Ship of Fools: Communism and Christianity

Thread: Communism and Christianity Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024532

Posted by redunderthebed (# 17480) on :

As my avatar might suggests i'am a communist.

It was interesting as i reconnected with my faith. Of course i had to reexamine my political beliefs. As i found out there is long long history of christianity and radical left-wing politics whether its anarchism (leo tolstoy being an example) or marxist-leninist belief (camilo torres and liberation theology a good example) etc.

As i re-read marx and lenin etc i found that so far what i've read is that essentially they just express their views on religion not dictate to communists that they must be atheists to be communists you do not and people don't agree with everything they say to be a communist.

Marx and lenin were tackling a different realm the realm of the politics society and economy not what the churches etc are dealing. Therefor they dedicated little towards the subject compaired to the vast works on the main subjects they dealt.

To me the bible is alien to the values or lack thereof that capitalism and its natural ally neo-liberalism. Capitalism/neo-liberalism promote selfishness greed and lack of concern for your neighbour whereas the bible promotes the exact opposite and i could go on for a very long time.

So yeah i'am comfortable with being a commo and happy to buck the described by a fellow comrade regrettable tradition of militant atheism (i'm not alone btw) within communism and the party i belong to.

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

There's certainly a long tradition of Christian socialism, although Christian communism has been less popular.

One of the big sources of conflict I could see between Marx in particular and most Christian thought is Marx's sense of perfectibility, that human beings can on their own abolish scarcity and create a perfect world. Not only that they can, but that they inevitably will. Marx states this not as a normative goal, but as an empirical fact. I think many Christians, with a sense of human beings living in a broken world and fundamentally unable to do things without the grace of God, might be skeptical of Marx's claims along those lines. Although some liberal Christians would undoubtedly disagree.

Marx's own discussion of religion is quite interesting. People will quote "religion is the opium of the masses," I'm sure. The full quote is "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." In my opinion, this gives a better-rounded perspective... We do in fact live in a heartless, soulless, oppressive world. Religion is a normal response. Now Marx of course wanted to abolish that oppression etc., and the death of religion would inevitably follow. But the actual framing of his statement is not that religion is an opiate that religious hierarchies intentionally use to drug people; the opiate is palliative, not malicious.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

I've always wanted to ask this of a communist: what national communist system did (has done) the best to develop productive, ethical, happy lives for its people, promoting the best balance of responsibility for the national community as a whole and personal individuality with freedom of expression and spirituality? Living in the US I've tended to get a totally negative viewpoint on this. I'd like a possibly different view. I'm not really interested in getting into a slanging match over communism vs capitalism. I want to hear about how real world communism of and in itself has achieved good results in its people's lives.

(Hope I haven't already pulled this too much off topic.)

Posted by redunderthebed (# 17480) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I've always wanted to ask this of a communist: what national communist system did (has done) the best to develop productive, ethical, happy lives for its people, promoting the best balance of responsibility for the national community as a whole and personal individuality with freedom of expression and spirituality? Living in the US I've tended to get a totally negative viewpoint on this. I'd like a possibly different view. I'm not really interested in getting into a slanging match over communism vs capitalism. I want to hear about how real world communism of and in itself has achieved good results in its people's lives.

(Hope I haven't already pulled this too much off topic.)

I think that people misunderstand communism as marx and lenin described has yet being achieved. What has being framed as communism is what is described in the writings of aformentioned is the dictatorship of the proletariat which i find an unfortunate term but a useful one it means that once revolution has being achieved that the proletariat use the existing system to benefit the proletariat.

That is essentially what we know as socialism that is why communist parties will talk about achieving socialism. Because socialism is a revolutionary process. Communism is a evolutionary process where the state as marx described it withers away. Whether it will ever happen or can happen i don't know but i do know that we have precious little to lose by trying.

However putting that aside i believe that all states that tried to achieve the stalin's idea of socialism in one state as opposed to try to achieve worldwide revolution. Did do some good and bad for its people on many levels and wasn't perfect some went almost orwell-esque 1984 insane (cambodia north korea)and others collapsed and in cases of china cuba and vietnam and laos are still plugging along.

Sorry if that's tl:dr lynda but i hope it answers your question.

Posted by redunderthebed (# 17480) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
There's certainly a long tradition of Christian socialism, although Christian communism has been less popular.

One of the big sources of conflict I could see between Marx in particular and most Christian thought is Marx's sense of perfectibility, that human beings can on their own abolish scarcity and create a perfect world. Not only that they can, but that they inevitably will. Marx states this not as a normative goal, but as an empirical fact. I think many Christians, with a sense of human beings living in a broken world and fundamentally unable to do things without the grace of God, might be skeptical of Marx's claims along those lines. Although some liberal Christians would undoubtedly disagree.

Marx's own discussion of religion is quite interesting. People will quote "religion is the opium of the masses," I'm sure. The full quote is "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." In my opinion, this gives a better-rounded perspective... We do in fact live in a heartless, soulless, oppressive world. Religion is a normal response. Now Marx of course wanted to abolish that oppression etc., and the death of religion would inevitably follow. But the actual framing of his statement is not that religion is an opiate that religious hierarchies intentionally use to drug people; the opiate is palliative, not malicious.

Interestingly enough some of his contemporaries came to the conclusion that it was malicious etc of which he quickly refuted i've got the book here somewhere...

