I joined the Communist Party

reply to post by petrus4

I run a Charity that could be considered a Co-op in a sense. The idea originally was for Business people to get together and get things done for FREE or at our expense and time. The payoff was the goodwill it generates and when a Company generates Good Will...it also helps increase that companies bottom line.

I have been running it for years and this is what I have found out...the people of these companies wish to achieve the goodwill without putting in the work. Or else they promise to be at a place to help and then don't show.

It is the same as a Co-op in Microcosm. There will ALWAYS be those who will work harder and those who will want a free ride. The Concept goes against Human Nature thus it will never truly work.
Split Infinity

Originally posted by brukernavn

By saying that Russia was communist, you are implying that the people owned the means of production and not the state? Link please.

AGAIN, what is the main thing about socialism and communism?... NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO OWN OR CONTROL ANYTHING HENCE THE WORKERS DO NOT OWN OR CONTROL ANYTHING... Instead the Communist Party/the state, owns and controls the means of production in the name of the workers... After all the Communist Party elite were once part of the "workers"...

Originally posted by brukernavn
Recently, I formally joined the Communist Party. I have lost long time friends, certain family has disowned me, even my fiancé has left me because of it. Are there any other members of this forum out there that have joined the Communist Party whom have lost their friends and family? I am interested to see how people react to such a thing. In the West, people have learnt to hate communism and instantly abandon anybody with communist leanings. I will admit, I could be wrong for my beliefs, but has anybody else out there been ostracized for believing that communism is the answer?

MVH,
Josef

Well...I would advise you do more research next time before you join any organization. The CPUSA is useless to the Communist movement, hence why most US Socialists hate it. During the 1980s the Soviets rewrote their bylaws and, because they feared the GOP so much during that time, made it so the CPUSA cannot run its own candidates, they can only endorse Democrats. You essentially joined a club for angst cheerleaders to root for Obama.

reply to post by petrus4


Then why didn't the Berlin Wall come down immediately after WWII defeated the Germans?

Check out how political dissent was quelled in communist Russia

In the 1930s and 1940s, political repression was practiced by the Soviet secret police services Cheka, OGPU and NKVD.[5] An extensive network of civilian informants – either volunteers, or those forcibly recruited – was used to collect intelligence for the government and report cases of suspected dissent.[6]

Soviet political repression was a de facto and de jure system of persecution and prosecution of people who were or perceived to be enemies of the Soviet system.[citation needed] Its theoretical basis was the theory of Marxism concerning class struggle. The terms "repression", "terror", and other strong words were official working terms, since the dictatorship of the proletariat was supposed to suppress the resistance of other social classes, which Marxism considered antagonistic to the class of the proletariat. The legal basis of the repression was formalized into Article 58 in the code of the RSFSR and similar articles for other Soviet republics. Aggravation of class struggle under socialism was proclaimed during the Stalinist terror

Emigration and any travel abroad were not allowed without an explicit permission from the government. People who were not allowed to leave the country and campaigned for their right to leave in 1970s were known as "refuseniks". According to the Soviet Criminal Code, a refusal to return from abroad was treason, punishable by imprisonment for a term of 10–15 years, or death with confiscation of property.[8]

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by brukernavn

By saying that Russia was communist, you are implying that the people owned the means of production and not the state? Link please.

AGAIN, what is the main thing about socialism and communism?... NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO OWN OR CONTROL ANYTHING HENCE THE WORKERS DO NOT OWN OR CONTROL ANYTHING... Instead the Communist Party/the state, owns and controls the means of production in the name of the workers... After all the Communist Party elite were once part of the "workers"...

This is exactly right, all you have to do is see how the Soviet Union ran its agricultural production to see that and just how not only unproductive it was, but how it treated its farmers and workers on those lands.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by petrus4

 

Then why didn't the Berlin Wall come down immediately after WWII defeated the Germans?

I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by ANOK

 

Name one instance or even one Country that is a Communist System that is not a Mess. Name ONE!
Split Infinity

Name me one country that is actually communist.

