Questions on the final stage/stateless society

[LeninBalls]

Ok, so I've understood all about Marxism and Leninism until the phase after the Dictatorship of the Proleteriat. There are some things which confuse me and I would like to ask some questions.

So when exactly do we decide to make the transition from Socialism to real Communism? I've been told that it has to be globally, as in, the whole world must be united under Marx but I see this quite impossible.

With no state how is everything run? Local councils ran by the people for the people? I can see this working in small towns and villages, but a local council to manage a city I really can't. I'm just asking HOW things are run with no state.

For example, who runs the airlines? Since there is no state or private corporations to run them, and it's not just a local thing. How would the internet, mobile coverage, mp3 player manufacturers etc etc be run. No state products, and no private production. It baffles me.

Since there's no pay, and we're supposed to have educated the people into knowing that working for the benefit of yourself and everyone=good. But I want to know is, who or what is motivating people to do the shitty jobs? No pay. Ok. That doesn't matter since it's about the people. But why should I go work my life as a janitor or building roads?

Since the abolition of the state means no prisons, then how is crime dealt with?

With these questions answered I can truly call myself a Marxist.

[revolution inaction]

Ok, so I've understood all about Marxism and Leninism until the phase after the Dictatorship of the Proleteriat. There are some things which confuse me and I would like to ask some questions.

So when exactly do we decide to make the transition from Socialism to real Communism? I've been told that it has to be globally, as in, the whole world must be united under Marx but I see this quite impossible.


I cant help you with this since i think Leninism is completely wrong, but i'll try to answer for anarchist communism.





With no state how is everything run? Local councils ran by the people for the people? I can see this working in small towns and villages, but a local council to manage a city I really can't. I'm just asking HOW things are run with no state.

The the councils each pick delegates mandated to represent the choices of the council to the other councils, then the delegates convey the decisions to the other councils, so things can be coordinated.



For example, who runs the airlines? Since there is no state or private corporations to run them, and it's not just a local thing. How would the internet, mobile coverage, mp3 player manufacturers etc etc be run. No state products, and no private production. It baffles me.


this may help http://libcom.org/library/principles-of-syndicalism-tom-brown



The basis of the Syndicate is the mass meeting or workers assembled at their place of work, factory, garage, ship, loco shed or mine, The meeting elects its factory committee and delegates. The factory Syndicate is federated to all other such committees in the locality—textile, shop assistants, dockers, busmen and so on. In the other direction the factory, let us say engineering factory, is affiliated to the District Federation of Engineers. In turn the District Federation is affiliated to the National Federation of Engineers.

Such federations are formed in each of the twenty-five to thirty industries and services—Rail Federation, Transport Federation and so on. Then, each industrial federation is affiliated to the National Federation of Labor, the co-ordination of all the workers’ forces.

But how the members of such committees are elected is most important. They are, first of all, not representatives like Members of Parliament who air their own views; they are delegates who carry the message of the workers who elect them. They do not tell the workers what the “official” policy is; the workers tell them.

Delegates are subject to instant recall by the persons who elected them. None may sit for longer than two successive years, and four years must elapse before his next nomination. Very few will receive wages as delegates, and then only the district rate of wages for the industry. We want none of the thousand a year trade union bosses.

It will be seen that in the Syndicate the members control the organization—not the bureaucrats controlling the members. In a trade union the higher up the pyramid a man is the more power he wields; in a Syndicate the higher he is the less power he has.





Since there's no pay, and we're supposed to have educated the people into knowing that working for the benefit of yourself and everyone=good. But I want to know is, who or what is motivating people to do the shitty jobs? No pay. Ok. That doesn't matter since it's about the people. But why should I go work my life as a janitor or building roads?

i think they will be rotated, so no one works there whole life as a janitor or building roads unless they want to.



Since the abolition of the state means no prisons, then how is crime dealt with?

I think criminals who are dangerous to society will be separated from it, probably by imprisoning them some where secure, but i imagine that it would be nicer than current prisons.



