I would like some things explained to me

[superborys]

I understand that a similar array of questions is probably littered around the forum, but I made an account on this forum for the extras, such as viewing pictures and whatnot, without real regard to needing to post; reading is generally enough for me to learn.

I do, however, have a few questions that I would take great pleasure in having answered, and most should be easily answered.

I have always wanted Anarchy/Communism to exist/work, I feel it's absurd to control someone's life through money.

1. As mentioned numerous times before, how could a Communist society overcome people's wants to not work? Sure, certain people (and I would include myself into this category) would work to better his or her possessions and the community they lived in, and increase standard of living for mankind in general, but there are some people who just will not care. They'll want to play video games all day, have sex with their significant other, do drugs, etc. How could a society deal with them? Would laws and regulations in a Communist society be namely what you can/cannot do in terms of social taboo? I.E. One of the laws is that murder is illegal, so is assault, etc, etc, unless the victim doesn't file charges, or in murder's case, the family. So would they be punished accordingly?

2. Referencing the length question 1., how would these things be decided upon? If you guarantee absolute democracy by general assembly, what if it turns out to be 49%-51%, and then nearly half of the assembly is quite unhappy with the decision? How can they get what they want? I was led to believe that Communism was about people agreeing and being allowed to do what they want. I understand that many of the pre-existing social phenomena now are due to society's conditions of living; work or steal, or starve.

3. (Not really a question) It occurs to me that Communist societies would have to be rather small for them to work most efficiently, or potent technology would have to be utilized in order to keep up with a large populous.

4. What of the basic industries? If people are allowed to work without restriction, and are encouraged to work on projects and labor on things they find interesting, who will operate the power plants, the waste disposal areas, and other generally-undesirable jobs? Certainly there aren't people who, as children, say to themselves, "I cannot wait to become a garbage-man!" That makes no sense. Is Communism dependent on people's will to perpetuate their near-Utopian existence? It's to my understanding that without a quota, people would theoretically work much more efficiently. If so, would it lend itself to people not having to work as much in the plants and disposal facilities, and therefore not being unsatisfied with their occupation?

5. A supplement to 4, I feel as if people will work, if shown what Communism and cooperation can fulfill, they will work willingly, at least some people will, the jobs that are undesirable. I understand people will have to work less due to motivation to do something you like. Spirit and will for the society to succeed, I understand, are also necessary.

6. How are Communist societies organized? I feel my previous involvements with Anarchist activisim have given me false pretenses about Communism. What I understand it to be:
Direct voting (in the obvious form of democracy) --through assemblies--> laws and regulations.

But how can this general-populous decision please everyone? Certainly there will be issues that are widely agreed-upon, but what about pro-life/choice debates? How can you expect two contrasting minds to cooperate and like each other if they feel the other is a murderer, and one is a fascist/control freak? What about capital punishment debates? Are these people encouraged to form their own communes with other like-minds to accomplish their goals?



This must be rather disorganized; It's late and I'm tired, and I sometimes have a hard time wording my thoughts. Tomorrow I should have quite coherent responses, though. I look forward, seriously, to hearing and learning.


A reason that I'm posting this again: It helps me to understand ideas and concepts when they're directly related to questions I ask. E.g. I see a thread with a math problem with 2 variables. The equation is solved inexplicably, and I feel I understand, but I then ask someone to solve step-by-step 3 + y + x = 10, where I think x = 4, and y = 3.
See what I mean?

Thanks much,
Boris

[Ligeia]

1. As mentioned numerous times before, how could a Communist society overcome people's wants to not work? Sure, certain people (and I would include myself into this category) would work to better his or her possessions and the community they lived in, and increase standard of living for mankind in general, but there are some people who just will not care. They'll want to play video games all day, have sex with their significant other, do drugs, etc.
In a communist society the nature of a working day would be wholly different from the capitalistic outlook.
E.g. you would probably work 4 or 5 hours a day, and maybe only 4 days,..so to speak there would be a reduction of the working time, working conditions would be improved, as well which means things detrimental to health would be reduced as best as possible.The structure and organization of a working place would also be different, more democratic and less static. You could also probably change your work after a time, and work in another field...etc. etc.
There's much to speculate but the thing is labour would have a different nature since it wouldn't be designed in a hierarchical society with non-beneficial aims (which would be capitalism).
That said, people mostly won't work or won't work good since the working climate is detestable, the inner working conditions just as much as outer working rewards.
If there still are people in communism who don't want to work, you may have to think of a musical band: if one of the instrumentists doesn't practice, misses meetings...etc., the quality of the music will be bad, they'll stagnate and the other musicians won't just let this pass because they actually like what they do. So they will try to change his mind, so that he contributes to the band again and make him now it's not nice to behave like this, or they'll drop him. The societal value of work could probably tackle such sentiments.

