Ask a Communist?

Erik Nelson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2017
5,117
1,649
46
Utah
✟347,045.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
...Private Ownership means that workers lose control over the means by which they can create value in their lives and so are "alienated" from production as a source of material (and spiritual) values. There are other aspects to it such as "self-alienation" and "alienation" from other people, but the core meaning of alienation in Marxism is losing control over work as a source of meaning and value. In a very literal sense, the human hand is a means of production for physical labour and the brain is a means of production for "mental labour". When this is all the means of production everyone has, and tools are easy to produce and reproduce, everything can be owned in common. But then when you get more permanent tools existing on a larger scale (e.g. cultivated fields, horse-drawn ploughs, etc) you have to organise ownership of them. Under Capitalism, the "workers" lose control of what they do with their labour, their hands and their brains because they have to sell them to a Capitalist in order to buy the stuff necessary to live. Hence, they lose control over themselves and their own activity whilst they are at work.
workers are in complete control over the fruits of their labor... They get paid, and can do with the money whatsoever they want...

as for Capital equipment and land that workers are hired to use, how could anyone "lose" control of something that they never owned or controlled in the first place? If you never once owned a mine or the heavy equipment used to run it, say, how could you claim to have "lost" control of that which was never yours in the first place?

if workers think owning the businesses that they work for is such a good idea, nothing is stopping them from saving up and buying up the company's stock... Just like everyone else...
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
In a sinful world, it's only natural that people become alienated from work, exploited, etc. A critique of communism that loses sight of this, and doesn't take the communist objections seriously, is not fully Christian. It's capitalism in religious drag.

Look at the story in the early part of Genesis, part of the fall is that human beings would have to work by the sweat of their brow. Sin makes work alienating. It's no longer about tending a beautiful garden you live in gifted to you, but being a wage-slave to somebody else. Work and trade for most human beings is not some glorious transaction of free individuals but involves power imbalances between haves and have nots.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Shadow

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 29, 2015
472
402
34
✟94,972.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
workers are in complete control over the fruits of their labor... They get paid, and can do with the money whatsoever they want...

as for Capital equipment and land that workers are hired to use, how could anyone "lose" control of something that they never owned or controlled in the first place? If you never once owned a mine or the heavy equipment used to run it, say, how could you claim to have "lost" control of that which was never yours in the first place?

if workers think owning the businesses that they work for is such a good idea, nothing is stopping them from saving up and buying up the company's stock... Just like everyone else...

I'm assuming that what you are saying is based on personal experience, so would I be right in thinking you own and run your own business?

Its not easy so good for you if that is the case, but I would guess that Marxist ideas of exploitation and alienation would therefore be pretty offensive because wouldn't fit those experiences in a workplace. The reason I ask is that this is something sufficiently abstract that it would be better to make it about personal experiences and something we can both understand and relate to. It would be easy to get drawn in to a very abstract argument about the definition of ownership and exploitation when we could just agree to differ.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Erik Nelson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2017
5,117
1,649
46
Utah
✟347,045.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
In a sinful world, it's only natural that people become alienated from work, exploited, etc. A critique of communism that loses sight of this, and doesn't take the communist objections seriously, is not fully Christian. It's capitalism in religious drag.

Look at the story in the early part of Genesis, part of the fall is that human beings would have to work by the sweat of their brow. Sin makes work alienating. It's no longer about tending a beautiful garden you live in gifted to you, but being a wage-slave to somebody else. Work and trade for most human beings is not some glorious transaction of free individuals but involves power imbalances between haves and have nots.

Sinful people alienate other sinful people...

Things, like Capital "plant / property / equipment", being inanimate inert objects simply sitting there, cannot "alienate" any people, or any other thing, for that matter...

Workers cannot claim to feel "alienated" from the dolleys, forklifts, carts & racks, tables, chairs, refrigerators, microwaves or anything else at their factory site, which they don't own, but are hired & allowed to use...

"If I touch it... then it ought & should & must be mine... mine mine all mine..." ??

"Woe is me, I feel so alienated..." justifies de facto kleptomania (forcibly expropriating & "nationalizing" OPP bought & paid for with OPM) ?
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
That's not how the Bible actually presents our stewardship of God's resources. Things just don't happen to belong to people by right, stewardship doesn't come without obligations.

