Col,

I see little point in continuing any discussion with you because, at some point in a debate, there should be agreement on certain points, otherwise the discussion will continue at cross-purposes.

In this particular discussion I consider that a fundamental issue is the definition of “communism”. Marxist theory conceives of communism as an international (or probably more precisely a world community in which there are no nations), classless society in which the state has withered away i.e. there is no state. From this conception it follows that there has never been a communist state. It seems reasonable that, if we are going to be discussing the consequences of “Marxism”, then we ought to be using Marx’s conception of socialism and communism.

You however, persist in referring to certain past or existing states or regimes as “communist”. You are using a different definition to the Marxist conception. It is impossible to go on unless we recognize this difference and come to an agreement about what we are actually talking about.

Further, Marxist theory does not lump all states, or revolutions, in the same basket. It analyses the social composition of each, its internal contradictions and antagonisms, and its relation to other states and the global economy. It also doesn’t use static definitions, but analyses the various stages and aspects of phenomena.

..cont...

For example (a little simplistically), the Russian Revolution was a socialist revolution because the working class took power i.e. the Boleshviks’ social support was the working class. However, the Chinese Revolution was not a socialist revolution because Mao’s social support was the peasantry, in fact thousands of the working class were slaughtered. The Cuban Revolution was not a socialist revolution because Castro’s social support was the petty bourgeoisie – Marxists consider Castro a petty-bourgeois nationalist. And none of the resulting states can be considered a “communist state”.

Marxist theory is above all a scientific method of analysis and a guide to action. In a scientific discussion, if the molecular formula of water is H2O, confusion will ensue if someone believes that the composition of water is H2O2 (which is actually hydrogen peroxide – or bleach). And in practice, there will be a remarkably different result if you apply H2O to your hair, or H2O2. It is important that we know the difference.

So as you can see (I hope), unless we can come to some agreement on some basic issues, further discussion is futile.

If you would like to continue this discussion then please begin by suggesting how we might come to some agreement.

Happy New Year.

Tao “You are using a different definition to the Marxist conception.”

I believe you are referring to some textbook definition.

I am working on an understanding of what actually happens (interpretation of actual events).

It is like the bumble bee, theory is the size of bumble bee's wing is insufficient to generate lift to allow it to fly.

Yet, bumble bees fly.

In the context of collectivism, communism, socialism, fascism and most other theories for organizing mankind into the most efficient form; the success of the theory : practice to the bumble bee is opposite.

The theory says it works.

The practice is, it does not, except, sometimes, in small groups where all participants are close to one another and bound by more than geographic proximity.

“You however, persist in referring to certain past or existing states or regimes as “communist”.”

I am describing those states known as “communist” as those who claimed, in practice, to be “communist”.

I describe those states who are basically capitalist (free and private ownership of property and means of production) as capitalist.

“Marxist theory is above all a scientific method of analysis and a guide to action.”

There in lies the problem.

Your Marxist theories ignore the “Art of Man”.

Science is “logic”, “reason” and based on “proven” testing and observation.

“Communism” is result of testing and observation of “Marxist theory”.

Mankind is more than logic, reason and the result of tests. He is subjective, artistic and contrary. He is less motivated by reason than he is by emotion.

Mozart will always inspire more folk than Marx.

“Marxism” is a fatally flawed theory which presumes to simplify and qualify the “chaos of the inventive / creative mind” in attempt to harness its energy.

An analogy: generate electricity from a lightning bolt.

It only works if you know where and when the next lightning bolt will occur and have some method to store the resultant energy resource, for later practical use.

Capitalism allows for any individual to risk his own resources in speculating where the bolt will strike and benefit from its collection.
Continued

Capitalism is an intuitive social system. Everyone responds individually to their perceived circumstances. They decide, as individuals, which choices to make and which paths to take.

Some will succeed and others will fail.

Some will benefit from inherited material wealth, most of us will not.

Some will grow wealthy and others will not.

BUT

Because everyone is dealing with their own decisions and not decisions imposed upon them, even those who fail can gain personal growth through the trial and error of their own choices.

Ultimately, we are here to fulfill our individually definitions for the “pursuit of happiness”.
Marxism cannot define what someone’s “happiness” is.
Capitalism does not attempt to bother.

Capitalism recognizes that sometimes rules need to be adopted and enforced, example, rules against lying and cheating and rules (capitalist example Enron) against abuse of power (capitalist example Standard Oil (Esso)).

Capitalism recognizes that to curb the excesses of too much power, government needs to be a regulator.

Communism (the practical result of Marxist theories), demands the concentration of all power in the one authority. The same corruption which produced Enron and Esso is hidden from public scrutiny because the corrupt State also controls the media and all means of communication.

So tao, “If you would like to continue this discussion then please begin by suggesting how we might come to some agreement.”

I am happy to defend theoretical and practical Capitalism and recognize the consequences of its shortcomings (disproportionate wealth, need for intervention against Monopolistic power and the Enrons / HIH / FIA etc).

I suggest you stop cherry picking and trying to distance the theories of Marxism from the negative outcomes of Marxism in practice.

I am an accountant. Reason and logic are my stock in trade but I know that an ounce of emotion will weigh heavier than a tonne of reasons

All human advancement has been achieved by individuals with an emotional investment in their success (Edison and the light bulb etc), regardless of the logic and reasoning of the "emotionally uninvolved", who would have given up or not bothered.

The energy and benefits of that emotional investment is completely lost in societies ordered by Marxist theories.

The energy and benefits of that emotional investment is rewarded in a capitalist system.

And the greater overall benefits derived form those inventive souls is either lost (communism) or shared through commerce (capitalism).

Sharing, disproportionately, the benefits

is better than sharing nothing, equally.

That said, this OLO gives you choice to continue or retire. I choose to continue, you can do as you wish.

I too wish you all success in 2007 for every aspect of your personal life (but not in your aspirations for social order :) ).

Col,

“Tao “You are using a different definition to the Marxist conception.”

I believe you are referring to some textbook definition.

I am working on an understanding of what actually happens (interpretation of actual events).”

The central question is – do you acknowledge that the USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea, etc. do not accord with Marx’s conception of communism? It is not difficult for you to find out what he and other Marxists believed communism would be like – here are a few examples http://marxists.anu.edu.au/glossary/terms/c/o.htm#communism

I am not asking for your understanding of what “communism” means, or Margaret Thatcher’s understanding of what it means, or even Stalin’s understanding of what it means.

I am asking whether you can agree that Marx’s and the Marxist conception of communism IS NOT REFLECTED in the Stalinist form of the USSR etc.

A simple question really, one which a person of your obvious intelligence should have no problem with.