RMB Things Thread

[Shy Guyia (old account)]

Over the last days, the RMB is full of communism and stuff like that. I know that the main people about this have forum accounts, now please talk about stuff like that here

[Coryo]

So,.....discussions on utopia anyone?

[Ardreas]

Aug 21, 2014 16:49:12 GMT -5 Coryo said:

So,.....discussions on utopia anyone?

Alright, since we started this whole discussion by comparing the rise of robotics in the real world to the post-singularity world of Star Wars and how having such an exploitable labor force would effect society, I think it would be prudent to compare Jacobstein's ideals of communism with another well-known fictional setting: The United Federation of Planets in Star Trek.

Planet earth in the 24th century no longer uses currency for economic exchange. Instead all basic needs are provided through technology like replicators, so nobody needs to have a job just to support themselves. Instead they exist as a community focused on improvement. This is a far cry different than the theoretical world of Star Wars where we see rampant poverty and economic domination by the super-rich (such as Viceroy Gunroy of the Trade Federation). So, would you consider future Earth in the Star Trek setting to be an ideal communist society? Wealth is no longer the focus and there appear to be no social classes. Would you say Gene Roddenberry's idea of the future is global communism realized in peace? And if so, would you say such an ideal is possible to achieve?

The Star Trek backstory is one of violence and destruction. The 21st century saw planet earth go through World War 3 before first contact was made and a new era of peace and cooperation could be born. Would a cataclysmic overthrow of current society be necessary in your view to give rise to a new utopia? Or could our current way of life be salvaged from the worst of the storm?

[Jacobstein]

Ardreas,

I could see that being one possible way it could result and yes, the WW3 and such a climatic event as First Contact is possible to cause such a large shift in Human ideology. Heck, you could throw Socialism out the window and jump straight to communism under that system, so long as the Star Trek system helped the vast majority and not an empowered minority.

[Shy Guyia (old account)]

The power of the forums worked! Mwhahahaha

[Ardreas]

The forums have power? Golly, sounds scary!

Jacobstein, I take it you are not as familiar with the Star Trek universe? The concept is very much what you seem to be describing, with a complete lack of emphasis on economics. The ideal is that humanity no longer needs money to function because all their needs are supplied by technology. There are many episodes where the economy is discussed, especially in Deep Space Nine. The question is often raised about what humanity would do if they suddenly lost all their technology and had to fend for themselves again. Are they too dependent on technology to remember how to work? Or is this ideal socialistic society only functional because their needs are all met?

Sci-fi offers some of the most thought-provoking stories for us to consider. It's part of why I like it so much.

[Jacobstein]

Ardreas,

Eh, I am not familiar with Star Trek at all. I watched a little bit of the Next Generation and I always saw people rather than robots working. The engineers, the medical personal, everything. And in the new movies, they haven't had anything robotic doing the work. But, assuming society was like that, any major shift would cause a lot of strife in humanity. Does every time. We would learn again.

[Ardreas]

I don't like the new "reboot" movies. They've messed up the established timeline and changed the old stories I grew up with, not to mention adding all the overdone lensflaring and goofy effects.

As far as labor goes, you're right, it is pretty much people doing the physical work. However, in the Star Trek universe there are no farmers because food is produced through matter-energy replication. There are no transportation workers, no truck drivers, no in-atmosphere pilots, no cab drivers, because transportation is handled through matter-energy transfer (transporters). There are no factory workers or assembly line personnel because goods and materials are replicated using the same matter-energy replication technology.

My point is that in that idealistic world they don't even need robots because technology provides all society's needs and the only people who need to work are the ones assigned to scientific research, schools, and space exploration. Which for me begs the question, what would people be motivated to do if everything was provided for them? Would they really seek out ways to improve themselves and keep making life better for the species, or would they become selfish and lazy when there no longer is a need to work to support themselves. Hunger has always been a driving motivation for humanity. It makes us go out and work even if we otherwise wouldn't want to. But in an idealized society where everything is plentiful, would people really still try to better themselves? Or would they sit back and take it easy, no longer motivated to do anything?

[Jacobstein]

Ardreas,
That is an interesting question and is largely dependent on how we got to that society. If by war and revolution, I think the people would be willing to work for whatever wanted. Innovation would still be there for better robots and what not. Plus, a large part of the society is that if you don't contribute but are able to do so, then why should you receive the benefits of the society? So hunger would still bean issue for the lazy, but not for the worker.

