Skip to main content

The Communist Question

By Shaunak Sastry
So, since most of us seem to be in a tizzy as to what the format of this blog is supposed to be, I'll just start off with a question. While I am reading Engels and Lenin, some of my very basic misconceptions of Communism are being unraveled. So, Engels claims that it is proliferation of the 'big industry' (as exemplified by the steam engine, the power loom, etc.) that has created this class of people called the proletariat. But he also articulates the fact that it is only within a 'big industrial' system that the seeds for a proletariat revolution can be sown. Which is in effect saying that a Communist revolution can only exist within a capitalist system. This gets further clarified in Lenin, where he differentiates the Socialist from the Communist, in saying that the idealistic utopian ideals of the Socialist envisage an overthrow of Capitalism per se, which the Communist thinks is unproductive. So here are my questions.

1. If Communism operates within a 'capitalist' framework; how and why have popular conceptions of 'Communism' come to mean 'that which is not pro-Capitalist'? There seems to be a confusion over the meanings of 'capitalistic production' (in the sense of surplus-value), and private ownership of property by a few.
2. Engels and Marx talk about the development of societies and the individuals within those societies, say for instance, from feudal serfs to industrial proletariats. Does Marx consider Socialism to be a pre-Communist state? I say this because as I read Lenin, I get the feeling that he's saying that Communism is basically "Socialism + Socialism's unanswered questions." Perhaps it's a bit too early to discuss this, given that we haven't read Kapital as yet; but I'd appreciate your thoughts.
-Shaunak
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Purdue's Professional Revolutionary

By RK
In light of the discussion we had during our advisee meeting on Friday about being strategic in our means as critical scholars I was struck by the words of Lenin who emphasizes the role of the intellectual. He says, "The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness, i.e., it may itself realize the necessity for combining in unions, for fighting against the employers and for striving to compel the government to pass necessary labor legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals." (pg. 74) This idea of the bourgeois socialist intelligentsia as an instrument of raising consciousness and fomenting dissent is an ideal one I am sure but in contemporary times we, the academics, forming a substantial part of the "intellectual elite", occupy a unique position which forces us into &
6 comments
Read more

Echoing Malcom

By Saqib
Reading Malcolm X's speeches, it is clear that he points to a historical trend in the process of obtaining independence from tyranny. In other words, history shows that people must be committed to overhauling the system and prepared to sacrifice for a great cause. The trouble comes in overcoming the anesthetization of the natural impulse that people have to change their surroundings. I feel that this is incredibly difficult in the modern world when entire industries have been created for the sole purpose of distraction and self-indulgence. Has that impulse changed? Is it still there? Sometimes I think that when people become so self-absorbed and ignorant of rampant injustice, they will only react when its too late. For instance, there have always been economic disparities but public anger only sets in when their houses are foreclosed and savings wiped out. Revolution then becomes the last refuge of the hopeless. Is there any point to calling for revolution when the only precursor t
2 comments
Read more