• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

. .Is Communism the Answer to the Crisis?

Org

Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2013
Messages
135
Reaction score
58
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Sackur: Alain Badiou welcome to HARDtalk. Do you see this economic crisis we are living through as a moment of tremendous opportunity for the anti-capitalist Left?

Badiou: My answer will be cautious. In one sense, naturally, this crisis is the end of a sequence – a sequence where it is explained that the world of capitalism, democratic societies, and so on, is the best world possible. In that sense there is something like a big change. In another sense, it’s not my conviction that the crisis is always the idea of a new figure of the situation. Many crisis have [ended] in the past with terrible consequences, and it is not my conviction that the crisis of capitalism is by itself a new vision of politics and of societies and so on.

Sackur: But do you, to put it bluntly, want to overthrow the system as it currently works in the rich western democracies?

Badiou: We don’t know really today what is the extension of the crisis? Maybe, finally, the rich world, the rich western world will find new means to develop the sequence of capitalism itself. So the crisis is an opportunity, maybe but it’s not a solution, it’s not by itself the beginning of something new.

Sackur: But you see, what I’m wondering is whether for you – as a sort of philosopher, an intellectual, a figure on the far Left of French politics – whether you would be expecting the French people to be more angry than they appear to be. I mean, we’ve had one or two strikes there’s another one planned for the coming days, but frankly French public doesn’t appear to be as angry as one might have expected.

Badiou: Yes, but you know the question of popular movements is not only the question to be angry or to be in difficulties, in big difficulties, or the question of a crisis. You must have some ideas, some great ideas, ideas of emancipation, ideas of the possibility of something else, that is the point. The failure of all socialist and communist experiences in the last century as its consequence is that we have no, today, great and clear idea of another world.

Sackur: But hang on, you are — are you not — a communist?

Badiou: The Idea of Communism was a great Idea of a new possiblity during the 19th century. During the last century, all experiences under this Idea have been a failure. So today we must construct — not immediately — a new solution after the crisis of capitalism, we have to reconstruct a new Idea.

Sackur: But, you know, I’ve been reading your work, and you insist in your writings and recently that “Communism is the right hypothesis,” you say.

Badiou: I think that Communism is the right name for another form of society, certainly. Because Communism signifies, first, the Idea of society which is not under the rule, which is not ruled by, private interests.

Sackur: But see when you say that, and you’ve already alluded to the problem that history presents, French people, British people, people around the world are simply going to say to you, “Alain Badiou, look at the 20th century. Look at our recent history.” How can you say communism is the right hypothesis today, when we know what we know about the authoritarian, tyrannical tendencies of communism in our lifetimes.

Badiou: Yes, but we have to distinguish between the genuine Idea of Communism, for example in the work of Marx himself, and the experiences of the last century, because the experiences of the last century are the first attempt to realize a new society. This attempt is a failure, okay. But after that, is the failure of that sort of experience the failure of the Idea itself? I don’t believe it.

http://www.lacan.com/thesymptom/?page_id=1512
 
Short answer no it is not the answer.
 
Communism only really works on a small scale, with 100% like minded people.




So, no.
 
Badiou: Yes, but we have to distinguish between the genuine Idea of Communism, for example in the work of Marx himself, and the experiences of the last century, because the experiences of the last century are the first attempt to realize a new society. This attempt is a failure, okay. But after that, is the failure of that sort of experience the failure of the Idea itself? I don’t believe it.

I disagree. Marxism is outdated, if it ever was viable in the first place. And it has been proven wrong by history in the last 120 years or so. A "working class" or "proletariat" does no longer exist, there is much more social mobility, much more political inclusion and plurality in Western societies, and importance has shifted from the producing to the service sector. None of the basics Marx referred to still exist. Also, the 20th century has proven that ideas shape reality much more than Marx assumed.

Also IMO, Marxism is inherently authoritarian and can never be realized in a non-authoritarian form, because it fails to take the human condition into account sufficiently. But that's just my opinion.

That said, I think the crisis has spectacularly proven that the "neo-liberal" Hayek-Friedmanian/Reagan-Thatcherian approach to economic policies has failed. Totally and utterly. It's time to focus on the question again how markets can be tamed in a manner that does not suffocate their potential and energy, but keeps them from a meltdown that destroys entire societies.