I agree on the movies. I watched a few of the original Star Treks last night and it has a much different start up than the dad being killed.

[Ardreas]

Jacobstein, if you are interested in a good induction to Star Trek, I would personally recommend Deep Space Nine. It is unique among all of Star Trek because it is set on a space station along the frontier in deep space. It focuses a LOT more on politics and economics than any of the other series. It deals with controversial things like government corruption, clash of civil and religious rights, war, and the struggle between capitalism and socialism. The characters are deep and very well developed (as the seasons progress), and it's just in my opinion the best of all the series. There is so much there, it's hard to put into a single paragraph. I could talk about DS9 all day.

It's on Netflix, if you have that. Otherwise I'm sure you could find it easily enough somewhere else. And don't worry about needing a lot of backstory. They tell you most of what you need to know. And if you're at all familiar with The Next Generation, you'll probably be able to fill in the holes easy enough.

[Jacobstein]

Ardreas,

I'll remember to look it up.

[Indorphinea]

Jacobstein, if you still want to write something about the so called "communist states" of for example Cuba, or the USSR and why they arent and have never been truly communist or even socialist, I would really love it. It's really interesting!

[Jacobstein]

Sept 13, 2014 11:19:46 GMT -5 Indorphinea said:

Jacobstein, if you still want to write something about the so called "communist states" of for example Cuba, or the USSR and why they arent and have never been truly communist or even socialist, I would really love it. It's really interesting!

Indorphinea, I will most certainly try! School, work, and illness is kicking my ass at the moment. 

[Shy Guy]

Start posting more, soon i will get the reward for creating a thread with 10 pages

[Jacobstein]

Indorphinea,

Now that I have stayed up all night long watching House of Cards (recommend that show to ANYONE who enjoys cold, calculated moves), I will type this up.

The USSR is most accurately described by Orlando Figes in one phrase: A People's Tragedy, which is the title to a very good book which he authored on the Russian, or Bolshevik, Revolution led by Vladimir Lenin in its late stages. It is called A People's Tragedy because it was a noble torch to carry whose flame drew many, but what doomed to fail in Russia because of the conditions of the revolution, the working class, and the massive revisions made by Lenin to Marxism, whose definition of socialism in its libertarian form is the only one I will follow if a Socialist stage is necessary, which it probably will be. There were many factors affecting the rise of Lenin's socialism in Russia and its consequential degradation into Stalinist, which further revised both Marx and Lenin until both were so utterly unrecognizable that it was nothing but an authoritarian mess of State Capitalism. How, though, did Stalinism (Marxist-Leninism) become the name of the game in Russia and how did it differ from Communism and libertarian Socialism? And, most importantly, how did Marxism-Leninism (a phrase termed by Stalin himself) become so popular throughout so many revolutions and so called "communist nations" (an oxymoron in itself)? The answer to that can be found in Stalin's treachery, the actual nature of Communism, and the USSR's global influence during its Height in the Cold War.

Before I get started, I will define Socialism and Communism

Socialism: Socialism is a political and economic theory that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. Whether this be done by the workers themselves or by the state is all the difference in the world.

Communism: Communism is a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society (through socialism) in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities or needs. It has no states, class, or currency.

If you have questions about the nature and operation of Communism, I will gladly answer that after we get this ironed out as to why these horrible, authoritative states were not Communist or Marxist in any way.

Differences between Marxism and Marxism-Leninism

At the beginning of the Russian Revolution, Lenin became renowned for his extreme socialist views and his "with me or against me" attitude. He was cruel, calculative, and passionate. He inspired those who agreed with him and angered those who differed from him in the slightest- most notably the Marxists. You see, Marx had proclaimed that the real and successful Socialist Revolutions would come from developed countries by the proletariat. By allowing it to be done by the proletariat (working class), it would nearly immediately abolish the class system and whatever government installed afterwards would be the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" which Marx talks about and is constantly misunderstood to mean that Stalinist was just doing what Marx wanted when in reality, Marx meant that the proletariat would now be dictating and controlling the government. The new state would be a state run and controlled by the vast majority, the workers. Using the apparatus of the state, Marx said, the workers would then continue to Collectivize and establish worker control of the workplaces by worker democracy, which would decentralize the economy and keep the power of the state low. Healthcare and education, of course, would be administered by the worker's state, but would also be controlled by the workers after the healthcare and education sectors could be placed under staff control again using workplace democracy with the "state," which had now lost its political nature due to the collapse of the class system, making wide ranging decisions authorized by referendum. If you wish to have more information on how the state would lose its political structure, save it for after this.

