I'm kind of back but kind of...meh, screw it

1. Words have clear meanings, if if you aren't personally aware of them. You can't just act like they don't to fit the purposes of your dubious argument. Sorry.

2. Specifically, the bourgeoisie are those (under a Marxist definition) who own the means of production (factories, companies, land etc). Under the feudal system, the bourgeoisie were the "middle class" (i.e. they weren't aristocrats or proletarians). In the modern day, the bourgeoisie is pretty clearly what we call the "upper class": the millionaires and billionaires coined "the 1%" by the Occupy Wall Street movement. So, in order to "draw the line", as you put it, between the bourgeoisie and ourselves, we can ask ourselves one of three questions, an affirmative answer to any of which indicates that we are are bourgeois:
a. Am I a millionaire or billionaire?
b. Do I own a factory or corporation?
c. Am I in the top 1% of people in my country when it comes to wealth?

3. You claim that we spout "us versus them nonsense." The problem is that you also engage in "us versus them" logic, as I'll explain below. This means I don't have to respond any further, but, to humor you: The reason we advocate for "us versus them" ideology when it comes to the bourgeoisie is that it's clearly an "us versus them" situation. The bourgeoisie are gaining increased control of our government, and through it, our economic and social systems. We're rapidly headed to the sort of oligarchic capitalist state that exists in China today, as I explained previously. As a result, the middle class is rapidly eroding, inequality is rising, and social mobility is becoming virtually nonexistent. So the situation is clearly becoming one, fundamentally, of us (average and poorer people, who are losing political and economic power worldwide) versus them (the bourgeoisie; the millionaires and billionaires who are earning more and more and gaining greater and greater economic power). This is one of the major failures/challenges facing capitalism that I have brought up multiple times. You have never even attempted to address it, so it's funny you brought it up.

4. Your claim that the "idea of race" is "nonsense" in the modern day is a little hard to swallow. You do know that the West (most of the countries in which are predominantly European racially) possesses most of the world's wealth, while pretty much everywhere else is artificially impoverished, right? And that even in Western countries, many people of color are paid less than whites, occupy less positions of power, and just generally are artificially installed as a permanent underclass economically? Unfortunately, race is more important than ever in the modern day because of the mechanics of our capitalist system. Incidentally, Marxists commonly argue that race is an artificial construct that capitalists created to split the inter-racial proletariat, so, in the long run, they could get away with the kind of exploitation I discuss above.

5. Stop making straw man arguments.They're not real arguments. In that vein, your claim that we are "unhappy with your present position in life and don't want to work to improve that responsibly and legally" is a good example of a gross generalization that adds nothing substantive to this argument and functions on the same level as a playground insult. You know nothing about me. This is a totally anonymous internet forum. I could be a strangely anti-capitalist Bill Gates, an average middle class parent, or a relatively impoverished college student, for all you know. Regardless, it's precisely because I want people (including myself) to be able to work to improve their "present position" in life that I am a communist. As I have discussed repeatedly, capitalism is rapidly failing to function in a manner so that people can work for a living and improve their social position and class. This can be seen in that inequality is extremely high and social mobility is extremely low. That's a major problem for you and your defense of capitalism that I have brought up several times already, so I'll just copy and paste my above response here again:
"This is one of the major failures/challenges facing capitalism that I have brought up multiple times. You have never even attempted to address it, so it's funny you brought it up."

6. More schoolyard name-calling containing nothing even approaching a substantive response. Let me merely success that you are projecting the truths of your own position unto us. In fact, unlike you, I've explicitly proven that your capitalist worldview is "twisted" and "unrealistic" and that the capitalist system you're advocating for is "destructive" and "downright disgusting". I'll copy and paste some of the relevant paragraphs, since you apparently didn't read them the first time.

"unrealistic"
"Your ideology about the "next generation of energy and other technologies" saving our environment is just as much of a fantasy as Marx's formulation of a communist society (the difference is the latter is more honest). The problem is that we are entering an era where technology is actively part of our problem, as advancements in technology will likely entrench inequality. Moreover, there's little technology can do to save our society from its fundamental ideological problem. After the 2008 financial crisis and the rise of global inequality, most people no longer even believe they believe in capitalism anymore, hence the rise of fundamentalism worldwide. People are looking for political alternatives in a way they haven't since the 1930s. That disturbs me, and it should disturb you."


