Maryland abolishes death penalty.

[eppie]

But I don't hold the fear that our government is turning into some monster either. I think that there are some intensely questionable politicians that end up elected, but I have yet to see it happen en mass enough that we are at the point where we are going to become some uber conservative religious theocracy driven representative republic thing that takes steps backwards from where we are currently.

Well, I am not sure about that. The republican party has completely lost it and still almost half of the US citizens vote for them. There are millions of kids not even being told about evolution at school....let alone even being told it is wrong. And especially now that there is again some sort of power struggle after the wall fell and now that Russia and China are becoming more powerful, the idiotic masses in (all of those) countries are getting louder again.
But you are right indeed, there are mor important things than the death penalty probably.

[shoju]

It's a gradual shift. I can see the changes in attitude. Unfortunately, when you are dealing with a large group of people, change in ideologies takes time, and a lot of energy.

Look at how long it took for us as a country to finally end segregation, and feel like we are on the "outs" of racism.
Look at how easily that was undone with the recent spikes of racism towards middle easterners.
Look at how we treated LGBT people as recently as 25 years ago. And now we are finally at a point where the majority of people (58%, yes. The majority) are ok with it as someone else's lifestyle.

There are a few problems that I see that need to be handled first, but I can trace most of them back to one prevailing concept. There is an overwhelming ideology in this country that the words were

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness........ as long as your beliefs line up with mine, and you fit my world view
and
All men are created equal....... Unless you look, love, or believe outside of my worldview

Anything that doesn't match up with our world view is wrong. Anyone who lives outside of our moral "fiber" is wrong. Anyone who believes differently than us, is wrong.

I'll admit, I even feel this way at times, about certain groups of people. It's a slippery slope. I try to let people live, and love, and believe, how they please, as long as their lives aren't trampling on someone else's.

Want to believe in God? I don't care.
Are you part homosexual? I don't care.
Are you Atheist? I don't care.

As long as you aren't out there actively working to restrict the rights of someone else, (Criminally or otherwise) I don't care what you do, how do you it. I care when it starts to infringe on other people. Fundamentalist Christian Views fall into this. As do angry Atheists who go out of their way to bash those of Faith.

That's my big thing. Once I feel that we have a society that functions well at that level, I'll care about what happens with criminals more. But at this point, I see a justice system, that can't even lock up / detain / rehabilitate a woman who has destroyed a family, stolen near $50K+, and blown it all on Crack Cocaine. I'm more worried about that end of the spectrum than I am the small percentage of people (in the grand scheme of things) who end up on death row.

Because the "Non Violent Drug Offenders" as people call it, is really a large group of people that encompasses people who are wreaking havoc on families, and children, with their destructive behavior. You can say their non violent. You can say that they don't need locked up. But every time I look at my son, I see a young boy who would rather his mother be locked in a prison, where he knew where she was, and knew that she wasn't dead in a gutter from an OD, or on the run, or just flat out missing, because of her "non violent drug addiction"

[kandrathe]

And FiT. No, I'm not wrong.

To be fair, there is a level of nuances you are omitting. Communism is not monolithic. What FIT advocates never, or hardly existed and for good sociological reasons. My implication was that we could just as likely implement the return to a Garden of Eden, as an attempt to steer society to a place without want or need.

Read; Anarchism Or Socialism by J.V. Stalin 1907.

FIT aligns with Anarchists, which Russian (hence South American) and Chinese communism rejected in favor of strong (dictatorial) central governments who impose their will on the people for their own good.

You might also like to read John Kenneth Galbraith who had deep insights into our economic and political systems. He is brilliant, so I will forgive him for being essentially Keynesian. He was also a Canadian, which is almost like being a Minnesotan. He once said that; "Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite."

[shoju]

The problem I have with his comment, is the assertion that Westerners that labeled them. Westerners didn't label them. They labeled themselves. The assertion that they aren't communist in the textbook definition may be a point that can be debated, but to claim that "we" labeled them is a fallacy.

That's my whole point. They may not be "his" brand of communism, or they may not "fit" the ideological communism, but they claimed they were. This wasn't some ploy by the west to make us fearful of them.

"we" just played off of that name to inspire derision, and mistrust of anything based on that label. "we" then went even further, and pushed to create similar tensions with anything calling itself socialism.

[FireIceTalon]

And FiT. No, I'm not wrong.

Castro was the First Secretary of the Communist Party in Cuba from 1961 to 2011. That's not the west labeling him. That's his political party. His choice. His label.

The USSR was ruled by a one party system, The Communist Party, of which Stalin was the General Secretary. He was even heralded as the "genius of the new world, the wisest man of the epoch, the great leader of communism."

Again. Not the west. That quote was from the Russian Political Newspaper, the Pravda.

Hate to be the one to give you the bad news, but it's not the west, It was themselves.

And I was right about China's government claiming to be Communist. they are the Communist Party of China
Also about North Korea. Kim Yong-Bom and Pak Hon-Yong founded the Communist Party of Korea in 1925, and then in 1945 the North Korea Bureau of the Communist Party of Korea came to be.

Again. Not Western Labeling. That's what they chose to call themselves.

Communism and Communist Party are two very, very different things.

You are still being intellectually dishonest here, albeit in a very underhanded way by using circular logic (the dominant party of country x calls itself a communist party, therefore country x must be a communist country, country x is communist because it has a party that calls itself communist). This is a logical fallacy, so yes, you still have yet to prove yourself correct.

