|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:21 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| I think small scale communism could be like camping, liking hippies living in communes and what not. Bit of a random question, are people who advocate living in communes, or communal living, communists? |
No, Gary the aging 60s hippie is not a communist.
Communists advocate the forceful and violent overthrow of existing societies and global revolution. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Castro. Other communists are satisfied with just taking their own countries down with them, Mao, Stalin.
If you were unaware of the distinction, its forgivable. But it is unacceptable for an editor of the Guardian to be unaware of the indelible historical meaning of the word Communism. |
The idea of communism is entirely based upon communal living, like that of a commune. The last bit of my post was kind of a joke, the first part was serious. Communes are "perfect" communism in action whereas the violence you talk about is a step towards state socialism which is a step towards the abolition of the state, which is a step towards communism. You sir do not seem to know the historical meaning of communism, which is forgivable because the violence is the only bit to have actually happened on a large scale. |
Its true that the bloody revolutions and land takeovers aimed first at something called state socialism, which was intended later to become communism. But central to Marxist doctrine was universal revolution, because he believed that even a small outpost of capitalism would corrupt a socialist/communist society. Save fascism, there's never been a more aggressive political philosophy.
That's why the idea of a "perfect" communism limited to a commune is contradictory to Marx's theories and the historical sense of the world communism. |
Didn't Marx' view of societal progression begin with a type of communism that was limited to small groups? I think small-group communism is completely compatible with Marx' view of social progression and its history, but he'd simply say it was the most primitive social system rather than the most advanced. To that extent maybe Leon's use of the word "perfect" to describe them doesn't mesh well with Marx' theory, but everything else he describes seems to.
Obviously the average person probably won't be familiar enough with Marx' work to recognize such a thing, so I understand your point about what the word Communism might evoke in the minds of the average reader in a historic sense, but in a theoretical sense I think Leon's usage is fine (barring, again, the word "perfect"). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| I think small scale communism could be like camping, liking hippies living in communes and what not. Bit of a random question, are people who advocate living in communes, or communal living, communists? |
No, Gary the aging 60s hippie is not a communist.
Communists advocate the forceful and violent overthrow of existing societies and global revolution. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Castro. Other communists are satisfied with just taking their own countries down with them, Mao, Stalin.
If you were unaware of the distinction, its forgivable. But it is unacceptable for an editor of the Guardian to be unaware of the indelible historical meaning of the word Communism. |
The idea of communism is entirely based upon communal living, like that of a commune. The last bit of my post was kind of a joke, the first part was serious. Communes are "perfect" communism in action whereas the violence you talk about is a step towards state socialism which is a step towards the abolition of the state, which is a step towards communism. You sir do not seem to know the historical meaning of communism, which is forgivable because the violence is the only bit to have actually happened on a large scale. |
Its true that the bloody revolutions and land takeovers aimed first at something called state socialism, which was intended later to become communism. But central to Marxist doctrine was universal revolution, because he believed that even a small outpost of capitalism would corrupt a socialist/communist society. Save fascism, there's never been a more aggressive political philosophy.
That's why the idea of a "perfect" communism limited to a commune is contradictory to Marx's theories and the historical sense of the world communism. |
I think rather a commune could be consider as communism on a small scale, meaning what goes on in a commune is what according to communist theorists the whole world would be like in a communist state. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, here's a sliver of Marx's view on the Commune. Does it sound like going camping to you guys? It sounds like a proto-government.
| Marx wrote: |
The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at any time. The majority of its members were naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class.... The police, which until then had been the instrument of the Government, was at once stripped of its political attributes, and turned into the responsible, and at all times revocable, agent of the Commune. So were the officials of all other branches of the administration. From the members of the Commune downwards, the public service had to be done at workmen's wages. The privileges and the representation allowances of the high dignitaries of state disappeared along with the high dignitaries themselves.... Having once got rid of the standing army and the police, the instruments of physical force of the old government, the Commune proceeded at once to break the instrument of spiritual suppression, the power of the priests.... The judicial functionaries lost that sham independence... they were thenceforward to be elective, responsible, and revocable. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
Well, here's a sliver of Marx's view on the Commune. Does it sound like going camping to you guys? It sounds like a proto-government.
