Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Colonel Sibthorp)
    What did Mao do?

    He carried out the Great Leap Forwards and the cultural Revolution which saw the slaughter of millions.
    slaughter? deaths in the great leap forward generally arose from famine which isn;t the same as slaughter.slaughter implies murder?
    In this period, Mao made economic mistakes but he also did a great deal of good in this time, e.g as Mobo Gao points out "20 years of collectiviisation saw amount of irrigated land rise to 48% of chinas available arable land, this new 48% produced 70% of all grain"...quite a good thing?

    Also, interestingly, AMARTYNA SEN, points out that "in terms of morbidity, mortality and longevity india has suffered an excess in mortality over china of close to 4milion a year during the [communist] period, so more deaths resulted from the failed capitalist experiment (100million by 1980) than can be attributed to the failed communist experiment all over the world since 1917….”
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Also going back to this thing about Stalin not being a communist because he was one of the murderous dictators in history, it's like saying Vidkun Quisling wasn't a nazi just, because he was Norwegian. And in my view he's only second to Hitler and that's because Hitler drew up a list of ethnic groups he wanted wiped off the face of the earth. Of course Stalin was communist, he called himself Marxist-Leninist for christ sake. He was one of the founders of the Soviet Union and close acolyte of Lenin himself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Of course, AFAIK, the great leap forwards was a famine, but it was inability of Mao to understand basic economics and agarian processes that caused it.

    And also the Bankers do need to reigned in and if it hadn't be for that prized pillock Gordon Brown we probably wouldn't had the economic melt down, because he removed the regulation brought in by Nigel Lawson in late 1980s.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    And AFAIK, I'd just like to point out that this is thread about a Communist Society, therefore as someone, who is not a communist I using the only availiable points of reference e.g. the USSR and PRC.

    Also India is the largest democracy in the world and has been since 1947. Therefore it can't be used as a counter example since India has always been a capitalism society and hasn't had to change from Communist and back like Russia or China. The morality rate in india has less to do with capitalism and more to do with the fact that Indian governments have different policies on health for the last 63 years. And if the argument is that capitalism is more blood thirst than communism, why is the USA and Britain still poulated. Because if Capitalism is murderous how come the populations of it's two greatest exponents were not culled to insignificances by the Industrial Revolution?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Personally i think that there are generally two different types of communist societies...

    1) Left wing anarchism, this effectively means no state control and has never worked, if even attempted. It is my belief that this system cannot work with a monetary system and that human nature is too conflictive. This system would require a perfect division of labour in each sector, not going to happen.

    2) Left Wing state control. I believe that Russia may have originally attempted this (i did not do history so feel free to correct me), this system effectively means the state controls everything and needs a ruling class (economic communism can be attempted, but not social communism, this requires option 1), in this system the only way to make it work is to pay all workers nothing, but provide all food/drink/homes for them, under this system it may be possible to maintain an export vs import system and pay for goods to provide for workers that way (assuming a trade surpluss).

    While i cannot join for these reasons and the fact that i am pro-capitalism, i do encourage you to form a political party because you have more then ten supporters in this thread.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Colonel Sibthorp)
    ...
    Sibthorp, before the welfare state came into existence, before we had a system of free education, minium wage or legal working conditions people like you and me were poor, with nout but bread and water and my fictional daughter probably would not have been able to go to school let alone university. You and me would have probably been working in the coal mines.

    You mention Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Trotsky, Lenin but the fact is, I still fail to see the connection between an authoritarian vanguard party, a state behaving in a capitalist manner and communism.

    Yeah, communism has its roots in the word community, rather rightly; we want to empower the community and have equal workers rights over the means of production. We lived in primitive communes for thousands of years before the uprising of capitalism (which was enforced by the state) and we can do the same in the future but with the enhancement of social relations, modern technology and education. Free associations of workers will form links on a national basis to enhance their common social and economic goals; the system will not collapse into chaos.

