8
Dispatch → Bulletin → News
The Red Star Volume 5
Comrade Quotes
Unless the worker accepts the exploitative conditions of capitalist production, he is ‘free’ only in the sense that he is free to starve. – Paul Mattick
There are two main parties in Australia. There is the Liberal-National Party, and the Australian Labor Party. This report will be studying the shift in leadership between the Abbott and Turnbull governments, and the change in leadership for the ALP in the 1970s, and the effect these two shifts had on the Australian government and democracy.
It will be argued that there is no ideological difference between the two major parties of Australia. This will be done by first explaining what bourgeois democracy and neoliberalism is, then it will situate the two different parties and explain why and how both are neoliberals. It will then be the consequences of their shift from a respectively principled social-democratic and conservative ideology to an unprincipled, neoliberal approach to their government. Finally, the report will argue that neoliberalism requires both parties to be neoliberal, and the consequences of both parties being neoliberal.
Bourgeois democracy is the control over democracy by the bourgeois capitalist system, democracy is always hemmed in by the exploitation of capitalism (Ralston Saul 1995, Lenin 1918). Democracy is removed from the exploited proletariat through the crushing oppression of capitalism, this leads to a working class who are excluded from participation in the public and political spheres, the bourgeoisie, on the other hand, does not feel this constraint from capitalism, as Lenin writes in the State and Revolution, “… the modern wage slaves are so crushed by want and poverty that "they cannot be bothered with democracy", "cannot be bothered with politics"; in the ordinary, peaceful course of events, the majority of the population is debarred from participation in public and political life.” (Lenin 1918). Democracy, whether ancient, feudal or modern-day bourgeois, has always been for those with power, “Freedom of the slave-owners” (Lenin 1918). The proletariat are wage-slaves to the bourgeoisie, this excludes them from participating in their democracy because they are subjected to neoliberal indoctrination from birth until death (Marx 1847, Ralston Saul 1995). In government, the working-class are only given the option of two bourgeois parties, neither being representative of the proletariat, and both being representative of the bourgeoisie (Lenin 1918, Lynch 2017). Therefore, the wage-slave has less democracy compared to the bourgeoisie.
Neoliberalism is the dominant ideology of today. It is the political, social, ideological and economic hegemony of today’s capitalism (Saad-Filho & Johnston 2005, Marx 1846). Neoliberalism presumes that all commodities and allocative decisions must be determined by the market (Harvey 2005). This is done so by privatising public assets, infrastructure, outsourcing jobs, increasing the wealth of the rich, and repressing working-class movements like labour unions. It is a bastardization of Adam Smith’s philosophy, where he specifically warns against the “vile maxim of the masters of mankind”: “All for ourselves, and nothing for other people” (Ralston Saul 1995, Chomsky 2014). This poses problems to political parties which try to interfere with market mechanisms, as parties have less and less power to interfere with global capitalism, and ultimately lead to their downfall (Walsh 2016).
Before the 1970s, there was a clear difference between the ALP and the LNP, the ALP was the party which stood for labour and the rights of the proletariat, and the LNP were the party which stood for capital and the rights of business (Lynch 2016). But, the ALP abandoned their working-class base in the name of capitalist enterprise (Lynch 2016). Neoliberalism became their ideology.
The LNP under Abbott was a socially conservative party (Lynch 2016, Walsh 2017). The Abbott government’s conservatism ran counter to the neoliberal hegemony, this lead the Liberal-National Party to replace Abbott with Turnbull (Lynch 2016, Walsh 2017). No longer can Abbott’s conservatism impact Australian neoliberalism as Turnbull is a neoliberal (Walsh 2016).
There is no ideological difference between the two major parties. They both are parties for business and capital at the detriment of the proletariat (Lynch 2016). Both parties are neoliberal parties. Both parties stand for individual enterprise and worship of the invisible hand of the free market (Ralston Saul 1995). This leads to problems in democracy, instead of having parties of labour versus capital, it is capital ‘versus’ capital (Lynch 2016, Walsh 2017). Democracy is essentially choked and reined in by capitalism (Lenin 1918). It was not always this way, in the past there was a difference between the two.
Before the 1970s stagflation, the ALP could be seen as the Keynesian social-democratic party for the workers (Lynch 2016). The stagflation lead to a situation where the ALP had to choose to either side with the bourgeois capitalist class, or side with the proletarian working class (Lynch 2016). The ALP found themselves taking the Keynesian argument, “the class war will find [them] on the side of the educated bourgeoisie” (Keynes 1925). The left party shifted to the centre, it tore away it’s working class base, kept the rhetoric, but was essentially another party of capital (Ralston Saul 1995, Lynch 2016).
The consequence of this move, this “radical centring” as Lynch puts it, although it must be noted that Lynch means neoliberalism as the centre of politics, means there is no longer a party for the working-class (Lynch 2016). The working-class may only choose a party which may ‘represent’ and repress them in parliament (Lenin 1913, Lenin 1918). They are left to the mercy of the invisible hand (Ralston Saul 1995). Democracy is taken away from the working-class as they can only vote for neoliberals, instead of voting for parties which have their interests in mind.
A counterargument to this point is to state that much of the ALP members are affiliated with unions (Colman, 2015). The ALP must be representative of the working-class, as unions are the political power of the working-class (Marx 1865, Luxemburg 1899, Lenin 1913). Unions have historically been the voice of the working class under capitalism. If the modern day Labor party is a party of unions, and therefore, a party of the working class, it cannot be the case that the ALP is a neoliberal party, without the worker’s interests in mind.
There is a problem here, the problem of unions. While it is true, that unions were created to represent the working class, unions only do so under capitalism (Marx 1865, Luxemburg 1899). A union cannot be truly representative of the working class simply because the union does not wish to abolish wage slavery and capitalism, only make the material conditions of the workers better under capitalism (Luxemburg 1899). To quote Marx; “‘A fair day's wage for a fair day's work!’ they ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword: ‘Abolition of the wages system!’". Parties of the working class guided by unions reach an impasse under the capitalist system, the party must stay with capitalist reform, while the interests of the workers would be the abolishment of the wage system (Luxemburg 1899, Lenin 1913).