| Marx wrote: |
The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at any time. The majority of its members were naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class.... The police, which until then had been the instrument of the Government, was at once stripped of its political attributes, and turned into the responsible, and at all times revocable, agent of the Commune. So were the officials of all other branches of the administration. From the members of the Commune downwards, the public service had to be done at workmen's wages. The privileges and the representation allowances of the high dignitaries of state disappeared along with the high dignitaries themselves.... Having once got rid of the standing army and the police, the instruments of physical force of the old government, the Commune proceeded at once to break the instrument of spiritual suppression, the power of the priests.... The judicial functionaries lost that sham independence... they were thenceforward to be elective, responsible, and revocable. |
|
I think that we are talking about two different things here. I'm talking about how communes relate to communism whereas what the link you are using is talking about a type of dictatorship of the proletariat during the socialist phase of a communist revolution that is being called a commune.
What Fox above correctly captured what I was talking about. Marx did consider hunter gathers as an early form of communism and as a low point of the evolution of society. My use of perfect was incorrect as he pointed out, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That and this are two different things, but both can rightly be called Communism, and both are part of Marx' overall theory. To that extent, I think it's possible -- even within Marx's own framework -- to speak of a communal mode of living without simultaneously referencing violent revolution. Camping is much closer in form to Primitive Communism than to the Communism that follows from Socialism.
Whether or not the writer of this Guardian article knows anything about that, I don't know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
Well, here's a sliver of Marx's view on the Commune. Does it sound like going camping to you guys? It sounds like a proto-government.
| Marx wrote: |
The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at any time. The majority of its members were naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class.... The police, which until then had been the instrument of the Government, was at once stripped of its political attributes, and turned into the responsible, and at all times revocable, agent of the Commune. So were the officials of all other branches of the administration. From the members of the Commune downwards, the public service had to be done at workmen's wages. The privileges and the representation allowances of the high dignitaries of state disappeared along with the high dignitaries themselves.... Having once got rid of the standing army and the police, the instruments of physical force of the old government, the Commune proceeded at once to break the instrument of spiritual suppression, the power of the priests.... The judicial functionaries lost that sham independence... they were thenceforward to be elective, responsible, and revocable. |
|
It sounds like a dysfunctional organization. If the councilors' positions could be revocable at all times the governing mode would be totally by populism. Which is not a good way (to put it mildly) to run anything.
Not to mention that in ANY state that has tried communism, it has been a miserable failure and ended up only enriching those in power and their cronies. Only once they embraced a form of capitalism (such as China) did the population's living standards improve. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| beck's wrote: |
| I like the Ronald Regan quote that goes something like this---a communist is one who has read Marx and Engels, an anti-communist is one who understands them. |
And I doubt that Reagan would have fallen under either category. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
Well, here's a sliver of Marx's view on the Commune. Does it sound like going camping to you guys? It sounds like a proto-government.
| Marx wrote: |
The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at any time. The majority of its members were naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class.... The police, which until then had been the instrument of the Government, was at once stripped of its political attributes, and turned into the responsible, and at all times revocable, agent of the Commune. So were the officials of all other branches of the administration. From the members of the Commune downwards, the public service had to be done at workmen's wages. The privileges and the representation allowances of the high dignitaries of state disappeared along with the high dignitaries themselves.... Having once got rid of the standing army and the police, the instruments of physical force of the old government, the Commune proceeded at once to break the instrument of spiritual suppression, the power of the priests.... The judicial functionaries lost that sham independence... they were thenceforward to be elective, responsible, and revocable. |
|
It sounds like a dysfunctional organization. If the councilors' positions could be revocable at all times the governing mode would be totally by populism. Which is not a good way (to put it mildly) to run anything.
