View Full Version : What does it mean to be a Communist?
MarxSchmarx
26th July 2009, 07:44
What does it mean, to you personally, to be a Communist?
i.e., someone who is not "merely a leftist" or a "socialist", but a full-fledged, capital C "Communist"?
After all, in many countries "Communist" is synonymous with some kind of Leninist. Which is totally cool, but why your brand of Leninism as opposed to, a non-leninist world view?
Or, why do some anarchists insist on the qualifier "anarcho" before calling themselves communists?
And, for the many self-identified but unaffiliatedd communists, why do you consider yourself, specifically, "a communist"?
Just curious and thanks!! :/
shadowmare
26th July 2009, 08:00
To me personally, It means TRUE equality among the masses. It means that political and religious attempts to divide people (Political parties, Religions, Race, etc) do not matter to me. I do not see a "White" man, a "Hispanic" man, an "Asian" man, nor a "Black" man... I just see a man, woman or child living the same lifestyle I am. Trying to feed and protect their family.
It means I ignore the Fascist paranoia about "Race mixing" and immigration and have accepted the fact that whatever happens will happen and it will be the doing of humanity as a whole. Perhaps some day in the far future we really all be one "race" and can finally put that silly card behind us for good
To me it means that a government is TRULY run for the people, not the corporations that fund its endeavors. There is no such thing as an upper class, nor a lower class. There is just the worker. In schools and Universities, there will be much more focus on Science, Mathematics, History, and Art.
It means that more money will be spent on Hospitals, Schools and Prisons. Rather then Churches or Mosques. And that if (By some far off reason) there really is a god, he will accept the fact that we worked harder to make its creation a better place for all. With free healthcare, no national draft during wartime, and no corporate influence in world affairs.
It also means that our chosen member of parliament will not start a cult of personality in his or her honor.
Also, on a more personal level... There will be no inheritence of more then 1 Million dollars allowed to the next of kin, as to avoid the youth mooching off the success of their parents or elders while contributing nothing worthwile to society (No more Paris Hiltons). Any more then that would go to the government which would in turn be spent on furthering the infrastructure and paying doctors, teachers and scientists
That... is my PERSONAL view of Communism, and why I believe that a true Utopia can only be achieved if ALL have the chance to live it
To me it means that a government is TRULY run for the people, not the corporations that fund its endeavors. There is no such thing as an upper class, nor a lower class...
It also means that our chosen member of parliament will not start a cult of personality in his or her honor...
Also, on a more personal level... There will be no inheritence of more then 1 Million dollars allowed to the next of kin, as to avoid the youth mooching off the success of their parents or elders while contributing nothing worthwile to society (No more Paris Hiltons).
That's communism? Basically the same capitalism we know now, but called social democracy.
Being a communist means believing in communism, a classless (anarchist), moneyless society. It has nothing to do with Lenin, Stalin, Social democracy or anarcho-capitalism.
ComradeOm
26th July 2009, 11:24
I'm a Marxist simply because that's the framework that most fits with my experiences. You go out onto the factory floor and you can see class divisions in their purest form. Carrying this analysis onto the rest of society... well that's what Marxism is all about. It explains how society works and why we desperately need to change that. It just makes sense, I don't know how to put it any other way
I'm a communist because I identify with the long socialist and labour tradition that stretches back to the 19th C. I'm a Leninist because I think that Lenin made a number of major contributions to Marxist thought and revolutionary practice. I'm not a Trot or a Stalinist because I can't be arsed to make a shrine for either figure and I'm not a Communist because I've never been a member of an official CP
As for other currents: I'm not an anarchist because I'm a Marxist (obviously). I'm not a left communist, council communist, etc, because I have profound disagreements with their strategies and outlooks. That should be everything
I insist on having anarcho before communism because basically im an Anarchist first, and then a communist, and thats because Anarchism has to be achieved first, and then communism will complete it.
Anarchism is the ideology, is the organization method, is the idea on how to get there, when Communism is simply the economical organization of communes in Anarchism.Besides as you said Communism and when you say it to describe yourself, it usually links those people with M-L.
What does it mean for me be a communist?Hmm, i dont know if it means anything tbh.It basically seems the "best way to go".