With these questions answered I can truly call myself a Marxist.
:D

[LeninBalls]

The the councils each pick delegates mandated to represent the choices of the council to the other councils, then the delegates convey the decisions to the other councils, so things can be coordinated.

I'm sorry but I don't understand this at all. :D Can you put this in easier terms?


The basis of the Syndicate is the mass meeting or workers assembled at their place of work, factory, garage, ship, loco shed or mine, The meeting elects its factory committee and delegates. The factory Syndicate is federated to all other such committees in the locality—textile, shop assistants, dockers, busmen and so on. In the other direction the factory, let us say engineering factory, is affiliated to the District Federation of Engineers. In turn the District Federation is affiliated to the National Federation of Engineers.

Such federations are formed in each of the twenty-five to thirty industries and services—Rail Federation, Transport Federation and so on. Then, each industrial federation is affiliated to the National Federation of Labor, the co-ordination of all the workers’ forces.

But how the members of such committees are elected is most important. They are, first of all, not representatives like Members of Parliament who air their own views; they are delegates who carry the message of the workers who elect them. They do not tell the workers what the “official” policy is; the workers tell them.

Delegates are subject to instant recall by the persons who elected them. None may sit for longer than two successive years, and four years must elapse before his next nomination. Very few will receive wages as delegates, and then only the district rate of wages for the industry. We want none of the thousand a year trade union bosses.

It will be seen that in the Syndicate the members control the organization—not the bureaucrats controlling the members. In a trade union the higher up the pyramid a man is the more power he wields; in a Syndicate the higher he is the less power he has.

So from what I'm getting, there are local people's producers that are part of a bigger area producer and so on and so forth?

(I highlighted National because national=nation=state=/=communism)


i think they will be rotated, so no one works there whole life as a janitor or building roads unless they want to.

But should a doctor be a doctor and a teacher be a teacher?

If you mean it will be rotated, as in, EVERY job then I don't agree with that. Not everyone knows medicine, but I'm sure this isn't what you mean. If you mean everyone should take turns doing the bad jobs, isn't that kind of a hinderence that a doctor gets taken out from the locality of serving their people to be a janitor until the next person comes?

[revolution inaction]

I'm sorry but I don't understand this at all. :D Can you put this in easier terms?

not sure, some times my explanations are less than coherent.

I mean that the community councils would federate like the work place ones. And when they need to take decisions that effect all of them they, they decide in each council then tell there delegates what to do when they meet all the other delegates. Then the delegates meet and see if there councils agree, and what on, and if they can then the whole federation of councils make a decision. If any on the delegates do anything different to what they are told by there particular council then they can be recalled and replaced.
Is that any good?



So from what I'm getting, there are local people's producers that are part of a bigger area producer and so on and so forth?

yes, basically



(I highlighted National because national=nation=state=/=communism)

total agree, as does Tom Brown, if you read a little further down the page



Let us here correct a misconception which may be creeping into the minds of some readers. Syndicalism is not nationalistic. The international character of Syndicalism has found expression in the International Working Mens’ Association, but historical conditions force us to fight within national boundaries and we do not determine the character of the class struggle. Nevertheless, Syndicalism seeks the complete abolition of national frontiers. Indeed, this must be the outcome of technological development if allowed to continue.

...

The greatest tragedy of Europe is that complete economic districts are torn apart by frontiers which have no basis in science or nature. In the Mid-Rhineland the iron ore is on the French side of the frontier and most of the coal, coke ovens and power on the German side, yet one is essential to the other. Throughout Europe frontiers cut through railways, rivers, canal systems and electric transmission to the impoverishment of the Continent and the fruition of war. Left to normal social development rivers unite men in communities. London stretches along both banks of the Thames, Glasgow along the Clyde; the same is true of the Tyne, the Humber and the Mersey. But when men make frontiers they so often use rivers, not to unite, but to divide men. Rivers like the Rhine and the Danube, along whose banks great communities have grown, have been used as frontiers. Workers have been cut off from their employment and merchants from their trade. Families have been divided and towns ruined by the capricious boundary makers who call their crimes a peace conference.