    You mention the early classical liberals. A smaller state was far more relevant a few hundred years back when the government was taking the working man's personal property, taxing him, enforcing the system of private property and wage labour and no welfare state. Yeah, it was much fairer back then to have a free market and voluntary trade (and this would be incorporated into anarchism; the free market does not need to be capitalistic). The likes of Adam Smith saw with horror the rich conspiring against the poor and developed his economic theories. Before the state enforced wage labour and private property in the US, 80% of citizens were self-employed, hence the system was pre-capitalist in nature.

    You can't have an economic system that was based on brutal state violence and theft in the past (all current gains of capitalists would be physically impossible without this - you cannot own monopolies on a bit of old elbow grease alone) and then come along and say "it's ok guys, we'll all start from square one now and there will be no force or coercion". Whether you support a (capitalistic) free market or not, you can't escape this fact; accumulation of capital would be physically impossible without the inequality caused by the state in the past.

    Nowadays, of course there is a welfare state. This in itself is enough to make the modern day neoliberals (not the guardinista social liberals) significantly different from the early traditional classical liberals. Both supported a free market but the neoliberals justify the inequality of the present day; the early classical liberals vigorously opposed it. Social liberalism was a reflection of the "good" state intervention and hence, the liberal ideology adjusted relative to this change over time. Neoliberalism (referred by some incorrectly as "libertarianism" - that word belongs to the left) arose in opposition to social liberalism as a modern day reinterpretation of the "good old" classical liberalism. But we want to move beyond the welfare state as proposed by the social liberals and the social democrats and the progressives into an enriched system of solidarity (mutual aid) strengthened by worker's democracy in the absence of the state. Hence referring to the atrocious acts and state totalitarianism of Stalin and Pol Pot does not help you because it has nothing to do with communism.

    Ironically most capital C Conservatives/Tories want to increase the state intervention, if not in the economic realm, then in the social realm. The libertarians, (if we take the right-wing interpretation of the word libertarian), as Bob Black identifies are nothing more than drug using Conservatives.

    Oppose communism, you are within your rights to have your political opinion. I only wanted to point out that we are not all backwards Stalinists who want to restrict civil liberties. To answer your initial question, free speech and democracy would be intact in our pipe dream. I am not here to enflame.

    Yeah, there were a few bad "commies". Atrocities have been made in the name of all or most ideologies, however. If I am Stalin, then you are Pinochet.

    Something gives me the idea you are an old timer who's decided to come online and "give these youngsters a lecture about what is proper and right". I might get sick of taxes one day when I'm older but I'll be grateful when I'm retired that there is a pension scheme. Fact is taxes would not even be needed in anarchy with free associations of labour. You would have a right to go to your local council (which you would be a member of, if you so desired) have a say "something needs doing about those hoodlums across the road" or "we need a zebra crossing in that street - there have been far too many car crashes in the last year". Decisions are put forward in the commune through an assembly. Every member has equal say. Now that is democracy, not the sham we have today.

    You mention Trotsky's red army who killled millions, including the Anarchist Kronstadt sailors who protested against the Red Bureacracy (and had been part of a free society based on anarchist principles free from government in Kronstadt and Petrograd). This was the same army that later put down Makhno's army, Makhno who was part of the Ukranian Free Territories. Historically, anarchists have opposed the "Communists", the fascists, Franco Francisco and the National Militants and many other groups that you would oppose (and rather ironically associate with my ideology).

    So you see, communist anarchism and the ideology you would like to depict me as are polar opposites.

    I shall finish with a quote from Bakunin:

    "Liberty without socialism is privilege and injustice; Socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality."

