All this talk about Communism, and not a pinko in sight!
Very well. I, Evensven, have been and am now a Communist.
Please understand that I am hardly a font of red wisdom. In fact, I should not really call myself a Commie, because I am still working out exactly what I believe. However, for the time being, the label "Commie" will do. I am not well versed on all the theories and theories of theories and theories of theories of theories. Someone once said there are as many variations of Marxism as there are Marxists. This is pretty much true. Communism is not a vast united and seamless thing. Like any belief system, it has many different interpretations, some mutually exclusive. Much of the stuff you may have heard about Communism is not accepted by all Commies. And it is all more complex than commonly thought. I am glad this thread got started. Communism is one of those great concepts that most people think they understand, and few actually do. And even if you don't agree with it, it is still good to know about it. It is one of the most important theories of modern times. I can only hope that some seasoned Marxist can come in and help me, because my knowledge (and commitment to Communism) is admittedly limited.
[dons red dress, stands on podium]
So on to the questions. I don’t have the mad skills to quote everyone, so I hope people don’t mind if i just answer at random.
What is Communism?
Materialism- Ahunter3 touched on this. Commies believe that the only world is the material world. They believe that the world, and human consciousness, is one of matter. We are shaped by stuff, not spirits, not ideas, but stuff. Humanity does not exist outside of, or seperate from, the material world. Stuff is percieved by our eyes, ears, hands and noses. Our sensory organs transmit that to the physical object that is our brain. And from this we cook up our concsiousness and ideas. All of this is dependent on stuff. As Marx said Marx explained, “the mode of production of material life conditioned the social, political and intellectual life processes in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but on the contrary their social being that determines their consciousness”.
History- History is important, because Communism is more than a theory, it is a prophecy. Communists see history as a progressive struggle. We occasionally change our stystem regarding production (from feudalism to capitalism) when the old system ceases to function for us. Contrary to popular belief, Commies do not think the world would be better is Capitalism never existed. Capitalism is a neccesary step. It helped the world progress. It increased our ability to produce. But, like feudalism, tribalism, and other outdated economic orgainizations, capitalism will outstay its welcome. It will cease to bring us forward, and will actually drag us down. At some point, Capitalism will make itself unstable. That is when, if people are orgainized, willful and spirited enough, Communism will step in, and restart material progress. Communism is unique because it is also the end of human economic history. It is also the begin of a new era, where even the human conciousness (which is determined by the material world, remember) will be drastically different. It is almost a full circle ending- back to the tribes that we came from- but this time with all the advanced means of production we have derived from thousands of years of practice.
SO what actually happens after the revolution. Well, first comes the much abused “dictatorship of the proletariat”. Some people seem to like the “dictatorship” part a bit to much. What actually happens is that the masses will, for the first time, take part in meaningful self government. They will run the government in a very direct way.
Within time, new and better means of production will be created. Our mindset will shift, and we will no longer need any real governement. We will use the technology we have developed to keep a classless society running. At that point we will be free from need- and true freedom of the mind can begin.
And it does make some sense. It makes sense that you can’t really be free if you dont have some sort of real self government. It does make sense that there is a problem with not owning the results of your labor. It does make sense that somewhere, at some point, this whole scheme we are living in will come to crisis.
Is Communism for Idealists?
I’d say not really. It is not really just “lets all go live in a commune and share our rice”. It is a complex look at history and humanity. It doesn’t really attribute humanity with alturism, exactly, because our understanding of alturism is based on Capitalism. It does hold the belief that a change in human conditions can bring about a shift in human thought. I dont think that is too outlandish, considering the great differences between, say, the medieval mind and the modern one. So our understanding of alturism won’t really apply. And, one can say, since Communism is a prophesym it is for realists (i.e. those who have an understanding of what is gonna happen).
Will Communism remove the motivation to work?
Nope. Look, do really rich people sit on their butts all day? Nope. They work- sometimes for themselves, but often for charity. Sometimes they call it a “hobby”. Unpaid labor abounds, even in this society. Heck! I am giving you all a little lecture on Communism for no benefit to me. Why? Cos you asked, and I know. The Internet is full of people doing a lot of work for no real benefit- from the geek writing in his weblog right down to the volunteer emergency response teams that deal with any emergency structural problems with the 'net. Okay, so you say that people who train longer should get more money. Why? I consider my schooling to be a good thing- not a bad thing that I should be compensated for doing. I am interested in learning (and pursue the jobs that come with that learning) because I want to better myself and make myself useful. Heck, I would rather spend years in school learning, and then go into an job like a biologist than get bored off my arse sweeping floors any day. Which is good for me, because their are people that hate school but would have a good time sweeping floors.
