Forums → WEPR → Communism

I agree with Moe(wow, I didn't think that could happen...).

There are many more reasons to start a war(really? an all-out war?) than how much money you make.

if u look at the book of Acts in the Bible the first apostles were Communist, they sold all they had then divided it equally among the Church so that everyone would have the same money, food, etc. Because basically Communism is sharing. I personally am Communist and as Fidel Castro said, "I never saw a contradiction between the ideas that sustain me and the ideas of that symbol, of that extraordinary figure, Jesus Christ.

Moe, you've got a pretty warped sense of class. In the working class, people (miners, workers on oil rigs etc) may earn more than those in the middle class (small shopkeepers etc), so basing it simply on how much you earn is fundamentally flawed. What defines class is your relation to production.

Even though workers may earn a lot of money, what defines them is that they produce and labour to create things, and yet under capitalism they do not have control of the products of their labour or how much they work or over any control over the means of production. Through this interpretation, you can see that teachers and nurses fall into this category because while they do not directly produce, their labour contributes to the continuation of production of labour, and they still don't have any control over the hours they work, how much they are paid etc.

This is counterposed with the parasitic ruling class or bourgeoisie, who own and control the means of production (factories, mines, oil rigs, fishing fleets etc)and yet do not actually produce anything. Their wealth is obtained from the surplus value created off the labour of people who work for them.

Inbetween lies the middle class or the petit-bourgeoisie, who may have some control of production and may employ people below them, and have some degree of control over how much they work, but they also labour to produce. Think small shop owners, doctors with their own practices etc. This is a much clearer definition of class and the true Marxist understanding of class, not the distorted view posed above.

Now, it flows from this that communism and socialism strive for a society where the working class, those that create all the wealth in society, actually control the means of production and not the capitalist ruling class. And so the fruits of labour are their own and not created for profit on 'the market', which is unplanned chaotic and prone to crises like we see at the moment, but rather production is to meet human need. For the first time in history civilisation has the means to feed everyone in the world, but under capitalism people starve not because there isn't enough, but because it wouldn't be profitable to feed them. Food is often dumped because there's been an overproduction, and flooding the market would lower prices and hence profits, so this is dumped at the expense of those who need it but can't afford it. Same with AIDS drugs and technology that can actually better peoples' lives. Its all geared towards profit rather than helpping people, which is pretty ****ed up if you ask me. Fingers crossed this settled the argument on class, but if not, read the damn thing again

And it follows through also that under a class analysis, you do have more in common with those of your class than those who are the same race, nationality, religion or gender as you. It's not the crude 'aycheck' definition that Moe put so bluntly, but its your relationship to production. Time and again through history class struggle has played out. think Spartacus and the slave revolts of the Roman empire, think the endless peasant rebellions against landlords under feudalism. Funnily enough, the peasantry as a class is not the same as the working class, and for them to have a successful overthrow of the existing order, their class needs to be united behind another class. in the French revolution they were led by the rising artisans and merchants, the future Bourgeoisie, against the French monarchy, whereas in Russia they were united behind the working class against the Tsar and the bourgeoisie. Fascism as well is a class struggle of middle-class, petit-bourgeoisie, with the aide of the lumpenproletariat, the unemployed, against the existing bourgoeisie, to become the next ruling class. The American war of independence was a class war between aspiring rulers in america clashing with the british monarchy and fighting for their rule to go unmolested and unhindered in America. Civil war, too, is a class war, such as in Russia after the revolution, where the old monarchists, landlords and bourgeoisie fought the victors of the revolution, the workers and peasantry.

Today we see imperialism in opeation with America, the world's superpower, fighting for a foothold in the middle east and their oil. Control of the oil is not primarily for American consumption but rather the major importers of Iraqi oil are the EU and China, potential rivals to US hegemony. The middle east is important for America not because of its intrinsic value, but rather it is strategically located beside China, rising rival, Russia, former rival and possible ally to China if things get heated, and in missile range of the EU which is also posing an independent rival. This is the world seen through the eyes of the American rulers, but they require facades and ideologies to get public opinion on their side. Think WMDs for Iraq, and the Taliban for Afghanistan. Yet through years of occupation and the complete absence of WMDs in Iraq as well as the reality of the situation in Afghanistan has turned public opinion rightly against these wars. They are not waged in the interests of ordinary people (actually it is ordinary people getting slaughtered in these places, and it is ordinary people paying for it through taxes in America... $3 trillion dollars here yet no universal health care?) but rather they are waged in the interests of the rulers in America

Yeah, you're right. I was operating from a capitalist definition of class rather than the communist definition - my apologies, and thanks for pointing out my error. I do still think that my initial objections hold despite this error, and perhaps even moreso given these new definitions of class.
I am thinking about what I might have in common with others in my class. If this is really systematic class oppression that the class-consciousness developed from, then I should conceivably have a great deal in common with my class constituents. Now, I have belonged to the working class and now am a proud member of the petit-bourgeoisie, however I am quite sure that I have more in common with a certain personality type rather than just some random member of my class. Since these classes seem to exist throughout any capitalist country, do I have this much in common with a German or Australian business owner? I should think not! There are driving motivations behind individuals based on many factors beside the kind of work that they do.

