I’m a member of the ISO, so the answer to 1. is yes.
The more organized the working class is in a revolutionary situation, the less bloody the revolution will actually be. Petrograd had only 5 deaths the night the Winter Palace was stormed; Moscow had 500 but there were serious organizational mistakes made there.
As little as humanly possible. This isn’t some swashbuckler’s adventure where try to look heroic as we slash as many obstacles in our way.
Of course you are 
Well, the government doesn’t properly allocate because they aren’t socialist. If they were, the wisdom of the heavens would open up, and every decision ever made would be perfect. See, problem solved.
**
Where isn’t there Capitalism? The majority of the world is most certainly living under capitalism. However, even if they weren’t, Marx did not mean for it to seem so rigid. Trotsky elaborated on the theory with his theory of permenant revolution. Basicicly it stated that you could leap over the cpaitalist phase directly into communism if you had a sufficient capitalist base. This is what happened in Russia. Most of the coutry was made up of peasents living in feudal conditons.
**
It was given. However the reason why it failed was the isolation of the soviet union. And the invasions of it by numerous capitalist “democracies”.
No, even if your premise was correct. Why? Becasue 1. The working class and organizations of the working class must be strong enough during time of revolution. they can only do that htorugh constant activity and practice. 2. There are battles to fight now. Fights against the Death Penalty, against war, imperialism. They wouldn’t be very good socialists if they said, “well, we won’t be seeing a revolution for a while, so we’ll just disband and let everyone sort out their problems. We’ll get back together when we feel like it.” What kind of faith would that inspire in the working class?
Mine won’t be the communist view, but I think I have something to add here.
Let’s face it, who earns what is flukey in ways that have little to do with supply and demand.
Compare, say, Mark McGwire or Britney Spears with the best teacher you’ve ever had. Millions can watch McGwire quite well, or listen to Britney’s CDs, without diluting the product. The great teacher can only benefit a handful of pupils before diluting his attention to the point of worthlessness. It’s a complete fluke that this is so - that the market happens to reward the teenage twit many times more than the great teacher.
The free-marketeer says, “well, that’s the way the market works; it’s a pity, but we still shouldn’t do anything systemic about it.” I have to ask, “Who died and made the free market into a god?” All it is, is a mechanism; we should have the sense to use it where it’s useful, and set it down where it’s doing harm, just like with any other tool.
Being a Christian, I’d add: the market was made for man, not man for the market. If it’s true for the Sabbath, which was instituted by God, then it’s damned sure true for the market.
Hey there, Olentzero and oldscratch - I’m enjoying the thread. Keep it up!
No. Marx postulated that some countries had to go through the whole process in order to instigate the socialist revolution. They could then provide both an example and material help to other countries to catch up. Marx did not in fact have Germany in mind when he wrote the Manifesto; France, England, and Belgium were more economically advanced at the time. Even so, he admitted the possibility of Russia being the spark that set the whole powderkeg off.
As capitalism matured and sought ever greater markets for investment and profit, it expanded into countries, like Russia, that were not as economically and politically advanced. Hence you had the contradiction that Russia had some of the most advanced methods of production available in a country still generally based on feudalism.
Hundreds of thousands of peasants who couldn’t make a living off the land were thrown into the cities and subject to the worst excesses of the drive for profit - fourteen-hour workdays, low wages made even lower by the arbitrary issuing of workplace fines, complete absence of unionization, and so forth. The peasants were made proletarians on a larger and faster scale than had been seen in Western Europe.
That kind of thing provokes serious fightbacks among workers, and Marxists made a point of going among them and arguing political issues as well as economic ones. It took a while - Lenin and his generation started work in the 1890s - but it paid off as the crisis in the 1910s sent people looking for answers and a way out of the misery.
That and a host of other factors - the collapse of social-democratic opposition to WWI in most of Europe to name a large one - left the Russian Marxists in the unenviable position of vanguard. People wanted the war to end and (as noted above) the other politicians who took power before October either couldn’t or wouldn’t do it. So power was given to the Bolsheviks. Of course they looked to the countries of Western Europe to make their own revolutions as well and establish a stronger foundation.
