Showing posts with label communism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label communism. Show all posts
Thursday, February 6, 2014
Myths about Communism and Capitalism
Someone sent me this article, and I think it's worth a read. I believe I have raised some or many of these points in my blog; however, it is nice to get them from someone who can write more eloquently than I can.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Why Marx Is Not Radical
Finally, I get around to really explaining/justifying the title of my blog.
As I noted in my last post, “radical” is an example of a “loaded word.” It is used specifically to draw associations with historical communism, violence, plots to overthrow governments, anarchism, atheism, and thought that is in some way “nonrational.”
It is true that Marx’s philosophy is a threat to the status quo; and it is true that I have advocated complete systemic transformation in this blog. But when Marx or Marxists are attacked with the label “radical,” it is more than a comment about the social implications of their thought. It is a strategic means of discrediting Marxist thought: implying that it is inherently violent, obviously proven wrong, not worthy of simple consideration. And this is where I disagree and proclaim that Marx is not radical.
If someone professes to be Marxist, it does not mean that they are plotting the violent overthrow of any government. Many, to the contrary, are pacifists. They may think we have a broken and unjust system that needs to be changed, but how many people would truly disagree with that sentiment?
If someone professes to be Marxist, that does not mean they are Leninist, Trotskyist, or Maoist. Some obviously are/were. Some may point out that the Western portrayal of actually existing "communism" is markedly distorted, without trying to redeem all aspects of those regimes. It may bear repeating that many of the things that happened in the Soviet Union, China, and other places deviated quite widely from the actual writings of Marx. Furthermore, it is absolutely not true that the writings of Marx inevitably lead to the events in the USSR and China. It is an absurd argument, but I think I will have to devote an entire post to its refutation, nonetheless.
Finally, if someone professes to be Marxist, that does not mean they have lost their grip on reality, that their arguments are not logical or based on real evidence, or that there is automatically no merit to any of their thoughts. This one really gets me. How can so much well reasoned, well researched thinking be dismissed so quickly because of a label? No one should discount the ideas of any other person without examining what it is they are actually saying and evaluating their thought upon the arguments/evidence themselves.
That is why I hope anyone who happens to find this blog (who is not already Marxist), would at least take the time to look at what I am saying, to critically evaluate my arguments, at the very least to acknowledge that my thinking is in some way reasonable, without rushing to judgment based purely on labels. But I’m probably asking too much.
As I noted in my last post, “radical” is an example of a “loaded word.” It is used specifically to draw associations with historical communism, violence, plots to overthrow governments, anarchism, atheism, and thought that is in some way “nonrational.”
It is true that Marx’s philosophy is a threat to the status quo; and it is true that I have advocated complete systemic transformation in this blog. But when Marx or Marxists are attacked with the label “radical,” it is more than a comment about the social implications of their thought. It is a strategic means of discrediting Marxist thought: implying that it is inherently violent, obviously proven wrong, not worthy of simple consideration. And this is where I disagree and proclaim that Marx is not radical.
If someone professes to be Marxist, it does not mean that they are plotting the violent overthrow of any government. Many, to the contrary, are pacifists. They may think we have a broken and unjust system that needs to be changed, but how many people would truly disagree with that sentiment?
If someone professes to be Marxist, that does not mean they are Leninist, Trotskyist, or Maoist. Some obviously are/were. Some may point out that the Western portrayal of actually existing "communism" is markedly distorted, without trying to redeem all aspects of those regimes. It may bear repeating that many of the things that happened in the Soviet Union, China, and other places deviated quite widely from the actual writings of Marx. Furthermore, it is absolutely not true that the writings of Marx inevitably lead to the events in the USSR and China. It is an absurd argument, but I think I will have to devote an entire post to its refutation, nonetheless.
Finally, if someone professes to be Marxist, that does not mean they have lost their grip on reality, that their arguments are not logical or based on real evidence, or that there is automatically no merit to any of their thoughts. This one really gets me. How can so much well reasoned, well researched thinking be dismissed so quickly because of a label? No one should discount the ideas of any other person without examining what it is they are actually saying and evaluating their thought upon the arguments/evidence themselves.
That is why I hope anyone who happens to find this blog (who is not already Marxist), would at least take the time to look at what I am saying, to critically evaluate my arguments, at the very least to acknowledge that my thinking is in some way reasonable, without rushing to judgment based purely on labels. But I’m probably asking too much.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
National Standards: The Tipping Point
The culminating moment of opposition between the national standards movement (which sought to retain, if not expand, the role of the federal government and the Department of Education) and the school choice movement that countered it, came in 1994. After A Nation at Risk was published in 1983, national committees were established in every major school subject to create voluntary national standards. The idea was to raise the quality of public education for everyone by outlining a clear set of common standards that would guide the improvement of curricula and instruction.