Fuserg9:star:
NecroCommie
26th July 2009, 17:30
That's communism? Basically the same capitalism we know now, but called social democracy.
Being a communist means believing in communism, a classless (anarchist), moneyless society. It has nothing to do with Lenin, Stalin, Social democracy or anarcho-capitalism.
Whereas I neither would call shadowmere's description communist, I have the politeness to acknowledge his oppinion. Anarcho-communism is no more a "truth" than Maoism until proven otherwise.
Please let him state a simple oppinion without turning it into a tendency war.
As for me, I emphasixe class war above all. Being a communist is to emphasize the inevitable class war, and to side with the working class. A true communist steers all effort and energy to smite the class tyranny of capitalism.
ArrowLance
26th July 2009, 21:37
That's communism? Basically the same capitalism we know now, but called social democracy.
Being a communist means believing in communism, a classless (anarchist), moneyless society. It has nothing to do with Lenin, Stalin, Social democracy or anarcho-capitalism.
What do you mean? It has EVERYTHING to do with Lenin and Stalin!
But no, really, I guess there has never been REAL COMMUNISM^tm before huh?
Instead of explaining the differences between your view and anyone elses, you just say their view isn't communistic in nature. That's just lazy and dishonest.
Hit The North
27th July 2009, 00:44
Anarchism is the ideology,
The ideology of what?
is the organization method,
What is the organization method of anarchism?
is the idea on how to get there,
Can we get there with an idea?
Whereas I neither would call shadowmere's description communist, I have the politeness to acknowledge his oppinion. Anarcho-communism is no more a "truth" than Maoism until proven otherwise.
Please let him state a simple oppinion without turning it into a tendency war.
As for me, I emphasixe class war above all. Being a communist is to emphasize the inevitable class war, and to side with the working class. A true communist steers all effort and energy to smite the class tyranny of capitalism.
That means capitalism is just as close to communism too? And yes Stalinism/Maoism has degenerated (if it wasn't by design) into a totalitarist, even more hierarchical that capitalism itself society. There were those who ruled and those who were ruled, not much different from what we now call capitalism. Stalin was a greater imperialist that Hitler himself, and his criminal system, that killed millions, only shows that freedom can't be achieved through dictatorship.
Class war? What you don't understand is that WE sustain class struggle. I've said this a million times: the state and the capitalists have a single power: to give orders; and this power is given to them because we obey them. They don't fire guns, they order people like us to fire, they don't kill people, they order those like us to do it. And WE obey these orders. The cause of class struggle is OUR ignorance. That's why for me is far more important to wake up people than whine about how exploited we are.
What do you mean? It has EVERYTHING to do with Lenin and Stalin!
But no, really, I guess there has never been REAL COMMUNISM^tm before huh?
Instead of explaining the differences between your view and anyone elses, you just say their view isn't communistic in nature. That's just lazy and dishonest.
There's nothing communist (=freedom, equity) in Stalinism. I live in Romania and although I haven't quite lived during the 'communist' years I know enough from those who did (like my parents) to know better that praise a criminal system that considers itself socialist (the same way capitalist considers itself democratic).
*Viva La Revolucion*
27th July 2009, 16:22
To me, communism means many different things, including:
Trying to achieve a completely classless, egalitarian society in which there would be no separation between races and nationalities.
The fight against capitalism
There would be no such thing as high or low social status.
It also means a secular society where religion would be a personal matter and would not interfere with education or the law.
It means that the majority would have power, not the elite minority that currently control the masses.
Workers wouldn't just be seen as expendable tools in an impersonal corporation; therefore they would actually care about their work and would be given better conditions and more freedom.
Universal free healthcare, improved public education for adults as well as children.
A welfare system to support struggling people.
Collective farming and factories would replace the current system.
It means believing in an intermediate stage - socialism - as a bridge between capitalism and communism.
No private property.
The reallocation of property so that it is fairer, no 'property market' or 'property ladder'. People would be concerned with homes, not profits or losses.
Common ownership and workers taking control of the means of production.
Production for need instead of profit.
No totalitarianism or fascism.
Either no inheritance or restrictions of the amount of money inherited.
