Do you know any Communists?

Under free trade the trader is the master and the producer the slave. Protection is but the law of nature, the law of self-preservation, of self-development, of securing the highest and best destiny of the race of man. [It is said] that protection is immoral…. Why, if protection builds up and elevates 63,000,000 [the U.S. population] of people, the influence of those 63,000,000 of people elevates the rest of the world. We cannot take a step in the pathway of progress without benefitting mankind everywhere. Well, they say, ‘Buy where you can buy the cheapest'…. Of course, that applies to labor as to everything else. Let me give you a maxim that is a thousand times better than that, and it is the protection maxim: ‘Buy where you can pay the easiest.' And that spot of earth is where labor wins its highest rewards.[16]
- William McKinley (U.S. President)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Again - do you actually know about the ideology of communism, or merely just the Soviet interpretation of it?

The idea that the ideology could be any different from the practice is nonsense. And yes I've read Marx and plenty of Marxists. It's crap philosophy and even worse economics. And was not just practiced in the USSR, it was practiced in ⅓ of the world.

KarlMarks wrote: »

I'd still consider myself to be a communist. A pragmatic one! I grew up in an extremely political household in the 70's and still believe that the writings of Marx present a viable cornerstone on which to base an alternative economic system to the one we have today. That said, it needs to develop and reflect the realities of a society that is radically different to the one that was around when Marx was writing.

The Modern European Left is an appalling state at the moment. There is no direction or sense of modern intellectual engagement with true alternatives. The left has dispelled with the notion that it's really all about the economy stupid, and has instead taken upon itself to focus on social justice issues. The huge problem with this is that the centre-left and centre-right governments that have almost exclusively been in power since the end of the 2nd world war are pretty good at legislating and providing for this.

To be honest, I have less time for the type of Guardianista Leftie so prevalent today than I have for people who can exploit the deeply flawed Capitalist system. The true working class have been left meandering in a morass and there are little true alternatives being proposed. Legislating for such issues as gay marriage will come about through changing societal norms. The liberal right are great at this sort of thing. Us on the left need to focus on the division and responsibility of labour. Time has moved on. The core principals haven't.

I have very little time for Marx but he was correct about who runs society and how ideologies are created. A fairly trivial claim of course - the ruling classes are the top of society, the ideologies produced primarily are their ideologies. I doubt a 12th century peasant would disagree.

Most leftists who claim they understand this don't. They never see immigration as a ruling class ideology ( but who benefits) or see the whining about identity politics as anything other than what it is - a smokescreen for real privilege and power. The number of cubicle dwelling proles in here who post about their "white male privilege" is entertaining.

There was an unpublished article in some Scottish socialist mag recently - subsequently published on spiked. A black guy from Harvard was complaining about a previous article attacking identity politics, it was the typical whine about "whiteness" and domination. I looked this guy up, he was - like Obama - racially mixed and his parents were Harvard graduates and millionaires, he was a post grad in Harvard.

So an American (privilege in itself), a guy born into the American 1% , close to elite power, studying at the most elite institution in the centre of the empire is whining about the privilege of Scottish proles.

Marxism in practice is unworkable, at least it knows who has privilege and power. If the black gay female lesbian is your boss, she has power over you. The female oxford graduate complaining about "male privilege" in the guardian is also culturally powerful compared to you, despite being as dumb as a rock, her class position is why she is above the line and you are commentating below it.

So Marx on class is good. Solutions are terrible.

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Owning your own means of production isn't communism.

Community ownership of the means of production I was alluding to rather than individual ownership.

Davarus Walrus wrote: »

For people who went on and on about the means of production they actually did very little themselves. One of them used to sell homemade copper bongs.

That's fairly productive.

I think both extremes have issues.

Pure capitalism is unworkable because you can't really own something if there is no state to recognise ownership, which needs taxes. It also promotes a system of unfairness once wealthy individuals establish themselves. It causes oligopolies which eventually result in a scenario where it is impossible to compete. The early days of capitalism are ok since everyone has the ability to cut out their own piece of the pie if they work hard, but when it hits it's mature phase you get a scenario where only a handful of companies own everything and a working class person can never possibly obtain a lifestyle better than they are born into, no matter how hard they work or how intelligent they are, which completely goes against capitalist ideals.

Pure communism doesn't create an environment that encourages innovation, this is quite likely to cause economic stagnation. I think this is pretty much unworkable too because it requires individuals who run the state to be incorruptible.

I don't think either of these systems have ever existed in their pure form in the real world, and if they did it certainly hasn't happened at any sort of scale. (Please correct me if I'm wrong)

I don't really have any solid views on which economic theory is best, it's constantly changing because there is no perfect answer. I definitely believe in at least a little socialism, but my mind is constantly being changed on the degree of it. Pretty much all versions of it suffer pretty badly from corruption and cronyism. It's what causes state bodies to become bloated and inefficient and it's what causes large corporations to control markets and stifle competition.

To a certain degree direct democracy helps with the above corruption but that comes with its own set of issues. People don't always know whats best, money can still buy votes since marketing campaigns can convince people to vote in a way that's not necessarily best for them, large reform becomes very difficult because people are afraid of change etc etc. But I do think this is a better option than the current system in Ireland. But a system that better combats the issue would be preferable, I just don't know of any.

Well I am aware of a few, but in my case it's no surprise... Just a disappointment.