If you deny that western culture and propaganda does not go at VERY great lengths to demonize communism by defining it as something that its not, than sorry, but you are living in a bubble. As I said before, Obama is pushing policies war, handing out tax cuts to gazillionaires, while the working class gets more austerity and cuts to social programs.....and half the populace is calling him a communist! Its a total mind fuckery. And that is just one example, there are a million others. You want free healthcare or a more progressive tax system? better watch out that will get you labeled a socialist! Americans are fucking brain dead due to our banking system of education and media, which are designed to brainwash the masses with pro-capitalist ideology. You and most of the American populace have no clue or concept of what socialism is, what its aims are, or really, anything about it at all.

I dont care if the Russian newspaper was calling Stalin a god or not.....the reason they did is because Stalin himself had control of the media and thus control of what was said, much in the same way our media has control of public opinion - except it is the philosophy of a handful of corporations what want to make a profit instead of a single dictator. This doesn't mean that he was representative of the true opinion of the Soviet people - it may have been or it may not have been. And it certainly wasn't the opinion of most communists in general, outside the USSR - you paint with a very broad broad brush when you say people like Stalin are viewed as "the great leader of communism", as if most communists worship Stalin......the majority of communists dont believe in 'Great man" theories of history (a bourgeois concept), because they are unscientific and do not provide a proper material analysis of history. Lastly, most of us actually are quite anti-Stalinist. And we have been since the days of Marx and Engels, before Stalin was even a speck of dust. But of course, the US media has done a wonderful job of conflating Stalin and other so-called 'great men of history' with all communists. And people like you buy it hook, line, and sinker. Im not asking you to become a communist, but your slandering and intellectual dishonesty of it really isn't appreciated. Then again, I guess it isn't slandering if you have no clue what you are talking about.

I really don't have the patience to debate against this kind of ignorance right now though, so I will stop here for now. Good day.

[FireIceTalon]

FIT aligns with Anarchists, which Russian (hence South American) and Chinese communism rejected in favor of strong (dictatorial) central governments who impose their will on the people for their own good.

Uh...um, I'm not an Anarchist either, reasons being....

1. Anarchists reject 'the dictatorship of the proletarian' concept - I do not.

2. Anarchists do not usually subscribe to the 'materialist conception of history' that is intrinsic to Marxism. As a Marxist, historical materialism is a key method to my analysis of society. Pretty sure they don't necessarily agree with or use Dialectical Materialism either (though there are Marxists who do not also). I VERY strongly use dialectics in my thinking, and find DM an invaluable tool.

3. Anarchists and Marxists have a very different view of the origins of the state. For both the state is an instrument of class oppression, but for Anarchists class oppression exists BECAUSE OF the state; for Marxists the state is an organic RESULT of class oppression, which is what I very clearly believe. An anarchist is opposed to ANY kind of authority, and upon a successful workers revolution, they want to smash the capitalist state right away and begin building socialism. From a Marxist perspective, this is impossible, because the capitalist state IS going to fight back and seek a return to the old order. Therefore the workers must seize control of the state for themselves, and as socialism is being build and the resources of society socialized, the state gradually begins to go away as elements of the old order disappear, until finally the state is obsolete and no longer needed - pretty much it goes back to reason #1. Basically one wants the immediate abolishment of the state, the other a more gradual one. Anarchists are scared that the 'dictatorship of the proletarian' will result in a new class system (some of this stems from the results of the Russian Revolution, but this was never a workers-controlled state - it was a vanguard party controlled state which is a HUGE difference), but it seems silly to me since the whole point of the revolution is for the workers to seize economic and political power for themselves, and build a new society that is based on their common interests.

Theres other reasons too but these three really stick out. These may not seem like significant differences but they are, because they result in a very different perception of revolutionary politics, and this was really the first form of sectarianism for the left, when Marxists and Anarchists split during the First International as a result of differences from the Paris Commune of 1848.

So yea, Im a orthodox Marxist, of the Second International Impossibilist type, though I find many aspects of Cultural Marxism invaluable and fascinating (fellow orthodox Marxists would probably cringe at this statement, but fuck em' . Definitely not an anarchist, hehe. I have too many theoretical differences with them, even if we ultimately want the same thing. I also disagree with or at least am very skeptical of the core tenets of Leninism, namely Vanguardism and Democratic Centralism.

[shoju]

And here we are, back to the same old FiT, name calling, and his own circular logic to defend why he is right and someone else is wrong, and looking at other people's "circular logic".

I didn't bring up Obama. I didn't limit the talk to current topics. You are. I'm actually pointing out references to their inception. These were parties founded on the principles of communism. Enough so, that they decided to call themselves after the ideologies that they were founding their party upon. I actually went to look through historical information to get information. Not some "Main Stream Media" type of place. Oh wait... I'm sorry. I did use a quote from Wikipedia while going through their source list. Damn. I'm screwed.

I find it hilarious, that you think I've formed my opinions based on the US Media. I went out of my way to look at non US information to get more information about what I was talking about. But hey, you know, You just keep on trying to pigeon hole me, and think you have me all figured out. I'm just some good little US Media Pleeb in your mind, spewing ignorance, when I've tried pretty damn hard to go out of my way to make sure I was presenting non US based information. You're need to be right is astounding, only trumped by your immediate jump to consider anyone with a dissenting opinion to your own as wrong, ignorant, blinded by the media.