Marx didn't advocate a perfect world he railed against utopian ideals of which were popular in his time in intellectual circles at least. I think he understood human nature and realise the flaws in the idea of a "perfect world" i think he wanted a better world and i think you speak to any communist and they will concur.

[ 02. January 2013, 04:55: Message edited by: redunderthebed ]

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

You will be gratified to learn, if you didn't know already, that Australia's best-known historian, Manning Clark, described Lenin as "Christlike".

Of course he has been described as a dickhead for doing so, but his critics are no doubt crypto-CIA agents with a redsunderthebed
mentality.

The Kaplan component of my Ship name, incidentally, is in honour of Fanny Kaplan, who attempted to murder Lenin, and was executed by the Bolsheviks in consequence.

She had been imprisoned and flogged by the czarist regime, so was well-placed to smell out the stench of an incipient dictatorship when she came across one.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Lenin was a terrorist. What do we have to lose by "trying"? Tens of millions of lives.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Even Marx thought it would be potentially necessary to have brutal control in order to bring people round. A problem is people willing to do this are rarely willing to cease.

ETA: To mousthief's comment. Lenin was a bastard and would likely been every bit as bad as Stalin given the chance.

[ 02. January 2013, 06:33: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by redunderthebed:
As i found out there is long long history of christianity and radical left-wing politics whether its anarchism (leo tolstoy being an example) or marxist-leninist belief (camilo torres and liberation theology a good example) etc.

I wonder just how much liberation theology can be described as radically left - maybe it is my own political views seeking to see liberation theology as an outpouring of centre-right as much as centre-left political ideologies, but hey ho, with the lines between left and right so blurred at the centre these days it can sometimes be hard to distinguish the two!

I do find it interesting, and agree up to a point, that in social action Christianity has links to what we would probably describe as 'left-wing' political ideology (more centre-left than radical-left IMO), however most teaching manuals of old, that I either own or have seen, for the benefit of instruction in the CofE/Anglicanism invariably contain a chapter with a title to the effect of 'why Christianity and Communism are incompatable' - whether that is coloured by the observation of the reality of Stalinist/Leninist-Communism as viewed in practice, or something much more natural I don't know - as yet the thought has not really been high on the topic to investigate so I have left it alone for the time being.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by redunderthebed:
Communism is a evolutionary process where the state as marx described it withers away.

How did Lenin's policies make it more likely that the state would wither away?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I have seen communism described (can't remember where) as Man's attempt to make the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. Which is certainly laudable, though probably fatally flawed since it misses the divine component.

It seems likely that communism is inherently unworkable before we have a post-scarcity society: the best that those of us on the left can hope for (for now) is socialism.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Robert Conquest put it succinctly:

“There was an old bastard named Lenin
Who did two or three million men in.
That's a lot to have done in
But where he did one in
That old bastard Stalin did ten in.”

In the UK the redoubtable old British Communist Party never fully recovered from the realisation that Stalin was a bastard and went into decline from there on in ... they effectively closed the doors and put out the lights a few years ago.

That said, I suppose there's nothing intrinsically wrong with Communists suggesting that true Communism has never really been tried and put to the test any more than it is for Christians to make the same claim - there all sorts of quotes out there from people who say that Christianity has never really been implemented anywhere properly and we're still waiting for that to happen ...

I don't know if I'm right in this, but I've heard it said that the Year of Jubilee thing as outlined in the OT was never implemented either - that the business about releasing people from debts, releasing bonds-servants, sharing with the poor, leaving the corners of the fields unharvested so strangers and aliens could help themselves etc etc was never actually carried out.

Posted by redunderthebed (# 17480) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Lenin was a terrorist. What do we have to lose by "trying"? Tens of millions of lives.

Oh f*ck that is rich [Killing me]

a capitalist lecturing us on terrorism and mass killings and trying to take the moral high ground. [Killing me]

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by redunderthebed:
Communism is a evolutionary process where the state as marx described it withers away.
How did Lenin's policies make it more likely that the state would wither away?

It didn't

[ 02. January 2013, 09:51: Message edited by: redunderthebed ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Even with an acknowledgement of the divine element, Theocracies are inclined to go badly, badly wrong ...

The late, great missiologist Leslie Newbiggin said that to 'try to bring heaven down from above inevitably leads to dragging hell up from below ...'

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by redunderthebed:
a capitalist lecturing us on terrorism and mass killings and trying to take the moral high ground.

Your point is well illustrated, redunderthe bed, by the incalculable number of ordinary people since 1917 who have risked (and often lost) their lives trying to escape from capitalist countries and get into communist ones.

Posted by redunderthebed (# 17480) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by redunderthebed:
a capitalist lecturing us on terrorism and mass killings and trying to take the moral high ground.
Your point is well illustrated, redunderthe bed, by the incalculable number of ordinary people since 1917 who have risked (and often lost) their lives trying to escape from capitalist countries and get into communist ones.

Talk about missing my point eh?

Posted by Sighthound (# 15185) on :

Surely the point is that we have yet to evolve a system of government that is perfect, given that humans are fallible and sinful. Communism (as it was established) was one experiment, and it had its flaws. But there are equally flaws in capitalism, fascism, feudalism, theocracy, etc, etc.

