Communism - Totalizing

Printable View

09-24-2008, 03:16 PM
one_raven

Communism - Totalizing

I am hoping for some help with this question.
I am not looking to debate whether or not Communsim is right/wrong or effective/ineffective etc.

All I was wondering was whether Marx and/or Engels acknowledged that Communism needed to spread across the globe in order to be realized, or if that was a latter Trotsky addition.

Obviously if you don't have a central authoritative governement, then you do not have a cohesive standing army and leave yourself wide open to attack - especiallt in the post industrialized era of planes, bombs and distance warfare.

Trotsky openly acknowledged this - I want to know if he was the first.
11-12-2008, 04:25 PM
Trystan

I'm not sure that I'm "allowed" to discuss this, but what the hell . . .

Well . . . an economy cannot survive if it is completely, or almost completely, isolated from the global economy. Lenin and Trotsky were hoping for a revolution to succeed in Germany; they believed that this would provide support for Russia (a country with a very small proletariat and industrial base). Stalin, by contrast, believed in "socialism in one country". Only the must unthinking Stalinist would deny that this was a complete and utter disaster

As for if communism is good or bad: it depends of your definition. A classless, stateless society, is obviously good (at least in my mind). But I think the issue is over how such a society can be realised: according to Marxism, the state should make huge social overhauls, and will eventually reach a stage when it "withers away" (Engels). The main problem with this is that "power currupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely". If you read the anarcho-collectivist Mikhail Bakunin, you'll see that he pretty much predicted the tyranny of the USSR back in the time of the First Workers' International. He said that "Freedom without socialism is privilege, socialism without freedom is tyranny", or something. That pretty much sums the whole "revolutionary vanguard" thing up for me.
11-13-2008, 03:59 AM
one_raven

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trystan

Well . . . an economy cannot survive if it is completely, or almost completely, isolated from the global economy.

I'm not so sure I agree.
If a society exists in a country that has all necessary natural resurces, I don't see why not.
11-13-2008, 06:55 AM
Trystan

Quote:

Originally Posted by one_raven

I'm not so sure I agree.
If a society exists in a country that has all necessary natural resurces, I don't see why not.

Well that depends of the size of the resources. It's not without reason that the USSR fared better than North Korea and Cuba . . . but ultimately an economy has to be at least partly reliant on the world economy if it's going to work properly.
11-28-2008, 03:15 AM
one_raven

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trystan

ultimately an economy has to be at least partly reliant on the world economy if it's going to work properly.

Why?

Take the US as an example.
11-28-2008, 03:41 AM
bazarov

Quote:

Originally Posted by one_raven

Why?

Take the US as an example.

Yes, they(maybe you're not an American) are in Iraq for fun. Desert Storm was a desire to rescue poor civilians. Or is it oil?
11-28-2008, 03:45 AM
one_raven

Quote:

Originally Posted by bazarov

Yes, they(maybe you're not an American) are in Iraq for fun. Desert Storm was a desire to rescue poor civilians. Or is it oil?

That didn't answer the question.

Are you saying that it is impossible for the US to be self-reliant because it must necessarily be dependent upon foreign oil?

If so, I disagree.
Foreign oil is a conveneince for the people and a grab for power and wealth by the politicians - hardly a necessity.
11-28-2008, 03:57 AM
bazarov

Then everyone is independent in extreme way, but form nowdays perspective, nobody is independent. Everybody needs something from others.
11-28-2008, 04:00 AM
one_raven

Quote:

Originally Posted by bazarov

Then everyone is independent in extreme way, but form nowdays perspective, nobody is independent. Everybody needs something from others.

I completely agree.

I am questioning Trystan's claim that this financial interdepency is a necessity.
Can a country rich in resources - such as the US - be financially isolationist and survive? Thrive even?

I don't see why not.
11-28-2008, 04:03 AM
bazarov

Yes, of course. Russia is pretty isolated, and functions without problem, USA could be like that, but WWII changed it, and that is very off topic...
11-28-2008, 04:06 AM
one_raven

Quote:

Originally Posted by bazarov

Yes, of course. Russia is pretty isolated, and functions without problem, USA could be like that, but WWII changed it, and that is very off topic...

It is not at all off-topic.
The question I started this with is regarding the totalizing nature of Communism and the recognition of the fact that modern indistrialized states, while perhaps are capable of being financially isolationist, can not survive as isolationist without an organized, standing army to protect them from attacks - or Communism must realize global domination.
11-28-2008, 04:14 AM
bazarov

Agree, but I think you're pointing on socialism, not communism. It could, but history showed that it's not working. China realized that in 80's and now it's going forward in world's 1st economic force. With communism but without socialism.

Only, army must train somewhere :D
03-19-2009, 10:50 AM
Trystan

Quote:

Originally Posted by one_raven

I completely agree.

I am questioning Trystan's claim that this financial interdepency is a necessity.
Can a country rich in resources - such as the US - be financially isolationist and survive? Thrive even?

It could probably survive, but not thrive in the way it does.
06-03-2009, 01:32 PM
one_raven

China's implementation of so-called Communism is a far cry from what Marx and Engels was talking about.