Not to mention that in ANY state that has tried communism, it has been a miserable failure and ended up only enriching those in power and their cronies. Only once they embraced a form of capitalism (such as China) did the population's living standards improve. |
Marx would say that all of the countries that tried communism were unsuited for it arguing that before a country should become communist they should have strong capitalism first. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| beck's wrote: |
| I like the Ronald Regan quote that goes something like this---a communist is one who has read Marx and Engels, an anti-communist is one who understands them. |
And I doubt that Reagan would have fallen under either category. |
But he might have played one of them in a movie.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
I admire his honesty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I have read most of Marx and the ideas are somewhat tantalizing but it still boils down to a group of elites holding power. It just amazes me that anyone could really think these ideas could be used to build a just and functional society. the core of dialectical materialism is conspiracy theory writ large. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Polish research institute creates a communist version of the board game 'Monopoly', "to teach young people about life under Communism":
| Quote: |
In the game, players must wait in endless lines at stores for scarce goods. For added realism, they have to put up with people cutting in line and products running out -- unless they have a "colleague in the government" card.
The goal of the game, which will officially be launched on Feb. 5, is to show how hard and frustrating it was for an average person to simply do their shopping under the Communist regime in Poland. The game has been developed by the Institute of National Remembrance (IPN), a Warsaw-based research institute that commemorates the suffering of the Polish people during the Nazi and Communist eras.
Just like in the original Monopoly, acquisition is the name of the game. In this case, however, that means struggling to get basic necessities such as food, clothing and furniture.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,740587,00.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
Well, here's a sliver of Marx's view on the Commune. Does it sound like going camping to you guys? It sounds like a proto-government.
| Marx wrote: |
The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at any time. The majority of its members were naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class.... The police, which until then had been the instrument of the Government, was at once stripped of its political attributes, and turned into the responsible, and at all times revocable, agent of the Commune. So were the officials of all other branches of the administration. From the members of the Commune downwards, the public service had to be done at workmen's wages. The privileges and the representation allowances of the high dignitaries of state disappeared along with the high dignitaries themselves.... Having once got rid of the standing army and the police, the instruments of physical force of the old government, the Commune proceeded at once to break the instrument of spiritual suppression, the power of the priests.... The judicial functionaries lost that sham independence... they were thenceforward to be elective, responsible, and revocable. |
|
It sounds like democracy. Universal suffrage plus the mechanisms to hold elected officials accountable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
You know you're a leftist when:
(1) you're a pacifist who sympathizes with violence against Israel,
(2) you're a socialist who uses a laptop assembled in the sweatshops of China to denounce capitalist exploitation and consumerism (on Facebook, no less),
(3) you're a columnist in a leftwing newspaper who owns a Kensington townhouse and a Tuscan villa yet writes article after article denouncing inequality,
(4) you're an ignorant prole who accuses the very people who pay for the services you use of oppressing the rest of the population,
(5) you think an ideology that starved and worked to death upwards of 100 million people can be compared to friends going camping,
(6) you're in the top 10% of earners and think it's wonderful that tax is devoted to rent subsidies for the less well-off, giving no thought whatsoever to those who are neither wealthy enough to laud having their income arrogated in order that someone else receive subsidies nor poor enough to qualify for them.
Well, in Komment Macht Frei a few months ago, a perfect example of (6) was a limo leftist expressing how much she enjoys having neighbors who receive state housing subsidies, for a variety of trendy lefty, multi-culty reasons ("It is a wonderful jumble of black and white, rich and poor...")
A reader had this hilarious response:
| Quote: |
Angela, I notice that you're a lecturer in journalism at Goldsmith college, London. Now from that your salary will be around �40,000, perhaps more. On top of that, you earn money from the articles you write for the Guardian, Independent and Times. So your salary may be as high as �50,000. Judging by your approximate age, you were able to buy a house before the runaway house price inflation of the last fifteen years, and consequently you're financially secure. You're also married and your husband's income contributes to that, no doubt. Your household income is unlikely to be below �80,000 a year.
I say this not to object, but to point out that for you, who are in the top 10% of earners in the UK, who are financially secure, to say that you "dont mind paying housing benefit", is one thing. You can afford it. You're already at the top of the pile.
90% of the rest of the country doesn't have that luxury. They're losing their jobs, they're running short of cash, and they're rightly appalled at the idea that a family on benefits could be receiving �20,000 a year in rent. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