My view is that the best form of government so far created by mankind was that which operated in the West between 1945 and around 1980. And even that was not heaven on earth, it just produced the best results for the greatest number of people. And if I had to give it a name, it would be Consensual Social Democracy.

Posted by redunderthebed (# 17480) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sighthound:
Surely the point is that we have yet to evolve a system of government that is perfect, given that humans are fallible and sinful. Communism (as it was established) was one experiment, and it had its flaws. But there are equally flaws in capitalism, fascism, feudalism, theocracy, etc, etc.

I agree you're on the money mate.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I suppose there's nothing intrinsically wrong with Communists suggesting that true Communism has never really been tried and put to the test any more than it is for Christians to make the same claim - there all sorts of quotes out there from people who say that Christianity has never really been implemented anywhere properly and we're still waiting for that to happen ...

The difference is that Christians can legitimately make that claim, because part of our hypothesis is that there is someone (God) external to the system, who will come in and sort us out at some point. The experiment hasn't finished running, because there's one input that hasn't yet been altered: divine intervention.

Communism, on the other hand, doesn't have the divine intervention option, so the 'real communism hasn't been tried' response is nothing more than special pleading. Communism has been tried and found to be unworkable, because it is disastrously susceptible to that old confounding factor, human nature. The data is in from every communist regime out there: communism is a failed experiment which results in lots of dead people.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

I think the other issue is that Communism not only dictates how society should be run, but also attempts to describe how we should get from our current society into Communism.

I can accept the argument that all the brutality of Communism occurred not because brutality is intrinsic to a Communist society but as a result of attempts to turn a bourgeois or pre-bourgeois society into such a society. However, ISTM that the path from bourgeois / pre-bourgeois society to Communism is also part of Communism, and it is this part of Communism that has been proven disastrously wanting.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
The data is in from every communist regime out there: communism is a failed experiment which results in lots of dead people.

Ditto capitalism, but it doesn't stop some people from trying.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

I would like a genuine Communist to tell me how many Nintendo Wii's we should build, and how many XBox's we should build, and who will get what? How do I get both?

I can see how capitalism and the free market deals with that but not how money-less, market-less Communism would deal with it.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:

I've always wanted to ask this of a communist: what national communist system did (has done) the best to develop productive, ethical, happy lives for its people, promoting the best balance of responsibility for the national community as a whole and personal individuality with freedom of expression and spirituality?

That's an easy one: Kibbutz ?!?!

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Communism, on the other hand, doesn't have the divine intervention option, so the 'real communism hasn't been tried' response is nothing more than special pleading. Communism has been tried and found to be unworkable, because it is disastrously susceptible to that old confounding factor, human nature. The data is in from every communist regime out there: communism is a failed experiment which results in lots of dead people.

That's a false dichotomy. Marx's prediction was based on particular social and economic circumstances that were not found in ANY of the countries that attempted "communism". Marx predicted a revolution would arise for the urban proletariat, comprising a majority of the population. Prior to the Russian revolution, do you know what proportion of the adult population were made up of the proletariat? 5%! Both Russia and China were peasant societies, not the industrial nations than Marx predicted. Their revolutions were a result of people trying to accelerate the process (there are interesting parallels with Christian zionists trying to bring about the second coming by shipping Jews to Israel). There has never been an industrialised country that has attempted communism - mostly because governments led by Bismark and later by Lloyd-George, Churchill et al, got good at buying off the proletariat. Marx didn't expect that to happen, and it will be interesting to see whether the threat of revolution re-emerges if the right get their way and dismantle the welfare state.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I would like a genuine Communist to tell me how many Nintendo Wii's we should build, and how many XBox's we should build, and who will get what? How do I get both?

How do you get both?

You get off your lazy capitalist arse, stop exploiting the underpaid wageslaves who build these things for you, and learn to make them yourself.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

There has never been an industrialised country that has attempted communism - mostly because governments led by Bismark and later by Lloyd-George, Churchill et al, got good at buying off the proletariat. Marx didn't expect that to happen, and it will be interesting to see whether the threat of revolution re-emerges if the right get their way and dismantle the welfare state. [/QUOTE]

Nah. Strictly Celebrity Jungle Factor on Ice will see to that. Religion isn't the opiate of the masses any more, crap telly is.

But how will the masses get to decide between the Wii and the XBox in the absence of competition, for those hours before the Dancing Jungle Factor comes on? How many will be made, and who will decide who gets them?

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You get off your lazy capitalist arse, stop exploiting the underpaid wageslaves who build these things for you, and learn to make them yourself.

Oh, but I'm too busy building baby incubators to learn how to do that. If I have to learn how to build one myself, good, socialist babies will die.

But if only there was some way of compensating someone to do it for me? And I only want the best one for my childrens circumstances of course, so I'll have to factor that in to my compensation? What a dilemma!

[ 02. January 2013, 12:10: Message edited by: deano ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

As far as moral or holding to Christian values, neither Capitolism nor Communism can be either in the real world. Both lead to the control by a few to the detriment of the many. The argument really is to which side of the centre should one lean and how far. But one foot must always be on the centre line.

Galilit,
kibbutz are not communism, they are communes. Massive difference.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
What a dilemma!

A false dilemma, because you're wedded to and have much to gain from, the capitalist system which only works because the capital is controlled not by the workers who create it, but by the capitalists who own the means of production. And fuelled by the greed of the rich, of which you are one.

