The Berlin Wall

[Scot Dutchy]

I was in Berlin, GDR, in 1982. I remember the wall and also the fact, that we were warned about using the metro which continues to the west part as originally constructed. Of course it would not have been possible to cross the border as there were border controls entering the metro at some point.
GDR was not a mini-USSR and was extensively funded by the whole block to prevent negative comparisons to FRG.

Its organisation was based on the USSR. The two pillars of power: The state and the party.

The German Democratic Republic (GDR; German: Deutsche Demokratische Republik, or DDR, commonly known in English as East Germany) was created as a socialist republic on 7 October 1949 and began to institute a government based on that of the Soviet Union. The equivalent of the Communist Party in East Germany was the Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands (Socialist Unity Party of Germany, SED), which along with other parties, was part of the National Front of Democratic Germany. It was created in 1946 through the merger of the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) and the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) in the Soviet Occupation Zone of Germany.

[Brian Peacock]

...
You seem to presume that criticising laissez faire capitalism means I must prefer Marxism. What gives you the impression? How many more times must I post that my preference is a mixed economy and all it entails? How many more times need I reiterate that I'd rather live in a capitalist country than China or North Korea?

Seven times.

[NineBerry]

China is rather capitalist these days...

[Svartalf]

Actually, China is the poster boy of fascist states... highly liberal capitalist, but single party government with a steel gauntleted hand to keep the populace in check.

[pErvinalia]

In the economic sense, some here have suggested that capitalism inevitably leads to monopoly and oppression, only a few rich, and a great many poor. There is a reticence, it seems, to believe the stories of empty shelves and 10 year waits for cars, and the like in soviet countries, and stories like the Boris Yeltsin amazement over the choice and quantities in common American supermarkets are sort of ignored or considered not really true.

Where has anyone here shown reticence to believe blah blah? I presume you are again confusing ideological communism with USSR et al, which were authoritrian state socialism.

When I think about the crowds of East Germans, though, who thought that they had the opportunity to leave their homeland, and en masse crowding up to the wall, demanding to be let through, and the guards being overwhelmed by the numbers -- such that the low level GDR official is credited with "hastening" the fall of the Berlin Wall -- I think of what they must have been fleeing. Were they fleeing a fair economy, full of equality, with everyone treated fairly, getting what they need, and all that, without all the oppression and unfairness of a capitalist society?

They were fleeing authoritrian state socialism.

[pErvinalia]

The Northern European Socialist Countries did create the socialist safety net which is still in place today although it is has been reduced. It is still effective. Britain is not one of those countries. The tories have removed many safeguards and after Brexit it will head the American way. Disappearing into the mire of despair.

So, they are socialist? Which ones?

Sometimes folks argue that they aren't socialist - most western European countries, in my view, are not socialist.

It's funny that when I bring up East Germany, that's not a true communist or socialist countries. But, "northern European" (I assume you mean the Nordic countries?) are true socialism in action, what with their vibrant and thriving private industry, private property ownership, and means of production in the hands of private persons acting pursuant to the profit motive....

No one other than Scot thinks European countries are socialist. I've had a couple of to and fros with him about this before.

[pErvinalia]

Hermit, if you can read the Communist Manifesto, the Critique of the Gotha Program, and the Civil War in France, and come away with an approving view of what Marx's Communism would bring about (first half, dictatorship of the proletariat), then I would love for you to explain your view on that.

You seem to presume that criticising laissez faire capitalism means I must prefer Marxism. What gives you the impression? How many more times must I post that my preference is a mixed economy and all it entails? How many more times need I reiterate that I'd rather live in a capitalist country than China or North Korea?

Half as many times as you would have to say it to Seth. Which is still a shitload..

[Scot Dutchy]

The Northern European Socialist Countries did create the socialist safety net which is still in place today although it is has been reduced. It is still effective. Britain is not one of those countries. The tories have removed many safeguards and after Brexit it will head the American way. Disappearing into the mire of despair.

So, they are socialist? Which ones?

