After communism???

[A.R.Amistad]

I'm going to be brief but I hope to generate deep discussion. Theoretically, after socialism transitions to communism, will there be another system in the far future that will supersede communism as well??? While I am a devoted communist, I don't want to make the mistake that communism will be the end all be all of humanity, because most scientists seem to think we have a decent billion years of survival left.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It is likely that events will not pan out as we theorise they will. The only reason for a new system is because of the enlightenment, in the mind of people, that the system operating in the present is flawed enough beyond acceptance.

[bricolage]

Communism isn't meant to be the end of history just the point at which class struggle ceases to be the driving force of change.

'The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles'

Communism is meant to be the end of this, however it aint Fukuyama.

Although to be honest if we go by what a lot of the left subscribe to we'll need a, for example, feminist revolution, an ecological revolution or a queer revolution (even an anti-speciesist revolution:)) long after a communist revolution. However I base this on the ends justifies the means mentality of a lot of socialists/communists/anarchists, ignoring other forms of hierarchy that cannot simply be reduced to class struggle. Which is why it might be worth saying we are not just fighting for communism (a stateless, classless society), we are fighting for something much more.

[New Tet]

I don't want to kill this thread (you can't kill the stillborn), but what's the point in speculating about something like "what supersedes communism" if we haven't even reached communism itself?

This is worse, I think, than a little kid sitting in the back seat of a car constantly asking "are we there yet?"

Get real, fellas; we have to actually get there before we can tell.

[bricolage]

I don't want to kill this thread (you can't kill the stillborn), but what's the point in speculating about something like "what supersedes communism" if we haven't even reached communism itself?

This is worse, I think, than a little kid sitting in the back seat of a car constantly asking "are we there yet?"

Get real, fellas; we have to actually get there before we can tell.

I think it is relevant if I follow on from my argument in my last post. When Marx (and others) spoke about communism it was in terms of it being the end of class struggle, in that respect communism is just the point at which class differences and class hierarchies cease to exist. If you take that line of thought and just reduce everything to reaching communism you are ignoring other, non class, differences that exist, so as I said gender differences or white privilege, for example would likely still exist. Therefore if you see communists as subscribing the communism as it's been laid out above then it is fair to say that if we reach this conception of communism, future change will be a necessity in order to challenge other forms of hierarchy and oppression. This is why I think it's better to see the struggle for communism as one part of a larger struggle, the struggle towards the abolition all forms of hierarchy, exploitation, oppression and alienation. The concrete fact that sexism, homophobia, racism are all still prominent amongst the left I feel validates this. So talking about change after communism, what it will be, whether communism will take care of it, directly impacts the strategy in the present, ultimately it is a necessity it ensuring that the means do not become reduced to a path to the end, absolving all responsibility for unjust practices entailed in them, especially if the end is not really an end in itself anyway.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think it is relevant if I follow on from my argument in my last post. When Marx (and others) spoke about communism it was in terms of it being the end of class struggle, in that respect communism is just the point at which class differences and class hierarchies cease to exist. If you take that line of thought and just reduce everything to reaching communism you are ignoring other, non class, differences that exist, so as I said gender differences or white privilege, for example would likely still exist. Therefore if you see communists as subscribing the communism as it's been laid out above then it is fair to say that if we reach this conception of communism, future change will be a necessity in order to challenge other forms of hierarchy and oppression. This is why I think it's better to see the struggle for communism as one part of a larger struggle, the struggle towards the abolition all forms of hierarchy, exploitation, oppression and alienation. The concrete fact that sexism, homophobia, racism are all still prominent amongst the left I feel validates this. So talking about change after communism, what it will be, whether communism will take care of it, directly impacts the strategy in the present, ultimately it is a necessity it ensuring that the means do not become reduced to a path to the end, absolving all responsibility for unjust practices entailed in them, especially if the end is not really an end in itself anyway.

Well, while I think these things will remain for at least the early stages in a transition away from capitalism and class society, I don't think communism can exist while systematic oppression remains.

I think it comes down to a question of where these kinds of oppression come from. If, as I do, you believe that these oppressions are created by the competition in capitalism as well as direct attempts to oppress certain groups or divide the working class by minority ruling classes in order to maintain their rule over the majority, then these problems will need to be gone by in order to reach a classless stateless society.

Also, a revolution won't be possible unless the divisions among workers are significantly overcome. You can't have a working class revolution with only men, 49% percent of the working class. You can't have solidarity and therefore a working class revolution if racism goes unchallenged (hell you can't even organize an effective union in a racist atmosphere). But yes, in the immediate aftermath of a revolution, there will still be a lot of old prejudices that hang on. I think the primary goal immediately after the revolution would be to get rid of all the remaining inequalities of capitalism: free and continuing education, development of poor regions, and the aggressive elimination of any remaining racism, sexism and so on.

As to the OP: I don't think we can know what changes will happen after the elimination of classes and states. Just as people living in primitive communism would not have been able to conceive of what a class society would look like, let alone how it would change over the ages, I don't think we can guess what changes will happen when the present conditions and functioning of society have been transformed. The only thing that I'm certain about is that there will continue to be changes even after class society is done away with.

[New Tet]

I think it is relevant if I follow on from my argument in my last post. When Marx (and others) spoke about communism it was in terms of it being the end of class struggle...

The "end of class struggle" will not signify the end of history and I seriously doubt you'll find anything written or spoken by Marx, etc., that makes that assumption.


in that respect communism is just the point at which class differences and class hierarchies cease to exist.

More precisely, the end of social classes based on their economic relationships to the means of production.



If you take that line of thought and just reduce everything to reaching communism you are ignoring other, non class, differences that exist, so as I said gender differences or white privilege, for example would likely still exist.