I have already gone over this please read a few posts before jumping in and replying.

How about you name me one capitalist country that is not a mess at some point in time. Socialism didn't cause the great depression, it didn't start WWI and WWII, and all the other wars we have had. It wasn't socialism that raped the third world for resources, or enslaved people for cheap labour. Capitalism fails someone everyday. Capitalism is why 80% of the world lives on less than $10 a day. Capitalism is why the distribution of needed resources is not done. Capitalism is why people go without, in a world of overabundance.

But please stop, why get into a pissing match over which system is better eh? We should be looking forward and the only way forward is worker ownership, in order to create a stable needs based economy. An economy not set up for the majority to finance the minority. Talk about welfare coming out of your wages, what about the profit that goes to the private owner that your labour produced? Your production pays for your oppression. Capitalism has had it's day it's time to evolve into the next phase, worker ownership.

Scarcity is understood as the fundamental economic problem of having seemingly unlimited human needs and wants in a World of limited resources. Scarcity assumes that society has insufficient productive resources to fulfill all human needs and wants or that not all of society’s goals can be pursued at the same time. However consumer demand is arguably finite, there are physical, physiological, psychological and cultural limits (both actual and potential) which can keep individual as well as collective needs and wants within satiated finite bounds. It’s no exaggeration to say that scarcity relative to real human needs has long been over, even though our social organization does not reflect that. In a consumer capitalist society artificial needs are created to maintain a state of conspicuous consumption and ensure that marginal efficiency of capital remains ahead of interest.

Netonomy: Artificial Scarcity

Whether today's global overcapacity is seen as cause or effect of the economic crisis, one thing is certain: it isn't easy to make a profit in a world awash with overproduction. Capitalism is born in conditions of scarcity and is unable to function outside of them. So it seems logical that the crisis creates a tendency to restore these conditions artificially. But how does this affect the chances of the global economy to find a way out of its present predicament?

Artificial Scarcity in a World of Overproduction: An Escape that Isn't

Technological capacity to produce enough to satisfy everyone's needs already exists globally and has done so for many decades. Yet needs continue to remain unmet on a massive scale. Why? Quite simply because scarcity is a functional requirement of capitalism itself.

Artificial scarcity

Dewey believes that capitalism must create artificial scarcity to operate successfully, and this contrived scarcity is the cause of poverty and hunger. He says, “There is an undoubted objective clash of interests between finance-capitalism that controls the means of production and whose profit is served by maintaining relative scarcity, and idle workers and hungry consumers.”4 He views this as a blatant infringement on individual liberty.

Secular Economics – The Failure of Capitalism

This is why the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.

reply to post by ANOK

I am not comparing systems...I am pointing out that it is IMPOSSIBLE to be able to maintain a True Communist System. There will ALWAYS be someone who will take advantage and not do their share. It is a concept that goes against Human Nature.

I have seen Co-Ops and they too always have a few who do not do their share. I am a Big Advocate of a person having their own Organic Garden and I have a good size one which allows me to donate much food to the local food bank. A individual can easily do this on their own without the help of other if you know what you are doing....and a Garden...just like Cooking...too many Chefs spoils the soup. Split Infinity

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by ANOK

 

I am not comparing systems...

Yeah I meant that in general, not personal.

I am pointing out that it is IMPOSSIBLE to be able to maintain a True Communist System. There will ALWAYS be someone who will take advantage and not do their share. It is a concept that goes against Human Nature.

But if a person doesn't do their share they get nothing. Socialism isn't about people doing their share. Socialism is not liberalism, there is no hand-outs for those who can work but don't want to.

I have seen Co-Ops and they too always have a few who do not do their share. I am a Big Advocate of a person having their own Organic Garden and I have a good size one which allows me to donate much food to the local food bank. A individual can easily do this on their own without the help of other if you know what you are doing....and a Garden...just like Cooking...too many Chefs spoils the soup. Split Infinity

If you don't do your 'share' then the other workers would not be happy and they wouldn't allow it. The thing is when you own the means to produce the more you work the more you get. Under capitalism a worker can get away with doing as little as possible, their pay doesn't change.