But when you're looking at Marx or Lenin or 20th century "really existing socialism" for answers, you're looking in the wrong place.
 
Communism only really works on a small scale, with 100% like minded people.




So, no.

l dont agree.

yes humans are naturally selfish but education may help them develop some global social consciousness
 
l dont agree.

yes humans are naturally selfish but education may help them develop some global social consciousness

People have different opinions. No amount of education (propaganda?) is going to alter this. So long as the group in question features of differing views on the nature of community and ownership, communism cannot, and will not work.
 
People have different opinions. No amount of education (propaganda?) is going to alter this. So long as the group in question features of differing views on the nature of community and ownership, communism cannot, and will not work.

at least social democracy maybe achieved through teh best education ,l know communism is impossible
 
at least social democracy maybe achieved through teh best education ,l know communism is impossible
Communism IS possible, as long as everyone agrees to being communist. And therein lies the problem.
 
if so lets agree that people can be educated ?

Commuism can never work except on a very small scale regardless of how you educate people.
 
The answer to the crisis is called "MYOB".
Everyone should sit down on their butt and deal with what they have, LOCALLY. Enough involving in somebody else's business.
 
Because Communism signifies, first, the Idea of society which is not under the rule, which is not ruled by, private interests.

Org, please parse this with me to see if it makes sense. Private interests? We are all individual private individuals. We may join together as a corporation, or a workers collective, or as a government or as a political party, or as a local community, etc. What is this person quoted above attempted to differentiate...that somehow being ruled by a workers group, or a majority of people, is somehow a good thing? That magically being ruled by non-private interests is somehow a great thing? What are private interests?
 
l dont agree.

yes humans are naturally selfish but education may help them develop some global social consciousness

Forced education. Kind of like when Pol Pot and his leftist thugs marched people out of their homes at gun point to experience the " social consciousness " of a agrarian society.

Lol..."education" huh ? Education should expose you to the innate authortarian characteristics of Comunism and the historical failure of Comunism.
 
Forced education. Kind of like when Pol Pot and his leftist thugs marched people out of their homes at gun point to experience the " social consciousness " of a agrarian society.

Lol..."education" huh ? Education should expose you to the innate authortarian characteristics of Comunism and the historical failure of Comunism.

which communism ?

there hasnt been any type of communism in the past
 
What crisis?
 
Cuba. Venezuela.

LOL !! Aww man I can hardly wait until we've devolved down into the hell hole that is the Island of Cuba and or Venezuela. But if we do, where will people point their homemade rafts built with parts from a 58 Ford towards ?
 
which communism ?

there hasnt been any type of communism in the past

What difference does it make ? Honestly the argument that it hasn't been applied correctly implies it's a legitimate System. Let me guess, it's so advanced we currently don't possess the intellect to correctly carry it out to it's eventual state, Nirvana.
 
LOL !! Aww man I can hardly wait until we've devolved down into the hell hole that is the Island of Cuba and or Venezuela. But if we do, where will people point their homemade rafts built with parts from a 58 Ford towards ?

I bet you think you know why Cuba and Venezuela are they way they are. I also bet I know that you'd be wrong.
 
I disagree. Marxism is outdated, if it ever was viable in the first place. And it has been proven wrong by history in the last 120 years or so. A "working class" or "proletariat" does no longer exist, there is much more social mobility, much more political inclusion and plurality in Western societies, and importance has shifted from the producing to the service sector. None of the basics Marx referred to still exist. Also, the 20th century has proven that ideas shape reality much more than Marx assumed.

Also IMO, Marxism is inherently authoritarian and can never be realized in a non-authoritarian form, because it fails to take the human condition into account sufficiently. But that's just my opinion.

That said, I think the crisis has spectacularly proven that the "neo-liberal" Hayek-Friedmanian/Reagan-Thatcherian approach to economic policies has failed. Totally and utterly. It's time to focus on the question again how markets can be tamed in a manner that does not suffocate their potential and energy, but keeps them from a meltdown that destroys entire societies.

But when you're looking at Marx or Lenin or 20th century "really existing socialism" for answers, you're looking in the wrong place.



That, pretty much.


Communism has failed to be the answer every time it has been tried on any large scale, why would that change now...
 
Back
Top Bottom