...

It is the aim of Syndicalism to sweep away all frontiers, to untie humanity in a World federation of producers and end poverty, oppression, exploitation and war.



But should a doctor be a doctor and a teacher be a teacher?

the people who have the skills and want to do it.



If you mean it will be rotated, as in, EVERY job then I don't agree with that. Not everyone knows medicine, but I'm sure this isn't what you mean. If you mean everyone should take turns doing the bad jobs, isn't that kind of a hinderence that a doctor gets taken out from the locality of serving their people to be a janitor until the next person comes?

I didn't mean every job no, it would only be necessary where there would otherwise be a problem finding volunteers.
It wouldn't be done blindly either, if an individual is the only one with the skills to perform a particular role then it would be stupid to rotate them out of that role in to one which just about anyone could do.
I do think there would be more doctors though, so it probable wouldn't be the case that there was such a shortage that one taking time of from doctoring would be a big issue anyway, if not there would be no time for holidays either.

[Kassad]

All very logical questions.

As Lenin states in State and Revolution, in my own words, the bourgeoisie state must be torn down by the socialist revolution and from the ashes, a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' will take control. This means that the people themselves, the working proletariat, will own the means of production formerly owned by the corporate oligarchy and the wealthy elite. The only reason they gain power is through their wealth. Average workers can achieve anything that wealthy executives can.

You bring up the question of incentive. What will people do without pay? I think you aren't fully comprehending the communist ideology, but being condititioned in a bourgeoisie world, it's often hard to understand. Pay, in the capitalist sense, provides incentive. 'Pay', in a revolutionary socialist manner, is produced through work, but not necessarily given directly from the owners to the laborers. This creates classes and it's exactly what we are fighting. Instead, the wealth, materials and resources produced will go to the community as a whole, thus providing the most up-to-date innovation. The wealth is then distributed so that everyone gets what they require. With the elimination of surplus value, this will create massive wealth and innovation for the community as a whole. Broadly speaking, the entire world has the ability to live in luxury and be properly fed, housed and maintained. We have the resources, but the bourgeoisie class impede that progress. Tearing their state down and forging our revolutionary socialist community will create immense prosperity.

On to micro and macro management. If a labor council can maintain a small community, can they not be united with other labor councils? Can they not work hand in hand with other unions, organizations and communities and properly run an area? This trend can continue on and expand across a nation, though 'borders' and 'nations' will eventually be seen as the figments of our imagination that we are. Communities of people can stand together in socialism, but under capitalism, they cannot do this. These communities and organizations don't make up a state, for they are the proletariat and the working class embodied together. Their is no exploitation.

You are asking questions that are produced from your conditioning in a bourgeoisie-ruled environment. I asked many of the same questions. So did most of us here. What you must understand is that the bourgeoisie and the elitists can do anything that the working class can as well. With the elimination of the elite classes, the rulers and those who hold the wealth, immense prosperity will come from the world, since there will be no need to line the pockets of a few. All the wealth produced and developed will go to the people. No middle-man. No rulers. Just the people themselves, laboring side-by-side, and this will eliminate many of the social, political and monetary burdens on society.

If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. If you get a chance, pick up Lenin's State and Revolution. It will go into even more detail on what I've elaborated on.

[LeninBalls]

Well I have State and Revolution and it's because that book that got me thinking, nearly finished it. :)

Just one more question though, again about job motivation. Today large amounts of people would be motivated to do jobs like train engineering out of pay and interest. But how would interest alone motivate someone to be a train engineer or a phone producer? I know people will be raised in a society with no wage labour, greed and inequality but surely people will be far more motivated to do something more "fun" like being a pilot or teaching than train engineering.

[Kassad]

Well I have State and Revolution and it's because that book that got me thinking, nearly finished it. :)

Just one more question though, again about job motivation. Today large amounts of people would be motivated to do jobs like train engineering out of pay and interest. But how would interest alone motivate someone to be a train engineer or a phone producer? I know people will be raised in a society with no wage labour, greed and inequality but surely people will be far more motivated to do something more "fun" like being a pilot or teaching than train engineering.

