to find a class of bad guys that they can rebel against in the way that they could rebel against the land owning class in the industrial revolution.

I think you need to go back and review your understanding of the industrial revolution - the rebellion was not against the land-owning class - it was against the factory owning class. Workers first organised trade unions in factories.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That socialists are trying to oppress people that they have arbitrarily deemed to be the other, and they justify it by making specious arguments as to how they are in fact the ones who are oppressed. Hence the whole we can send them to a gulag because they are enemies of the people and would send us to the gulag given half a chance logic.

Again - evidence - not just your uneducated assumptions.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

This seems to be too broad a definition. Besides, most people earning over 100k still have to work to oay for mortgages etc, yet socialists believe that this geoup of people, who pay marginal rates of tax in excess of 50% already, should pay even more tax. Under your definition socialists would favour taxing part of the working class which would be contradictory of the class struggle that is essential to Marxist theory

Wrong again - socialists favour taxing wealth - not increasing taxes on working class people - hence the opposition to water charges.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

This makes no sense to me. Hard working self employed people who earn a modest wage are not working class but if they took a better paying job working for someone else they would? What's so special about working for someone else?

There is nothing 'so special' about it - it describes the relationship of the individual to the ownership of the means of production

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I think the old concepts of class are outdated myself, but the less people who are duped into believing that they are part of an opposed class in the class struggle the better.

So its all about 'duping' people into believing something they are not - got it

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I feel like we have come full circle to the post you originally took issue with. His analysis of class and class struggle were probably accurate for the 1840s and 50s, but I dont think it can be applied to the modern world.

If anything - the class analysis of society developed by Marx is far more relevant to modern society than it ever was in the 1840s - precisely because the working class is a far, far higher percentage of the population today than it was in the 1840s

johnnyskeleton

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

This is actual rubbish - adherents of neo-liberalism and other right-wing outlooks just as likely to be 'of that stripe' as any Marxist.

Well yes there are dogmatic right wing people too, but that's not the point. You said that there were no socialists who slavishly believed what was written, I disagreed with you pointing out, albeit from my experience, that there are dogmatic marxists and your response is to dismiss that as rubbish because there are people who are dogmatic of other creeds.

Are you talking about the bible here - because Marxism is not 'centuries old'

Yes. As you can see from the fact that I compared fanatical followers of Marxism to fanatical followers of Christianity. If your only response to this analogy is that Marxism is not centuries old, I don't see how that changes things.

And clearly you don't have any preconceived notions about Marxism :rolleyes:

No I don't. I have ideas about Marxism based on reading their literature. If you disagree with my view that the core beliefs of Marxism are fundamentally the same as they were, they by all means articulate that rather than simply asserting that I have preconceived notions about what Marxism is.

No - Marx and Engels did not advocate 'violently overthrowing the capitalist system' or 'imposing a socialist dictatorship' - they advocated the use of an armed uprising if necessary - i.e. if the bourgeois class violently resisted the democratic desire of the working class to change society - and they advocated the establishment of a democratically planned socialised economy.

Direct quote from the last paragraph of the Communist Manifesto:

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

If that is not advocating a forcible overthrow of existing social conditions, then I don't know what is!

This is the problem with trying to discuss these topics with someone who has preconceived notions about Marxism - and really hasn't a clue about anything they are trying to talk about.

Well you asserted that Stalin is about as relevant to Marx as Fascism is to Adam Smith. So I pointed out that Marx did advocate many of the oppressive things that Stalin did, such as silencing dissent and eschewing democracy, whereas Smith did not advocate any of those things.

If your response is merely that I haven't a clue about anything, I can't really advance matters any further.

The term 'dictatorship of the proletariat' does not refer to a dictatorship in the sense of dictatorships under the control of one (or a small group) of individuals - as in the dictatorships like Pinochet in Chile, Franco in Spain, the Greek Colonels, or current dictatorships like Mugabe or the Arab Sheiks or Nazarbayev in Kazakhstan - it refers to the working class as a social class controlling society rather than what exists at the moment - a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie - where society is controlled by those who privately own and control the means of production.

Here's the thing - it is immaterial whether the dictator is one man or twelve men or a class of men. The essential problem with a dictatorship is not the fact that some people are in charge of a country, it's when they use their power to prevent the other people from exercising their rights. So, for example, I would have no problem with Stalin or Mugabe etc if they were democratically elected, allowed free and fair elections, and didn't quell the voices of dissenters.

So the problem with a dictatorship is not who is in power, it's the fact that significant groups of other people are expressly denied any access to political power. And the dictatorship of the proletariat advocates exactly that i.e. anyone who doesn't agree with socialism/communism is denied their rights.

If you honestly describe parliamentary democracy, which is far from perfect I admit, as a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" then I think I see why you are failing to grasp what I say.