If you were thinking more clearly, you might question a world where there are a surplus of Xboxes, and a paucity of incubators.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by redunderthebed:
Oh f*ck that is rich a capitalist lecturing us on terrorism and mass killings and trying to take the moral high ground.

Tu quoque won't work here, because, granted the flaws in capitalism, you need to demonstrate why Communism is a preferable alternative to social democracy or another form of mixed economy.

quote:

quote:
How did Lenin's policies make it more likely that the state would wither away?
It didn't

Interesting. From your OP I had you down as a Marxist-Leninist.

[ 02. January 2013, 13:56: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:

I've always wanted to ask this of a communist: what national communist system did (has done) the best to develop productive, ethical, happy lives for its people, promoting the best balance of responsibility for the national community as a whole and personal individuality with freedom of expression and spirituality?
That's an easy one: Kibbutz ?!?!

"National" system? Not small, cell-like systems centered in one nation.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

It's very strange these days to read of someone describing themselves as a communist, yet alone exploring whether Christian faith can share the same bed as communism - shades of forgotten figures like Hewlett Johnson the Deluded.

I'd be curious to know how you get on, or what a communist thinks these days. As you may well have picked up, to my generation (I'm in my sixties), whether left, right or centre, communism is a busted flush, a ghost at the feast, a terrible mistake from yesteryear, a chimerical delusion, forever linked to spiritually and humanly leaden regimes, Russia Lenin-Chernenko, Mao's China, Hoxha's Albania, the Kim family's North Korea.

And before anyone says it:-

1. Communists may say that the ideology should not be judged on the states that claimed to be communist because none of them ever got there. To the rest of us, that demonstrates that the dictatorship of the proletariat is a cul-de-sac. Plenty of states got into it. None of them ever got out of any other end.

When we saw the future, it turned out not to work.

2. I know China is still officially communist, but modern China appears rather less communist than the modern UK is Christian.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

Putting even the most benignly intentioned Utopianism into practice inevitably leads to mass murder.

Those on the Left who seem to purport a sort of Christo-Marxist syncretism rarely seem to acknowledge that Christ said both that his Kingdom is not of this world and that the poor will always be with us. I'm honestly baffled by the emergence of self-described "Ratzingerian Marxists" in the Italian Left recently; cognitive dissonance anyone? [Confused]

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

Marxism got the whole ` historical inevitability of the triumph of the proletariat` thing wrong and once people start trying to nudge that whole historical inevitability thing along and to engineer history to do what it's meant to do - dammit!- then it all goes horribly wrong. But in some ways it`s a little like apocalyptic Christianity - claiming that the great day of justice is coming soon and this overrides all traditional human ties and structures- and that too goes badly wrong when people think they can hasten it and Jesus will be back anytime now and in the meantime let`s create a perfect society under the cult leader...

Where it's interesting though is in its diagnosis of what`s wrong and some of the very very early Marxists were ultra radical Christians outraged by poverty and by the sin of 'one person using up another for profit'.

For example, here`s Helen Macfarlane in 1850 who saw Jesus as the 'Galilean proletarian' who preached to other working men

quote:
We want a social system - which recognises the equal rights of every rational human being.. Just laws which say one man shall not be allowed to starve while another has more food than he can eat; one woman shall not be left to die by inches, making slop shirts at 2d a piece while another, whose brow is encircled by a crown or coronet does not know what it is to have a caprice ungratified; one child shall-not be left to grow up in dirt and rags and brutalising ignorance, in the filthy lanes and gutters of our manufacturing towns, while another is clothed in purple and fine linen,—pampered and spoiled by a host of obsequious servants, tutors, and governesses. Do you understand now the meaning of the words ' Democratic and Social Republic?. They are the embodiment of that dying prayer of our first Martyr: “That all may be one, even as we are one."

The cure as worked out by Marx was wrong but we still need to find answers to those sort of questions of inequality and how to rein in capitalism red in tooth and claw where managerial whims ruin people`s lives. We don't have the answers but we need to go on asking the questions, and looking for how we make the world a more humane place to live and work.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Those on the Left who seem to purport a sort of Christo-Marxist syncretism rarely seem to acknowledge that Christ said both that his Kingdom is not of this world and that the poor will always be with us.

When Jesus said that the poor will always be with us, he was talking about the choice between pouring perfume on his own head and selling the perfume to give the money to the poor. We now don't have the chance to anoint Jesus for burial; we still have the chance to relieve poverty. Jesus wasn't saying anything about the efficacy of political action; if anything the saying implies that the time for political action is always now.

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I have seen communism described (can't remember where) as Man's attempt to make the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. . . .

The same might be said of theocratic regimes such as the Plymouth Colony or Puritan England or contemporary Iran. True communism and the Kingdom of God strike me as having much in common, including being unachievable by purely human effort.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Marxism got the whole ` historical inevitability of the triumph of the proletariat` thing wrong and once people start trying to nudge that whole historical inevitability thing along and to engineer history to do what it's meant to do - dammit!- then it all goes horribly wrong.

What he got wrong was that this was possible at all. There will always be individuals who will wish to control. And there is nothing to suggest this will ever change.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by redunderthebed:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Lenin was a terrorist. What do we have to lose by "trying"? Tens of millions of lives.
Oh f*ck that is rich a capitalist lecturing us on terrorism and mass killings and trying to take the moral high ground.

