So, as you "regular readers"- if indeed there is any- know, I've been running this blog for a few months now. There's been a few bumps along the way, a few issues and crises, but overall I'd say this has been very successful so far, at least judging by the comments I've received. With that I've decided to do something a bit different in this entry. Right from the very start I've wanted this to be a place of debate and openness rather than a place of lecture, I've wanted the opinions of all my readers to be put forward and feel welcomed especially those opposing my views. Certainly in many past posts debate has flared, and seriously I am thankful to all those who have added their opinion, including those who've given me a difficult time.
So that is why this entry is going to be what you might call an "evaluation" attempt - I'd like to hear comments, recommendations and indeed criticisms of my blog. Please, I really would. And be honest, I'll get more offended with dishonestly than criticism. Tell me what you like about my blog, what you don't like, what you would improve, how you would improve it, hat it is you'd like to see more of, what you'd like to see less of, etc. etc. These can be over any subject - from the petty like the font I use right across to the serious in my analysis of Marxian economics.
I'd also like to use this opportunity to welcome any question you might have, be that related to Marxism and Communism or something completely different. I'll do my very best to answer every last question or issue - but please keep in mind time isn't a commodity I have excess of right now.
So I really look foreword to hearing from you.
Thanks.
You do have at least one regular reader, I assure you. I check up on your blog almost everyday, to see if you've posted something new.
ReplyDeleteThere's really not much I would like to see changed. The layout is very simple and doesn't stress the eye, although I think the hammer and sickle could've been red aswell. A black hammer and sickle reminds me of national communism.
I have one question for you:
When and how did you learn about the true communism, and not the "communism" you see and hear about on tv?
That's great thanks.
ReplyDeleteI've always tried to keep the layout clean and simple - the only thing I fear is looking too generic.
Oh yeah, I have been meaning to replace that picture. It seems also to be the logo or a very strange and angry bunch of people. Not really the one I wish to associate myself with.
And to answer your question: It was that day I decided to read a book. Ha. I've always seemed to read a lot - and a few years back I picked up a book on Castro and the Cuba revolution. Turned out that Castro wasn't an "evil" dictator at all. Actually he was quite the opposite. So I guess I just read further into Cuban history and then started reading into Marx and his ideals and philosophy. The rest is, as they say, history.
Now almost every time someone mentions Communism, usually to spout how "EVIL" it is, I try and correct their ignorance. Feels good.
How about yourself?
And Thanks again.
Well, I've got to admit that it was my interest in the Soviet Union and in russian culture and history, that got me "hooked" on communism.
ReplyDeleteI read some stuff about Soviet tactics during WWII, and about the great battle of Stalingrad, and so on.
It eventually got me thinking about the origin and purpose of the Soviet Union. I didn't really know much about it, I mean, I knew that they were communist and evil, evil, evil! But that was really it.
From then on, I read about the October Revolution led by Lenin and the Bolsheviks, and about how the good people of Russia suffered, under the monarchy.
It turned out that Lenin wasn't really that bad, and that he had good intentions for the future of the russian people.
I also read about how Stalin squandered the hopes of an equal society, and turned it into a totalitarian empire that lasted until Mikhail Gorbachev took over the steering wheel.
And that got me thinking about what communism really is. I was sceptic at first, even after reading the Communist Manifesto. I was sure that there was something twisted about it, something that I just hadn't noticed. It turned out there wasn't, and now I'm proud to call myself a communist.
Many of my friends have tried to talk me out of it, but they fail every time. After stating the core principals of communism, and arguing on the behalf of a better tomorrow, if they still try an "correct" me, I quote Gorbachev "You are the not the teacher, and I am not the student. Furthermore, you are not the prosecuter and I am not the defendant." as he said to Ronald Reagan.
That shuts em' up pretty good.
I actually have another question for you:
Which communists do you admire the most?
And what kind of communist do you consider yourself to be?
I myself, am a stalinist...
Just kidding.
Sorry for a bit of a delay replying...
ReplyDeleteOh Cool. I've certainly been interested in Russian history too. Really I think in both of us it's a case of the more we actually leant about Communism the more we realised what it actually was.
Who do I admire most?
