Where is this caricature described in marx's theory ? You didn't get it from reading Marx, but from the usual caricatures in the media.
First, about the only thing we can say about human nature is that is is very flexible and adaptable, hence the great diversity of human cultures through history. We are capable of great selfishness and brutality and also self-sacrifice. Different cultures emphasise different aspects of our many possibilities.
Marx did not give any simple recipes for future communist societies, they would be developed by the people themselves in their particular circumstances (rather like Chomsky's reluctance to give advice about what people should do). But such societies would involve the removal of class differences, which doesn't involve us all being the same, having no personal possessions and all the other features of right-wing caricature.
But a communist society would not encourage selfish consumerism, but rather the development of what ML King termed "the content of their character". A recent documentary on Cuba did not yet again talk about lack of political freedom, instead it showed that culture's support for the arts, e.g. ballet, and, in that still macho culture, there were a large number of boys in the ballet schools.
Cf.:
The U.S. government would like you to believe that all U.S. citizens support the campaign against Cuba, but in fact lots of U.S. people think the country's anti-Cuba policy is for the birds. Treuhaft is one of them. He is one of the organizers of a project with the catchy title Send A Piana To Havana. "We tuners collect used pianos for Cuba, visit the island en masse to fix them, and help run our Newton Hunt Workshop/School of Tuning and Instrument Repair at the National School of Music in Havana." To show how absurd the U.S. policy is, while the Treasury is hounding Treuhaft for "trading with the enemy" in 1994, the following year he received permission from the U.S. Commerce Department to ship to Cuba the hundreds of pianos donated by U.S. citizens to Send A Piana To Havana! So far, the U.S. tuners have delivered 210 pianos to "the 90 conservatories that dot that musical island." And they have another 30 "waiting to go." But the U.S. government is well aware of the threat posed to American values and the democratic way of life by tuned pianos just over the water in Cuba. So this year OFAC refused to renew the U.S. piano tuners' license to travel to Cuba to tune the pianos Americans donated. "This makes no sense so I'm going anyway," said Treuhaft in a letter to the Cuba Desk of the U.S. State Department earlier this month. And he went. No doubt there will be further repercussions and efforts to stop Benjamin Treuhaft and his colleagues from continuing their simple humanitarian work. But every time U.S. government officials try to stymie such actions and to silence the "perpetrators," they create more rebels against U.S. policy in the U.S. itself. This article is reprinted from The Guardian, the newspaper of the Australian Communist Party. http://havanajournal.com/politics/entry/us_cuba_policy_out_of_tune_opinion/
He is one of the organizers of a project with the catchy title Send A Piana To Havana. "We tuners collect used pianos for Cuba, visit the island en masse to fix them, and help run our Newton Hunt Workshop/School of Tuning and Instrument Repair at the National School of Music in Havana."
To show how absurd the U.S. policy is, while the Treasury is hounding Treuhaft for "trading with the enemy" in 1994, the following year he received permission from the U.S. Commerce Department to ship to Cuba the hundreds of pianos donated by U.S. citizens to Send A Piana To Havana!
So far, the U.S. tuners have delivered 210 pianos to "the 90 conservatories that dot that musical island." And they have another 30 "waiting to go."
But the U.S. government is well aware of the threat posed to American values and the democratic way of life by tuned pianos just over the water in Cuba. So this year OFAC refused to renew the U.S. piano tuners' license to travel to Cuba to tune the pianos Americans donated.
"This makes no sense so I'm going anyway," said Treuhaft in a letter to the Cuba Desk of the U.S. State Department earlier this month. And he went.
No doubt there will be further repercussions and efforts to stop Benjamin Treuhaft and his colleagues from continuing their simple humanitarian work. But every time U.S. government officials try to stymie such actions and to silence the "perpetrators," they create more rebels against U.S. policy in the U.S. itself.