Well, in a revolutionary socialist society, it is obvious that, like in a regular society, there are jobs that need to be done. People will sacrifice for their neighbors and I don't see a reason why a person should always be a street cleaner or a garbage man. Why can't people alternate? Plus, with so many jobs phased out, due to the destruction of surplus value, more people can focus on innovation than ever before.

[LeninBalls]

Jobs need to be done but won't people think why can't the other person be a train engineer?

I still can't see the motivation in someone choosing to be a train engineer over a pilot or journalist or teacher or any job that's more "fun" to do.

Maybe I just didn't understand your post, sorry if so.

[LeninBalls]

Also what happens to nationality? I know there is no nation, but won't it be confusing to say to someone "I met a lovely ( ) girl from ( )". I guess you could say it based on their community ie you could say "I met a lovely Parisian"?

What happens to language too? One global Communist language or do we retain our languages?

Aaalso, this stage 3 can only be achieved on the global scale, right? Not in one country can it happen?

[Rjevan]

Well, it depends on what you see as "fun". Maybe someone loves his job as a train engineer but has no talent at all at writing and suffers from vertigo - he would be dissatisfied as a journalist and unhappy as a pilot, whereas he would love to be an train engineer.
Plus, what Kassad say is that you don't have to eg. be a train engineer for the rest of your life, you can have various jobs.
As Marx said: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."


I know there is no nation, but won't it be confusing to say to someone "I met a lovely ( ) girl from ( )".
Is it so important where she is from? If I meet a nice girl I don't say "Wow, today I met a lovely Arab girl from Lebanon.", I say "Wow, today I met a lovely girl in town." or something like that.


What happens to language too? One global Communist language or do we retain our languages?
I don't know how others think about it but in my opinion it would be stupid to force everybody to learn a new communist language, why don't leave it as it is, English as universial language and the other languages locally based.


Aaalso, this stage 3 can only be achieved on the global scale, right? Not in one country can it happen?
What exactly do you mean by stage 3? There are very different views on internationalism and "socialism in one country".

[LeninBalls]

Is it so important where she is from? If I meet a nice girl I don't say "Wow, today I met a lovely Arab girl from Lebanon.", I say "Wow, today I met a lovely girl in town." or something like that.

I was just using that as an example. I mean to ask how would you describe something nationally not from your area. Like, where was this car built. Was built in Germany or Berlin? Bad examplre, but I hope you understand me.


What exactly do you mean by stage 3?

By stage 3 I mean what happens after the dictatorship of the proleteriat withers away and true Communism takes place.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Sorry, but some of these questions were quite funny. I'm not saying that to be mean either. Ok, wow! I feel like an ass tonight. Moving on...

[LeninBalls]

Funny? How? Maybe some of my examples were "funny" but I don't see how the questions are.

[benhur]

I was just using that as an example. I mean to ask how would you describe something nationally not from your area. Like, where was this car built. Was built in Germany or Berlin? Bad examplre, but I hope you understand me.
.

I understand what you mean. Nation-state concept disappears, nations (which are essentially lands) don't. Meaning, when you say a certain thing is made in Germany, the name is simply used for ease of reference WITHOUT any political significance whatsoever. Nations, as geo-political entities pitted against one another, will cease to exist.

[Rjevan]

I can't see what's funny about your questions. :confused:
Anyway

By stage 3 I mean what happens after the dictatorship of the proleteriat withers away and true Communism takes place.
As I said, there are different views: Some say, true communism can only take place after the world revolution, some say it is possible in one country, even if it's surrounded by capitalist countries. I personally find it hard to imagine that the capitalist states don't try to interfere and leave the communist people alone, just remeber the interventions the Soviet Union did suffer from western countries in its early phase. I don't think that real communism can be achieved without a world revolution but some people have an other opinion there.

[F9]

Ok, so I've understood all about Marxism and Leninism until the phase after the Dictatorship of the Proleteriat. There are some things which confuse me and I would like to ask some questions.