Sometimes folks argue that they aren't socialist - most western European countries, in my view, are not socialist.

It's funny that when I bring up East Germany, that's not a true communist or socialist countries. But, "northern European" (I assume you mean the Nordic countries?) are true socialism in action, what with their vibrant and thriving private industry, private property ownership, and means of production in the hands of private persons acting pursuant to the profit motive....

No one other than Scot thinks European countries are socialist. I've had a couple of to and fros with him about this before.

They are social democratic having both a solid social safety net along with a controlled capitalist state. There are private companies in private hands but not in the rampant capitalist way of the USA where there are no controls. BTW I also add the Netherlands and Germany to that group.

Once again 42 shows his pure ignorance. In America profits are split between the shareholders and top management. The workers are exploited. This is definitely not the case here. Profits are strictly controlled. All large companies have a board of of commissioners who have control over the board of directors. The commissioners cannot make policies but they can reject them if they are not for the good of the total company. Directors salaries and bonuses are also subject to the commissioners' control. Lower in company you have workers councils which are made up of directors, commissioners and workers representatives who are elected by the workers. In Germany that tends to be the trade unions. Now what is more socialist? Also a system of sector wide pay and work conditions are laid down nationally and not company to company. Very socialist. Health and education are also strictly controlled and made to meet national agreed levels.

[Forty Two]

It isn't surprising that you have struggled to find examples of how Marx thought the world would look under true communism - there aren't any. Some people argue that he was working on such things when he died, but I don't believe that. He was deliberately or perhaps unavoidably vague about it and didn't describe any sort of vision. After worldwide revolution and when the dictatorship of the proletariat was established the state would 'wither away' - to quote him. Quite what it would be replaced with is another matter - and one he didn't care to speculate upon it seems. He did however talk about the true potential of humanity being unleashed when people worked for the common good, if they chose to, where labour was seen as a good thing and not toil and where the profit (or wage) motivation was replaced by the notion of the common good.

The key in his thinking - and to understanding him in my view - is that he wrote about 'conditions' and 'relations' for the most part and not about concrete reality.

Indeed. And that makes me wonder how it is portrayed by some as an "ideal" utopia-like arrangement, if only it could be allowed to succeed. Since nobody, not even Marx, seemed to be able to identify what the utopia would look like, how does anyone know it would be a good thing and not a dystopia?

I don't know anyone who thinks the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a good end in itself. Most anyone who has defended communism or Marxist socialism has seen that as a necessary means to an end - not fun, but needed to get us to "full communism" with a withered state replaced by a great unknown.

[Forty Two]

[

I would love for you to note, and link to if possible, where you think Marx describes "what communism is supposed to be" -- the bits you think are supportive of the notion that it would be a good thing if it works as it is supposed to, and the bit that you think describes with some degree of specificity how it works and how it comes about.

Would you really? That's awfully nice of you, but I must beg off. You see, I regard communism, particularly the Marxist variety, as a preposterous pipe dream. It cannot possibly work as it is supposed to, so I do not see a point in wasting time describing how it might work if it could work. May as well try to describe how a square circle could be constructed and what it might be good for if we somehow succeeded.

Then I guess we agree. Not sure what you're disputing, if anything. I regard communism as a preposterous pipe dream which cannot possibly work in a positive way - however, I would add that nobody even knows how it's "supposed" to work. Marx himself never explained how he thought it would work (not beyond the withering away of the state" bit). So, if you know how it's "supposed to work" I would be much obliged if you would set forth what that is, with a citation would be helpful. If you don't want to, that's fine. However, your expression of the view that it cannot work as it is "supposed to" seems to presuppose knowledge of how it is supposed to work.

You got me on the "most of" Marx bit. That's not an accurate way of putting it. What I meant was that I read most of his major works. I should just say I have read a lot of Marx over and over again, far more than the average person, and I suspect far more than most people here. But, my only point to even talk about what I've read is that when people call me a "retard" or suggest that I don't approve of communism because I'm too stupid to have understood what Marx was saying is rreally rather silly. I don't think you've done that, but others here have.

