Communism on a large scale is impossible.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Is there anyway to have communism over a major scale. Im anarcho-communist because i dont think that communism is possible on such a large scale. The only way i can see that is if you stopped at socialism and never reach pure communism because i dont see a way to regulate the common ownership except for through a government which isnt pure communism.

[revolution inaction]

I think its only possible an a large scale, I don't see how you can be an anarchist communist and not be aware of methods of organization that work on a large scale and don't involve a government? Unless you have a unusual definition of government or anarchism?

[Comrade Anarchist]

well how would you have common ownership of everything in the world unless you regulate ownership through some type of government.

[Pogue]

well how would you have common ownership of everything in the world unless you regulate ownership through some type of government.

In a word, federalism.

[Niccolò Rossi]

The only way i can see that is if you stopped at socialism and never reach pure communism because i dont see a way to regulate the common ownership except for through a government which isnt pure communism.

What is the issue with "some kind of government"? Communism is a free and equal association of producers characterised by the absence of classes and the planned production of use-values. Localism and other such trends that view communism as possible or desirable on a small scale contradict this, confining and restricting this development to a national or local framework completely insufficient for this aim. The planning of production on a world scale will of course require some form of planning apparatus, however it would be pure childishness to oppose planning and the international revolution on the basis that it might require some form of institutional (or if you will governmental) regulation.

[robbo203]

What is the issue with "some kind of government"? Communism is a free and equal association of producers characterised by the absence of classes and the planned production of use-values. Localism and other such trends that view communism as possible or desirable on a small scale contradict this, confining and restricting this development to a national or local framework completely insufficient for this aim. The planning of production on a world scale will of course require some form of planning apparatus, however it would be pure childishness to oppose planning and the international revolution on the basis that it might require some form of institutional (or if you will governmental) regulation.


Again and again this same confusion arises between planning and the socialisation of production. It is quite possible to have a highly decentralised communist economy that is nevertheless world wide in scope reflecting the globalisation of production itself in which local communities interact with each other horizontally but where the great bulk of planning decisions are made locally. As I have argued on another thread (centralisation) worldwide central planning in the sense of a single adminsitrative centre cooridinating the totality of production is logistically impossibile - an utter absurdity. It cant be done. Any society whatever form it takes has to admit a degree of decentralisation. But decentralisation does not mean autarky

[Comrade Anarchist]

i agree with a international revolution but i see the communes of anarcho-communism the only way to achieve pure communism. When you have a government there is always someone above someone which is socialism not communism.

[robbo203]

i agree with a international revolution but i see the communes of anarcho-communism the only way to achieve pure communism. When you have a government there is always someone above someone which is socialism not communism.


Depends what you mean by socialism. If you are a marxist as opposed to a leninist you will not regard socialism as being any different from communism. In the 19th century when Marx was alive these terms were generally held to be synonyms. In communism or socialism there is no state since the state is nothing more than an instrument by which one class rules over another which in a classless society like communism/socialism is literally impossible

[Lamanov]

Let's disregard possible weak understanding of how "large-scale" communism works.

HLVS states the obvious for one to understand the form of it: federalism.

The problem with this "localist" vision of "anarcho-communism" is its rather sectarian hippie-like misunderstanding of general needs. "Local commune" can't produce everything the people within it need. There's a certain standard of living that is expected to improve in a "self-managed society", and the unification of our productive activities through common democratic planning and coordination on a continental and global scale is necessary for that to happen.

[black magick hustla]

I think it is pointless to discuss how or why communism will or not work, because communism is a movement, it is not some sort of blueprint. the communist is hellbent in the destruction of capitalism and the state and its crystal clear in its opposition to imperialist war and nationalism and in its relentless pursue of international revolution. we can know some things, for example, analyze which manifestations are proletarian, like soviets, and which are not, like maoist gangs. i think this is one of the biggest flaws of anarchism- it thinks too much about how to organize a society on anarchist lines. i think that limits the whole project and sacrifices flexibility.

[Lamanov]

I think it is pointless to discuss how or why communism will or not work

I don't think it's pointless.

Just because we're discussing it it doesn't mean we deny the basis of communism as a movement.

Besides, claiming that anarchists are "limiting the whole project" by thinking about "how to organize it" isn't that clever, since the communist left also discussed this issue (remember the pamphlet produced by GIK (http://www.kurasje.org/arkiv/1100f.htm)).

Also, desiring "local communes" isn't more or less "anarchist" than "planning on a global scale".

[black magick hustla]

lol dj tc this isnt a battle of wits, its not about being clever. its about voicing what i think is correct.:)

[Lamanov]

I'm just saying we need to discuss this.

There have been some very fine texts produced out of need for contemplation of this issue - what do we want, what is our program for the future. Both anarcho-syndicalist and left communist wrote about it: Maximoff (http://recollectionbooks.com/bleed/Encyclopedia/MaximovGP/ProgramRevSyndcialism.htm), Santillan (http://membres.lycos.fr/anarchives/site/syndic/aftertherevolution.htm), Castoriadis (http://www.lust-for-life.org/Lust-For-Life/WorkersCouncilsAndEconomics/WorkersCouncilsAndEconomics.htm)...

[Dharma]

It is very possible because communism is stateless. Ideally communism would be on a large scale. The human population must realize the current systems flaws and unite. Abolishing all borders and class and uniting under the hammer and sickle.

[ckaihatsu]

Here's a model, for your consideration, that could address this thread's topic. Please click on the little arrow inside the quote box to see the original posting, which has more info. The discussion thread that it's from is about centralization.



I'd be remiss if I didn't put forth a model of centralization that conformed to my global syndicalist currency model. Here it is:


- central planning (global syndicalist currency) -- Workers from increasing numbers of factories organize and assert compensation for the full value of what their labor is worth to business. They collectivize dozens, then hundreds, then thousands, of factories all over the world, receiving revolutionary political support from the population of the world which has gotten fed up with capitalism's crises and wars. The daily news fills with reports of clashes all over the world where factories are pitted against police and judges, while society's mainstream increasingly discusses the issue and supports siding with the workers' demands.