The ascendency of neoliberalism does not just affect parties for the working class, neoliberalism also affects the parties of the bourgeoisie. The ruling ideology of the day is always controlled by those in power (Marx 1846). When the ruling ideology is the worship of capital and zealous faith in the markets, not even individuals of the political parties can stand against this ideological dominance. Abbott was ideologically conservative above being a neoliberal, this created antagonisms inside his own party and ultimately resulted in him being ousted by his own party (Lynch 2016, Walsh 2017). The party then proceeded to place Turnbull in charge, who is notorious for having no principles (Lynch 2016).
This move from Abbott to Turnbull signalled a win for neoliberalism, as Turnbull has no real policy, and thus, is without any principles (Lynch 2016). This stands well with the neoliberal agenda, as Turnbull’s rhetoric about having an agile and innovative economy equates to being business friendly (Jericho 2016, Walsh 2016). The Turnbull government worships the invisible hand of the free market (Jericho 2016, Walsh 2016, Ralston-Saul 1995). Due to this, the Turnbull government has been accused of being a government which does nothing (Bolt, 2016, Walsh 2016). Turnbull has been described as a true liberal, who values individual enterprise and initiative through bourgeois freedom (Walsh 2016).
A counterargument to this position would be to argue that the Turnbull government is principled (Walsh 2016). The LNP cannot be unprincipled due to actions in government like the same-sex marriage plebiscite, this shows that the LNP is willing to talk about important social issues to the whole of Australia, bourgeois and proletarian alike. Abbott dismissed any action for same-sex marriage while he was in power, stating that he supports the “traditional position” (Harrison 2015). This cultivates a direct democracy for Australians to have a say, very much counter to the neoliberal strangulation of democracy (Lenin 1918, Ralston Saul 1995).
The problem here lies with something very sinister with the ideological dominance of capitalism, the ruling class controls the ideology of the masses (Marx 1846). Neoliberalism therefore, as the ideology of the ruling class, controls the ideology of the masses. It cultivates the idea that people must be complicit in matters of importance (Ralston Saul 1995). This ideological domination pushes the idea that people may be opinionated in matters of non-importance, but complicit with the market (Ralston Saul 1995). So long as capital and the market is placed above all else, the political will of the people is placed as a lesser matter (Ralston Saul 1995). The Australian public is given the opportunity to have a non-binding opinion on the subject of same-sex marriage, but they are not permitted to have a binding political vote.
Neoliberalism is the ideology which values the worship of the market (Harvey 2005, Saad-Fihlo & Johnston 2005). Any views which challenge the market mechanisms are not pushed forwards in Australian politics (Walsh 2016). To quote Marx and Engels, “Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?” (Marx and Engels 1848). Australia does not have a communist party in opposition, the neoliberal party sits in opposition to the other neoliberal party. If both parties are in support for a neoliberal agenda, there is nothing to stop the advance of capitalist domination (Lynch 2016).
Neither party wishes to halt the advance of neoliberalism (Lynch 2016). There is no “communistic” party, or other anti-capitalist party, in opposition (Marx & Engels 1848). The LNP actively pushes neoliberalism, while the ALP have ditched their working-class base (Walsh 2016, Lynch 2016). This leads to the global domination of capital and the repression of working-class movements and working-class rights in the name of the market (Lynch 2016). Neoliberalism leads to the destruction of democracy from the working-class (Lenin 1918). Their choices in government are to choose a neoliberal party, or another neoliberal party (Ralston Saul 1995).
To conclude, it can be seen that there is no ideological difference between the two major parties of Australia. Bourgeois democracy and neoliberalism was explained, both major parties were situated to both have moved from a principled base, to an unprincipled neoliberal agenda. It was then argued how both parties were neoliberal, and the consequences of their shift from principles to an unprincipled, neoliberal approach to their government. Finally, the paper argued why neoliberalism requires both parties to be neoliberal, and the consequences of both parties being neoliberal.
- Comrade Vegemiteisgross
References:
Bolt, A 2016, ‘It takes Malcolm Turnbull a year to do nothing as prime minister’ Herald Sun, 8 August, viewed 3 October 2017 via http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/andrew-bolt/it-takes-malcolm-turnbull-a-year-to-do-nothing-as-prime-minister/news-story/ee1e1e8e82223563fb497d2c871fb23e
Chomsky, N 2014, ‘What is the Common Good?’ Truthout.org, January 7, Viewed 3 October 2017 via http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/21070-noam-chomsky-what-is-the-common-good
Colman, E 2015, ‘Half of federal Labor MPs have union origins’, The Australian, July 14, viewed 3 October 2017 via http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/industrial-relations/half-federal-labor-mps-have-union-origins/news-story/84ec0cddb4f8d87f5c8c358b0ae76e14
Harrison, D 2015 ‘Ireland same-sex marriage vote won’t sway Tony Abbott’s support’ The Sydney Morning Herald, May 24, viewed 3 October 2017 via http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/ireland-samesex-marriage-vote-wont-sway-tony-abbotts-support-20150524-gh8cmn.html
Harvey, D 2005, A Brief History of Neoliberalism, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Jericho, G 2016, ‘New research: Abbott and Turnbull the worst economic managers since Menzies’ The Guardian, 14 June, viewed 2 October 2017 via https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2016/jun/14/new-research-abbott-and-turnbull-the-worst-economic-managers-since-menzies
Keynes, J M 1925 ‘Am I a Liberal?’ Essays in Persuasion, Palgrave Macmillan, UK, pp. 295
Lenin, V 1913 ‘Marxism and Reformism’, Lenin Collected Works, vol. 19 pp. 372-375 via https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/sep/12b.htm
Lenin, V 1918 The State and Revolution, Marxists Internet Archive, pp. 50-51 via https://www.marxists.org/ebooks/lenin/state-and-revolution.pdf
Marx, K 1846 A Critique of the German Ideology, Marxists Internet Archive, pp. 21-23 via https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_The_German_Ideology.pdf
Marx, K 1847 Wage Labour and Capital, Marxists Internet Archive, pp. 12 via https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_Wage_Labour_and_Capital.pdf
Marx, K, Engels F 1848 The Communist Manifesto, Marxists Internet Archive, pp. 14 via https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf
Marx, K 1865 Value, Price and Profit, Marxists Internet Archive, pp 29-30 via https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/value-price-profit.pdf
Luxemburg, R 1899 Reform or Revolution? Pathfinder Press, New York. pp. 33-47
Lynch, A 2016 ‘Now is the Turn of the Right: Ditch the Base’ Social Alternatives, vol. 35, no. 2 pp. 56
Ralston Saul, J 1995 The Unconscious Civilization, Penguin, Victoria pp. 160-195
Saad-Filho, A (ed.), Johnston, D (ed.) 2005, Neoliberalism: A Critical Reader, Pluto Press, London
Walsh, M 2016 ‘Five Prime Ministers: a crisis, a political aberration or the new normal?’ From Abbott to Turnbull: A New Direction?, pp. 323-342
Walsh, M 2017 ‘First above equals? Assessments of the Abbott Prime Ministership 2013-2015’ Australian Journal of Political Science, vol. 52, no. 3 pp. 465-480
Comrade Quotes
"I ended up having to get into Marx and Lenin just to understand a lot of the speeches and stuff Huey Newton was putting out. It wasn’t easy reading, but i was glad i did it. It opened up my horizons a hell of a lot. I didn’t relate to them as the great white fathers or like some kind of gods, like some of the white revolutionaries did. As far as i was concerned, they were two dudes who had made contributions to revolutionary struggle too great to be ignored." - Assata Shakur
During the late 20th century, neoliberalism became the dominant economic ideology of the developed world (Saad-Filho & Johnston 2005). This would lead corporations to accrue more wealth and power until they became more powerful economic entities than most countries (Inman 2016). The sheer economic might of these large firms would proceed to dominate the developing countries across the globe. Opposition to the economic powers would be crushed, even if it meant breaking the law and violating human rights (Pilkington 2009).