[Velkas]

In a communist society the nature of a working day would be wholly different from the capitalistic outlook.
E.g. you would probably work 4 or 5 hours a day, and maybe only 4 days,..so to speak there would be a reduction of the working time, working conditions would be improved, as well which means things detrimental to health would be reduced as best as possible.The structure and organization of a working place would also be different, more democratic and less static. You could also probably change your work after a time, and work in another field...etc. etc.
There's much to speculate but the thing is labour would have a different nature since it wouldn't be designed in a hierarchical society with non-beneficial aims (which would be capitalism).
That said, people mostly won't work or won't work good since the working climate is detestable, the inner working conditions just as much as outer working rewards.
If there still are people in communism who don't want to work, you may have to think of a musical band: if one of the instrumentists doesn't practice, misses meetings...etc., the quality of the music will be bad, they'll stagnate and the other musicians won't just let this pass because they actually like what they do. So they will try to change his mind, so that he contributes to the band again and make him now it's not nice to behave like this, or they'll drop him. The societal value of work could probably tackle such sentiments.Additionally, you would have a job that you actually like doing, so working would be an enjoyable experience in of itself. For the jobs that not enough people feel like doing, they could be switched out, and they wouldn't be so bad because of the shorter hours and cleaner conditions.


Would laws and regulations in a Communist society be namely what you can/cannot do in terms of social taboo? I.E. One of the laws is that murder is illegal, so is assault, etc, etc, unless the victim doesn't file charges, or in murder's case, the family. So would they be punished accordingly?In my opinion, the only law should be that people should do as they please, so long as they don't harm others or society, or unjustifiably coerce others. A bit vague, perhaps, but a good, simple principle. Most of the rest can be dealt with through peer pressure and such. If someone doesn't want to work, they will be ostracized from the community, and perhaps only given the bare minimum that they need. I think rehabilitation should be mainly used, rather than punishment.


It occurs to me that Communist societies would have to be rather small for them to work most efficiently, or potent technology would have to be utilized in order to keep up with a large populous.
Or perhaps a large society consisting of a federation of small communes...

[superborys]

In a communist society the nature of a working day would be wholly different from the capitalistic outlook.
E.g. you would probably work 4 or 5 hours a day, and maybe only 4 days,..so to speak there would be a reduction of the working time, working conditions would be improved, as well which means things detrimental to health would be reduced as best as possible.The structure and organization of a working place would also be different, more democratic and less static. You could also probably change your work after a time, and work in another field...etc. etc.
There's much to speculate but the thing is labour would have a different nature since it wouldn't be designed in a hierarchical society with non-beneficial aims (which would be capitalism).
That said, people mostly won't work or won't work good since the working climate is detestable, the inner working conditions just as much as outer working rewards.
If there still are people in communism who don't want to work, you may have to think of a musical band: if one of the instrumentists doesn't practice, misses meetings...etc., the quality of the music will be bad, they'll stagnate and the other musicians won't just let this pass because they actually like what they do. So they will try to change his mind, so that he contributes to the band again and make him now it's not nice to behave like this, or they'll drop him. The societal value of work could probably tackle such sentiments.

That more or less answers my question entirely, thanks.


Or perhaps a large society consisting of a federation of small communes...

But then I see another problem arising. You get the effect of a federal government, in which not everyone can possibly be happy. Unless of course communal laws and regulations take precedence over federal laws in this sense.

[Velkas]

But then I see another problem arising. You get the effect of a federal government, in which not everyone can possibly be happy. Unless of course communal laws and regulations take precedence over federal laws in this sense.Maybe something more like a confederation, then. The confederation would only exist as a way to ensure cooperation between the communes. The communes would not have to follow the majority decisions of the confederation. It would be the same with the individuals in the communes. In most cases, people wouldn't be required to follow the majority decision. More like a community recommendation and a way to ensure cooperation and unity.