Oh Come Great FireIceTalon. Liberate us from our shackles. [eyeroll]

I think I've said all I can on the OP Topic, and I'm really done listening to the same old rhetoric over and over again.

[FireIceTalon]

That's what my Bourgeois Capitalist Education taught me. And I agree

Nuff' said.

[shoju]

[condescending tone meant to sound like a jerk] God I love how you miss the sarcasm [/condescending tone meant to sound like a jerk]

[sigh]
[serious tone] I thought that was readily enough implied in that statement. [/serious tone] [sarcastic condescending tone again]Apparently not.[/sarcastic condescending tone again] [serious tone again]I will have to resort to using smilies, and [emotions in brackets] to convey my opinion to you.[/serious tone again]

[FireIceTalon]

Oh and Kandrathe, one other thing...I notice in your posts about communism you seem to think we want or advocate a return to hunter/gatherer modes of production (correct me if I'm wrong). What you are referring to it seems is Primitivism, and I have never seen any anarchist, communist, or any sort of revolutionary leftist advocate for primitivism. Of course, I speak for myself only here and those ive encountered. But I can't really see any communist advocating it, since primitivism is highly incompatible with any type of revolutionary leftist thought. In fact, we would view it as quite reactionary, as would most capitalists even.

Humans cannot ever be freed from need or want (well, need for sure at least), and Marxism does not deny this and in fact even agrees with it - need is one of the central themes that is of concern in Marxian economics since this (human need, survival) is the starting point for all economic activity.

[LennyLen]

Humans cannot ever be freed from need or want (well, need for sure at least), and Marxism does not deny this and in fact even agrees with it - need is one of the central themes that is of concern in Marxian economics since this (human need, survival) is the starting point for all economic activity.

The problem of course, is that all too often, the simplest way to satisfy that need is to take what you want from other people. And if history has shown us anything, it is that human nature is very amenable to this.

[FireIceTalon]

Humans cannot ever be freed from need or want (well, need for sure at least), and Marxism does not deny this and in fact even agrees with it - need is one of the central themes that is of concern in Marxian economics since this (human need, survival) is the starting point for all economic activity.

The problem of course, is that all too often, the simplest way to satisfy that need is to take what you want from other people. And if history has shown us anything, it is that human nature is very amenable to this.

In class-based societies, you are absolutely right. Especially since, when you are on the privileged side of things, you have a state that will legitimize it and it makes it all the much easier to oppress those who are subordinate to you in some way. But human nature doesn't create these circumstances so much as it is a reflection of it - it is extremely dynamic and is constantly changing as the world around us changes. As I stated in a previous post towards Shoju, someone from 300 years ago is going to have a very different thought process, behavior, outlook on life and on the world in general than someone today. History doesn't exist in a vacuum or proceed in a perfect straight line with things remaining static. It is an ever-changing process governed by particular economic laws of motion that produce a certain set of social relations unique to each epoch of history.

[kandrathe]

Oh and Kandrathe, one other thing...

Are there any examples of a complicated industrial process jointly owned and managed by workers? Not ESOP, not a co-op, but truly "orthodox" Marxist style, run only the proletariat without a board of directors? Not the local hippie cafe, or grocery store, or bike shop. I mean, a company that actually builds a complicated industrial product, like a car, or a computer.

It is conceivable but unlikely that people can overcome their humanness enough to perservere in such an endeavor for very long. As, we discussed earlier, once you commit (invest) everything into a commune, or communal endeavor, it is nay impossible to move out of it later unless you are willing to walk away empty handed.

This is why according to how you narrowly define it, it seems impossible. Or, magic. History has shown that when things are collectively owned, they are not well maintained and often fail and fall to ruins. For anyone interested in how communism fails, the history of Plymouth Bay Colony, is an exemplary study. They were a people who had formerly been known for their virtue, and hard work who became lazy and unproductive. Their resources were squandered, the vegetables were allowed to rot on the ground, and mass starvation was the result. And where there is starvation, there is plague. After two and one half years, the leaders of the colony decided to abandon their socialist mandate and create a system which honored private property. The colony survived and thrived, and the resultant abundance is celebrated as our prototypical Thanksgiving feast.

The tragedy of the Commons is the ultimate selfish corruption that dooms collectivism. I think competition and the profit motive help to drive efficiency in production and promote future long term value. It also introduces the ability to commit fraud in false "marketing". Again, we have the government to the rescue with law and regulation. It is one area of law I agree with as long as it remains within reason.

The free market system uses price as a means to rationally distribute available resources. It may not be equal and fair from a Marxist perspective, but as goods become rare, the price mechanism drives down demand and substitutes are eventually found. Without price, communism relies on a command economy where without proper signalling on the demand for a commodity, shortages and surpluses result.

The main beef of the 99% movement is that profits and therefore access to rare things is relegated to the wealthy (1%). It is this unequal distribution of economic success that motivates anti-capitalists, rather than (as Galbraith would advocate) seeking to use government regulation to make things more fair. This is not my view, and why I'm a fan of Galbraith's intellect, but not his positions. There is an interesting proposal floating around Washington that I recently heard about; remove all entitlements -- welfare, food stamps, social security, etc. and just pay every citizen a base "salary" of like $10K per year.