One of the last subjects to be tackled was history. Lynne Cheney, then chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities, funded and participated in the creation of the history standards. However, by the time the standards were nearing a state of completion, Cheney quit her position at the NEH and turned her attention to political concerns. An important mid-term election was approaching (the Republicans would finally gain control of Congress that fall) and her husband, Dick Cheney (also a Republican), was considering a presidential candidacy. At this time many Republican kingmakers had taken a strong interest in education and were full-fledged supporters of school choice. If you were a Republican with political ambitions, you had no choice but to take up the mantel of choice.
But Cheney did not just run away from the national history standards. She launched an all-out attack on them. She claimed that she had been bamboozled, and that the standards had been "hijacked" by a bunch of academic radicals who sought to use education to undermine the foundations of American society and incite a socialist/communist revolution. Her supporting examples (e.g. how many times George Washington is mentioned versus Harriet Tubman) are gross distortions of the documents, and sometimes outright false. Considering the level of her involvement with these standards, I have a hard time believing that she merely misinterpreted them. To me, the distortions seem completely intentional. In reality, there was nothing particularly out of the ordinary with these standards, except that they demanded much of students' ability to reason and form arguments. In fact, my own history education (which I would consider anything but radical) seemed to resemble the standards, with perhaps less rigor.
The article Cheney wrote for the Wall Street Journal ended up being a huge political cash cow. The controversy dominated public and political discussion for months and provided a platform for the Republicans to tighten their ideological narrative. (Just as a side note, the Senate voted to symbolically condemn the history standards; the only "nay" was a Republican who felt the wording was not strong enough.)
What Cheney and those who followed her were able to do was portray a certain relationship between the federal government and institutions of higher education: that academic radicals had in some way infiltrated or aligned with government bureaucracies and were simultaneously seeking to foment some kind of socialist or communist revolution. In this way, Cheney et al. were able to strengthen associations that derived from the core of their ideology, most notably the connection between projects and processes of national scope and radical social change, federal control and communist revolution.
With the "curriculum wars" of 1994, the idea of national standards was dead. The last remnants of what grew out of A Nation at Risk survived in the form of high-stakes testing and "accountability," and quickly adapted themselves to a new world dominated by "choice."
One of the last subjects to be tackled was history. Lynne Cheney, then chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities, funded and participated in the creation of the history standards. However, by the time the standards were nearing a state of completion, Cheney quit her position at the NEH and turned her attention to political concerns. An important mid-term election was approaching (the Republicans would finally gain control of Congress that fall) and her husband, Dick Cheney (also a Republican), was considering a presidential candidacy. At this time many Republican kingmakers had taken a strong interest in education and were full-fledged supporters of school choice. If you were a Republican with political ambitions, you had no choice but to take up the mantel of choice.
But Cheney did not just run away from the national history standards. She launched an all-out attack on them. She claimed that she had been bamboozled, and that the standards had been "hijacked" by a bunch of academic radicals who sought to use education to undermine the foundations of American society and incite a socialist/communist revolution. Her supporting examples (e.g. how many times George Washington is mentioned versus Harriet Tubman) are gross distortions of the documents, and sometimes outright false. Considering the level of her involvement with these standards, I have a hard time believing that she merely misinterpreted them. To me, the distortions seem completely intentional. In reality, there was nothing particularly out of the ordinary with these standards, except that they demanded much of students' ability to reason and form arguments. In fact, my own history education (which I would consider anything but radical) seemed to resemble the standards, with perhaps less rigor.
The article Cheney wrote for the Wall Street Journal ended up being a huge political cash cow. The controversy dominated public and political discussion for months and provided a platform for the Republicans to tighten their ideological narrative. (Just as a side note, the Senate voted to symbolically condemn the history standards; the only "nay" was a Republican who felt the wording was not strong enough.)
What Cheney and those who followed her were able to do was portray a certain relationship between the federal government and institutions of higher education: that academic radicals had in some way infiltrated or aligned with government bureaucracies and were simultaneously seeking to foment some kind of socialist or communist revolution. In this way, Cheney et al. were able to strengthen associations that derived from the core of their ideology, most notably the connection between projects and processes of national scope and radical social change, federal control and communist revolution.
With the "curriculum wars" of 1994, the idea of national standards was dead. The last remnants of what grew out of A Nation at Risk survived in the form of high-stakes testing and "accountability," and quickly adapted themselves to a new world dominated by "choice."