[ContrarianLemming]

I'll take a crack at this..





1. As mentioned numerous times before, how could a Communist society overcome people's wants to not work? Sure, certain people (and I would include myself into this category) would work to better his or her possessions and the community they lived in, and increase standard of living for mankind in general, but there are some people who just will not care. They'll want to play video games all day, have sex with their significant other, do drugs, etc. How could a society deal with them? Would laws and regulations in a Communist society be namely what you can/cannot do in terms of social taboo? I.E. One of the laws is that murder is illegal, so is assault, etc, etc, unless the victim doesn't file charges, or in murder's case, the family. So would they be punished accordingly?

there are a few questions here, basically regarding communist law, im communism there could be laws, the laws that would exist would be those that protect the sovergnty of the individual. If someone doesn't want to work then they get all there needs and very modest luxery (in my opinion).


2. Referencing the length question 1., how would these things be decided upon? If you guarantee absolute democracy by general assembly, what if it turns out to be 49%-51%, and then nearly half of the assembly is quite unhappy with the decision? How can they get what they want? I was led to believe that Communism was about people agreeing and being allowed to do what they want. I understand that many of the pre-existing social phenomena now are due to society's conditions of living; work or steal, or starve.

Many communists either support consensus (100% agreement) at the local level, a solid super majority for regional level and national lelve (ie: 75% +)
I can imagine that the most important things will require higher and higher amounts of agreement/consensus. something like adding a new local law qould require complete consensus, while something like adding a new load of road signs requires a quick 50% majority.
So, the more important a decision, the greater the majority must agree on it.


3. (Not really a question) It occurs to me that Communist societies would have to be rather small for them to work most efficiently, or potent technology would have to be utilized in order to keep up with a large populous.

Not true. When you think of communism you think of little towns for local decisions, I think of New York, each block would work as a local, each district would be akin to a region (completely dependant on the population per square metre) and the whole city would be united in federation. that city would be united with next with delegates, mutual agreement, trade for goods and services.
The belief that communism only works on small scales is liberal propaganda.

think of it like this..Town A is communist, town B is also communist, as is town C D and E. all these towns are medium sized and fairly far apart, and all funtion on "small scale" they are how you think communism has to be, local, small, a village.
But, what if all these towns were suddenly right beside eachother, but still kept there same laws, there mutual aid was greatly strenghtened, they kept there same structure etc. That's a large scale city now! If theres nothing unrealistic about 1 town being communist, then why not a dozen, in which case, why not a dozen towns together? and from there..why not a dozen cities? a dozen nations from thre bottom up?
Communism is streghtened by large scale mutual aid and defence!


4. What of the basic industries? If people are allowed to work without restriction, and are encouraged to work on projects and labor on things they find interesting, who will operate the power plants, the waste disposal areas, and other generally-undesirable jobs? Certainly there aren't people who, as children, say to themselves, "I cannot wait to become a garbage-man!" That makes no sense. Is Communism dependent on people's will to perpetuate their near-Utopian existence? It's to my understanding that without a quota, people would theoretically work much more efficiently. If so, would it lend itself to people not having to work as much in the plants and disposal facilities, and therefore not being unsatisfied with their occupation?

a few qustions there.
who will operate the undesirable jobs?
In society there are 3 theories, you either get poor people to do it for crap pay (capitalism) or, under communism, you can either make stuff like waste disposal a communal task (I'll be the garbage man this week, you're next week, then Jane is the week after..) OR you can give extra luxeries to those willing to take on such jobs professionally. I prefer the latter, in fact that's how a lot of places work, like an apartment building I lived in worked like that. It was simple.
I don't think satisfaction with your job is necessary in communism.


5. A supplement to 4, I feel as if people will work, if shown what Communism and cooperation can fulfill, they will work willingly, at least some people will, the jobs that are undesirable. I understand people will have to work less due to motivation to do something you like. Spirit and will for the society to succeed, I understand, are also necessary.

I agree.
Consider as well how much larger our workforce would be to when we no longer need bankers, corporate executives, politcians, hundreds of jobs cannot exist in communism.


