Ask a communist economist

[The Barefoot Bum]

I have a Bachelor's degree in economics and political science, and I'm presently in graduate school for (capitalist) economics. 

I've studied communist and socialist thought extensively; the genre, however, is far too large for anyone to have a comprehensive grasp of the primary literature.

I am not a member of any political or activist party or organization other than those directly related to my professional activities as a graduate student, teaching assistant, and education professional. Some academics are also members of political parties, which is fine for them, but doesn't work for me.

[robvalue]

Wow! You know some cool stuff I mainly concern myself with getting through doorways without banging myself on something.

I think you said this isn't your first rodeo or similar, could you elaborate? Do you like yourself some communism, or is it just how things are where you live?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Follow up to robvalue's question:  If you do indeed prefer communism as an economic system, is there a particular franchise of it that suits you?

Boru

[ignoramus]

Which underlying core philosophy/principles do you connect with as a commie? (I mean that in the nicest possible way ...I realise it's not 1950)

[The Barefoot Bum]

I think you said this isn't your first rodeo or similar, could you elaborate? 

I just meant this is not my first time on a message board. I used to post extensively at the erstwhile Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Do you like yourself some communism, or is it just how things are where you live?

I do like me some communism. I live in the United States, so, no, it's not really how things are here.

---

If you do indeed prefer communism as an economic system, is there a particular franchise of it that suits you?

On my blog, I'm developing a theory of democratic communism. Google "The Barefoot Bum" and click on the democratic communism tag on the right.

Keep in mind that, at least as Marx described it, communism per se is a distant goal. From Part I of "Critique of the Gotha Programme":

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

I tend to be syncretic rather than doctrinal. I admire Marx and Lenin considerably, and I have some sympathy for the utopian socialists (as does Engels) and anarchists.

I'm less of a fan of Stalin and Mao, but I think some criticism is grossly exaggerated (that Stalin killed 60 million people strains my credulity), and they made some notable achievements. I'm not sure, for example, what I would have done differently with a war-torn horse-drawn agrarian economy facing the world's greatest industrial and military nation bent on conquering my territory and enslaving my people. 

Mobo Gao's book, The Battle for China's Past, makes a good defense for Mao, who, like Stalin, was working with an agricultural economy even more technologically delayed than Russia's, considerable destruction from the Second Imperialist War, and had a long history of devastating famine.

---

Which underlying core philosophy/principles do you connect with as a commie? (I mean that in the nicest possible way ...I realise it's not 1950)

I agree with Marx's historical materialism, that social relationships derive from economic relations, which derive from the technical means of production. This general principle is pretty much a standard basis in sociology and anthropology.

I'm a utilitarian humanist: there are no "natural" or objective ethical or political principles; there is only the difficult and complicated project of maximizing human happiness and reducing suffering.

I agree with Lenin in The State and Revolution that to create a revolution means to smash the existing social relations that inherently support and reproduce capitalism. However, no one is wrong all the time, and there are bourgeois institutions (e.g. an independent judiciary) that I think are valuable and could be adapted easily to socialism.

[Dystopia]

Do you think reading Das Kapital is too heavy for someone who had two classes of Introduction to economics (read - Introduction to capitalism) in uni?

[robvalue]

Cool, thanks for the answer

I'll have to think of some other questions because politics and economics are way over my head. If I can't count it or hit it, then I'm done for.

[The Barefoot Bum]

Cool, thanks for the answer

I'll have to think of some other questions because politics and economics are way over my head. If I can't count it or hit it, then I'm done for.

Politics and economics are probably not over your head, any more than Sophisticated Theology ™ is over your head.

The only difficult part of politics and economics is digging through the layers of bullshit that theologians capitalist economists and political theorists have created to distract the workers from their conditions of subordination and exploitation.

Count the money, smash the capitalist state. Not easy, but simple.

[Dystopia]

The Barefoot Bum - I know some answers but you probably know better than me - How would you reply to these capitalist arguments (numbered)?

1 - Capitalism is better because it promotes growth and wealth trough competition and gives people incentives and reasons to actually work

(I think pointing out the URSS put people into space is a good start to counter...)

2 - Capitalism is the only system that has proven to work correctly with human nature

3 - If you have quality products and services, you only need to think capitalism (technology, healthcare, et.c)

[The Barefoot Bum]

Do you think reading Das Kapital is too heavy for someone who had two classes of Introduction to economics (read - Introduction to capitalism) in uni?

Well, there's no doubt that Das Kapital  is heavy reading indeed. It took me the better part of a decade, several read throughs, a lot of secondary literature, and a college class to really begin to grasp it. A lot of it too is, understandably, a bit outdated: Marx is a good analyst of mid 19th century industrial proto-financial capitalism, but he is no seer, and capitalism has changed considerably (as Marx always notes) in the last fifteen decades.

I would start instead with the Communist Manifesto and Wage Labor and Capital, both available on the Marxists Internet Archive. David Harvey's book, A Companion to Marx's Capital, is also quite good. It is notable that modern liberal capitalist democratic republics have implemented about two thirds of the then radical proposals urged in the Manifesto.

Lenin is also good, and not too heavy. The State and Revolution and What Is to Be Done? are both good. If you like philosophy, Materialism and Emperio-Criticism is also worth reading.