Thread: Re-writing Communism

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

No it was utopian because it did not recognize the objective historical laws of nature. It merely appealed to certain classes, usually bourgeois, and did not realize socialism is inevitable regardless of popular appeal. Remove alienation which is essential to dialectical materialism and you have taken the Marx out of Marxism.

You've essentially paraphrased what I wrote, they were utopian because they failed to arrive at conclusions based on empiricism and analysis. Most utopian socialists didn't appeal to the bourgeois, Charles Fourier's ideas weren't exactly appealing (to anyone, for that matter). In fact, some of the very first socialists were the English levellers, who found their movement crushed by Oliver Cromwell crushed once they became a threat.

Marx tried to reconcile socialism as a viable means of government, and communism as a beneficial replacement of capitalism. His criticism of utopian socialists sought to re-establish socialism as a realistic proposal.

Originally Posted by drew

You've essentially paraphrased what I wrote, they were utopian because they failed to arrive at conclusions based on empiricism and analysis. Most utopian socialists didn't appeal to the bourgeois, Charles Fourier's ideas weren't exactly appealing (to anyone, for that matter). In fact, some of the very first socialists were the English levellers, who found their movement crushed by Oliver Cromwell crushed once they became a threat.

Marx tried to reconcile socialism as a viable means of government, and communism as a beneficial replacement of capitalism. His criticism of utopian socialists sought to re-establish socialism as a realistic proposal.

Robert Owen appealed to the state for trade unions and also appealed to the capitalists to disregard their behavior and see the errors of their ways, Charles Fourier actually waited a hour everyday in the cafes looking for a capitalist sponsor and yes his ideas were appealing, there were actually Fourierite colonies in America. I think Owen is the only one who had more successful colonies. Proudhon thought he could keep the bourgeois class and elevate the proletariat, Lassalle thought government reforms could lessen the suffering of the masses. And what is this nonsense about Levellers being socialists? John Lilburne and Richard Overton were not socialists. The Levellers were actually the first organized libertarian movement. The first socialist in western civilization is obviously Plato.

How are you defining socialism by the way? Because Marx never appealed to what would be called 'socialism' today. Socialism is actually a genre which actually contains several schools of thought from communism to fascism. The only transitional period between mature capitalism and fully realized communism is dictatorship of the proletariat in which a certain class takes over 'emergency powers' which allows it to finally snuff out the last capitalists who would be a small group due to capital concentration.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Robert Owen appealed to the state for trade unions and also appealed to the capitalists to disregard their behavior and see the errors of their ways, Charles Fourier actually waited a hour everyday in the cafes looking for a capitalist sponsor and yes his ideas were appealing, there were actually Fourierite colonies in America. I think Owen is the only one who had more successful colonies. Proudhon thought he could keep the bourgeois class and elevate the proletariat, Lassalle thought government reforms could lessen the suffering of the masses. And what is this nonsense about Levellers being socialists? John Lilburne and Richard Overton were not socialists. The Levellers were actually the first organized libertarian movement. The first socialist in western civilization is obviously Plato.

How are you defining socialism by the way? Because Marx never appealed to what would be called 'socialism' today. Socialism is actually a genre which actually contains several schools of thought from communism to fascism. The only transitional period between mature capitalism and fully realized communism is dictatorship of the proletariat in which a certain class takes over 'emergency powers' which allows it to finally snuff out the last capitalists who would be a small group due to capital concentration.

Yes, Robert Owen was a successful capitalist who treated his workers well. He created small communities in America which failed to operate as he planned. I presume you just googled 'english levellers' and read the wikipedia article, because it isn't nonsense at all. I talk of the movement lead by Gerrard Winstanley, which apparently is better known as the 'true levellers'. Try to read more than a wikipedia article before you discredit what I say.

Socialism obviously has many different forms, the four main categories being revolutionary,evolutionary, democratic and social democracy. The third way is the most recent installment in socialism. I think you're confusing fascism with national socialism. Fascism is much closer to 'chauvinist' nationalism than socialism.

Originally Posted by drew

Yes, Robert Owen was a successful capitalist who treated his workers well. He created small communities in America which failed to operate as he planned.

Actually he had a very successful community in New Lanark so it wasn't just America. I bring it up because it was actually his most successful.

Originally Posted by drew

I presume you just googled 'english levellers' and read the wikipedia article, because it isn't nonsense at all. I talk of the movement lead by Gerrard Winstanley, which apparently is better known as the 'true levellers'. Try to read more than a wikipedia article before you discredit what I say.

