Communism Can Work

[castille]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Sing Tao
5th February
Andrew Lim


Communism finds its place in a quiet Chinese village

In the quiet village of Xiaohong, located in the heart of Gansu, Communism has existed for over one thousand years.

The village of Xiaohong has less than 200 people. Most of them know each other by name, and their families have lived in the same village for hundreds of generations. The village was recently "discovered" by a Chinese training newscrew on its way to film several expedition sites.

The accepted leader of the village, Gu Yuanxi, told the newscrew that "We haven't seen strangers here since the civil war." Indeed, in this remote village, nothing seems to disturb the peace.

Yet what is most unique about this village is its strict adherence to many Communist principles, despite the inability of most to read or write. Villagers share their fate, says the village leader. Most are too happy to help each other in times of calamity. Gu Yuanxi pointed the newscrew to an old shack, saying that the shack had been blown over during a storm, but every villager of capable hands had helped to repair it.

The village, however, does not consider itself to be Communist or socialist. Marx is just another foreigner, Communism is just a vague ideology, and Mao just another in the long line of dynasties.

The village remains isolated from the outside world. A far cry from the rapidly progressive cities on the Chinese coast, this village has remained in tradition for the past thousand years.

There are no computers, shopping malls, or television. Villagers do not need any form of communication except by mouth; only a select few are literate. Young men and women do not date; they simply marry in their teenage years, raise a family, and carry on the simply life of peasant farmers. Instead of Shanghai's nightclubs and cinemas, Xiaohong village enjoys a weekly traditional dance and village dinner.

While China's youth develop liberal attitudes, the people of this small village remain strictly conservative, skeptical of new ideas. Indeed, many of the villagers whose ancestors immigrated from the coastal cities continue to view any foreign habit as degrading to purity. Huang Lijing, a young farmer, explains his daily routine.

"I wake up when the sun comes, then I work at the fields. I usually share a lunch of rice and vegetables with the other young men, and afterwards I work again until nightfall and go to bed. Occasionally, the young people of the village gather in the hall for dancing and listening to Gu Yuanxi tell stories."

None of the village youth understand any of the concepts of modern China. Telephones, television, computers, and even public displays of affection are nonexistent. As Hu Jintao tours China, spreading his message of social equality and purity, he may well benefit from looking at this village.

However, Professor Chen Jinfei says that using examples of these villages would not work in the cities.

"Many small villages consist of several hundred familiar people, while the cities may hold tens of millions of strangers. While it may be possible to look onto these villages for inspiration, it would be difficult to implement such societies into China's cities. Firstly, the majority of Chinese villages are already exposed to Western culture, and could be considered liberal by China's standards. Maintaining a conservative structure of peasant farmers would be impossible logistically."

Yet even as the village lives on, it has become inspiration to a darker side of China. A high school in Chengdu held a 4-hour demonstration, with many students calling for a "destruction of American imperialism" and a "purification of Chinese culture and cleansing of Chinese blood". Several students were arrested following a ceremony where English books and magazines were burnt, and a milk bar selling several English comic books was firebombed.

None of this affects quiet Xiaohong village, which continues to live as it has one thousand years ago.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

[Sean]

Castille,
Please post partial articles, link to them, source them, and give a brief summary/opinion/question.

[white rice]

Thanks for the article Castile. That culture reminds me of the Native American society where property rights were unheard of and everyone worked for the betterment of the tribe.

There were probably hundreds of those cultures in China that became displaced because of the construction of the Three Gorges Dam. The claim is to improve the quality of life, but these people have lived that way for several generations and have passed on rich traditions. In the haste for progress, who has stopped to ask what's at the end of that progress?

[eburchelli]

I quite agree. Communism can work in a small community of like minded people, as could most forms of government.

[castille]

Sean - I already sourced the article. Its from the Sing Tao newspaper, 5/12/2004, reported by Andrew Lim.


I agree that Communism can work in a small community of less than a few hundred people. But apply it to 1.3 billion people and you'll have trouble making it come close to success.

I still prefer the big city though. I can't imagine spending my life in some traditional village that hasn't heard of "sex outside marriage"! In a way a lot of the stuff we find entertaining (sex, clubbing, cinema, etc) have to live side by side with the negative aspects of consumerism (credit cards, greed, individualism, lack of family love).

[Eulux]

I think that sean guy was saying that you shouldn't post the entire article here, rather an exerpt, a link to the article, or whatever...

Hmmm...if there was a way to have that with modern accessories, then I'd be all for it...without the old beliefs, of course.

[bmaestro]

I think theres a difference between communism and tribalism. Both are based on communal living, working together, and sharing property and so on. In a small isolated community, this tribalism works perfectly, as the group is small enough that mindsets are similar, and everyone has the same view of the community. Communism on the other hand is on a national scale, where a centralized government controls the flow of labor and resources, sets prices for goods and so on. The system is simply too suceptable to corruption, and it just doesn't work when it has to trade internationally. In essence, their really two very differnt things. Communism is economic, tribalism is social, and implies not having to work with the rest of the world.

-B

[Eulux]

Actually, communism is both a type of government and an economic term...that's why when people usually ask me what I like, I say, "Democratic socialism."

[Xicano82]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
I can't imagine spending my life in some traditional village that hasn't heard of "sex outside marriage"!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Isn't marriage a product of western culture though? Before the western settlers came, people did not consider marriage like the weserners did. For example, there were tribes that allowed women to have sex with other men in case they were with a man that could not get them pregnant. I believe the reason porn is so big here, is because sex is outlawed in most society in America, unless someone is trying to sell you something. I.E. porn, commercials, movies, TV, magazines, ect.

[Bayou]

Yes I agree that communism can work, but the democratic principles and human rights must be retained in such a system for it to be succesful on a large scale.
The centralisation of soviet communism was as much a function of consolidating stalins and succinctly the beurocratic dictatorship in which a democracy naturaly rebels against: that was the original intent of the bolsheviks, for the democratic proccess to naturaly wittle away at the beurocracy (like it does so today in every democracy).
Unfortunetly this isnt very successful when the man who takes power decides to kill all of the main political activists in Russia: the Bolsheviks.
The Maoists dont have a democratic tradition either, right from the moment they took power it was a dictatorship.
Their is no pressure towards communism in china, in fact it is going in the oppossite direction.

[Disturbing_Clown]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
for the democratic proccess to naturaly wittle away at the beurocracy (like it does so today in every democracy).
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
You are suggesting that in a political system where you have a professionsal political class charged with creating new legislation, buerocracy will decrease?

As far as reataining human rights within a communist system, what about those who do not wish to particpate? It seems to me to depend on the scale of the system. If it is a matter of having a village opperate under "communism" with the option of someone leaving or joining according to their own wishes, it seems human rights could be respected. However, on any sort of large scale arangement, the communist would have to crack down on those who did not work with the system.

[Cisco]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (eburchelli,)
I quite agree. Communism can work in a small community of like minded people, as could most forms of government.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

You forgot the part where most have to be illiterate for it to work.

[Cisco]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Eulux,)
Actually, communism is both a type of government and an economic term...that's why when people usually ask me what I like, I say, "Democratic socialism."<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Just what about socialism do you like?

And how can it be democratic when most don't want it?

[Bayou]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (disturbingclown)

You are suggesting that in a political system where you have a professionsal political class charged with creating new legislation, buerocracy will decrease?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
No Bolshevism was a grassroots movements that evolved from the working class of Russia. Many of the elements implemented in the soviet system under bolshevik law before Stalin, bares some striking similarities to the U.S political structure: the ability to elect/remove any official in government. This would give the grassroot movement the ability to apply pressure to the political system in their favour.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (disturbingclown)

As far as reataining human rights within a communist system, what about those who do not wish to particpate? It seems to me to depend on the scale of the system. If it is a matter of having a village opperate under "communism" with the option of someone leaving or joining according to their own wishes, it seems human rights could be respected. However, on any sort of large scale arangement, the communist would have to crack down on those who did not work with the system.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Who said communists would have to crackdown on people who didnt want to participate?
I mean they would have the same options that they have under capitalism now: be apart of it or fend for yourself right?
No one would be forcing you to take what is fairly yours after all, reject it if you dont beleive in the quality of your own work, of ideas and goals that would be possible in such a system.

Interesting facts Cisco, even in the soviet system everyone had a university education because, well it was free.
Perhaps you should look up the participant rate percentages in post secondary education in the U.S, you know just for fun
Most may not want it, but if things keep going the way they are, they are going to need it soon.
If you build it they will come.