To be clear, the bits I have read include: The Communist Manifesto, of course (scary piece of writing, that) - Das Kapital (three volume set that I own), Critique of the Gotha Program and Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, On the Jewish Question, and I have a copy of a book called Essential Writings of Karl Marx (which has the CM and some of the Manuscripts of 1844, and Wage Labor and Capital, along with the Critique of the Gotha Program). There is a fair bit I haven't read, obviously. But what I have read is fairly substantial, I think.

I find it really surprising that folks who seem to view it favorably (that's apparently not you) almost invariably can't describe what would be good about it. The dictatorship of the proletariat sounds positively dreadful, and I've never heard anyone defend it as a good in and of itself - it's means to the end of the glorious full communism - but not one single person - Karl Marx included - has described what full communism would look like. And, when some (not you) state they aren't going to be arsed to "coach" me on it because I'm apparently not able to fathom the eminently lucid writings of dear Karl, it strikes me as rather telling -- my bet is they know neither jack, nor shit, about it.

Hermit, if you can read the Communist Manifesto, the Critique of the Gotha Program, and the Civil War in France, and come away with an approving view of what Marx's Communism would bring about (first half, dictatorship of the proletariat), then I would love for you to explain your view on that.

You seem to presume that criticising laissez faire capitalism means I must prefer Marxism. What gives you the impression? How many more times must I post that my preference is a mixed economy and all it entails? How many more times need I reiterate that I'd rather live in a capitalist country than China or North Korea?

No - hence the conditional phrase "if" you can come away with an approving view. If you don't come away with an approving view, then we're in agreement and I have no argument with you on that point. I don't think you have to love communism to hate laissez faire capitalism.

I think we agree far more than we disagree, and this thread isn't about where you'd rather live.

If we agree, we agree - no need to force ourselves into a fight about it.

[Rum]

It isn't surprising that you have struggled to find examples of how Marx thought the world would look under true communism - there aren't any. Some people argue that he was working on such things when he died, but I don't believe that. He was deliberately or perhaps unavoidably vague about it and didn't describe any sort of vision. After worldwide revolution and when the dictatorship of the proletariat was established the state would 'wither away' - to quote him. Quite what it would be replaced with is another matter - and one he didn't care to speculate upon it seems. He did however talk about the true potential of humanity being unleashed when people worked for the common good, if they chose to, where labour was seen as a good thing and not toil and where the profit (or wage) motivation was replaced by the notion of the common good.

The key in his thinking - and to understanding him in my view - is that he wrote about 'conditions' and 'relations' for the most part and not about concrete reality.

Indeed. And that makes me wonder how it is portrayed by some as an "ideal" utopia-like arrangement, if only it could be allowed to succeed. Since nobody, not even Marx, seemed to be able to identify what the utopia would look like, how does anyone know it would be a good thing and not a dystopia?

I don't know anyone who thinks the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a good end in itself. Most anyone who has defended communism or Marxist socialism has seen that as a necessary means to an end - not fun, but needed to get us to "full communism" with a withered state replaced by a great unknown.

Well that of course is the problem with so many Utopian and fundamentalist ideologies and of course religions. There is nothing so dangerous as a man with a gun and the certainty that he is right...and what is more that because he is so certain and SO right the end justifies the means.

[pErvinalia]

[

I would love for you to note, and link to if possible, where you think Marx describes "what communism is supposed to be" -- the bits you think are supportive of the notion that it would be a good thing if it works as it is supposed to, and the bit that you think describes with some degree of specificity how it works and how it comes about.

Would you really? That's awfully nice of you, but I must beg off. You see, I regard communism, particularly the Marxist variety, as a preposterous pipe dream. It cannot possibly work as it is supposed to, so I do not see a point in wasting time describing how it might work if it could work. May as well try to describe how a square circle could be constructed and what it might be good for if we somehow succeeded.