Thursday, July 28, 2011
The Russian Revolution Was Not Engineered
Admid all the distortions and misinformation regarding the Russian Revolution/Communism, there is one to which I would like to give brief attention.
It is commonly held that the Revolution was initiated and engineered by the Marxist intellectual elite: essentially a coup instigated by militant academics. It was Lenin's return to Russia (aided by the Germans, who were purposely trying to destabilize the country [this claim is true]) that enabled the Revolution.
In fact, Lenin was only opportunistic. A small subset of revolutionaries, led by Lenin, were able to coopt, by force, what was actually a much larger movement. There had been repeated peasant uprisings and other such turmoil for a while before the Revolution of 1917, and Lenin did not have much, if anything, to do with any of these acts of resistance.
It is severely misguided to assume that without Lenin, or even without the Bolshevik party as a whole, the Revolution would not have taken place. The revutionary forces minus the Bolsheviks were so strong that it is hard to imagine that peace could be kept. Granted, I do not believe that, without the Bolsheviks, there would have been a communist utopia. Probably some sort of milktoast social-democratic variety of capitalism would have prevailed. And then there would have been some other justification for the Cold War (assuming Russia would still have been imperialist), other than the pseduo-ideological one.
The point, however, is that the Russian Revolution is reflective of real anger and real determination to affect change, felt by a significant portion of the population. People were fed up!
This came to mind as I was reading Langston Hughes' biography, in which he describes the way his eastern European classmates (a large demographic in his high school) reacted to the developments abroad. They fiercly supported the Revolution and celebrated when the communists and socialists made advances.
The Revolution was not only a power struggle between the Old Guard and an Intellectual Elite. It was, in the beginning, a movement of the people.
It is commonly held that the Revolution was initiated and engineered by the Marxist intellectual elite: essentially a coup instigated by militant academics. It was Lenin's return to Russia (aided by the Germans, who were purposely trying to destabilize the country [this claim is true]) that enabled the Revolution.
In fact, Lenin was only opportunistic. A small subset of revolutionaries, led by Lenin, were able to coopt, by force, what was actually a much larger movement. There had been repeated peasant uprisings and other such turmoil for a while before the Revolution of 1917, and Lenin did not have much, if anything, to do with any of these acts of resistance.
It is severely misguided to assume that without Lenin, or even without the Bolshevik party as a whole, the Revolution would not have taken place. The revutionary forces minus the Bolsheviks were so strong that it is hard to imagine that peace could be kept. Granted, I do not believe that, without the Bolsheviks, there would have been a communist utopia. Probably some sort of milktoast social-democratic variety of capitalism would have prevailed. And then there would have been some other justification for the Cold War (assuming Russia would still have been imperialist), other than the pseduo-ideological one.
The point, however, is that the Russian Revolution is reflective of real anger and real determination to affect change, felt by a significant portion of the population. People were fed up!
This came to mind as I was reading Langston Hughes' biography, in which he describes the way his eastern European classmates (a large demographic in his high school) reacted to the developments abroad. They fiercly supported the Revolution and celebrated when the communists and socialists made advances.
The Revolution was not only a power struggle between the Old Guard and an Intellectual Elite. It was, in the beginning, a movement of the people.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Dictatorship and the USSR
Before leaving the topic of dictatorship, I want to address one more issue that has nothing to do with the MENA protests. For, it is often claimed that the events following the Russian Revolution of 1917 demonstrate a truth about human nature that implies the necessary failure of any attempts to create an egalitarian society.
The argument goes something like this: It is human nature for people to try to gain power and take advantage of others. Therefore, attempts at creating an egalitarian society will necessarily end with power being concentrated into the hands of a few people. It should come as no surprise that the Russian Revolution resulted in a repressive dictatorship. (In fact, I am basically outlining the entire premise of Animal Farm, as I remember it.)
But it is always a mistake to haphazardly attribute to "human nature" (a muddled concept anyway) circumstances that have emerged out of specific historical processes and material conditions.
From an anthropological standpoint, the above argument is unfounded. In fact, there is a much better explanation for why the Russian Revolution produced a dictatorship.
At the time of the Revolution:
-Most of the country suffered from poverty and famine
-Infrastructure had been ravaged by World War 1
-Adequate ideological infrastructure had not been developed to integrate the very diverse regions of the Empire and to legitimate the rule of the Tsar.
Thus, amid conditions of poverty and an infrastructural void, the state had to rely on repression and violence to consolidate its rule, just as it does in other countries facing the same internal conditions.