It will be argued that corporations suppress opposition to them, by violent and unlawful means if they can. This will be done by situating neoliberalism, examining corporate economic power in comparison to the economic power of nations, then observing how corporations act in developing nations. From there the actions of Coca-Cola in Colombia will be analysed, then the actions of Shell in Nigeria, and finally the actions of McDonalds in Australia. Then these actions will answer the question of why corporations act the way they do and whether these actions are inherent to the system of capitalism.
The late 20th century saw the rise of what is called neoliberalism (Saad-Filho & Johnston 2005). Neoliberalism is the economic philosophy pushed in the 1980s by Thatcher, Reagan and much of the developed world since (Harvey 2005). Neoliberalism can be summed up as the domination of the invisible hand of the market (Ralston-Saul 1995). Slowly over time, corporations have become increasingly powerful (Harvey 2005). Corporations have become so large that they have become more powerful than countries (Inman 2016). A study looking at the top 200 economic entities found that 153 of those were corporations (Inman 2016). The same organisation that did the study also found that 10 corporations have more economic power than 180 out of 195 countries worldwide (Global Justice Now 2016). This builds upon the economic stage of capitalism called imperialism (Lenin 1917). These large corporations belong to the financial oligarchy, which then proceed to control and dominate the lesser developed nations (Lenin 1917).
With corporations holding a massive amount of wealth, they are in effect, more powerful than small countries with little economic power. Small countries must submit to large corporations, or else the corporations would go to another small nation (Hill et al 2017). This creates a “race to the bottom” as smaller nations must compete with each other to be the cheapest, least regulated market of cheap labour and resources (Hill et al 2017). This leads to developing nations ultimately seeing no net gain, as whatever gains they get must be cut again and again to remain competitive (Hardoon 2017)
One of the phenomena observed in smaller nations is that corporations will break the law if it is more economically efficient to do so (Bakan 2003). Corporations become more powerful than the ability for small nations to police them (Bakan 2003). This leads to large corporations breaking the law and committing crimes (Gill 2007). This trend had started before the first world war, but has only accelerated under neoliberalism (Lenin 1917, Harvey 2003, Harvey 2005).
From the 1990s onwards, Coca-Cola used militias to execute union leaders in Colombia (Gill 2007, Brodzinsky 2003). The practice is not unheard of in Colombia, as 184 union members were killed in 2002 alone (Brodzinsky 2003). The reason Coca-Cola did this is to weaken the trade union movement in their bottling plants (Gill 2007). Workers will not ask for better conditions if they are executed for doing so. The lawsuit against Coca-Cola also alleges that the militias tortured union members (Gill 2007). Coca-Cola denies directly killing and torturing union members (Brodzinsky 2003).
The factors and conditions of Colombia lead to Coca-Cola acting this way. Colombia is a less developed nation when compared to the far more advanced western powers (Heritage.org 2017). The Heritage foundation considers Colombia to be moderately free in its capitalist analysis of the country (Heritage.org 2017). This means that the country has moderately free economic freedom, and private property rights, Coca-Cola may use a private militia to protect their private property due to the political and economic climate in Colombia. This then leads to Coca-Cola using this power to dominate the local proletariat through violence and torture (Gill 2007).
The second example of corporate militancy is the actions of Shell in Nigeria. Shell executed environmental activists protesting their actions in the Niger Delta (Bakan 2003, Pilkington 2009). One of the noted activists, Ken Saro-Wiwa was hanged alongside many other protesters (Bakan 2003). This was done because of environmental protests against Shell (Graafland 2001). The corporation’s digging in the Niger Delta caused environmental problems for the locals (Graafland 2001). Shell was also accused for multiple human rights violations (Pilkington 2009). This was a show of corporate sanctioned murder to stop environmental protesters, although this backfired and caused a large legal battle against Shell, where the corporation paid $15.5 million dollars in settlement (Pilkington 2009).
The factors and conditions of Nigeria lead to Shell acting this way. Nigeria is a very underdeveloped nation which is heavily reliant on oil (Heritage.org 2017). The Heritage foundation considers Nigeria to be mostly unfree. The country has weak private property rights, and very poor economic health (Heritage.org 2017). The need to protect private property lead to the execution of the Ogoni tribe members protesting the actions of Shell (Graafland 2001, Bakan 2003). Shell, being the massive multinational that it is, was powerful enough to decide the outcome of the lives of the protesters, it took the decision to execute the protesters through its actions. The original reasoning was that people cannot protest if they are dead.