With regulations to protect the "rights" of workers, Capitalism has proven to be a reliable system for growth. The bigger question would be if "growth" is the goal of humanity. Have we abandoned the American Dream?

"The American dream, that has lured tens of millions of all nations to our shores in the past century has not been a dream of merely material plenty, though that has doubtlessly counted heavily. It has been much more than that. It has been a dream of being able to grow to fullest development as man and woman, unhampered by the barriers which had slowly been erected in the older civilizations, unrepressed by social orders which had developed for the benefit of classes rather than for the simple human being of any and every class." -- James Truslow Adams

I believe that complicated endeavors are conceived and built by insightful (visionary) entrepreneurs (Pg 242). They raise the needed capital to invest in the endeavor, and then the visionary builds the means of production. The investors are rewarded for their risk with profits.

We can agree that something is wrong with our corporatist oligarchical government which is drifting if not fully becoming fascist. We disagree on the path which liberates us from this yoke.

I still think according to how you've described your views in the past you are more anarchist. Maybe you are still somewhat defining/refining your view and have shed some of your former anarchist views.

[FireIceTalon]

Thanks for sharing that Plymouth link, interesting. Although in the very same article there are historians listed that debate whether the Plymouth Bay Colony was actually socialist or not. The colonists came there thinking they were going to have certain resources available to them (gold in particular) and it turns out they were wrong. One of the historians listed brings up a good point by calling it a "contract company", and that you couldnt call it socialism because it would be like calling Halliburton socialist, hehe. At any rate, even if it was collectivist in nature, which is debatable, it just shows once again that it does not work in SMALL SCALES since such communities would inevitably be shut out from global markets. Socialism is a beautiful idea, and it can work. Socialism in ONE country or on any sort of smaller scale however, CANNOT work (despite what Stalinist apologists will preach). Also you have to consider the context of the times - during colonial times feudalism was still the predominant mode of production on a global level, early capitalism was just beginning to develop in Western Europe at the time. Socialism back then likely would have been impossible since the resources and technology needed weren't around yet, or at least not nearly plentiful enough yet. A lot of Marxists will probably disagree with me on this, but capitalism IS to some degree a necessary development for socialism to be possible in my very humble opinion. Regulation and reforms in capitalism are futile, because 1.) the exploitation of the workers still takes place, even if the system seems like its made more "fair", and 2.) it is all too easy for reforms to be rolled back at a later time, as we see now with all the austerity going on. All reforms really serve to do is strengthen the capitalist system more than it does help the workers in the big picture.

And yea, we disagree on how to solve the problems of capitalism for sure, but I'm pretty sure the source of that disagreement comes from our radically different perception of human nature. This is pretty much the root cause for all differences and disagreements between all political ideologies it seems.

I think we are already at the fascist stage, if we aren't we will be soon. Though it certainly has more characteristics of Mussolini's fascism than Nazism. Whatever it is, its fucked

As far as my political leanings go, I can see why you would think I'm an Anarchist, cause of my anti-authoritarian views, and Marxism and Anarchism do indeed have many things in common. And what both ultimately want is the same thing, yet we disagree greatly on how to achieve that goal. If I were any farther to the left I probably could be considered anarchist, but I still think a dictatorship of the proletarian is necessary before socialism could be realized - and any anarchist is going to strongly disagree with this. And as mentioned before, I'm a big fan of DM as a method for analysis, something anarchists also generally aren't interested in, or at least do not use in their analysis of class. This is pretty much what puts me in the Marxist category. Of course, Marxism has its own political paradigm as mainstream politics does, and on the Marxist scale I am very far to the left (Leninists would be center right, and Stalinists and Maoists very far right). Even by communist standards, I'm exceptionally radical in my politics, because capitalism has become so engrained within society to the point of it being a religion, it is disturbing really. I think some sort of radical cultural 'enlightenment' is probably going to be necessary before workers can even consider themselves a relevant political factor again, much less an actual driving force for social change.

To answer your first question, I'd say the Paris Commune was a pretty good example, though as both Marx and Lenin later on noted, they weren't aggressive enough because they didn't finish off the counter-revolutionaries, who came back and crushed the Commune.

[kandrathe]

...

To answer your first question, I'd say the Paris Commune was a pretty good example, though as both Marx and Lenin later on noted, they weren't aggressive enough because they didn't finish off the counter-revolutionaries, who came back and crushed the Commune.

Yes, but...

They only existed for 3 months, yes? Let's say they survived, or thwarted the Versailles (and were left alone by other hostile forces). Are you sure they were a viable sustained model over time? We'll never know, but wouldn't they likely also suffer the same corruption as other similar movements? Perhaps it is the utopian motivation, in contrast to the foibles of the individual itself which dooms such endeavors in the long run. We are never as good as we imagine ourselves to be.

[FireIceTalon]

fuuuuuuck.....I had a nice reply typed out and got some stupid server error upon submitting. Guess I need to start copying and pasting these things for now on. I don't have the energy to type it all out again either right now. It was fairly lengthy as most of my posts are. How demoralizing. It's a censorship conspiracy against me I tell ya! Hehe.

Anyways, good discussion man, Ill post a reply later when I feel more inspired, heh.

[FireIceTalon]

As promised, a reply. Hopefully this clears up some misconceptions.