Neither Marxism nor laissez-faire capitalism are particularly Christian ethics in regards to economics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Percivale

Sam
Supporter
Feb 13, 2012
924
206
Southern Indiana
✟122,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I suppose alienation means the feeling that one is not getting the value that one's work is worth. That happens easily since unskilled workers generally do not have near as much bargaining power as their employers. I think the minimum wage, progressive taxes, and some safety net programs do a better job of balancing that inequality than communism does. Transferring ownership from a private business to the government doesn't change the workers position much necessarily.
The Bible is neither capitalist nor communist. I'd say it's closer to the distributism that GK Chesterton proposed. Of course it's hard to say if or how you would apply the things in Deuteronomy like the Jubilee, but the whole Bible is clear about caring for the poor and avoiding greed.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Shadow
Upvote 0

Erik Nelson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2017
5,117
1,649
46
Utah
✟347,045.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I think that US workers have been deceived.

When they themselves, in full view of the whole wide world, go to Walmart, and "vote" with their wallets, they invariably prefer more "competitively" priced goods from, and created by more "competitively" priced labor in, countries like China & India...

They themselves, in full view of everyone everywhere, acknowledge in "voting" with their own hard-earned money... That "Made in America" is too expensive and not worth the extra cost.

They then turn right around and demand still higher wages, with minimum wage laws & Unions...

even right after they just "voted" with their own money, straight in front of all 7 billion humans on Earth, that "Made in America" is too expensive.

American workers (as a group) will never have it both ways, they will never be able to prefer to pay only "competitive" wages to "competitive" workers in India & China, while receiving uncompetitively high wages at home.

The enormous US Trade Deficit, in a free economy, is the free admission, by the US consuming populace, that "Made Overseas" = "More Competitively Priced".

Of course, nobody cares if anybody admits it to this humble forum user. Meanwhile, however, the US consuming populace is racking up an annual Trade Deficit at the rate of $16K per second. That's about $1M per minute. In the minute or two anybody just spent reading this post, US consumers just spent $1-2M on "Made Overseas" because they just "admitted" it's "More Competitively Priced" to the tune of millions of dollars.

Money, like Gravity, never "forgets". The current disconnect between US workers' hands reaching for their wallets at Walmart, whereat they freely admit with their own money that "Made Overseas is more competitively priced", and their minds demanding ever higher minimum & Union wages, will presumably earn a "reality check" eventually... like persistent unemployment, corporate flight, corporate desire for more competitively priced foreign immigrant labor, etc. etc. etc.

Perhaps the bright side is, all Americans agree, whether blue or white collar, with their own money no less, that "Made in America" is too expensive. When it comes to palming their wealth & wallets, not so much as one American is confused about this issue.
 
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
hey there,

I've been a Communist sympathiser for nearly ten years. It is the closest thing I have to a "faith" and the decision to "convert" was one I made at a vulnerable time in my life when I started suffering from depression and came out as bisexual. Had I not been an atheist, I probably would have had a religious conversion to something else entirely but that's how it turned out. Its value is very debatable but it is part of who I am and works well enough for me on a day to day basis, even with the problems coming from depression.

As it is taboo, its difficult to make a meaningful contribution to a forum unless your open about it as you're never quite sure what to say or how people react. You all seem like nice people and I hope I can find a useful and lasting place here on CF even with the obvious differences of opinion.

As far as I can tell its ok to post this here, so you are very welcome to ask about personal stuff, or communist theory, history, etc. I'm more than happy to answer any questions you have. :)

A few times I’ve heard the argument that communism has not failed, because it has ‘never been tried’. To me this is like saying that marriage has never been tried, or religion has never been tried, as there are no examples of these being demonstrated to any degree approaching perfection, because of course anything involving people is not going to run a smooth course. This seems like a pretty weak argument to me, but I wonder if there is more to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shadow
Upvote 0

Shadow

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 29, 2015
472
402
34
✟94,972.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
A few times I’ve heard the argument that communism has not failed, because it has ‘never been tried’. To me this is like saying that marriage has never been tried, or religion has never been tried, as there are no examples of these being demonstrated to any degree approaching perfection, because of course anything involving people is not going to run a smooth course. This seems like a pretty weak argument to me, but I wonder if there is more to it.

It can be a very weak argument, but there is more to it as well. Its like discussions over whether ISIS represents Islam, or if the Spanish Inquisition was Christian. It depends on how you read the "scripture" and how you interpret it. Communists are divided on the issue and it is certianly alot easier to say the USSR was "not real communism" because you don't have to take responsibility for all the "baggage". Some will say that it didn't represent the vision Marx or Lenin had in mind, much the same way Christians would debate if Christianity represents the works of Jesus or Paul.