"destructive"
" You trust that capitalism will resolve the climate change crisis (hence your reference to the next generation technology and energy sources). This assumes capitalism in its modern form is based on enlightened self-interest. It's not. The productive forces (essentially, the means of production), like a political meme, seek only to reproduce and expand, regardless of our needs and desires. So far, the reproduction of the productive forces has satisfied our increasing needs of desires, but that is increasingly becoming untrue. For example, the 2008 financial crisis was created by supposed economic "experts" acted in a deeply irrational manner, creating an economic system that was doomed to failure. Krugman captured the deep irrationality of the system when he stated that, had someone gone back in time and warned everyone of what was about to happen, most would have still "followed the herd" and made the risky decisions that precipitated the crisis. The issue of climate change presents such a point of irrationality. Many companies actually welcome the effects of climate change because it allows them to make more profits in the short term (cleaning up ecological disasters, etc.) or at the very least want to continue with the status quo because it also them to make profits in the short term (oil and gas companies). It's these companies that held fund the GOP and their climate change-denialism. What's interesting here is that they are not acting in their own enlightened self-interest by doing so. Climate change clearly hurts capitalism, but they nevertheless keep on going down the road to self-destruction. Perhaps communism (a third way, different than capitalism and fundamentalism) is needed to save capitalism from itself."

"twisted" and "downright disgusting"
"You describe the USSR as a "giant thug operation" that liquefies dissents. Again, you are merely projecting your own fears about the nature of capitalism unto my position. I've consistently held that the future of our capitalist system is "capitalism with Asian values" (Chinese capitalism), which certainly is a "giant thug operation" that liquefies dissents. In fact, capitalism already operates that way on a global stage, from international corporations funding civil war and warlords in the Congo and brutally suppressing anyone who speaks out to American capital funding the slave state of Saudi Arabia. So you again critique aspects of your own system as my own. This, of course, seems to make your point about the "bloody wars and loss of life" somewhat ironic. Capitalism appears to be even better than the USSR at "bloody revolutions led by ideologues who have no proper idea of what their actions will lead to" (which perfectly describes all the reactionary interventions capitalist states like the U.S. funded in place like the Middle East and South America; Iraq is an especially good example). As to your claim that I'll condemn "millions, if not billions, to death and suffering for the sake of your lofty ideas" I can only respond that you and the capitalist order ARE condemning "millions, if not billions, to death and suffering for the sake of your lofty ideas" RIGHT NOW. We need only to consider the cases of the third-world countries kept continually impoverished by capitalism to verify this statement as fact."

7. Great. You just haven't ever explained why, not to mention the fact that you haven't even ever tried to answer any of my critiques. I even number them to make it easier.

8. Another strange unsubstantiated generalization that has no relevance to this discussion (again, this is an anonymous internet forum). Regardless, this sentence, when combined with the above claim about communists being "unhappy", demonstrates how you yourself use the "us versus them" logic you previously complained about. It's obvious you see the world as composed of two types of people: lazy, unhappy, inexperienced people (to use the language of the capitalist Donald Trump, "losers") who may or may not be Marxists, and happy, hardworking, responsible, and experienced "winners" (successful capitalists). Clearly, you believe that you are a member of the second group and that I and my fellow communists are a member of the first. You seem to believe that claiming I (or others) am/are members of this group is sufficient to defeat us argumentatively. I can only assume from this dismissive attitude that you are mobilizing "us versus them" logic: similar to how a Marxist might label someone as bourgeoisie to dismiss them argumentatively instead of arguing substantially, you attempt to dismiss communists by arguing that they fit into your archetypal "loser" category. This relates back to "us versus them" logic in that someone who uses such logic never tries to actually argue with someone they perceive as a member of "them". Instead, they merely seek to dismiss them by rhetorically labeling them as a member of the hated "them" group. You are consistently guilty of this, particularly in your last post. In conclusion, don't use the same logic you yourself complain about. Additionally, your "us versus them" formulation is tautological. You effectively claim that only someone with "real world experience" can make accurate statements about "the world situation today". The problem is that the definition of someone with "real world experience" is suspiciously murky. Traditionally, it's conservative double talk for someone who is successful financially (i.e. is upper middle class or rich). The problem is that such "experienced" people are those who are benefiting from the system. So effectively, you claim that only people who succeed under the system can make accurate claims about the system. This leads to a tautology: the system is good because those who benefit under the system think the system of good (which is only one step away from "the system is good because the system is good" ).