6. How are Communist societies organized? I feel my previous involvements with Anarchist activisim have given me false pretenses about Communism. What I understand it to be:
Direct voting (in the obvious form of democracy) --through assemblies--> laws and regulations.

Local Consensus Democracy -- Regional Direct Democracy --National Direct Democracy -- International etc (etc: aliens!)
Each local commune/collective/community is linked to the other local through Confederation (The political linking of various state/region/unions etc in a decentrazlied fashion). the Locals are all united in the region, with each Local sending an instantly recallable delegate (or "Proxy" representitive) to the regional Council (as opposed to the local council for local matters, like a new building), the regional council puts foward ideas from each local commune for regional ideas, like a new motorway, anything that affects more then one local commune.
Then anything that affects the whole "nation" is voted upon nationally (depending on importance) and ideas from each region and put fort by regional delegates at the national "congress" (ie: a meeting). the Confederations congress brings ideas concerning the anything that affects more then one region, including defense, large scale building, cultural events etc.
In a word, it's a confederation of councils upon councils.


But how can this general-populous decision please everyone? Certainly there will be issues that are widely agreed-upon, but what about pro-life/choice debates? How can you expect two contrasting minds to cooperate and like each other if they feel the other is a murderer, and one is a fascist/control freak? What about capital punishment debates? Are these people encouraged to form their own communes with other like-minds to accomplish their goals?

I think such decisions are local/regional and should be left up to the region, I think laws about abortion and capital punishment would require near consensus in a given region, since it's so serious.


This must be rather disorganized; It's late and I'm tired, and I sometimes have a hard time wording my thoughts. Tomorrow I should have quite coherent responses, though. I look forward, seriously, to hearing and learning.

good for you, leaning is always wise.

[CartCollector]

Maybe something more like a confederation, then. The confederation would only exist as a way to ensure cooperation between the communes. The communes would not have to follow the majority decisions of the confederation.
A large governing body that makes unenforceable decisions that smaller bodies are supposed to follow? Sounds like the UN. Are you sure that's what you want?

[Velkas]

A large governing body that makes unenforceable decisions that smaller bodies are supposed to follow? Sounds like the UN. Are you sure that's what you want?There would be no "large governing body". The decisions would be made mainly through direct democracy of the people of the communes belonging to the confederation.

[superborys]

Local Consensus Democracy -- Regional Direct Democracy --National Direct Democracy -- International etc (etc: aliens!)
Each local commune/collective/community is linked to the other local through Confederation (The political linking of various state/region/unions etc in a decentrazlied fashion). the Locals are all united in the region, with each Local sending an instantly recallable delegate (or "Proxy" representitive) to the regional Council (as opposed to the local council for local matters, like a new building), the regional council puts foward ideas from each local commune for regional ideas, like a new motorway, anything that affects more then one local commune.
Then anything that affects the whole "nation" is voted upon nationally (depending on importance) and ideas from each region and put fort by regional delegates at the national "congress" (ie: a meeting). the Confederations congress brings ideas concerning the anything that affects more then one region, including defense, large scale building, cultural events etc.
In a word, it's a confederation of councils upon councils.

This is the only section I see flaw in, at least to me.

What I meant when I said that technology could be the only thing to handle a large populous is that a delegate-representative system relies ENTIRELY upon lack of corruption in its delegates, otherwise you get an identical situation to today in America: House members and Senators are bought off with line-item additions for their vote. Though I imagine considering individual luxuries are widely reliant on the person's commune's (I'll refer to that as it, to me, has a more Communist-centric feel in the vernacular) decisions, I imagine it would be quite difficult to achieve an effect in which one person has a luxury, and even so, if they all agree that the person should get a luxury, I don't see the objection at all. I suppose the system proposed here is fail-proof, because on one hand there's impossibility of consensus for corruption, or a commune of corrupt people which results in no corruption present for what it counts.

With this Confederation system, communal laws would take absolute authority? There would be no 'federal' laws in the sense of today that they supersede state laws? Or would the ones present only be ones that are universally agreed upon, or am I getting into the area that's responsible for the +7 Communist parties in America today (i.e. personal opinion and preference, ideal structure, etc.)? I would think it would go that there are no confederated laws, because then it's not really Communism, unless there's a consensus (of 100%), in which it becomes a universal law like I mentioned above. I would certainly hope that consensus laws would require consensus throughout the entire process.