They will argue that it was a perversion of "true" communism, that is was really "state capitalism" or "bureaucratic collectivism" that was a new ruling class exploiting the people or if the USSR was once a workers state but became a "degenerated worker's state". There are debates over the timing of where they departed from "true" communism. Debating whether Albania, China or the USSR was "real" communism is like debating if the Catholic, Protestent or Orthodox Churches are "real" Christianity, or if Sunni or Shia Islam is the "true" Islam. Its a source of a great deal of sectarianism and schisms as each group cliams to be the "true" communism and the heir to the tradition of Marx, Engels and Lenin.

So its not straight forward and there is alot of history and theory (or "theology") behind different positions. I'm of the opinion that Stalin, Mao etc did represent a legitimate interpretation of Marx and Lenin but that it is one among many. There are some deeply authoritarian under currents in Marxism but some anti-authoritarian and libertarian ones as well. In practice, you can't really ignore the experience of Communist countries because it is such a valuable ground for seeing what the nature of Communism as the world's largest Social experiment actually meant. If Communism were to ever realistically get off the ground again, the historical experience can't be ignored. Even if you think that Stalin wasn't the "true" communism, you still have to figure out how to stop it happening all over again if that is what you really want.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Tom 1
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Shadow

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 29, 2015
472
402
34
✟94,972.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Why do you and why should I support an ideology who's every incarnation has resulted in disaster?

There is no reason why you should support an ideology unless you actually think it has value. For me, its a force of habit from when I was more fanatical years ago, an intellectual curiosity and also a hope that "something" positive may come out of it and give me guidance about how to help create a better future. :)
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It can be a very weak argument, but there is more to it as well. Its like discussions over whether ISIS represents Islam, or if the Spanish Inquisition was Christian. It depends on how you read the "scripture" and how you interpret it. Communists are divided on the issue and it is certianly alot easier to say the USSR was "not real communism" because you don't have to take responsibility for all the "baggage". Some will say that it didn't represent the vision Marx or Lenin had in mind, much the same way Christians would debate if Christianity represents the works of Jesus or Paul.

They will argue that it was a perversion of "true" communism, that is was really "state capitalism" or "bureaucratic collectivism" that was a new ruling class exploiting the people or if the USSR was once a workers state but became a "degenerated worker's state". There are debates over the timing of where they departed from "true" communism. Debating whether Albania, China or the USSR was "real" communism is like debating if the Catholic, Protestent or Orthodox Churches are "real" Christianity, or if Sunni or Shia Islam is the "true" Islam. Its a source of a great deal of sectarianism and schisms as each group cliams to be the "true" communism and the heir to the tradition of Marx, Engels and Lenin.

So its not straight forward and there is alot of history and theory (or "theology") behind different positions. I'm of the opinion that Stalin, Mao etc did represent a legitimate interpretation of Marx and Lenin but that it is one among many. There are some deeply authoritarian under currents in Marxism but some anti-authoritarian and libertarian ones as well. In practice, you can't really ignore the experience of Communist countries because it is such a valuable ground for seeing what the nature of Communism as the world's largest Social experiment actually meant. If Communism were to ever realistically get off the ground again, the historical experience can't be ignored. Even if you think that Stalin wasn't the "true" communism, you still have to figure out how to stop it happening all over again if that is what you really want.

...I'm not sure how many of the male Communists have actually been sharing their wives with each other. It would be interesting to find out, though, don't ya think? ;)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Shadow
Upvote 0

Shadow

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 29, 2015
472
402
34
✟94,972.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
...I'm not sure how many of the male Communists have actually been sharing their wives with each other. It would be interesting to find out, though, don't ya think? ;)

Its been done comrade. ;)

NATIONALISATION OF WOMEN - Bolshevik Marriage Proclamation Private Possession Abolished All Women Between 17 and 32 Years Included LONDON, Monday. - Northern Territory Times and Gazette (Darwin, NT : 1873 - 1927) - 22 Feb 1919

p.s. love your avatar btw. Very cool picture of Descartes. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,386
11,317
✟433,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
hey there,

I've been a Communist sympathiser for nearly ten years. It is the closest thing I have to a "faith" and the decision to "convert" was one I made at a vulnerable time in my life when I started suffering from depression and came out as bisexual. Had I not been an atheist, I probably would have had a religious conversion to something else entirely but that's how it turned out. Its value is very debatable but it is part of who I am and works well enough for me on a day to day basis, even with the problems coming from depression.