When the conditions that have produced dictatorships all over the world, time and again, were present in Revolutionary Russia, then one must assume that it was these conditions that predisposed the USSR to dictatorship.
So, neither did the U.S. possess an economic organization that was diametrically opposed to the USSR, nor did it possess such a political organization. The difference between the U.S. and the USSR was always a difference in wealth and not in ideology.
The argument goes something like this: It is human nature for people to try to gain power and take advantage of others. Therefore, attempts at creating an egalitarian society will necessarily end with power being concentrated into the hands of a few people. It should come as no surprise that the Russian Revolution resulted in a repressive dictatorship. (In fact, I am basically outlining the entire premise of Animal Farm, as I remember it.)
But it is always a mistake to haphazardly attribute to "human nature" (a muddled concept anyway) circumstances that have emerged out of specific historical processes and material conditions.
From an anthropological standpoint, the above argument is unfounded. In fact, there is a much better explanation for why the Russian Revolution produced a dictatorship.
At the time of the Revolution:
-Most of the country suffered from poverty and famine
-Infrastructure had been ravaged by World War 1
-Adequate ideological infrastructure had not been developed to integrate the very diverse regions of the Empire and to legitimate the rule of the Tsar.
Thus, amid conditions of poverty and an infrastructural void, the state had to rely on repression and violence to consolidate its rule, just as it does in other countries facing the same internal conditions.
When the conditions that have produced dictatorships all over the world, time and again, were present in Revolutionary Russia, then one must assume that it was these conditions that predisposed the USSR to dictatorship.
So, neither did the U.S. possess an economic organization that was diametrically opposed to the USSR, nor did it possess such a political organization. The difference between the U.S. and the USSR was always a difference in wealth and not in ideology.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Myths About Marx
In my first post, I listed some common misconceptions about Marx, Marxism, and communism... sort of as a teaser. Now that I have sketched a rough outline of my Marxist perspective, I thought it might be a good time to revisit that list of myths and explain (briefly) why these beliefs are unfounded. Hopefully I will have time in future posts to expand on some of these a bit more. (The last two on the list I have already touched on to some extent, so I will postpone, for now, discussing them further.)
1. Marx advocated the expansion of state power.
Marx believed that the state was only a tool of ruling class interests. Rather than wanting to expand state power, Marx looked toward a future without any state.
2. Marx called for the obliteration of any forms individuality, and the imposition of complete and absolute equality in all aspects of life, most particularly with wages.
Marx did not advocate total and absolute equality. He never criticized individual expression. The thing that he opposed was exploitation and the thing that he supported was production that was oriented toward fulfilling actual needs (rather than creating needs... and waste) and making the most of human creative and intellectual potential. In his communist utopia there certainly could have been room for inequality and diversity in different aspects of life. However, production in general would not be based on relations of exploitation, labor would be fulfilling rather than grueling and inhumane, and production would be communally guided to satisfy real needs.
Furthermore, Marx did not focus that much on his vision for the future evolution of society, and much of it remains sketchy. Most of his work was occupied with historical and economic analysis, which is unparalleled in its detail and explanatory value, and still hugely influential to this day.
3. Marx advised the working class to rise up and rule over the other classes, effectively reversing the class hierarchy.
Once again, Marx opposed exploitation of any kind. Although there is some mention in his writing of possible "transitional states," this is even more sketchy than his communist utopia.
4. Marx did not find any value in capitalism.
Marx thought that capitalism was a necessary and valuable step in the evolutionary process that would eventually lead to communism. Primarily, it was valuable in that it promoted technological innovation on such an unprecedented scale. One of the conditions of the transition to communism was that technological development would reach such a level that human beings would be freed from the drudgery of mindless physical labor: machines would be able to do all the jobs that were degrading or alienating to the human intellect and spirit.
5. Marx favored violence and insurrection.
Marx was never trying to precipitate class warfare. He never advocated violence. He thought that conflict was the inevitable, natural result of exploitation. (If you piss someone off enough, they will retaliate eventually.) Thus, he said that revolution was going to occur, organically, he didn't say he wanted to make it occur.
6. Communism, as it has existed historically, is an accurate reflection of Marx's vision.
There are many reasons why the communism of the USSR and its satellites does not reflect the writings of Marx... probably because it bears absolutely no resemblance to Marx's communism. I will only point out a couple of glaring differences here, because this could easily turn into an essay of its own.
1. Marx advocated the expansion of state power.
Marx believed that the state was only a tool of ruling class interests. Rather than wanting to expand state power, Marx looked toward a future without any state.
2. Marx called for the obliteration of any forms individuality, and the imposition of complete and absolute equality in all aspects of life, most particularly with wages.