A. What makes you think I'm a capitalist?

B. Ridicule isn't disproof. You lose.

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

Well, I suppose my attempt to get off to a good start by discussing Marx's views on religion were a bust. Every single conversation about communism ultimately collapses into "Stalin was bad!" vs. "Stalin wasn't a real communist!" No True Scotsman...

Dorothy Day would be a good example of someone who was enthusiastic about communism, went through the distress exhibited up-thread about capital-C Communism, and still managed to fuse leftism and Christianity in a decent way. Any thoughts on her?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
...what national communist system did (has done) the best to develop productive, ethical, happy lives for its people...

I'm not a communist, but my guess is that the answer would be none at all, because a "national communist system" is sort of an oxymoron. The nearest you can get is probably state socialism.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

kibbutz are not communism, they are communes. Massive difference.

Its a different approach to communism, from bottom up rather than top down. Never quite got there - but then neither did the Leninist centralised distatorship approach.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
What a dilemma!
A false dilemma, because you're wedded to and have much to gain from, the capitalist system which only works because the capital is controlled not by the workers who create it, but by the capitalists who own the means of production. And fuelled by the greed of the rich, of which you are one.

If you were thinking more clearly, you might question a world where there are a surplus of Xboxes, and a paucity of incubators.

Funny. Always the same old, same old...

I'll let my missus know we are rich, that will please her.

I never mentioned anything about surpluses and paucities. You did. But it proves that Communism means a glum, souless, dreary world. North Korea isn't an oddity, it's what the entire world would be like.

No wonder people used to say better dead than red, because life under communism wouldn't be worth living anyway.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Dorothy Day would be a good example of someone who was enthusiastic about communism, went through the distress exhibited up-thread about capital-C Communism, and still managed to fuse leftism and Christianity in a decent way. Any thoughts on her?

Did she actually move to a communist country? It's really easy to be enthusiastic about something happening to somebody else.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
What a dilemma!
A false dilemma, because you're wedded to and have much to gain from, the capitalist system which only works because the capital is controlled not by the workers who create it, but by the capitalists who own the means of production. And fuelled by the greed of the rich, of which you are one.

If you were thinking more clearly, you might question a world where there are a surplus of Xboxes, and a paucity of incubators.
Funny. Always the same old, same old...

I'll let my missus know we are rich, that will please her.

I never mentioned anything about surpluses and paucities. You did. But it proves that Communism means a glum, souless, dreary world. North Korea isn't an oddity, it's what the entire world would be like.

No wonder people used to say better dead than red, because life under communism wouldn't be worth living anyway.

Tedious. You are rich. Lump it. Certainly rich enough to consider two superfluous gaming consoles, so you can't even read your own posts for comprehension.

And only an arch-capitalist could consider a world with one less xbox and one more incubator soulless and dreary. Depends where you get your joy from, I suppose.

Posted by Inger (# 15285) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I've always wanted to ask this of a communist: what national communist system did (has done) the best to develop productive, ethical, happy lives for its people, promoting the best balance of responsibility for the national community as a whole and personal individuality with freedom of expression and spirituality? Living in the US I've tended to get a totally negative viewpoint on this. I'd like a possibly different view. I'm not really interested in getting into a slanging match over communism vs capitalism. I want to hear about how real world communism of and in itself has achieved good results in its people's lives.

(Hope I haven't already pulled this too much off topic.)

I think Kerala in India comes nearest to what you are looking for. I know nothing personally about the place; only what I've come across in casual reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala_model

PS. I'm not a communist though. [Biased]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

kibbutz are not communism, they are communes. Massive difference.
Its a different approach to communism, from bottom up rather than top down. Never quite got there - but then neither did the Leninist centralised distatorship approach.

Their intent is rather superfluous in their situation. The only reason they exist is the protection of a powerful non-communist government whose primary use for them is as a tool against the Palestinians. So, a fail for communism in multiple ways.

[ 02. January 2013, 20:16: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Did she actually move to a communist country? It's really easy to be enthusiastic about something happening to somebody else.

Of course, just like all the anarchists move to Somalia and all the anarcho-capitalists move to Bangladesh.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Did she actually move to a communist country? It's really easy to be enthusiastic about something happening to somebody else.
Of course, just like all the anarchists move to Somalia and all the anarcho-capitalists move to Bangladesh.

When I was in the Philosophy department at the University of Illinois, there was an "escapee" from Communist Poland who had really colorful words for people who sit in Western countries and exude praise for communism.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

I've been to North Korea. It's not a truly communist state (They don't even call themselves communist. It was dropped from their constitution in the 1990s. Their system is called "Juche".) It is to communism what the JWs are to traditional Christianity.

This is a regime that (in contrast to communism) believes in Korean racial purity and superiority (They force abort women who become pregnant from foreigners) as opposed to internationalism; enforces an entrenched class system with an elite that is wealthier than the rest of the population and enforces gender INequality.

Most analysts, particularly those in China and South Korea, consider it fascist rather than communist. Totalitarian, definitely, but not all totalitarian regimes are communist.

