Questions?

[Cuba]

I have a few questions, can anyone help me? I am very new to this, but want to learn.

My questions are:
1) Where has communism worked before the USSR?
2) What about human nature, does communisium take this into account?
3)Why did the 1905 Revolution fail yet Lenin's 1917 revolution win?
4)How will workers prevent the former bourgeoisie (correct use of the word??) from coming back to power?
5) What would a genuine classless, communist society be like?
6) I always hear that communism is dull and dreary. Is this true or will it be the perfect society?

[Cuba]

Please someone help me. It is illegal for me to ask questions on a Malay Forum and no communist books are allowed into the country. They tried to have a communist rise many years ago but since it didnt work well they now banned them. You are my only hope

[Luisrah]

Well, I won't answer all you questions because I can't, but I'll answer some.

1) First, communism didn't work in the USSR, the only thing you can argue is that socialism worked or not (socialism is the society created after the workers overthrow the bourgeoisie, but the conditions for communism aren't there yet)
So no, comunism has never existed like we want it now (since communism needs to be global for it to succeed)

2) There is no such thing as a defined human nature. Humans can be educated to be whatever you like. If you make them read tons of science books when they're young, they'll like science later on. If you constantly tell them that people are like objects one should use to be powerful, that's the way they'll think. Heck, if you let them with a group of wolves, he will turn into a wolf and bark and whatever.

So human nature depends on each human's education. In today's society, people are told (or atleast the ''successful people'' were told) to trample everyone to get what they want, and since the world economy is about as stable as my grandmother when I push her, then no wonder why people save up money and are afraid of losing it and stop having a home or medicine.

Plus, when those guys that say ''communism can't work because of human nature, we are greedy and are made to compete'', they never remember that more intelligent life forms thought (and well) of joining forces to kill their prey, like wolves.

4) That depends on the tendency of the communist/anarchist. Ones will say that (apparently, due to what they think it should be) there is no danger, others will say there should be parliamentary debate, and others say that the bourgeoisie should be kept away from power through more severe ways.
But in general, the thought is that the workers must become the dominant class, just like the bourgeoisie is now. Right now, a revolution is hard, because as soon as you started getting ideas, your attempts would be foiled by your government, or the USA would barge through your house and say you're a terrorist.

Since the bourgeoisie has the power, weapons and money, we must use brute force to keep them at bay or even repress their freedom of press like they do to us now.
This is in fact an authoritarian move, but when the people who do it are those that make up 90% of the world's population, then it's the most democratic move possible.

5 and 6) In communism, there are no classes, no state, and no money. You would work on the job you'd like (as long as it gave a contribute to society) for much less hours than you do today, and for that work you would be rewarded with all your needs satisfied (without exagerating, you won't get a starship).
How is this viable? In capitalism, there are thousands of industries producing different brands of things. If you join them up, you make the best possible item, instead of having thousands of brands. That way, you can focus on working on something else.
There'd be no bankers or insurance companies, and a lot of other things.

This has never been put to practice, but in a communist society you have universal healthcare (health is a right, not a service), completely free education (no more discrimination between uneducated poor, and educated rich, plus everyone gets educated) and much more.

I'll give you a good example. A few days ago when I was making a salad, I was thinking about the olive oil bottle. It had a good bottle cover that made the olive oil leave slowly out of the bottle. When I tried to get the cover off, to see if I could later put it in another bottle with a not-so-good cover, I couldn't, it was stuck there.
So to get another of those, I'd have to buy another of the same bottle, and they're more expensive.

In communism, It'd be simple, you'd get your bottle with the cover you'd like or need, and whenever you were out of olive oil, you'd go to the market and refill it, isntead of buying another bottle.

This saves tons of waste. The same could go for cereal, cookies, flour and sugar and whatever you can think of.
Nowadays, no industry cares about producing a lasting product for example. If it doesn't last much, the client will have to buy another, and they'll make more profit. In a communist society, products aren't made for the purpose of getting more profit, but for the purpose of truly serving the people's needs.
This, once again, saves waste.
With all that waste saved, and more of other things I can't think of right now, future generations could live as well as we do, instead of having an Earth with little resources. And with all that waste saved, you can focus on producing more, so that everyone can have.

With no need to compete with other companies, and with the need to employ everyone, there'd be more people working, and less much less work hours. You'd then recieve a sort of digital card that would be loaded with one day of work, for example, so that you could use it to ''buy'' what you need.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I have a few questions, can anyone help me? I am very new to this, but want to learn.