Lenin, on the other hand, did not see the need for a popular revolution. He saw the need for a Revolutionary Elite to lead the revolution in order to create a Socialist government. This was DIRECTLY in conflict with Marx's views as this formed classes WITHIN the revolution, thus fortifying the political nature of the state and the old class system, which was exactly opposite of the entire goal of the revolution! Thanks to this and the fact that Russia was still in its feudal era and that it was most certainly not ready for this forced action, the reforms following the revolution never happened. Instead, Lenin went two steps backward! He established State Capitalism, or a state regulated economy without profit for anyone but the state! Of course, it was meant to be redistributed in the form of healthcare and education, but most of it actually went to pay for the growing military that his general Leon Trotsky was establishing! It was under these extremely horrible conditions of Revolution that Lenin established the USSR and it was these conditions in which he left the country upon his death. Under his belt lay the Red Terror, a destroyed country, and a revolution that, by his death, he knew was going awry. It was in these conditions in which he told Trotsky to not trust Stalin, but it was too late. As soon as Lenin died, Stalin, Lenin's oldest friend in the revolution, betrayed everything he had stood for. Upon seizing power, Stalin exiled Trotsky and killed what remained of the Marxists in the Kremlin. He continued to revise his predecessor until the the original version was lost to all but nationalism and the new version stood more authoritarian than Marx or Lenin, who held less power than that of the President of the United States has now, could have ever dreamed. It was here that the death of the revolution was made official and no symbol or revival could shake the Marxist-Leninist grasp of Communism until close to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

In this massive article thus far, I have, with nice wording and description, laid out the differences between Stalinism. However, I will throw that into bullet points to make sure the differences in just the revolution alone!

Marx:

• Revolution of the proletariat to eliminate class system
• Dictatorship of the Proletariat (worker controlled government
• Worker Control of the work Places by workplace democracy
• Staff control of Education and Healthcare with referendum decided descisions
• Eventual disolvment of "state" to council role, playing only
  as a debate forum that makes suggested rather than compulsory decisions.

Lenin:

• Elite led revolution in undeveloped country
• Elite control of government by use of political parties such as the Vanguard
• Establishment of Capitalism with no worker control
• Creation of Military elite
• Omnipresent government controlled by class system with no chance of ever disolving

These are but a few of the differences between the two ideologies, but Stalin made Lenin's even more authoritarian and military centered. Now, we both know that the USSR was one of the only two superpowers from 1945-1989. But how did it affect the revolutions of China, North Korea, and Cuba? The answer is simple and that is with its powerful influence and armies. I'll give a light review of each revolution and the influence the USSR had on them. As a quick reminder, I would like to note that NO SOCIALIST COUNTRY IS COMMUNIST because Communism has No state. Communism has never been tried on a large scale, though state socialism (Leninism or Stalinism) has and it sucks, obviously.

China:

China's Communist Party was centered around a very war styled revolution which was again not supported by all the people. Mao, the leader of the party which was based out of Manchuria (where my nation is placed in the 2030's). During and after World War Two, the Communist Party was backed heavily by the USSR and it adopted many of its ideas. Thanks to this support and tactical fighting during World War Two which left most of the Japanese fighting to the Nationalists, Mao was able to win the war for China and chase the Nationalists to Taiwan, which the United States currently supports. Though his ideals are often reffered to by Maoism, it differed little from Stalinism except that it gave the Proletariat more power than Stalinism did. The main reason it failed and famines became rampant was because of Mao's incompetent leadership and application of the 5 Year Plans which, while successful in industrializing Russia, failed to do anything but starve millions of Chinese people to death.

North Korea:

North Korea was another extension of Maoism with many of the same failures, but was created with extensive backing from both China and the USSR. It stands to day as a "democratic" and "communist" government, both of which are completely untrue.