9. In short: You mobilize dismissive "us versus them" logic in an attempt to distract from the lack of substantive response, particularly the lack of a response in regards to the several critiques I have offered and the vital questions you have consistently failed to answer, which I will post here again.

How can democratic capitalism effectively deal with climate change and the increasing scarcity of resources around the globe? How can democratic capitalism answer both the religious fundamentalism it has created in the Middle East and the neo-fascist fundamentalism that is resurging in the West? How can democratic capitalism combat rising inequality? How can democratic capitalism control advancements in (particularly genetic) technology so as not to entrench inequality so deeply that society no longer functions?

As I mentioned previously, your continued silence on the matter of these questions doesn't bode well for your ideology. You seem to be unable to answer.

 

Pretty much what Ramboz said. If you don't agree with our assessment of the world situation and the notion of the class struggle, explain why in full using backed-up arguments, as we have been done to argue against capitalism throughout this thread, rather than resorting to meaningless ad hominems. And, once again, if you think that capitalism is preferable to communism, explain how it can solve the problems which Ramboz mentioned.

I just want to add something about the bourgeoisie and proletarians:

Not to start a tendency war here, comrade, but I don't think the Occupy-inspired descriptions of the bourgeois and proletariat are accurate. Class (in the Marxist sense) obviously has a correlation with income, but it specifically refers to relationship to the means of production, and therefore there are some instances where income doesn't correspond to class interests. For example, people who are part of the intelligentsia/bureaucratic strata sell their labour, and so are exploited and alienated as much as any other proletarian and have proletarian class interests, but still earn quite high wages. At the other end of the scale, there are many petit-bourgeois folk who are quite poor and certainly aren't in the top 1%, but because they are bourgeois, they are class enemies of the proletariat. Also, since capitalism is a global phenomenon I don't think it makes sense to base class on income in relation to other people in a certain country.

 

I appreciate the criticism, and I basically agree with you. The Occupy-based class descriptions are perhaps too loose (especially for theoretical efficiency), but the point I was trying to get across is that the basic situation is increasingly that of average and poorer people versus a small group of the extremely rich. Of course, you are right in that they are significant exceptions to this basic formulation (the "people who are part of the intelligentsia/bureaucratic strata" and the "petit-bourgeois" you mention). I also agree with your statement that it doesn't make "sense to base class on income in relation to other people in a certain country" because of the global nature of capitalism; the "1% versus the 99%" model really only functions in the U.S. and some western European countries.

 

A lot of Orwell’s books (favourite author) were written in opposition to and banned by the Soviet Union (what the sites I've visited have said).
1984 and Animal farm are in that list. Although his writings air on the criticism of oppressive governments I don't see how this can be assumed to be instantly a criticism of communism in itself.
the USSR was oppressive to my knowledge, but was this because of the economic system in itself? I simply don't know.

I say that loosely because it is hard to find information on communism- it being a naughty word in modern society.
I do know that capitalism is a mind came for the poor and a monarchy for the rich. whether a entirely new economic system is necessary I don't know, but regulation is needed.

#Disclaimer#
I'm, at this point in time, a "Social democrat" or "democratic-socialist" - which is synonymously used to describe the same thing in places in Europe such as Sweden. I understand socialism is something entirely different (more closely liked to comm) but in most political conversations in my scene its simply knows as "socailism" with no prefixed or suffixes added. if that makes sense.

peace

 

The fact that it has never been better in any form that has been tried to be implemented should be a clue. Ideology has to overcome human nature and that will never happen and why capitalism has always worked and been a better avenue for raising everyone's level of living. Most that are against capitalism rarely understand it's benefits and confuse it with corporatism.