My questions are:
1) Where has communism worked before the USSR?I don't think there was communism (in the sense of a stateless and classless society) in Russia or anywhere else for that matter. The Russian Revolution was a successful socialist revolution, but was unable to produce a lasting socialist society (I'd say the chance for a worker's society was essentially over within a few years after the Revolution) for various reasons that have been discussed many times on this website.

But like the Russian Revolution, the Paris commune demonstrated that a workers run society is possible. You can find Marx's writings on the Commune online.


2) What about human nature, does communisium take this into account?Comrades probably have a range of opinions on this, but in my opinion, "human nature" doesn't have much of an impact on the organization of society or personal behavior. In history there are all kinds of examples of different ways that society was organized and the determining factors for the structure of that society has more to do with who ran society, how the society produced what it needed and so on than "human nature".

For example, in capitalism we all wake up and work at the same time every day or go to school every day but this is completely "unnatural". Peasants would only work based on the needs of crop production and the harvest and so on... they didn't go out to the field and push a hoe around just to look busy in case the aristocrats came by to check up on them. So as society became increasingly industrial, workers had to be socially conditioned to keep time according to the needs of their bosses and so factory whistles were put in and later time-management systems employed. People from other cultures would think we are crazy all going to work at the same time all year round.

To me "human nature" isn't much more than the drive to survive and struggle as little as possible and maybe reproduce. I think communism would be more "natural" since it would eliminate socially created hierarchies and production would be done as needed and desired, not according to the needs of quarterly profit reports and bosses in general. Alienation of labor would be ended so that the work we do is actually under our own control and we benefit from our own labor rather than get a fraction of that wealth in the form of a wage.


3)Why did the 1905 Revolution fail yet Lenin's 1917 revolution win?Maybe someone else can adress this better than I can. Both revolutions created soviets, but in 1917, the experience of the Bolsheviks and the worker's movement in general had learned some important lessons about not relying on the liberal bourgeois to bring democracy and the bolsheviks were able to win people to the idea of workers rule through the workers councils.


4)How will workers prevent the former bourgeoisie (correct use of the word??) from coming back to power? This depends on what the conditions are at the time of revolution. If the revolutionary workers are really organized and have won an overwhelming amount of all workers to the idea of taking over production and overthrowing the capitalist state, then the bosses, as a small minority of the population, would probably not be able to mount much of a resistance. But in all likelihood, the revolution will happen unevenly in different places and if the former ruling class has time to organize counter-revolutionary militia forces or something, then the working class would probably need to form their own militias to prevent the bosses from physically taking back land and factories and materials.



5) What would a genuine classless, communist society be like? Just as the American or French revolutionaries probably could not conceptualize the industrial revolution, I don't think anyone alive could really describe what a future classless society might look like - in any detail anyway. We only have guesses and glimpses at this point.


6) I always hear that communism is dull and dreary. Is this true or will it be the perfect society?There's no such thing as a perfect society just as there is no perfect example of an apple or chair. But it would be a society free from a lot of the crap that has been around since class society began: there would be no social need for conformity (no ruling class, so no need for anyone to try and regulate our individual behavior and attitudes through a particular moral code and so on), no social need for divisions in society, no social need for bigotry or economic competition.

I can't imagine how human liberation would be dull and dreary. For one thing, there is pressure in capitalist society for everything to be geared towards bolstering the system and this saps the soul out of a lot of daily life. Open space is used for advertising, our free-time is often spent just trying to prepare to go back to work (commutes, household chores, shopping, etc), we spend the bright sunny afternoon sitting behind a register or computer or steering wheel or whatnot, we spend the most productive parts of our days and our lives making things that enrich other people. Even our art can not exist without a profit motive (artists need a gallery to show their work, they need to be able to sell work at a high price in order to continue pursuing art). Essentially if something is not profitable in our society it is left to rot and this creates a very soul-less society.

When people don't have to live paycheck to paycheck; when they get to put their labor into avenues that are either essential or personally desirable; when work is a democratic and collaborative process where everyone can use their creativity and ideas - not just a select few, then I think society will be in a much better place. Just having more free-time, having a decent and secure place to live, having greater access to learning skills to better peruse our interests will make for a much more dynamic society where anyone can attempt to reach their individual potential at art, science, sport, throwing parties or doing whatever else they desire.

[Rjevan]

Yeah, Malaysia, nice try. Bye, troll!