Corporations tend to commit terrible crimes in developing nations if they can get away with it (Bakan 2003). Corporations do not act this way in developed nations, where labour laws are strong. They undermine workers in a far more subtle way. McDonalds Australia pressures their employees to join with the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees union (Markson, 2017). This union is one with many anti-worker deals which reduce employee wages, and is often criticised to be too close to big business (Royle 2010). This is in stark contrast to how corporate giants operate in less developed nations, yet the outcome, being the suppression of workers and opposition to capital, is ultimately similar.
This brings the question as to why corporations act more violently in less developed countries. The answer is because they can usually either get away with it, or the cost in reparations is less than the cost of changing their extremely exploitative business model (Bakan 2003). The economic damage bad press had on Shell or Coca-Cola has been ultimately negligible, else both companies would be out of profit if the bad press had been effective. Shell still operates in Nigeria, and Coca-Cola still operates in Colombia. In more developed nations where citizens have labour unions and a stronger government, businesses cannot outright execute people who get in their way, instead they must undermine workers through corrupt unions.
Coca-Cola torturing and executing union members, and Shell hanging activists shows one of Marx’ contradictions of capitalism in its most violent totality, this is the contradiction of wages to labour. Marx argued that the worker produces for the capitalist far more than what they were paid, the worker wishes to be paid more, yet the bourgeoisie wishes for as low wages as possible, this leads to economic conflict between the two social classes (Marx & Engels 1894). The bourgeoisie does not wish to give the worker the complete reward for the product of their labour because if they did so, profit would not exist (Marx 1847).
This contradiction between capitalist and worker is inherent to the capitalist system (Marx 1847). The three examples viewed all share the same goal in common, the reduction of opposition to the bourgeoisie. The two classes, proletariat and bourgeoisie, are waged in a class struggle against one another (Marx & Engels 1848). Businesses will be as humane as they are allowed to be under differing nations labour laws. In countries with strong labour laws, like Australia, corporations use deception and the legal system to reduce wages and worker rights, in countries with weak labour laws, corporations use more militant methods to reduce worker opposition (Gaafland 2001, Gill 2007, Royle 2010).
It has been argued that corporations suppress opposition to them, by violent means if possible. This was done by situating neoliberalism in the 20th century, examining corporate economic power in comparison to the economic power of nations, then introducing corporate violence in developing nations. The actions of Coca-Cola in Colombia were analysed and situated to the Colombian economic climate, the same was done with the actions of Shell in Nigeria. These two examples were compared to the actions of McDonalds in Australia. These examples were used to show corporate action in regards to worker opposition, and it was explained that these actions are inherent to capitalism.
-Comrade Vegemiteisgross
References:
Bakan, J 2003, The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power, Constable and Robinson, London
Brodzinsky, S 2003 ‘Coca-Cola boycott launched after killings at Colombian plants’, The Guardian, 24 July, viewed 20 October 2017 via https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/jul/24/marketingandpr.colombia
Gill, L 2007, ‘Right there with you: Coca-Cola, Labor Restructuring and Political Violence in Colombia’, Critique of Anthropology, vol. 27, no. 3 pp. 235-260
Global Justice Now, 10 biggest corporations make more money than most countries in the world combined, 2016, Global Justice Now, London
Graafland, J.J., 2002. ‘Profits and principles: four perspectives’. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 35, no. 4, pp.293-305.
Hardoon, D 2017. An Economy for the 99%. Oxfam International. UK
Harvey, D 2003, The New Imperialism, Oxford Press, Oxford
Harvey, D 2005, A Brief History of Neoliberalism, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Heritage.Org 2017 Index of Economic Freedom 2017, Heritage Foundation, Washington via <http://www.heritage.org/index/>
Hill, C, Hult, T, Wickramasekera, R, Liesch, P & Mackenzie, K 2017 Global Business Today: Asia-Pacific Perspective (4th ed.) McGraw-Hill Education, New South Wales
Inman, P 2016, ‘Study: big corporations dominate list of world’s top economic entities’ The Guardian, 13 September, viewed 19 October 2017 via <https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/12/global-justice-now-study-multinational-businesses-walmart-apple-shell>
Lenin, V 1917, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, Progress Publishers, Petrograd
Markson, S 2017, ‘Unhappy deals as union short-changes its McDonald’s junior workers in deals’, The Daily Telegraph, September 17, viewed 20 October 2017 via <http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/unhappy-deals-as-union-shortchanges-its-mcdonalds-junior-workers-in-deals/news-story/8db1e36a51f0799df0df65d113a11288>
Marx, K 1947 ‘Wage Labour and Capital’, Neue Rheinische Zeitung, April, viewed 20 October 2017 via <https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_Wage_Labour_and_Capital.pdf>
Marx, K & Engels, F 1849 Manifesto of the Communist Party, Allen and Unwin, London
Marx, K & Engels F (Editor) 1894, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy volume 3: The Process of Capitalist Production as a Whole, International Publishers, New York
Pilkington, E 2009, ‘Shell pays out $15.5m over Saro-Wiwa killing’, The Guardian, 9 June, viewed 20 October 2017 via <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jun/08/nigeria-usa>
Ralston Saul, J 1995 The Unconscious Civilization, Penguin, Victoria pp. 160-195
Royle, T 2010, ‘‘Low-road Americanization’ and the global ‘McJob’: a longitudinal analysis of work, pay and unionization in the international fast-food industry’, Labor History, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 249-270
Saad-Filho, A (ed.), Johnston, D (ed.) 2005, Neoliberalism: A Critical Reader, Pluto Press, London
Often leftists support nations to their own self-determination, yet this often-uncritical thought comes from the ideological dominance of Lenin.
Before this article begins, it must be stated that the writer is ideologically a Marxist-Leninist, if this impacts the following article, please leave an RMB post in reply to this article towards VegemiteIsGross.
We shall begin with the following quotes from Marx and Engels in the Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848.
“The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier, and one customs-tariff.”
“In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations.”
“The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.
The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.”
Marx was the anvil of which the dialectical hammer built upon the German ideology. We can see here that the dialectical method would be as follows:
Thesis: The bourgeoisie have turned the scattered feudal society of fiefdoms and petty kingdoms into republican nation states. The proletariat are concentrated in the towns, this leads to the concentration of working class power. The capitalist system distributes the proletariat by order of race, gender, age etc.