As it is taboo, its difficult to make a meaningful contribution to a forum unless your open about it as you're never quite sure what to say or how people react. You all seem like nice people and I hope I can find a useful and lasting place here on CF even with the obvious differences of opinion.

As far as I can tell its ok to post this here, so you are very welcome to ask about personal stuff, or communist theory, history, etc. I'm more than happy to answer any questions you have. :)

Do you think that generally speaking, people will make good decisions for the group...in spite of personal interests...when left to their own (meaning without government intrusion of any kind, like taxes, for example)?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Shadow
Upvote 0

Shadow

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 29, 2015
472
402
34
✟94,972.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Do you think that generally speaking, people will make good decisions for the group...in spite of personal interests...when left to their own (meaning without government intrusion of any kind, like taxes, for example)?

That is a really good question and is an area that divides communists quite a bit because it defines the boundary between the rights of society/ the state and the rights of the individual. I wish I was better qualified to give you an answer but I will give it a go.

Personally, I still share many of the fears of liberal individualists about "big government" and "totalitarianism". A life time reading about Communist atrocities leaves its mark. I am as concerned as any liberal as the dangers of tyranny by majority if the rights of the group take precedence over the rights of the individual in a "pure" democracy. So I am not "sold" on Lenin's idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariat", whether it is understood as a form of pure democracy of everyone in society or the rule of a vanguard party on behalf of the people.

The more typical Marxist answer to this relies on treating "individuals" and "group" interests within the context of a given socio-economic system. Groups and individuals are not naturally opposed to one another but develop that opposition because of how society is arranged economically. Essentially capitalism forces us to compete against one another in a market and so we support competition between political parties in election and the free competition of ideologies in the "marketplace of ideas". The opposition between individual and group interests under capitalism is due to private property, but under socialism this opposition is supposed to disappear. I actually don't know how though.

I think the quote by Stalin and by Che Guevara should give a useful indicator of what an orthodox response to your question would be like and should be enough to answer your question. :)

Stalin : There is no, nor should there be, irreconcilable contrast between the individual and the collective, between the interests of the individual person and the interests of the collective. There should be no such contrast, because collectivism, socialism, does not deny, but combines individual interests with the interests of the collective. Socialism cannot abstract itself from individual interests. Socialist society alone can most fully satisfy these personal interests. More than that; socialist society alone can firmly safeguard the interests of the individual. In this sense there is no irreconcilable contrast between "individualism" and socialism. But can we deny the contrast between classes, between the propertied class, the capitalist class, and the toiling class, the proletarian class?

On the one hand we have the propertied class which owns the banks, the factories, the mines, transport, the plantations in colonies. These people see nothing but their own interests, their striving after profits.

They do not submit to the will of the collective; they strive to subordinate every collective to their will. On the other hand we have the class of the poor, the exploited class, which owns neither factories nor works, nor banks, which is compelled to live by selling its labour power to the capitalists which lacks the opportunity to satisfy its most elementary requirements. How can such opposite interests and strivings be reconciled? As far as I know, Roosevelt has not succeeded in finding the path of conciliation between these interests. And it is impossible, as experience has shown. Incidentally, you know the situation in the United States better than I do as I have never been there and I watch American affairs mainly from literature. But I have some experience in fighting for socialism, and this experience tells me that if Roosevelt makes a real attempt to satisfy the interests of the proletarian class at the expense of the capitalist class, the latter will put another president in his place. The capitalists will say : Presidents come and presidents go, but we go on forever; if this or that president does not protect our interests, we shall find another. What can the president oppose to the will of the capitalist class?


Marxism Versus Liberalism

The individual and socialism
I would now like to try to define the individual, the actor in this strange and moving drama of the building of socialism, in a dual existence as a unique being and as a member of society.

I think the place to start is to recognize the individual's quality of incompleteness, of being an unfinished product. The vestiges of the past are brought into the present in one's consciousness, and a continual labor is necessary to eradicate them.[39] The process is two-sided. On the one hand, society acts through direct and indirect education; on the other, the individual submits to a conscious process of self-education. The new society in formation has to compete fiercely with the past. This past makes itself felt not only in one's consciousness — in which the residue of an education systematically oriented toward isolating the individual still weighs heavily — but also through the very character of this transition period in which commodity relations still persist. The commodity is the economic cell of capitalist society. So long as it exists its effects will make themselves felt in the organization of production and, consequently, in consciousness.