    (Original post by Colonel Sibthorp)
    And also the Bankers do need to reigned in and if it hadn't be for that prized pillock Gordon Brown we probably wouldn't had the economic melt down, because he removed the regulation brought in by Nigel Lawson in late 1980s.
    Old boy Cameron was perfectly happy to sit back and let the market take its course deregulated. In fact the recession would have been much worse with the Tories in place (not that I am defending Labour or Gordon).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    You can't have an economic system that was based on brutal state violence and theft in the past (all current gains of capitalists would be physically impossible without this - you cannot own monopolies on a bit of old elbow grease alone) and then come along and say "it's ok guys, we'll all start from square one now and there will be no force or coercion". Whether you support a (capitalistic) free market or not, you can't escape this fact; accumulation of capital would be physically impossible without the inequality caused by the state in the past.


    Exactly, this was the biggest initial factor in my departure from 'libertarian' ideology. I bring it up again and again in debate with 'libertarians' and yet it continues to fall on ears, deaf intentionally rather than innocently.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Exactly, this was the biggest initial factor in my departure from 'libertarian' ideology. I bring it up again and again in debate with 'libertarians' and yet it continues to fall on ears, deaf intentionally rather than innocently.
    What Role Did The State Take In Capitalism

    You don't have to read it all, but it is very interesting and gives us insight into the neoliberal ("libertarian", lol) ahistorical idea that "once upon a time, in a mystical land, a few incredibly smart superhuman geniuses just magicked up the means of production from thin air and all the lazy workers flocked over like sheep to become wage labourers".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    What Role Did The State Take In Capitalism

    You don't have to read it all, but it is very interesting and gives us insight into the neoliberal ("libertarian", lol) ahistorical idea that "once upon a time, in a mystical land, a few incredibly smart superhuman geniuses just magicked up the means of production from thin air and all the lazy workers flocked over like sheep to become wage labourers".

    I'll definitely take a read. If you ever get the chance I would suggest a work, which, for me was the straw that broke the camel's back with regards to dissilusion in neoliberal ideology. Thomas Paine's Dissertation on First Principles of Government is an exceptional critique of the state and the history of the state. Yet one day, for some reason I replaced all his references to government with the existing distribution of resources and it fitted perfectly. Ironically Paine is often cited as a figurehead for those that way inclined; and yet I think he suspected what I inferred all along, you can sense his doubt in Agrarian Justice. (I would also highly recommend this.)

    I am interested as to whether you subscribe to Marx's dialectic? Do you see your idea of anarchism as an approaching reality. Or do you believe, like I do that capitalism (I include contemporary government in that term) has no current, realistic alternative, or antithesis?

    EDIT: I have recently been reading some pre 48' Proudhon.(In the Guerin Anarchist anthology No Gods No Masters have you ever come across it?) That man was very anti-semitic! :shocked: (As somebody who can actually appreciate historical context I am not actually shocked :p:)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    I'll definitely take a read. If you ever get the chance I would suggest a work, which, for me was the straw that broke the camel's back with regards to dissilusion in neoliberal ideology. Thomas Paine's Dissertation on First Principles of Government is an exceptional critique of the state and the history of the state. Yet one day, for some reason I replaced all his references to government with the existing distribution of resources and it fitted perfectly. Ironically Paine is often cited as a figurehead for those that way inclined; and yet I think he suspected what I inferred all along, you can sense his doubt in Agrarian Justice. (I would also highly recommend this.)
    Unfortunately I am trying to read about a hundred different books and articles at the same time here :rolleyes:. But will do so.

    I am interested as to whether you subscribe to Marx's dialectic? Do you see your idea of anarchism as an approaching reality. Or do you believe, like I do that capitalism (I include contemporary government in that term) has no current, realistic alternative, or antithesis?
    Actually I have been discussing Marxist dialectics with a few "anti-philosophers" as of late who don't believe Marx fully subscribed to the idea of Hegel's mystical and idealist realms of "dialectics". A women called Rosa Lichtenstein has created a website called http://www.anti-dialectics.org/1.html (she subscribes to historical materialism, though). The idea appeals but I have not fully made up my mind.

