The Victory of Communism!

[geo]

A reply seen on Ask Andy prompted me to put this up for discussion here. The reply is:

We in the U.S. pretend not to have economic and social classes. Being well-dressed, outside of New York as far as I can tell, is considered to be a sign of latent aristocratic tendencies.

I know that there are of course economic and social classes, but is this what people like to think, especially this part?

We in the U.S. pretend not to have economic and social classes.

Is that true? Because if it is, that is communism, and people seem to be quite happy with it.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

We do pretend this, Geo.

.

 

[Paisley]

I remember reading in the book Women's Dress for Successthat according to the studies the author had done, the first thing that a man noticed about a woman, even though he might deny to his last macho breath, was her socioeconomic status.

Certainly, there is no need to look down one's nose at someone of a lower (or higher) status, but we can, and do, still recognize peoples differences.

 

[Serial Hero]

It has more to do with the ideals that the U.S. was founded on. There are social and economic classes, but anyone, with hard work and a bit of luck has the ability to move up the ladder. There are no royal families. To become part of the “upper crust” all you need is money, not a blood line. Many of the wealthiest men in the country started out dirt poor. Any citizen (born in the U.S.) can become President. It doesn’t matter who your parents were (well, in theory).

 

[Rebecca D]

Is that true? Because if it is, that is communism, and people seem to be quite happy with it.

How would that be communism? Where is the planned economy? Where is the equal distribution of wealth? Where is the abolition of the private ownership of the means of production?

I can assure you there is nothing communistic in the fact that the middle and upper classes pretend to ignore the class lines.

 

[jamespowers]

Think Horatio Alger when it comes to economic class in the US. It has nothing to do with Communism. We insure equal opportunity to succeed not equal outcome. Where you end up is up to you and what you are willing to do. That's why our forefathers came here in droves and people still do. There is a great opportunity to move up and up. :eusa_clap

Regards,

J

 

[Pilgrim]

"We in the U.S. pretend not to have economic and social classes."
"Is that true? Because if it is, that is communism."

Huh? That's an incredibly sweeping statement. I fail to see how this can be stated in the form of IF > THEN.

Here are some definitions of Communism:

1) An economic theory which stresses that the control of the means of producing economic goods in a society should reside in the hands of those who invest their labor for production. In its ideal form, social classes cease to exist, there is no coercive governmental structures, and everyone lives in abundance without supervision from a ruling class. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels popularized this theory in their 1848 Communist Manifesto.

2) An economic or political system based on the sharing of all work and property by the whole community.

3) ...is a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

The third definition might provide some support for the original assertion, but to my mind, does not prove it...especially since the comment indicates that "this is what people like to think". There is no statement as to what people, or how many people, may think this.

I believe there are clear distinctions of economic status in the U.S. I agree with the implied statement that such distinctions can be viewed as strongly distinguishing characteristics of Capitalism. However, the fact that some people may not wish to acknowledge that such distinctions exist does not prove that:

• Their perceptions are correct
• Their perceptions are the way they WANT things to be
• Their perception makes the US a communistic society

In other words, the way the world or a society is percieved by a group does not mean that view is valid or reflects reality. The implication of the original assertion seems to be (my interpretation only) that people who don't think the US has economic classes must therefore be Communists. I don't buy that.

 

[geo]

You look at communism from an academic point of view, not from an everyday's person point of view. From an academic point of view, there is the planned economy, the state-owned business. But the worker at the bottom does not see any of this, he just sees that the lawyer and the doctor live in the same appartment building as him and are in no way better. True, in books communism is an "economic theory", "economic or political system" or "a system of government", but the very purpose of communism is the elimination of social and economic classes, and that's what it translates to in everyday life.

Now, it is not true that there are no social and economic classes in the US (and I hope it will never be true), but the ideal of a classless society is a communist one.