(As for whether the lives of North Koreans are worth living, what I saw were ordinary people finding ways to make it so through the bonds of family, friendship, arts, music, sports and games, even under the circumstances. This observation isn't meant to minimize their condition or the brutal nature of the regime, but says a lot about the human spirit. I am not one to write them off like that.)

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Tedious. You are rich. Lump it. Certainly rich enough to consider two superfluous gaming consoles, so you can't even read your own posts for comprehension.

And only an arch-capitalist could consider a world with one less xbox and one more incubator soulless and dreary. Depends where you get your joy from, I suppose.

I would like to to define "rich" please, because you seem to have a different view on what constitutes "rich" compared to me.

Again, I never said that we had too many xboxes and not enough incubators, you did. In the hypothetical communist world I was discussing, all I did was ask about how they would be distributed.

In fact, the answer is, of course, they wouldn't. Communism makes no allowance for "stuff" such as xboxes or wii's as they are not necessary.

Communism looks to ensure that everyone has the very basics; shelter, food, clothing, basic health care and basic education. But unfortunately people have a very nasty habit of wanting a bit more once the basics have been taken care of. We want to be entertained; to be diverted; to have luxuries. To some people, these are a complete waste, but to normal folk, they are what makes life worth living in the twenty-first century. To go back to only haviong the mean, basic pre-requisites for mere survival is to go back to serfdom. Fine when there was nothing else, but we have seen the promised land and it has 52” LCD TV’s, nice furniture, a good meal at Le Manoir Au Quatre Saisons or an Aston Martin DB9 in it.

BY all means, keep pushing Communism, but if you are only going to give everyone the bare bones of existence, it will be a tough sell. Even the very poorest in the UK have some possessions to entertain them, and if you are going to take those away then I suspect “The Revolution” may well end up spilling more of your blood than that of capitalists.

So okay, Communists do decide to cater for these things. The next question is how? Who will decide who gets what in the entertainment and diversion “stuff”. Who gets to decide who can go for that nice meal? A local commissar or apparatchik I assume will decide, based on who has done enough for society to warrant such a reward.

But then you get into what truly destroys communist systems, internal corruption. If I can somehow bribe the apparatchik, I can get the meal or the Xbox. It’s just more expensive than it would be under capitalism.

It is a fallacy to say that Reagan (PBUH) destroyed the old Soviet Union. The truth is that it was already decaying from the inside as the corruption that was endemic in the massive bureaucracy ate it away like a cancer. All Reagan (PBUH) did was to give a little extra shove at the right time and the whole thing collapsed like a rotten, fetid tumour.

Communism is a fairy-tale, a dream of children. It can never be attained, so don’t bother trying. Make Capitalism work instead as it does work after a fashion and is based on human nature, whereas Communism is structurally unsound because it ignores human nature.

[ 02. January 2013, 20:57: Message edited by: deano ]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Did she actually move to a communist country? It's really easy to be enthusiastic about something happening to somebody else.
Of course, just like all the anarchists move to Somalia and all the anarcho-capitalists move to Bangladesh.
When I was in the Philosophy department at the University of Illinois, there was an "escapee" from Communist Poland who had really colorful words for people who sit in Western countries and exude praise for communism.

And I'm sure folks living here have some choice words for those endorsing free markets and globalisation.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Did she actually move to a communist country? It's really easy to be enthusiastic about something happening to somebody else.
Of course, just like all the anarchists move to Somalia and all the anarcho-capitalists move to Bangladesh.
When I was in the Philosophy department at the University of Illinois, there was an "escapee" from Communist Poland who had really colorful words for people who sit in Western countries and exude praise for communism.
And I'm sure folks living here have some choice words for those endorsing free markets and globalisation.

True. But irrelevant to this discussion.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
True. But irrelevant to this discussion.

My point is that those who get the fuzzy end of any system are going to be unhappy with it. The worst problems of the attempts at communism was the failure of democracy, not the failure of communism, and this was largely because it was imposed, as I mentioned earlier, in countries where it was not appropriate. Communism was a (supposed) description of what would happen in an insdustrialised society with unchecked capitalism, it wasn't intended to be a system imposed on an agrarian society by a revolutionary middle class. We've never seen what happens when a country elects a communist party in a free and fair election, because it hasn't happened yet.

For the record I'm not a communist, by the way. I am in favour of nationalising essential services where markets don't work (paticularly areas where there are large entry costs like utilities and transportation, and where profit is not the prime objective like healthcare and education) and using co-operatives on the Mondragon model for situations where markets can be reasonably effective. I'm in favour of a managed economy, not a command economy or an entirely uncontrolled economy.

Posted by Cedd007 (# 16180) on :

'The Communist Manifesto' (1848) was and still remains a brilliant, readable, document. The spectre of communism forced change on conservative regimes towards the end of the 19th Century, and still provides a rallying point whenever capitalism gets too rampant. As a philosophy that explains a lot of what goes on in the world it remains relevant, for example when politicians start to believe their own propaganda that somehow the market is more important than people. Marx actually gave backing to the biblical statement 'The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof'. However, as a philosophy that tries to explain everything, and as a political philosophy on which to base the running of a country, communism does seem to me to have failed. (Perhaps at the end of the First World War there was a brief moment of opportunity for a world revolution.) Nevertheless I do (seriously) admire those who still manage to keep the faith – to the point that I sometimes wonder whether I'm missing something.