There is no material evidence to suggest that the Paris Commune would have suffered from corruption that resulted in later revolutions - because it was a genuine 'dictatorship of the proletarian', where the workers themselves made the rules and elected people who they saw fit to solve any disputes (officials who could be recalled at any time if they clearly started making decisions that were antithetical to the interests of the commune). It didn't have the political elitism or centralized authority that developed in the Russian Revolution and the examples that followed it, because there was no Vanguard party. Vanguardism was developed by Lenin because he disagreed with Marx and Engels in their thoughts that workers could achieve 'class consciousness' - for Lenin workers were only capable of obtaining 'trade union consciousness'. He was very influenced by the Blanquists (though Lenin was still a Marxist to be sure, since he at least in theory, viewed the workers as the important class for change, and he also agreed with the materialist conception of history that is inherent to Marxism). Admittedly, sometimes when I see all the extreme false consciousness around me, or when I see people call Obama a Marxist, or people saying that we are already living under socialism and that it is the cause for the global economic mess, sometimes I have to wonder if Lenin was indeed right in his elitist view towards workers. Maybe he was, who knows, but either way I can't bring myself to advocate a Vanguardist model for revolution for that very reason: it's extremely elitist. Blanquism and any form of 'elitistism' (socialist or not) or otherwise authoritarian currents undermine the very essence of what it means to be a communist.

Vanguardism is unique to Leninist and its off-spring interpretations of Marxism, and misinformed people like Shoju seem to think that all Marxists are automatically Leninist, Stalinist, and so on (although many Leninists are also anti-Stalinist, but that is another topic altogether that isn't important to my points here). Nothing could be farther from the truth, as you yourself admitted a couple posts back. The leaders of communist parties do NOT, by any means, speak for every communist out there - far from it. Most Marxists in fact, oppose the idea of a Vanguard Party, and even during the Russian Revolution many prominent Marxists were very critical of Bolshevism (even those who DID support the revolution). But demonizing Marxism is in the interests of the bourgeois, because it provides an objective and scientific analysis of the 'economic laws of motion' under capitalism that are extremely inconvenient to the justification or notion of capitalism being the best possible system - so conflating it with Stalinism and painting all Marxists with a broad brush as being blood thirsty dictators does wonders to cloud peoples perception of socialism (or Marxism for that matter). I'm a blood thirsty dictator that wants to control or kill all of you (sarcasm, btw). Thankfully, there are people, Marxist and non-Marxist alike, that see through this smoke and can call bullshit when such intellectual dishonesty takes place. Not only is it intellectually dishonest, but it also fails to separate the different aspects of Marxism itself - Marxism as a socio-political worldview (the materialist conception of history, revolutionary politics, class struggle, etc) and Marxian economics (dialectical analysis of economic systems and the social relationships which result under them, including alienation, divisions of labor, the concept of surplus value, wage labor, commodity fetishism, labor theory of value, etc). It comes as no surprise that many realms in contemporary academia assign The Communist Manifesto to be read, but very rarely are any sections or passages of Das Capital assigned, and there is a very good reason for this - because the latter is the foundation to understanding the former (Yes, the Manifesto was written first, but this hardly matters). It is Capital, and not the Manifesto, that people should look to first when wanting to understand both Marxism as a systemic mode of analysis and for understanding the groundwork for Marxism as a form of revolutionary political thought.

As I said before, distinguishing between 'communism' and 'Rule of and by the communist party' is important, because they are not the same thing, and to say otherwise is to say State ownership of the means of production within industries is the same thing as public ownership of the means of production - they are very clearly not the same thing. Stalinists and Maoists advocate the former, almost every other stripe of Marxist advocates the latter. The USSR and other countries we call 'communist' were never communist - they merely featured a top-down regime that called themselves The Communist Party. State control of resources and the means of production is still capitalism, just as the so-called mixed economies of Western Europe and social-democracies of Scandinavian countries are NOT mixed-economies (there is no such thing as a "mixed" economy, in fact) - they are still capitalist, just with bigger welfare states that dehumanize the working class in a different way (sorry, Eppie) than state-capitalist regimes like China/former USSR or liberal capitalist countries like the US. Of course, whether these various "communist" parties genuinely wanted to build socialism and thought they were acting in the interests of the workers or not is another matter to analyze and debate, but calling the countries communist is fundamentally incorrect due to what I said at the beginning of this paragraph. Anyways, needless to say, the concept of the Vanguard in my opinion, goes against or defeats the whole purpose of socialism. Thus, I am not a Marxist-Leninist, and I strongly disagree with the central tenets of his (Lenin's) theories, even if it is my personal belief that he meant well and he made some brilliant contributions to both communist theory and to understanding the development of capitalism.

Lastly, as far as people never being as good as we think we are, I have to kindly disagree. I mean, we aren't perfect by any means, but nor are we the savages that most bourgeois think tanks and institutions tell us that we are. We are quite rational, and in general, for the most part, we are good beings naturally. But we are also heavily influenced by our environmental conditions, and it will reflect in our actions, thoughts, and behavior. Capitalism is an extremely irrational system on almost every level, thus people seem, and perhaps are, irrational as a result. The only way to change that is to change the mode of production, which will result in a different set of social relationships that fundamentally change these things (if over time) about our nature. To suggest that the very goal of socialism is utopian doesn't provide any materialist explanation or meaningful argument of whether such a future is possible or not, and in fact Marx was highly critical of the 'utopian socialists' before him for that very reason, cause they had no scientific understanding of how capitalism works. There was a time when people thought the world was flat and that human beings walking on the moon could never happen, and of course, they were wrong.