The network of worker collectivized factories uses openly published transcripts and account ledgers from their respective workers' collective meetings, and the economics of their network uses a global syndicalist currency that is not convertible to any other currency. The workers tout the full labor value of their new currency and attract new layers of people to work and consume on the basis of this global network and currency.

Based on their status as labor-value-contributing people, or workers, a system of political initiatives relating to economic and political (social living) issues emerges as a bottom-up dynamic. These initiatives are finalized, agreed-upon, and eventually combined among geographically close factories to create larger, stable policies that yield economies of scale.

The workers collectives fund and empower a central authority to serve as an instantly recallable administration over each respective factory, and a multi-factory meta-administration over the network as a whole. Each central authority enforces policy while the overall meta-administration enables a greater level of generalization, efficiency throughout the network, and economies of scale.


Syndicalism - Socialism - Communism Transition Diagram

http://tinyurl.com/bgqgjw


communist economy diagram

http://tinyurl.com/bom9ca


Also:

[Revolutionary Youth]

It is very possible because communism is stateless. Ideally communism would be on a large scale. The human population must realize the current systems flaws and unite. Abolishing all borders and class and uniting under the hammer and sickle.
A ha ha, unfortunately, due to our current circumstances, not many can realize these flaws of the current system you speak of. Abolishing all borders and classes are, indeed, the major tasks of Communism, and in some situations, abolishing the class system can be applicable, but just look at abolishing all borders? Until this world's monetary system comes to its end, only then you can apply this. There are so many out there who just want to be limited in their tiny shells call "countries" and "nationalism". I often hear many of our American fellas boast about how "great" their country is, but I only ask them one question:"Why do we need a great country? Just for what? The only thing it could do is to widen the range between your people and other people from many parts of the world." Great country serves no purpose, as long as does not make mankind united under one true home.

[ckaihatsu]

There are so many out there who just want to be limited in their tiny shells call "countries" and "nationalism".


The way that I always think of nationalism is that it *was* progressive at one point, but that time was centuries ago -- basically at the dawn of modernism, in the 13th century (for Europe). Modernism everywhere saw the rise of monotheism, because the new mercantilism that was beginning to challenge royal and feudal rule needed to be more portable than what the local gods could provide. Monotheism was a lighter load, replacing hundreds of gods with just one which freed up time for commerce over longer distances, and encouraged a new acceptance and cosmopolitanism among many peoples.

This period of technological upgrades for agriculture created a surplus of goods that allowed people to escape the feudal lands and take refuge in newly emerging cities. As cities grew they gave rise to nation-states.





With the scholarly translations came information on the techniques discovered more than 1,000 years previously in Greece, Rome or Alexandria, and on the techniques which the Islamic societies of the eastern Mediterranean and central Asia had acquired from China. These added to the improvements which local millwrights, black-smiths and builders were already making to tools and equipment and resulted in ‘a passion for mechanisation of industry such as no culture had known’.106

Water mills began to provide the motion for bellows for black-smiths’ hammers, and for ‘fulling’ (beating cloth to finish it). The crank and the compound crank turned up-down motion into rotary motion (and visa versa), and the flywheel kept rotation at an even speed. The spinning wheel and the compass arrived from the Far East in the 12th century, and the rudder replaced the steering oar in the 13th, enormously increasing the reliability of sea transport. The discovery of the eyeglass meant declining eyesight no longer ended the careers of clerks and scholars. The horse stirrup, advances in armour-making, the crossbow, the stonethrower, and then gunpowder and the cannon (first used in 1320), transformed warfare. And the humble wheelbarrow, almost unnoticed, altered the character of much back-breaking work on the land.

Such technical advance underlay the full flourishing of medieval society and culture in the late 13th and early 14th centuries. By this time ‘communes’, self governing city states, dominated the political landscape of northern Italy and Flanders.107 Writers such as Bocaccio, Chaucer and, above all, Dante made a name for themselves by producing a secular literature written in their local idiom—and, in the process, gave it the prestige to begin its transition into a ‘national’ language. And towering above the medieval towns were those monuments to its culture, the great cathedrals. These were works of construction and art inconceivable without the agricultural, technical and ideological changes of the previous centuries.

[...]

By the year 1300 there was a vast contradiction at the heart of European society. Material and cultural life had reached a peak which bore comparison with that of the high point of Roman civilisation. It looked as if society was going forward, escaping, albeit slowly, from poverty, insecurity and superstition. Yet the top of society was increasingly freezing up, as the lords made the barriers separating them from other classes ever more rigid, as the church clamped down on dissent and rational thought, and as ever greater amounts of the surplus were used for luxuries, warfare and ritual.

[Nwoye]

In a sense it must be occur on both a large and a small scale. Federalism, although the incorrect word for what is actually occurring, expresses it well. Let me explain.

Any type of anarchist society, in order for it to be efficient, must be local. It must be administered on a small scale, as to avoid corruption, to promote efficiency, and to eliminate parasitic behavior. If the same idea were applied on a large, centralized scale, then we would most likely see a complete bureaucratic mess.

These small anarchist communes, operating under any economic system, can function autonomously, as long as they are willing to trade for necessary goods and services with other communes and societies. Since they simply do not have the means to provide all necessary goods for the whole commune, they must cooperate with other societies which are suffering the same problems. This way, unions among different communes would probably develop, which would serve as an efficient means of trade between its members. In my opinion these unions would probably be used to avoid military dominance as well.

[Lamanov]

These small anarchist communes, operating under any economic system, can function autonomously, as long as they are willing to trade for necessary goods and services with other communes and societies. Since they simply do not have the means to provide all necessary goods for the whole commune, they must cooperate with other societies which are suffering the same problems. This way, unions among different communes would probably develop, which would serve as an efficient means of trade between its members. In my opinion these unions would probably be used to avoid military dominance as well.

I'm against prospect of trade between "communes", and I'm against their "isolation". Furthermore, there will need to be degrees of "unified" activities on a wide range levels in certain sectors of economy. Take atomic energy and energetics in general, for example. These sectors will probably need wide-based regional, if not global, self-managing councils and committees for planning, coordination, etc.