Communist regimes have also tended to insist on spreading their own version of the truth in a systematic way. They also often suppressed information that didn't fit into this vision, although there is an argument that this did not apply to Stalin to the extent one might think, because as a good communist he believed that History would vindicate him, so he allowed state papers to remain untouched in the archives. (In theory this should mean that Soviet history ought to be well-documented.) However,
the extent of China's man-made Great Famine in the 1950's was only discovered when modern census material was examined, and it seems that China is now intent on removing other evidence that it ever happened. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/01/china-great-famine-book-tombstone

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

Well bugger me with a fishfork, I'm in complete agreement with mousethief.

Spooky.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
As far as moral or holding to Christian values, neither Capitolism nor Communism can be either in the real world. Both lead to the control by a few to the detriment of the many. The argument really is to which side of the centre should one lean and how far. But one foot must always be on the centre line.

Galilit,
kibbutz are not communism, they are communes. Massive difference.

That nice Mr Stalin was a patron of many of the kibbutzim in the 1930s; when I was a volunteer I spotted his complete works in the library, and a very embarrassed kibbutznik confessed it. The reality is that Kibbutzim were quite similar in approach to Soviet collective farms - with the mega important difference that people chose to be on them, rather than being forced onto them.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by redunderthebed:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by redunderthebed:
a capitalist lecturing us on terrorism and mass killings and trying to take the moral high ground.
Your point is well illustrated, redunderthe bed, by the incalculable number of ordinary people since 1917 who have risked (and often lost) their lives trying to escape from capitalist countries and get into communist ones.
Talk about missing my point eh?

You were clearly implying one of two things:

1. The old Moral Equivalence Fallacy from the Cold War ie that communist and capitalist countries were Tweedledum and Tweedledee in being just as bad as one another.

2. That capitalist countries were worse than communist countries.

There is not the slightest evidence that what the Internationale calls "the wretched of the earth" believed either of these propositions, displaying as they did a deplorable tendency to "vote with their feet" (Lenin's expression, though apparently in Russian it is "legs") by escaping communist countries and entering capitalist ones - rarely if ever the other way around.

No doubt they were the dupes of that ailment wonderfully described by the old Marxist expression "false consciousness".

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
But unfortunately people have a very nasty habit of wanting a bit more once the basics have been taken care of.

A habit that is fuelled to a gargantuan degree by an advertising industry built around telling people that having the basics taken care of simply isn't good enough to enable you to be happy.

Which is in turn driven by all the people who realise they can make money by selling increasingly pointless goods to people who've been persuaded that if the 'stuff' they have doesn't make them happy and comfortable, this can be solved with more 'stuff'.

This article certainly made me stop and think before Christmas.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
But unfortunately people have a very nasty habit of wanting a bit more once the basics have been taken care of.

It's all in Maslow. All in Maslow. What do they teach them in these schools?

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I've been to North Korea.

I envy you that experience, but do not feel bound to therefore accept your conclusions as any more valid than those of someone who has not been there, not because I doubt your honesty, but because the regime is very adept at producing a "Potemkin village" view of itself for tourists.

quote:
[QB[Totalitarian, definitely, but not all totalitarian regimes are communist.[/QB]

Totalitarianism has become a contested term, because a pure form is impossible in practice, and it is therefore always aspirational and always relative.

quote:
As for whether the lives of North Koreans are worth living, what I saw were ordinary people finding ways to make it so through the bonds of family, friendship, arts, music, sports and games, even under the circumstances. This observation isn't meant to minimize their condition or the brutal nature of the regime, but says a lot about the human spirit. I am not one to write them off like that.

Agree absolutely that North Koreans are not zombies or robots, but the nature of the regime means that the plant of the human spirit, while not obliterated, can be forced into bizarre and distorted shapes.

Since we last discussed books on North Korea, I think Barbara Demick's Nothing To Envy has appeared, with its heartrending accounts of attempts at "normal" romance, family life, health care and careers.

Also Blaine Harden's Escape From Camp 14, with its examination of the attempts by someone who grew up in the camp system to develop "normal" ethics and emotions.

[ 03. January 2013, 03:35: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Communism makes no allowance for "stuff" such as xboxes or wii's as they are not necessary.

too bloody right!

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
We've never seen what happens when a country elects a communist party in a free and fair election, because it hasn't happened yet.

Actually, the Communists were the largest party after the 1946 elections in industrialised Czechoslovakia, and formed a coalition government. They responded by pushing the foreign secretary out of a window and seizing absolute power.

Cyprus currently has a directly elected, Communist president, and the Moldovan Parliament, since the mid-1990s, has consistently returned a Communist majority or plurality.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
A habit that is fuelled to a gargantuan degree by an advertising industry built around telling people that having the basics taken care of simply isn't good enough to enable you to be happy.

Which is in turn driven by all the people who realise they can make money by selling increasingly pointless goods to people who've been persuaded that if the 'stuff' they have doesn't make them happy and comfortable, this can be solved with more 'stuff'.

This article certainly made me stop and think before Christmas.

A good story but not true. Once early people had the basics of survival, they entertained themselves with stories, songs, feasts and so on. They didn’t sit around waiting for the first prehistoric advertising agency to tempt them with happy, wondrous new stories to tell each other.