Introduction of a maximum wage as well as a minimum wage
No income gap
Not necessarily the abolition of the family, but the breakdown of such rigid social structures and the ability to choose from a variety of living/relationship arrangements. Not living in a society where everyone is fed the myth of the ‘perfect family’.
Increased spending on medicine and science and social projects.
Limited immigration controls, or none at all.
Possibly the eventual scrapping of money
Though I wouldn't put these things under the heading 'communism' I would also like to include: respecting nature and trying our best to protect it and keep our manufacturing processes sustainable It means speaking out for the person without a voice. It means democracy. It means at least attempting to prevent wars and making sure nobody is forced into a war or an army. No censorship or book banning and burning, no indoctrination, freedom to say whatever you want and to protest without being tortured, killed or imprisoned. No death penalty, the right to choose to die, the right to abort a pregnancy, the right to have as many partners as you choose. Abolition of the monarchy in the UK (please!) Economic equality would probably come first, but that equality would also extend to issues of gender and sexual orientation.
There. That's the long, idealistic, personal answer.
The ideology of what?
What is the organization method of anarchism?
Can we get there with an idea?
Do you really want me to reply, or you are just try to make the smart?
Fuserg9:star:
The fight against capitalism
Stalinists claim they are against capitalism. So do fascists.
It means that the majority would have power, not the elite minority that currently control the masses.
Yes, but would the majority have power over the minority? I hope not.
Workers wouldn't just be seen as expendable tools in an impersonal corporation; therefore they would actually care about their work and would be given better conditions and more freedom.
By whom?
A welfare system to support struggling people.
You mean a welfare state? Social-democracy (capitalism that is?)
Either no inheritance or restrictions of the amount of money inherited.
What can one inherit if there is no private property and (in communism) no money?
Though I wouldn't put these things under the heading 'communism' I would also like to include: respecting nature and trying our best to protect it and keep our manufacturing processes sustainable It means speaking out for the person without a voice. It means democracy. It means at least attempting to prevent wars and making sure nobody is forced into a war or an army. No censorship or book banning and burning, no indoctrination, freedom to say whatever you want and to protest without being tortured, killed or imprisoned. No death penalty, the right to choose to die, the right to abort a pregnancy, the right to have as many partners as you choose. Abolition of the monarchy in the UK (please!) Economic equality would probably come first, but that equality would also extend to issues of gender and sexual orientation.
There. That's the long, idealistic, personal answer.
And quite reformist indeed.
*Viva La Revolucion*
27th July 2009, 18:31
1. Exactly. They claim they are against capitalism. It doesn't mean that they are.
2. No the workers would not have power over the minority.
3. What do you mean? Who would give the workers more freedom? The people who are employing them (and I'm talking about the stage before true communism).
4. No, not capitalism. There has to be some sort of system in place to support ordinary people who are struggling in some way or another. Is that social democracy??
5. Again, I'm talking about the stage between capitalism and communism. I don't believe that there will be an overnight change and suddenly people will stop using money, and that's why I included the views on inheritance.
6. Reformist? What's actually wrong with being reformist? This is a genuine question - I'm still learning and I've been meaning to ask for a while now?
The Ungovernable Farce
27th July 2009, 19:47
After all, in many countries "Communist" is synonymous with some kind of Leninist. Which is totally cool, but why your brand of Leninism as opposed to, a non-leninist world view?
Or, why do some anarchists insist on the qualifier "anarcho" before calling themselves communists?
Doesn't that first statement answer your second question? The Stalinist brands of Leninism were very successful in equating the word "communism" with their ideas, and the results were dreadful. We use the word "anarcho-" because we have extreme disagreements with other self-proclaimed "communists". I would say that being a communist means not being a Leninist, but I'm guessing that not many people here would accept that. ;)
1. Exactly. They claim they are against capitalism. It doesn't mean that they are.
2. No the workers would not have power over the minority.
3. What do you mean? Who would give the workers more freedom? The people who are employing them (and I'm talking about the stage before true communism).
4. No, not capitalism. There has to be some sort of system in place to support ordinary people who are struggling in some way or another. Is that social democracy??
5. Again, I'm talking about the stage between capitalism and communism. I don't believe that there will be an overnight change and suddenly people will stop using money, and that's why I included the views on inheritance.
6. Reformist? What's actually wrong with being reformist? This is a genuine question - I'm still learning and I've been meaning to ask for a while now?
1. That's why I always say Lenin wan't much of a communist.
3. Who is employing them? That is the question. Will we liberate the people by changing their masters?
4. If it's ruled by a minority, then what have we achieved?
5. The stage between capitalism and communism is a free society, not another society ruled by people thirsty of power.
6. Reforms can't bring about anarchy. You can't reform capitalism to a free society. You need to build a free society bottom-up.
Doesn't that first statement answer your second question? The Stalinist brands of Leninism were very successful in equating the word "communism" with their ideas, and the results were dreadful. We use the word "anarcho-" because we have extreme disagreements with other self-proclaimed "communists". I would say that being a communist means not being a Leninist, but I'm guessing that not many people here would accept that. ;)
Since the Anarchist group is the biggest on revleft, I believe most would.
ArrowLance
27th July 2009, 21:27
Stalinists claim they are against capitalism. So do fascists.
And in their own way, they both are. Fascism in a deluded way i don't agree with. And 'Stalinism' in a way I DO agree with.
Yes, but would the majority have power over the minority? I hope not.
So would you rather have it the other way around? I HOPE NOT! Not much other choice.
And in their own way, they both are. Fascism in a deluded way i don't agree with. And 'Stalinism' in a way I DO agree with.
Yes but claiming you are against capitalism doesn't say much.
So would you rather have it the other way around? I HOPE NOT! Not much other choice.
How about if nobody rules over nobody.
Edit: *Viva La Revolucion* you have identified the problems that we all see. What's more difficult is finding the solution and the way to achieve it.
Bright Banana Beard
27th July 2009, 23:31
Yes but claiming you are against capitalism doesn't say much. The same goes for you.
How about if nobody rules over nobody. How does that work? There will always be a ruling class. The workers should rule the society, not the rich class.
Hit The North
27th July 2009, 23:32
Do you really want me to reply
Fuserg9:star:
Yes, please. :)
Rjevan
27th July 2009, 23:33
For me communism is best described with liberté, égalité, fraternité.
Communism means to me a society where everybody is truly free and equal, where no more social injustice exists. The capitalist-built borderes between the proletariat like race, gender, nationality and religion exist no more.
It is like shadowmare said, I don't run around and think shit like "Oh, a Chinese, never liked them, they steal our jobs and ruin our economy. Ah, there's my schoolmate Peter... he's black!" or beliveve in vicious stereotypes like "Kaum in Polen, schon bestohlen." (Just arrived in Poland already robbed) which are set up by the capitalists in order to divide us and make us turn aganist our comrades while the ruling class is on the safe side and has nothing to fear. For me people are not the Arabs, the Africans and the Asians, for me they are humans, workers, individuals, comrades, people like you and me. And there is no such thing as national borders which divide people; the proletariat has no fatherland, it is international (kudos to Marx ;))! Patriotism and national chauvinism are perverted tools of the imperialists, why on earth is there any reason that I should be proud about my country, I did nothing to contribute to its "former glory" and I didn't choose to be born here.
The same for sexism, homophobia and all other forms of discrimination, they must end and people have to realise how ridiculous it is to judge people from their gender or their sexual prefernces or whatever.
I firmly believe in class struggle and support the workers in their fight against their oppressors. Capitalism is a degenerated vicious system which is inhumane, built on personal egoism, ruthelessness and carelessness for others and their rights and fascism is its last stage, where all the nasty elements become finnally obvious for everybody: hate, intolerance, egoism, racism, chauvinism, hierarchism, militarism and imperialism and opression on its finest.
Therefore capitalism must be destroyed and the only alternative for a better world is communism. Workers have to take over the means of production. All people are equal in every aspect. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." (Karl Marx)
No more social injustice, no more capitalists who almost drown in their money and know nothing better than spending it on a poodle barber or their 5th luxus villa while people die of hunger and have no home otherwhere. Free and equal education, housing, healthcare and welfare for everybody!