Time and again through history class struggle has played out.

All i know is that back in the day marx himself beleived that once the class system falls, there will be no more struggle. This may or may not be true in todays era. Anyways this is why he created the Communist government, because everyone would be equal and there would be no wars. It is a brilliant, if not phenominal idea. But it got put to waste when stalin misinterpreted it and decided to make all the citizens have next to nothing and he himself have a sh't load of the money the government made. Good idea laid to waste is all i gotta say about communism.

@Moe,

The interests of a class are not that of personal matters such as hobbies. They are rather of the economic sense, interests that of which are relative to your production.

The feudal lords for example had the interests of getting as much as possible out of their serfs, wanted to get as much land and as many serfs. The serfs on the other hand, were a class, which produced everything. They shared the interests of who wanted to keep more of what they produced instead of giving it to their lords and stop the harsh treatment towards them.

These class interests are completely contradictory which produces the ongoing class struggle. On a smaller scale, there were many revolutions. Some times, serfs would join together as an army. Such as that of the revolt took place in England in 1381.

Meantime, the new capitalist class emerged as freed serfs and others lived out of the feudal system. Here, there were the merchants who were able to pay wages to people who worked for them. Their interests came into contact with that of the lords and kings as they would tax them. This class struggle again lead to revolutions.

Class interest is perhaps the fundamental difference between the Marxist viewpoint and that of potatoes and alcohol. It is the factor of which leads to revolutions.

However we seem to miss the point of view for the little guy.
communism is ment to give the lowest possible classes a chance to be equal to all other individuals becuase of the well-known fact that all men, women and children are created equal.
A man who owns a large and successful buisness and begins to see him self as more than equal to anyone else. But for the the man who is no more successful than a

serf

Communist, that point can definitely be argued, but its not something Marx kept in mind.

He actually recognized that we are not all the same. Some are born better then others. In a more detailed view, I believe he saw humans the same way he looked at every thing else, scientifically. He believed that everything was a product of material conditions, as well a human's intelligence.

communism is ment to give the lowest possible classes a chance to be equal to all other individuals

The feudal lords for example had the interests of getting as much as possible out of their serfs, wanted to get as much land and as many serfs. The serfs on the other hand, were a class, which produced everything. They shared the interests of who wanted to keep more of what they produced instead of giving it to their lords and stop the harsh treatment towards the

Most &quoteasant class" people simply wanted to have enough food and worship their particular god(s). Now, once you start messing around with things like that, then people can get pretty mean.

This is supposed to be about some sort of conscious systematic oppression of a lower class by a higher class, but there is absolutely no evidence that this occurred consciously. In fact, oppression and manipulation are simply perceived by those who are looking for these motivations, when in reality they are most likely not there.

Most &quoteasant class" people simply wanted to have enough food and worship their particular god(s). Now, once you start messing around with things like that, then people can get pretty mean.
Can't this be viewed as the class interest?

Explain please.

I am saying that they didn't share these interests and it's likely that very few even considered such motivations.

All I'm saying is that when you look for evidence for a particular thing, you can find it - but that's no way to support a thesis. Looking for "class conflict" throughout history is the wrong way to verify said thesis - and ignores many many other circumstances.

A communist state would steadly erase the need for a government, if you can make everyone put in an honost days work with out haveing to pay them, then you have a working communist sociaty.
For example, during the Ice Age there were small tribes, each armed with its own set of hunters for food and protection. There was no form of currency at the time yet they managed to stay alvie with no money being the motivator, and they recieved food and shelter in accordance to need, not to greed.
And during those days, there were no huge "wooly mammoth" companys. Everyone took what they needed. And no one ( unless their culture got in the way ) was above or below one another.
Everyone simply helped each other to survive hence the term communism

Yeah but they were in small groups...As people expanded and some had what others didn't they started to barter

When bartering became useless they created money..

But communism has nothing to do with small tribes..They actually usually had a king/king who would rule over them..

And anyways Communism stands for the forced bringing of state ownership,Takes all farms into state ownership,Doesn't let a man become rich,Very strict censorship of media and the such..And actually does not make middle-classed/unemployed any wealthier because they would still get paid very poorly.
Also Communism does not give any power to the middle aged people

Nobody except those in power ever enjoys Communism..It doesn't work because of its aggressiveness and state ownership