Marx outlined the transition period as resulting from the explosive transformation of the capitalist system destroyed by its own contradictions. In historical reality, however, we have seen that some countries that were weak limbs on the tree of imperialism were torn off first — a phenomenon foreseen by Lenin.

In these countries, capitalism had developed sufficiently to make its effects felt by the people in one way or another. But it was not capitalism's internal contradictions that, having exhausted all possibilities, caused the system to explode. The struggle for liberation from a foreign oppressor; the misery caused by external events such as war, whose consequences privileged classes place on the backs of the exploited; liberation movements aimed at overthrowing neo-colonial regimes — these are the usual factors in unleashing this kind of explosion. Conscious action does the rest. A complete education for social labor has not yet taken place in these countries, and wealth is far from being within the reach of the masses through the simple process of appropriation. Underdevelopment, on the one hand, and the usual flight of capital, on the other, make a rapid transition without sacrifices impossible.[40] There remains a long way to go in constructing the economic base, and the temptation is very great to follow the beaten track of material interest as the lever with which to accelerate development.

There is the danger that the forest will not be seen for the trees. The pipe dream that socialism can be achieved with the help of the dull instruments left to us by capitalism (the commodity as the economic cell, profitability, individual material interest as a lever, etc.) can lead into a blind alley. When you wind up there after having traveled a long distance with many crossroads, it is hard to figure out just where you took the wrong turn. Meanwhile, the economic foundation that has been laid has done its work of undermining the development of consciousness. To build communism it is necessary, simultaneous with the new material foundations, to build the new man and woman.


Socialism and man in Cuba
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

Now 'that' is an interesting article. A "damning" one, but an interesting one. Any idea how long that kind of thing actually remained in effect (if at all)? I thought it was very funny that women are referred to as articles of property of the nation...not even the Old Testament went that far. ^_^

Funny that my Russian History professor didn't mention this little tidbit ... not that he needed to really.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom 1
Upvote 0

Shadow

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 29, 2015
472
402
34
✟94,972.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Now 'that' is an interesting article. A "damning" one, but an interesting one. Any idea how long that kind of thing actually remained in effect (if at all)? I thought it was very funny that women are referred to as articles of property of the nation...not even the Old Testament went that far. ^_^

Funny that my Russian History professor didn't mention this little tidbit ... not that he needed to really.

I don't know how long it lasted but its unlikely it survived the Russian Civil War and the re-establishment of centralised government as it was localised.

Articles: Women as Property of the State?
Nationalising Women on the Volga - Beachcombing's Bizarre History Blog

However... *he says uncomfortably* :oops:

Under the Khmer Rouge complete strangers underwent forced marriage in mass ceremonies and were then instructed to rape each other to consummate the marriage. The really twisted thing is when you realise this was only in the 1970's and is still within living memory.

Forced Marriage | GBV under the Khmer Rouge

Its monstrous even by Communist standards. (And in case it needed to be asked) Yes, I think this is evil. :eek:
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,386
11,317
✟433,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
That is a really good question and is an area that divides communists quite a bit because it defines the boundary between the rights of society/ the state and the rights of the individual.

It's one of my two main criticisms of communism. Personally, I think it's why communism ends up being associated with some rather horrible tyrant types.

I wish I was better qualified to give you an answer but I will give it a go.

Personally, I still share many of the fears of liberal individualists about "big government" and "totalitarianism". A life time reading about Communist atrocities leaves its mark. I am as concerned as any liberal as the dangers of tyranny by majority if the rights of the group take precedence over the rights of the individual in a "pure" democracy. So I am not "sold" on Lenin's idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariat", whether it is understood as a form of pure democracy of everyone in society or the rule of a vanguard party on behalf of the people.

The more typical Marxist answer to this relies on treating "individuals" and "group" interests within the context of a given socio-economic system. Groups and individuals are not naturally opposed to one another but develop that opposition because of how society is arranged economically. Essentially capitalism forces us to compete against one another in a market and so we support competition between political parties in election and the free competition of ideologies in the "marketplace of ideas". The opposition between individual and group interests under capitalism is due to private property, but under socialism this opposition is supposed to disappear. I actually don't know how though.

Kudos to you for giving me the honest answer. I always prefer an honest "I'm not sure how it's supposed to work" to a contrived attempt to make it look like you do know.

