Concerning the Ebola Outbreak

Since this topic has been consuming our news cycles in one way or another for the past few months I feel the need to offer my views on the matter. I will ignore the actual human crisis of the outbreak because that is a given and has been covered by news outlets with great depth. Instead I will offer a criticism of the developed world's response to the crisis.

Ever since the Ebola outbreak began, the developed world, which I will refer to as "the West" from here on, has had a stance of distanced concern. However, despite their concern, which is mostly of the economic kind, we have seen little to no actual aid until we saw cases arrive in our respective nations. The US had refused to send any aid of real significance until an African man was admitted to a hospital in Texas. This slow response stems from the inherently racist policies of the US which disregard the developing world unless events in those nations have a profound economic effect on the US or result in the US public getting scared shitless. In the current case the only reason that we seem to care now is that we have seen a case on US soil and the apathetic people of the US are finally screaming bloody murder about "outbreaks."

Everyone must realize that this problem has been going on for a while now and had more drastic aid been given earlier then the outbreak in Western Africa could have been contained before it became a real problem. Instead the international community, led by the West, has systematically ignored the deaths of thousands of Africans because they are considered to not be important by Western leaders. If this outbreak had initially happened in the US or Western Europe you can be guaranteed that it would have been stopped before hitting 100 confirmed cases. Instead we have seen the death toll rise above 4000 and little has been done in the form of considerable amounts of aid. The only nation that has offered considerable aid thus far has been Cuba which sent 165 doctors to help care for Ebola patients and that aid was sent over a month ago back when no body in the West seemed to care about sending more aid.

How can we in the West claim to be compassionate about helping people when in the midst of this crisis we have only sent aid to help a few Western doctors. Even if we as individuals have great compassion for the people affected by this crisis we have not shown much impetus to try to get our governments to help those in the effected areas and those who have raised cries to send aid have had their message fall on deaf ears. It is telling when the US Congress has started discussions about enacting a travel ban before we have begun discussions to send substantial aid.

Repost: Anti-Israel Does Not Equal Anti-Jew

I have encountered many individuals who seem misguided in their opinions of me and my beliefs. One major point of contention with these people tends to be my views on Israel. It is my firm belief that over the past forty years the state of Israel has systematically committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide against the Palestinian people. Every credible legal authority in the West has concluded that Israel constantly breaches international law regarding "settlements" in Palestinian lands. The settlement policy on its own constitutes genocide. In every conflict since the 1970s Israel disproportionately kills civilians in their military campaigns through "collateral damage" (we need only look at the most recent Israeli attack on the Gaza Strip for evidence of this). If Israel were a signatory of the International Criminal Court then they would undoubtedly have leaders regularly on trial for their actions. Let me include the internationally recognized definition of genocide as agreed to by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (of which Israel is one of the original signatories):

"Article II:  In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

• (a) Killing members of the group;
• (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
• (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
• (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
• (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III:  The following acts shall be punishable:

• (a) Genocide;
• (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
• (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
• (d) Attempt to commit genocide;
• (e) Complicity in genocide. "

I charge that the state of Israel is guilty of genocide based on points a, b, and c of what defines genocide and a, b, d, and e of acts punishable as genocide.

Killing members of the group:

Israel kills Palestinians all the time, and often for trivial reasons. Palestinians show up to protest the Israeli occupation, they get shot. Palestinain children venture too close to an Israeli area, they get shot. Palestinians are regularly killed by the Isreali Defence Force all the time. And that does not include the targeted killings of women and children in UN run facilities during the most recent conflict in Gaza which is a blatant affront to international conduct in war.

Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group:

Well I'd say this includes death but Israel also has systematically blockaded supplies from reaching the West Bank and Gaza Strip which has led to poverty and starvation on a mass scale. Israel has also prevented Palestinian fishermen from fishing in bountiful waters that territoriality belong to Gaza thus preventing the Palestinian people from being able to provide for themselves. Countless Palestinians die from lack of medical care and starvation. When Israel occupied the Palestinian territories, they implicitly took it upon themselves that by controlling the territory that they would be responsible for the well being of the Palestinian people. They have failed on a systematic level to take care of the Palestinians. At the same time they have denied the Palestinian people the ability to form their own state capable of providing for them. This double edged blade means that Israel, both actively and passively, is causing harm and mental distress to every Palestinian in the occupied territories.

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part:

As stated previously, the blockade of Palestinian lands has had the effect, or at least the intent, of debilitating the Palestinian people into a state whereby the Israelis can get anything that they want out of the Palestinians. The state of Israel believes that since the God gave them the land of Israel that they, and only they, are entitled to it. Anyone else is simply there by the grace of the Israeli state to serve, in one manner or another, the Israeli people. Implicit in this goal is the unstated goal of removing the Palestinian people from land that they have lived in for millennia.

Acts punishable as genocide:

Genocide:

The above actions, at least in my mind and the minds of many others, constitute a full blown genocide. Maybe not as calculated and deliberate as the Holocaust, but still just as evil in its outcome.

Conspiracy to commit genocide:

By undertaking the actions it has already taken, the state of Israel can be said to have conspired to commit genocide in order to gain their "Promised Land" from the "invading" Palestinian peoples.

Attempt to commit genocide:

By actually undertaking their conspired activities and killing and forcibly taking land from the Palestinians, the state of Israel have attempted, whether actively or indirectly, to commit genocide.