Upon what basis would these "non-class differences" continue to exist if, as we believe, they are supported or created by the economic divisions that exist under class-ruled society?

BTW, "gender differences", as I understand them, are based on our common biological circumstance.


Therefore if you see communists as subscribing the communism as it's been laid out above then it is fair to say that if we reach this conception of communism, future change will be a necessity in order to challenge other forms of hierarchy and oppression.

Again, which "forms of hierarchy and oppression", besides "gender differences" did you have in mind as not dependent on economic relations?


This is why I think it's better to see the struggle for communism as one part of a larger struggle, the struggle towards the abolition all forms of hierarchy, exploitation, oppression and alienation.

As I think I pointed out elsewhere (in another thread), hierarchy is neither good nor bad. It is simply the system/s by which we categorize things according to their relative importance, one to the other.


The concrete fact that sexism, homophobia, racism are all still prominent amongst the left I feel validates this.

This would be a valid point IF we had already reached an advanced stage of communism and those problems persisted. But in reality we, as socialists, are still operating within the confines of capitalist class rule and class-divided society. You cannot expect us to have entirely freed ourselves of our petty prejudices if we have not abolished the system that creates and perpetuates them. It's just too much to ask, my friend.

So, no, the fact that most socialists like myself are not entirely free from oppressive ideology is no reason to presume that under socialism it will be the same.



So talking about change after communism, what it will be, whether communism will take care of it, directly impacts the strategy in the present, ultimately it is a necessity it ensuring that the means do not become reduced to a path to the end, absolving all responsibility for unjust practices entailed in them, especially if the end is not really an end in itself anyway.

You may be right but, as I say, we haven't got there yet. Let's get there first and then fight it out if necessary.

[IrishWorker]

I'm going to be brief but I hope to generate deep discussion. Theoretically, after socialism transitions to communism, will there be another system in the far future that will supersede communism as well??? While I am a devoted communist, I don't want to make the mistake that communism will be the end all be all of humanity, because most scientists seem to think we have a decent billion years of survival left.

After Communism?

When we look at communism as an evolutionary step it is inevitable that our species will evolve further.

Your guess is as good as mine as to what is coming?

[bricolage]

The "end of class struggle" will not signify the end of history and I seriously doubt you'll find anything written or spoken by Marx, etc., that makes that assumption.

Where did I ever say it was the end of history? In fact I said the exact opposite in my first post;


Communism isn't meant to be the end of history just the point at which class struggle ceases to be the driving force of change.
More precisely, the end of social classes based on their economic relationships to the means of production.Agreed.


Upon what basis would these "non-class differences" continue to exist if, as we believe, they are supported or created by the economic divisions that exist under class-ruled society?It's tricky, while these differences exist under capitalism it's also true they existed before hand too, patriarchy for example long preceeds the birth of capitalism, what's to say it won't continue after it too?


BTW, "gender differences", as I understand them, are based on our common biological circumstance.I was talking about gender as a social construct, I think this argument has been played out here many times before.


Again, which "forms of hierarchy and oppression", besides "gender differences" did you have in mind as not dependent on economic relations?White privelige? Homophobia? Like I said while in their present forms they are heavily linked to capitalism they could quite conceivably exist beyond it and this doesn't just refer to killing gays or enslaving blacks, it's the discourse and micropolitics of oppression that are embedded in everyday life. Until you can identify and expose these, supposedly neutral, forms of oppression they will be replicated in a post-revolutionary situation.


As I think I pointed out elsewhere (in another thread), hierarchy is neither good nor bad. It is simply the system/s by which we categorize things according to their relative importance, one to the other.Well I wouldn't say I'm an expert on this and I haven't seen your previous posts on this, however if we take a dictionary defintion as;


any system of persons or things ranked one above another.

In terms of political authority this does convey a specific meaning.


You cannot expect us to have entirely freed ourselves of our petty prejudices if we have not abolished the system that creates and perpetuates them. It's just too much to ask, my friend.Yeah I agree but at the same time we can still make it a task to identify points of oppression and what we would do to ensure they do not persist in a post-revolutionary situation. I think also the fact that much of the left, in terms of these 'petty prejudices' is just as discriminatory as those who are attacked as oppressers speaks volumes, I've met sexist anarchists, homophobic socialists etc etc, however these issues are often just brushed under the carpet with the idea of 'let's leave it for now, they'll be sorted out under communism' or, no offence intended, a comment such as...


Let's get there first and then fight it out if necessary.I think we have to say it is necessary to actively combat these things in the present so we can say it won't be necessary (to the extent that it would be now) post-revolution. Not that people aren't actually doing this but we you get anti-feminist communists I do begin to worry.

[Red Saxon]

When there comes a time when there is no more need to work, and human production becomes unnecessary on any scale, that's the life after Communism.

Ex. Our minds put into robots? :P

[Comrade Martin]

Communism is not the "end of history" in any "pie in the sky" sense... There will still be problems, shortages, catastrophes - the point is that they will be handled differently.

There will still be debates, arguments, even fights (some violent, some deadly) - the point is that they will be over different things than today, and will end "better" than most seem to do today...

And most importantly... I expect there to be much fewer of these incidents.

Barring some catastrophic event, I expect little if anything to change fundamentally from the first few decades in unless a material basis forms for such a change. Communism, a society of material abundance, has no such basis - or even the makings of one.

I'm reminded of a scene from the T.V series Star Trek: The Next Generation where Jean-Luc Picard goes back to his native village in France and is confronted by his nephew, shotuing: "Good lord, a highwayman! ...There hasn't been one reported in this vicinity for centuries!"

Kinda like that.