[kandrathe]

As promised, a reply. Hopefully this clears up some misconceptions.

Perhaps they are not misconceptions. Still, in the midst of the French Revolution, a band of Marxists who temporarily for a few month wrest control does not seem to be good conditions for measures, nor present a stellar record for Marxist success. Their is no evidence to suggest these people were immune to corruption either.

Whether we exchange labor for fiat money, or labor for goods directly; if there is an opportunity to get more by doing less, people will attempt that course. When you can measure things, like a ton of coal shoveled, fine. But, most labor that is done now (in the information age) is very subjective. How do you value labor, comparing a person who checks groceries to perhaps a person to clerks a photo store? How would you value a web designer, as opposed to a software programmer? Is there a rate of exchange of labor for food? Or, do you just feed everyone, clothe everyone, house everyone, and then subject them to whatever labor needs to be done? All these things are overly complicated without a capitalist framework, and deny the individual reasonable freedoms, such as pursuing their own interests. What if I don't like farming, or shoveling coal, even though I may be very good at it? The problems that arose in implementing Marxism were that there is little to no framework. It expects everyone to embrace a selfless mindset, when in fact we are inherently self-centered creatures. For many people it takes great effort, and often a level of maturity to commit selfless acts.

Karl Marx was one of the great European philosophers of the 19th century. In the context of rapid industrialization and an ever growing inequality between rich and poor, Marx identified capitalism as the source of this misery and spelled out a theory of historical materialism. Much of this same insight endures today as deeply relevant for understanding our human society. He emphasized that capitalism arose from certain economic and social conditions, and that it would inevitably be made obsolete by a new way of life. In creating this world-view, Marx did a good job weaving the strands of philosophy, political economy and science, aiming to deconstruct the functions of capitalism and to reveal its contradictions. His goal was that we would overcome it and create a better future. Some people like, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc. saw it and bought in. Maybe at first it wasn't cynical, but it became a means to attain power. Being coerced/murdered by Stalin, is no better than being coerced/murdered by Fascists and "Corporations". Marx failed. He failed because there is no vision for how a Marxist society will function. Mostly, it fails because it depends on the illiterati to understand what Marx wrote. Most people in my college courses read Marx enough to pass the tests, and write a paper on it. They never really got it. Maybe you do, but that makes you really rare. And, rarer still is that you are a "believer".

"All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one’s need." (Acts 2:44-45)

Marx wasn't the first person to propose a level of selfless communal sacrifice. The apostles shared a common belief that the world as they knew it was soon ending, and so they would "shed their earthly bonds" and store their treasures in their heavenly kingdom. What plagues modern religion and Marxism is its need to convince the adherent to toss away your worldly goods and individualism and follow a new path. Before Christ, there was Chuang Tzu, who said "Do not race after riches, do not risk your life for success, or you will let slip the Heaven within you." Or, Lao Tzu, who said "Be content with what you have; rejoice in the way things are. When you realize there is nothing lacking, the whole world belongs to you."

Also, in common. Once Stalin, and the Catholic church gained enough power, participation was no longer optional. They implemented it by forced coercion, or death. I think we'd agree this is a mistake.

Finally, Marx was entrenched with industrialism, which he saw as a good thing which created stuff that workers wanted, stuff like shoes, and clothing. But, Marx and Capitalists share a zeal which is wasting our natural resources, polluting and poisoning our planet, and quickly making the world unlivable. Again, selfish people destroy the commons, whether it is under Capitalist, or Marxists, there is little focus on environmental concerns.

In summary then, a) no workable framework, b) people like to own stuff, c) coercion is bad, d) illiterate people don't read or understand Marx e) bad for the planet

“Once again the dead are walking in our midst – ironically, draped in the name of Marx, the man who tried to bury the dead of the nineteenth century.” – Murray Bookchin

Is there such a thing as "Zombie Marxists"?

P.S. When I said we tend to not be as good as we think we are.... I was thinking about this research I had recently read: Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: Enhancement in Self-Recognition This is a study of self perception, and the upshot is that the psychological phenomenon of self-enhancement also extends into other aspects of being. We aren't as pretty/handsome as we believe, nor as smart, or witty.

[FireIceTalon]

Its not letting me post my reply, (I even made sure to copy and past this time). What gives, LL?? Tried sending it through a PM but im on your ignore list lol.

*edit* finally got it to work.

[FireIceTalon]

Perhaps they are not misconceptions. Still, in the midst of the French Revolution, a band of Marxists who temporarily for a few month wrest control does not seem to be good conditions for measures, nor present a stellar record for Marxist success. Their is no evidence to suggest these people were immune to corruption either.

For oppression to exist, there has to be at least two classes involved - one that is dominate and another that is subordinate, along with a state to protect and legitimize the domination of the ruling class. A single class cannot oppress itself, and the Paris Commune consisted of people who were in the same class. This isn't to say that other problems such as outside capitalist forces wouldn't have been a problem, but this is an entirely different problem being corrupted by a Vanguard.

Whether we exchange labor for fiat money, or labor for goods directly; if there is an opportunity to get more by doing less, people will attempt that course. When you can measure things, like a ton of coal shoveled, fine.