International planning and coordination doesn't mean "centralization" in the statist, bureaucratic sense. Especially not in time such as our own, when communication technology exceeded our predecessors' wildest expectations.

Direct democracy and federalism can exist on a large scale, based on workers' councils, and if they do - if we avoid isolationist and proto-capitalist trends such as "trade" - we will be just fine.

Besides, what does a "small community" mean? How do cities like New York or Moscow fit into this prospect?

P.S.

If you're talking about trade, you're not talking about federalism. It's just not the same.

[black magick hustla]

I don't think it's pointless.

Just because we're discussing it it doesn't mean we deny the basis of communism as a movement.

Besides, claiming that anarchists are "limiting the whole project" by thinking about "how to organize it" isn't that clever, since the communist left also discussed this issue (remember the pamphlet produced by GIK (http://www.kurasje.org/arkiv/1100f.htm)).

Also, desiring "local communes" isn't more or less "anarchist" than "planning on a global scale".

of course its pointless. i dont care if the communist left "discussed the isue" talking about specifities of the state is kindof utopian. we are not statesmen nor we are part of a dictatorship of the proletariat so we dont know the issues we will face or not. talking about federalism and about technocracy and parecon and whatever is dumb

[black magick hustla]

dont you find it somewhat silly the prospect of some guy jotting down how the future society will look while sipping a cup of coffee in a room full of books? its just kindof jacking off man

[Lamanov]

It seems to me that you don't understand the implications of not discussing this issue.

Have you ever been asked by someone "What do you communists want?" "What does replace capitalism?" "What about Russia?"

You can't just respond "We want internationalism and destruction of capital - the end to the exploitation of workers - the self-liberation of proletariat." (etc.) That's not good enough an answer:

There's one more important thing here: it's not just our imagination that stands behind these visions. It's also the 150 years of proletarian struggle and the history of revolutionary Praxis - the real, live historical experience, combined with the critique of existing society. So, these outlines and programmes and not that baseless as some would imagine.

It is the "practical theory". By writing about libertarian communism we're not inventing workers' councils, but pointing out to them.

[dmcauliffe09]

Of course not!
Communism is just wishful thinking. At no time in history has there been complete equality between all people of a society. Marx should have stopped at socialism and not described it as a "transition" into Communism. The only way Communism has ever (or can) work is in experimental Utopian societies. In the real world, it is impossible unless the fictional brainwashing of people that occurs in Ann Rand novels is actually instituted. Socialism is what we need to foucs on.

[Lamanov]

See Marmot.

There's just some people who don't know what their talking about...

Like this dude above.


Communism is just wishful thinking. At no time in history has there been complete equality between all people of a society. Marx should have stopped at socialism and not described it as a "transition" into Communism.

It seems to me that you don't understand what communism is.

A hint: it's not about "complete equality", nor Marx or Kropotkin defined it as such.

[black magick hustla]

It seems to me that you don't understand the implications of not discussing this issue.

Have you ever been asked by someone "What do you communists want?" "What does replace capitalism?" "What about Russia?"

You can't just respond "We want internationalism and destruction of capital - the end to the exploitation of workers - the self-liberation of proletariat." (etc.) That's not good enough an answer:

There's one more important thing here: it's not just our imagination that stands behind these visions. It's also the 150 years of proletarian struggle and the history of revolutionary Praxis - the real, live historical experience, combined with the critique of existing society. So, these outlines and programmes and not that baseless as some would imagine.

It is the "practical theory". By writing about libertarian communism we're not inventing workers' councils, but pointing out to them.

of course workers' councils are part of the working class historical experience, they are the definng factor of whether there is a true proletarian insurrection or just some maoist gangs totting weapons. as I said, this things historically stand for themselves. you might not agree with this, but i think the centralized communist party is also stands by itself as a historical experience. i am not talking about that though. i am talking about the utterly vague and pointless talk about some really distant communist future and arguing ala conquest of bread how the future society SHOULD look. nobody knows this and talkin about this is silly at the best, and at the worse its just kindof patronizing and a jerkoff. this is what disturbs me of anarchism, they are so sure about their mode of organization that they painstalkingly describe future worlds and already know how an airport is going to be organized. we all have new world in our hearts man, but we still are not sure how does it exactly look

[Pogue]

I think the point is, we should talk about what communism looks like but not emphasise it as a goal, because it doesnt appear as appealing or practical for most workers, just emphasise the way society will be organised immeiately post-revolution.

[Lamanov]

i am talking about the utterly vague and pointless talk about some really distant communist future and arguing ala conquest of bread how the future society SHOULD look.

Hold it right there: no one is talking about "distant future communism". We're talking about the immediate goals of revolutionary quest from the standpoint of here and now. There's nothing wrong with discussing strategy and outlining the basis for the socialist transformation of society.

Occupied factories, new workplace-relations and workers' control, workers' councils, workers' militia, economic and community planning, the federations of communes, the immediate demands and those that might follow, possible economic, political and social difficulties: these are not "distant" things; they are issues a revolutionary proletariat meets from day one.

And you're right, I don't agree with the party prospect.


this is what disturbs me of anarchism, they are so sure about their mode of organization that they painstalkingly describe future worlds and already know how an airport is going to be organized. we all have new world in our hearts man, but we still are not sure how does it exactly look

I am personally sure that workplace, regional and wider federalism is the organisational key because it reflects the practical experience of workers' councils.

So, I'm not talking about how - let's say - an airport (?) is going to be organised in distant future, but maybe tomorrow.

Another thing, no one here is saying how "this is the exact blueprint." I'll repeat the wise concluding words of the Saragosa programme (1935): "We must point out that this Programme should not be understood as something definite ... [but as] a general outline, a plan sketch that producers themselves must finalize [in practice]..."

[dmcauliffe09]

See Marmot.

There's just some people who don't know what their talking about...

Like this dude above.



It seems to me that you don't understand what communism is.

