The question of the day in commie class

[The Mad Hatter]

We're going through Marx's early years in my Marxist history class, and we've reached the point where he converted from liberal idealism to communism. The prof says it's because of his belief in radical democracy, not just the "vote every four years" kind we have but a more direct participatory role. His question for next week was "if you have rule of the majority, how can the majority rule the economy if they don't own it?" In other words, it's not a democracy if it's only political, it should also encompass direct economic democracy. That's supposedly where liberal democracy fails, since our economic lives are still dominated by an elite class.

[Tareeq]

How does your prof avoid the thought control and mass slaughter that traditionally come with collective property rights on a large scale? Has he gotten to that point yet? Or does he care?

This isn't meant to bait. I know there are communists out there who take the same view of Gulag that David Irving takes of the Holocaust. It didn't happen. Others still think it was exaggerated, justified, or only a bit excessive.

If he does care, how does he solve the problem for his theoretical communism?

[The Mad Hatter]

How does your prof avoid the thought control and mass slaughter that traditionally come with collective property rights on a large scale? Has he gotten to that point yet? Or does he care?

This isn't meant to bait. I know there are communists out there who take the same view of Gulag that David Irving takes of the Holocaust. It didn't happen. Others still think it was exaggerated, justified, or only a bit excessive.

If he does care, how does he solve the problem for his theoretical communism?

I think he sees the Soviet Union as a debasement of the ideals behind Marxism, at least post-Lenin. He's a Marxist in that laid back Canadian style, which doesn't go beyond passing out leaflets and the occasional protest on Parliament Hill. He's not dogmatic about it though, which makes it an interesting class. Some of his commentary on current events is pretty funny (I'm sure you can guess some of his opinions).

We won't be going past Lenin's pre-revolutionary writings, which neatly avoids the issue of what happened after 1917.

[Grifman]

We're going through Marx's early years in my Marxist history class, and we've reached the point where he converted from liberal idealism to communism. The prof says it's because of his belief in radical democracy, not just the "vote every four years" kind we have but a more direct participatory role. His question for next week was "if you have rule of the majority, how can the majority rule the economy if they don't own it?" In other words, it's not a democracy if it's only political, it should also encompass direct economic democracy. That's supposedly where liberal democracy fails, since our economic lives are still dominated by an elite class.

1) Define economic democracy - I'm not clear on what that term really means. And if defined, how would we "own" it. And how would that really change anything. Wouldn't you end up changing one set of elites for another - those that would end up managing the economy for us?

2) Who says the economy should be ruled by democracy? We're talking a political system, not an economic system.

3) You can also say they vote everyday in the market place, when they decide what products/services to buy or not to buy.

4) Why stop at economics? Our education system is still ruled by an elite class - the education profession. We need educational democracy. Sports are ruled by an elite class - owners and players. We need athletic democracy. Entertainment is ruled by an elite class - and so on. I am afraid you've just started down the path of so watering down the term "democracy" that it has no meaning.

Grifman

[gorky1]

I think democracy has to guide economy by laws, not directly control it. Like you'd fence in a play-ground. Unions are a good thing too, if their strength's balanced against the owner's.

[The Mad Hatter]

1) Define economic democracy - I'm not clear on what that term really means. And if defined, how would we "own" it. And how would that really change anything. Wouldn't you end up changing one set of elites for another - those that would end up managing the economy for us?

2) Who says the economy should be ruled by democracy? We're talking a political system, not an economic system.

3) You can also say they vote everyday in the market place, when they decide what products/services to buy or not to buy.

4) Why stop at economics? Our education system is still ruled by an elite class - the education profession. We need educational democracy. Sports are ruled by an elite class - owners and players. We need athletic democracy. Entertainment is ruled by an elite class - and so on. I am afraid you've just started down the path of so watering down the term "democracy" that it has no meaning.

Grifman

I believe his answer would be that the separation between political and economic systems is bogus. As long as the means of production remained in the hands of an elite, there would be no freedom regardless how democratic the political process seemed to be. That's the origin of the contempt Marxists have for social democrats - they see them as perpetuators of the system, giving workers just enough to keep them from seizing control. They might be able to vote, they might have some rights regarding hours of work and pensions, but ultimately they're still held down. Only direct control of production can free them.

[Eduardo X]

Define economic democracy.
This is quite simple: an economy by the people for the people.

In this country, where for people democracy=capitalism, I think this flies above people's heads. Perhaps that is a bit elitest: I think people don't believe in democracy.
Democracy means trying as hard as possible for a definate equality in which everybody's voice is heard and is important. If rich people have more of a say, as they do in this country, then it can't be democratic. The same goes for gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, and so on.
In a society where any type of person is viewed as less than, or is subconciously placed at a lesser-than situation, there can be no democracy.