If you want to live on your own and grow your own food that isn't a problem. No one is force to do anything under socialism, we are free to associate ourselves without any social constraint to produce for our needs. Capitalism does not meet the needs of the people, it only makes profit for a minority class.

Socialism is 'free association'...

In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.

en.wikipedia.org...

Nothing to do with anyone being forced to do anything. You can own property and do what you wish with it. You can work for yourself. The only thing that isn't allowed is using your property to exploit labour. 'Isn't allowed' is not really a good way to put it because it wouldn't need to be forced. No worker would have to be forced to own the business they work at, as it would increase their standard of living, give them a voice in the running of the company.

Some cooperatives every worker works every position, including managing, on a rotating basis. All are paid the same, the profit is simply divided between the employees. You may be sweeping up for two months, but then you get to be manager for two months, then the whatever. That way there is no hierarchy, no class divisions, no one gets stuck being a cleaner for their life. Equality in what you give, and in what you get.

A question that seems to never get answered is this...

If socialism/communism is a totalitarian state controlled system, why are Anarchists socialists and communists?

How do you address that contradiction?

Anarchists are socialists who believe that socialism must be built out of the struggles of working class people, acting in their own class interests. ‘Socialism’ cannot be imposed from above.

What is Socialism? An Anarchist Perspective.

Libertarian Socialism is a term essentially synonymous with the word "Anarchism". Anarchy, strictly meaning "without rulers", leads one to wonder what sort of system would exist in place of one without state or capitalist masters... the answer being a radically democratic society while preserving the maximal amount of individual liberty and freedom possible.

Libertarian Socialism recognizes that the concept of "property" (specifically, the means of production, factories, land used for profit, rented space) is theft and that in a truly libertarian society, the individual would be free of exploitation caused by the concentration of all means of wealth-making into the hands of an elite minority of capitalists...

(see the rest for an explanation of libertarianism and socialism)

Libertarian Socialism

Kropotkin believed that the purpose of anarchist economics, indeed of any viable economic theory, was to satisfy human needs as efficiently as possible--to promote "the economical and social value of the human being." LLR #11 presented Kropotkin's argument that capitalism fails miserably on this score; this issue briefly reviews Kropotkin's conception of the economic framework of a free society.[...]

Peter Kropotkin's Anarchist Communism

“Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality” Mikhail Bakunin Anarchist collectivist.

Collectivist anarchism (also known as anarcho-collectivism) is a revolutionary[1] doctrine that advocates the abolition of both the state and private ownership of the means of production [capitalism]. It instead envisions the means of production being owned collectively and controlled and managed by the producers themselves [socialism].

Collectivist anarchism

The goal is the same as for the Marxists, the only difference is the path to get there, Marxism is a political route and Anarchism is a direct action route, and there being 'free-association'...

In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.

Free association (communism and anarchism)

Originally posted by ANOK
A question that seems to never get answered is this...

If socialism/communism is a totalitarian state controlled system, why are Anarchists socialists and communists?

How do you address that contradiction?

There are Capitalists who call themselves anarchists, ANOK. I used to self-identify as an anarchist, as well, I will admit; but that was before I found out what other people (particularly Starhawk and friends *gag*) had done with the word.

Originally posted by petrus4
There are Capitalists who call themselves anarchists, ANOK. I used to self-identify as an anarchist, as well, I will admit; but that was before I found out what other people (particularly Starhawk and friends *gag*) had done with the word.

Capitalists who call themselves anarchists have nothing to do with the left-wing traditional anarchism.

Anarcho-capitalism is a modern invention that is simply based on a misunderstanding of terms. It's based on the misconception that capitalism means 'free-market', and the misunderstanding of 'private property'. They think private property (of the means of production) is freedom, when we know it is exploitation and creates an authority.
It gives a minority class the economic power to control the majority.

As we know capitalism is private ownership of the means of production, and that alone creates an authority. So it simply can not be anarchist in the traditional sense, and should not be talked about as a form of anarchism.