A hint: it's not about "complete equality", nor Marx or Kropotkin defined it as such.
Please, don't tell me what I do and do not know. I do notice that I made some mistakes in my answer. There are other forms of communism besides Marxist ones, such as religious communism or anarcho-communism. The term "communism" generally means the rule of the people of a commune or community and the absence of a central state. Only in experimental Utopian societies has this ever existed. If I am wrong, please, prove me wrong and show me where there has been complete control by the people of a community. Even in primitive communist societies such as the tribal societies in Africa, one groups of people usually holds more power than another group, and there is still a social class system. Again, I am open to being proven wrong. Now consider this: even though such small utopian and tribal societies exist, the need for a global revolution, or at least a revolution in a nation of global significance, cannot be satisfied by these small societies. Obviously tribes have existed for thousands of years, but their isolation causes them to have little significance in the revolution of the industrialized world.

To sum my point up: communism is not a reality. It is a theoretical socioeconomic system that has not ever existed on this earth. The true revolution is the one from capitalism to socialism. Popular control of the state is entirely possible, as has been the case of many so-called "communist" nations. However, pure communism, not Marxist communism or religious communism or any other special form of communism, is based on egalitarianism and the absence of a social class system, conditions that have never existed in the real world.

[Lamanov]

First off, what "experimental utopian societies"? Since you're talking about existing things, they can't be "utopian". If you're talking about something that didn't exist, then there were no "experimental societies".

Second, communism is not just an economic theory, it's a practical theory of an entire historical movement - and it is a movement itself - which strives to liberate itself from the strains of capital and wage labor.

Third, the thing you describe as "socialism" is not socialism at all.

Fourth, I have stated that you missed the point since you claimed how communism is supposed to be about "complete equality" - it is not, no prominent theoreticians used this term, nor I need to provide "evidence" for this negation.

[dmcauliffe09]

First off, what "experimental utopian societies"? Since you're talking about existing things, they can't be "utopian". If you're talking about something that didn't exist, then there were no "experimental societies".

Second, communism is not just an economic theory, it's a practical theory of an entire historical movement - and it is a movement itself - which strives to liberate itself from the strains of capital and wage labor.

Third, the thing you describe as "socialism" is not socialism at all.

Fourth, I have stated that you missed the point since you claimed how communism is supposed to be about "complete equality" - it is not, no prominent theoreticians used this term, nor I need to provide "evidence" for this negation.
First off, in the United States, utopian socialist societies were established in Texas (la Reunion), Massachusetts (Brook Farm), and Indiana (New Harmony). And that's just a few in the U.S. These are what I mean by "EXPERIMENTAL UTOPIAN SOCIETIES."

Secondly, I know communism is more than an economic theory. In fact, communist economics is a complete moot theory. There's no such thing as "communist economics" because theoretically in a communist society, nobody would seek to gain a profit, nor would money be used, thereby rendering an economy non-existant. There is, however, a such thing as socialist economics.

(sigh)

Third of all, nowhere did I describe socialism. I said "popular control of the state is entirely possible." I do not need to describe socialism, and I do not need you to tell me what it is, because I know what it is.

Fourthly, if not complete equality, what is the point of communism? Why free yourself from a system that oppresses you if you do not intend to do away with its oppressive nature, a nature that creates inequality among society? What then, may I ask, do you believe the point of communism is? If you fight the revolution, establish socialism, and then establish a communist society, what is your ultimate goal if not complete equality and freedom from oppression?

[Lamanov]

First off, in the United States, utopian socialist societies were established in Texas (la Reunion), Massachusetts (Brook Farm), and Indiana (New Harmony). And that's just a few in the U.S. These are what I mean by "EXPERIMENTAL UTOPIAN SOCIETIES."

YEAH (http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/allcaps.htm); OK (http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/allcaps.htm); that's actually not communism.


Secondly, I know communism is more than an economic theory. In fact, communist economics is a complete moot theory. There's no such thing as "communist economics" because theoretically in a communist society, nobody would seek to gain a profit, nor would money be used, thereby rendering an economy non-existant. There is, however, a such thing as socialist economics.

So, in a "socialist society", one would strive to make a profit?

And, in a way, just because there is a certain limited definition of a word "economic" - as use above - no one can use it to make a wider, hypothetical "economic" theory?


Third of all, nowhere did I describe socialism. I said "popular control of the state is entirely possible." I do not need to describe socialism, and I do not need you to tell me what it is, because I know what it is.

Eh, yes, you did. "Popular control of the state" is certainly a partial description of socialism, since, in your view, population "controls" some sort of a "state" (Volkstaat (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm)?). There's also a conclusion we draw from your "socialist economics" description, since you obviously see profit making in socialism.

Considering this, it's fairly possible you didn't "get it right" and that you don't "know what it is".


Fourthly, if not complete equality, what is the point of communism? Why free yourself from a system that oppresses you if you do not intend to do away with its oppressive nature, a nature that creates inequality among society? What then, may I ask, do you believe the point of communism is? If you fight the revolution, establish socialism, and then establish a communist society, what is your ultimate goal if not complete equality and freedom from oppression?

What the hell is a "complete equality"?

[dmcauliffe09]

Wow.
You'd think I was arguing with a rightist.
I'm tired of the ambiguous responses, so I'm going to be more curt.

1) As I have already stated, communism in its pure form is collective ownership of property and community. Is that not what it is? I still have received no answer from you as to what communism is, since you keep telling me that I am wrong. But I've evolved beyond the small utopian societies. The point is that true communism has never existed. Point blank. And why? Because it is a flawed system that can only exist if everyone is pure and good-hearted.

2) Again, you tell me what I "obviously" believe, taking my words out of context once more. It seems very childish to me. No, one does not seek to gain a profit in a socialist economy. One seeks to fairly compensate the workers and abolish the capitalist surplus value. One also seeks to organize society in a manner in which the workers (i.e., the proletariat) control the means of production.

3) Why do you put the word "control" in quotes? In a socialist society, the workers own, i.e., CONTROL, the means of production. Yes, perhaps I should have said "means of production" in place of "state."

4) And again, I must ask,
"Fourthly, if not complete equality, what is the point of communism? Why free yourself from a system that oppresses you if you do not intend to do away with its oppressive nature, a nature that creates inequality among society? What then, may I ask, do you believe the point of communism is? If you fight the revolution, establish socialism, and then establish a communist society, what is your ultimate goal if not complete equality and freedom from oppression?"