    Marxist philosophy (or anti-philosophy) is very difficult to get around, as is philosophy, at least for me, in general but I have been reading into it.

    As you can see from my username, I clearly see anarchy as an alternative to capitalism

    EDIT: I have recently been reading some pre 48' Proudhon.(In the Guerin Anarchist anthology No Gods No Masters have you ever come across it?) That man was very anti-semitic! :shocked: (As somebody who can actually appreciate historical context I am not actually shocked :p:)
    I did not know he was anti-semitic, I knew he was very sexist, though. Still, being a conservative should not necessarily mean you subscribe to Winston Churchill's racism and, by the same token, I think the same ought to apply to Anarchists. I have heard of "No Gods No Masters" but have not read it - it is certainly on my reading list though, along with that Thomas Paine book you mentioned .
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    x
    This is the thing what scares me about your communists; never stop trying to indoctrinate the people! Even on holidays!

    Merry Christmas you evil totalitarian freak!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    This is the thing what scares me about your communists; never stop trying to indoctrinate the people! Even on holidays!

    Merry Christmas you evil totalitarian freak!
    Meh. I don't believe in Jesus...and I didn't get any pressies this year anyway!

    "Ze winter festival remind me of ze joy of ze bleak, cold USSR under Soviet Rule and I usually celebrate the legislation of Josef Stalin with a humble glass of water and a plate of bread. Sometime, if I feel particularly festive I vill pull out a bottle of vodka and enjoy the luxury of wholemeal bread with a bowl of soup! Merry Stalin Day!"
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Actually I have been discussing Marxist dialectics with a few "anti-philosophers" as of late who don't believe Marx fully subscribed to the idea of Hegel's mystical and idealist realms of "dialectics". A women called Rosa Lichtenstein has created a website called http://www.anti-dialectics.org/1.html (she subscribes to historical materialism, though). The idea appeals but I have not fully made up my mind.

    Marxist philosophy (or anti-philosophy) is very difficult to get around, as is philosophy, at least for me, in general but I have been reading into it.

    I agree with you about the general unease that often surrounds the study; and Lichtenstein's seperation of the dialectic aspects and historical materialism makes for an interesting proposition. I would say it is closer to my own more abstract interpretation of it all. I have recently been reading alot of existentialist marxists such as Sartre and Andre Gorz. Extremely interesting stuff and a real challenge to those who do subscribe and fall prey to Popper's falsifiability critereon.

    I'm still trying to get my head around it all however and will probably continue to do so for years and years.


    I did not know he was anti-semitic, I knew he was very sexist, though. Still, being a conservative should not necessarily mean you subscribe to Winston Churchill's racism and, by the same token, I think the same ought to apply to Anarchists.

    I would never imply such a thing. Like I said, one should always consider the historical context, not to do so is to be guilty of intellectual dishonesty. The Guerin collection is excellent, it has everything from Bakunin to Stirner, and of course Guerin himself; and I ahve the same problem as you with regards to the mounting list of books of my reading list.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    I would never imply such a thing. Like I said, one should always consider the historical context, not to do so is to be guilty of intellectual dishonesty. The Guerin collection is excellent, it has everything from Bakunin to Stirner, and of course Guerin himself; and I ahve the same problem as you with regards to the mounting list of books of my reading list.
    I know; just too many books in the world and not enough time to read them all! I'm slowly working my way through capital at the moment. I find note taking helps - it is a truly beast of a work with philosophical underpinnings on virtually every word. But it starts to make sense when you re-read it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    I know; just too many books in the world and not enough time to read them all! I'm slowly working my way through capital at the moment. I find note taking helps - it is a truly beast of a work with philosophical underpinnings on virtually every word. But it starts to make sense when you re-read it.

    Marx would attest :p:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Meh. I don't believe in Jesus...and I didn't get any pressies this year anyway!