And this is all in todays Capitalist society. Imagine a society where everything was different. Where instead of working pushing papers for some faceless company, you worked directly for your community. Imagine being free to better yourself and use that betterment constructivly. Imagine your labor actually counting for something- instead of simply making someone else money and putting just enough food on your table that you don’t starve. Now, do you really think you would spend that time sitting on your arse?
Can anyone explain the motivation for doing a better job than those around you, or for being innovative, under Communism?
I can give that one a go, too. Why do you want to be a good poster on the 'Dope? After all, no one even knows who you are! Yet, you don’t just type random stuff, do you? Why do people running track in gyms try to beat their own best time? Why do you try to be a good partner to your signifigant other? Even the Capitalist work ethic has a special place of pride for a “job well done”, even if that “job well done” isn’t rewarded with extra goods or power.
As for innovation, sometimes being away from economic pressures can lead to more innovation. I’ll use film as an example. American film is stuck in a rut, and has been for a long. A few gems come out- but most American film is formulatic. Americans won’t see films with subtitles- so they don’t make films with subtitles. Americans won’t see films with big stars- so they don’t make films without big stars. Americans won’t watch letterboxed films on their TVs because they think they are getting cheated- so we use pan and scan and they actually end up getting less.
But when free from the constraints of money, filmakers can be far more innovative. In modern times, somewhat socialist countries like Sweden and Denmark have made amazeingly innovative films. Look at Bergmen and Von Trier. They would have never been able to make the innovations in film that they did in America. and Even with the constraints of dictoral censorship, Russian, Cuban, and Czech film was increadably innovative. Eisenstein single handedly invented montage theory. Whats-his-name-with-a-K was the first to figure that you can cut between two seperate locations and the viewer will think they are in the same place. I really suggest that everyone watches the exquisite “I Am Cuba” (a Soviet-Cuban co-production) or “Daisys” (A hard to find film from the “socilism with a human face” ideals of the Prague Spring) for a good understanding of exactly how even somewhat communist countries can innovate. None of those projects, which undoubtably improved their countries people and heritage, would have been possible if the filmakers were constrained (censored even?) by money.
A better question is “why should Capitalists innovate”? Why sould drug companies find newer, better, cheaper drugs when they are making plenty of money from the old ones? Why should they cure diseases which they make millions “treating”? Why should we support the arts when it takes education to appreciate them and it is cheaper to leave people uneducated and watching low budget TV?
Innovation can occur in a variety of economic systems.
Did it fail in the Soviet Union because self-motivation to do the aforementioned for the good of the country just wasn’t good enough for people?
Do why did Russia fail miserable, China fizzle out and Cuba dry up? Well, we don’t always get it right the first time. Frankly, none of those countries were ready. They took starving backwards countries, and produced…starving backwards countiess. They never got the stuff out of capitalism they needed. And we all know starveing backwards countries are prime breeding grounds for…dictators! These countrys never got past the “dictatorship of the masses phase”, and instead derailed to plain 'ole dictatorship. Which is what we got instead of the workers paradise. Communism never even got off the ground. Commies around the world started out with high hopes for all these countries, but few people still consider them even worthy of the title “communism”.
And Communism can’t exist in a vacuum. It would whither- just like a single capitalist state would have a though time when surrounded only by commies. The revolution will have to be a global affair.
Will it wither away in Cuba when Castro dies? And what is its future in China and North Korea?
I’d imagine that Cuba’s version of Communism will whither after Castro is gone. Cuba is a pseudo-commie dictatorship, and it just doesn’t have the resourses to stay Commie. You can’t be the lone island of Communism. The only thing Red in China is it’s flag and North Korea…well North Korea is just wierd. They can’t stay stuck in their time warp forever. They have people to feed. They are all going to fall and we’ll be back to square one. It’s okay, that sort of thing happens. The march forward is hardly a straight line. Maybe we can do a better job of it next time around.
Wouldn’t true communism be practiced in families-everyone pitching in and doing their fair share?
Kind of. Think about how you are in a different mindset when you are with your family. Now extend that. It is a little more complex than that…but the family idea shows how we can think in different ways and with different motivations.
Well, I’ve known four ex-Soviets who were all happy to come here, and I’ve known some Communists who rally that Real Communism has never been tried, but I’e had an earful about what it was like to live in the post-Stalin USSR and no one had anything good to say about it.
That is kind of like saying you’ve heard that the Nazis wern’t prime examples of socialism. but you you know people that lived under the Nazis and they didn’t like “national socialism” so therefore living under Swedish “socialism” must be horrible as well. Post-Stalin USSR was not commie. No one digs Stalin. No one digs dictators. Lots of places are bad- post Stalin USSR, Nicaragua, Solamia, Afghanistan. What do these places have in common? Dictatorship! Lots of other political systems (democracies, republics, etc.) have dissolved into dictatorships when times got rough. It is hardly unique to failed Communism. Next question.