I think part of the problem here is perceptual. There's a rather elegant passage in The Wealth of Nations where Smith explains how capitalism arose from monarchies in spite of the aristocracy trying to prevent it. I happen to agree that capitalism doesn't have to be forced upon anyone...it occurs naturally, hence the designation "free market".

I think the quote by Stalin and by Che Guevara should give a useful indicator of what an orthodox response to your question would be like and should be enough to answer your question. :)

Stalin : There is no, nor should there be, irreconcilable contrast between the individual and the collective, between the interests of the individual person and the interests of the collective. There should be no such contrast, because collectivism, socialism, does not deny, but combines individual interests with the interests of the collective. Socialism cannot abstract itself from individual interests. Socialist society alone can most fully satisfy these personal interests. More than that; socialist society alone can firmly safeguard the interests of the individual. In this sense there is no irreconcilable contrast between "individualism" and socialism. But can we deny the contrast between classes, between the propertied class, the capitalist class, and the toiling class, the proletarian class?

On the one hand we have the propertied class which owns the banks, the factories, the mines, transport, the plantations in colonies. These people see nothing but their own interests, their striving after profits.

They do not submit to the will of the collective; they strive to subordinate every collective to their will. On the other hand we have the class of the poor, the exploited class, which owns neither factories nor works, nor banks, which is compelled to live by selling its labour power to the capitalists which lacks the opportunity to satisfy its most elementary requirements. How can such opposite interests and strivings be reconciled? As far as I know, Roosevelt has not succeeded in finding the path of conciliation between these interests. And it is impossible, as experience has shown. Incidentally, you know the situation in the United States better than I do as I have never been there and I watch American affairs mainly from literature. But I have some experience in fighting for socialism, and this experience tells me that if Roosevelt makes a real attempt to satisfy the interests of the proletarian class at the expense of the capitalist class, the latter will put another president in his place. The capitalists will say : Presidents come and presidents go, but we go on forever; if this or that president does not protect our interests, we shall find another. What can the president oppose to the will of the capitalist class?


Marxism Versus Liberalism

The individual and socialism
I would now like to try to define the individual, the actor in this strange and moving drama of the building of socialism, in a dual existence as a unique being and as a member of society.

I think the place to start is to recognize the individual's quality of incompleteness, of being an unfinished product. The vestiges of the past are brought into the present in one's consciousness, and a continual labor is necessary to eradicate them.[39] The process is two-sided. On the one hand, society acts through direct and indirect education; on the other, the individual submits to a conscious process of self-education. The new society in formation has to compete fiercely with the past. This past makes itself felt not only in one's consciousness — in which the residue of an education systematically oriented toward isolating the individual still weighs heavily — but also through the very character of this transition period in which commodity relations still persist. The commodity is the economic cell of capitalist society. So long as it exists its effects will make themselves felt in the organization of production and, consequently, in consciousness.

Marx outlined the transition period as resulting from the explosive transformation of the capitalist system destroyed by its own contradictions. In historical reality, however, we have seen that some countries that were weak limbs on the tree of imperialism were torn off first — a phenomenon foreseen by Lenin.

In these countries, capitalism had developed sufficiently to make its effects felt by the people in one way or another. But it was not capitalism's internal contradictions that, having exhausted all possibilities, caused the system to explode. The struggle for liberation from a foreign oppressor; the misery caused by external events such as war, whose consequences privileged classes place on the backs of the exploited; liberation movements aimed at overthrowing neo-colonial regimes — these are the usual factors in unleashing this kind of explosion. Conscious action does the rest. A complete education for social labor has not yet taken place in these countries, and wealth is far from being within the reach of the masses through the simple process of appropriation. Underdevelopment, on the one hand, and the usual flight of capital, on the other, make a rapid transition without sacrifices impossible.[40] There remains a long way to go in constructing the economic base, and the temptation is very great to follow the beaten track of material interest as the lever with which to accelerate development.

There is the danger that the forest will not be seen for the trees. The pipe dream that socialism can be achieved with the help of the dull instruments left to us by capitalism (the commodity as the economic cell, profitability, individual material interest as a lever, etc.) can lead into a blind alley. When you wind up there after having traveled a long distance with many crossroads, it is hard to figure out just where you took the wrong turn. Meanwhile, the economic foundation that has been laid has done its work of undermining the development of consciousness. To build communism it is necessary, simultaneous with the new material foundations, to build the new man and woman.