Marx did not advocate total and absolute equality. He never criticized individual expression. The thing that he opposed was exploitation and the thing that he supported was production that was oriented toward fulfilling actual needs (rather than creating needs... and waste) and making the most of human creative and intellectual potential. In his communist utopia there certainly could have been room for inequality and diversity in different aspects of life. However, production in general would not be based on relations of exploitation, labor would be fulfilling rather than grueling and inhumane, and production would be communally guided to satisfy real needs.
Furthermore, Marx did not focus that much on his vision for the future evolution of society, and much of it remains sketchy. Most of his work was occupied with historical and economic analysis, which is unparalleled in its detail and explanatory value, and still hugely influential to this day.
3. Marx advised the working class to rise up and rule over the other classes, effectively reversing the class hierarchy.
Once again, Marx opposed exploitation of any kind. Although there is some mention in his writing of possible "transitional states," this is even more sketchy than his communist utopia.
4. Marx did not find any value in capitalism.
Marx thought that capitalism was a necessary and valuable step in the evolutionary process that would eventually lead to communism. Primarily, it was valuable in that it promoted technological innovation on such an unprecedented scale. One of the conditions of the transition to communism was that technological development would reach such a level that human beings would be freed from the drudgery of mindless physical labor: machines would be able to do all the jobs that were degrading or alienating to the human intellect and spirit.
5. Marx favored violence and insurrection.
Marx was never trying to precipitate class warfare. He never advocated violence. He thought that conflict was the inevitable, natural result of exploitation. (If you piss someone off enough, they will retaliate eventually.) Thus, he said that revolution was going to occur, organically, he didn't say he wanted to make it occur.
6. Communism, as it has existed historically, is an accurate reflection of Marx's vision.
There are many reasons why the communism of the USSR and its satellites does not reflect the writings of Marx... probably because it bears absolutely no resemblance to Marx's communism. I will only point out a couple of glaring differences here, because this could easily turn into an essay of its own.
- Marx argued that the communist revolution could only occur after attaining a certain level of technological development and globalization, which had certainly not been reached by 1917, nor even now.
- Marx was very clear that true a communist revolution had to be a global movement. It could not occur in one country or one region of the world alone.
- Marx's utopia was stateless... it was not a ruthless, genocidal dictatorship/empire.
- The revolution in Russia turned into a movement toward industrialization, which, I have already argued, made it more capitalist. For Marx, the communist revolution was a movement from industrial society to something different.
I should definitely do a post about this one, because I could keep going on and on and on....
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Socialism is a Form of Capitalism
Socialism and communism are generally held as rival economic systems to capitalism, and more often than not, in the creation of economic spectra, are placed in complete opposition to capitalism. However, as far as socialism and communism have existed historically, this is not the case.
First, remember that in order for capitalism to succeed, some sort of regulation/manipulation of the market is necessary. The state has been, for the most part, the most important tool in achieving these ends. However, the way in which a particular such "tool" may be utilized in a given situation (i.e. the degree of state organization of production, types of market regulations pursued, state spending patterns, etc.) is determined by its relation to the world market as a whole. Thus, the level of state involvement in the market is an attribute of global relations and not a means by which to categorize isolated economic systems.
In socialist and communist nations, the state essentially acts as a large capitalist firm. Production is still rooted in wage labor and generalized commodity production. Participation in the world market still occurs, though certainly a different set of regional constraints are put in place via the state.
Take, for example, Russia. Prior to the Revolution, the economy of the Russian Empire rested primarily on a feudal-type system of labor and production. Industrialization was quite nascent and weak compared to its development within other imperial powers. The primary objective of the communist leadership after consolidating its power was to heavily increase its industrial base and "catch up" with the other powers. As the sort of industrialization pursued by the communist leadership is precisely the sort which constitutes the basis of capitalism, Russia, under communist rule, became more capitalist (in other words, expanded capitalist relations of production at the expense of non-capitalist ones).
Take, for example, Russia. Prior to the Revolution, the economy of the Russian Empire rested primarily on a feudal-type system of labor and production. Industrialization was quite nascent and weak compared to its development within other imperial powers. The primary objective of the communist leadership after consolidating its power was to heavily increase its industrial base and "catch up" with the other powers. As the sort of industrialization pursued by the communist leadership is precisely the sort which constitutes the basis of capitalism, Russia, under communist rule, became more capitalist (in other words, expanded capitalist relations of production at the expense of non-capitalist ones).
Thus, the types of socialism and communism that have existed throughout the last century are not alternatives to capitalism, but part of the capitalist system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)