Complicity in genocide:

At the very least, by not preventing their own armed forces and radical religious elements from committing genocidal acts against the Palestinians, the state of Israel has been complicit in the genocidal acts committed by those sections of their society without punishing them or forcing them to stop their heinous activities.

For all of these reason it is my earnest belief that the state of Israel is a criminal state whose leaders should be tried for numerous crimes.

Now for the clarification. My beliefs about the state of Israel does not make me anti-Semitic. I know and am friends with many Jews. They are wonderful people. Their faith is beautiful and has a prominent place in the history of western civilization's development. Jews have had many crimes committed against them because of their faith both in modern times and in the past. I sympathize with all the victims of the Holocaust and cry every time I think of the horrible things done to the Jews by the Germans in the name of "racial purity." No one can deny that the Holocaust was the single most horrible thing committed by man against his fellow man. I also know that not all people in Israel agree with the actions their government is taking against the Palestinians and I urge them to continue their fight against injustice in their country. My anger and hatred is directed only against those leaders of the state of Israel, and those elements of Israeli society, that actively push for the destruction of the Palestinian people in order to form a "perfect Israel." It is my belief that too often the Israeli right uses the Holocaust as a crutch to try and remove blame for their own actions and sometimes even justify their actions. The minute you claim to be against the Israeli, or even more alarmingly for the Israeli right for the Palestinians, they label you an anti-Semite who wishes to renew the Holocaust and that is simply not true. If the state of Israel went out tomorrow and tore down all their settlements in the West Bank and the wall along their border, removed their troops from Palestinian lands, and gave the Palestinian people the right to form an independent nation then I would have nothing to complain about. The problem I have is that Israel is doing exactly the opposite. They oppress the Palestinian people at every turn and in every way possible. Until the Israeli state ends its policy of genocide and oppression I, as a Marxist, cannot and will not, under any circumstance, support the Israeli state. I urge the Palestinian people to continue their fight for freedom and justice and I also urge the people of Israel to fight the against the injustices being committed in their names. We must work to end all oppression, wherever it manifests itself.

Repost: Marxist FAQ: Dictatorship of the Proletariat

There has been much confusion among non-Marxists when the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" is mentioned. Most people believe that this means dictatorship in the modern sense of an oppressive system led from the top down by one leader or a small group of leaders and they point to the use of the word "dictatorship" as their proof. However I am here to clear up that confusion. The phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" was coined at a time before the rise of the modern dictatorship and as such has lost the contextual meaning that the phrase meant when the phrase was coined in the 19th century. When the phrase began to be used, "dictatorship" meant absolute leadership. Thus the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" meant the absolute leadership of the proletariat. In practice however I think that the modern equivalent phrase should be "proletarian democracy" and I will use that phrase in the future.

Proletarian democracy is what Marxists are truly trying to establish. But what is proletarian democracy? In proletarian democracy the State operates on a democratic basis with the caveat that the proletariat is the only class that is allowed to participate. This is in contrast with modern liberal democracy where all classes are permitted to participate. Now is usually the point where liberals and conservatives alike cry out in terror "but you are quashing freedom!" In reality, no we are not. By only allowing the proletariat to participate who is truly being left out: the small group of wealthy people who don't have to work at a job to ensure their livelihood. By removing the influence of the wealthy we can finally realize true democracy. Today the rich contribute to political campaigns and corrupt our political system to the core. By removing their influence we remove the corrupting influence of money in politics. This is not the only part of proletarian democracy for if it was then all we must do to institute proletarian democracy would be to do away with private financing of campaigns. Proletarian democracy would also prevent the rich from being able to be elected or seeking election. This ensures that the proletariat is represented in government by itself. Only by totally removing the wealthy from the political process at all levels can we achieve proletarian democracy. But again this is not all because this political system would be further coupled with the socialist ownership of the means of production. These three prongs together not only take away the influence of the wealthy but eventually ensures that they will become members of the proletariat as well. When there are no rich people left then proletarian democracy becomes true democracy in every sense of the word.

There are numerous schools of thought as to what a proletarian democracy would actually look like. Some view it as a single-party state led by a vanguard party. Some view it as a popular front of all leftist groups banding together to ensure leftist consensus and prevent the emergence of a ruling elite. Others of the more anarchist persuasion would do away with the State entirely and have proletarian democracy on a purely informal basis and only at the local level with participation being voluntary. There have been numerous attempted experiments in proletarian democracy but none has proved to be successful due to the corrupting influences of bureaucratism and the outside influence of capitalism upon socialist states. These influences have the effect of degrading proletarian democracy into bureaucratic, elitist systems that reward party loyalty and loyalty to the State over proletarian democratic initiative. Only when the world is transformed into a world of socialism will we truly be able to begin the great experiment in proletarian democracy.

Repost: Liberal Democracy is Bourgeois Dictatorship

So for a long while I have been contemplating the nature of our democracy.  This question goes back to the very beginnings of my becoming aware of politics. While I have undergone a major shift in my political thinking over the years, my pursuit for understanding of liberal democracy has continued. As of late I have been rereading many of the works by Marx and Lenin (most notably the Critique of the Gotha Programme by Marx and Engels and The State and Revolution by Lenin) and have been philosophically confronted with the opposing forces constantly at work within democracy and how those forces effect our democracy.