Capitalism is an authoritative system.

...To be sure, Fromm distinguishes between rational and inhibiting, or irrational, leadership. He is for the first and rejects the second form of authority, that is, prefers the authoritative relationship between “teacher and pupil” to that between “slave-owner” and “slave,” even though both are based on the superiority of the one over the other. In Fromm’s view, the teacher’s authority is altruistic and serves the student who welcomes it, as against the antagonistic irrational authority over the slave. Rational authoritative relationships, furthermore, tend to dissolve themselves with the pupils becoming as smart as the teachers. Each of these authority situations creates a different psychological situation; one assuring sanity, the other tending towards insanity. However, neither of these situations has anything to do with the authority problem in capitalism of either the liberal, the mixed, or the bolshevik brand. Fromm’s idealized teacher-pupil relationship does not exist; what does exist is an educational market coupled to force, where the relationships between teacher and student — though possibly in subtler fashion — are as antagonistic as the social relations in general. Moreover, capitalism employs all forms of authoritative relationships, the “irrational” and the “rational,” which are intertwined in such a way that none of them can be fostered, or eliminated short of the abolition of capitalism itself...

Fromm’s sane society

Anarchism is a form of socialism, always has been, because for true liberty the workers have to own the means of production. Socialism and anarchism were created as alternatives to capitalism. Anarchists were simply the socialists who wanted direct action, revolution.

No true capitalist would want to be rid of the state because the state is there to protect their capital. Without the protection of the state, and laws that give them the right to exploit labour, there would be nothing stopping the workers from simply taking over, they wouldn't even need to revolt. Remember there is far more of us than there is of them.

Anarcho-capitalism is simply a ridiculous idea.

The idea that communism is the enemy of freedom is a silly one. This argument only makes sense if you truly believe that the Soviet Union or Mao's china were actually examples of communism. Marx expresses over and over again that communism can not be forced. What happened in these countries was a ruling elite deciding that it wanted "communism" and then forced it at gun point. This is not the vision of Marx and is far from a bottom up direct democracy.

I'm not sure why any freedom loving person would despise the idea of bottom up direct democracy. This is the highest form of freedom. We live in a world controlled by a very small percent of the population, even our elections are a joke. We get to choose between two parties who are both are subjects to the capital that controls them. Communism has many flaws, but the world around us is the proof that capitalism is failing.

All that being said society is far from ready to transition from its current state. Remember that Marx said an island of socialism can never survive in a sea of capitalism. The real reason that communism is such a dirty word is because the bastardized wanna be revolution most of its proponents advocate. My advise to everyone in this thread is to go read Capital and then go read Wealth of Nations. draw you own conclusions and respect the opinion of others. That is what freedom looks like.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by petrus4

 

Then why didn't the Berlin Wall come down immediately after WWII defeated the Germans?

Errrm, the Berlin wall didn't exist immediately after WW2?

Originally posted by jcrockva
The idea that communism is the enemy of freedom is a silly one. This argument only makes sense if you truly believe that the Soviet Union or Mao's china were actually examples of communism. Marx expresses over and over again that communism can not be forced. What happened in these countries was a ruling elite deciding that it wanted "communism" and then forced it at gun point. This is not the vision of Marx and is far from a bottom up direct democracy.

I'm not sure why any freedom loving person would despise the idea of bottom up direct democracy. This is the highest form of freedom. We live in a world controlled by a very small percent of the population, even our elections are a joke. We get to choose between two parties who are both are subjects to the capital that controls them. Communism has many flaws, but the world around us is the proof that capitalism is failing.

All that being said society is far from ready to transition from its current state. Remember that Marx said an island of socialism can never survive in a sea of capitalism. The real reason that communism is such a dirty word is because the bastardized wanna be revolution most of its proponents advocate. My advise to everyone in this thread is to go read Capital and then go read Wealth of Nations. draw you own conclusions and respect the opinion of others. That is what freedom looks like.

Apparently you have not read Marx's communist manifesto. That is anything but bottom up direct democracy! All of it has to be implemented by force as a majority would never voluntarily implement it! for example a graduated income tax...