[Cisco]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (disturbingclown)

You are suggesting that in a political system where you have a professionsal political class charged with creating new legislation, buerocracy will decrease?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
No Bolshevism was a grassroots movements that evolved from the working class of Russia. Many of the elements implemented in the soviet system under bolshevik law before Stalin, bares some striking similarities to the U.S political structure: the ability to elect/remove any official in government. This would give the grassroot movement the ability to apply pressure to the political system in their favour.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (disturbingclown)

As far as reataining human rights within a communist system, what about those who do not wish to particpate?  It seems to me to depend on the scale of the system.  If it is a matter of having a village opperate under "communism" with the option of someone leaving or joining according to their own wishes, it seems human rights could be respected.  However, on any sort of large scale arangement, the communist would have to crack down on those who did not work with the system.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Who said communists would have to crackdown on people who didnt want to participate?
I mean they would have the same options that they have under capitalism now: be apart of it or fend for yourself right?
No one would be forcing you to take what is fairly yours after all, reject it if you dont beleive in the quality of your own work, of ideas and goals that would be possible in such a system.

Interesting facts Cisco, even in the soviet system everyone had a university education because, well it was free.
Perhaps you should look up the participant rate percentages in post secondary education in the U.S, you know just for fun
Most may not want it, but if things keep going the way they are, they are going to need it soon.
If you build it they will come.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

If everyone has something then it is devalued. As to post secondary education here, is it your assertion that everyone should go to college and do so on my dime?

[FreedomFirst]

While communism may (and I emphesize the "may") work for a small village of 200 people it requires strict central government control for a larger nation, and even then the nation finds itself economically crippled. True socialism - that is, people willing to give of one another for the good of the society - comes from only one source - VOLUNTEERISM. When helping out is not a choice (which it is not in communism), than people are motivated against it. There is a strong sense of oppositional defiance in society. Just look at Montessouri schools. By taking the force out of education they literally change the paradigm, and Montessouri kids actually DESIRE education. This can happen on a societal level. What socialism and communism require force to achieve, libertarian ancap volunteerism can do without one societal requirement.

[Anarchist]

Whenever I hear American commies bitching about their particular ideology and why it should be put into effect in the US, I wonder what it is they want that hasn't already happened:

From the communist manifesto:

"These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

"Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Already have that.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Already have that.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Not quite, but close enough.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state.

Impossible now, with the advent of the internet. But they've got the FCC, DMV and the FAA.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

Already have that, too. Though I wonder what the "etc" is supposed to mean. I was told that it was literary bullshit-ese for "I just know there's more but I can't think of any." This is supposed to be a manifesto for the remodeling of civilization, for chrissakes.

"10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, vacations, taking a dump, anal sex, television programming, free rum and whiskey for bums, retirement homes for aging test chimps, etc."

[FreedomFirst]

Agreed, America is far closer to traditional socialism than free market economics, and it is what creates these powerful corporations. Ironically, the solution proposed by the socialists is MORE GOVERNMENT! Nobody gets it!

[Anarchist]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (FreedomFirst,)
Agreed, America is far closer to traditional socialism than free market economics, and it is what creates these powerful corporations. Ironically, the solution proposed by the socialists is MORE GOVERNMENT! Nobody gets it!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Heh, of course nobody gets it. Let's remember now, that the majority of people like to conjure up more and more "government" to correct all of the perceived wrongs in the world, like drugs, theft, killing, et al...and when it doesn't work, the politicians claim it was because you didn't pay enough _____________. <---fill in the blank. Then they create the Bureau of Bureaucratic Bureaucracies or what have you, and hike the taxes. Since people are in such a fucking jam to feeeeeel safe and secure, you can bet your ass that they'll pay up (without yielding any positive results). After that doesn't work, the cycle repeats itself. It's like shooting yourself in the foot once on accident, then deciding to do it again on purpose. It would be hilarious if this were an isolated situation somewhere in Alaska, but it's happening everywhere. It's creepy.

Hmm..I think your reasoning is flawed, Anarchist. I don't think countries like Switzerland, Canada, Japan, etc would agree that government+taxes cannot do anything to help with domestic issues.