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

Whose means justifies their end?

By
I spend a lot of my time teaching and disciplining children now-a-days and through these experiences, I have found many similarities in the ways that Marx and Engel construct their arguments for communism and against capitalism, most of which are shaped around the concept of deflection. First, let me provide an example from which my conclusions are built, all of which are inducted from daily experiences. I know that my experience is nothing novel or new, especially if anyone reading this has had the pleasure of working with large groups of kids. In a classroom there is supposed to be only one goal, one guider, and one “law maker” and that lovely job title has been bestowed upon me, the teacher. In trying to achieve my one goal to teach multiplication, I tell every student to be quiet and do their work. While not paying attention, I hear several of the students talking. When I look up, I single out the first one that I see talking (lets call him Crandon). I tell Crandon, “If you continu...
7 comments
Read more

Neoliberalism - Is it a necessary evil?

By
The term 'neoliberalism' came into existence in 1938, but started to get used during the 1960s. It is another label for 'economic liberalism.' However, the leftists use neoliberalism as a pejorative term, showing discontent with the ideologies that neoliberalism brings to the table. The term is also used neutrally though by many political organizations [ source ]. The essence of neoliberalism is quite straight forward - economic control of resources should be transferred (even if partially) from the government to the private sector. The belief is that such actions will make for a better economic system with improved economic productivity, and in the process create an efficient government. However as Dutta & Pal (in press) suggests, ideologies such as neoliberalism is supported and promoted by certain organizations (MNCs, TNCs, certain governments) because it helps them maintain the power structure in their favor, and thus continue to exert control over the alrea...
Post a Comment
Read more