The desire to entertain and to be more than just “survivors” is innate. We developed ever more sophisticated ways of entertaining ourselves and the advertising industry came along much later to try to persuade us to select one of the multitudes of entertainment choices.

So advertising is caused because of our desire for diversion and luxury rather than driving it.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
A habit that is fuelled to a gargantuan degree by an advertising industry built around telling people that having the basics taken care of simply isn't good enough to enable you to be happy.

Which is in turn driven by all the people who realise they can make money by selling increasingly pointless goods to people who've been persuaded that if the 'stuff' they have doesn't make them happy and comfortable, this can be solved with more 'stuff'.

This article certainly made me stop and think before Christmas.
A good story but not true. Once early people had the basics of survival, they entertained themselves with stories, songs, feasts and so on. They didn’t sit around waiting for the first prehistoric advertising agency to tempt them with happy, wondrous new stories to tell each other.

The desire to entertain and to be more than just “survivors” is innate. We developed ever more sophisticated ways of entertaining ourselves and the advertising industry came along much later to try to persuade us to select one of the multitudes of entertainment choices.

So advertising is caused because of our desire for diversion and luxury rather than driving it.

I said the habit was fuelled, not created. There was a reason for the choice of word.

Posted by Cedd007 (# 16180) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
A habit that is fuelled to a gargantuan degree by an advertising industry built around telling people that having the basics taken care of simply isn't good enough to enable you to be happy.

Which is in turn driven by all the people who realise they can make money by selling increasingly pointless goods to people who've been persuaded that if the 'stuff' they have doesn't make them happy and comfortable, this can be solved with more 'stuff'.

This article certainly made me stop and think before Christmas.
A good story but not true. Once early people had the basics of survival, they entertained themselves with stories, songs, feasts and so on. They didn’t sit around waiting for the first prehistoric advertising agency to tempt them with happy, wondrous new stories to tell each other.

The desire to entertain and to be more than just “survivors” is innate. We developed ever more sophisticated ways of entertaining ourselves and the advertising industry came along much later to try to persuade us to select one of the multitudes of entertainment choices.

So advertising is caused because of our desire for diversion and luxury rather than driving it.
I said the habit was fuelled, not created. There was a reason for the choice of word.

Despite spending 3 years in advertising agencies I could never figure this argument out. Years later, when I saw my first 'My Little Pony' commercial, I let out a heavy resigned sigh - and ten years later my two girls finally agreed to throw out two black bags full of plastic ponies and accessories!

The argument, regarding needs and necessities, and even (with due respect to Marx) perhaps even capitalism or communism, appears to have been going for thousands of years. Stephen Mithen, in his book 'After the Ice', presents two possible interpretations of Oaxaca, the Central American the site of the first domestication of crops. In one scenario the stories and songs are part of a community celebration; in the other one very successful farmer impresses his neighbours with his abundance of squashes and maize, and uses the stories and songs to raise his status.

Oaxaca is now a UNESCO world heritage site. UNESCO once attempted to produce a history of the world, and even the first volume was full of the 'capitalist' version of history – with very large 'communist' footnotes.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
[qb] I've been to North Korea.
I envy you that experience, but do not feel bound to therefore accept your conclusions as any more valid than those of someone who has not been there, not because I doubt your honesty, but because the regime is very adept at producing a "Potemkin village" view of itself for tourists.

No doubt the regime tries to do this, but it's impossible to manage everything people see to that kind of degree over such a large area for the period of time we were there. We saw plenty of poverty and deprivation. A "Potemkin village" may work as a village, but not as an entire country.

quote:
Since we last discussed books on North Korea, I think Barbara Demick's Nothing To Envy has appeared, with its heartrending accounts of attempts at "normal" romance, family life, health care and careers.

Also Blaine Harden's Escape From Camp 14, with its examination of the attempts by someone who grew up in the camp system to develop "normal" ethics and emotions.

No doubt the escape tales give a valid insight into the lives of some North Koreans (and I have read "Nothing to Envy"), but for a complete overview of the country one of the most respected books is Andrei Lankov's "North of the DMZ: Essays on Daily Life in North Korea", which talks about everything from how North Koreans manage to find out news behind the propaganda; to how the movies and arts function, to love, marriage and sex; to how the rationing system, media, transportation systems function.

My original point being that the DPRK is a very poor example of communism. They don't even claim to be on that path anymore.

[ 03. January 2013, 15:28: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
As far as moral or holding to Christian values, neither Capitolism nor Communism can be either in the real world. Both lead to the control by a few to the detriment of the many. The argument really is to which side of the centre should one lean and how far. But one foot must always be on the centre line.

Galilit,
kibbutz are not communism, they are communes. Massive difference.
That nice Mr Stalin was a patron of many of the kibbutzim in the 1930s; when I was a volunteer I spotted his complete works in the library, and a very embarrassed kibbutznik confessed it. The reality is that Kibbutzim were quite similar in approach to Soviet collective farms - with the mega important difference that people chose to be on them, rather than being forced onto them.

In a tangent to a piece criticizing Vaclav Havel, Noam Chomsky reminisces about living on a kibbutz in the 1950s, where the members were so indocttrinated into Stalinism that they even defended the anti-semitic "Doctors Plot" purges.

[ 03. January 2013, 17:08: Message edited by: Stetson ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0