AHC: Less Terrible Soviet Communism

Observations Regarding Mr. Marx's Thinking
Concerning Public Ownership, Parliamentary Reform
And the Alignment of Theory and Practice


1. Mr. Marx observed that through history the majority had been ruled by the minority (the ruling class and the government being one and the same), and that in his current period (1800s) a minority (Capitalists) ruled over and oppressed a majority (Workers - or as he would say a Proletariat). Mr. Marx believed that future happiness for the workers would be found if the workers killed all the toffs and took ownership of everything. All the workers would own everything. The majority would own everything: The majority would rule the majority and no more would a minority rule a majority. Ever.

Mr. Marx stated that this was pre-determined ("deterministic") in history, inevitable.

2. This leads to a logical and practical problem. Let us take seriously the idea that the people own everything, ALL THE PEOPLE OWN EVERYTHING. That is all material objects and energy. The logical problem stated in an example: A can of beans is in my hand, I would like to open, cook it and then eat the beans. The problem is, I am a member of the people, and there are 60 million people, so therefore I have ownership rights of 1-in-60 million (1/60,000,000) now if I consume the beans as I plan, then I will be stealing from the People because I do not have the permission of the other owners' of that can of beans, the other 60 million. To avoid becoming an Enemy-of-the-People (and therefore either be shot by firing squad or spend ten years in Siberski) I would need to get the agreement, the assent, of the other 60 million people. This would take an immense amount of time, even assuming we're using email, some people will say yes, other people are maybe on a two-week holiday - and will be unhappy if they don't get their say, and others will say no. I would have to wait until everyone had been asked and had given an answer, otherwise I would be committing a crime, if we take seriously the idea that the people own everything, ALL THE PEOPLE OWN EVERYTHING. Presumably if a majority (say 40 million) said I could I eat the can of beans, then I could. If we then multiply this example to three meals a day (forget desert), and multiply that by 60 million people, each daily seeking permission from each other to eat a can of food, then society would grind to a halt pretty damn quick, if not collapse as unworkable.

This is before we consider such weightier matters as the allocation of medical resources, the structuring of justice provision, the implementation of quality assurance standards in relation to vaccine protocols, the designing of literacy campaigns and the development of ecological standards in the fishing industry. Imagine the above system being used to manage these fields of human need. . .

3. To quote Lenin "What is to be done?" So what is the way forward? Perhaps we could ask if Mr. Marx and Mr. Engels had a solution to this problem, after all they said words to the effect "Kill all the toffs and take control of everything - paradise is yours". Well Mr. Marx and Mr. Engels were very clear that after the workers had by bloody revolution taken power and that now ALL THE PEOPLE OWN EVERYTHING, it would be up to the workers to organise their own administrative arangements, within the context that THE PEOPLE OWN EVERYTHING.

This is not an answer.

Mr. Marx and Mr. Engels do not provide answers to the logical and practical problem outlined in note 2. They should have identified the problem, because the problem is a logical extrapolation of the statement "ALL THE PEOPLE OWN EVERYTHING".

4. So what is to be done? So what is the way forward? Well the problems, at the very least, are time based, micro-management overload and competancy. Perhaps if there was delegation of powers a functional solution might be found *. If the People appointed a small party of people to represent them, and on behalf of the People to run, manage and govern society's services and needs; functionally it would be a government. It might even be called the Party of the Government of the People.

5. Then we have come full circle: This is important to note: We have come full circle: Once more a minority (Party of the Government of the People) control a majority (the People). So Mr. Marx and Mr. Engels are doomed to repeat the past. Not advance into the sunny uplands of a deterministic (inevitable) future. Because by definition repeating the past means the deteministic (inevitable) future never existed. The conclusion is obvious: All futures are un-determined. It also means that Marxists Socialism/Communism is NOT inevitable.

6. Reformism is the early-Nineteenth Century British belief, held by Whigs (liberals), Torys, Chartists and Co-operatives, that the State and the New Economy (Industrialism & Capitalism) can be reformed and improved (hence it's called "The Age of Improvement" - the Tory's just wanted slower rates of change than the rest). Mr. Marx and Mr. Engels condemned Capitalism for the injustices and oppression it created. They rejected that Capitalism could be reformed - they believed it would always be a toffs club run for the benefit of toffs. That it would always be a static system; in a state of stasis; frozen, irreformable; un-improvable; of which revolution bloody inevitable.