We have the free-rider problem NOW, and its because of how capitalism works. If me and you work at the same place, we get paid the same wage by our boss regardless of how hard we work. You could work a million times harder than me, and at the end of the day you still get paid the same as I do. There is no incentive to work hard under capitalism because you don't reap the benefits of your own labor. And generally, workers aren't going to rat one another out and say "so and so isnt doing his job or pulling his weight", because 1.) this is a difficult thing to prove in the current circumstances, and 2.) there is little incentive for the person making the complaint to do so. Capitalism relies on the myth that if one just works hard enough they will get ahead, but its just that: a myth. Sure, every now and then you get one person who was in the right place at the right time, knew the right people/connections, or maybe, once in a blue moon, hard work paid off. But because most people do not, they get ahead by being born into the right (privileged) class. The rationale of bourgeois thought is that most poor people are lazy and unmotivated and are in the circumstances they are in because of their own decisions, which is also a myth. The poor are demonized constantly, yet it is they who do almost all the work in society, while the capitalists do diddly squat. What capitalism doesn't tell you, is that the odds are SO stacked against you, that you probably will not get ahead even if you do work hard. So yea, I'm going to do as little work as I can, since I'm forced into doing some crappy job that I don't enjoy (but im forced to because my survival depends on it) for paltry wages, since capitalists own the means to production and want to pay me as little as possible (regardless of how hard I work). It is at a point now where they dont even want to pay workers enough that WILL keep them alive, and when the government steps in says "no no", they capitalists cry out "socialism!!" This is how bad it has become man, its pretty depressing really.

But, most labor that is done now (in the information age) is very subjective. How do you value labor, comparing a person who checks groceries to perhaps a person to clerks a photo store? How would you value a web designer, as opposed to a software programmer? Is there a rate of exchange of labor for food? Or, do you just feed everyone, clothe everyone, house everyone, and then subject them to whatever labor needs to be done? All these things are overly complicated without a capitalist framework, and deny the individual reasonable freedoms, such as pursuing their own interests. What if I don't like farming, or shoveling coal, even though I may be very good at it? The problems that arose in implementing Marxism were that there is little to no framework. It expects everyone to embrace a selfless mindset, when in fact we are inherently self-centered creatures. For many people it takes great effort, and often a level of maturity to commit selfless acts.

Again, these are problems of capitalism, not socialism. It is under capitalism where we are "forced to work shitty jobs that we dont like for bum paychecks" (as Ray Liota once said) that we go spend in a week (usually on bills) and we repeat the process until stress finally catches up with us, we get heart disease or cancer cause of said stress and all the chemical crap that they put in food nowadays (another product of capitalism) and then we accumulate more stress because we face death or financial ruin cause of the cost of healthcare. I know this statement sounds bleak, but its what generally happens! In socialism people will be able to pursue what THEY want to do, because they are no longer forced to sell their labor to some parasitic boss as they do now. So long as you have the capability to do what it is that you want to do, you would be able to. Under capitalism, this is NOT the case - you have to take what you can get to survive. Of course, there would still be "shitty" jobs that would have to be done in socialism, like janitorial work, but there are two major differences - first, such jobs under a CAPITALIST system are greatly devalued and in socialism people would actually receive the benefits of their labor. Basically such jobs are only crappy because the way capitalism works MAKES them crappy. Such tasks would be far more appreciated and workers wouldn't be dehumanized as they currently are. Right now, we look down upon waiters/waitresses, clerks, fast food workers, and janitors as if they are scum and their job has no merit. These are human beings, yet they are treated like animals. As far as solving the problem of people not wanting to do less desirable tasks, there are a number of solutions to this. One could be job rotation within the community where people compromise. In this way people wouldn't be locked into doing the same job every single day as they are now. The value of a product or service is generally measured by the time on average it would take for a capable person to produce something. In capitalism, we assign random, subjective values to goods that bear little if any relationship to the value of the labor it took to create them (commodity fetishism). It's basically the epitome of the shallowness of peoples view of their relationship to the products they are duped into believing have some intrinsic value....this is a result of the alienation that capitalism produces. Indeed, it does take great effort for many people to participate in unselfish acts, but that is due to the predominant bourgeois culture that we live under, which values competition, selfishness, and individualism. Lastly, it is a misconception that Marxists rely on philanthropy for socialism to be able to work. Philanthropy equates to charity, and is thus a product of capitalism. We do not want charity because charity implies that classes still exist. We want worker-self determination, and nothing less.

Marx failed. He failed because there is no vision for how a Marxist society will function. Mostly, it fails because it depends on the illiterati to understand what Marx wrote. Most people in my college courses read Marx enough to pass the tests, and write a paper on it. They never really got it. Maybe you do, but that makes you really rare. And, rarer still is that you are a "believer".