Unless, of course, you define democracy as rich white straight able-bodied men representing the rest of the country, with a disposition toward aiding corporations who fund their campaigns.

[Dirt]

Communism is for ants.

[Eduardo X]

Communism is for ants.

What about democracy? Who's that for?

[Dirt]

Political extremists who can expouse their views without losing their heads.

[Eduardo X]

Political extremists who can expouse their views without losing their heads.

So what are you for?

[khomotso]

This isn't meant to bait. I know there are communists out there who take the same view of Gulag that David Irving takes of the Holocaust. It didn't happen. Others still think it was exaggerated, justified, or only a bit excessive.

I don't know a single Marxist (yes, I know more than one) who doesn't revile the Soviet experiment. They favor the sort of Marxism advanced by the the western splinter, especially Gramsci in Italy.

[jblank]

Political extremists who can expouse their views without losing their heads.

Man Dirt, that was a damn good comeback. Very well said!!!

[Grifman]

I believe his answer would be that the separation between political and economic systems is bogus. As long as the means of production remained in the hands of an elite, there would be no freedom regardless how democratic the political process seemed to be. That's the origin of the contempt Marxists have for social democrats - they see them as perpetuators of the system, giving workers just enough to keep them from seizing control. They might be able to vote, they might have some rights regarding hours of work and pensions, but ultimately they're still held down. Only direct control of production can free them.

Define "direct control". I don't think that is possible. In the end, the people would have another elite responsible for running the economy, and I don't think experience shows us that this is any better than some other elite running it.

Grifman

[Eduardo X]

I believe his answer would be that the separation between political and economic systems is bogus. As long as the means of production remained in the hands of an elite, there would be no freedom regardless how democratic the political process seemed to be. That's the origin of the contempt Marxists have for social democrats - they see them as perpetuators of the system, giving workers just enough to keep them from seizing control. They might be able to vote, they might have some rights regarding hours of work and pensions, but ultimately they're still held down. Only direct control of production can free them.

Define "direct control". I don't think that is possible. In the end, the people would have another elite responsible for running the economy, and I don't think experience shows us that this is any better than some other elite running it.

Grifman

Experience when?

[Grifman]

I believe his answer would be that the separation between political and economic systems is bogus. As long as the means of production remained in the hands of an elite, there would be no freedom regardless how democratic the political process seemed to be. That's the origin of the contempt Marxists have for social democrats - they see them as perpetuators of the system, giving workers just enough to keep them from seizing control. They might be able to vote, they might have some rights regarding hours of work and pensions, but ultimately they're still held down. Only direct control of production can free them.

Define "direct control". I don't think that is possible. In the end, the people would have another elite responsible for running the economy, and I don't think experience shows us that this is any better than some other elite running it.

Grifman

Experience when?

Every communist country where a priviledged elite ruled in the name of the people.

Grifman

[jimmyPx]

Hi Mad Hatter,

First of all, I'm a GoneGold refugee (didn't post alot) amd this place already feels "homey"

To give you some food for thought, always remember that Marxists (and especially Marxist historians) all truly believe that all motivation and conflict is based on economics.

While it can be said that many conflicts (if not most) have some economic componant, not ALL do. In addition, the economics is a part, but not the whole of the conflict.

A good example would be the American Civil War. While it indeed had some economic componant (an industrial North vs an agrarian South), there were ALSO issues such as State vs Federal Power, the morality of Slavery, the preservation of the Antebellum South's way of life, etc.

Another point is that except for Athens in ancient Greece, there really hasn't been a true Democracy EVER. The problem with Democracy is that while it is good for small groups, it really is not practical for large populations and it can quickly turn into mob rule.

That is why the Romans and many following civilizations (including the US & Europe) all had/have forms of representative government.

The other issue that you raised was regarding the ownership of things. First, I would submit that in every Communist society ever tried, there has always been a small clique in control (like the Politboro) that lived like royalty and the common people were dirt poor and had nothing. These societies also ALWAYS ended up becoming police states with no true freedom.

Capitalism while flawed, still gives the average person the most freedom and ability to better themselves. The problem with the system is that over time, monopolies will develop and all capital and ownership will end up in the hands of the few. That is why almost no one practices laissez-faire captialism anymore. Most countries have a government regulated form of Capitalism that ensures that monopolies don't take control (anti-trust laws for example). In addition, there is built into Capitalism a motivation for the average person to better himself, therby leading to a huge boost in productivity.