7. Mr. Marx and Mr. Engels dismissed Reformism on the grounds that any changes made to relieve the condition of the workers, was a bribe to stave off the inevitable (actually not inevitable - see note 5.) Revolution. That misses the point. The point of Justice. Justice is defined as ". . . giving a person what is due to them". So if workers want a change in conditions, say an eight-hour day instead of a ten-hour day and they believe that is a just goal to aim for, and after negotiation/industrial action, that is agreed, then the workers get what is due to them; justice.

8. By living in Britain, Mr. Marx and Mr. Engels were were able to observe close-up the first country to industrialise and capitalise, and from that they were able to write much work. However the extension of suffrage and the Reform of Parliament seems to have passed them by. Parliament was reformed by Public Demand and the franchise expanded in 1832 (rationalisation), 1867 (middle & working classes), 1884 (rural labourers & miners) and 1918 (women). Congruent with this reform were positive developments in the Labour movement with Chartist combinations, Tolpuddle, Co-operatives, strikes, public debates, Union formation, protest marches, lock-outs, democratic and parliamentary organising and the founding of the Trades Unions Congress. The point made here is that this first industrial and capitalist country was not a frozen stasis, despite what Mr. Marx and Mr. Engels said Britain was. Therefore logically if Mr. Marx and Mr. Engels stated that the British political-economy would not change and could not change and will not change, and yet it did change, and it changed in their lifetime as they were watching the change, therefore their statements are wrong. Furthermore they refused to reform their statements in-line with reality. It was not Capitalistic-Labour Britain that was in stasis; it was Mr. Marx and Mr. Engels who were in stasis.

9. The Age of Improvement saw a dynamic interaction between Capital, Labour and Crown-in-Parliament, with all classes of society becoming enfranchised (some three times over, workers could vote in union, municipal and parliamentary elections).

10. Mr. Marx had observed that throughout history, the majority had been ruled by the minority. He proffered Marxism to enable the majority to rule over the majority; However it failed, resulting in a reversion to the historical pattern of the minority ruling the majority. In contrast, in Reformism the majority (voters) took power over the minority (the government); A reverse of historical patterns that Marx would have approved of in theory, but could not approve of in practice.

So Reformism works; Marxism does not.

Marxism - Not top marks.


------------------------------------

Historically the ruling class and the government have been one and the same.

Historical Practice - The majority (peasants) ruled by a minority (aristocrats)

Marxism Theory - The majority (People) ruled by the majority (People)

Marxism Practice - The majority (People) ruled by a minority (Party/People's Government)

Reformism Theory - The majority (voters) take power over the minority (the Government)

Reformism Practice - The majority (voters) take power over the minority (the Government)



--------------------------------
* Also delegation of powers would mean simple and routine stuff - such as choosing what I have for tea - would be delegated down to the lowest practicable level (me), while more intermediate (forecasting regional radiological diagnostic needs) and complex (housing policy vs ecological carrying capacity) stuff would attract the appropriate level of debate and review.

Not quite the means of production are publicly owned. Factories, farms, stores and even your house might be seized. Food, clothing , furniture and the ilk remains yours. I am one of the least Marxist people on the board but an exaggeration is an exaggeration.
 
.Food, clothing , furniture and the ilk remains yours. I am one of the least Marxist people on the board but an exaggeration is an exaggeration.

Are we talking about Marxism in theory or practice? Because in practice, peasants in Russia and China did have their food seized.
 

TinyTartar

Banned
How about Trostky somehow coming to power at the expense of Stalin?

Trotsky would have simply focused his brand of death and destruction outwards. While he was not as paranoid as Stalin, he was just as brutal, and he was way more of a warmonger. Trotsky would have made the Soviet State a worse entity, not run as efficiently, but more aggressive and imperialist.
 
Your right - I was sloppy. Thank you

Tens of millions yes, hundreds of millions no. Russia and China at the top end might be fifty or sixty million combined but then the number crashes . In part other countries can't lose that many people and still have a population left.

Dear Johnrankins,

After reviewing the literature more closely, I think your right: Tens of millions yes, hundreds of millions no.



Even so . . . When I look around at my dear family and my kind friends, so beautifully living and so beautifully breathing . . . and then try to imagine them being consumed by CPSU/NSWP/CCP etc holocaust . . . I am filled with fear and horror.

And hear those monstrous vile words

"One death is a tragedy. One million a statistic".


Yours Stafford1069



.
 
Last edited:
Top