In many different works, and in may different ways, Marxists of all tendencies have stated that liberal, or bourgeois, democracy is in fact a dictatorship of the bourgeois over the rest of society. While there are some reformist socialists who disagree with this sentiment, the majority of Marxists would agree with the aforementioned assessment. I am inclined to agree with my fellow Marxists and here are my reasons:

1. Liberal democracy is a shade pulled over the eyes of the masses in order to hide or obscure the true nature of the "democracy."
2. The capitalist system, by its very nature, prevents the emergence of true democracy.
3. If true democracy were to exist, the capitalist system would collapse.
4. Because of the previous statement, capitalists will never allow society, no matter how liberal, to become fully democratic because that would entail them losing all of their influence over politics and state power.

I will now address and explain my reasons one by one.

Liberal democracy is a shade pulled over the eyes of the masses in order to hide or obscure the true nature of the "democracy." This is most likely to be the most difficult to understand and most resisted reason anyone would believe Marxist assertions on the nature of democracy. Why, the doubters and deniers say, if democracy is a hollow shell are we allowed to vote? Isn't the very fact that there are free and open elections enough evidence that liberal democracy is true democracy? I will answer these questions with another question: what defines "democracy?" Democracy is Greek for "rule of the masses." This means that if you are going to say you are a democracy then the masses must rule. But in a liberal, bourgeois democracy the masses do not rule. Rule is carried out by economic and political elites who make decisions that effect everyone with little or no input from the average person. Every so many years a few, mostly rich, individuals stand in front of large crowds of people saying "elect me and I will do X, Y, and Z in your name" and for some reason we believe them.

The vast majority of the actions undertaken by our elected officials serve only their own interests or the interests of their wealthy financiers. I would ask any person to come up with a single piece of substantial legislation recently that has helped only regular people. If just one rich person or company or corporation is aided then the legislation is automatically disqualified from consideration. I say this because even in the most seemingly populist legislation there are articles and provisions that directly or indirectly aid those in power at the expense of the average person. Want a tax break for Walmart so they can "create jobs", you are supporting the bourgeois by allowing them to pay lower taxes. Want to make a sales tax to pay for new road construction, you are indirectly hurting millions of people who live paycheck to paycheck who are hurt by sales taxes on a hugely unproportional level compared to the rich.

Democracy serves only as a means to legitimize the rule of the wealthy. Look at any legislature in a liberal democracy and you will see a mass of individuals who are wealthy. Not a single member of the US Congress lives under the poverty line. Compare this to the fact that 16% of the US population live in families that earn less than $27,000 a year. A US Congressperson earns $174,000 per year. No matter how you try to justify that, you are left with the fact that this automatically places our political leaders into the echelons of the wealthy elite while the vast majority of Americans are left in the dust. I don't know about you but I don't trust some rich person, no matter how well intended they are in their actions, to devise welfare policy that in no way effects them or their family. They will go at the task with at best an earnest interest, and more commonly a distanced concern. But that does not negate the fact they since they are not living day to day they have no idea what a person living in poverty is faced with. I was baffled by  a story recently where a Congress person attempted to live on minimum wage (he failed within a couple weeks by the way) and how that level of political theater was applauded by the liberal left. Unless that congressman was literally forced to live on minimum wage with no out then he has no idea what stresses are involved in that kind of life and his actions only further prove that the elite of our society put on these charades to distract us from the fact that it us, not them, who are left to live in poverty.

What does this have to do with legitimizing the bourgeois dictatorship? By putting up with these antics and then later going to the ballot box and voting for those fools, we tell them "you pretending to be one of us is okay. We don't mind the fact that you are rich and rule over us with little regard for what actually happens to us on a daily basis." For by voting in elections we legitimize the system as a whole. One popular tactic of resistance movements of all kinds across the globe is to boycott elections. By driving down voter turnout you can point to the system and say "that system is so rotten to the core that the people don't even believe it is worth voting." If you continue voting in elections in the bourgeois dictatorship that is our political system, you simply boost the statistics that say that the system is acceptable enough that you bothered to come and vote. Not voting, in an organized fashion, is an effective way to delegitimize a particular political process and single it out as an unjust system.

The capitalist system, by its very nature, prevents the emergence of true democracy. This in not immediately noticeable but is easily described. By its very nature capitalism forces all entities in existence to seek money in order to operate. To gain this money entities must sell products or services. In a democracy the most precious commodity is information. Information can make or break a politician's career. So, in order to control the flow of information, the wealthy elite use their wealth, in the form of both direct ownership and advertisements, to control what news makes it on to the front page. Despite what journalists tell you, when the New York Times is presented with a particularly juicy piece of info they don't necessarily publish it immediately. Should the Times have one of their biggest sponsors come up to them and say "if you publish story X then we will pull our advertisement funding"  you can bet the Times will take note and bury the story. This prevents the adequate dissemination of information. Without full access to information the voting public is unable to see the entire story and this will directly lead to them voting without all necessary information.

If true democracy were to exist, the capitalist system would collapse. I say this because it is obvious. If the masses were allowed unlimited access to all information and were then still permitted to vote, they would immediately sweep all of the elites out of power. While we are not permitted to see everything our government is doing in our name, Edward Snowden gave us a good glimpse into that world and everyone who actually took the time to look and see what was being done by our government was immediately appalled. Being granted similar access to everything would lead to the immediate collapse of our political and economic system. The masses would immediately remove all elites from their positions of authority and replace them with ordinary people. These people would immediately try to stop the heinous things that happen every day but go ignored by our rich overlords. Almost overnight we could end poverty, starvation, homelessness, and all other societal ills if we weren't being oppressed by the very elements in our government and society that receive economic and political gains by keeping people poor and oppressed.