Antithesis: The proletariat do not wish to be distributed via race, gender, age etc. nor do they wish to live under capitalism.
Synthesis: The proletariat acquire political supremacy and transform the nation.
Here we can see the dialectic when applied to nations. Nations, similar to economic systems, adhere to historical materialism. Firstly, the feudal state, then the bourgeois state, finally, the proletarian state.
The working men have no country, but the working men gain a country through a proletarian revolution. A national revolution is nationalistic, this is why all previous revolutions are known as where they came from, the Paris commune, Soviet Russia, Ukranian Free Territory, and Revolutionary Catalonia.
Yet the communist also seeks to abolish both country and nationality, this is not a contradiction, it is the final synthesis of the dialectic. As communists, we must seek to abolish nationality and country in the bourgeois sense of the word, the same as Marxists seek to abolish the bourgeois state.
At least, that what the typical Marxist-Leninist believes.
Here we shall proceed to Rosa Luxemburg and her argument in The National Question, 1909.
Luxemburg argues that nationalism is inherently bourgeois. The proletarian revolution need not concern itself with nationalism. She argues that nationalism splits the proletariat into nations, of which they do not have. We are reminded of the earlier quote from Marx, “The working men have no country.”
There is a contradiction between nationalism and internationalism, as she argues that communists are internationalists, just as it is written by Marx. This is true, as communists we are in support of spreading the revolution. This is also supported by the historic record between Lenin and Luxemburg, they both banked on the revolution in Russia and Germany to spread like wildfire. Unfortunately, as we look in hindsight, the revolution failed in Germany, which caused a massive blow to the international revolutionary movement at the time.
She also brings the argument back to the very basis of scientific socialism, the main reason why they were not the utopian communists like the French socialists or the Anarchists, she returns to historical materialism. Historical materialism does not create eternal laws. Self-determination is used by the so-called scientific socialists to enshrine an eternal law. Historical materialism is simply a method, not a law unto itself. It is the lens that scientific socialists view history. We recognise that history passes through a set of stages, each with their own thesis, with internal contradictions, which then lead to the new synthesis of ages.
Luxemburg is extremely critical of the so-called scientific socialists who enshrine the empty phrase of ‘The right of nations to self-determination’. As can be seen in the following quotes:
“The nationality question cannot be an exception among all the political, social, and moral questions examined in this way by modern socialism. It cannot be settled by the use of some vague cliché, even such a fine-sounding formula as “the right of all nations to self-determination.” For such a formula expresses either absolutely nothing, so that it is an empty, noncommittal phrase, or else it expresses the unconditional duty of socialists to support all national aspirations, in which case it is simply false.”
“In the same way, hopes of solving all nationality questions within the capitalist framework by insuring to all nations, races, and ethnic groups the possibility of “self-determination” is a complete utopia.”
In fact, the right to have self-determination is utterly reactionary, as self-determination is either a bourgeois notion of freedom from feudalism, or it is a step backwards towards a neofeudal right of nations to be divided into smaller kingdoms. Again, she finds the right of nations to self-determination to be an empty notion. The historical record shows that nationalism leads to a reactionary backlash against the proletarian movement. In the book, Luxemburg, a Jew herself, writes about the Jewish proletariat and a Jewish nation state, she recognises the reactionary elements in the movement for a Jewish nation state before Israel became the abhorrent nation it is today. Can we really fight for a nationalistic movement when history shows us how reactionary the movement really is?
Luxemburg then brings out her argument of the “faces” of communism, the most widely known communists at the time in the following quote:
“The “right” of all nations to freedom did not prevent Marx, Engels, and Liebknecht from speaking against the Balkan Slavs and from resolutely supporting the integrity of the Turks.”
Here we can see how the ‘scientific socialists’ have stepped away from Marxism to opportunism and into reactionary ‘socialism’. As scientific socialists, we must view movements with our viewpoint of historical materialism. If we are to see through the lens of historical materialism, of which it was summarised earlier, we see that these nationalistic movements are a step backward, not a step forwards.
“The formula of the “right of nations” is inadequate to justify the position of socialists on the nationality question, not only because it fails to take into account the wide range of historical conditions (place and time) existing in each given case and does not reckon with the general current of the development of global conditions, but also because it ignores completely the fundamental theory of modern socialists - the theory of social classes.”
Now we move on to Lenin’s response in his paper The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, 1914.
Lenin argues that Luxemburg misses the point with all the philosophical posturing she does in her article. We are reminded of a quote by Marx, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.” Lenin reminds Luxemburg of the historic development of capitalism at the time. Markets start inside a single nation, a single national market. The spine of capitalism at the time was grown through the single markets of a nation. We must note, that with the creation of global capitalism on a truly international scale, it is quite easy for a firm to become a born global firm, but we are to look at the argument of the time before we deconstruct it.
Lenin shows the development of capitalism to spawn nation states from feudal kingdoms. The development of socialism must have the birth marks of the previous society, just as all previous societies before grew with the birth marks of the one before. The development of history reaffirms Lenin’s argument, firstly primitive society, from which slave society grew into feudal society and finally, into bourgeois society. From each society held the birth pangs of the last. Bourgeois society holds the birth pangs from feudal society, one being the national market.
The importance of the national market stems from the concentration of proletarian power. A national market consists of thousands if not millions of proletarian workers who all speak the same language, who all live in similar conditions, and all are of a similar nationality. A Russian proletariat speaks Russian to another Russian proletariat, they both live in Russian capitalist conditions, and they are both Russians.
Lenin then reflects back on the historical record. He notes that all previous revolutions, the Paris commune in particular, have all been nationalistic revolutions. Lenin notes the development of capitalism, being in multiple stages in of itself. He notes the sweeping collapse of feudalism, which brings the proletariat and concentrates them in the towns and cities, spawning a strong nationalist movement. From there the second stage of capitalism grows, once capitalism is ripe, it proceeds to push into other global markets, lessening the nationalist movement.