I have no problem with democratic socialists. I don't often agree with them, to be honest, but if they are elected as representatives of the public then I respect that. That is what democracy is about.

I do not respect those Marxists who believe that it is acceptable to have a violent revolution against this democratic system merely because they perceive it as being a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie".

Stalin has no more in common with Marxism than you do

I think we have been over this, but let's be clear - do you dispute that Stalin believed in quashing political dissenters and "counter revolutionaries" and justified it because they were enemies of the proletariat?

Wrong again - the atrocities committed by the Stalinist regime in the USSR were designed to remove political opponents (the Left Opposition and others) and to consolidate the dictatorship.

So the elimination of peasant farmers, immigrants, anyone who disagreed with socialism etc were all imagined?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulak

And you can produce evidence for this assertion -

The assertion that Stalin tried to do it or that Marx advocated it? It should be abundantly clear that Stalin created a dictatorship, abolished private property, denied free speech and set up a dicatorship to try to impose socialism. As for Marx advocating these things, how about this:

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

I mean it's all in there, plain as day for anyone who wants to read it. But, much like some christians try to ignore the inconveniently whacky parts of the bible, socialists choose to ignore whichever parts of the Communist Manifesto that doesn't suit their argument at the time.

It is undeniable in my view that part and parcel of Marxist socialism (as opposed to social democracy) involves denying political rights to people who believe in capitalism and democracy.

johnnyskeleton

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

If anything - the class analysis of society developed by Marx is far more relevant to modern society than it ever was in the 1840s - precisely because the working class is a far, far higher percentage of the population today than it was in the 1840s

I thought this point was worthy of highlighting.

So if there are far more working class people now than there were ever before, how come the political trends seem to be moving away from socialism?

Jolly Red Giant

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I thought this point was worthy of highlighting.

So if there are far more working class people now than there were ever before, how come the political trends seem to be moving away from socialism?

More socialists are currently members of the Dail than at anytime since the foundation of the state.

The 'left' won its highest vote in a French presdiential election in decades

Sanders won significant support in the USA on a campaign platform of ending the rule of the bankers and a general left programme. Socialists are getting the most significant votes in elections in the US for 80 years.

Politics is not - and never has been - straightforward - nor, for that matter, have the dynamics been dictated by an electoral process designed to preserve the rule of the bourgeoisie.

The key to any political developments is political consciousness - and the bourgeoisie do everything in their power to minimise political consciousness because of the threat it poses (including propagating the most base ideas among the most backward sections of the working class).

The reality is that working class people have begun to develop their political consciousness - it is in the very early stages, but the trends are clear. Twenty years ago the idea that we would have marriage equality, demonstrations in support of abortion or a mass political country-wide campaign against water charges would not have been entertained. The Jobstown trials are also playing an important role in this - exposing the political role of the state in limiting opposition against bourgeois rule.

Jolly Red Giant

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well yes there are dogmatic right wing people too, but that's not the point. You said that there were no socialists who slavishly believed what was written, I disagreed with you pointing out, albeit from my experience, that there are dogmatic marxists and your response is to dismiss that as rubbish because there are people who are dogmatic of other creeds.

No - I said that Marxists do not 'slavishly believe what is written' - not there there are no socialists who slavishly believed what was written

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Yes. As you can see from the fact that I compared fanatical followers of Marxism to fanatical followers of Christianity. If your only response to this analogy is that Marxism is not centuries old, I don't see how that changes things.

Marxism has no more fanatical followers than capitalism and all its variants (indeed I would argue that it has far fewer fanatics because the forces of Marxism are significantly smaller than the forces of capitalism).

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No I don't. I have ideas about Marxism based on reading their literature. If you disagree with my view that the core beliefs of Marxism are fundamentally the same as they were, they by all means articulate that rather than simply asserting that I have preconceived notions about what Marxism is.

If you were basing it on the literature then you wouldn't be making the arguments that you are.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Direct quote from the last paragraph of the Communist Manifesto:

If that is not advocating a forcible overthrow of existing social conditions, then I don't know what is!

The Communist Manifesto was written at a time when the bourgeois classes in Europe were brutally suppressing mass uprisings across the continent. The Communist Manfesto outlined why the bourgeois classes were engaged in the brutal repression of the masses and how the working class and the poor masses needed to respond to this repression.

You accuse Marxists of 'slavishly following' the writings of Marx - yet you are the one taking these writings literally - Marxists always read political writings in the context of the period they were written and in the light of the political developments that were underway.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well you asserted that Stalin is about as relevant to Marx as Fascism is to Adam Smith.