I oppose all religions since they blind people and hold them down, tell them lies and exploit them. They promise a better "life after death", hindering people actively to achieve a better life in this world, they opress them and support the capitalists and the ruling class this way, they promote intolerance and hate, no matter how often they emphatise that they stand for mercy and love and they caused terribel suffering in history and still cause it now. If people want to belive in a god personally well, if they have to. But as soon as religion gets hierarchical and starts to harm people it must be crushed.
I am a Marxist-Leninist, I subscribe to Marx's, Engels' Lenin's and Stalin's theories (and others), I acknowledge that a vanguard party and socialism as a step before communism are necessary in order to achieve communism and I see the USSR as a not perfect but all in all very well developing socialist state till the middle of the 1950s. I reject Trotskyism and most left communist ideas because I think they are unrealistic, utopistic and/or simply false in my opinion, the same applys for Anarchism. But I also see that we have one common goal and that we have to work together so that the reactionaries are not the laughing third while we are inedulging in our tendency wars and sectarianism.
These are my personal beliefs and the reason why I'm a communist: I live the way I described above, communist theories fit perfectly for me and helped me very much to see things from a different point of view and to develope my character, I see it as the only healthy and right way for me but foremost for humanity. I refuse to believe that there is no other way than the current capitalist system, I refuse to adjust and arrange with this through and through unjust and inhumane system and I don't think that my views are utopian, they can be achieved and they must be achieved!
NecroCommie
28th July 2009, 11:18
That means capitalism is just as close to communism too? And yes Stalinism/Maoism has degenerated (if it wasn't by design) into a totalitarist, even more hierarchical that capitalism itself society. There were those who ruled and those who were ruled, not much different from what we now call capitalism. Stalin was a greater imperialist that Hitler himself, and his criminal system, that killed millions, only shows that freedom can't be achieved through dictatorship.
Class war? What you don't understand is that WE sustain class struggle. I've said this a million times: the state and the capitalists have a single power: to give orders; and this power is given to them because we obey them. They don't fire guns, they order people like us to fire, they don't kill people, they order those like us to do it. And WE obey these orders. The cause of class struggle is OUR ignorance. That's why for me is far more important to wake up people than whine about how exploited we are.
Typical anarchist... :rolleyes:
The equation of anarchism with maoism was to wake some humility in you. When you get furious about this dudes statist ideas, do remember that he propably gets just as furious about yours. He just is polite enough not to ***** you about it on every turn possible.
And about class war: What the fuck! First of all, your points are completely irrelevant when commenting about my post. I said simply: "In my oppinion the defining quality of a communist is the will to fight for the working class and against the ruling class..." To which you reply: "A-ha! but does not class struggle originate in our obedience?!" :confused: Catch my confusion?
Besides, class rule of the capitalist is helped by obedience, not created by obedience. Class struggle exists due to private ownership of the means of production.
Typical anarchist... :rolleyes:
The equation of anarchism with maoism was to wake some humility in you. When you get furious about this dudes statist ideas, do remember that he propably gets just as furious about yours. He just is polite enough not to ***** you about it on every turn possible.
And about class war: What the fuck! First of all, your points are completely irrelevant when commenting about my post. I said simply: "In my oppinion the defining quality of a communist is the will to fight for the working class and against the ruling class..." To which you reply: "A-ha! but does not class struggle originate in our obedience?!" :confused: Catch my confusion?
Besides, class rule of the capitalist is helped by obedience, not created by obedience. Class struggle exists due to private ownership of the means of production.
Which we allow and fight each other to defend it. And yes it has much to do with your comment; the problem with overemphasizing class war is that it leads to the belief that we need some masters, smarter than we dumb people, in order to win (a.k.a marxism). Their power is in our obedience, without it they would be helpless.
The same goes for you.
I never claimed I am against capitalism as my sole belief.
For me communism is best described with liberté, égalité, fraternité...
I am a Marxist-Leninist, I subscribe to Marx's, Engels' Lenin's and Stalin's theories...