The interesting thing about all of this is what the future holds. Many humanists (the creater of Star Trek and many sci-fi writers included) believe that in the future, technology will make goods so cheap (almost free) that Capitalism will mutate into something else (they believe a form of socialism/communism).

[Eduardo X]

Athens was only close to democracy because they had slaves. The existence of slaves kind of negates the democratic parts of democracy, so it wasn't democratic at all.!

[Tareeq]

Athens was only close to democracy because they had slaves. The existence of slaves kind of negates the democratic parts of democracy, so it wasn't democratic at all.!

Got a reputable source for that proposition Ed? That Athenian democracy developed because of slavery?

[Eduardo X]

Athens was only close to democracy because they had slaves. The existence of slaves kind of negates the democratic parts of democracy, so it wasn't democratic at all.!

Got a reputable source for that proposition Ed? That Athenian democracy developed because of slavery?

My point is that they had slaves, so it was a ruling class that was democratic in their authoritarianism.

[Grifman]

Athens was only close to democracy because they had slaves. The existence of slaves kind of negates the democratic parts of democracy, so it wasn't democratic at all.!

Got a reputable source for that proposition Ed? That Athenian democracy developed because of slavery?

My point is that they had slaves, so it was a ruling class that was democratic in their authoritarianism.

It sounded like you were saying that democracy was a luxury they could only afford due to slavery.

Grifman

[Eduardo X]

Athens was only close to democracy because they had slaves. The existence of slaves kind of negates the democratic parts of democracy, so it wasn't democratic at all.!

Got a reputable source for that proposition Ed? That Athenian democracy developed because of slavery?

My point is that they had slaves, so it was a ruling class that was democratic in their authoritarianism.

It sounded like you were saying that democracy was a luxury they could only afford due to slavery.

Grifman

You know, it doesn't SOUND like I said that, I DID say that!
I'm off to find out if I was wrong or not!
EDIT: I can find nothing to either point. All I can find is that the Greeks had slaves.
I can make the ASSUMPTION that slavery allowed Athens to have a "idle class," the ruling elite who did not have to work because they had slaves.

[gorky1]

For more direct democratic control, you can institutionalise petitions. E.g. have a jury check if a petition is constitutional/doesn't violate human rights or international law, and let people vote on it if enough sign it. If it's accepted, it becomes law. That way you can keep the unavoidable elite in check.

[Tareeq]

Athens was only close to democracy because they had slaves. The existence of slaves kind of negates the democratic parts of democracy, so it wasn't democratic at all.!

Got a reputable source for that proposition Ed? That Athenian democracy developed because of slavery?

My point is that they had slaves, so it was a ruling class that was democratic in their authoritarianism.

It sounded like you were saying that democracy was a luxury they could only afford due to slavery.

Grifman

You know, it doesn't SOUND like I said that, I DID say that!
I'm off to find out if I was wrong or not!
EDIT: I can find nothing to either point. All I can find is that the Greeks had slaves.
I can make the ASSUMPTION that slavery allowed Athens to have a "idle class," the ruling elite who did not have to work because they had slaves.

That's certainly true. Slavery also allowed the Spartans to have a ruling elite who did relatively little work. Yet Sparta was ruled by an oligarchy of ephors, and was famously undemocratic.

So what does slavery have to do with the fact that the Athenians allowed their fishermen to vote on public issues?

[The Mad Hatter]

I believe his answer would be that the separation between political and economic systems is bogus. As long as the means of production remained in the hands of an elite, there would be no freedom regardless how democratic the political process seemed to be. That's the origin of the contempt Marxists have for social democrats - they see them as perpetuators of the system, giving workers just enough to keep them from seizing control. They might be able to vote, they might have some rights regarding hours of work and pensions, but ultimately they're still held down. Only direct control of production can free them.

Define "direct control". I don't think that is possible. In the end, the people would have another elite responsible for running the economy, and I don't think experience shows us that this is any better than some other elite running it.

Grifman

That's what happened in practice, but theory was that it would be a collective control for the good of all. That's why countries like East Germany called themselves democratic; theoretically the economy was controlled by the working class. Since it was the Leninist variety the working class was represented by the Party - in practice an elite but justified as the embodiment of the workers.

[The Mad Hatter]

Athens was only close to democracy because they had slaves. The existence of slaves kind of negates the democratic parts of democracy, so it wasn't democratic at all.!

Got a reputable source for that proposition Ed? That Athenian democracy developed because of slavery?

That could be rephrased to say that Athenian democracy was restricted to citizens, and that citizens made up maybe 10% of the actual population of Athens.