 

[jamespowers]

You look at communism from an academic point of view, not from an everyday's person point of view. From an academic point of view, there is the planned economy, the state-owned business. But the worker at the bottom does not see any of this, he just sees that the lawyer and the doctor live in the same appartment building as him and are in no way better. True, in books communism is an "economic theory", "economic or political system" or "a system of government", but the very purpose of communism is the elimination of social and economic classes, and that's what it translates to in everyday life.

Then our job is done. Fold up the outdated Communist ideals and go with Capitalism. It really works to do what communism never could through coercion. :eusa_clap

Regards to all,

J

P.S. Someone go tell Castro, Chavez and the other deluded dolts around the world.

 

[Rebecca D]

A revolutionary socialist country would be one ruled by and for the workers, and set in motion by the decisions of the workers councils. Any elected official (elected by the workers councils) would be recalled immediately (by the workers councils) if she or he did not perform her duties. All oppressed Nationalities would have the right to self-determination, and any colonial countries would have the right to split with the revolution.

A true workers democracy would be communist and would have nothing to do with some Stalinist dictatorship. This we have never seen, because there has never been a true communist country. And a true communist country would never survive alone in the anarchy of capitalist world production - a world-wide revolution would have to occur in order for the revolution to survive.

And no, I don't consider:
The USSR
China
North Korea
Cuba, etc...

communist. Any person that does would either be a reactionary fool or a Stalinist hack.


The lines between the classes in the US have never been thicker; I can assure you there is no communism (either real, or your version of it) in this country’s government.


That's my ten cents....back to what you were saying.

 

[jamespowers]

A revolutionary socialist country would be one ruled by and for the workers, and set in motion by the decisions of the workers councils. Any elected official (elected by the workers councils) would be recalled immediately (by the workers councils) if she or he did not perform her duties. All oppressed Nationalities would have the right to self-determination, and any colonial countries would have the right to split with the revolution.

A true workers democracy would be communist and would have nothing to do with some Stalinist dictatorship. This we have never seen, because there has never been a true communist country. And a true communist country would never survive alone in the anarchy of capitalist world production - a world-wide revolution would have to occur in order for the revolution to survive.

And no, I don't consider:
The USSR
China
North Korea
Cuba, etc...

communist. Any person that does would either be a reactionary fool or a Stalinist hack.


The lines between the classes in the US have never been thicker; I can assure you there is no communism (either real, or your version of it) in this country’s government.


That's my ten cents....back to what you were saying.

All communist revolutions start off as you described but then there is always a group of individuals who manage to wrest power from the others and ding! You have Russia, Cuba, North Korea etc., etc. There will never be the ideal because unlike capitalism, communism cannot get support without the use of force and coercion.
You don't have to force me to work for my lifestyle as others do but you would have to force me to work hard and get the same benefits from my labor as others who don't work as hard or do not work at all. Communism goes against human nature. We strive for goals and accomplishment individually. It makes no sense to kill yourself while others get a free ride. If you need an example of why this didn't work for these same reasons take a look at the first Jamestown settlement. They tried communism in the 1700s---it didn't work.

Regards,

J

 

[Baron Kurtz]

yep, ultimately our innate greed and selfishness wins out over all altruistic impulses.

bk

 

[Dixon Cannon]

You asked.....!!!!

You didn't think I could stay out of this one did you!!!

First off, there is no such thing as Communism! Communism is a theoretical concept of Marx anc Engels. Every attempt to create Communism has been hijacked by authoritarian dictators like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, ad infinitum. What one ends up with, on the road to Communism, is Socialism - in all it's various forms. (Even Russia called itself the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics!).

So to lend an opinion to the topic at hand; the socialist turn that our nation took in the 1930's (called the New Deal then, but eventually the New Frontier then the Great Society) has gradually undermined the values and the responsibilities of a free people. The philosophy of freedom (see Ayn Rand, "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal") has been eroded and chiseled by intent. The victim, of course, becomes the "middle class", not only economically, but philosophically, as their values decline, their self-responsibility erodes, and their self-esteem evaporates. Once proud and strong, the middle class slowly, generation after generation, dissolves into the 'proletariat' (to use a Marxist term), accepting socialist and statist dictates as the norm and rejecting traditional American values and completing forgeting the philosophical underpinnings that were the cause behind the growth of this nation. You see this reflected in attitudes, dress, demeanor and work ethic. An illusionary sense of entitlement prevails.

