TulipO Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 We just don't have enough "Ask Me" threads. We really don't. I can't believe that I haven't done this thread yet... So ask me questions about communism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 How with this Ask thread differ from Ask TulipO-get your ass kicked? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TulipO Posted January 10, 2013 Author Share Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) No dreaded page 7. In addition, I probably won't be issuing lucky numbers and secret fortunes in this thread. Edited January 10, 2013 by TulipO 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Alright, good to know. First question: The terms socialism and communism are often conflated in the public's mind. How are they related, and how do they differ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alive she cried Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) In a communist utopia, what would stop me from going next door and shitting in my neighbours toilet, without asking for permission...for the rest of my life? Serious question wrapped up in silliness, I'm not trying to be insulting, well maybe a little. But only friendly insults. Edited January 10, 2013 by alive she cried Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the division of joy Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 More guns, obviously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TulipO Posted January 10, 2013 Author Share Posted January 10, 2013 The terms socialism and communism are often conflated in the public's mind. How are they related, and how do they differ? Originally the term "Communist" was coined by Marx and Engels to differentiate themselves from the Utopian Socialists of the time. Marx and Engels were the founders of Scientific Socialism which differs from utopian in that it relies on dialectical materialism as its main tenet. In modern times people use the term "socialist" to refer to the transitional period between a revolution that overthrows capitalism and "communism" to refer to the period after several generations of socialism where the state is no longer a neccessary entity. Good Read: Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Friedrich Engels Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TulipO Posted January 10, 2013 Author Share Posted January 10, 2013 In a communist utopia, what would stop me from going next door and shitting in my neighbours toilet, without asking for permission...for the rest of my life? Common decency? Or perhaps they wouldn't mind as our values would change over time from values that are based on private life into a system where public life is more valuable? Or perhaps in your community you would have public facilities built that fulfilled the needs of said community? It would really be up to you. We cannot prefigure what the needs of society will be under socialism, but we can guess that there probably won't be shit police. Good Read: "Their Morals and Ours" by Leon Trotsky More guns, obviously. I don't know about more guns--I mean there is quite a stockpile already that will certainly be appropriated by the revolution, but they would probably be held in a public armory controlled by the people in case of counter-revolution. Good Listen: http://wearemany.org/a/2010/06/is-violence-necessary-to-change-society Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alive she cried Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 I guess what I was trying to ask is. If we cannot own property, what stops random people form entering "my" house and staying indefinitely? What stops them from eating my food and wearing my clothes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TulipO Posted January 10, 2013 Author Share Posted January 10, 2013 I guess what I was trying to ask is. If we cannot own property, what stops random people form entering "my" house and staying indefinitely? What stops them from eating my food and wearing my clothes? Contrary to popular belief personal property will not be abolished. Private property is different--specifically the means of production--they will be seized and held in common. However, your stuff is your stuff. Luxury items like mansions, thousands of acres of waterfront property, massive jets, yachts etc will also be held in common. So the idea is you get to keep your private space to live in, all your stuff PLUS you get to use super nice stuff like that. The difference is no one person or small group of people is able to hoard all the good stuff and the people control how we produce things. Good Read: The Family Private Property and The State by Friedrich Engels Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the division of joy Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 How do you like your steak? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TulipO Posted January 10, 2013 Author Share Posted January 10, 2013 How do you like your steak? Red, just how I like everything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the division of joy Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 The correct answer, was blue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Contrary to popular belief personal property will not be abolished. Private property is different--specifically the means of production--they will be seized and held in common. However, your stuff is your stuff. Luxury items like mansions, thousands of acres of waterfront property, massive jets, yachts etc will also be held in common. So the idea is you get to keep your private space to live in, all your stuff PLUS you get to use super nice stuff like that. The difference is no one person or small group of people is able to hoard all the good stuff and the people control how we produce things. Would one own land, or would you and your family be assigned a living space which you would treat essentially like a rental home? So that, as ASC suggested, you could live there but strangers couldn't just come into your space? Want about farm land? How would agrarian reform work. Would the collective own the land, and a farmer would have to work it and be compensated for the yields? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TulipO Posted January 10, 2013 Author Share Posted January 10, 2013 Would one own land, or would you and your family be assigned a living space which you would treat essentially like a rental home? So that, as ASC suggested, you could live there but strangers couldn't just come into your space? Want about farm land? How would agrarian reform work. Would the collective own the land, and a farmer would have to work it and be compensated for the yields? No one could "own" land--but no one except the 1% would be forced out of their homes either. In the case of the 1% the act of seizing their assets is more about preventing counter-revolution than needing their shit. We have ABUNDANT housing space right now. So following a revolution, one of the first orders of business would be to end homelessness and ground rent. Whether or not an individual would have complete dominion over that space would be up to the people. That is a debate that hasn't happened yet essentially. In the future, I imagine we would be reorganizing the way that we actually live in society so all new housing/city planning would probably be organized in a more sustainable and community oriented way. As far as farm land goes--farm work would be organized by farm workers like every other industry--so essentially the collective would own the land. Only instead of producing for profit, it would be need based. Also, farming would have to be organized in a way that maximizes ecological sustainability. Obviously, people who know how to farm should be in charge of farming so Joe Smith's Family Farm would not be appropriated, but Dole will be and the farm workers would run it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alive she cried Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 So all, except those that live in mansions are left with the house they currently live in? So a poor student studying medicine who's currently living in a one bed flat in a terrible area, can never move to a larger/nicer house? Even after he becomes a talented doctor? A few follow up questions, do doctors get paid the same as burger flippers and do they get paid the same as strippers? If America became Communist tomorrow and all the doctors wanted to move to Canada or Mexico because of wages, would you let them leave? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrizzle Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 What about those, like myself, who have nothing to offer society but crude insults on message boards? Would I have to go do something productive? I don't want to do something productive. I currently trade my time babysitting a retail store for money, which I trade for goods and services. I fear my babysitting services would be called out as the worthless sham that they are and I would be replaced by a camera or something. So, here's a question that's been kind of bugging me for years. There are Miracleman spoilers under here for anyone who gives a shit about reading it someday. So Miracleman decides people are doing it wrong and decides to take over. This speech is broadcast on every television and radio on the planet. "Hello. Let's talk about money. For lack of it, Brazil must level precious forests, with other nations hunting precious whalemeat to survive. Poor people cannot put the environment before their children's bellies. And yet, what is money? Money is a promise, to redeem the cash of every bearer for its worth in gold or merchandise. An empty promise. Should we all demand at once redemption of our coins, we'd learn such wealth does not exist. Money's imaginary, real if we believe in it. Rich nations, honoring each others empty promises, assure their mutual credibility...and always with the force of arms to see that everyone believes! No more. From August, everything is free, national surplus teleported to those nations most in need until they master self-sufficiency. Each soul shall have free clothing, food and shelter, entertainment, education, all requirements for a worthwhile life, with greater luxuries for those who wish to work providing the above. Come summer, money won't exist... ...but then, it never really did. Good night." I always thought that's essentially communism, albeit with a super powered kick in the pants to make sure no one cheats. Is it? Does the part about "additional luxuries to those who WISH to work providing the above" make it something else? If it does, it kind of sounds BETTER to me. Do you have a problem with that idea? That some people can have more, but that means they had to work to get it? It seems to me like providing everything everyone needs, establishing a comfortable baseline without the need for what's essentially indentured servitude, should be the goal anyway. If you WANT to go work, then you get some more shit. People like having shit, it seems like enough would bite to make it so the ones that were perfectly content could just sit around and jerk off. There are kind of a lot of questions there, I guess. Also, did you know this thread already exists in politics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycaon Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 But isn't that more dedicated to general questions about Communism, whereas this one is dedicated to questions answered by a specific communist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrizzle Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 I dunno. SURE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TulipO Posted January 11, 2013 Author Share Posted January 11, 2013 So all, except those that live in mansions are left with the house they currently live in? So a poor student studying medicine who's currently living in a one bed flat in a terrible area, can never move to a larger/nicer house? Even after he becomes a talented doctor? A few follow up questions, do doctors get paid the same as burger flippers and do they get paid the same as strippers? If America became Communist tomorrow and all the doctors wanted to move to Canada or Mexico because of wages, would you let them leave? Goodness no! Let me just preface this by saying that this entire question requires speculation in to events that have not happened so its conjecture on my part, based on my experience as a communist and also some instances through history that have maintained a revolutionary character for a short period of time. (like the Paris Commune) First of all with the abolition of ground rent, there would