Economical essay: "The hawk’s shadow"

[akhmetbek]

What the hell am I doing,getting into a discussion with a commi....By-by...

[rikbe]

Originally posted by The_bolshevik
The point is that in socialism the bigger part of surplus value does not go to capitalists in the form of profits, but to the society as a whole. Thus the surplus value could be used either for reducing of the working day (to 6 hours, and when productive forces grow working day could be shorter), for fast development of undeveloped areas, or for bigger salaries of working people.

That the theory, in reality surplus goes mainly to administration to reduce working time and increase salaries of butaucrats and leaders.
So capitalists AND workers are fukked by communism.

[Balamut]

We'r talking about teory, aren't we?

[rikbe]

That theory becomes a problem soon as some nutcase tries to apply it.

Another theory: democratic communism. Replace all bureaucrats by a computer system and allow the people to express their opinion about their leaders by a simple "yes" or "no" vote. If 51% of "No's" are reached, the computer sends a signal to an in the head of the leader implanted device that then will cause a small explosion.

[The_bolshevik]

That the theory, in reality surplus goes mainly to administration to reduce working time and increase salaries of butaucrats and leaders.
So capitalists AND workers are fukked by communism.

As I said, degenerated workers´ state is by no means communism, nor is it socialism. I think I explained that very well why is it so.

That theory becomes a problem soon as some nutcase tries to apply it.

Another theory: democratic communism. Replace all bureaucrats by a computer system and allow the people to express their opinion about their leaders by a simple "yes" or "no" vote. If 51% of "No's" are reached, the computer sends a signal to an in the head of the leader implanted device that then will cause a small explosion.

I presuppose that you want to say that socialist revolution necessarily leads to bureaucratization and so to Stalinism (which is in marxist terms defined as degenerated workers´ state).

Actually if we want to get an answer to that question we must look for causes which are the reason for the bureaucratization.

The main thing is that if the organization which comes to power is bureaucratized, departed away from the masses, it will inevitably end in bureaucratized workers´ state if that organization comes to power.

A good example of this is Cuba, where revolution was carried away with a small group of people staging a coup.

Another good classical example is China, where Mao Tsetong´s army had vast support among peasant masses. The main wrong thing with this movement was for the very reasons that are listed in Communist manifesto. The main leader of the socialist revolution must be proletariat, or else this can not be a socialist revolution and will inevitably end in a bureaucratic bonapartist peasant regime. The causes for this lay mainly in the fact of the consciousness that arises from certain form of production. After socialist revolution workers won´t want to devide certain facttory to parts, so everyone will have a small piece of it. On the other hand peasants do very this, but not becuase they would be somewhat inferior, but because of theirs way of producing.

The only way how a socialist revolution won´t become degenerated already on start is that masses must play a key role in the whole thing of transformatin of society, and that revolutionary organization must be merged with that movement to very vast degree, that both needed components interpenetrate themselves.

A good example of this was the October revolution. But one would say, hey USSR became a model of a degenerated state later. Why was that? The key thing is that October revolution was not degenerated from start, but it degenerated because of totally objective -- material -- factors. The first year after the October, Russian workers´ state was more or less a healthy workers´ state (A nice first eye account of the first year is given by an anarchist Victor Serge in his book - The year one of the Revolution. In Russia literacy level was bad, and civil war raged the country in 1920, and at that moment the bureaucracy started to receive a fairly good part of the surplus value of the working class (bureaucrats were mainly those from tsarist times).

The consequence of this was that massses became disillusioned because of bad material conditions, which were partly cause of former backwardness of Russian and partly of the civil war. Also it is important fact to aknowledge that regime in times when Lenin was still alive and from the ones later from Stalin. The oldest trick in a (capitalist) book is to say that Lenin = Stalin, thus Lenin cleared the way for Stalin´s crimes, thus Lenin is bad.

This is utterly wrong to its base. The main question we should pose ourselve to receive a good answer on this question is why Stalin needed to kill the whole old bolshevik guard to totally clear a way for bureaucracy (which consisted mainly of old tsarist bureaucrats, which were, amazingly enough for the one who sees Stalin as a "socialist" butcher, not expelled from the USSR or killed in the Moscow show trials like old bolshevik guard)? The main thing is that they did not resist the process of degeneration, while old bolshevik guard organized in Left opposition did. Clearly if the regime was same as then, this would not be needed at all. For more detailed info you can read Trotsky´s Revolution berayed.

[red_fury]

What the hell am I doing,getting into a discussion with a commi....By-by...

AHAHAGAHAHAHA Akhmatguy got his ass wooped! Woot Woot!
Sorry got carried away.

That the theory, in reality surplus goes mainly to administration to reduce working time and increase salaries of butaucrats and leaders.
So capitalists AND workers are fukked by communism.

I disagree. If the leaders are controlled by a good, not-burocratic leader, OR BY A STRONG COLLECTIVIST IDEA OF HELPING YOUR COUNTRY then it doesn't occur. My examples- VICTORY over germany in the WW2! Do you know how many sacrifices there were made?

Second part- Even if some part goes to the "burocratic leaders" (I request you to specify/define this therm BTW!)
Then it is mutch smaller and the system works IN ANY CASE more efficient then the capitalist system.

Eh, finally we've got this discussion running.

[rikbe]

Originally posted by red_fury
I disagree. If the leaders are controlled by a good, not-burocratic leader, OR BY A STRONG COLLECTIVIST IDEA OF HELPING YOUR COUNTRY then it doesn't occur. My examples- VICTORY over germany in the WW2! Do you know how many sacrifices there were made?

Why I have that feeling that this "good, not burocratic leader" would be you and only you?

"OR BY A STRONG COLLECTIVIST IDEA OF HELPING YOUR COUNTRY"

Interesting idea. I have known a few people like that. Too bad they killed themselves with an overdose.

Second part- Even if some part goes to the "burocratic leaders" (I request you to specify/define this therm BTW!)
Then it is mutch smaller and the system works IN ANY CASE more efficient then the capitalist system.

How small is that "small part", and how will you prevent it to become the biggest. From the moment a man have some power, he will try to take advantage of it and will become corrupt if he is not supervised. That is a law of nature. So without your hypotetical "good, not burocratic leader" the system can't work. And such a leader doesn't exist, and even if he would, at the moment he would die, the whole system would collaps.