You presume incorrectly.
History of Economic Thought Volume I

Let's not engage in puffery.

Originally Posted by drew

Socialism obviously has many different forms, the four main categories being revolutionary,evolutionary, democratic and social democracy. The third way is the most recent installment in socialism. I think you're confusing fascism with national socialism. Fascism is much closer to 'chauvinist' nationalism than socialism.

No fascism is clearly a form of socialism.
'Everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state'

Robert Owen was a socialist. He brought industrial socialism to New Lanark, Scotland and a U.S. town. Despite the reports of positive benefits in New Lanark, his experiment was a miserable failure in the U.S.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Robert Owen was a socialist. He brought industrial socialism to New Lanark, Scotland and a U.S. town. Despite the reports of positive benefits in New Lanark, his experiment was a miserable failure in the U.S.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Actually he had a very successful community in New Lanark so it wasn't just America. I bring it up because it was actually his most successful.



You presume incorrectly.
History of Economic Thought Volume I

Let's not engage in puffery.




No fascism is clearly a form of socialism.
'Everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state'

Fascism is not a form of socialism. Just because it shares some principles of socialism does not mean it is socialist, that is a very, very common assumption made by Americans.

Socialism sees the state as a vehicle towards greater equality. Fascism does not. You are confusing authoritarianism with socialism. The now-dead fascist ideology believes that the ruler is supreme, and thus their state is supreme. The superiority of the state ties in with several things, but chiefly, it is the will of the leader. Fascists believe that the leader is always right, no matter what. Remember that Hitler despised and killed the communists.

Originally Posted by drew

Fascism is not a form of socialism. Just because it shares some principles of socialism does not mean it is socialist, that is a very, very common assumption made by Americans.

Socialism sees the state as a vehicle towards greater equality. Fascism does not. You are confusing authoritarianism with socialism. The now-dead fascist ideology believes that the ruler is supreme, and thus their state is supreme. The superiority of the state ties in with several things, but chiefly, it is the will of the leader. Fascists believe that the leader is always right, no matter what. Remember that Hitler despised and killed the communists.

And the Bolsheviks always thought the party was right. You are not really giving me adequate justifications for why fascism isn't a school of thought in socialism. And yes Italy began their fascist regime with the idea that all are equal, in their obligation to serve the state for the state is the full realization of a given society. The state represents the mass of the people or is representative of the general will. If you actually read the works of Henri de Saint Simon and his Saint-Simonians, you find the beginnings of planned, socialistic society which can be seen as proto-fascism. Also you are incorrect to think that socialism thinks the state a means to achieving equality. There are in fact anarcho-socialists who think the state is a representation of hierarchical interests which seek to subjugate the working class. So the role of the state is rather ambiguous in socialism.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

And the Bolsheviks always thought the party was right. You are not really giving me adequate justifications for why fascism isn't a school of thought in socialism. And yes Italy began their fascist regime with the idea that all are equal, in their obligation to serve the state for the state is the full realization of a given society. The state represents the mass of the people or is representative of the general will. If you actually read the works of Henri de Saint Simon and his Saint-Simonians, you find the beginnings of planned, socialistic society which can be seen as proto-fascism. Also you are incorrect to think that socialism thinks the state a means to achieving equality. There are in fact anarcho-socialists who think the state is a representation of hierarchical interests which seek to subjugate the working class. So the role of the state is rather ambiguous in socialism.

Those are just strands of socialism. Karl Marx said that 'democracy is the road to communism'. Fascism despises democracy and sees it as corrupt and ineffective. If Marx isn't enough to convince you of this then, who is?

Fascist trails of thought are simply opposed to socialism. The vast majority of socialists believe in democracy, so quoting a minority strand isn't a very rational argument. Fascists believe that war is glorious and productive for humanity, mainly because is expands the state (this is chauvinist nationalism). Marxists believe that war is often contrived to suppress the working class and create a false class consciousness of national unity.

Fascism does not assert that the state should represent the people, as you claim. If they did, they would support democracy. In fact, fascists quite literally believe that the leader is supreme, the leader knows best.

Anarcho-socialists? I think you mean anarcho-communists. The paradox within this strand is well documented, and it's more to do with their views on human nature than their views on the state.

I too can quote random and minor strands to support arguments. If we're discussing ideologies then we generally need to use the consensus view. Obviously, a strand within an ideology can disagree with its parent ideology. Obviously, there are some socialists that oppose democracy. Obviously, we should use common sense. I wouldn't tell you that conservative's views on human nature stem from the works of the bible. They used to, but now they don't, and the majority simply don't look at it from that angle.