Cuba:

The Cuban Revolution was one that started out very Marxist in terms of the role of the government and how the workplaces should be worker controlled, but it too started off on the wrong foot when it created an elite class to lead the revolution consisting of Castro and Che Guevara. Thanks to this, eventual Russian support and the authoritarian government that was installed as well as proximity to the United States pushed Castro to become more Soviet. While his Socialist government is doing the best it can under the heavy embargoes and sanctions, it is the only standing version of State Capitalism left and is attempting to do everything it promised, but is having difficulty thanks to its slow economy. Though it is not communist and is not the type of government I would support, it is existent and persistent despite Capitalist attempts to break it down.

Conclusion:

So we see now how none of these countries are really socialist by Marxist terms, but more of a state Capitalism. This was made possible by the corruption of Marx's words by Lenin, and further destroyed by Stalin and Mao. While there are a few small scale examples of Marxism working as far as it can in today's market dominated world, nothing but this crappy version of Socialism has been tried. Communism, of course, is not an ideology that could describe any of these countries simply because they had class, government, and a market.


If you have any questions, just ask. It is five in the morning and I may have missed a few things or not explained them correctly.

[Indorphinea]

Jacobstein, did Marx not write that it was in the most developed country that the revolution would begin, for example in Germany as it was the top industrial power at the time? That you couldn't jump from Feudalism directly into communism. He insisted that a country must go through the entire capitalist phase and reach full capitalist development before communism is even possible.
From what I've read, wasn't Lenin's basic idea to hold out for the *real* revolution when it hit Germany?

Or is this just a load of bollocks? Was it ever Lenin's intention to establish a truly communistic state? Can this question even be answered?

[Jacobstein]

Sept 14, 2014 5:16:46 GMT -5 Indorphinea said:

Jacobstein, did Marx not write that it was in the most developed country that the revolution would begin, for example in Germany as it was the top industrial power at the time? That you couldn't jump from Feudalism directly into communism. He insisted that a country must go through the entire capitalist phase and reach full capitalist development before communism is even possible.
From what I've read, wasn't Lenin's basic idea to hold out for the *real* revolution when it hit Germany?

Or is this just a load of bollocks? Was it ever Lenin's intention to establish a truly communistic state? Can this question even be answered?    

While Marx did say that, he never meant for a revolution to be class led in any way. Like I said before, Lenin did it when the country was still in the feudal age using revolutionary philosophy that presupposed the existence of the Bourgeoisie, or the Capitalist class. However, as Marinaleda, Spain or the collectively owned and run factories in Argentina proved, the socialist phase can be established without the widespread use of industry. Marinaleda is a successful socialist town in Catalonia, Spain that has collectivized its farms and used collectivization to industrialize the town, building their own food plants to process and sell food to the rest of Spain. In Argentina, a group of workers on the fringe took the factories over and now they are working well. I tend to disagree with Marx in regards to that "developed country" part because Communism is possible no matter where you are so long as the people take direct control of the Means of Production. I see no need for them to be industrialized before the Communist revolution can be accomplished. The reason he said that, I think, was because he still had influence from an old philosophical mentor of his that said that certain things in history are inevitable. Based on that, he was convinced that only Capitalism could bring workers to the edge so that they would do things like take over factories or revolt and that it was impossible to do otherwise. However, Marxist Socialism can be established in any number of ways. Through reform like Guatamala attempted to do before the CIA on behest of the United Fruit Company overthrew that government and ignited a 30 year civil war, or through violent revolution similar to taking over factories or what Russia attempted to do had it followed Marxist rather than Leninist principles.

What I mean by conditions with Lenin is that he didn't have the total popular revolution guiding itself. Instead, he created a class led revolution which destroyed the idea of any socialist revolution. If he was going to nationalize all the means of production like he did, he should have aimed for a classless way to industrialize Russia. It is because of the classes that he failed. Any society should be able to make the change so long as it is a people's revolution and not a Leninist revolution with classes.

If you can't tell, I'm not a strict Marxist or anything like that. I am one of those "whatever works and is led by the people" kinda guys.

[Shy Guy]

Jacobstein,

North Korea is NOT communism, they are Juche, It's evolved edition of Marxism-leninism.

[The Imperial Republica]

I'm gonna derail this conversation...who wants to talk about tacos?

[Jacobstein]

Shy Guyia (old account), I know. Where did I say it was?

[Shy Guy]

Sept 22, 2014 13:57:18 GMT -5 Jacobstein said:

Shy Guyia (old account), I know. Where did I say it was?

Don't tag my old account,
Juche Wikipedia here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche