Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 00:12:25 -0800

Polemic on socialism, communism, selfishness,"Marxism"...


The definition of communism, or it's variant, Maxism, below exposes their inherent weakness which had been borne out by emperical evidence in places where they had been practised or are still being practised around the world. Communism or Maxism are ideals that ignore the inherent selfish nature of man. They are both therefore not practical in a world inhabited by humans.

Lil Joe Response:

Socialism/Communism "or Marxism" is predicated upon the assumptions that:

1) There isn't any absolute or eternal and changeless "human nature", "selfish" nor otherwise. That is nothing but the bourgeois "ideal", that is asserted but never empirically demonstrated.

2) The level of development of the productive forces determine relations of production, forms of appropriation (exchange or lack thereof) contextually political institutions, ideologies, culture.

A: Paleolithic percussion flake techniques inherited from previous hominids engendered the Achulean type hand ax with blades, that made possible tools used by Hunter-gatherers;

B: Mesolithic pressure flaking techniques enabled more control and refinement of tools, which together with knowledge of fire enabled humans to travel out of Africa all over the world, better exploiting their environments bringing about extinctions of less brainy homo species, including Neanderthalensis.

C: Neolithic technology, together with all the other advances eventually led to herding and horticulture, based on knowledge and learning from one generation to the next, thus culture and religion, and hierarchy of elders, chiefs...

D: Agriculture - Animal husbandry and farming, using the hoe, then the bronze plow, trade handicraft, and from trade developed 'private property', competition and this engendered "selfishness".

E: Class and exploitation, rich and poor, the breakdown of clans and tribes, the State.

* Debtors-Creditors
* Slaves and Slave owners
* Serfs and Landed Gentry
* Proletarians and Capitalists

For a million years hominids, and for 500,000 years humans were clans and tribes working in concert as hunters-gatherers, herders, horticulturalists and early agriculture. Private property is an artificial product of trade, and has been around but for 6 or 7 thousand years. Selfishness in humans is not just recent, but is not a product of 'human nature', but of economic activities, trade and acquisition of wealth.

The further development of the productive forces, the means of social production and of advanced technology, creates a proletarian majority that upon expropriation of bourgeois property, transferring the productive forces from the private possession of the capitalist classes to the public property of the working classes, abolishes the market, and by doing away with trade and private wealth does away with "selfishness".

"Selfishness" is a personal, subjective response to objective economic conditions of production and appropriation: competition. When those conditions of production - private property, competition and the acquisition of personal fortunes - cease to exist, selfishness will lack a material basis, because in communist society the productive forces are the social property of all humanity, and therefore of no one in particular.

A new "human nature" evolves from social humanity, wherein production for use, rather than for markets, operates on the principle of from each according to their manifold abilities to each according to his and her manifold needs and wants. The freedom and happiness of each is predicated upon the freedom and happiness of all. Selfishness is left behind, along with private ownership of social wealth and trade engendered competition.

Property appears as a Thing, in capitalist society. However, essentially it isn't a thing but a social relation between people and things, or people concerning things, objects. If someone says of an object: 'that thing is mine', there is no inherent property in the object that attaches it to its 'owner'. What is recognized is that the owner either made, produced or purchased the object, and Society says that the object made, produced or purchased by a person is the property, i.e. 'belongs to' that person.

In Slave-based agriculture, gang labor on the fields or in mines or rowing of ships the Slave was a Thing, without person and therefore without rights. What is called "human rights" differ from one predominate mode of production to another.

In economies based on Slavery, that is modes of production and appropriation where slave labor is the dominant form of labor, the slave was not a person but excluded from citizenship and therefore was not a Person with Rights. Citizens were Persons, and as such had Rights, including the 'human right' to use or dispose of His Property in whatsoever manner He chooses to use or dispose of It.

This was the case, not only in ancient agricultural economies based on Slave Labor, Chattel Slavery where the Slave was Property, a Thing or Object and therefore not 'truly' or 'completely' human, and certainly not Citizens or Persons.

In ancient Ethiopia=Egypt's Old Kingdom, Sumer=Mesopotamia; Minoa=Mycenae, Greco-Ionian. Slavery remained the economic basis of the Afro-Asian-Mediterranean States as they evolved through Egypt's Middle and Old Kingdoms and Empire; Mesopotamia, Assyria and Persia; Mycenae, Greek Peloponnesian and Alexandrian Empire; Rome, the Empire, Byzantium; the Islamic State, the Ottoman Empire; but also in the America's from the 16th century into the 19th Century. Slaves, in the United States, were regarded as 3/5th human was but regurgitations of the ancient class prejudices, the class interests of the slave-owning classes justifying chattel slavery by dehumanization of the slaves.

The Original Intent in the US Constitution was but for the then existing ruling classes a compromise between political representatives of capitalist commodity production by wage labor to their rival/yet allies of slave-owners, the political representatives of capitalist commodity production by slave labor. Politics, the struggle by different classes or/and factions thereof, represent material interests, no matter the flowery rhetoric.

In the British American colonies, and subsequent to Independence just the same, there was continuity, but the quantification of the ancient argument according to which slaves were not-human Persons, therefore had no human rights as reserved for citizens. This only was an ideologico-political compromise, not the result of racism because it was consistent with the five thousand years of history of slave based economies.

It wasn't the evolution of the Mind, but advances of technology in capitalist commodity production by wage workers that put an end to chattel slavery. Finally, by the American Civil War capitalist commodity production by wageworkers put an end to Southern capitalist commodity production by slave labor, wage slavery displaced chattel slavery and thereby the former slaves became Citizens - i.e. Persons with Rights.

In fully developed capitalist society, however, the commodity has an objective existence as representative of so much human socially necessary labor time required for the reproduction of capital and means of subsistence, the worker is thereupon reduced to an object, a thing or embodiment of labor power and the capitalist as personification of the productive forces as capital.

Socialism is possible, and desirable only where the all round development of the productive forces have in fact already created the objective conditions of vast social productive forces, large scale industries and advanced technology is the Objective basis of Socialist economy, but it is in its class war against exploitation, unemployment, poverty, war and other permanent features of capitalism that engenders critical thinking workers, but the Subjective factor must be a proletarian majority.

This proletarian majority must exist in agriculture as well as industry. There can be no "socialism" where industrial capacity is lacking, and relatively primitive agriculture by a peasant majority is the national majority, owning their private plots in opposition to the abolition of bourgeois possession of the productive forces.

The peasants are a rural petty-bourgeoisie, and like the bourgeois in general the petty-bourgeois is too "selfish" to give up their personal possession of the productive forces; thus, socialism requires a proletarian majority in agriculture operating advanced technology for socialism to come into existence, and "work". This is proven by the failures of ideological 'socialism' in the Soviet Union, and in Africa - Ghana, Ethiopia,Tanzania, Angola...

The proletariat, as a class of wageworkers nearly completely divorced from ownership of the productive forces, and unlike handicraft and peasant proprietors have no stake in, or illusions about, private capital, are on the one hand exploited which brings them into daily collusion with the capitalists, but therefore also as property-less has nothing to loose but everything to gain by transferring the productive forces from the private possession of the bourgeoisie and/or the bourgeois bureaucratic-military state, thus in effect eliminating the bourgeoisie and destroying that state.

Capitalist commodity production by wage labor, in the industrially advanced West, was able to force the less developed technological societies in Africa to become capitalistic, and Eurocentric at that. There was no alternative, because it was/is in Europe that the most dynamic vastly developed productive forces and production was centered, but "socialists" in African countries politically independent of the former colonial powers could not force socialism in Europe.

That was Trotsky and Che's theory of "permanent revolution", and Maoism the illusion that 3rd world countries can free themselves from the global, Western capitalist dominate market economy, and force contradictions to reach a transitional point of revolutions in the West by 3rd world countries denying them cheap natural resources and cheap labor power. The collapse of the Soviet Union, and failures of Ghana, Tanzania, Mozambique &t. is the historical refutation of Trotskyism/Che/Maoism.

It is also the confirmation of Marx's own materialist conception of history and socioeconomic relations of production, changes in the productive forces engendering changes in relations of production, class formations insomuch as "social relations are closely bound up with productive forces":


"In acquiring new productive forces men change their mode of production; and in changing their mode of production, in changing the way of earning their living, they change all their social relations. The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill society with the industrial capitalist."


"Only at a certain level of development of these social productive forces, even a very high level for our modern conditions, does it become possible to raise production to such an extent that the abolition of class distinctions can constitute real progress, can be lasting without bringing about stagnation or even decline in the mode of social production."

Hegel was an Empirical Objectivist, human existence is what it is, and what social relations exist determine ideas, not subjective ideas human existence: "Impatience wants the impossible: to reach a goal without the [material] means of getting there".

Marx social theory starts here, where Hegel agreed with the French materialist sociology, appropriating Hegelian epistemological praxis, where he [Marx] wrote: "Revolution requires a passive element, a material basis".

The "theory of permanent revolution" was presented by Trotsky as ideological "Marxism", but has nothing to do with the Marxian materialist conception of modes of production characterized by the characteristic mode of appropriation.

The idea of a "socialist state" is from the actual Marxian categorical analysis of modes of production and appropriation determining the state function, is an oxymoron. Socialism/communism, same thing in the writings of Marx and Engels, is advanced industrial social production wherein the productive forces as the public property are the social property of everyone, and no one, like a public park.

The State is a Social Power and in the ancient slave-based economic mode of possession of the productive forces functioned in the interest of the possessing classes in the control of the slaves, and absorbed into its structure the Citizenship Class, not just the landed gentry but the Free Citizenship in mercenary armies.

But, even so, the State absorbed farmers made idle by periodic off seasons, in ancient Egypt for instance in public projects, such as the building of pyramids and temples, seasonal laborers rather than slave labor, the popular myths notwithstanding. Such was also the case, with public works projects in Rome, where farmers driven from agriculture by slave-based estates built roads, as well as were deployed in wars or/and occupation.

The polis based political societies such as Athens, Rome, where slaves in agriculture displaced farm labor and expanded estates drove free farmers from the country into the cities, the State/Military had also the social function of an economic "welfare state", absorbing into it the excess of citizens, proletarians without land or employment in the "private sector", professional soldiers in States that were nearly always at war in either wars of plunder and colonization or wars of self-defense.

The feudal class structures of the economy corresponded to military rank: the more possessions the higher the military rank; the farmers the masses of the military rank and file. In the agricultural civilizations, the citizen farmers were the base of the military.

The feudal gentry was agricultural and graded by ranks and these ranks were also of permanent military caste, warlords. corresponding to degrees of property in possession, landed aristocrats were warlords as well, inherited titles of names were at the same time inherited entitlements of land.

The modern bourgeois State, however is a bureaucratic regimen of professionals, and as such the culture ostensibly separates the state from classes, albeit that in the even most democratic of republican states, the State was separate and distinct. Yet, given the economic dislocations engendered by capitalist displacements, and chaos engendered by competition, the bourgeois state is compelled to intervene into the economy.

Where the State functions as capitalist all the functions of capitalists as personifications of capital, are now performed by the State Planners, Bankers and Managers of State Enterprises (industries) and of State Farms in capitalist commodity production/exploitation of the proletarians who, having no means of production of their own are compelled by law to sell their labor power to the State in order to live.

Lenin defined the Soviet State as a bourgeois state without a bourgeoisie. Lenin, according to whom "socialism could not have been introduced into Russia"; thus, called capitalist commodity production by wageworkers in the Soviet Union at best a variant of what he called "state monopoly capitalism". Mao Tse-Tung, also being honest characterized the Chinese economy "state capitalism".

Neither the Soviet Union, nor China; nor were/are North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Ghana, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Angola, Mozambique, or any other of these agricultural economies dominated numerically by peasants capable of industrial socialism, where the productive forces were public property of the proletariat. They failed in their voluntarism efforts at Trotskyist permanent revolution, demonstrating the correctness of the objectivity of the Marxian materialist analysis of possibilities:


Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness, but, on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production. No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.


Modupe wrote:

In both ideologies, you cannot but give controls of the factors of production - land, labor and capital to a few people (usually, elected or goverment officials) who are supposed to administer them judiciously on behalf of the people. The people are also expected to use their allocated factors of production to the best of their abilities only to be rewarded according to their needs irrespective of their productivity.

Lil Joe Response:

Where did Modupe get this "Marxism" from? Certainly not from any of the writings of Marx and Engels! Marx didn't speak in bourgeois ideological illusions of "factors of production", which they name "land, labor and capital", but of the productive forces, the means of production and distribution. "Reward" isn't an economic category in any case.

Bourgeois economists refer to the Achulean hand ax, spears and the digging sticks of the hunter-gatherers as "capital"! This is ridiculous.

Capital exists when, and only when the working classes are not owners of the productive forces, and have to sell their labor power to those who do - whether it be private capitalists or the state - and conversely the capitalist owners off tthese means of production purchase labor power and puts workers to work in the production of commodities, products for markets.

The property-less proletariat is derived from all historical classes - Because, whether we/or our ancestors, whether serfs, chattel, artisans, peasants, petty-bourgeois, we are property-less and have that in common, we are a cosmopolitan class of have-nots, compelled thereupon to look upon our only economic asset, or labor power as an alienable commodity.

Where as, by contrast in an analogy, prostitutes rent their bodies to the satisfaction of Tricks (John); but, the prostitutes body isn't sold, the prostitute remains her person ("property"); the labor power of the proletariat is not rented but sold..

Proletarians on the other hand alienate themselves from themselves, their humanity from their creative activity, the products of their labor belong to the capitalist by whom the labor power was purchased.

Marx/Engels in the Communist Manifesto wrote:


To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.

End Quote

Labor power is an individual thing that is sold by proletarian to the bourgeoisie, its value objectified by the work, individuals participating in social labor.

At the end of the working-day, having sold, rather than rented, their labor power to capitalist appropriators are selling the wealth of their labor, the bourgeois right to own the property resulting from their labor having annexed it by the objectification of their will/person in it.

There is nothing in the works of Marx or/and Engels advocating that the proletariat, having become majorities in advanced industrial democracies by revolutionary expropriation come into possession of the productive forces, will reconstitute self-alienation from the means of production and distribution, "give controls of the factors of production - land, labor and capital to a few peoplee ((usually, electted or government officials) who are supposed to administer them judiciously on behalf of the people."

Quite the opposite.
Engels Wrote,

Many of these means of production and of communication are, from the outset, so colossal that, like the railways, they exclude all other forms of capitalistic exploitation. At a further stage of evolution this form also becomes insufficient: the official representative of capitalist society - the state - will ultimately have to *10 undertake the direction of production. This necessity for conversion into state property is felt first in the great institutions for intercourse and communication - the post office, the telegraphs, the railways. ...

But the transformation, either into joint-stock companies, or into state ownership, does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies this is obvious. And the modern state, again, is only the organisation that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the general external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital.

The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit.

The workers remain wage-workers - proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution.

End Quote

Marx and Engels were clear as to the class nature of States, and this includes the modern bureaucratic-military state, with its representative governing organs.

Writing of the Paris Commune, workers as the dominant political power, Marx made the following observations:

But the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes. The centralized state power, with its ubiquitous organs of standing army, police, bureaucracy, clergy, and judicature - organs wrought after the plan of a systematic and hierarchic division of labor.

As a matter of fact, the exact opposite is the case. Marx's idea is that the working class must break up, smash the "ready-made state machinery", and not confine itself merely to laying hold of it.

On April 12, 1871, i.e., just at the time of the Commune, Marx wrote to Kugelmann

"If you look up the last chapter of my Eighteenth Brumaire, you will find that I declare that the next attempt of the French Revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it [Marx's italics--the original is zerbrechen], and this is the precondition for every real people's revolution on the Continent. And this is what our heroic Party comrades in Paris are attempting." (Neue Zeit, Vol.XX, 1, 1901-02, p. 709.) [2]

On the dawn of March 18, Paris arose to the thunder-burst of "Vive la Commune!" What is the Commune, that sphinx so tantalizing to the bourgeois mind?