So when exactly do we decide to make the transition from Socialism to real Communism? I've been told that it has to be globally, as in, the whole world must be united under Marx but I see this quite impossible.

As RG said, me too am not a Marxist, but an Anarchist-Communist, a Marxist should answer this to you, i cant answer in the "name" of Marxism!So my possitions under are for Anarchism-Communism and only!!Not wanting to getting you confuse, but to help out!


With no state how is everything run? Local councils ran by the people for the people? I can see this working in small towns and villages, but a local council to manage a city I really can't. I'm just asking HOW things are run with no state.

Everything is run the way its run now(almost)!Workers continue their jobs if they like it, if they dont, they just learn and go to what they like, they dont need anyone to tell them to enjoy their time, and a job you like is an enjoyable pass of your time!People "run" themselves, they do not need anyone else to live their lives!Do you need anyone to eat?Do you need anyone to go have fun?Do you need anyone to tell you that you are interested in Marxism-Leninism?NO!You "like" those and you do it on your own will, thats how the society will be "run"!On a free based will of the people.No one to force you do something you dont want to do, no one to set you a strict timeline, no one no one...


For example, who runs the airlines? Since there is no state or private corporations to run them, and it's not just a local thing. How would the internet, mobile coverage, mp3 player manufacturers etc etc be run. No state products, and no private production. It baffles me.

Airlines are runned by the people using them, pilots are flying them, engineers are testing them etc etc!They do not need a state to do that!Do you think that its the state or a corporation that runs the airlines, and not the people working there?Having no one "above" dont means lack of organization, it means better organization, because people who actually do it, will be responsible to decide what to do, not others, and what you do is always better from what another person says you to do!States and corporations are just there as a diacosmetical thing, opressing peoples work, to get profit in te best way they can!!Workers run the whole thing!The same goes for the other things you mentioned internet etc!


Since there's no pay, and we're supposed to have educated the people into knowing that working for the benefit of yourself and everyone=good. But I want to know is, who or what is motivating people to do the shitty jobs? No pay. Ok. That doesn't matter since it's about the people. But why should I go work my life as a janitor or building roads?

What are the shitty jobs?Some shitty jobs for you, arent for someone else!!I wont go deep on this though because is among the most usuall questions, make a search and you will get plenty, and really meaningfull answers on this!


Since the abolition of the state means no prisons, then how is crime dealt with?

Abolition of state and oppression=lower percentage of crime, becase there wont be serious reasons to do so!If a crime take place in such a society, it means that the person should have a medical care, and such would be treated, not as a "quilty" person but as an ill person who needs medical care, to rejoin society at some time!
(Another frequent question, you could search it too if ya want)


Sorry, but some of these questions were quite funny. I'm not saying that to be mean either. Ok, wow! I feel like an ass tonight. Moving on...

As you said, stop being an ass, in such a days just post in shit-chat NOT in learning please!
Your questions LB are ok, we just have people who get them something sometimes, dont take it personal!!

ps:State and Revolution sucks!!

Fuserg9:star:

[LeninBalls]

Not related to Communism, but "to each according to his contribution" in Socialism, does this mean the more the worker works, gets more money from society or gets more products/general goods?

What exactly is given back to a worker the more they work in Socialism according to that quote?

[BobKKKindle$]

With no state how is everything runMarxists view the state as an organ of class power, and so the proletarian state is required to defend the revolution against the remnants of the ruling class and other hostile forces such as the invading armies of the imperialist powers who might try to undermine the gains of the revolution and restore capitalism. This means that the withering away of the state, in line with the falling resistance of the exploiting classes, does not mean an end to all forms of association and organization, it is merely a sign that class divisions have been abolished. A communist society would still involve people working together and cooperating with each other in order to pursue shared goals such as infrastructural projects and the democratic management of production, but Marxists do not see these activities, and the institutions through which they are conducted (workers councils, etc) as being a state in any meaningful sense. The use of coercion against criminals would also be necessary in a communist society, but this would not entail the existence of a state, precisely because any state is inextricably bound up with class antagonisms. In State and Revolution, these issues are discussed in the section entitled 'Controversy with the Anarchists (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch04.htm#s2)', in Chapter 4.