    "Ze winter festival remind me of ze joy of ze bleak, cold USSR under Soviet Rule and I usually celebrate the legislation of Josef Stalin with a humble glass of water and a plate of bread. Sometime, if I feel particularly festive I vill pull out a bottle of vodka and enjoy the luxury of wholemeal bread with a bowl of soup! Merry Stalin Day!"
    Haha; I don't believe in Jesus either, but suppose it was worth just having some fun
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Colonel Sibthorp)
    Also India is the largest democracy in the world and has been since 1947. Therefore it can't be used as a counter example since India has always been a capitalism society and hasn't had to change from Communist and back like Russia or China. The morality rate in india has less to do with capitalism and more to do with the fact that Indian governments have different policies on health for the last 63 years.
    India certainly hasn't always been "a capitalism society"; it was a feudal society for many thousands of years, and remnants of feudalism still exist.

    Anyway, of course one can compare India and China. Sen starts his comparison from 1947, when both countries had a similar mortality rate. He points out that the Chinese famine caused millions of deaths and that these deaths can be viewed as "ideological crimes", because although it was not the CCP's intention for millions of people to die, they died as a result of the institutions in place and economic decisions made. But Sen goes on to point out that after the famine China's mortality rate started to decrease while India's increased rapidly. He says that China began building health centres and developing medicine, improving health conditions, etc. while the Indian state did nothing. He points out that India too is guilty of "ideological crimes", and goes on to say that "India seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years than China put there in its years of shame". If China continued to have a mortality rate like India I am sure you would not be excusing China, saying that it is because of "different policies on health for the last 63 years" - you'd (rightly) be blaming what you see as "communism"

    Marx wrote about bourgeois economists who could write excellent tracts on how bad feudalism is and was, how so many people suffered as a result of it and so on. But the bourgeois economist cannot recognise the same happening as a result of capitalism, because to him capitalism is God-given and natural. It can do no wrong.

    And if the argument is that capitalism is more blood thirst than communism, why is the USA and Britain still poulated. Because if Capitalism is murderous how come the populations of it's two greatest exponents were not culled to insignificances by the Industrial Revolution?
    The argument isn't that capitalism is more "blood thirst[y]". Neither capitalism or communism are "blood thirst[y]" in and of themselves, but to imagine that capitalism came into being peacefully and without blood being shed is a nonsense. From the early beginnings of capitalism in medieval western Europe through to the advanced capitalist socities of today much blood was shed, many families were seperated, cultures wiped out; there were violent bourgeois revolutions, imperial conquests, war, famine, ad infinitum. People didn't just wake up one day and think capitalism was a really great way of doing things, it emerged with force and expanded even more forcefully.

    And AFAIK, I'd just like to point out that this is thread about a Communist Society, therefore as someone, who is not a communist I using the only availiable points of reference e.g. the USSR and PRC.
    Amongst people who actuall identify as communists, who have read Marx and Engels, Bakunin, Lenin and so on, what to classify the USSR and the PRC is a source of great division. Some will say 'socialism' (until a certain point), others will say 'state capitalism', some might say 'degenerated workers' state', and so on. Nobody says 'communist'. It's only opponents of communism that describe these failed experiments 'communist'. These places did not even describe themselves as communist. They are certainly points of reference if you wish to point out the failures of Marxist-Leninism, but they aren't if you want to point out the failures of communism, because in our own terms they were not communist.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    Haha; I don't believe in Jesus either, but suppose it was worth just having some fun
    Nah I usually celebrate xmas and what not. Just busy this year - but always time to indoctrinate the people!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    hey guys
    i am hindu
    bye
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    I found a site that cuts out most of the jargon: http://rs2kpapers.awardspace.com/

    Obviously, I haven't read everything on there but if you scroll down to the "Defining Theory Collection", there's a lot of good stuff there written out in layman's terms.
    Thanks for the link. I will look into it, and try to understand the theory.

    Again, thanks.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.