"The proletarians of Paris," said the Central Committee in its manifesto of March 18, "amidst the failures and treasons of the ruling classes, have understood that the hour has struck for them to save the situation by taking into their own hands the direction of public affairs.... They have understood that it is their imperious duty, and their absolute right, to render themselves masters of their own destinies, by seizing upon the governmental power."

... the Commune intended to abolish that class property which makes the labor of the many the wealth of the few. It aimed at the expropriation of the expropriators. It wanted to make individual property a truth by transforming the means of production, land, and capital, now chiefly the means of enslaving and exploiting labor, into mere instruments of free and associated labor. But this is communism, "impossible" communism! ...If co-operative production is not to remain a sham and a snare; if it is to supersede the capitalist system; if united co-operative societies are to regulate national production upon common plan, thus taking it under their own control, and putting an end to the constant anarchy and periodical convulsions which are the fatality of capitalist production - what else, gentlemen, would it be but communism, "possible" communism?

...When the Paris Commune took the management of the revolution in its own hands; when plain working men for the first time dared to infringe upon the governmental privilege of their "natural superiors", and, under circumstances of unexampled difficulty, performed it at salaries the highest of which barely amounted to one-fifth what, according to high scientific authority, is the minimum required for a secretary to a certain metropolitan school-board - the old world writhed in convulsions of rage at the sight of the Red Flag, the symbol of the Republic of Labor, floating over the Hotel de Ville.

End Quotes


Compared to the writings cut/pasted in response to Modupe's straw/man/distortions, he is either ignorant of or ignores Marx's own early critiques of what he [Modupe] presents as attributed to "Marx", which Marx himself called rude, sickness of the ego as basis of 'communism'


Modupe wrote:

In both ideologies, you cannot but give controls of the factors of production - land, labor and capital to a few people (usually, elected or goverment officials) who are supposed to administer them judiciously on behalf of the people. The people are also expected to use their allocated factors of production to the best of their abilities only to be rewarded according to their needs irrespective of their productivity.

Lil Joe Response:

Compare this asserted straw man to what Marx himself wrote in critiques:

Marx wrote in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844;


The antithesis between lack of property and property, so long as it is not comprehended as the antithesis of labour and capital, still remains an indifferent antithesis, not grasped in its active connection, in its internal relation, not yet grasped as a contradiction. It can find expression in this first form even without the advanced development of private property (as in ancient Rome, Turkey, etc.). It does not yet appear as having been established by private property itself. But labour, the subjective essence of private property as exclusion of property, and capital, objective labour as exclusion of labour, constitute private property as its developed state of contradiction - hence a dynamic relationship driving towards resolution.

The transcendence of self-estrangement follows the same course as self-estrangement. Private property is first considered only in its objective aspect - but nevertheless with labour as its essence. Its form of existence is therefore capital, which is to be annulled "as such" (Proudhon). Or a particular form of labour - labour levelled down, fragmented, and therefore unfree - is conceived as the source of private property's perniciousness and of its existence in estrangement from men. For instance, Fourier, who, like the Physiocrats, also conceives agricultural labour to be at least the exemplary type, whereas Saint-Simon declares in contrast that industrial labour as such is the essence, and accordingly aspires to the exclusive rule of the industrialists and the improvement of the workers' condition. Finally, communism is the positive expression of annulled private property - at first as universal private property.

By embracing this relation as a whole, communism is:

(1) In its first form only a generalisation and consummation of it [of this relation]. As such it appears in a two-fold form: on the one hand, the dominion of material property bulks so large that it wants to destroy everything which is not capable of being possessed by all as private property. It wants to disregard talent, etc., in an arbitrary manner. For it the sole purpose of life and existence is direct, physical possession. The category of the worker is not done away with, but extended to all men. The relationship of private property persists as the relationship of the community to the world of things.