What exactly is given back to a worker the more they work in Socialism according to that quote? Workers (in the sense of people who perform labour, but not those who are payed a wage by the bourgeoisie, given that the bourgeoisie's property has been seized) would indeed be payed according to how much work they do, and intensity of the work. This system of distribution is necessary because the prevalence of capitalist ideology even when capitalism has been abolished through socialist revolution means that society cannot immediately adopt a communist system of distribution, based on individual need, as Marx acknowledges in 'Critique of the Gotha Program'. The form of payment would differ from money under capitalism in that people would not be able to use their pay to start a private enterprise or lend money to others, because both of these activities do not constitute productive labour, and could possibly lead to the emergence of a new exploiting class if left unchecked.

[robbo203]

Not related to Communism, but "to each according to his contribution" in Socialism, does this mean the more the worker works, gets more money from society or gets more products/general goods?

What exactly is given back to a worker the more they work in Socialism according to that quote?


Leninballs, communism and socialism mean the same thing - a stateless moneyless classless wageless system in which each give voluntarily according to their ability and freely take according to their need. The distinction between socialism and communism was introduced by Lenin, not Marx, who first equated it with the lower phase of communism and then equated it with state capitalist monopoly

Regarding work in a communist or socialist society lets get this in perspective.

Firstly, what work? Arguably most of the jobs that we do to in a capitalist society today will disappear completely because their only function is to sustain capitalism . For example , for what reason would there be bank workers in a socialist economy when there is no money? None whatsoever. In his book Free is Cheaper Ken Smith argues that over 90% of the jobs we do today will disappear in a free access economy. I think that is a bit on the high side but certainly over half of the formal sector jobs will disappear. This will release a huge amount of manpower and resources for socially useful work meaning we will probably have far less work to do anyway on average if we share the remaining workload.

Secondly, once you have free access to goods and services how do people obtain the social esteem of their fellow human beings? In capitalism you attract high status through your conspicuous consumption of goods. In socialism, this would not be possible becuase everyone can take what they need from the common store without payment. It follows then that only way in which you could merit the esteem of your fellows is through your contribution to society - through work.

Thirdly, the conditions under which we will work will be radically altered under socialism. Much backbreaking toil can be automated or done away with. Much of what makes work unpleasnat today is the hierarchical patterns associated with work and the fact that you do not have any control over your own labour. Give individuals this sense of control and their attitude to work will change radically becuase it will be self motivated. Marx was right - work will become a perceived necessity in communism. We actually need to express ourselves as human beings in some form or else we just just vegetate and shrivel up inside. Even under capitalism despite our experience of alienation, many workers find it hard to adjust to a life post wage slavery.

Fourthly, communism can only come about if the vast majority understand it and want it. Understanding it means that we recognise that we are all dependent upon each other in a communist society. There is no nanny state that is allegedly going to look after us. The recognition of our mutual interdependence will add yet another motive for wanting to work. This is the moral imperative to work in a communist society: to ensure the welfare of others and ourselves in the process

FIrthly, and finally let us not forget that an enormous amount of work that is done today even under the adverse conditions of capitalism is done without payment or financial rewqard of any kind. In fact the so called grey economy - the household sector, charitable and voluntary work, mutual aid projects etc - embodies more labour hours overall than both the official white economy and the unofficial black economy put together. Some unpaid work is incredibly dangerous - like Lifeboatmen who willingly put their lives at risk to save others; some of it, incredibly dirty like volunteer work cleaning out canals (which Ive done) . But it goes to illustrates the undeniable fact that even today people work for all sorts of reasons many of which have little or nothing to do with being paid

People who argue that we will still need to be paid in a socialist society and provided with material incentives - like carrots to a mule - show thereby that they atre still very much trapped within a capitalist ideology and have yet to make the imginative leap into a communist one