By complete equality I mean equality. I guess it's redundant. Equality. Is the objective of communism not equality in society?

And by the way, I got it completely right. I know what socialism is, I know what it can do, and I know that it can work, unlike communism.


:D

[Lamanov]

You'd think I was arguing with a rightist.

Oh, please. You're the one arguing against communism.


As I have already stated, communism in its pure form is collective ownership of property and community. Is that not what it is?

Eh, no, that's just too wide and vague to be a definition.


No, one does not seek to gain a profit in a socialist economy.

So, by the above reasoning, it's not an "economy", just like communism isn't.


Why do you put the word "control" in quotes? In a socialist society, the workers own, i.e., CONTROL, the means of production. Yes, perhaps I should have said "means of production" in place of "state."

Yes, you should have. Let's use better word: workers manage means of production. They build a system of local self-govenment and economic total self-management. They connect local, professional and workplace councils into regional economic councils etc. and they run the economy and community - local and global.

If economy is broken down in "isolated" worker-managed enterprises that function as units within a market-driven economy, it's collectivism; if the workers run the economy without trade but through planned production and distribution by the system of councils, it's communism.

(And I was quoting you.)


One seeks to fairly compensate the workers and abolish the capitalist surplus value. One also seeks to organize society in a manner in which the workers (i.e., the proletariat) control the means of production.

When I read this I get the impression that someone other than workers is supposed to do this.


What then, may I ask, do you believe the point of communism is?

I think I just explained; and "equality" is consisted of "equality of opportunity": everyone who is able (healthy physically and mentally) to get education and work has the right to take part in sharing the products and of managing the community, workplace and the society.

P.S.

As you can see, communism isn't necessarily some hippie vague pipe-dream, so if I may ask, stop addressing it as such. In fact, it's no less "real" than socialism you're describing, and in some points, it's pretty much the same thing.

This view of communism is expressed by both Marxists who based their theory and practice on workers' councils and anarcho-syndicalists (and other class-struggle anarchists).

[dmcauliffe09]

Yes I am arguing against communism, because it has not worked.
Yes, I am arguing for socialism because it has worked and it can work.
I do not wish to ruffle any feathers, and I think it's unnecesary to continue butting heads like this. In my opinion, communist theory is unapplicable to today's modern world, and the only true popular system that can benefit society is socialism. Both economically and socially, socialism is, for lack of a better term, "the way."

[Lamanov]

What "socialism" has worked where?

Why are you stubborn? The things you describe are not communism. For that matter it cannot be claimed how it "hasn't worked".

[dmcauliffe09]

:laugh: Really, I'm tired of arguing against another leftist.
I'm gonna go find some fascists and capitalists to mess with.

[Lamanov]

It's the purpose of this forum.

As you wish. You still may respond to the question, though.

[Alf]

In the discussion between DJ-TC and Marmot about discussing the future society, I tend to agree with DJ; the communist left (not only the GIK, but also the Italian left for example - see the articles from Bilan published on our website) has indeed tried to understand the possible problems, forms, methods etc of the transitional period, following Marx in Critique of the Gotha Progamme and elsewhere. Marx also had a lot to say about human life in a more advanced communist society, as the ICC has shown in our book on communism. It's not utopian to do this as long we ground such approaches in the real experience of the working class (and the real potentialities of humanity in general). And it's essential to do it if we are to avoid the errors of the past.

[dmcauliffe09]

True, it is the purpose of this forum, and I beieve I stopped too short of my point. You, however, are also stubborn. You continuously tell me that the things I describe are not communism nor socialism, then you tell me my definitions are "too broad." Be that as it may, they are still definitions. You cannot deny that communism in the Marxist sense has never been acheived. If you do, you are not living in the real world. A proletariat revolution in which the capitalist class is overthrown is more of a reality than the absence of social class. Even if what I described is "not communism," they are still tenents of communism. The final objective of communism is a utopia in which the class system does not exist and in which all citizens are equal in society. Why do you reject this notion? Why do you tell me that "No, that's not communism?"

[black magick hustla]

In the discussion between DJ-TC and Marmot about discussing the future society, I tend to agree with DJ; the communist left (not only the GIK, but also the Italian left for example - see the articles from Bilan published on our website) has indeed tried to understand the possible problems, forms, methods etc of the transitional period, following Marx in Critique of the Gotha Progamme and elsewhere. Marx also had a lot to say about human life in a more advanced communist society, as the ICC has shown in our book on communism. It's not utopian to do this as long we ground such approaches in the real experience of the working class (and the real potentialities of humanity in general). And it's essential to do it if we are to avoid the errors of the past.
ive read the gotha programme and from what i remember, it was very vague on the issue of of the higher stage of communism. i always thought that the question of organization should stay flexible, while understanding certain factors about proletarian uprisings, like workers councils, for example. :shrugs: one of the reasons i abandoned anarchism is that i thought its prioritizing of "anti-authoritarian" modes of organization was very axfixiating, its endless elucidation on how anarchism looks like, etc because as bordiga said once in the democratic principles, modes of organization should be subordinated to a communist principle.

[Led Zeppelin]

Is there anyway to have communism over a major scale. Im anarcho-communist because i dont think that communism is possible on such a large scale. The only way i can see that is if you stopped at socialism and never reach pure communism because i dont see a way to regulate the common ownership except for through a government which isnt pure communism.

A "government" and communism is an oxymoron. They cancel each other out.

Governments and states exist because a class-society exists. When there are no classes, there will be no states or governments. There will only be an administrative, that is, a state which is no longer such "in the proper sense of the term".

Distribution and other matters will still have to be organized and administered, of course. That will be done by the administrative which has no formal authority, and which is run and made up of the people in the community.

[Miscreant]

Distribution and other matters will still have to be organized and administered, of course. That will be done by the administrative which has no formal authority, and which is run and made up of the people in the community.

I think the power to organize and administer would be the same as or lead to formal authority. I think it would be very hard to maintain a perfect state of equality for long, economic or authoritative. Some people just don't care enough to be involved in community decisions.