Because of the previous statement, capitalists will never allow society, no matter how liberal, to become fully democratic because that would entail them losing all of their influence over politics and state power. This is because they have every reason to prevent us from exercising our true will through democracy. They limit the choices to a few sides that they can stand. Democrats and Republicans alike only reinforce capitalism just in different ways. While the elites would love to simply establish a dictatorship and rule over us directly they are smart enough to realize that by allowing us to vote for their specially selected minions they give an air of legitimacy to their clandestine reign over us. Should a real threat to liberal democracy emerge from the left they will not hesitate to end our faux democracy so they can ensure that they remain in their position over us and there will be many misguided souls among the masses who will side with the bourgeois both out of self interest and misplaced trust.

I recently read The Iron Heel by Jack London for the first time and was amazed at how similar the world of his book (which was based off of the world pre-World War I) and the world of today are. We see gross inequality on a daily basis, the smashing of unions, and destitution for the poor. The events that London posits in which the ruling classes use their influence to eventually end democracy following the initial success of a leftist movement is exactly what would happen should events like those in the book actually occur. First the bourgeois would refuse to accept the victory of the left. Next they would seek to turn the people against the left by making them seem like a force that would bring down society. And then when they are at their weakest and about to lose control, the bourgeois would launch their financial assault and bring the world to its knees. In the wake of this crisis they would take every last freedom from us in exchange for loosening their grasp on financing and allowing us to work in their factories and offices for wages that barely prevent workers from starving on a daily basis while working 10 to 14 hour days. We would be kept down with all the force they could muster. People would be executed on the spot simply for disobeying an order or daring to speak out against injustice. We would then be slaves to them in all but name. Only after that darkest hour for the human race would we eventually see the true end of capitalism, because out of that horrible darkness the people would rise with a fury the capitalists didn't even think possible to break the chains of capitalist oppression. Only then will we see the end of poverty, disease, racism, sexism, and all other injustices that plague humanity. Only then will we truly be free.

Repost: All Wages are Subject to Wage Theft

Wage theft: the illegal withholding of wages or the denial of benefits that are rightfully owed to an employee. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_theft)

By its very nature the capitalist system of economics performs wage theft against all workers. If you don't believe me then ask yourself this simple question: How much money did the company you work for just make off your labor compared to how much they paid you for your labor? If that answer is anything more than zero then you are subject to the inherent wage theft present in capitalism.

I work for a testing company. We administer tests to individuals seeking to be doctors, accountants, teachers, and an indescribably large number of others. My wife, being a teacher, had to take the PRAXIS test to get her certification. This test cost her $150 for four hours of her time. When I am administering this test I make $9 and hour adding up to $36 and my coworker (only two of us work at the same time) made the same. That means to administer my wife's test earned my company $78. My testing center has 12 seats which are full almost all day. In that four hour period if all the seats are full that means my company gained $1728 in four hours of testing. Since they only have to pay us essentially for administering only one of the tests, all the tests after the first one are pure profit. The average cost of electricity required to run the testing stations is around $400 a month. Rent on the facility is roughly $3000 a month meaning that fixed expenses on for the same four hour time period are roughly $20. This puts total profit for my company in a four hour period of simply PRAXIS tests (and trust me most of the tests cost A LOT more than the PRAXIS) at $1708.

This $1708 under socialism would be required to be redistributed to me and my coworkers since we are the only reason the money was earned in the first place. But instead, under capitalism, all that money is put into the hands of the company in order to pay dividends and pay the exorbitant salaries and bonuses of the company's executives (and I personally know one of the executives and, while a great guy, he definitely has no financial need for all of the money he earns). Meanwhile me and my coworkers earn a yearly wage that is below the poverty line and most of us have to get government aid in order to survive.

So next time you perform a task at work just remember this: As long as you are working under capitalism you are not getting the wage you truly deserve.

Repost: Marxist FAQ, Part IV

Here is Part 4 of my FAQ series. Today I will focus on the role of the communist movement in capitalist and socialist society and discuss the different theories regarding the development and spread of socialist revolution with an emphasis on the Theory of Permanent Revolution as advanced by Leon Trotsky and Socialism in One Country as advocated by Joseph Stalin. This particular FAQ is also focused on many aspects of the Leninist trend of thought in Marxism of which Leninism is but one of many trends.

Before I go on I feel I must say a few things about Stalin because many people hear his name and immediately dismiss anything he may have done or said. Yes, Stalin was a dictator who ruled the USSR with a strong hand (although he certainly didn't lead the USSR without the help of a dedicated group of close advisers). Yes, he led a government that persecuted many political rivals to a large extent by sending them to execution or the gulag. However, we must view his actions through the lens of history. Stalin emerged as the leader of the USSR at a time when it was being challenged on an existential level by almost all of Europe's other nations and by internal threats that wanted noting better than to unravel the revolution. This led Stalin to look inside the USSR for threats that he viewed as direct challenges to the very existence of socialism in the USSR. Say what you want about Stalin's actions, but his motives were entire logical and thought out with great precision. He had solid ideological reasons for pursuing internal enemies. Strong arguments can be made that had Stalin not sought to remove those internal threats during the 1930s then the USSR may very well have surrendered in the early days of World War II due to internal conflicts. This outcome would have most likely resulted in the triumph of Hitler in that war which would have had profound consequences today. So before you go and dismiss Stalin's ideas out of hand realize that you can look at his ideas and agree with the ideas without agreeing with the actions Stalin took as a leader.

What is the role of the communist movement in capitalist society?