 

oh, c'mon, telling someone they are an angsty teen isn't constructive in the least. Treat people with dignity and actual conversation happens. Even if you don't approve of one system, Capitalism is not perfect by a long shot and it would be more sensible to discuss the more detailed points of each and the criticisms and positives of them. Don't be childish and unfortunate in the process.

 

They most certainly are criticisms of oppressive governments. Orwell wrote for a number of leftist publications, fought in the POUM as I mentioned and called himself a democratic socialist. And at any rate, the USSR wasn't communist - it had private property, wage labour and commodity circulation.

What caused oppression in the USSR is an interesting question. The inefficacy of the economic system was definitely a factor, but the political bureaucracy, top-down structure and suppression of workers were in my opinion consequences of a political, not an economic, degeneration.

http://www.marxists.org has a very extensive collection of communist literature. If you're interested, I'd recommend starting here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

Capitalism has not "always worked." I've given a ton of examples in this thread.

As for human nature, what part of "human nature" does communism contradict? I seriously doubt that there is even such thing as a timeless human nature, since human behaviour and interaction is based on particular material conditions.

 

Addressing the OP.

You recently were awarded the "Best Thread" award for January, 2016 so it drew my attention to your background. If you're genuinely 14 years old, you have the rest of your adulthood to ponder the "virtues" of Marxism.

You should be on Youtube looking at One Direction and Justin Bieber videos.

Unless you're some sort of political child prodigy the equivalent to Mozart writing symphonies at 8, caring about politics in your early teens will only make you cynical and old before your time. Youth is designed to be misspent, it's how nature intended.

 

I'm going to be honest here: I think this is absolute garbage.

Why "should" I be doing a certain thing with my time just because it's what most people who have spent roughly the same length of time as I have on the planet do in a certain social setting? Why must caring about politics (I'd say I care about political theory and sociology; I hate politics with a burning passion) make me "cynical and old before my time" and why is this a bad thing? What does age "before one's time" even entail, apart from fitting a certain set of arbitrary roles which are deemed by this society to fit people of a certain age? What the heck is "misspending" youth, and why should anyone care what you think constitutes "misspending"? And why does your entire post just look like a big, fat, unjustified appeal to nature? If this were 1816 and not 2016, someone my age could be working in a factory right now. If it were 1416, I could be married and expecting a child. Nature did not create "childhood" as distinct: certain production relations did.

People love to bang on about youth apathy. Every single time election season rolls around, the media whinges about young people not caring and a half-hearted attempt is made to get young people to vote. But then when teenagers do express an interest in the way in which society is organised, people come out with this reactionary "children should be seen and not heard" nonsense. It's utter dross, and it's hilarious that adults think they stand a chance of engaging youth in politics they act so condescending and downright off-putting to those who are already engaged merely because we don't fit into their rigid worldview and their misinformed conceptions of childhood.

Apologies if this post seemed abrasive; no hard feelings. I'm just incredibly tired of this sort of attitude and of some people's refusal to take me seriously due to an irrelevant number of years.

 

If age is irrelevant why did you bother to post it in your opening salvo. Clearly you wanted to draw attention to it as some sort of attempt to impress.

"Look at me, I know how to google stuff"

You have no life experience to support your precocious attitude.

 

Looked through the thread and I don't find tons of examples but plenty of ideology. Human nature has not changed for thousands of years and more. The 7 sins have not changed in all that time. Capitalism brought the highest standard of living for mankind on this planet and brought you the technology to which you are also using to espouse your failed ideology. Communism has failed time and again. Socialism is all bureaucracy and fails by it's own weight of undeliverable promises. State controlled economies do not work well as they cannot be dynamic and basically make everyone poor. Do you know the difference between capitalism and corporatism?