Free markets are the only true bottom up direct democracy where people vote with their feet and wallets as to what stands or falls. No government intervention protecting companies and limiting or eliminating free enterprise or competition and all are free to vote with their feet and wallets all survive on their own merit.

It's laughable how the new neo-communist are stealing all the tenants of free market capitalism and calling it communism and in turn taking all the oppressive tenants of communism and calling it capitalism...Sigh!

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by ANOK

 

How do private individuals start businesses? 

But you are against privately owned businesses so how does a non-private business get started?

There is nothing stopping anyone from starting a cooperative worker owned company. All it takes is people to realise that is would benefit all of us, and is the better economic model. But of course people are not even taught that there is an alternative to capitalism. 

Wait how is that possible in this evil capitalist system that oppresses the workers and places the wealth in the hands of the few via monopoly?... Oh wait a minute it happens because of the freedom inherent in capitalism of which their is still a remnant despite government interference and by the way those businesses are all privately owned still! If you get 100 private individuals together to start a business/coopertive it is still a private business.

Starting an employee owned business/cooperative has been going on since the inception of the evil capitalist American system known for providing prosperity and highest standard of living for the largest amount of its people in the history of the world. All done voluntarily by private individuals!

Which begs the questions what the hell is wrong with you people who claim to promote communism why don't you quit the romantic BS speeches and labeling and get off your asses and go start one of these businesses and live your dream?

If communism is all about freedom why hasn't the communist party created a bunch of these businesses but is instead recruiting an army of people instead for what exactly? What are you waiting for you don't need to recruit a bunch of people to the supposed cause you need to get to work! If you build it they will come right? Or do you want someone to hand it to you? Or government to kill off all the evil capitalist supposedly holding you back? You said there is nothing stopping anyone what is stopping you?

I would imagine a hundred workers could finance a company as well as any private individual. What is stopping them other than the monopolization of wealth in the hands of the few?

Wait a minute you said there is nothing stopping anyone now you are claiming monopolization of wealth is stopping them? How come it didn't stop all those 1100 businesses you point to who are already doing it?

There is also revolution, like in Spain. Once the means to produce are in the hands of the workers there is no need for finance.

Oh I see you don't want to work for it you want to steal from others who created it under the guise that the means of production belongs to you by default. I got news for you the means of production is every individual who decides to get off their ass and go to work!

Take note here folks this is the real message these communist who claim its all about freedom are sending; it is all about revolution and taking control of that which they have not earned. They don't want to put in the hard work it takes to start a business or even a cooperative they want to steal from others who have already created it. They are no different then Stalin or Pol Pot despite their freedom rhetoric. 

To you communists most of the wealthy people in America earned it the old fashioned way and they are entitled to keep the fruits of their labors! It is a few elitist corps that are politically favored that have exploited us. So don't blame all so called rich people they worked hard for what they have! That is more Marxist Stalinist BS rhetoric!

There are around 11,000 worker owned companies in the USA. That is socialism, not what your government is doing, or what happened in Russia.

Why didn't the monopolies prevent these businesses from getting started since you claim its what's holding you back? What's it got to do with government? See I told you folks these people want to bring government force to bear to force their views on everyone else and steal from rich people what they did not earn.

Continued in the next post...

edit on 13-6-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

How come none of you guys responded to this post and the next post? Hmmm? Take note folks they completely ignored it!

The original post Is Here

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by ANOK

 

Continued from the previous post...

Let me tell you something slick my wife works for one of these employee owned businesses and it is one of the biggest and best in the country. Its a great place to work but it is not anything like you imagine. It was started by a small group of private individuals who pooled their "capital" and went to work and built a business and grew based on their merit.

It has employee stock sharing and profit sharing. She had to get hired like any other employee in any other business and work her way up the ladder. And she could be fired if she messed up enough. It has all the same problems as any business some people are lazy and some think they are not compensated enough for the work they do others work their ass off and are relatively happy and some just want a free ride.