So what's proposed is there isn't a federal structure system, merely a system of councils organized upon themselves? An added layer of security to remove any possible corruption would be to disqualify someone for a certain council if they're in another. E.g. Bill is in the local council; he makes decisions for his town. He cannot go to the regional council because he may favor his town based on his previous delegations. Joe is in the national council, he can't be in any other council because he could bias things for his commune. The only problem I see with communism is an enormous amount of voting on who goes where, what gets done and what doesn't, but in today's day and age I, for some reason, think that's not such a major problem (*cough cough* email, text, phones, etc...).

[ContrarianLemming]

What I meant when I said that technology could be the only thing to handle a large populous is that a delegate-representative system relies ENTIRELY upon lack of corruption in its delegates, otherwise you get an identical situation to today in America: House members and Senators are bought off with line-item additions for their vote.

That's not how it works. Notice how I call them "Delegates" not "Representitives" Delegates have a pretty simple job: present the views of the place they come from and the ideas/suggestions of the place the come from, they are ultimatly powerless, they cannot become corrupt in such a postion. Power lies with the population.


Though I imagine considering individual luxuries are widely reliant on the person's commune's (I'll refer to that as it, to me, has a more Communist-centric feel in the vernacular) decisions, I imagine it would be quite difficult to achieve an effect in which one person has a luxury, and even so, if they all agree that the person should get a luxury, I don't see the objection at all. I suppose the system proposed here is fail-proof, because on one hand there's impossibility of consensus for corruption, or a commune of corrupt people which results in no corruption present for what it counts.Corrupt people don't form communes :) I don't say commune because it reminds me of hippies, who are anti revolutionary.
In the local, you have face to face democracy, if someone is genuinly unhappy, they can really deal with it constructivly


With this Confederation system, communal laws would take absolute authority? There would be no 'federal' laws in the sense of today that they supersede state laws? Or would the ones present only be ones that are universally agreed upon, or am I getting into the area that's responsible for the +7 Communist parties in America today (i.e. personal opinion and preference, ideal structure, etc.)? I would think it would go that there are no confederated laws, because then it's not really Communism, unless there's a consensus (of 100%), in which it becomes a universal law like I mentioned above. I would certainly hope that consensus laws would require consensus throughout the entire [email protected] 7 commie parties :p
I think that for a local/regional commune to join the confederation (and thus, receive mutual aid and defence) they have to agree to a ceratin group of basic laws like..Don't kill, Don't steal, direct democracy is necessary to join etc. After those basic guidlines are set in the confederation then I think each region/local could make up it's own specific laws that don't conflict with the confederal laws. for example, Commune A decides to execute a man for murder with very little evidence, this is against confederal rules, so Commune A is kicked out of the confederation and loses its trade and defense, it is alone.
But that's how I would like it, that's not necesssarily how it would be, but I know that what I describe is basically what most think.
I think for those very basic all confederation laws (don't kill or steal etc) there would have to be consensus (since it's so important) but I don't think getting consensus on such matters in a rational society is hard, only those locals that have consensus join the communist/anarchist confederation

So, to sum up, communal laws have final say unless they directly conflict with the whole confederations laws


So what's proposed is there isn't a federal structure system, merely a system of councils organized upon themselves? Basically.


An added layer of security to remove any possible corruption would be to disqualify someone for a certain council if they're in another. E.g. Bill is in the local council; he makes decisions for his town. He cannot go to the regional council because he may favor his town based on his previous delegations. Joe is in the national council, he can't be in any other council because he could bias things for his commune. The only problem I see with communism is an enormous amount of voting on who goes where, what gets done and what doesn't, but in today's day and age I, for some reason, think that's not such a major problem (*cough cough* email, text, phones, etc...).I agree with that countermeasure.
I don't thin a ot of voting could be a big problem (and i don't think there would necessarily be a lot of it). It could become a weekly thing, instead of sunday being church day, make sunday voting day!
But really ,there isn't that much to be done, if there is, you delegate a task to some, a specific task, and they get it done, you don't need to vote on every little minor thing.
Hope I've helped
Have you picked a tendency?