 

I mentioned it because my username is PreteenCommunist (from two years ago) and I wanted to clarify my age and the fact that I'm not actually a preteen anymore, since I knew it was bound to come up anyway. But if I had known how much people here would take note of my age, I never would have done it.

Sure, I don't have experience of some things, and nor do I have all the answers. I will readily acknowledge that I have no clue about certain matters. But that doesn't make my points any less valid, unless you can actually demonstrate that a lack of "life experience" is causing me to make an unjustified point.

 

You're entitled to the freedom of expression of course. There's no age requirement for having an opinion, I did not mean to insinuate there was.

With the advent of the internet and the information age, I believe that young people are over-exposed to concerns and worries better suited for adults to ponder. It's robbing a generation of naivete...allowing young people to simply be young people.

That's not the same thing as saying stifling any intellectual pursuits beyond the trivial...what I am stating is that for a someone aged 14 to be pondering the rants of Friedrich Nietzsche and nihlism,

Nihilism, according to Nietzsche, is the most extreme form of pessimism.

You are barely beginning your life. I know it may seem being a teen-ager is not a child, and perhaps in different eras you'd be considered an adult almost. Take it from me, you're literally just starting your life. I would advise not burdening yourself with the trials and tribulations of a perceived hopeless World with no meaning or purpose that nihilism offers up.

You appear to be somewhat advanced intellectually from your peers, and that shouldn't be stifled...it's just...your perception should be one of viewing the World as one of possibilities not limitations.

So I'm sorry if my comment appeared to be condescending.

 

Because you're running an unnecessary risk of alienating yourself from your peers, if you haven't done so already, and it will make you lonely and unhappy. At least, this is our concern. Blowing us off as you do is starting to convince me that you really are as young as you claim. (Teens rarely think that older people actually know anything of value.) We are concerned about you in a way that your "comrades" never will be.

Of course, you may feel that we are blowing you off, but we aren't. What are we supposed to do in the face of so much horror that has occurred under communism? And yes, it's been worse than capitalism.

Saying "there's never been communism" is just a slippery trick. All those totalitarian systems were headed up by Marxist idealists. It's just not reasonable to discount our claim that the foundation of those systems was Marxism.

 

Your past is always with you. You can't just 'ice pick' it away. You have to deal with it. BTW what the heck is an 'orthodox Marxist' anyway?

 

Apropos for this thread.

OU professor: Youths' attraction to Sanders shows education failure

 

I linked to this article (which I wrote) a couple of times, and it essentially sums up my criticisms: https://commissaress.wordpress.com/political-articles/free-markets-vs-freedom/

The ways in which humans have interacted with each other and organised society have changed hugely throughout history, depending on material conditions: from tribal societies to agricultural slave societies to feudalism to capitalism. All of these different modes of production have brought with them different institutions - the state (using Weber's definition) only emerged at around the same time as agriculture, and changed form many times to fulfill its changing purposes with the most efficacy. Socialism is merely the next stage in this process. And you didn't answer my question: how is communism incompatible with the "7 sins"?

Marx literally wrote tomes about how capitalism was historically necessary and was at one point groundbreaking. I would never deny that capitalism has brought us great things. But now, what it does deliver society is being delivered at a huge cost, and it is no longer worth it.

For the umpteenth time, there has only been one genuinely proletarian revolution - October - and it failed because of its isolation in one backward country, plus a few organisational errors.

The term "corporatism" originally referred to the sort of economic system employed by fascist states, but I'm familiar with the meaning used by libertarians. However, although corporatism/crony capitalism/whatever differs from the abstract ideal of totally free-market capitalism, it still has private property, wage labour and commodity production, making it a variant of capitalism.

 

Ok. Sorry for any misinterpretations on my part.

This is the crux of the issue. It's all well and good to say that young people are entitled to their own opinions, but when you imply that we "should" be naïve, that there is such thing as "just being a young person" and that this state of youth has a deeper meaning than mere social convention...well, where does any of this come from except your particular conceptualisation of youth? These sorts of universal standards and unfounded obligations seem grossly irresponsible and outdated to me. There's no reason why young people "should" be naïve or why we "should" adhere to social codes or why some issues "should" be pondered over by adults for a better result, any more than there is a reason why women "should" be submissive, for example.