[Lamanov]

one of the reasons i abandoned anarchism is that i thought its prioritizing of "anti-authoritarian" modes of organization was very axfixiating, its endless elucidation on how anarchism looks like

I don't know what type of anarchism you left behind, but the one type I chose to work with was chosen for a reason of organizational principles which reflect the ends of our struggle. I remained a council communist, but I accepted anarcho-syndicalism as a combative expression of councilist tendencies.

Left communism and council communism as they are lack organizational principles, which is a pity, considering a rich experience of AAUD and AAUD-E.

Besides, I rarely meet any anarchists outside the syndicalist circle for which I can say they know what they actually want. The endless stories about small agricultural communes is of course, ancient horseshit, so I don't pay much attention to it.


etc because as bordiga said once in the democratic principles, modes of organization should be subordinated to a communist principle.

Well, anarcho-syndicalist organizations are "subordinated" to Principles of revolutionary syndicalism (http://iwa-ait.org/statutes.html), just like council-communist "unionen" were "subordinated" to their programme (http://www.kurasje.org/arkiv/16000f.htm).

Bordiga isn't unique in that request.

[Bilan]

In a sense it must be occur on both a large and a small scale. Federalism, although the incorrect word for what is actually occurring, expresses it well. Let me explain.

Any type of anarchist society, in order for it to be efficient, must be local. It must be administered on a small scale, as to avoid corruption, to promote efficiency, and to eliminate parasitic behavior. If the same idea were applied on a large, centralized scale, then we would most likely see a complete bureaucratic mess.

That's petty-bourgeois socialism. You're not going forward, you're going backwards.



These small anarchist communes, operating under any economic system, can function autonomously, as long as they are willing to trade for necessary goods and services with other communes and societies. Since they simply do not have the means to provide all necessary goods for the whole commune, they must cooperate with other societies which are suffering the same problems. This way, unions among different communes would probably develop, which would serve as an efficient means of trade between its members. In my opinion these unions would probably be used to avoid military dominance as well.

That just sounds like primitive communism.
There is nothing revolutionary about that.

[cenv]

Is there anyway to have communism over a major scale. Im anarcho-communist because i dont think that communism is possible on such a large scale. The only way i can see that is if you stopped at socialism and never reach pure communism because i dont see a way to regulate the common ownership except for through a government which isnt pure communism.
Just because something is implemented on a large scale doesn't mean it has to be monolithic. Communism is beautifully efficient because, as the purest form of democracy, it is self-regulating. People, cities, factories, and industries are interconnected without being rigidly interdependent. They are synchronized without being stuck together. Communism will be like an adaptable organism, not a fragile machine. You don't need a "government" to "regulate" anything. Just build communism from the bottom up, not the top down, and the state becomes superfluous.


It seems to me that you don't understand the implications of not discussing this issue.

Have you ever been asked by someone "What do you communists want?" "What does replace capitalism?" "What about Russia?"

You can't just respond "We want internationalism and destruction of capital - the end to the exploitation of workers - the self-liberation of proletariat." (etc.) That's not good enough an answer:

There's one more important thing here: it's not just our imagination that stands behind these visions. It's also the 150 years of proletarian struggle and the history of revolutionary Praxis - the real, live historical experience, combined with the critique of existing society. So, these outlines and programmes and not that baseless as some would imagine.

It is the "practical theory". By writing about libertarian communism we're not inventing workers' councils, but pointing out to them.
Good point. I wonder... if we had a better idea of what our concrete goals were, would spreading our ideas be as hard as it is? Most left organizations talk about things in very general terms and have a hard time gaining workers' trust because of this.

(PS. I see the irony of writing that after the first part of my post... :lol: )

[The Author]

Communism is beautifully efficient because, as the purest form of democracy, it is self-regulating.

How does it get to be self-regulating?


People, cities, factories, and industries are interconnected without being rigidly interdependent.And how does this infrastructure become interconnected?


They are synchronized without being stuck together. Communism will be like an adaptable organism, not a fragile machine.Slogans aside, how is communism to be seriously implemented?


You don't need a "government" to "regulate" anything.How do you manage production and distribution, then?


Just build communism from the bottom up, not the top down, and the state becomes superfluous. But how do you really go about building communism from the "bottom up"?


Most left organizations talk about things in very general terms and have a hard time gaining workers' trust because of this.It's probably because workers constantly ask questions similar to the ones I just posted, and do not get satisfactory answers. Hence they get turned off to the "far-out" ideas most of the posters in this thread have done a splendid job expressing, and show as indicative of most of these "left organizations."

[cenv]

It's probably because workers constantly ask questions similar to the ones I just posted, and do not get satisfactory answers. Hence they get turned off to the "far-out" ideas most of the posters in this thread have done a splendid job expressing, and show as indicative of most of these "left organizations."
The post you quoted was just me suggesting a way of looking at communism -- namely, that it's not a top-down, monolithic structure. I didn't write it with the goal of explaining communism to people who are new to the idea. I agree that when you're explaining communism to people who aren't familiar with it, it's good to start with concrete stuff. It probably wouldn't be good to start off explaining communism by saying "hmm, well, communism is the purist form of democracy and it's self-regulating":lol: (hence the last line of my post). Unfortunately, a lot of groups think that introducing communism that way is the best way to get our ideas across.

If you actually want me to take the time to answer those questions, I'm happy to talk about concrete ideas for what communism will look like. Maybe we should start a new thread for that.

[Lamanov]

Good point. I wonder... if we had a better idea of what our concrete goals were, would spreading our ideas be as hard as it is? Most left organizations talk about things in very general terms and have a hard time gaining workers' trust because of this.

I believe it would be easier.

I'm actually translating one of the "blueprints" and I hope it will be in print soon. I believe it will both start a constructive discussion and make our ideas more clear.

[ckaihatsu]

Good point. I wonder... if we had a better idea of what our concrete goals were, would spreading our ideas be as hard as it is? Most left organizations talk about things in very general terms and have a hard time gaining workers' trust because of this.


I'd welcome everyone to take a look at this first link here -- it's my current, standing contribution to this aim of providing a concrete model for what we're talking about.