In a capitalist society the communist movement exists to educate the proletariat and move it towards socialist revolution. A communist movement in capitalist society takes the form of a communist political party that will act as the vanguard of the proletariat in leading the revolution. During the revolution the vanguard will lead the proletariat in the revolution as will help the proletariat to establish a socialist society.

What is meant by a "vanguard"?

The communist vanguard is an advanced group that draws the rest of the proletariat towards revolution. Because most members of the proletariat, either because of lack of education, interest, or other reasons, are not politically active then it is up to the most politically active and class-conscious members of the proletariat to be called upon to lead the other members of the proletariat. This group is not separate from the proletariat but rather emerges naturally from the alienation and societal development associated with the development of capitalism.

What is the role of the communist movement after the revolution has established socialism?

After the revolution the communist movement, in the form of the vanguard, will continue to lead society towards communism. The vanguard may take many forms at this point but it will most likely be a political party of some form that adheres to communist ideology. It will be the duty of this party and state organs to work to expand socialism, prevent the return of capitalism, and move society towards communism.

What are the major theories of socialist development?

There are two main currents in modern revolutionary communism and those are the Theory of Permanent Revolution that was advanced by Leon Trotsky and Socialism in One Country as advocated by Joseph Stalin. There are numerous other theories but they are mostly associated with smaller communist groups that have not had major followings for some time.

What is the Theory of Permanent Revolution?

Permanent Revolution is the theory advanced by Leon Trotsky that states that, in short, not all capitalist societies will become advanced like the nations of Europe and North America and as such the proletariat of those countries must ally with the peasantry to lead a revolution before the full development of capitalism. I will now dissect the various parts of this theory.

The first part of the theory revolves around the idea of uneven development in capitalism. This means that some countries, because of how capitalism develops, will never see the huge productive forces that advanced capitalist societies have. Examples would be nations in Sub-Saharan Africa. These nations are exploited by capitalists mostly on the basis of their resources and so capitalists see no need to develop the industrial powers of those countries. This means that the majority of people in those countries will never be in the industrial proletariat, but rather will be peasants who work the land to produce resource.

Next the theory posits that because of this uneven development the proletariat of those countries must work to begin a socialist revolution with the peasantry because otherwise their society will never develop fully to naturally have a socialist revolution. In this situation the proletariat would initiate a bourgeois revolution to institute democracy and then proceed with a "permanent revolution" and then move directly into socialist revolution.

What are the problems with Permanent Revolution?

First, the theory splits the world up on on a very trivial basis into "developed" and "undeveloped". Most nations develop on a known trajectory from primitive communism (tribalism), slavery, feudalism, and then capitalism. Most of the world right now is in what would be the early stages of capitalism. Therefore, Trotsky saying that some nations simply will not develop proper capitalism has no factual evidence. We need only look at India and China to see that eventually all nations eventually develop industrial capitalism given enough time.

Second, the Theory does not allow for the proper development to take place and forces revolution upon societies that are not yet ready to properly implement socialism. This leads to problems like those in Vietnam where the nation in nominally socialist but, because of improper development, functions more along the lines of state capitalism where the state replaces the bourgeoisie but capitalism as the primary system is retained. This leads to a corruption of communist theory and eventually to the situation observed in China where capitalism is the order of the day but ruled under the guise of false communism.

Third, because of the problems in the second point, the proletariat should not work with the peasantry if possible because it will lead, in cases where the peasantry greatly outnumbers the proletariat, to improper development where society will focus on agricultural development over industrial development. In my view socialist revolution in unprepared societies can only be undertaken when supported from another socialist state that has properly developed socialism.

What is Socialism in One Country?

Socialism in One Country is the theory advanced by Joseph Stalin and is a retort of the Theory of Permanent Revolution. It is a theory that came into existence because of the situation that emerged in Russia following the failure of socialist revolutions in Europe following World War One. Socialism in One Country states that in the event that revolution fails to spread quickly then it is the duty of those states that establish socialism in their country to develop internally and work to spread the revolution after socialism has been established fully. Only by having a fully developed socialist base can the revolution be spread to other nations. This program of internal development and later expansion should be predicated on the condition that socialism has failed to sweep across the world in a brief period of time. Should revolution spread across the globe quickly then Socialism in One Country would not be necessary and would in fact be detrimental.

Socialism in One Country does not describe a mindset where socialism is considered victorious when only one or a few nations establish socialism. Rather it says that should the revolution fail to sweep the world quickly then those societies where socialism has been established should grow socialism internally until socialism has been victorious across the globe. Therefore victory of socialism in one country is totally separate from the total victory of socialism across the globe.

Socialism in One Country is not as rigid as Permanent Revolution because it allows for nations to develop socialism at a pace that is consistent with their own level of development. Socialist states do have a duty to spread the revolution but they are not deemed failures should they fail to spread the revolution as they would be graded under Permanent Revolution Theory. Permanent Revolution Theory also requires socialism to spread across the globe simultaneously, or roughly simultaneously, while failure to do so will result in socialist states degrading over time because of the failure of world revolution, Socialism in One Country does not have this constraint.

What are the problems with Socialism in One Country?

While I view it as the most complete theory of socialist development it is not without its flaws. First it does not always make it a goal to spread socialism at the fastest pace but is accepting of a slower, more deliberate spread of socialism and for this reason it can be seen as advocating a more complacent, less revolutionary stance on socialist development. Second, it is purely meant as a theory of necessity and as such does not have the urgency and completeness of being a universal theory. Third, the main reason that Trotskyists try to deride the theory is by claiming that Socialism in One Country is a "Stalinist" attempt to remove the revolutionary aspect from communism and while that is certainly a possible criticism I dismiss it as naive and driven by sectarianism.