be no need for people to live in shitty conditions. Also, "terrible neighborhoods" wouldn't really exist. Revolution usually is not an instantaneus event--it is usually preceeded by a series of reforms through struggle that improve the lives of the working class. What makes a terrible neighborhood? Poverty. It is my belief that after a socialist revolution poverty as we know it would not exist. In addition, revolution doesn't freeze everything into place--in fact the whole idea of dialectical materialism is that things are constantly changing. History is a living thing created by the people who live it. As far as what will doctors get paid vs restaurant workers and sex workers: We have to look at it outside of the context that we are currently experiencing. Work as we know it will radically change. I think there WILL be wages for a while. And no, someone who works in food service will not make as much as say a surgeon--however the gap between the two will narrow considerably. All "burger flippers" will have the opportunity to become doctors if they so choose. In addition when the profit motive is removed the amount of money one earns ceases to be the primary reason for doing pretty much anything. As far as sex workers go, currently in the US most strippers are paid *NOTHING.* In fact, they have to pay the boss for their stage time. They live entirely off of tips. This will not happen in a socialist society. Furthermore the character of sex work will also be radically different as one of the primary goals of the socialist project is to end the exploitation and oppression of women. Finally, on the question of professionals moving across borders for better wages: Another tenet of the socialist project is internationalism. No socialist country can survive in isolation as a socialist society. If we examine the late stages of the Russian Revolution and see its descent into Stalinism and State Capitalism this becomes more clear. However, things could have turned out very differently had the German Revolution and other Europeam revolutions (Spanish Civil War etc.) been successful. Therefore, there wouldn't be nations as we currently have them, nor borders limiting the movement of workers. Good Reads: A History of the Russian Revolution by Leon Trotsky, The German Revolution by Pierre Broue, http://johnmolyneux.blogspot.com/2012/04/future-socialist-society.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the division of joy Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 On a scale of 1 to shameful, how shameful are the Irish Labour party for selling its working class beliefs down the river to get into government? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TulipO Posted January 11, 2013 Author Share Posted January 11, 2013 I always thought that's essentially communism, albeit with a super powered kick in the pants to make sure no one cheats. Is it? Does the part about "additional luxuries to those who WISH to work providing the above" make it something else? If it does, it kind of sounds BETTER to me. Do you have a problem with that idea? That some people can have more, but that means they had to work to get it? It seems to me like providing everything everyone needs, establishing a comfortable baseline without the need for what's essentially indentured servitude, should be the goal anyway. If you WANT to go work, then you get some more shit. People like having shit, it seems like enough would bite to make it so the ones that were perfectly content could just sit around and jerk off. That's kind of it. All communism/socialism means is that the majority of people--the working class--controls the means of production and holds the wealth produced in common. However, yeah I can see where this quote is coming from. Everyone would have to do some amount of work, but when the profit motive is removed, the necessity of a 40 hour (or more) work week becomes null. But if someone doesn't want to become a specialized worker (physicist or doctor etc) they certainly don't have to. And those who do want to would be free to. As far as luxuries go--I think we have to try and conceive of just how much wealth there is and what really prevents most of us from having it. What is a luxury item worth? It usually comes down to either enjoyment or status. When status is not a factor, then luxury items become for pure pleasure. And there are more than enough to go around. Good Read: Das Capital Volume 3 by Karl Marx There are kind of a lot of questions there, I guess. Yes there are. I hope I have answered some of them. Also, did you know this thread already exists in politics? No. I may have blocked it from my memory because it probably involves arch calling me a holocaust denier or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TulipO Posted January 11, 2013 Author Share Posted January 11, 2013 On a scale of 1 to shameful, how shameful are the Irish Labour party for selling its working class beliefs down the river to get into government? Well I think they turn it up to 11 myself. Although sometimes participating in electoral politcis can be a useful tactic for radicals, parties that work within the confines of the current system are doomed to compromise their politics to the benefit of the ruling class. I think if you look at the history of the Irish Labor Party you will find that there were once radicals that helped form the party (may even be a few left) but they were some how pushed out by the reformist wing of the party. This is why socialists believe that we cannot reform our way to a different society and part of why a revolution is necessary. Good Read: Reform or Revolution by Rosa Luxembourg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the division of joy Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 Well the head of the party used to be rather involved in IRA dealings. He's now considered a laughing stock among the Irish left, and general Irish people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TulipO Posted January 11, 2013 Author Share Posted January 11, 2013 http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1910/04/laborpol.htm The link is pretty much everything James Connolly has ever written for free, if it makes you feel better. Or it may make you shake your head at how different Eamon Gilmore is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.