Btw, the 1905 revolution was a bourgeois-democratic revolution against feudalism. At that time it could be no socialist proletarian revolution, the conditions were not given and entirely different from those in 1917. The proletariat, as the most revolutionary class, was in the leading role but it was united with the peasantry (and not just with the poor peasantry like in 1917), the intelligentsia and the liberal bourgeoisie against the autocratic and feudal tsarist regime. In the end some bourgeois rights and the creation of the Duma were achieved, both didn't last very long.

[Invincible Summer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIFJLMyUwrg


I also don't get how the user was a troll?

[Kléber]

socialism is the society created after the workers overthrow the bourgeoisie, but the conditions for communism aren't there yet
That's the dictatorship of the proletariat. According to the Soviet government, socialism wasn't constructed in the USSR until 1936.

[Rjevan]

I also don't get how the user was a troll?
He was the (fourth) sockpuppet of a troll. Some of the more subtle trolls use the "Hi, I'm new, can you explain..." tactic to get answers they hope to ridicule, refute or counter by "well, can't see why (e.g.) fascism is so bad then, isn't it exactly the same?". Starts already with the questions, read: 1.) Communism never worked. 2.) You jokers disregard human nature. 3.) Lenin simply had luck, usually you fail. 4.) In the end the bourgeoisie always wins, see Russia. 5.) Tell me about about your childish utopia so I can make fun of it, lol. 6.) Communism is dull and dreary.

[Kléber]

Sorry a few more questions quickly, will be banned soon:
1) Why is Socialism very good as an idea but has it really worked in practice?
2) What about Mao’s Cultural Revolution, how did it change the thinking from Lennin-Marx??? (please be very detialed i am very new at this)
3)How can communism be relevant to a wealthy and advanced technological society England?
4)Will people be able to practice religion under communisum?
1) So far no socialist societies have been established (unless you are down with Stalin). But primitive communism - not in terms of equality, but simply a classless society - was the natural state of humanity. Social classes, governments, racism and sexism were not eternal, they were created, and can also be destroyed.

2) Get a copy of the documentary Morning Sun

3) Advanced technology makes real democracy, communism, more possible than ever before. Marx and Engels had originally thought the socialist revolution would happen in the most advanced countries.

4) Yes. Religion is a private matter.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm

[Rjevan]

Alright, if you really want to learn you'll get your answers. And in case it is just your way of making fun of us, have your fun, the answers might help others, too. This might get a bit too detailed but you ask some important and basic questions which can hardly be answered in one sentence.


1) What is the main difference between Communisum and Socialism???
Socialism is the society which is built after the successful revolution. It is also called "dictatorship of the proletariat" or "the first/lower phase of communism". Now the concrete meaning: After the revolution the bourgeoisie has been overthrown and the proletariat seizes the means of production and the state power. The state is always the expression of class contradictions and class struggle, it is the embodiment of the rule of one class over another class. Today, in our case, it is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (the exploiting and ruling class which controlls and owns the means of productions) over the proletariat (the working class which is separated from the means of productions and thus forced to sell their labour power to the capitalists). After the revolution the overthrown bourgeoisie will try to take revenge and win back their former power and positions and thus fight against the proletariat with all their power. Therefrore the proletarian state is needed, in order to supress the bourgeoisie by the rule of the proletariat. Socialism also won't be achieved by decrees but has to be built and constucted, the society is not immediatley free from all capitalist structures and views, some laws will remain the same and there will also be different wages, for example. This is unavoidable because the economic basis has not changed very much yet and only will after some time. So the socialist state, the dictatorship of the proletariat, led by its vanguard, the communist party, works for the construction of socialism and towards communism. As soon as communism is achieved the state will "wither aways".

Communism, also the "second/higher stage of communism" is by definiton a stateless and classless society with no private property of means of productions or soil. So since there are no classes any more there is also no class struggle and thus no need for a state to supress one class and secure the interests of another class. So this is no utopia but a simple fact, change the economic conditions and the ways of (social) production and society will change like it did all throughout history. Marx and Engels analyse this and outline, explain and sum it up in their theory of historical materialism. By this definition you see that there never was, nor could there ever be a communist state. You can talk about a communist society in the early days of mankind till the rise of private property but never about communists states. And no socialist state ever refered to itself as communist.