The whole point is that Russia did not develop on the same path of capitalism as Western Europe but conditions were nonetheless ripe for socialist revolution. If it could happen there, then there’s no question of something similar happening here in the U.S. or in Western Europe. The point is to help it spread once it starts.
Yes, since under socialism they’d be occupying themselves with things that actually hold their interest instead of scrabbling to make a buck. How many people were there who couldn’t pursue their interests and passions either because they didn’t have the money or the education for every man like Edison?
Not that Edison was solely motivated by profit. Obviously the guy had something going on in his head and we all benefited from it. On the other hand, he did have a number of assistants working for him on the hours he set and on the projects he told 'em to work on while he got all the credit and the investment capital.
Thanks for the answer, Commie Bastard.
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. I rather like the current system we have, and philosophically I can’t agree with something that essentially says “we’re going to change things and if you get in our way you have to die.”
That is just hand-waving as is much of this socialist defense. Not everyone will be able to do what they want, not everyone can be an inventor. I want to be a golf pro. Will I get to be one under a socialist regime?
**
They are indeed workers, and sell their labor power to make a profit for someone else. Even basketball players like Michael Jordan, well paid as they are, are making money hand over fist for team owners and stadium owners and concession stand owners, etc. So, for instance, if the Screen Actors Guild or the Chicago Bulls went on strike over some labor disputes, I would make a serious argument to support them.
It becomes a means of production when you hire someone else to run it and make a product, while you pay them wages and extract a profit from the finished goods.
So how do you feel about the French Revolution? Or the English, for that matter?
Are you one now? I would say that although you might not be a golf pro, you have a far better chance of being one then you do now… Why? because there will be much more leisure time for everyone under socialism. Sure, not everyone will get to be an inventor. But, people will have far more options and choices then they do now.
Oldscratch, ya commie bastard,
So, if not for the influence of the capitalist “invasions”, it would have succeeded? Interesting.
You’ve stated previously that
Well, what if only other companies of the same type surrounded a certain company whose policies were determined by the needs of the workers? There would not be the need to abandon long-term gain for the sake of immediate profit, right? If you’re going to make claims as to what would happen in a perfect world without ideological competition, please be consistent. I’d really like to know how a perfectly engineered socialist society in the best of conditions could offer a better, more fulfilling life for its participants than a perfectly engineered capitalist society under the best of conditions. Please help.
As opposed to the “free” market, which says that we’re going to keep things the same, and if you get in our way you are going to die.
Olentzero, I calculate you were born about 1970. About that time your ideas were wildly in vogue with young people and if you had been born about 25 years earlier you would have had a heck of a time in 1968. Unfortunately for your ideas most of the people who held them at that time have matured and abandoned them. Today these ideas are held by a very small minority and I for one am glad for that.
I do not doubt your good and sincere intentions but I have a problem which is that every time people with those ideas and equally good intentions get to power somewhere they make a mess of things. After they make a mess of things, the people begin to complain and to stay in power and achieve their “good” goals they have to start repression of the “bad” people. Usually it turns out most of the population end up on the “bad” side.
If there was one big lesson to be learnt from the history of the 20th century is that socialism and communism do not work in practice.
It has never been done successfully in the past and I very much doubt you can do it. I do not doubt your motivation, just your ability. If you really want to help your fellow humans I think you have chosen the wrong track and there are efective ways within the system.
And since I really do not have a question I really do not expect a response.
Thanks for the answers, oldscratch and Olentzero. I admit to knowing little about communism, and am glad to learn more. I am also glad to see more than one point of view on the same questions. You suffer the same problem that I do, that many people think you all have the same ideas and beliefs about every aspect of your philosophy.
A general question: what are the differences between communism and socialism?