Although I like Nietzsche, I wouldn't say he's one of my biggest influences. And I have a feeling that you're thinking of nihilism à la Schopenhauer, to whom Nietzsche was specifically referring when he described pessimistic nihilism. I prefer a more Sartrean take on nihilism: creating one's own meaning and all that. If I sound Schopenhauer-esque sometimes, I'm probably having a bad day.

Again, I respect that you're making this comment with good intentions, but I don't think you can tell me what I "should" or "shouldn't" believe based on these mystical ideas about youth. I personally think that nihilism, Marxism etc. provide a reasonable and sound lens with which to view and analyse the world. If you'd like to debate me on that and try to change my perception through discourse, you're more than welcome to. Just don't tell me that I "shouldn't" believe what makes sense because of an irrelevant number and the conventions attached to it.

I'm not quite sure where you got the "limitations" thing from - if I didn't believe in a world of possibilities, I wouldn't be a radical. But I also consider myself quite pragmatic (in the popular sense of the word). Except when I've consumed too much caffeine.

 

Well it's nice of you to care so much, but with all due respect, you don't know anything at all about my life or my relationships, and I don't think it's rational of you to jump to conclusions like this. As a matter of fact, I never, ever bring up politics amongst my friends because I don't go around looking for arguments in my day-to-day life, and I'm just as interested in trashy movies and fashion and EDM and the boys at the neighbouring school as I am in politics, philosophy and science. I have friends who can't name the ruling party in my country. But I happen to enjoy discussing politics too and will do it on the internet because I can't do it in real life (apart from at the odd party aggregate or something). I wasn't trying to blow anyone off, and nor was I even insinuating that older people don't know anything of value. I was merely attacking a few unjustified assumptions about and obligations of young people. Once again, apologies if it came off as abrasive. It's very difficult to have a decent discussion when people insist on making so many unwarranted assumptions. Poor old Ockham.

I know that. I was arguing in a completely impersonal manner until this point.

We've been over this one.

Just like saying "North Korea is not a democratic people's republic"? Words have meanings, and if a society does not fit the definition of communism, it is not communist. Simple as that.

("Marxist idealist" is an oxymoron.)

Sure, the foundations of the systems were Marxism, although some of them strayed very, very far from Marxism (Maoist China, Gorbačev's USSR, even completely de facto un-Marxist countries like Cambodia and the DPRK) and I don't agree with every single person who ever called xirself a Marxist - in fact, I probably disagree with most ostensible Marxists. But that doesn't change the fact that due to material circumstances which I have explained about ten squillion times, none of these societies became socialist.

 

:'(

A snobby term used by Marxists who oppose vanguardism and favour a "mass party" model, but who are not left communists (i.e. we still support union work, transitional demands etc.) and also broadly support centralism.

 

OK but, those are not definite models they are very vague and smack of highly ideological thinking. Human beings don't work that way. Unions (once a godsend to workers) now have become bloated and burdensome on the free economy. They are given government sanctions to set price. No one else enjoys that concession. 'Transitional demands' is meaningless to me. 'Centralism' is in the eye of the beholder.

The only way to run a successful economy is to lightly regulate free private businesses according to established law. This gives everyone the opportunity to participate in making profit. We cannot ever make everyone equal in riches because that would thwart opportunity by making it not worth while to achieve.

 

Which, of course, is the problem with socialism and communism. No incentive. That kind of thinking where it is dependent on the idealistic infinite goodness of man will always fail. Utopians do not think in realistic terms and ignore human nature.

 

I believe they actually deny their own human traits and, instead of embracing them and controlling them, would rather give control over to a 'higher human authority' in order to escape any kind of personal liability.

 

duplicate

 

Well, that's a very good point. But very few democratic republics with separation of powers, rights to private property, and constitutional guarantees of civil liberties deteriorate into totalitarianism. But every single Marxist experiment has done exactly that.

This may or may not be a good point, depending on what you mean by young. People's brains aren't fully developed until at least 18 and some say it's still developing until the mid-20's.