2) Why did communisum fail in the USSR but not in countries such as Cuba???
First of all: communism didn't fail in the USSR because there never ever was a communist state, see answer above.
You'll get a broad variety of answers to this question, depending on the tendency of the communists you ask. Some will argue that the USSR never was socialist, disregarded Marxist principles from the very beginning and thus was bound to end up as an authoritarian dictatorship which has nothing in common with Marxism (left-communists in this case). Some will say that Lenin was on the right way but that after his death a group of bureaucrats and counter-revolutionaries around Stalin seized state power, eliminated the old and genuine communists, established an authoritarian dictatorship and created a "degenerated workers' state" (Trotskyists). And others will say that the USSR was a genuine socialist workers' state under Lenin and Stalin but that after Stalin's death a group of revisionists around Khrushchev finally seized state power, betrayed socialism, the working class and led the USSR on the way to capitalism (Marxist-Leninists/Anti-Revisionists, Maoists, Hoxhaists). Each side argues differently and this topic is one of the most controversial and most discussed within the communist movement and loads of articles, speeches and books deal with this topic from different points of views.

Furthermore, it is also a controversial topic if Cuba still is (or ever was) a genuine socialist state or a revisionist but progressive state. Again the answers very depending on people's tendencies.


3) Was Stalian actually a communist?? I am a little confused about that one.
Same problem as above, anarchists, left communists, Luxemburgists and Tortskyists as well as some Maoists will deny it and label Stalin a traitor, reactionary, counter-revolutionary, bureaucratic dictator, "red fascist", etc. Marxist-Leninists, Maoists in general and Hoxhaists will argue that Stalin was a genuine communist and an outsanding Marxist-Leninist who continued the work of Lenin, led the construction of socialism in the USSR very successfull and enriched Marxism-Leninism with his works. There are no "Stalinists", this is a term used to slander Marxist-Leninists (who also call themselves Anti-Revisionists, Marxist-Leninist-Maoists or Hoxhaists, again depending on different tendencies and viewpoints), used by people opposed to Stalin and the people who uphold his theories and teachings. This is now the perhapes most controversial and most discussed topic and even more sources only deal with this topic in-depth and at lenght. Basic readings for Anti-Revisionists, defending Stalin and his policies and refuting lies, myth and propaganda are Ludo Marten's "Another view of Stalin" (download e.g. http://www.freshwap.net/tag/another-view-of-stalin) and Grover Furr's works (e.g. "Stalin and the struggle for democratic reforms", http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html), just to name the most famous ones, as well as loads of works on the Hitler-Stalin Pact, the "Great Purges" (Moscow trials), the economic problems and achievements of the USSR under Stalin and works by Mao, Hoxha, Bill Bland and many more.

You'll find just as many works arguing the opposite, most known are Trotsky's works but you certainly won't have any difficulties to find more than enough anti-Stalin material.


4) Are you still allowed individual freedom in a comunist Country???
Depends on what you mean by "individual freedom". If you refer to it in the bourgeois sense that it's the freedom to exploit and enslave others and put your interests above those of the society, then no. If you mean that under communism everybody will be part of an uniformed mass in uniformed houses, then again no. Communism seeks to liberate humanity in the end and the luxury only very few people now have should be the luxury of all people under communism. A common misconception is that all private property is abolished. That is simply flase, the private property of the means of productions and of soil is abolished, i.e. the private property used to exploit and oppress others. Nobody is going to take your car away and plant some guy you never saw before in your heard-earned armchair. And nobody will force you to wear a grey suit, shave your head and call yourself "Number 495.766". That would be a characteristic of fascism. Under socialism some freedoms might be restricted, like e.g. freedom of press, so that reactionaries, counter-revolutionaries and sabotagers won't be able to spread their lies and propaganda and thus endanger the socialist society which will inevitably face some difficulties and starting problems at the beginning. Btw, are you really enjoying "individual freedom" now? Think of it... no restrictions? You can do whatever you please (and I don't refer to "I'd like to kill somebody"-"freedom")? I face absolutely no consequences at all if I openly declare that I'm a communist, no trouble with the state and my employer then? See, and these are just examples, there's much more.