In our day of global capitalism, we can now see the reaction of nationalism to a global market. Nationalist movements spring up from the proletariat, both imperialist and reactionary, in the case of ‘America first’, and non-reactionary and anti-imperialist, as was seen in Burkina Faso.
Lenin responds to Luxemburg’s criticism of the slogan ‘The right of nations to self-determination’. He defends the practicality of the slogan by expressing that the criticism of the slogan is counterrevolutionary, this is because Luxemburg criticises the slogan, but gives no argument to improve the movement, simply to ignore nationalistic movements. This is appalling to Lenin, who argues that the communist party must take hold of these nationalist movements to push towards socialism, or else fascism, the bourgeoisie and useless liberals take the reins of such a movement. As ever, Lenin argues that the vanguard must use every opportunity to push for a socialist agenda.
Lenin summarises his argument as follows:
“By supporting the right to secession, we are told, you are supporting the bourgeois nationalism of the oppressed nations. This is what Rosa Luxemburg says, and she is echoed by Semkovsky, the opportunist, who incidentally is the only representative of liquidationist ideas on this question, in the liquidationist newspaper!
Our reply to this is: No, it is to the bourgeoisie that a "practical" solution of this question is important. To the workers the important thing is to distinguish the principles of the two trends. Insofar as the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation fights the oppressor, we are always, in every case, and more strongly than anyone else, in favour, for we are the staunchest and the most consistent enemies of oppression. But insofar as the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation stands for its own bourgeois nationalism, we stand against. We fight against the privileges and violence of the oppressor nation, and do not in any way condone strivings for privileges on the part of the oppressed nation.”
Lenin’s words are echoed today by Marxist-Leninists, who are staunchly anti-imperialists and always stand on the side of the oppressed against the oppressor nation, to ignore this in an argument to ignore nationalism, is ultimately useless and works against the proletariat in the naïve wish to eradicate the bourgeois notion of borders and nationalities.
Unfortunately, often Lenin’s argument is often the only argument pushed forwards, and the consequence is that the supposedly advanced vanguard ends up being anti-Marxist due to not ever having a debate within the party, simply accepting dogma without hearing an opposing side.
This is relevant today when looking at Catalan independence, too often we see leftists uncritically supporting Catalonia against the Spanish government, but Luxemburg would have argued to examine the material conditions of Catalonia-Spain first. What about the proletarian movements in Spain and Catalonia? Would this nationalist movement in Catalonia weaken the bourgeois state or strengthen the bourgeois state? Would this nationalist movement be ultimately reactionary against the working class in both nations?
The passage of the Judicial Separation Act is a reform of fundamental importance to our region. It enshrines a more complete constitutional separation of powers, protects the judiciary from unjust political interference, and allows for a more complete and well-developed balance of executive and judicial power.
This reform fundamentally overhauls the structure and process of the GA and Supreme Court in a positive direction. As our region has grown I have become convinced of the necessity of a separation of power between these two branches. The threat of future judicial corruption was simply too great to be allowed to remain. I feel this reform, a difficult compromise thrashed out of many competing ideas, is the most effective and broad-based reform that it was possible to achieve. It modernises TLA’s political and government structure and strengthens it’s future prospects.
While I am the principal architect of the ideas behind this reform, without the input and driving power of Secretary Llorens, I could never have achieved it. Without the criticisms and arguments supplied by other GA members, particularly my old comrade Atealia and my great fellow Justice Rathfarnham, we would never have established a bill with such broad appeal.
This bill is effective, well-thought out, argued and challenged. I believe it is a reform that is of a fundamentally positive and will prove of enormous use in invigorating our region’s government for the future challenges of the 8th General Assembly, and beyond.
-Comrade 
Cedoria
Author’s Note: Some slick comrades may notice the similarity of the title of this article to a certain speech given by J. Posadas. That’s because SPACEMAN LIB IS BACK BABY! That’s right my terrestrial comrades, this essay is bringing back Posadist Lib in the realm of the Red Star.
A Further, less-memey note: Unfortunately many of Posadas’ works on Art and music are either lost or remain untranslated (the IV International (Posadist) does not make clear either case for his works that are linked but cannot be viewed), thus I am sure I cannot utilize his work to its full extent.
Sapience is what sets humanity above the animals of the Earth. We have the ability to reason, judge, and formulate our intelligence into viable solutions or new ideas. There is no limit to how much human intelligence or scientific capacity can develop, but at the same time, there is.
Our current system of social organization, Capitalism, organizes what is important and what is good through use of the profit motive. It is through this motive that capitalists argue capitalism causes innovations and new ideas, through people wishing to gain money through their creation. This is undoubtedly a falsehood. Those without the economic means to do so cannot put their ideas out there, to test them in the profit motive (even those many of those ideas would not have a profitable outcome, and would likely be tossed away or extraordinarily expensive under capitalism).
Science is restricted by capitalism in this way. If even a percentage, nay a percentage of a percentage, of the world’s scientific resources were put to curing afflictions like cerebral palsy (of which my brother, along with a permanently disjointed hip-bone, has), I’ve no doubt it could be cured within a decades or shorter time. But why is it not done this way?
Only 17 million people worldwide have cerebral palsy. That seems like an extraordinarily large number, though even fraction probably have GMFCS Level V like my brother. It is estimated that most who are afflicted as seriously as my brother will die around 38 years of living. This is nothing short of a crime.
“The squandering of life that goes on at the present moment is quite staggering. The way to put an end to this terrible waste is to put our social house [system] in order.” - J. Posadas, On the Socialist Future of Humanity
Why will capitalism do nothing to stop this? Because 17 million people is nothing to the capitalist machine. The world population clock estimates there are 7.58 billion worldwide at the time of this writing. What is something as minor as 17 million going to do for capitalism? Nothing. It is not profitable to save the lives of those 17 millions because of the minor impact they will have on the capitalist machine.
“These people see science as a means of producing cheaper and nothing more.” - J. Posadas, War, Peace, and the Function of the Socialist Countries
But not only are lives lost because we refuse to escape this terrible system of profit over lives. In Chile, through 1971-73, a system known as Project Cybersyn was planned to be implemented. This system would’ve allowed for the economic needs and wants of all Chilean citizens to be input into a database, where resources would’ve then been given to projects and foods and factories and the like to fulfill these needs. Interestingly, this solution could solve the economic calculation problem posed by Mises and later Hayek.