Do you believe in liberté, égalité, fraternité, or are you a stalinist? Make up your mind :laugh:
robbo203
28th July 2009, 12:02
Its quite simple really. Communism means a moneyless wageless classless system of a society without a state or a market. Socialism neans exactly the same thing or did until friggin Lenin and co twisted the meaning of the word to suit his state capitalist agenda....
Anyone who advocates any kind of society that falls short of this is not a communist in my opinion and effectively those who advocate a so called "transitional society" fall into this category as well. There is no such thing as a transitional society any more than you can be a little bit pregnant. You either have communism or capitalism. There is nothing in between and that is why Marx called the communist revolution the most "radical rupture" with traditional property relations
NecroCommie
28th July 2009, 13:25
the problem with overemphasizing class war is that it leads to the belief that we need some masters, smarter than we dumb people, in order to win (a.k.a marxism).
This part does not follow any conventional logic whatsoever.
rednordman
28th July 2009, 13:31
I'm a Marxist simply because that's the framework that most fits with my experiences. You go out onto the factory floor and you can see class divisions in their purest form. Carrying this analysis onto the rest of society... well that's what Marxism is all about. It explains how society works and why we desperately need to change that. It just makes sense, I don't know how to put it any other way
I'm a communist because I identify with the long socialist and labour tradition that stretches back to the 19th C. I'm a Leninist because I think that Lenin made a number of major contributions to Marxist thought and revolutionary practice. I'm not a Trot or a Stalinist because I can't be arsed to make a shrine for either figure and I'm not a Communist because I've never been a member of an official CP
As for other currents: I'm not an anarchist because I'm a Marxist (obviously). I'm not a left communist, council communist, etc, because I have profound disagreements with their strategies and outlooks. That should be everythingThis and the fact that i do not believe that the poor should be punished simply for being poor.
This part does not follow any conventional logic whatsoever.
:confused: Overemphasizing class war means believing that people can't do anything without a vanguard party. Isn't this what you believe in?
NecroCommie
28th July 2009, 13:37
no
ZeroNowhere
28th July 2009, 23:41
:confused: Overemphasizing class war means believing that people can't do anything without a vanguard party. Isn't this what you believe in?
I do not see how the hell 'overemphasizing' class struggle means believing that people can't do anything without a vanguard party. The only way I could see somebody overemphasizing class struggle is when it comes to spontaneism, which generally does not support 'vanguard parties'.
I do not see how the hell 'overemphasizing' class struggle means believing that people can't do anything without a vanguard party. The only way I could see somebody overemphasizing class struggle is when it comes to spontaneism, which generally does not support 'vanguard parties'.
For a long time after the revolution the exploiters inevitably continue to retain a number of great practical advantages: they still have money (since it is impossible to abolish money all at once); some movable property—often fairly considerable; they still have various connections, habits of organisation and management; knowledge of all the “secrets” (customs, methods, means and possibilities) of management; superior education; close connections with the higher technical personnel (who live arid think like the bourgeoisie); incomparably greater experience in the art of war (this is very important), and so on and so forth.
...
The transition from capitalism to communism takes an entire historical epoch. Until this epoch is over, the exploiters inevitably cherish the hope of restoration, and this hope turns into attempts at restoration.
By our dear comrade, Lenin.
robbo203
30th July 2009, 12:18
For a long time after the revolution the exploiters inevitably continue to retain a number of great practical advantages: they still have money (since it is impossible to abolish money all at once); some movable property—often fairly considerable; they still have various connections, habits of organisation and management; knowledge of all the “secrets” (customs, methods, means and possibilities) of management; superior education; close connections with the higher technical personnel (who live arid think like the bourgeoisie); incomparably greater experience in the art of war (this is very important), and so on and so forth.
...
The transition from capitalism to communism takes an entire historical epoch. Until this epoch is over, the exploiters inevitably cherish the hope of restoration, and this hope turns into attempts at restoration.
By our dear comrade, Lenin.
How the hell did Lenin think he could square this little circle? If you still have capitalists, money and so forth you still have to accomplish a socialist revolution. What Lenin is decribing is a situation in which a socialist revolution has not yet happened. What a truly muddled thinker he was!
The Ungovernable Farce
30th July 2009, 14:31
By our dear comrade, Lenin.
Class struggle =/= Leninism.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.