If that's what you mean by "Communism", than that indeed is what we have. Awareness of is the first step towards reversing it. Care to join me?!!

Repectfully,
Dixon Cannon

 

[geo]

And no, I don't consider:
The USSR
China
North Korea
Cuba, etc...

communist. Any person that does would either be a reactionary fool or a Stalinist hack.

Well, well, well. I guess that the inhabitants of the above-mentioned countries must be reactionary fools, Stalinist hacks, etc., because they do consider their countries to be or to have been communist. And, no, I didn't put the question personally to all of them.

Maybe there is a difference between the textbook communism as imagined by Marx and the real communism, which always amounts to a dictatorship. Maybe communism is not complete until it englobes the whole planet (like the present-day Mondialisation).

My point is that there are class differences, but why would people see the lack of social and economic classes as a thing to be proud of?

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Whoops!

yep, ultimately our innate greed and selfishness wins out over all altruistic impulses. bk

Baron, better re-read Ayn Rand's "The Virture of Selfishness" again. In fact, just the opposite happens!

-dixon cannon

 

[Rebecca D]

Like I said, there has never been a true communist revolution in world history. Lenin said it, Trotsky said it, and every other revolutionary socialist since has said it. We've seen revolutions that could have led to socialism, but because of their lack of material wealth and attacks and embargos by imperialist countries, their revolutions degenerated into workers states run by giant bureaucracies (some socialists refer to that as "State Capitalism" but I disagree). Other revolutions (such as China) were deformed from the beginning.

And, there was no such ideal as Marxism in the 1700s, which is probably what 99.9% of the world's true communists follow today. So a utopian revolution of the 1700s has nothing to do with scientific socialism in the age of imperialism.

But before I go into how I feel about Dialectical Materialism, I'll get back to the topic at hand. No, there is no Communism (Stalinism) or communism (revolutionary socialism) in the US government. We still live under the system of ownership based upon economic status, and we will remain so until the workers decide otherwise.

 

[Rebecca D]

Maybe there is a difference between the textbook communism as imagined by Marx and the real communism, which always amounts to a dictatorship.
QUOTE]

Communism does not lead to dictatorship, because there has never been a communist revolution. Please, name me one revolution that was successful in achieving true workers democracy.

 

[geo]

The victim, of course, becomes the "middle class", not only economically, but philosophically, as their values decline, their self-responsibility erodes, and their self-esteem evaporates. Once proud and strong, the middle class slowly, generation after generation, dissolves into the 'proletariat' (to use a Marxist term), accepting socialist and statist dictates as the norm and rejecting traditional American values and completing forgeting the philosophical underpinnings that were the cause behind the growth of this nation

Yes! I totally agree with this, and take it further, on 2 different levels. First, the phenomenon is global, not just American. Second, after the middle-class, followed the upper class and even royalty; look at Prince William, for example, proudly wearing proletarian attire and following proletarian pursuits, like chopping wood during his trip to South America.

First off, there is no such thing as Communism! Communism is a theoretical concept of Marx anc Engels. Every attempt to create Communism has been hijacked by authoritarian dictators like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, ad infinitum

The system created by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro IS communism.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

... the socialist turn that our nation took in the 1930's (called the New Deal then, but eventually the New Frontier then the Great Society) has gradually undermined the values and the responsibilities of a free people.

And before that "socialist turn" (which in fact began in the mind of Theodore Roosevelt), the "values and responsibilities" of those "free people" were so well served by the 19th century robber barons and their trusts, happily clear-cutting forests and poisoning communities with industrial waste, while employing scores of children to waste away in mines and sweatshops.


.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Baron, better re-read Ayn Rand's "The Virture of Selfishness" again. In fact, just the opposite happens!

-dixon cannon

certainly that's Rand's opinion. I won't punish myself with reading that again.

bk