Communism: a viable alternative? (1 Viewer)

[Shorty]

First of all, congratulations to oh shit for getting a piece in the guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/16/communism-philosophy-communist-party

But I have to ask is that really your viewpoint?

First, the question of the role of the state and the economy remains open. While Judith Balso, Toni Negri and Alain Badiou insist on creating new political movements at a distance from the state, Zizek and Bruno Bosteels point to the experiences of Bolivia and Venezuela as contemporary proof that by taking power, a progressive radical movement can survive even against overwhelming reactionary forces. For Zizek, to reject the idea of a revolutionary state in the absence of a clear alternative is a cop-out.

Especially with regard the state?
And Bolivia and Venezuala as revolutionary?!

Maybe you've been reading too much Zizek?
Actually went to see him talk a few weeks ago in Amsterdam, he was a pretty good speaker (apart from the constant nose rubbing ) and he talked on ideology which was quite different as to what I had previously understood his views to be, he referenced and talked alot about Carpenter's 'They Live' as well as a few other tangents, 9/11 and financial crisis as comedy tragedy, Bakhtin, substanzlos subjektivität, etc. and then the whole the world is fucked we need communism, come to my symposium in london spiel.

Some of the comments following the article are pretty funny.

 

[snakybus]

ah so that's what you look like Oh Shit

 

[billygannon]

ah so that's what you look like Oh Shit

I always thought he looked like this:

 

[Doctor Muscles]

I thought he was that chick off the cover of the big black album

 

[taubstumm]

he actually looks like this

 

[Cryptid]

Some of the comments following the article are pretty funny.

"Marx was an idiot" - lol.

Well done to oh shit. Hey, he's alright.

 

[Squiggle]

Good article, but human greed and absolute equality are mutually exclusive and there will always be a Napoleon (Orwell's) or two.

Nice dream, but has never worked in practice.

 

[oh shit]

First of all, congratulations to oh shit for getting a piece in the guardian

thanks, it's a bit weird.

But I have to ask is that really your viewpoint?

no. i was reporting the conference rather than trying to put my own view across. but i do take seriously the idea that there isn't a viable pure space 'outside' capitalism. the final two paragraphs are my only solid idea at the moment. a serious rethinking of radical universalist ideals, and an attempt at organisation. necessarily at a distance from the state to begin with. through a praxiological process the question of the state will be forced upon any movement, eventually.

Especially with regard the state?
And Bolivia and Venezuala as revolutionary?!

i deliberately said 'radical' and 'progressive', not revolutionary! the popular support that morales and chavez have shouldn't be overlooked, and the work that they've done shouldn't be disregarded on ideological points, i think.

Maybe you've been reading too much Zizek?
Actually went to see him talk a few weeks ago in Amsterdam, he was a pretty good speaker (apart from the constant nose rubbing ) and he talked on ideology which was quite different as to what I had previously understood his views to be, he referenced and talked alot about Carpenter's 'They Live' as well as a few other tangents, 9/11 and financial crisis as comedy tragedy, Bakhtin, substanzlos subjektivität, etc. and then the whole the world is fucked we need communism, come to my symposium in london spiel.

Some of the comments following the article are pretty funny.

yeah i've been reading and attending his seminars for a while. hm. maybe too much. he was unusually direct and serious in his address to the conference. zizek the third?

 

[Shorty]

i deliberately said 'radical' and 'progressive', not revolutionary! the popular support that morales and chavez have shouldn't be overlooked, and the work that they've done shouldn't be disregarded on ideological points, i think.

Ah, sorry.

yeah i've been reading and attending his seminars for a while. hm. maybe too much. he was unusually direct and serious in his address to the conference. zizek the third?

I enjoyed his talk anyway, didn't fully agree but he's still interesting and funny, even got a jab in at dutch protestantism haha. I suppose it's just refreshing to see someone unapologetic in their viewpoints for a change (I suppose this reflects his criticisms of liberalism and aspects of postmodernity) whether I fully agree or not.