Sailor,
Early on in this thread, I asked and then retracted a question about Olentzero’s age. I retracted that question because I thought that someone who has committed a great deal of time, thought and energy to the development of a philosophy, might take offense. I think we can safely assume that these particular commie bastards are not kids kicking around a popular idea, but rational thinkers that have arrived at certain conclusions and have come here to present and defend those conclusions.
I would find it quite discouraging and annoying if someone were to dismiss my efforts by saying, “Nobody’s it before so there’s no way you kids are going to pull it off.”
I’m sure that you’ve got a perfectly valid argument against socialist ideals that these commie bastards would love to read. I suspect that Olentzero opened this thread in order to discuss ideas rather than to have his credibility questioned.
Not like the socialist paradise of the USSR where they starved Ukrainians to death or the 1 million killed by Pol Pot.
Marc
I’ve never truly understood socialism–so here are my questions:
If everyone shares in the wealth/rewards regardless of job or level of work–why work hard? I wouldn’t. Especially if my neighbor was a slacker and got the same as me. So how is your vision of socialism going to deal with slackers/screw-offs, etc? A regulated capitalist society (I don’t know of a purely capitalist society) has plenty of slackers on the dole or as phony disabled people, etc. You can’t force some people to work. How would socialism deal with this?
Also, it’s human nature to want more. If everyone was truly unselfish, we would share and share alike. I just don’t see too many people giving up their SUVs and big houses so they can share their wealth by giving most of their income to charity. Why would they voluntarily do that in a socialist society?
Question 3: It sounds like people will just get together and agree on distribution of wealth/job payment/whatever in a socialist society. In my experience, consensus in a large group is impossible unless you are motivated to give up your core beliefs–say by fear or because you are socialized by very intense psychological manipulation (brainwashing). In our own government, the US Forest Service has attempted to involve the public in its planning process–with very poor results. People do NOT agree on many things–and never will because we each have our own logic. So, what kind of force/persuasion will socialism require to get people to agree to a consensus that will deprive them of their wealth to give to others?
**
Although I’m not Olentzero I feel qualified to answer this one sailor. BTW I love your name. It’s great to be able to end a sentence in the word sailor. Anywho.
You are right that less people hold revolutionary ideas then they did in 1968. However you completely misrepresnt the reasons for it. Also I would like to point out that while the number of “socialists” is lower than in the late 60’s it’s much higher than the early to late 80’s and is growing daily.
Some people became disolusioned with the ideas of the 60’s. They didn’t see change fast enough. Many were sucked in by the Democratic party, they weren’t actually convinced of the ideas enough to resist the temptation of a “liberal” party. Many subscribed to groups with really stupid politics and ideas. Have you looked at some of the shit people tried in the 60’s . Makes me laugh. We also entered a period of conservatisim and repression in the 70’s and 80’s. It wasn’t’ uncommon for socialists to be spit on in the 80’s. A rather dark period.
By saying that people simply "matured’ you are leaving out most of the picture. People don’t just mature and realize “oh, that was a foolish idea”. Something concrete must happen to make them change their minds. If you like we can go into a lenghty discussion on the failures of the 60’s, but I feel we should leave that for another thread.
**
You are absolutely right. I couldn’t agree more sailor. That’s why I don’t actually advocate putting myself in power. What is wanted and needed is the majority of people taking power for themselves. Olentzero simply wants his party to act as the vangaurd, to be able to provide leadership when nesecary during the revolution.
**
Me too. But remember, Olentzero isn’t alone here. It’s not one man against the world.
And Tymp don’t worry about it. I can’t tell you how many times we’ve heard the old fool or to young to know better argument. You get quite good at brushing it off.
**
I don’t know about you Marc, but I certainly wouldn’t consider that any kind of paradise. Or even any kind of good government. 
I think it’s the year 2000, and we are living under a government that allows change through democratic means. If your workers who want to revolt comprise a real majority, they don’t need to revolt, they can go to the polls rather than killing people.
The government here is evolving constantly. People effect change in it all the time, and here in the U.S. we have the First Amendment that lets people express their opinions. How much free expression would the communist/socialist regime allow along the lines of critism of the State?