Finally, this movement of opposing universal private property to private property finds expression in the brutish form of opposing to marriage (certainly a form of exclusive private property) the community of women, in which a woman becomes a piece of communal and common property. It may be said that this idea of the community of women gives away the secret of this as yet completely crude and thoughtless communism. [30]

Just as woman passes from marriage to general prostitution, [Prostitution is only a specific expression of the general prostitution of the labourer, and since it is a relationship in which falls not the prostitute alone, but also the one who prostitutes - and the latter's abomination is still greater - the capitalist, etc., also comes under this head. - Note by Marx [31] so the entire world of wealth (that is, of man's objective substance) passes from the relationship of exclusive marriage with the owner of private property to a state of universal prostitution with the community. This type of communism - since it negates the personality of man in every sphere - is but the logical expression of private property, which is this negation.

General envy constituting itself as a power is the disguise in which greed re-establishes itself and satisfies itself, only in another way. The thought of every piece of private property as such is at least turned against wealthier private property in the form of envy and the urge to reduce things to a common level, so that this envy and urge even constitute the essence of competition. Crude communism is only the culmination of this envy and of this levelling-down proceeding from the preconceived minimum. It has a definite, limited standard.

How little this annulment of private property is really an appropriation is in fact proved by the abstract negation of the entire world of culture and civilisation, the regression to the unnatural simplicity of the poor and crude man who has few needs and who has not only failed to go beyond private property, but has not yet even reached it.

The community is only a community of labour, and equality of wages paid out by communal capital - by the community as the universal capitalist. Both sides of the relationship are raised to an imagined universality - labour as the category in which every person is placed, and capital as the acknowledged universality and power of the community.

In the approach to woman as the spoil and hand-maid of communal lust is expressed the infinite degradation in which man exists for himself, for the secret of this approach has its unambiguous, decisive, plain and undisguised expression in the relation of man to woman and in the manner in which the direct and natural species-relationship is conceived. The direct, natural, and necessary relation of person to person is the relation of man to woman. In this natural species-relationship man's relation to nature is immediately his relation to man, just as his relation to man is immediately his relation to nature - his own natural destination. In this relationship, therefore, is sensuously manifested, reduced to an observable fact, the extent to which the human essence has become nature to man, or to which nature to him has become the human essence of man.

From this relationship one can therefore judge man's whole level of development. From the character of this relationship follows how much man as a species-being, as man, has come to be himself and to comprehend himself; the relation of man to woman is the most natural relation of human being to human being. It therefore reveals the extent to which man's natural behaviour has become human, or the extent to which the human essence in him has become a natural essence - the extent to which his human nature has come to be natural to him. This relationship also reveals the extent to which man's need has become a human need; the extent to which, therefore, the other person as a person has become for him a need - the extent to which he in his individual existence is at the same time a social being.

The first positive annulment of private property - crude communism - is thus merely a manifestation of the vileness of private property, which wants to set itself up as the positive community system.

(2) Communism (a) still political in nature - democratic or despotic; (b) with the abolition of the state, yet still incomplete, and being still affected by private property, i.e., by the estrangement of man. In both forms communism already is aware of being reintegration or return of man to himself, the transcendence of human self-estrangement; but since it has not yet grasped the positive essence of private property, and just as little the human nature of need, it remains captive to it and infected by it. It has, indeed, grasped its concept, but not its essence.

(3) Communism as the positive transcendence of private property as human self-estrangement, and therefore as the real appropriation of the human essence by and for man; communism therefore as the complete return of man to himself as a social (i.e., human) being - a return accomplished consciously and embracing the entire wealth of previous development. This communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man - the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution.

End Quote

Freed from delusional bourgeois propaganda, by reading from the writings of Marx and Engels themselves, why they had my method of polemic presenting "cuts/pastes" from their own writings to contrast to bourgeois lies and propaganda it is clear, evident why my enemies in these polemics denounce me as not being a "true" propagandist, which they call "scholar intellectual" methods of excluding the writer writings in question.