There is no such thing as a "Marxist" society. In fact, the whole point of Marxism is to create a society so that we don't have to be Marxists anymore. So long as capitalism exists, Marxism remains very much relevant. If socialism prevails, Marxism will become obsolete. And even if that wasn't the case, there was no vision for how a capitalist society would function either, when feudalism was the predominant mode of production in the world. Capitalism was simply the organic result that was birthed out of feudal societies destruction, and it gave rise to a new set of institutions, political systems, culture, and way of thought that reflected it. In feudal society, not many were able to imagine the full-scale markets and massive industrial development that would follow. If anything Marx did a spectacular job at explaining the laws of motion in capitalism, and by doing this he was able to make many accurate predictions of what it entailed in the future. This doesn't make him a prophet - a prophet is someone who makes a random prediction on a whim without any use of scientific analysis to come to their conclusions. There was no subjective ulterior motive for Marx - he was fascinated with capitalism and wanted to discover its economic laws and how they work, and he did a mighty fine job. Therefore, I'm not a "believer", cause that would imply Marxism is some sort of religion or believes in some spiritual or higher power. However, such a belief requires and presupposes a belief in the supernatural. Marxism has no such metaphysical component, it is simply a mode of analysis for understanding, objectively, the capitalist system.

Marx wasn't the first person to propose a level of selfless communal sacrifice. The apostles shared a common belief that the world as they knew it was soon ending, and so they would "shed their earthly bonds" and store their treasures in their heavenly kingdom. What plagues modern religion and Marxism is its need to convince the adherent to toss away your worldly goods and individualism and follow a new path. Before Christ, there was Chuang Tzu, who said "Do not race after riches, do not risk your life for success, or you will let slip the Heaven within you." Or, Lao Tzu, who said "Be content with what you have; rejoice in the way things are. When you realize there is nothing lacking, the whole world belongs to you."

Again this comparison of Marxism to religions is just silly. Religions do indeed need convincing and mysticism to convince their followers that their particular doctrine is the right way of life. Marxism doesn't need mystification to legitimize itself, because it is a materialist philosophy that distinguishes between 'appearance' and 'essence' in political economy. There is no such distinction in religions, which is what makes them idealist (and in many ways utopian) in nature, as opposed to providing a scientific or materialist interpretation of how the world objectively works. For example, Dialectical Materialism does a much better job at explaining the social relations that we live under, as well as the development of human history, in a realistic and scientific way, than the Christian philosophy of sin being inherent to our nature can ever hope to.

Also, in common. Once Stalin, and the Catholic church gained enough power, participation was no longer optional. They implemented it by forced coercion, or death. I think we'd agree this is a mistake.

And most Marxists would have told you so before Stalin ever even came to power. Many orthodox Marxists, like Rosa Luxemburg, understood the dangers of Bolshevism early in the Russian Revolution. This is why we reject 'Great man theories' of history. You can hardly blame Marx or Marxism for the actions of people like Stalin, and doing so is subscribing to the Great man Theory of History. When I hear people say "Marx was responsible for the death of millions because of his ideals!!!", this is just windbaggery at its finest. It is an emotive opinion that has no rational or objective argument. Even attributing atrocities entirely to someone like Stalin isnt really useful, because it provides no material explanation or understanding of HOW or WHY Stalin was able to come to power to begin with. Besides, that is giving Stalin too much credit, hehe.

Finally, Marx was entrenched with industrialism, which he saw as a good thing which created stuff that workers wanted, stuff like shoes, and clothing. But, Marx and Capitalists share a zeal which is wasting our natural resources, polluting and poisoning our planet, and quickly making the world unlivable. Again, selfish people destroy the commons, whether it is under Capitalist, or Marxists, there is little focus on environmental concerns.

This is definitely a misconception, Marxists and capitalists have NOTHING in common when it comes to perceptions of environmental issues. If you go to revleft.com, there are plenty of leftists there of all stripes that critique capitalism from an environmental standpoint. Capitalism is extremely wasteful, because the goal of the system is to maximize profits, which results in an overabundance or surplus of goods (and yet most of the populace cant even afford to buy many of the products they produce). Right now, we are forced to produce products we don't give two shits about, and produce a certain number that will return a profit for the boss. In socialism, workers will determine what is produced, and how much of it. If there is a need or want of something, it will be made. When you see people fighting over the latest iPhone release on Black Friday, that is a form of commodity fetishism - people being duped into believing these products have some inherent value and that they need it. Commodities are the basic cell of capitalism, and it requires a huge production of them for it to work. It is completely indifferent to the amount of natural resources it uses or how destructive it is on the planet. Profits. At the expense of all else.

In summary then, a) no workable framework,

Not true. Marxism is the most objective, stupendous and logical system of analysis for understanding the conditions in which we live - and for providing the tools that will outline an alternative system upon capitalism's demise (nor does it claim that socialism is inevitable, just that is is possible and ultimately desirable). We don't use Marxism to predict how socialism will work, just as Enlightenment philosophers could not predict exactly how capitalism would function. Nor SHOULD it be used in such a way. There are way too many intertwining factors to predict the future, but by understanding the past and the present, we can say which futures are possible and not possible. For example, we won't see feudalism as the predominant mode of production within society again.

b) people like to own stuff,

And yet so few own so much, and so many own so little in a system that professes to create the greatest amount of goods for the greatest amount of people. Go figure.

c) coercion is bad, d)

Not according to capitalists and the state apparatus that protects them Of course, when THEY get coerced, different story. Although admittedly, capitalism does rely a bit less on coercion and more on mystification than other systems of oppression.

illiterate people don't read or understand Marx

And why are they illiterate to begin with (hint: it has something to do with capitalism ).

e) bad for the planet

Yes, capitalism is very bad for the planet (and for peoples health).

Is there such a thing as "Zombie Marxists"?

Never heard this term before, but I think zombie movies are a good analogy of the alienation we experience living under capitalism