Chris




revolutionary policy *solution* (SOCIALIST SUPPLY & DEMAND)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=275


communist economy diagram

http://tinyurl.com/bom9ca


Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy

http://tinyurl.com/5mjhhh


communist supply & demand -- Economic balance sheet

http://tinyurl.com/c6wzw9


communist supply & demand -- Political balance sheet

http://tinyurl.com/cy5ypy


Affinity Group Workflow Tracker

http://tinyurl.com/yvn2xq




--




--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

[Invincible Summer]

I'm against prospect of trade between "communes", and I'm against their "isolation". Furthermore, there will need to be degrees of "unified" activities on a wide range levels in certain sectors of economy. Take atomic energy and energetics in general, for example. These sectors will probably need wide-based regional, if not global, self-managing councils and committees for planning, coordination, etc.

International planning and coordination doesn't mean "centralization" in the statist, bureaucratic sense. Especially not in time such as our own, when communication technology exceeded our predecessors' wildest expectations.

Direct democracy and federalism can exist on a large scale, based on workers' councils, and if they do - if we avoid isolationist and proto-capitalist trends such as "trade" - we will be just fine.

Besides, what does a "small community" mean? How do cities like New York or Moscow fit into this prospect?

P.S.

If you're talking about trade, you're not talking about federalism. It's just not the same.

Could someone explain the bolded parts to me?

[ckaihatsu]

I'm against prospect of trade between "communes", and I'm against their "isolation".


I concur with DJ-TC here -- the point is that there's a hazard in being too decentralized, and in having to resort to *trading* relationships among local, decentralized entities. Simply put, the cost of decentralization is the price of formality, over and over again, among individuals. In this way the anarchist ideal is almost indistinguishable from the libertarian ideal because both models are premised on fiercely independent, autonomous ownership over small local parcels of land.

Another way of putting it is to consider the effort needed to renegotiate contracts on labor and work products, over and over again -- maybe even on a daily basis -- in order to preserve the politics of local sovereignty and decentralized autonomy. Trading relationships, too, would require far more attention and overhead than if the components were centralized under a general administration.

Corporations currently use a cascading / nested / hierarchical organizational system of departments in order to realize massive economies of scale while still being fairly responsive to local conditions (of the business). This *structure* itself -- separate from its voracious profit-reaping function -- is a better, more advanced type of organization than something flat and low-to-the-ground, as the anarchist / libertarian inclination describes. Again, this is because of *transaction costs* -- a higher-level, more regularized administration can oversee several localities and regions at once, over longer periods of time, than if the same areas had to cross-negotiate terms in a complex, interconnected system of trade over the ground.

This is *not* to say that a hierarchical structure of administration is the *best*, even if freed from the profit motive. We can only extrapolate so far, based on historical precedent, to envision a model that would be most appropriate for a post-capitalist economy / society. Certainly the physical occupation and control of the means of mass production (factories) would be paramount, but this assertion is pretty vague in terms of how to *socially organize* that overall workers' control and administration. Those in direct contact with the machinery could be considered to have the most direct interests in the machinery, but with increasing use of automation there may not even *be* a set body of workers in routine contact with the same machinery.

We also need to consider the interests of the *mass* of workers, and of society's denizens in general, freed from the oppressive class division once and for all -- perhaps we should *disallow* any one group of workers from being able to claim a special, direct relationship with the means of mass production -- a *rotational* system of labor, and of administration over labor, would be preferable here.





Direct democracy and federalism can exist on a large scale, based on workers' councils, and if they do - if we avoid isolationist and proto-capitalist trends such as "trade" - we will be just fine.


This means that the *administration* of labor ("federalism", as a shorthand) needs to be responsive to local conditions ("direct democracy", as a shorthand). My own treatment of this issue of centralization is here:


Can the value of labor be calculated?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1329498&postcount=61





If you're talking about trade, you're not talking about federalism. It's just not the same.


This means that increasing levels of social organization enables increasing degrees of generalization (like "chunking" in cognitive / psychology terms) -- think of how *inefficient* production would be by the artisan system, without the use of telegraph, phones, or the Internet -- the communication infrastructure would mirror the production and trading network -- face-to-face-only, in other words.

Communications technology enables structures of administration that are *much more* efficient than face-to-face relationships. This frees up more people's time for non-competitive, non-redundant *productive* efforts, instead of having to tend to *overhead* for the same.

In a global, mass confrontation with the forces of capital we would have to be at least as efficient and effective as corporate organizations, and hopefully far more so, due to our numbers and strength of purpose.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I think the power to organize and administer would be the same as or lead to formal authority. I think it would be very hard to maintain a perfect state of equality for long, economic or authoritative. Some people just don't care enough to be involved in community decisions.

No because the people themselves collectively decide these decisions, meaning there cannot be any authority in decision making.

[ckaihatsu]

I think the power to organize and administer would be the same as or lead to formal authority. I think it would be very hard to maintain a perfect state of equality for long, economic or authoritative. Some people just don't care enough to be involved in community decisions.





No because the people themselves collectively decide these decisions, meaning there cannot be any authority in decision making.


I guess it boils down to whether there would be direct democracy or not, and also how the "federalism" question is solved. Just as we have consistent "economic democracy" today (one dollar = one vote) under the post-feudal, but repressive, capitalist system, I think we could feasibly foresee a post-revolutionary society that would *structurally* have no interest in repressing people.

It *doesn't* come down to individual whims, or "human nature" as Miscreant is asserting. A society has an overall *economic* and *political* basis, and it's *that basis* that overwhelmingly determines the acceptable social behavior for all of us. In monarchies and Stalinist states one's behavior wouldn't be socially acceptable if one didn't "freely" express loyalty and devotion to the rulership -- under capitalism one is expected to respect private ownership above all else, even in absurd situations, as with billionaires, food that's just out of reach, or absentee landlordism.

Once a class conscious revolution has overthrown the authority of private property and freed up the machinery that produces tangible, material things of modern convenience, it would be difficult for society to revert back to a previous political system that's repressive. This is because the average person would have gotten used to a higher standard of living, and would have future expectations for the same -- this is synonymous with a certain level of political consciousness, in that the average person would openly question any possible regression, no matter what official political explanation is given, because they have seen what society is capable of.