Propaganda of lies and presentations of straw man versions of Stalinist so-called "Marxist communism" are the last resort of bourgeois politicians and ideologists in opposition to proletarian expropriations of bourgeois property. What the bourgeois ideologists present as "human selfishness", against their straw man caricatures of "Marxism", is in the final analysis, were we to take these objections seriously, is the conclusion that their 'theory' of human selfishness also argue for the proletariat to expropriate the productive forces as an actualization of proletarians "selfishness"! Ha!

Modupe wrote:

In the first case, the people in charge of administration of the factors of production end up appropriating more of it to themselves and their associates. This is the inherent selfish nature of man. The system simply encourages corruption.

Lil Joe Response:

In the "first case", there is no such thing as "factors" of production "administration", by "people" in the Socialist/Communistic modes of production and appropriation, because the proletariat in power, having expropriated the productive forces, strips from the productive forces, the means of production and distribution, the capitalist character of production qua commodity production by wageworkers, thus ending the capitalist modes of appropriation. The capitalistic mode of appropriation, by money, is done away with and therefore there is no such thing as "corruption".

In the second place, Socialist/Communist production and distribution/appropriation is managed directly by the workers themselves in a society of associated producers. Here, Socialism and Communism are worker self management. There is no State. This so-called "inherent selfish nature of man" is consistent with workers recognition that it is in their self-interest to merge self-interests with human social interests. The presentation of communism as bourgeois delusions of altruism is nothing but another straw man.


If man draws all his knowledge, sensation, etc., from the world of the senses and the experience gained in it, then what has to be done is to arrange the empirical world in such a way that man experiences and becomes accustomed to what is truly human in it and that he becomes aware of himself as man. If correctly understood interest is the principle of all morality, man's private interest must be made to coincide with the interest of humanity. If man is unfree in the materialistic sense, i.e., is free not through the negative power to avoid this or that, but through the positive power to assert his true individuality, crime must not be punished in the individual, but the anti-social sources of crime must be destroyed, and each man must be given social scope for the vital manifestation of his being. If man is shaped by environment, his environment must be made human. If man is social by nature, he will develop his true nature only in society, and the power of his nature must be measured not by the power of the separate individual but by the power of society. (Marx/Engels The Holy Family)

End Quote

Socialism/Communism is an economy brought about when the proletarian majority in the world's most industrially advanced productive forces has by proletarian majorities become Society.

Modupe wrote:

We are calling on those elected or goverment officials to be super humans. More damaging however is that the general populace are not motivated to do their best because they are rewarded according to their needs as opposed to their productivity.

Lil Joe Response:

"We" are not calling on "elected or government officials" to be "super humans" because there will be no State to govern. The winning the battle of democracy together with the transfer of the productive forces from the private possession of the capitalist class to the public property of the working classes does away with wage labor and capital, thus the elimination of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat relations of production.

History also refutes Modupe's assertion, because most of the 500,000 years of human existence has been communal, and while private property has been around for only the past 6,000 years, the capitalist system of "rewards", i.e. payment of laborers to work and produce wealth for the capitalist class has been around for only 500 years of this 6,000 years of private property. But, even in this short history of capitalism, people do not work to be "rewarded", but to acquire the means for acquisition of means of subsistence. Workmen and women hardly regard their skimpy pay checks a "reward", but payment.

Modupe wrote:

I will rather, electected and goverment officials concentrate on creating a level playing field where individuals compete to the level of their capabilities. This is the challenge of capitalism. No society have been able to create a perfect level playing field and that is why capitalism has a bad name when we see selfish humans exploit its imperfections. However, the imperfections of capitalism is less damaging to the society as a whole compared to the imperfections of the various variants of communism.

Lil Joe Response:

This is nonsense - Modupe can wish for anything he wants. His wishes, and rhetoric about playing fields, perfection and imperfections, and so on are not economic categories.

Modupe wrote:

On the emotional level however, human beings tend to revolt more against the societal display of the imperfections of capitalism because those who benefit from such imperfections have relative freedom to display and flaunt it while by the rules in the variants of communist systems, benefactors of the imperfections of the systems hide their fortunes which they have nonetheless and enjoy to the detriment of the society.