You could easily program a squad of androids to practice communism, and (asuming they don’t develop bugs and rebel), it’d work perfectly. But humans? Pfffffffft. It all falls apart the moment one guy wonders, "Why can’t I have more than my neighbor?"
Of course we think that human nature is Capitalist, because frankly that is all we know. Kind of how kids in Spain probably think that it is human nature to speak Spanish. You gotta remember, when our material situation changes, our midset can change, too. This has happened before, for example the change from medieval times (Death is coming- must go to Church) to modern.
Trust me, you won’t want more than your neighbor. Our habit of stockpiling is out of fear we will be without. Try to twist your mind around a world without human need. Imagine being at a party with all-you-can-drink margarhitas. Do you get grumpy because your neighbor drank more than you? Do you desire a larger cup? Nope…you drink up and get to dancing.
If the current people who are in charge are kicked out of their positions of power, we won’t suddenly get peace and equality and to-each-according-to-his-need and all those other nice things that are supposed to happen when the Proletariat overthrows the Bourgeoise – instead, we will simply get a new Bourgeoise. If the government now “owns” all the land and capital, the people with the most authority in the government will be the new Bourgeoise.
True true. And an accurate understanding of what did happen. Russia sucked. It got stuck in an infantile stage. It didn’t have the foundations of production. They were so busy making jup for lost time, that they never created new means of production. If they had, things would have gone a lot different. In my mind, what happened in Russia was exactly what should have happened. Russia jumped the gun, and they tried to institute Communism without the means of production that they needed. Of course it didn’t work, and they went back to where the started (minus a few million people) and where they could complete the Capitalist stage of society. Better luck next time.
**Why the fascination with Communism amongst the left in the western Democracies? **
Part of it is that it is a whole new way to see the world. Academia is always going to be interested in social paradymes. And it is damn compelling. I probably havn’t gotten it across clearly, but when well presented, the idea of Communism can blow your mind. It is like acid- everything shifts and takes on new meanings. Few other theorys are so all encompassing. All I can think of is Freud and feminists, both still pretty big in Academic circles (as much as they deny Freud, I still had to learn Freudian film theory).
And, people in Academia tend to be more liberal on the whole. Why? They have seen more of life, but had to deal with less realities. A few people see Communism in idealist light- but I think most people are a little more saavy.
Beyond that, a lot of Academics support Sweden style socialist democracies- a theory that in my opinion is wonderful but cannot stand up to a diverse society. But, it seems to work pretty well there.
Why would you want to be one?
And so that is why I am a Communist (kind of). For as much sense that capitalism seems to make, in practice it tends to fail as well. Take a look at African diamond mines, South Central LA, child prostitutes in Thailand, or any number of places around the world to see how spectacularly capitalism can fail its people. It is not the magic wonder drug.
On a personal level, I guess I am Red out of hope. I have to hope it gets better than this. I have to hope that it all turns out okay. Communism is pleasently apocalyptic. Kind of a collective afterlife for atheists. Is this a rational thing? I don’t know. It helps me through the day and at this point that is all that I ask for.
. Humans can be quite irrational in their wants and desires. I get annoyed at work when someone sits in “my chair” when I’m on shift. I get annoyed when someone else is using the “good spoon” ( we’re always low on silverware, damn stuff just seems to evaporate ) when I want to have soup. There are other spoons - But they’re smaller, or I don’t like the handle, or they’re too flimsy. I’ll still get to eat my soup, but it’s not as satisfying. And damnit, I want THAT coffee mug - I like the pattern. No I don’t want them all to be the same - I want the cool one. I don’t care if goddamn Bob likes that one too, it’s “mine”! And if I have to, I’ll hide it in my credenza when not in use 
.
. Far from it. And therein lies the practical problem on which pure communism founders. Possesiveness isn’t just an acculturation ( though culture can certainly encourage or discourage it ), it’s a holdover biological survival mechanism, just like the attraction to fats and sugars. Communists may consider themselves practical all they want, it doesn’t change the fact that they ARE idealists at some level when it comes to their view of human nature. Communists ( and Libertarians as well, to a lesser extent ) assume that people will take the logical course for reasons of their own enlightened self-interest. But in actuality people will all too frequently do just the opposite, even if it hurts themselves in the long OR short run. Humans are subject to flights of whimsy and caprice, sometimes extremely damaging whimsy and caprice, no matter how smart they are. Not the only argument against Communism, but a pretty damning one.