This article is reprinted from The Guardian, the newspaper of the Australian Communist Party.
http://havanajournal.com/politics/entry/us_cuba_policy_out_of_tune_opinion/
Communism is about people's potential and forms of social organisation which will develop that - not people's potential to make a few individuals very wealthy. People won't be perfect, but they won't be ruthlessly exploited and will be encouraged to understand that the development of each person requires the development of the whole society towards more humane ends (see the bit about medicine in Cuba in an earlier comment). Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
At some times, we can fit reality into many ideological frames. But beyond some point, ideology becomes like a masturbation (in mild cases). Stalin was probably aware of how far were Marx-Lenin's ideals and the real world. Trying too hard to realize a "perfection" in practice is certainly dangerous. Working ideology should be respectful of existing background, and give people time to adjust. This smells like conservativism a bit. But modern conservativism allows this wild race economical transformations, while being very narrow-minded how the whole world should adjust.
There may be times when we need to guess the right view of the world, for mere survival or civilization continuation. Otherwise no one would have a vision nor determination. Collective thinking may not be in the human nature (even without so much rationalization of individualism), but if this is this is necessary for adaption, it is within our capabilities to adopt that collective way.
i'm starting to wonder if stalin hijacked marx in the same way bush hijacked jesus... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." - Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
Fortunately he was quite produtive and his writings has studied extensively.
Dictatorship of the proletariat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The term "dictatorship" describes control by an entire class, rather than a single individual (dictator rei gerendae causa). According to Marx, the bourgeois state, being a system of class rule, amounts to a 'dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.' When workers take state power into their hands, they become the new ruling class and rule in their own interest, temporarily using the state machinery to prevent the bourgeoisie mounting a counterrevolution. Although Marx did not plan out the details of how such a dictatorship would be implemented, he pointed to the Paris Commune as a model of transition to communism. He stated that: The Commune was formed of the municipal councilors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally workers, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time.[1] This social order with its emphasis on recallable delegates and maximal public participation in governance has many similarities to the modern conception of direct democracy. Friedrich Engels, in his 1891 postscript to The Civil War in France, stated that "Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat." He criticized what he saw as corruption among politicians and stated that "the Commune made use of two infallible expedients. In this first place, it filled all posts - administrative, judicial, and educational - by election on the basis of universal suffrage of all concerned, with the right of the same electors to recall their delegate at any time. And in the second place, all officials, high or low, were paid only the wages received by other workers. The highest salary paid by the Commune to anyone was 6,000 francs. In this way an effective barrier to place-hunting and careerism was set up, even apart from the binding mandates to delegates to representative bodies which were also added in profusion." He also stated that the state is "at best an evil inherited by the proletariat after its victorious struggle for class supremacy, whose worst sides the proletariat, just like the Commune, cannot avoid having to lop off at the earliest possible moment, until such time as a new generation, reared in new and free social conditions, will be able to throw the entire lumber of the state on the scrap-heap."[2] Marx's attention to the Paris Commune would make the commune take a central place in the thought of later Marxists.
Although Marx did not plan out the details of how such a dictatorship would be implemented, he pointed to the Paris Commune as a model of transition to communism. He stated that:
The Commune was formed of the municipal councilors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally workers, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time.[1]
This social order with its emphasis on recallable delegates and maximal public participation in governance has many similarities to the modern conception of direct democracy.
Friedrich Engels, in his 1891 postscript to The Civil War in France, stated that "Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat." He criticized what he saw as corruption among politicians and stated that "the Commune made use of two infallible expedients. In this first place, it filled all posts - administrative, judicial, and educational - by election on the basis of universal suffrage of all concerned, with the right of the same electors to recall their delegate at any time. And in the second place, all officials, high or low, were paid only the wages received by other workers. The highest salary paid by the Commune to anyone was 6,000 francs. In this way an effective barrier to place-hunting and careerism was set up, even apart from the binding mandates to delegates to representative bodies which were also added in profusion." He also stated that the state is "at best an evil inherited by the proletariat after its victorious struggle for class supremacy, whose worst sides the proletariat, just like the Commune, cannot avoid having to lop off at the earliest possible moment, until such time as a new generation, reared in new and free social conditions, will be able to throw the entire lumber of the state on the scrap-heap."[2] Marx's attention to the Paris Commune would make the commune take a central place in the thought of later Marxists.
Sounds a bit different to Lenins defintions. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
But speaking of your excerpt, I knew this, I just didn't want to get into that much detail, because seeing a situation as the enemy class' dictatorship is a part of the same manicheist and violent vision. One can always argue violence can be justified when nothing else works, but the point was about the term communist dictatorship being a contradictio in termine.