Lil Joe Response:

More nonsense about "imperfections", and a display of ignorance of Marxism and Socialism and Communism, which has never existed. The system that has dominated the world, has been variations of capitalism - mercantilism and the triangular trade in human beings as commodities, the genocidal wars waged against indigenous peoples in America and Australia, chattel slavery in America and the brutal colonization of Africa, wars killing hundreds of millions of people including the vicious world wars in the 20th century, fascism, Nazism and bureaucratic state-monopoly capitalist commodity production in the Soviet Union, the proxy wars of the latter 20th century in Asia, Africa and Latin America, and now the destruction of eco-systems and the ozone, global warming and the rest are among the realities of capitalism.


From: nwaakwukwo
Subject: Re: [NaijaPoliticsCom] Third term and the National Assembly - by Reuben Abati
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 09:09:16 -0800 (PST)

"The main essence of Communism is the belief in a society without different classes in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state and everyone works as much as they can and receives what they need."

Adaoma writed:

There is another type of communism, where the means of production are co-opted, communally owned by working people...not the State. That's called "Marxism". I like that idea better than "State" owned.

Yes, I agree that there is a difference in embracing the is also economic...theory of communism and embracing the Politician. This is why any analysis of Lenin, Marx and Trotsky as leaders...are a different kettle of fish than an analysis of the theories they attempted to apply, or misapply.

And, its plain silly to attribute any calling or being called "comrade" to communism. The association of "comrade" with communism is that secondary definition. The primary definition is a person who share's one's interests and activities. That word "comrade" is more benign than "compatriot".

With the use "compatriot"....another way of saying "countrymen", one can be prepared to be persuaded of something based on "national interests". Well, I know that in Nigeria, ethnic interests rules. Opps, there go me and my opinions, again.



Chukwuemeka Okala wrote:

Dear Ola Kassim,

There is a gulf between political ideology and being
unnecessarily disgruntled with a political leadership.
Political ideology is a theory, or set of beliefs or
principles, especially one on which a political
system, party or organisation is based: Ipsofacto we
can conveniently say that COMMUNISM or CAPITALISM is a
political ideology.

The main essence of Communism is the belief in a
society without different classes in which the means
of production are owned and controlled by the state
and everyone works as much as they can and receives
what they need.

I have carefully followed the writings of Sam Ola
Rotimi, Yinka Leo Ogundiran and Lanre Adekeye, there
is no where the trio, either jointly or severally,
have come close to the principles of communism. All
they have done hitherto is to senselessly call
Obasanjo unprintable names in all fronts (i.e. in
areas he has done well, in areas that he has not done
so well and in areas that he has not performed at
all). They totally lack the ability to separate the
wheat from the chaff.

Excuse me, Communism has got nothing to do with this
type of nagging behaviour that adds no value except
sporadic anger to the society. So classifying Messers
Adekeye,Ogundiran and Sam Ola Rotimi as communists for
the mere fact that they refer to themselves as
comrades, is a misnomer. At best, the trio are merely
settling an age long score with Obasanjo, but at
worst, they are a bunch of disgruntled elements of the
society. Simplicita.

Have a good weekend

Emeka Reuben Okala

--- wrote:

> 'There is nothing different in this piece when
> compared
> with what Messers Adekeye,Ogundiran, Sam Ola Rotimi
> and other comrades have been writing here.'---Sam
> Ola Rotimi


> One sure sign a nation is in trouble is when those
> who consider themselves the only 'true progressive
> thinkers' and patriots start referring to one
> another as "comrades" or acquire some other extreme
> left wing communist inspired ideologic labels.
> A look around the world both currently and in the
> recent and remote past will reveal that the
> ideologies espoused by comrades have in most
> instances led to natonal failure. Examples
> abound--the Soviet Union,
> Vietnam, Cambodia and other former communist bloc
> countries are testament to human failure wrought on
> innocent peoples by communist and leftwing
> ideologues.

LabourPartyPraxis discussion - subscribe