Socialism and man in Cuba

It certainly explains their views of the topic...I however, disagree. I think on a very fundamental level, capitalism is an expression of individual interests. It's certainly not an expression of collective interests...but I don't know how one defines those without treading into some dangerous ethical territory.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Shadow
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That is a really good question and is an area that divides communists quite a bit because it defines the boundary between the rights of society/ the state and the rights of the individual. I wish I was better qualified to give you an answer but I will give it a go.

Personally, I still share many of the fears of liberal individualists about "big government" and "totalitarianism". A life time reading about Communist atrocities leaves its mark. I am as concerned as any liberal as the dangers of tyranny by majority if the rights of the group take precedence over the rights of the individual in a "pure" democracy. So I am not "sold" on Lenin's idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariat", whether it is understood as a form of pure democracy of everyone in society or the rule of a vanguard party on behalf of the people.

The more typical Marxist answer to this relies on treating "individuals" and "group" interests within the context of a given socio-economic system. Groups and individuals are not naturally opposed to one another but develop that opposition because of how society is arranged economically. Essentially capitalism forces us to compete against one another in a market and so we support competition between political parties in election and the free competition of ideologies in the "marketplace of ideas". The opposition between individual and group interests under capitalism is due to private property, but under socialism this opposition is supposed to disappear. I actually don't know how though.

I think the quote by Stalin and by Che Guevara should give a useful indicator of what an orthodox response to your question would be like and should be enough to answer your question. :)

Stalin : There is no, nor should there be, irreconcilable contrast between the individual and the collective, between the interests of the individual person and the interests of the collective. There should be no such contrast, because collectivism, socialism, does not deny, but combines individual interests with the interests of the collective. Socialism cannot abstract itself from individual interests. Socialist society alone can most fully satisfy these personal interests. More than that; socialist society alone can firmly safeguard the interests of the individual. In this sense there is no irreconcilable contrast between "individualism" and socialism. But can we deny the contrast between classes, between the propertied class, the capitalist class, and the toiling class, the proletarian class?

On the one hand we have the propertied class which owns the banks, the factories, the mines, transport, the plantations in colonies. These people see nothing but their own interests, their striving after profits.

They do not submit to the will of the collective; they strive to subordinate every collective to their will. On the other hand we have the class of the poor, the exploited class, which owns neither factories nor works, nor banks, which is compelled to live by selling its labour power to the capitalists which lacks the opportunity to satisfy its most elementary requirements. How can such opposite interests and strivings be reconciled? As far as I know, Roosevelt has not succeeded in finding the path of conciliation between these interests. And it is impossible, as experience has shown. Incidentally, you know the situation in the United States better than I do as I have never been there and I watch American affairs mainly from literature. But I have some experience in fighting for socialism, and this experience tells me that if Roosevelt makes a real attempt to satisfy the interests of the proletarian class at the expense of the capitalist class, the latter will put another president in his place. The capitalists will say : Presidents come and presidents go, but we go on forever; if this or that president does not protect our interests, we shall find another. What can the president oppose to the will of the capitalist class?


Marxism Versus Liberalism

The individual and socialism
I would now like to try to define the individual, the actor in this strange and moving drama of the building of socialism, in a dual existence as a unique being and as a member of society.

I think the place to start is to recognize the individual's quality of incompleteness, of being an unfinished product. The vestiges of the past are brought into the present in one's consciousness, and a continual labor is necessary to eradicate them.[39] The process is two-sided. On the one hand, society acts through direct and indirect education; on the other, the individual submits to a conscious process of self-education. The new society in formation has to compete fiercely with the past. This past makes itself felt not only in one's consciousness — in which the residue of an education systematically oriented toward isolating the individual still weighs heavily — but also through the very character of this transition period in which commodity relations still persist. The commodity is the economic cell of capitalist society. So long as it exists its effects will make themselves felt in the organization of production and, consequently, in consciousness.

Marx outlined the transition period as resulting from the explosive transformation of the capitalist system destroyed by its own contradictions. In historical reality, however, we have seen that some countries that were weak limbs on the tree of imperialism were torn off first — a phenomenon foreseen by Lenin.

In these countries, capitalism had developed sufficiently to make its effects felt by the people in one way or another. But it was not capitalism's internal contradictions that, having exhausted all possibilities, caused the system to explode. The struggle for liberation from a foreign oppressor; the misery caused by external events such as war, whose consequences privileged classes place on the backs of the exploited; liberation movements aimed at overthrowing neo-colonial regimes — these are the usual factors in unleashing this kind of explosion. Conscious action does the rest. A complete education for social labor has not yet taken place in these countries, and wealth is far from being within the reach of the masses through the simple process of appropriation. Underdevelopment, on the one hand, and the usual flight of capital, on the other, make a rapid transition without sacrifices impossible.[40] There remains a long way to go in constructing the economic base, and the temptation is very great to follow the beaten track of material interest as the lever with which to accelerate development.