We can discuss all this in detail, I only feared, as before, that this blog too will become about each and every social and political issue today or in the past.
Or is it me managing to systematically position myself opposite each and every "truth" established through previous ET debates. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/common_liberal.htm#fw03
...it must be a democracy for the exploited, ‘and a means of suppressing the exploiters; and the suppression of a class means inequality for that class, its exclusion from “democracy”. The indispensable characteristic, the necessary condition of dictatorship is the forcible suppression of the exploiters as a class, and, consequently, the infringement of “pure democracy”, i.e., of equality and freedom, in regard to that class. The proletariat cannot achieve victory without breaking the resistance of the bourgeoisie, without forcibly suppressing its adversaries, and that, where there is “forcible suppression”, where there is no “freedom”, there is, of course, no democracy
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/equality.htm Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
"So, do you simply dream of this perfect world with wonderful human beings where communism as described in theory would be a reality?" Where is this caricature described in marx's theory ? You didn't get it from reading Marx, but from the usual caricatures in the media.
No.
I got this caricature from comparing Marx/you with what I have seen and experienced and heard/learnt from others in real life.
First, about the only thing we can say about human nature is that is is very flexible and adaptable, hence the great diversity of human cultures through history. We are capable of great selfishness and brutality and also self-sacrifice.
In the "free world", democracy - you risk having poor people, a hopefully broad middle class, and few (very) wealthy people, i.e. huge inequality. But then, there would also be freedom of speech for everyone, and selfishness is framed by legal boundaries. Maybe we achieve only little but life is full of possibilities.
Of course we're flexible and adaptable but I would not want to adapt to what other people believe works best for them, and hence for me. I don't repeat any media mantra. I speak of myself.
Right-wingers also say that we are all selfish, and that "communists" are greedy people who want to have from rich people [read in the media]. Well, well, ... - I have read a bit about Cuba, and have found that your words about Cuba's education and health systems have merit. At the same time, the rich and many people of the middle class, artists and intellectuals in particular LEFT THE COUNTRY when it went communist. Those who benefited from the change stayed. ;) Further, Cuba depended on aid from the Soviet Union which led to a crisis after 1989. (no quotes; from a brochure on Latin America issued by the German Government).
Marx did not give any simple recipes for future communist societies, they would be developed by the people themselves in their particular circumstances
Communism is about people's potential and forms of social organisation which will develop that - not people's potential to make a few individuals very wealthy. People won't be perfect, but they won't be ruthlessly exploited and will be encouraged to understand that the development of each person requires the development of the whole society towards more humane ends (see the bit about medicine in Cuba in an earlier comment).
All this can only work when all involved can agree on a (this) common belief system. I for one have a genuine distrust in human constructs. Let's assume that a majority will democratically decide on communism as the new state form. This would not simply mean that I would then be part of the "minority" because there would be no minority anymore but all would have to "forcefully" (that's reality; it doesn't necessarily imply physical force) surrender to this system, where I would LOSE my anti-communistic voice. I would have to be oppressed.
This is profoundly different from the communist who complains about social injustice in a democratic system. He can still make his voice heard, give his wealth to the poor. The greedy rich ones will stay wealthy, and there will still be poor people. Communism implies that wealth will be (more) equally distributed (ideally). The rich person will have to give his money to the less fortunate.
Individuals who prefer democracy to communism also understand that it is unhealthy when there is a huge discrepancy between rich and poor. From the rich person's perspective, there will be instability.
It seems that today's pragmatism takes this also into account: In above-mentioned brochure, it was also stated that both Bolivia and Chile today rather looked like social democracies, and Obama's change also includes improving social safety (health care, education, ...).
These are natural developments that take into account both our selfish human nature and this:
the development of each person requires the development of the whole society towards more humane ends
Marxist theories will be (and are already) put in practise, neither in its idealistic perfection nor in its destructive form. Diversity (cultural, religious, personal, through free choice at many different levels) will be preserved; there will still be incentives to grow and excel (the positive side of our selfish nature), etc.