No I didn't - I said

Opponents of Marxism consistently point to Stalinism and claim that this is the logical outcome of Marxism - it isn't - no more than a fascist dictatorship is the logical outcome of the ideas of the French Revolution or Adam Smith.

It is not my fault that you are not capable of understanding the difference.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So I pointed out that Marx did advocate many of the oppressive things that Stalin did, such as silencing dissent and eschewing democracy, whereas Smith did not advocate any of those things.

And I pointed out to you that you are wrong in this assertion - and you have produced zero evidence to back up your assertion.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If your response is merely that I haven't a clue about anything, I can't really advance matters any further.

The problem is that you have to demonstrate that you know what you are talking about - you haven't.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Here's the thing - it is immaterial whether the dictator is one man or twelve men or a class of men. The essential problem with a dictatorship is not the fact that some people are in charge of a country, it's when they use their power to prevent the other people from exercising their rights.

Here is your problem - so-called 'democratic countries' consistently prevent people from exercising their rights - the Jobstown trial is an attempt to restrict the right to protest. Repeatedly right-wing governments have restricted or attempted to restrict the right of trade unions to organise - activists to assemble - communities to oppose the imposition of diktats from the political representatives of the bourgeoisie. The most stark example of this in recent times was when the unelected bureaucrats running the IMF/ECB/EU forced the Greek government to go against the expressed democratic decision of the Greek population and impose massive austerity.

Dictatorships exist in all 'democratic' countries because one social class - the bourgeoisie - controls the political system and uses it to exploit another social class - the proletariat.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So, for example, I would have no problem with Stalin or Mugabe etc if they were democratically elected, allowed free and fair elections, and didn't quell the voices of dissenters.

The issue is that you cannot say you would support a dictator if they weren't a dictator. Hitler was 'elected' to power (without the Nazis ever actually winning an election) - he used the dictatorial nature of the German constitution (written to secure the rule of the bourgeoisie in the aftermath of the Spartacist Uprising) to create a dictatorship - yet you, by the logical extension of your argument, would have no problem with Hitler coming to power because he was 'democratically elected'.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So the problem with a dictatorship is not who is in power, it's the fact that significant groups of other people are expressly denied any access to political power. And the dictatorship of the proletariat advocates exactly that i.e. anyone who doesn't agree with socialism/communism is denied their rights.

And you again make a broad sweeping assertion - with zero evidence.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If you honestly describe parliamentary democracy, which is far from perfect I admit, as a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" then I think I see why you are failing to grasp what I say.

If Denis O'Brien phones Enda Kenny then Enda Kenny will answer the phone - if you phone Enda Kenny he will ignore your call. Yet in this parliamentary democracy Denis O'Brien is supposed to have no more influence on the democratic process than you are.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I have no problem with democratic socialists. I don't often agree with them, to be honest, but if they are elected as representatives of the public then I respect that. That is what democracy is about.

You mean 'democratic socialists' like Joan Burton, Brendan Howling and Tony Blair - people who claim to represent the interests of working class people but who implement the policies of the bourgeois class.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I do not respect those Marxists who believe that it is acceptable to have a violent revolution against this democratic system merely because they perceive it as being a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie".

More of your sweeping statements

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I think we have been over this, but let's be clear - do you dispute that Stalin believed in quashing political dissenters and "counter revolutionaries" and justified it because they were enemies of the proletariat?

Yes I do dispute this - Stalin quashed political dissent in order to protect and consolidate his dictatorship - and the first people he targeted were the Marxists of the Left Opposition.

At the time of the October Revolution in 1917 there were 26 members of the Bolshevik Central Committee - between 1926 when Stalin consolidated his power and 1940 when Trotsky was assassinated - 1 dropped out of political activity by 1918 - 5 died of natural causes or accidents by 1926 - 2 died in fighting during the Russian Civil War - 14 (a majority) were either executed, assassinated or died in a gulag. By 1940 only Stalin and his right-hand henchman Muranov were part of the dictatorship (Kollantai had left the USSR and was living in Norway).

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So the elimination of peasant farmers, immigrants, anyone who disagreed with socialism etc were all imagined?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulak

Stalin initially used the Kulaks as a power base to defeat the Left Opposition at the Communist Party Congresses - and then turned on the Kulaks as they developed as a social class and became a threat to Stalin's power.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The assertion that Stalin tried to do it or that Marx advocated it? It should be abundantly clear that Stalin created a dictatorship, abolished private property, denied free speech and set up a dicatorship to try to impose socialism. As for Marx advocating these things, how about this:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

You do realise that I can do exactly the same thing with the writings of all the leading advocates of capitalism and demonstrate exactly the same thing with fascism.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I mean it's all in there, plain as day for anyone who wants to read it. But, much like some christians try to ignore the inconveniently whacky parts of the bible, socialists choose to ignore whichever parts of the Communist Manifesto that doesn't suit their argument at the time.