_________________________

Well that is not as complete an overview as I would like but it is a basic description of the two theories.

Repost: Marxist FAQ, Part III

Well here is Part 3 in my FAQ series. Last time I explained the basics of value and accumulation. Today I will focus on wages.

How are workers paid under capitalism?

Under capitalism, workers, or rather the proletariat, do not have the means to produce items and then sell them and so they must sell the only resource they have available in abundance, their time and physical ability to work. They must sell this resource on an open market where employers bid with workers for a price to their labor. This can be any amount, although in many counties there is typically a minimum wage that employers are required to pay. Theoretically workers and employers are free to negotiate the pay rate.

Pay usually takes the form of any hourly wage or a salary that is the assumed value of the labor the worker provides. The rate of pay can be determined by a number of factors including: difficulty of work, skills necessary to complete tasks, availability of replacement workers, education required, etc.

Is the capitalist wage system fair?

If the capitalist wage system functioned as it was intended then it could be argued that the system is "fair" but what wages fails to grasp is that the richest in society do not have to work for wages and thus are exploiting workers in order to enrich themselves. On top of this is the problem that a worker who builds an entire car may not, because of the incentive to pay less for work than what it should actually be worth, be able to buy the car they just built.

Capitalism, and its wage system, is based upon exploitation of the worker. Under capitalism a worker may provide labor that provides $20 per hour in value, but because of the need to generate profits, employers may only pay the worker $10. This is an economic necessity under capitalism because corporations have a legal responsibility to generate profits for the owners of the corporation. Non-corporate entities have the same motivation because the owner(s) of the company naturally want to generate profits for their businesses as well.

Can capitalist wages ever be fair?

In a simple answer, no. Since the need to generate profits is inherent in capitalism there will always be a need to pay workers less then they should be earning. Capitalism would immediately fall apart if workers were paid a wage equal to the wealth they actually generate because this would leave nothing left for the capitalist. 

What is the socialist alternative to the capitalist wage system?

There are many alternatives available but the most convincing, at least to me, is the use of labor credits. Using labor credits a worker would earn credits based on the amount of work done which would then be amplified by the difficulty, danger, or necessity of the work in question. For example say Jimmy was a coal miner and Tom was an accountant. Both of them worked an 8 hour day earning them both 8 labor credits. Jimmy's job is inherently very dangerous and so he would get a 2 credit bonus. Tom's job requires special training and so he got a 2 credit bonus. Because Jimmy's job is naturally undesirable an incentive of 1 bonus credit is added to his work. So under this system Jimmy would receive 11 credits to Tom's 10.

Some may criticize this because they would say that all the education and responsibility of an accountant should inherently allow them to make more, however if one were to look at the usefulness of each task, and the dangers involved (I would dare any accountant to try being a coal miner for a day and tell me that they deserve more pay then a coal miner) then it makes sense for coal miners to make slightly more.

This system also isn't rigid. Should there not be enough accountants then the State could introduce a bonus for accountants in order to incentivize people to be accountants. This would work for any job. Socially undesirable but necessary jobs would result in more pay in order to ensure that enough people would work in those necessary jobs.

How would one use their credits?

So as has been explained previously, under socialism every individual would receive everything necessary to survive by default (food, home, transport, healthcare, etc.) at no cost to themselves. However luxury items or things that go beyond basic necessities would be purchased with labor credits. Naturally prices would be dependent on the labor that went into making the item in question, thus removing profit, for example a car would cost more credits than a chair.

Doesn't that system encourage laziness since people could survive without working?

Because prices would be dependent on the labor that went into making the item then people would be incentivized to work (none of the drivel that conservatives promote when they say a socialist society would be a society of freeloaders). I don't know about you but the idea of getting just enough food to survive and then sitting around doing nothing is not my idea of a good time or a happy life. If you wanted the newest video game, you'd have to go work. Want that fancy new phone? Go work for it. The entire system is devised to incentivize work while ensuring the most fair distribution of wealth. While there are bound to be a few people who simply refuse to work they will also be the people who will sit in the most spartan apartments with no nice things to call their own.

What is to keep people from subsidizing the laziness of others?

Essentially nothing. However under the labor credits system that I promote the credits are assigned to individuals and only those individuals, or their spouses or dependents, can redeem their credits. So say that Jimmy works hard and earns 100 credits in a week. Jimmy's neighbor Tom sees Jimmy's success and thinks, "Hey, I'll just take some of his credits and use them, he won't even notice." Well since the credits are in Jimmy's name (most likely using something like a debit card) then Tom, who is not authorized to take from Jimmy's credit account, would not be able to simply take the credits. While there is nothing to prevent Jimmy from helping Tom, Jimmy would have to do so of his own accord. And since prices are dependent on the labor used to produce the item being sold Jimmy would not want to screw himself out of his hard earned credits to help lazy old Tom.

What would wages under communism look like?

Communism would have no wages. Basically we need to also view the labor credit system as a socialization system. It is designed to make people equate work with personal gain and laziness with boredom and spartanism. The goal is to eventually reach a point where all, or almost all, members of society work because they want to work and help their community. The byproduct of work would then be that they have the ability to gain items in accordance with the work they provide. Eventually this would morph and evolve society until everyone only bought the items they want or need rather than simply trying to empty the entire store because they can. Under communism there would be no prices and no credits because they would not be necessary. People would not need to have their consumption regulated by credits because they would have no desire to take more than they need or that they feel they desire. Keep in mind that such a society would not emerge in a year, a decade, or possibly even a century. The transition from socialism to communism is a long process because it would not only be an economic revolution, but a revolution challenging our entire understanding of what constitutes our society and our behavior in that society.