Once the public sees the largest private owners of wealth usurped they will register in their own minds a change of consciousness that openly questions why *anyone* should be able to lay claim to pools of wealth. This revolutionary consciousness will be empowering, allowing people to feel much more at-equal with everyone else in political matters.

After a global revolution has put workers in control of the productivity of society's assets and resources the critical mass would be firmly established in perpetuity for this way of running things. Direct democracy, as Bakunin-Kropotkin mentions, would be the order of the day, because the running of the economy would, for once, make *geographical* sense -- those closest to any given machinery would have the *greatest interest* in that machinery, and in its output.

People really *wouldn't have to* care about industrial productivity, per se -- no more than the average person today has to care about matters of material infrastructure like architecture or plumbing. This is because once a society has reached a point of mastery over some aspect of material provision it is no longer difficult or controversial. Direct democracy would *be there* for anyone to involve themselves in, if they wished, or they could live lives free of concerns or anxiety over the matters of material necessity in life.

We have to dispense with the bourgeois, abstract, *academic* definitions of 'perfection' and 'equality' -- our concern as revolutionaries is not to draw up blueprints for a societal machinery that engineers *perfect political equality* among all individuals -- the point of being a revolutionary is to fight for the *freeing up* of the *means* to *materially necessary things* in modern life.

The actual politics of a post-revolution, post-capitalist society could very well be *very* messy and inconclusive for a lengthy period of time, but at least the politics would *not* legitimize private claims to power based on wealth. Just by leveling the playing field we would experience a newfound rationality and clear-mindedness in our political pursuits, no matter where we are. It would be like the whole world would be "on the same page" in terms of figuring out how to utilize stuff.





Q. What are the elements required for proletarian (workers') democracy?

A. Socialism is democratic or it is nothing. From the very first day of the socialist revolution, there must be the most democratic regime, a regime that will mean that, for the first time, all the tasks of running industry, society and the state will be in the hands of the majority of society, the working class. Through their democratically-elected committees (the soviets), directly elected at the workplace and subject to recall at any moment, the workers will be the masters of society not just in name but in fact. This was the position in Russia after the October revolution. Let us recall that Lenin laid down four basic conditions for a workers’ state—that is, for the transitional period between capitalism and socialism:

1. Free and democratic elections with right of recall of all officials.
2. No official must receive a higher wage than a skilled worker.
3. No standing army but the armed people.
4. Gradually, all the tasks of running the state should be carried out by the masses on a rotating basis. When everybody is a bureaucrat in turn, nobody is a bureaucrat. Or, as Lenin put it, "Any cook should be able to be prime minister."

http://www.newyouth.com/archives/theory/faq/elements_for_workers_democracy.asp

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I guess it boils down to whether there would be direct democracy or not, and also how the "federalism" question is solved. Just as we have consistent "economic democracy" today (one dollar = one vote) under the post-feudal, but repressive, capitalist system, I think we could feasibly foresee a post-revolutionary society that would *structurally* have no interest in repressing people.

It *doesn't* come down to individual whims, or "human nature" as Miscreant is asserting. A society has an overall *economic* and *political* basis, and it's *that basis* that overwhelmingly determines the acceptable social behavior for all of us. In monarchies and Stalinist states one's behavior wouldn't be socially acceptable if one didn't "freely" express loyalty and devotion to the rulership -- under capitalism one is expected to respect private ownership above all else, even in absurd situations, as with billionaires, food that's just out of reach, or absentee landlordism.

Once a class conscious revolution has overthrown the authority of private property and freed up the machinery that produces tangible, material things of modern convenience, it would be difficult for society to revert back to a previous political system that's repressive. This is because the average person would have gotten used to a higher standard of living, and would have future expectations for the same -- this is synonymous with a certain level of political consciousness, in that the average person would openly question any possible regression, no matter what official political explanation is given, because they have seen what society is capable of.

Once the public sees the largest private owners of wealth usurped they will register in their own minds a change of consciousness that openly questions why *anyone* should be able to lay claim to pools of wealth. This revolutionary consciousness will be empowering, allowing people to feel much more at-equal with everyone else in political matters.

After a global revolution has put workers in control of the productivity of society's assets and resources the critical mass would be firmly established in perpetuity for this way of running things. Direct democracy, as Bakunin-Kropotkin mentions, would be the order of the day, because the running of the economy would, for once, make *geographical* sense -- those closest to any given machinery would have the *greatest interest* in that machinery, and in its output.

People really *wouldn't have to* care about industrial productivity, per se -- no more than the average person today has to care about matters of material infrastructure like architecture or plumbing. This is because once a society has reached a point of mastery over some aspect of material provision it is no longer difficult or controversial. Direct democracy would *be there* for anyone to involve themselves in, if they wished, or they could live lives free of concerns or anxiety over the matters of material necessity in life.

We have to dispense with the bourgeois, abstract, *academic* definitions of 'perfection' and 'equality' -- our concern as revolutionaries is not to draw up blueprints for a societal machinery that engineers *perfect political equality* among all individuals -- the point of being a revolutionary is to fight for the *freeing up* of the *means* to *materially necessary things* in modern life.

The actual politics of a post-revolution, post-capitalist society could very well be *very* messy and inconclusive for a lengthy period of time, but at least the politics would *not* legitimize private claims to power based on wealth. Just by leveling the playing field we would experience a newfound rationality and clear-mindedness in our political pursuits, no matter where we are. It would be like the whole world would be "on the same page" in terms of figuring out how to utilize stuff.

Brilliant post comrade. A brilliant analysis. Mascreant's points have no real substance as Mascreant does not seem to understand how the post revolutionary society will organise. As the workers will realise the benefits of this communist society and they will be in direct control of the means of production they will feel it necessary to participate in decisions that affect them, the same with others elsewhere, and everywhere. Because each person will decide on the decisions that affect them, this could be different for every single person.

[marxistcritic]

I think that it is not pointless to discuss such things. Besides, if it's so pointless, how come you are doing it? Communism is only possible on a large scale because the goal of Karl Marx was to have world-wide revolution.

[ckaihatsu]

I just addressed the "federalism" issue at this post:


Art in a Communist society

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1434880&postcount=70