It has a code of discipline however if you are sanctioned by a manager and you feel it was unfair you can appeal to an employee board to review it and their decision stands even over the manager. Different jobs are compensated at different rates depending on what they entail. Like I said it is one of the better places in the country to work and one of the most fair on how it treats and compensates the employees and shares the profits. It is not the romantic hey the workers are in charge everyone is equal BS rhetoric we are hearing on this thread.

There has to be a structure of hierarchy or nothing would get done and no decisions would get made when needed. You can't have a group pow wow on every little thing someone has to have authority to make snap decisions in a timely manner for many things. And there are always a few who feel they are slighted.

These communist are lazy they join some BS cause instead of going to work creating what they want. it is a broke loser mentality the man is holding me back or I'd be rich blah blah. Especially in America where despite all the problems and government interference it is still possible to go out and create a business cooperative if one so desires. So go do it put up or shut up as the saying goes and drop the labels and the rhetoric otherwise you are nothing more then a wannabe Stalinist!

edit on 13-6-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

And here's the rest of it they ignored these both...

The original post Is Here

The communist manifesto was a propaganda tool. It is hardly an all encompassing view of Marx teaching. Your example is called class compromise and this was never the teachings of Marx. Marx hated social democrats, this where things like graduated income tax come from. Please point me to what you are using as an example of Marx advocating violence against others. I will agree that in reference to revolution and counter revolution Marx does admit that violence is possible. This is however not much of an endorsement of forced revolution. Marx throughout his writing especially his later writing urges his followers to participate in mainstream politics. Its always funny to me to see the main detraction of Marx be that he never put forth a real concrete idea for the system to replace capitalism then see people make these statements about his idea of forced violent revolution. Marx simply gave his critique of a system and made some very basic conclusions based on his dialectic historical materialist point of view.

I agree with you that people in our current society would never accept a communist system, but history is by no means at its end. Points of view evolve and systems change, if you believe capitalism and the representative quasi democratic system around it will never fall i suggest you study some history. All of the most powerful systems and the empires around them fail. Humans and their systems of organization change as will ours. This is by no means to say communism will follow capitalism, that is yet to be seen.

Now to address the idea that i have not read the manifesto and im a "neo-communist" whatever that is. I have read the manifesto, capital vol1 (working on 2), poverty of philosophy, the German ideology, his dispatches to the new york times, his letters to Abraham Lincoln, ect ect ect. I have a degree in economics and i have also read Smith, Hayak, Ricardo, Keynes, Mises, Schumpeter, Mill ect ect. I am not a neo-communist in fact i advocate free enterprise capitalism until a better system is available.

Furthermore your utopian idea of free market capitalism is so far from reality that it borders on delusion. I suggest you read Adam Smiths theory of moral sentiments to understand the possibilities of problems with the capitalist system. Externalities and the business cycle exist and the market itself is not always able to fix these issues. Finance free market capitalism nearly bankrupted the world and destroyed our entire system. Capital has a tendency to concentrate and with capital comes power. Someone with large amounts of capital has much more influence over society then someone without how is this bottom up exactly?

reply to post by brukernavn


Have you read any communist literature?
Seriously, you should before you join something as ridiculous as communism.

The problem lies in consolidation of power, corruption, and abuse of power that follows.
That's the practical reason for communism to not work.
Same goes for Libertarians with their idea of limited government, all of a sudden
you got big corporations filling in the power vacuum.

The best would be something like what Kadafi had in Libya, if you are left leaning.
He had a system that was a mix of socialism and capitalism,
highest literacy in Africa, best health services, and everyone able to afford basic necessities
plus have disposable income for entertainment. All this funded with oil.
Then he had the idea to turn the desert into farmland. Great man, now he is no more.
Can't have freedom on this planet it seems.

reply to post by SplitInfinity


They can't. The answer will continue to be that all the "so-called" communist countries are not really Communist. It's a pointless argument at this point.
IMHO many people here have argued quite convincingly why Communism will never work on a large scale. The pro-communists just keep repeating that "REAL COMMUNISM" has never been tried.

It's getting old.