Marxists do not - and will not - ignore any part of the Communist Manifesto - but unlike you Marxists do not take the writings of Marx literally without taking it into the context of the period in which it was written.

Furthermore - the objective of Marxists is the establishment of a democratically planned socialised economy - to do that requires actually controlling the means of production - the ownership and/or control of which is now in the hands of a very small number of very wealthy individuals. Marxists do not and never have been shy about advocating this.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It is undeniable in my view that part and parcel of Marxist socialism (as opposed to social democracy) involves denying political rights to people who believe in capitalism and democracy.

Marxism advocates the implementation of real democracy - an active participatory democracy - not the sham democracy that passes for the 'democratic process' under capitalism.

Democracy is as vital a component of Marxism as oxygen is to a body.

johnnyskeleton

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Marxism advocates the implementation of real democracy - an active participatory democracy - not the sham democracy that passes for the 'democratic process' under capitalism.

I'm not going to respond point by point to your requests for evidence when I have already spent a lot of time quoting the specific parts of the communist manifesto that adocate the forceful overthrowing of the governement, nor your attempts to say that Marxists dont ignore some stuff but they dont interpret it literally if it doesnt suit, the suggestion that capitalist theorists openly advocated dictatorship or violent revolution, etc etc as I feel we are getting nowhere. You refuse to accept that the soviet union was attempting to impose a dictatorship of the proletariat and so has no real connection to Marx. Obviously I disagree.

But its the above view that democracy is a sham and your categorisation of social democrats as agents of the bourgeosies that really that troubles me the most!

...And Justice

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I'm not going to respond point by point to your requests for evidence when I have already spent a lot of time quoting the specific parts of the communist manifesto that adocate the forceful overthrowing of the governement, nor your attempts to say that Marxists dont ignore some stuff but they dont interpret it literally if it doesnt suit, the suggestion that capitalist theorists openly advocated dictatorship or violent revolution, etc etc as I feel we are getting nowhere. You refuse to accept that the soviet union was attempting to impose a dictatorship of the proletariat and so has no real connection to Marx. Obviously I disagree.

But its the above view that democracy is a sham and your categorisation of social democrats as agents of the bourgeosies that really that troubles me the most!

While agree with your sentiments, there is still active RSF in the republic, they have there HQ in Dublin, they are Marxists here's their website
https://republicansinnfein.org/. They are opposed to capitalism in all its forms, their crusties, but they are given the opportunity to have a voice, which I find ridiculous. The even have a HQ in Dublin. They call mainstream SF as provisional SF, and they are the real SF. Unemployed drug dealers if you ask me.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi3qO3D_czTAhVJLMAKHQ9zDGAQjRwIBw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FRepublican_Sinn_F%25C3%25A9in&psig=AFQjCNFYaKNJpDzLZVF4bQDVQVixlkCVqw&ust=1493669197982524

johnnyskeleton

...And Justice wrote: »

While agree with your sentiments, there is still active RSF in the republic, they have there HQ in Dublin, they are Marxists here's their website
https://republicansinnfein.org/. They are opposed to capitalism in all its forms, their crusties, but they are given the opportunity to have a voice, which I find ridiculous. The even have a HQ in Dublin. They call mainstream SF as provisional SF, and they are the real SF. Unemployed drug dealers if you ask me.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi3qO3D_czTAhVJLMAKHQ9zDGAQjRwIBw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FRepublican_Sinn_F%25C3%25A9in&psig=AFQjCNFYaKNJpDzLZVF4bQDVQVixlkCVqw&ust=1493669197982524

I think the fact that they have a voice and are not shut down, despite advocating the forceful overthrowing of the Irish State and replacing it with a socialist government is an endorsement of the freedoms that we currently enjoy but which would not be tolerated were they actually to come to power!

Jolly Red Giant

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I'm not going to respond point by point to your requests for evidence when I have already spent a lot of time quoting the specific parts of the communist manifesto that adocate the forceful overthrowing of the governement, nor your attempts to say that Marxists dont ignore some stuff but they dont interpret it literally if it doesnt suit, the suggestion that capitalist theorists openly advocated dictatorship or violent revolution, etc etc as I feel we are getting nowhere. You refuse to accept that the soviet union was attempting to impose a dictatorship of the proletariat and so has no real connection to Marx. Obviously I disagree.

You have read the Communist Manifesto and you think you understand Marxism - got it.

But its the above view that democracy is a sham and your categorisation of social democrats as agents of the bourgeosies that really that troubles me the most!

Where did I catagorise 'social democrats as agents of the bourgeoisie'? - unless you think that Howlin, Burton or Blair are social democrats (and just so we are clear just because the have a 'Labour' tag - they are not).