However, I wish to focus on a different aspect of the Project. At the time, the project was revolutionary in its suggestions and could be implemented even better in the 21st century. Instead of having it run by slow humans, CyberSyn could be run by computers with much more efficiency. And, instead of human labour producing everything, we now have the technology to automate most, if not all, all labour currently done by humans. This would leave us with a much higher scientific capacity than under capitalism, because thinkers formerly restricted by their job and life would now be able to contribute to scientific discussion. Science will no longer be a profitable institution from which society is restricted: it will become a social institution in which society is most heavily involved.
With the elimination of capitalism and the complete implementation of socialism and automation, science will be freed from the profit motive, and the people can and will be freed from what diseases and afflictions we will find cures for.
“The social condition for human existence is progress. Progress will immediately give to human audacity and capacity an expansion a million times greater than in the system of private property. These qualities will no longer be hindered or determined by the interests of the individual. The whole of society will be engaged, giving confidence and reassurance. When social thought is entirely held in common, it will change the modes of living.” - J. Posadas, Flying Saucers, the Process of Matter and Energy, Science and Socialism
- Comrade Lib
Comrade Quotes
We were born between blood and gunpowder; and between blood and gunpowder we were raised. Subcommandante Marcos
As days come and go through the region, another issue has been finished with another act. This time it’s the military. Secretary Llorens put up the Military Removal Act Sunday. It has been known that the military has been of low interest in the region, with stagnant numbers in members and also of the resignation of the minister of defense. With no wars to fight at the moment and no known threat to the region, this is a good act. The Military has had better days but with this act being passed with a ratio of 20:4 three hours ago, we will see the retirement of the military for the coming future at the moment. In an interview with Llorens, he spoke of why this act is being implemented. Llorens spoke of the many upgrades the military has taken on to influence members to join the program, like its own page on the region’s website. Another upgrade would be of a new training manual, but as Secretary Llorens has seen these upgrades, no improvement of the number of members has been shown, so this is the last straw for the region and now that it’s passed, we see no more of the military and its ministry. Now with this issue out of the way, in the interview with Llorens, I asked what is the next step for the Secretary. Secretary Llorens spoke about his opinion on a separate judiciary and a “wholly-elected legislature.” He said that progression is going well. Life in the region will be different for some but for most, it’s just another good day and hopefully, more good days will come.
Comrade Quotes
If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine. - Che Guevara
October 9th, 1967 – Argentinian revolutionary and figure of the Cuban Revolution, Ernesto Che Guevara, is shot nine times by Bolivian Sergeant Mario Terán after being captured with other members of his foco group Ñancahuazú Guerrilla. 39 years later, Ter ́an’s sight would be restored by doctors from the very Socialist state Che Guevara had fought to help create.
Dr. Ernesto “Che” Guevara was an Argentine revolutionary and guerilla fighter. Che, whether they know it or not, is one of the most well-known Marxists throughout the entirety of the world, due to the capitalist adoption of his image onto their shirts and clothing as a way to market towards counter-culture. Few who wear clothing with his face even know of his achievements or deeds. Propagandized by the right-wing as a mass-murderer who, as a World Affairs Journal article put it, “overthrew democratic governments and replaced them with communist hellholes”; Che Guevara did much more to honor Marx’s maxim of “Every step of real movement is more important than a dozen programmes” than many will do in their entire lifetimes.
Guevara, whilst on his famous Motorcycle Journey, saw the conditions of the working-class people throughout the whole of Latin America; he observed the effect American Imperialism, capitalist exploitation, and government corruption had on the people. It was through these experiences that Guevara came to his famous conclusion: “I knew that when the great guiding spirit cleaves humanity into two antagonistic halves, I will be with the people.”
Later, his opposition to American Imperialism and his push towards Third-Worldism was propelled even further when he experienced firsthand the deposition of Guatemalan President Jacobo Árbenz and establishment of the Military Junta under Carlos Castillo Armas (the depravity and heartlessness of which is detailed in this 
video). After his experiences in Guatemala, Guevara was exiled to Mexico and there he met Fidel Castro, the man he would fight alongside to free Cuba from the hands of the dictator Batista and the man he would later serve in the government under, at least for a short period of time.
Transported alongside 82 comrades of the July 26th Movement, via the Granma, Guevara became a leading commander in the nationalist Cuban Revolution against Batista. It would be under the command of Guevara that the final blow would be dealt by the rebels against Batista in the famed Battle of Santa Clara. Che’s first position in Castro’s government was as commander of the La Cabaña Fortress Prison, where he often ordered executions of those who committed war crimes or informed against the Cuban Revolution. These executions were overwhelming approved of by the Cuban people, and it is estimated that 55 to 105 people were killed in military tribunals. Whilst conservatives would have you believe Che himself had these people dragged from their homes and killed in the streets, the book Ernesto "Che" Guevara (World Leaders Past & Present) asserts that the trials “conducted by 2–3 army officers, an assessor, and a respected local citizen.” Whilst I abhor the death penalty, this process and the number of people that were actually killed are not anywhere near the thousands upon thousands that capitalist propaganda would have you believe Che had massacred in the streets of Cuba.
“I have yet to find a single credible source pointing to a case where Che executed "an innocent". Those persons executed by Guevara or on his orders were condemned for the usual crimes punishable by death at times of war or in its aftermath: desertion, treason or crimes such as rape, torture or murder. I should add that my research spanned five years, and included anti-Castro Cubans among the Cuban-American exile community in Miami and elsewhere.”
— Jon Lee Anderson, author of Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, PBS forum
After serving this post, Che was promoted leader of El Instituto Nacional de Reforma Agraria (The National Institute for Agrarian Reform) and he was charged with enacting the first Agrarian Reform Law. Much of the land was taken from the US corporations and rich landowners of Cuba and given to the peasants, and other cooperative farms were established. Guevara played a prominent role in training the troops who repelled the United States’ ill-prepared and nigh suicidal Bay of Pigs Invasion.