There's another review of the conference up here;
http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2009/03/15/report-of-conference-on-the-idea-of-communism/

 

[egg_]

Good article, but human greed and absolute equality are mutually exclusive

Don't think so, squiggle - nomadic hunter-gatherer societies were/are pretty much completely egalitarian, and that's how most behaviourally modern humans lived for around 90% of our history

Not suggesting we return to that way of living, just pointing out that what you say is incorrect

 

[Jerry Twig]

Bolivia is fucked.

 

[Cryptid]

Bolivia is fucked.

That's cool, coz we're all doing so well here in the West.

(That said I've no plans to emigrate to Bolivia either.)

 

[magicbastarder]

Don't think so, squiggle - nomadic hunter-gatherer societies were/are pretty much completely egalitarian, and that's how most behaviourally modern humans lived for around 90% of our history

source?

 

[Squiggle]

Don't think so, squiggle - nomadic hunter-gatherer societies were/are pretty much completely egalitarian, and that's how most behaviourally modern humans lived for around 90% of our history

Not suggesting we return to that way of living, just pointing out that what you say is incorrect

It may work just fine at a community level - a small community of people is self-policing. But the larger the community the more problems are encountered.

I'm not saying capitalism is any better. The idea of communism is lovely, but in reality I don't share your faith in human nature and history sadly confirms my pessimism.

 

[Anarcho Munk]

source?

I've just started reading Labour in Irish History by James Connolly and it goes into what we're talking about in detail, specifically about how egalitarian Ireland was before British suppression, and on how the British way of governing impacted severely on Ireland.

It's really interesting but I've only just started it so I can't have a proper opinion on it yet, it could just be total propaghanda.

 

[billygannon]

It may work just fine at a community level - a small community of people is self-policing. But the larger the community the more problems are encountered.

I'm not saying capitalism is any better. The idea of communism is lovely, but in reality I don't share your faith in human nature and history sadly confirms my pessimism.

Actually I'd argue that history doesn't confirm your pessimism about how humans work.

One of the main reasons why humans are the dominant species on this planet is because a person is able to act for the interests of the wider group they're in rather than on behalf of themselves.
If humans really did put themselves ahead of others constantly, as a species we would have probably perished a long time ago.

Of course people behave in ways that entirely benefit themselves over others. People in power, people who are rich will act in ways that benefit themselves.

However there is a strong argument to be made that suggests that people with wealth and power are there not only because of what they do, but also because of the behaviours and actions of those around them.

In other words... the owner of the company is rich because his workforce are loyal to him. They could turf him out and take over the business at any time - but they won't.
Many of his employees will work hard to benefit the business - because they feel that working for the common good, for the business, will ultimately benefit them.

The structure in place means the guy who owns the company gains the greatest benefits from it.
But it is only a structure. This business could be providing something really useful and could still prosper with a more egalitarian structure where the profits are spread out more evenly.
But the employees won't change it because it might not work.

 

[Jerry Twig]

That's cool, coz we're all doing so well here in the West.

(That said I've no plans to emigrate to Bolivia either.)

haha, good man!

 

[IFF]

did the people who comment on the article actually read the whole article or did they just read the headline?

 

[plug]

hasn't bolivia always been fucked?

 

[oh shit]

Good article, but human greed and absolute equality are mutually exclusive and there will always be a Napoleon (Orwell's) or two.

Nice dream, but has never worked in practice.

firstly, it has worked in practice.

moreover, arguments about some natural human condition miss the point completely. as others have pointed out there have always been social forms of gift, exchange, and mutual co-operation that cannot be reduced to capitalist ideas of profit-accumulation. capitalism is as much an idea as communism and it is an extremely dynamic one. capitalism today is again changing, and it's not because human nature dictates it, it's because the bosses and the ruling classes are concerned to keep their position of wealth and privilege.

more moreover, it doesn't matter what human nature dictates. it's called a 'dictatorship' of the proletariat for a reason. we're coerced into capitalism - work or starve, fuckers - why should we exclude coercion into communism just because it offends some idea of human nature? if anything, it just reinforces the case for a strong state communism.