[Rjevan]

1) Why is Socialism very good as an idea but has it really worked in practice?
See answer to your first question 2). As you see at Kléber's answer the opinions vary, I'll give you an aswer from my point of view. Marxists-Leninists argue that socialism indeed worked in the USSR till the late fifties and early sixties and it worked very well, have a look at industrial growth rates and social developement in the USSR compared to the capitalist or fascist states, you will be very surprised. Marxist-Leninist Maoists argue that same for the USSR plus for China under Mao's leadership while Hoxhaists uphold the USSR and Albania (till the leaderhip of Ramiz Alia there) as genuine socialist nations. You always have to keep in mind how there states were before the communists came to power there, when the cappies talk about the "disasterous" state there. Compare tsarist Russia to the USSR from 1917 to the late 50s. The "disaster" in the economy and the living conditions there only begins after the death of Stalin and is still pure luxury compared to tsarist Russia. Compare feudal Albania, the most backward country of whole Europe, almost caught in the medieval with it's blood feuds and tribal warfare, the view and treatment of women, the living conditions and the illiteracy there, compare it to socialist Albania and the modernisation and industrialisation, the massive struggle for equal women's rights, the increased life expectancy of 76 years (32 in tribal years) the opening of the first university of the whole country, the illiteracy of 95% in 1939 - in 1985 the illiteracy in Albania was equal to that of the USA at that time! Yes, Albania is poor today but first of all, capitalism is in power there since 20 years, and second, it developed more in 40 years of socialism than in hundreds of years in feudalism and more than capitalist states have developed in much more time.


2) What about Mao’s Cultural Revolution, how did it change the thinking from Lennin-Marx??? (please be very detialed i am very new at this)
Best answer to this question is Hoxha's "Imperialism and the Revolution", especially this chapter with deals with this topic in-depth: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/imp_rev/imp_ch6.htm

There are of course also other critics of Maoism from different tendencies as well as Maoist works arguing that the Cultural Revolution was genuine Marxist-Leninist and the greatest achievement in the history of socialism and that Maoism is the most advanced and developed stage of communist theory.


3)How can communism be relevant to a wealthy and advanced technological society England?
Who is wealthy? Only a few. Is it as advanced as possible? Very arguable. Progress is hindered by capitalist nature of production (e.g. "produce few good so that you can demand high prices" or "why should we get a remedy for colds on the market, would spoil our profit if people don't buy loads of useless crap anymore but are completely healed", same with cancer and petrol... would you really heal "lucrative" cancer and replace expensive petrol with much cheaper fuels? Than you're no clever capitalist.) and periodical crises which are inherent in the capitalist system.


4)Will people be able to practice religion under communisum?
Generall answer to this is: Yes, people will enjoy freedom of religion but religions are a product of economic and social conditions and if these conditions change religion will automatically become superflous and will also "wither away".
Personally I'm not in favour of this, I think religion is inherently reactionary and harmful (not to speak of irrelevant nonsense) and should be actively fought. But well.


5) Will people still have personal possessions under communisum?
Yes, absolutely! Already answered in original question 4), have a look at this thread which deals with luxury under communism: http://www.revleft.com/vb/does-luxury-have-t130735/index.html?t

[mikelepore]

Too ask about "human nature" doesn't mean anything unless a person specifies the particular issue. If it's in your nature to play music, then play music. If it's in your nature to raise a child, then raise a child. You can't expect other people to spend a lot of time to compose an answer until the question is clear.

[CartCollector]

Usually when people complain about "human nature" in reference to communism, though, they mean to say that all people are greedy and selfish and want to screw each other over for their own benefit, so communism, which is based on solidarity with all humanity, would never work. There are a number of arguments against this, the primary one being that "human nature" is influenced by society, and that capitalism encourages people to think an act in a greedy, selfish way. It follows that if you create a society that encourages people to work for everyone's benefit, people's "human nature" will change to meet that encouragement.

[Comrade_Stalin]

Please someone help me. It is illegal for me to ask questions on a Malay Forum and no communist books are allowed into the country. They tried to have a communist rise many years ago but since it didnt work well they now banned them. You are my only hope

It funny that when the right banneds works form the left they say it is censorship, but when left does it, they say that it political oppression.

[mikelepore]

Usually when people complain about "human nature" in reference to communism, though, they mean to say that all people are greedy and selfish and want to screw each other over for their own benefit, so communism, which is based on solidarity with all humanity, would never work. There are a number of arguments against this, the primary one being that "human nature" is influenced by society, and that capitalism encourages people to think an act in a greedy, selfish way. It follows that if you create a society that encourages people to work for everyone's benefit, people's "human nature" will change to meet that encouragement.

I wouldn't give that answer. The answer I would give is that establishing a classless society is very necessary because many individuals' nature is selfish and greedy. The whole point of any social system is that our nature may not be applied. The organization of the system determines outcomes instead of our nature determining outcomes. For example, in a classless society, if the greedy people ask where the stockmarket is they will be notified that there isn't one, and if they ask how they can become the bosses of other people they will be notified that there is no such role. Their nature may be the same as it is today -- greedy. What they will have lost are the opportunities to act on it.