Guevara represented Cuba at the United Nations in December 1964, where he criticized the foreign response to South African apartheid and America’s own policy of segregation. So much for those liberal accusations of Che’s supposed “racism”. Che also fought alongside Afro-Cubans and Africans whilst he was leading troops in the Simba Revolution. Che’s life would come to tragic end when he joined the “National Liberation Army of Bolivia” and fought to topple the Barrientos government and usher in a Socialist state. Che’s efforts failed and he was executed without trial by Bolivian soldiers.
Ernesto “Che” Guevara was heroic revolutionary and comrade who, alongside so many other comrades throughout history, sacrificed his life in the name of Revolution against capitalistic tyranny, imperialism, and exploitation. Whilst Che’s image has been co-opted by the capitalist machine, his ideas and memory live on the hearts of Cubans and revolutionaries everywhere.
Viva La Camarada Che!
Viva La Revolución!
-Comrade Lib
Author’s Note: Recently, I had a long discussion with a friend of mine on the subject of socialism/communism and I thought some of these would be fitting to include in this issue.
Q: And under Communism, these things [housing/healthcare/food etc.] are provided by the government for free?
A: No, not necessarily. There is no government under the accepted definition of Marx’s vision of Communism. Instead, the workers manage their own work and contribute to society the best they can so they will get the resources they need and want in return. Basically a yes but centered on the people and the community, not a government.
Q: I think the whole "no government" thing is what scared people about communism because they've been taught to believe that they can't take care of themselves
A: No, quite the opposite. People have been brainwashed by Cold-War era propaganda into thinking the USSR under Stalin was the final realization of communism. It was not, it was socialism. The reason most people oppose communism is not because they understand it, but because they do not. They do not want to approach an idea that has been given to them incorrectly their whole lives, much like religious people when presented with science.
Q: Where do people with disabilities fit into communism? If you have to work to get what you have, and you can't work, what happens?
A: We live in a post-scarcity society, there is enough for everyone, and work could be eliminated from society with automation. In fact, this was Marx's vision of the perfect communist society, one where technology had been utilized to such an extent to where human leisure time was at a maximum and work a minimum, to leave time for creative thinking and actions. The disabled and infirm would easily be taken careof under a communist society.
Q: But are we there yet? Are we capable of that technology?
A: Yes, we are. We simply cannot implement under capitalism because wages would be obsolete and the economy would crash.
Q: Are they just like hiding these technologies from us??
A: No, these technologies can be openly seen everywhere, the technology is out there and we can see it. We simply cannot use it because of the restrictions capitalism places upon progress.
There were plans to implement this in 1970s Chile before the US realized what was happening and engineered a coup that instilled a military dictatorship.
Q: Is capitalism like one step below dictatorship? It kind of sounds like dictatorship except the people think they have a say.
A: Communists have often theorized that fascism is merely capitalism when heavily threatened with real change, which is why we cannot depend on mere reformists like Bernie. However, in the context of economics, yes I believe there is a “dictatorship” of the rich presiding over the workers.
Q: Who can we depend on? (We as in communists. I don't identify as a communist, or any other label because I don't know enough to really support a cause)
A: We should not depend on leaders, and socialists like Eugene Debs knew this. Any change must come from the working class rising up for change led by communists. This can only be done by organizing ourselves at a grassroots level and building up our influence with the People.
Q: How do you think communism would affect equality in general? Without money, there's no longer social classes. And it's no secret that social classes have everything to do with equality
A: Certainly communism seeks to establish equality among social classes. But social classes are not the only problem in the current capitalist society. The race of a person often determines whether or not they will be shot down by a cop. The gender of a person often determines whether or not someone will be sexually assaulted or raped. Certainly the abolition of social and economic classes would bring some form of equality, but there needs to be a fundamental uprooting of the racist & sexist roots upon which our current capitalist society exists. This can not, and will not, be achieved under any other system, especially capitalism.
Q: Are there stores in communist societies? Just no money to buy things with?
A: I assume there would be "distribution" stores where one could pick up needed or wanted goods. There could also be automated systems where citizens input they need and it is delivered to them, one of the things I believe Chile was going to implement before they were taken out.
Q: Will there only be like one brand across the board for all products in communist societies?
A: I assume there could be "brands" depending on how the worker-managed workplace produces their goods from store to store.
Q: How have previous communist countries fallen? What did they do wrong?
A: Libertarian Socialists would charge that they formed a new kind of class dominance through corruption/nepotism and the like. Marxist Leninists and others would charge that the leadership of these countries eventually fell on people that were not communist nor even socialist, such as Gorbachev & Yeltsin in the USSR and Deng Xiaoping in China. However, I think the issue is a bit of both and then some. Imperialist powers like the United States struggled against these Worker's States from the beginning, obviously limiting the resources they had to those of other Communists countries. This perpetual drain of resources and the corruption of Communist parties through nationalists like Boris Yeltsin in Russia and closet-capitalists like Deng Xiaoping in China meant that the countries often turned to these people, who often purported to have new solutions whilst keeping the socialist system, and eventually were destroyed by these problems and people.
Q: If there aren’t taxes in communism, how do you keep public schools and other stuff like that open?
A: There's no money, there are no taxes. You keep public schools open through giving public schools the resources they need. The same goes for any kind of public facility. Automation allows us to do this, and invalidates the use of money.
Q: Is everything therefore public?
A: No, not necessarily. Land and natural resources are. However, the stuff you yourself use and that is personal to you is retained as "personal property".
Q: No private land? At all? Or just for business and factories?
A: “The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him was the true founder of civil society. What crimes, wars, murders, what miseries and horrors would the human race have been spared, had some one pulled up the stakes or filled in the ditch and cried out to his fellow men: "Do not listen to this imposter. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and the earth to no one!”
― Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract and The Discourses
Q: Would communism bring people closer together, do you think? No more competition?
A: I certainly hope that would be a side effect of communism. As for competition, it is only during the capitalist period of history in which it has been glorified. In all other stages of human development, competition was frowned upon, and even in some non-western cultures, competition is still frowned upon. I read an article about sports in Japan where the teams do not attempt to win by a large margin over the other team as a sportsmanship gesture.
Q: Like mercy rules?
A: I suppose, but it's more of a thing that's ingrained into their culture, whereas Western culture IS competition-based and the like. I honestly think achieving Communism is merely a problem of changing Western culture.
- Comrade Lib