Doesn't this enable people to take at will without giving anything back?

Theoretically yes but communism would only be reach once society would have no desire to endlessly and pointlessly consume. If masses of people are simply taking everything from the stores and not working then it is not a truly communist society. As the mantra goes, in a communist society work is "from each according to their ability." and products are provided "to each according to their need." Each individual would determine their own ability and need but socialization and education would guide everyone to provide all they are capable of and take responsibly that which they need.

_________________________________

Well that is all for wages under capitalism, socialism, and communism. It is by no means complete and, especially in regard to socialism, reflects my views very heavily. Next time I will delve into the role of communist movements and the competing theories of socialist development with an emphasis on the Theory of Permanent Revolution as promoted by Leon Trotsky and Socialism in One Country as promoted by Joseph Stalin. These form the main basis upon which sectarianism has developed and split the revolutionary communist movement since the 1920s. While there are other theories and movements out there, Trotskyism and Marxism-Leninism are the two largest and so I will go over the basics of their similarities and differences next time.

Repost: Marxist FAQ, Part II

Here is my second post in my Marxist FAQ series. I had a difficult time in determining which questions to address since my choice of questions would tend in the direction of my own beliefs, rather than Marxism in general, bu here it goes. I decided to focus on very simple, fundamental idea and concepts in order to facilitate more detailed FAQs later on.

What is the Proletariat?

The proletariat are any individuals who must sell their labor in order to earn wages. So if you work for someone else then you are a member of the proletariat. This may sound vague or general but that is because believe it or not most people, especially in industrialized nations, are members of the proletariat. They are also the only class of society that is constantly growing due to the processes associated with capitalism. All Marxists also believe that only the proletariat is capable of leading the socialist revolution that will replace capitalism.

What is the Bourgeoisie?

The bourgeoisie is the class of society that garners its wealth from the labor of others. This is exemplified by those capitalists that own large corporations and gain all their wealth simply by sitting around and waiting for the dividends and trust funds to pay for their lifestyles. But every individual who gains their wealth by exploiting the work of others is a member of the bourgeoisie. This class is the smallest class in industrialized society and is getting smaller as wealth is accumulated by fewer and fewer people.

What is the Petty Bourgeoisie?

The petty bourgeoisie is that class that could be seen between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. They are individuals that own small business or are craftsmen. They are not in the proletariat because they exploit the work of others to gain their wealth but neither are they members of the bourgeoisie because they still regularly have to work in order to gain their wealth. This class is in a unique position because they are inclined to help the proletariat on many issues because they are not abundantly wealthy but they also side with the bourgeoisie on other issues because they must defend their own right to accumulate wealth at the expense of the proletariat. According to Marxists this class will eventually disappear into the proletariat as the bourgeoisie continues to accumulate wealth at the expense of those classes below them.

What are the means of production?

The means of production are any industrial inputs used to produce other things. This extends from a hand loom all the way up to industrial robots used to make cars. When used in the context of Marxist theory it also refers to anything that is used to produce other things. The iron used to make a car is a means of production just as much as the machine that assembles the car. In the course of a socialist revolution all the means of production will be taken by the proletariat in order to prevent future accumulation of capital by the bourgeoisie. When communists talk about abolishing private property, they are mostly talking about abolishing the ability to own means of productions, along with a few other things.

What is the surplus value of labor?

The surplus value of labor is the value of a produced item that is in excess of what a worker can claim to the value of the item. Let us use the example of a nail factory. Say a worker is paid $10 an hour but produces $20 worth of nails in that hour. Because the worker has no claim to the nail machine or the nails then the factory owner gains the additional $10.

What is the accumulation of capital?

The accumulation of capital is the process by which the bourgeoisie takes the surplus value of labor in order to create more surplus value. This process creates greater and greater amounts of wealth for the bourgeoisie. Using the previous example, suppose the nail manufacturer takes the $10 surplus from the nails and invests that in a new machine that produces $30 worth of nails an hour. Because of the profit motive inherent in capitalism the manufacturer does not have any incentive to raise wages so wages for the workers remain the same. Should this process continue into infinity, eventually the surplus value generated by the nail factory will be enormous and because capitalists are constantly striving for greater profits, they will seek to retain as much of the surplus value as possible thus ensuring that they continue to accumulate larger and larger amounts of capital and wealth.

Isn't the accumulation of capital a good thing?

Well it is for capitalists because it ensures them a larger and larger share of the profits and thus their own personal wealth. Some argue that the accumulation of capital is good because it allows for more and more efficient production. And while that may certainly be the case, efficiency usually comes at a cost to workers and the environment. For the proletariat the accumulation of capital does not help them one bit because it can have the effect of either nudging them out of the production process, relegating them to unemployment, or forces them to sell their labor for lower and lower prices, thus reducing their wages to the point that they cannot afford even the basic necessities of life.

Is there accumulation of capital under socialism?

Accumulation of capital also occurs under socialism but then it serves the purpose of moving society towards communism. In this situation accumulation of capital is good because it will be benefiting the whole of society rather than a small group of capitalists. Also, since items are not sold for profit then neither the state nor individuals will be unfairly charged for the surplus value associated with items under capitalism. Accumulation of capital under socialism is then more a gradual expansion of the means of production rather than the production of items in order to generate profit.