There is the danger that the forest will not be seen for the trees. The pipe dream that socialism can be achieved with the help of the dull instruments left to us by capitalism (the commodity as the economic cell, profitability, individual material interest as a lever, etc.) can lead into a blind alley. When you wind up there after having traveled a long distance with many crossroads, it is hard to figure out just where you took the wrong turn. Meanwhile, the economic foundation that has been laid has done its work of undermining the development of consciousness. To build communism it is necessary, simultaneous with the new material foundations, to build the new man and woman.


Socialism and man in Cuba

Do you happen to have links to the Guevara articles in Spanish? I’m pushing the limits of my new books budget
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Shadow

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 29, 2015
472
402
34
✟94,972.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Do you happen to have links to the Guevara articles in Spanish? I’m pushing the limits of my new books budget

Dam, I know that feeling. :D

The Spanish version of article I quoted is here:

Guevara (1965): El socialismo y el hombre en Cuba.

The links below may be very useful. Its easily the best resource for original Marxist material on the internet.

Marxist Internet Archive (Spainish): Marxists Internet Archive - Sección en Español
Available works of Che Guevara (Spainish): Che Guevara: Escritos

It's one of my two main criticisms of communism. Personally, I think it's why communism ends up being associated with some rather horrible tyrant types.



Kudos to you for giving me the honest answer. I always prefer an honest "I'm not sure how it's supposed to work" to a contrived attempt to make it look like you do know.

I think part of the problem here is perceptual. There's a rather elegant passage in The Wealth of Nations where Smith explains how capitalism arose from monarchies in spite of the aristocracy trying to prevent it. I happen to agree that capitalism doesn't have to be forced upon anyone...it occurs naturally, hence the designation "free market".



It certainly explains their views of the topic...I however, disagree. I think on a very fundamental level, capitalism is an expression of individual interests. It's certainly not an expression of collective interests...but I don't know how one defines those without treading into some dangerous ethical territory.

Thanks. Its a question with far-reaching consequences and I'm not really sure which side I'm on ultimately. Its worth mentioning that the very definition of "freedom" is different in Marxist literature than will be found amongst "Classical Liberal" texts.

So using Google search, Liberty is defined as:

"the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's behaviour or political views."

The Marxist definition of freedom is different because of the background philosophy to it. I'll quote it in context so you get an idea of why it's different. Marxists believe that everything is governed by laws of cause and effect or necessity, and so it is only by gaining knowledge of those laws that we can harness them and use them in such a way that serves our interests.

"Freedom does not consist in the dream of independence of natural laws, but in the knowledge of these laws, and in the possibility this gives of systematically making them work towards definite ends. This holds good in relation both to the laws of external nature and to those which govern the bodily and mental life of men themselves- two classes of laws which we can separate from each other at most only in thought and not in reality. Freedom of the will therefore means nothing but the capacity to make decisions with real knowledge of the subject ... Freedom therefore consists of the control over ourselves and over external nature which is founded on the knowledge of natural necessity." (Quote from Fredrick Engels, Anti-Duhring)

The idea of defining Freedom as Control obviously raises some hair-raising questions as if freedom means control over other people effectively as slaves, making them instruments to serve anothers interests. Freedom, or rather "freedom of action" basically means Power (using Google again):

"the ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way."

So its not very re-assuring when this is applied to legal and constitutional arrangements. There is no consistent position on Marxists on whether "Liberty" actually has a place in a Communist system. For example, "Freedom of Speech" under Communism means something different because it assumes a) the validity of Marxist conception of nature and society that everything is governed by casual laws and b) that those laws must be harnessed in the interests of the Communist Party representing the ruling class in the worker's state. i.e. you can only say what the communist party agrees with based on the assumption it is the source of scientific knowledge for "correctly" managing society. Speech which is regarded as distorting Marxist "Scientific" knowledge is therefore regarded as harmful and restricted.

So if the basic philosophy behind Marxism is wrong, its not hard to see how economic and political liberalism could therefore have advantages if you don't want to have a society where you are going to be compelled to do what the Party tells you to. Its a leap in the dark from what we are used to however you look at it.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Tom 1
Upvote 0