Then I guess we agree. Not sure what you're disputing, if anything. I regard communism as a preposterous pipe dream which cannot possibly work in a positive way - however, I would add that nobody even knows how it's "supposed" to work. Marx himself never explained how he thought it would work (not beyond the withering away of the state" bit). So, if you know how it's "supposed to work" I would be much obliged if you would set forth what that is, with a citation would be helpful. If you don't want to, that's fine. However, your expression of the view that it cannot work as it is "supposed to" seems to presuppose knowledge of how it is supposed to work.

How much Kropotkin have you read? Note, Marxism isn't the only road to theoretical communism. How would it work? In both Marxist-communism and anarcho-communism it's supposed to be about voluntary interactions. I.e. not that different to lassez faire capitalism in that aspect. And I view both cases (communism and lassez faire) to be naive and unworkable.

or suggest that I don't approve of communism because I'm too stupid to have understood what Marx was saying is rreally rather silly. I don't think you've done that, but others here have.

Care to back this up? I can only assume you are talking about me or Dutchy, if you aren't talking about Hermit. I certainly haven't done that, and I don't recall Dutchy doing that.

I find it really surprising that folks who seem to view it favorably (that's apparently not you) almost invariably can't describe what would be good about it. The dictatorship of the proletariat sounds positively dreadful, and I've never heard anyone defend it as a good in and of itself - it's means to the end of the glorious full communism - but not one single person - Karl Marx included - has described what full communism would look like. And, when some (not you) state they aren't going to be arsed to "coach" me on it because I'm apparently not able to fathom the eminently lucid writings of dear Karl, it strikes me as rather telling -- my bet is they know neither jack, nor shit, about it.

Again, who are these people? The only people I've ever heard defend concepts like the "dictatorship of the proletariat" are actual Marxists, a tiny fraction at the extreme end of the left. No one who still posts here considers them self a Marxist. I know Rum is influenced by Marx, but I don't know that he considers himself a Marxist. He certainly doesn't sound as kooky as one.

Hermit, if you can read the Communist Manifesto, the Critique of the Gotha Program, and the Civil War in France, and come away with an approving view of what Marx's Communism would bring about (first half, dictatorship of the proletariat), then I would love for you to explain your view on that.

You seem to presume that criticising laissez faire capitalism means I must prefer Marxism. What gives you the impression? How many more times must I post that my preference is a mixed economy and all it entails? How many more times need I reiterate that I'd rather live in a capitalist country than China or North Korea?

No - hence the conditional phrase "if" you can come away with an approving view. If you don't come away with an approving view, then we're in agreement and I have no argument with you on that point. I don't think you have to love communism to hate laissez faire capitalism.

I think we agree far more than we disagree, and this thread isn't about where you'd rather live.

If we agree, we agree - no need to force ourselves into a fight about it.

You are asking him to defend something that he clearly doesn't subscribe to. It's disrespectful to ignore the repeated writings of your fellow debaters here. It's also a fallacy to attribute arguments that people don't hold (which is something you do regularly; I've highlighted a couple of instances on this page alone). And before you start bleating about me and disrespect, as you know, I don't respect people like you.

[rainbow]

But, my only point to even talk about what I've read is that when people call me a "retard" or suggest that I don't approve of communism because I'm too stupid to have understood what Marx was saying is rreally rather silly.

You've demonstrated time and time again that you're not able to grasp the difference between the Marxian concept of "Communism", and Marxist-Lenninist Realpolitik.

Try harder.

[Brian Peacock]

Russell's Proposed Roads To Freedom is a good read. Although his views changed over time one has to be aware that it was conceived of and written against the background of The Great War and the social condition of it's time.

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/690

[mistermack]

It will always be possible to argue "ah but that's not true Marxism", no matter what example you look at.

The idea that it's shit because it's not 100 percent is a bit like political homeopathy. It's a fallacy.

You can apply the same argument to capitalism. And it would be equal bollocks.

What's the best economic system? There isn't one. It depends on the people involved, and the assets of the community.
Marx thought they were all the same, or could be made to be all the same. That was bollocks too.