____________________

Well that is all for today. Hopefully this will allow everyone to gain a better grasp over the basics of Marxist theory. We will use this knowledge in the future to tackle more complex concepts. Next time I hope to go over the wage system under capitalism and how compensation should be determined under socialism. I may throw a few other things in as well to aid transition to more complex topics but that will be for a later time.

Repost: Marxist FAQ, Part I

So I have been asked many questions over my life as to what Marxism, Communism, and Socialism actually are. Many times these questions were made in jest, by people with false preconceived notions, but I answered them with the real facts. Not to say I convinced anybody but I at least made an active effort to reverse the leftovers of Cold War propaganda that still permeate our society's views on what socialism actually is. I'll start with the basics and move on to more complicated topics. This will be the start of a series that I hope to continue. Keep in mind that some of the answers I provide may stem from my personal beliefs but I try to include those beliefs held by others in the Marxist movement for comparison.

What is Communism?

The most basic of all questions. Communism is a stateless, classless society that has evolved past all the trappings of capitalist society. All individuals are completely equal in every manner of speaking. Society is completely democratic from the ground up. Everything in society is done for the good of all. In a communist society overabundance of resources and production has instituted a situation whereby any individual can attain almost any item they desire, at any time, at no cost. This is only possible after a sustained period of transition whereby increased automation of industrial activities have relegated physical labor into either non-existence or irrelevance. Individuals, free from the constraints of producing goods, are free to pursue any activity they desire for their own improvement or the betterment of society (think Star Trek). Under communism, because of the education implemented under socialism, individuals always work to benefit society of their own free will and will not take more than they need. Laziness by choice is not a social ill because individuals are socialized to actively work for society and to despise laziness. Only those physically or mentally incapable of work, either because of illness or age, do not work and they are guaranteed full and happy lives. Overconsumption is also not an issue because of the combination of constant overproduction and the effects of socialization to instill the desire only to consume that which is necessary. This society can only be achieved after a prolonged period of socialism and is the end goal of all true socialist and communist movements. In this society all individuals, regardless of circumstance, are guaranteed all of life's necessities: food, water, housing, health care, education, cultural enrichment, and leisure. The mantra of a Communist society would be "From each according to their ability. To each according to their need."

What is Socialism?

Socialism is the transitional period between capitalism and communism. Socialism is instigated when the working class has gained total control over the means of production (factories, mines, etc.) and has instituted the beginnings of a classless, stateless society. Unlike in communism, individuals are not entitled to all the benefits of society but must work for their benefits. This can take many forms, but the one most favored by Marxists are the use of labor credits (more on those in a later post) in the place of money. In a socialist society individuals are guaranteed the basics of life, but must work in order to gain any other benefits like ownership of a house or car. A socialist society would have the mantra "From each according to their ability. To each according to their work."

What happens to private property?

Contrary to most of the propaganda, communism and socialism does not remove private property, it only removes private ownership of capital and the means of production. Individuals are still the owners of their clothing, food, homes, cars, family heirlooms, and personal items. Under socialism and communism only that property that is used to generate wealth, like factories or apartment complexes for example, is taken by the state. This is to prevent to accumulation of large amounts of wealth by a small group of individuals who in reality perform very little actual labor. The taking of property would also be limited to large things like industrial machinery, not grandpa's baseball card collection (which while possibly valuable does not constitute "capital"). Naturally restrictions would have to be established to prevent individuals from abusing ownership rights (like limiting a family to owning one house to prevent accumulation of wealth through rent) but the conception of private property as known by most common people will remain intact.

Don't Communists hate civil liberties like freedom of speech?

Most certainly not. In fact we adamantly defend them just as much as most liberals. However, we look at these rights through the lens of Marxist theory. One individual speaking their beliefs is fine, but a huge multinational corporation using money to run campaign ads is not. Marxists get a bad reputation because of the actions of the leaders of corrupt nations like China and the former USSR. Under communism individuals would be much more free than they are under capitalism because they would not have to worry about what effect their statements would have on their job prospects or anything else.

Would a communist society be democratic?

Definitely yes. Because the influences of huge corporations and ultra-rich business tycoons would be removed, society would be truly democratic for the first time in human history. People would finally be free to vote their conscience without undue outside influence. Also, because communist societies are structured from the bottom up individuals would have a much larger say over local policies then they can ever hope for under current circumstances.

How will Marxists take power?

By any means necessary. All of us would love for the transition to be peaceful but history has shown otherwise. At every turn the forces of global capital have used violence and suppression to cling to power and we do not expect that to change. They have shown that they are willing to kill hundreds of millions of people using every means available to ensure that they stay in power. We hope for a peaceful transition but prepare for a drawn out struggle.

Who will lead the revolution?

There are many answers to this question. Marxists have been debating this issue since the mid-nineteenth century so naturally opinions differ. Some believe that the working class will one day spontaneously rise up and take power. Some think that the revolution won't be a revolution at all, but rather a slow peaceful transition in the framework of modern liberal democracy. I prescribe to the belief that only a dedicated group of revolutionaries can incite the working class to recognize their horrible situation under capitalism and then lead the people in a revolution to overthrow capitalism, but my belief is but one of many.

Well there are the first seven questions I have decided to answer. I will post more later on. If you have any questions you wish to ask then ask away. I am more than happy to answer questions asked out of honest curiosity.