I'd have to say Marx - perhaps a bit typical I know. He really laid the grounds for Communism. Without his hard work and determination Communist ideology would not be what it is today. Apart from that clearly in his economic analysis of capitalism he was decades ahead of his time and his words echo true even today - with over production.
Apart from Marx someone else I admire the most would the Che, now obviously he and his image have been commercialised and exploited by capitalists, but look at his story - he was a middle class doctor from Argentina who really had everything, then he went to fight for the emancipation for a foreign land. If you read his diaries from his motorcycle trip around South America, called simply "The motorcycle Diaries", and I seriously recommend you do, you see so clearly see this transformation from a naive middle class boy to a man who is willing to lay down his life to improve the world and lives of others. Obviously Che made some serious mistakes in his life - but it's simply the transformation I admire most.
Also Rosa Luxembourg - she is often overlooked, but she was the first mainstream Communist to start criticising Lenin when he became this authoritarian figure in Russia. And her determination to democracy cannot be forgotten.
Ha. Good one.
Really I don't know - all these labels seem a bit divisive to me. But I'd say I fit somewhere into the Left communism/Libertarian Marxism/Libertarian Socialism etc etc.
But I do think Lenin wrote some very very wise words - ones that cannot be ignored.
I agree. Just read about Rosa Luxembourg the other day, and about Left Communism/Libertarian Communism and so on, and that's when I was sure what kind of communism I leaned towards.
ReplyDeleteIf Marx had lived these days, I think he would've been a libertarian communist himself. It's one of the only kinds of communism that ensures, not only the future and safety of the public, but also the freedom. Many of my friends agrees that such a society would be wondrous, but thinks that it wouldn't last, and that it wouldn't be possible to achieve.
Pessimism! If more people believed in it, we could start and really work towards a better tomorrow. If we really want it, we can have it. Call it optimism or call it realism.
"Really I don't know - all these labels seem a bit divisive to me. But I'd say I fit somewhere into the Left communism/Libertarian Marxism"
ReplyDeleteDoesn't all that oppose Che and National Liberation struggles non?
The reason I would loosely label myself as that is their opposition to these so called "communist" authoritiarian governments. Which clearly are far removed from Marxism.
ReplyDeleteOn a personal note, Che, indeed was a revolutionary leader, but he was not perfect and made serious errors in his ways.
Left Communists in general oppose certain national liberation struggles for their excessive nationalism. That is a position I can understand, but don't exactly agree with. Nationalism is a potent poison to humanity, but if handled in the correct way can lead to progressive change in certain nations, mostly those that are being oppressed by colonisers.
My question: how can the abolishment of private property be achieved without 'despotic inroads' that, contrary to what Marx proposed, do not outstrip themselves, and lead to authoritarian governments which cannot be removed without revolution?
ReplyDelete@Anonymous
ReplyDeletePlease accept my apology for such a late reply.
It is obvious that the progression from a society which has private property to one without is not going to happen quickly. It will probably take many many years, even decades, to reach.
In previous attempts to achieve "communism" one can see a common theme; that is as the "communists" came into power power became more and more centralised in the ruling elite. That is exactly the opposite of communist ideals. So for that reason the key to creating a society that can live without private property is that once, through democratic means, communists have achieved power, power MUST be decentralised into the hands of the people. Communists must aim to restrict more and more the power of the state, which is the opposite of how situations such as the Russian and Chinese revolution played out.
Now in the short term, the very first thing I would do in the path to create a society without private property, would be to give trade unions full control. At present it is the bourgeoisie state that limits trade union power. This would instantly give workers control over their means of production and as such would be a giant leap of progress.
No worries about the late reply.
ReplyDeleteI accept your comment about the removal of private property being something that will not happen overnight. However, I'm interested in your views on the securement and allocation of power.
You seem convinced that communism must be established by democratic means. Looking at my copy of the Manifesto, it implies that only "by means of a revolution" can "the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally" be removed. Surely based on this criteria, communism cannot be achieved through the political systems in place, which exist in part to enforce the class hierarchy?
I agree that power must be removed from the ruling elite, but I would argue that the strong argument for a strong state is to enforce the "despotic inroads" Marx was talking about. I am dubious about the possibility of sustaining a society without private property, or even just abolishing it, without totalitarian enforcement. I am even more dubious that this power, once bestowed, whether with the will of the population or not, would be relinquished.
For the reasons above, I would classify myself as a weak socialist. I completely agree that achieving power by democratic means is essential, but think that it is better to have a weaker state and the continuation of private property (although in a reduced form) than a powerful state with no private property.
I reject this ideal of a violent revolution which Marx envisions in the Manifesto for two reasons; 1. That the violent overthrow of a western state would be impossible given the vast arms and power the state has. This stands in contrast to the young and inefficient states during Marx' times. Any person who was involved in such a revolution would be sent to straight to prison. Now indeed this situation becomes different if large numbers of the population are behind such a movement. However I still believe that however many people are support a violent revolution it will simply be crushed by the existing fully armed bourgeoisie state.
ReplyDelete2. That, in my opinion, gaining power through means of force preconditions the use of force to keep political power. Using this force to oppress dissidents is against communist ideals and all should be done to prevent it.
Indeed. The system as it stands at present very much enforces class antagonisms. That is why it must be changed. Remember the old saying, that if you can't beat them you join them. That is basically what I am saying. You cannot "beat" a westernised state - so what I am suggesting is to become part of the state system only to radically reform it to create a classless society. Other Communists might disagree with this, and they are free so, but that is my argument.
Why is it that you believe a society without private property could not exist?
I've touched upon this subject here, have a read if you want. http://confessionsofamarxist.blogspot.com/2009/03/refuting-frank-zappa-people-like-to-own.html
Totalitarianism is the very opposite to a society free from private property. Communist envision a society where the means of production are owned by all. However a totalitarian system, by definition, dictates that all is owned by the ruling elite. Can't you see the contradiction?
Just as a matter of interest, how are you defining private property? By Private property I mean the means of production being owned by one or a group of individuals creating a situation where labourers can only sell their labour power as a means of income. This being the very foundation of capitalism.
I'm also interested in what you would have this weakened state function as.
I apologise if I haven't made myself clear. I'm not saying that a society without private property is impossible, as there are obvious examples in supposedly 'primitive' cultures from around the world. I am merely sceptical of the transition in a westernised state.
ReplyDeleteOne thing societies without private property share is a relatively small size, and a strong feeling of community, allowing the mutual trust and interdependence that is necessary. I do not believe that a whole country/region could be successful without either fragmentation into collectives, or complete state control. I completely agree that totalitarian communism is a contradiction, but the 20th century seems to me to have indicated that it is difficult to avoid in attempts to achieve communism. I think my argument still stands: forceful measures will be required to abolish private property, or at least remove a great deal of it from the bourgeois and into the hands of the proletariat, and these measures require a powerful state. This then leaves you with a big problem, as you have a ruling elite.
I apologise if my use of terms is uninformed - that's because I am!
And with regards to my 'weakened state', that's not what I actually said. I said 'weaker state', compared to a totalitarian 'powerful state'. If anything, I would prefer more 'big' government than we have currently, and far less privatisation. I would have it function democratically similarly to now, although obviously major reforms to the current system would be necessary. I think also that a series of referendums on big choices about producing a more socialist and equal society would be beneficial.
Okay, so I understand your scepticism. You are saying that you don't believe that a westernised state will ever loss private property for this reason that for such a large number of people collectivism becomes impossible.
ReplyDeleteMy critique to this is that, Communism doesn't mean, love thy neighbour, share your toothbrush and live in someone else's house. Private property from a Marxist viewpoint strictly refers to the Means of Production. This will mean that a factory will be owned and controlled by the workers and not a capitalist boss. Similar indeed in how the transformation from feudal to capitalist society meant that land would be controlled by the inhabitants of the land and not the noble land lords.
Should force be required to remove the bourgeoisie then the new state must devolve power to local bases and decentralise the state until it no longer exists.
Indeed you may be non-uniform, but as I pointed out at the start of this blog, it is impossible to debate when others define terms different.
Obviously I am in favour of referendums on state decisions, to increase the amount of direct democracy in the medium term. Having said that, in the long term I think a society without any state is ideal.
I'm sure you're familiar with the following quote:
ReplyDelete"In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."
Such a thing is inconceivable to me. Do you reject this undeniably incredibly idealistic vision Marx had as being misrepresentative of what a communist society would be like?