[superborys]

I have not. If I understand correctly, that's which subdivision/significant Communist figure's ideals for Communism I feel is most correct, right? If that's it, then no. I just posted another question concerning something like that. I'll be doing a ton of reading, I guess I'll look for a list of tendencies that are considered Communist here and be off reading.

[ContrarianLemming]

I have not. If I understand correctly, that's which subdivision/significant Communist figure's ideals for Communism I feel is most correct, right? If that's it, then no. I just posted another question concerning something like that. I'll be doing a ton of reading, I guess I'll look for a list of tendencies that are considered Communist here and be off reading.

Well I can tell you quickly now..
communists are seperated between Anarchist communists and Marxist communists
Major Marxism tendencies are..
Marxism
Marxist Leninism
Marxist Trotskyism
Marxist Leninist Maoism
Council Communism
Luxemburgism
Situationism
Those are what come to mind right now, there are more, the most popular is Marxist Leninism.

Major Anarchist tendencies are...
Anarcho-Communism
Anarcho-Collectivism
Anarcho-Syndicalism
Mutualism
The most popular are the first 3, there is not a great deal of difference between the popular anarchist tendencies, I am an anarcho-syndicalist

[red cat]

Those are what come to mind right now, there are more, the most popular is Marxist Leninism.



Marxism-Leninism-Maoism or Maoism in short, is the most popular one.

[ContrarianLemming]

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism or Maoism in short, is the most popular one.

says the Maoist
I find this hard to believe

[red cat]

says the Maoist
I find this hard to believe

You won't if you have a look at the posts and pics in the Maoist threads here. The number of Maoists in Nepal alone is probably greater than the number of leftists belonging to all other tendencies all over the world taken together.

[superborys]

I have yet more questions:

In a Communism, am I mistaken in the sense that I feel everything should be done on a series of councils, and not leaving the power to any one person? I feel that decisions should be made by members of a council who are ultimately elected through rigorous layers of councils to get only the people who are absolutely the most desired choice get to the major-decision making area.

Ideally I would have it (with different names, number of layers, etc. This is just a template):
Towns elect their zone guy
Zone council elects their one/many regional people from within their ranks to avoid serious competition.
Regional does the same thing, sending to the toplevel
Toplevel does rigorous council making with various degrees of consensus required for certain decisions.

That's what I think Communism is: real democracy, and real rule by the people.

Am I wrong? Recently I feel aligned to Maoism, but would aligning myself as a Maoist say that I'm for the election of a Premier/General Secretary/Leader? Trotskyism encouraged the real DoP, which I am undecided about the necessity of, rather than a top-level bureau which acts 'in the name of the people', if you understand what I'm saying.

Is this leadership question, being centralized/decentralized, a main wedge in the Communist spectrum?

From what I understand:
Stalin's regime (I won't call it Stalinism because that's assumed pejorative) - centralized
Trotskyism - decentralized
Maoism - I don't know
(I do realize Maoism is actually Marxist-Leninist-Maoist)
Marxism-Leninism - Not sure, centralized into the vanguard party?



I also widely regard the USSR under Stalin a complete and utter lie as 'Communist', considering people had no say in the government, people were restricted, there were no freedoms, people couldn't do the jobs they wanted to, nothing was democratic. Even if it was just the DoP stage of the theory Stalin had in mind, it was nothing even close to DoP at all. It was oligarchy tinged with red.

I'm not sure about China. It seems to me that Mao wanted to make China Communist, and his actions evince that, but Deng Xiaoping ruined his work when he died. I'm not sure about whether I'm right or wrong. He caused a lot of strife, but he also actually encouraged people to work together and form communes during his Great Leap Forward, but eventually forced them. Is that considered at least an attempt at Communism? It seems to me that Maoism is the best vehicle for arriving at Communism, but I don't want to be proclaiming a tendency to find out I've been a sheep and following something I'm against.

In terms of democracy, Trotskyism seems what I should identify with. It has democracy, and an authentic DoP. I don't think that Communism has to sweep across the world to survive, but I do believe in the setting up of a vanguard party to educate the members that aren't in it into its ranks, and to solidify the proletariat in its struggle.

On the other hand, Maoism has the most rational approach with New Democracy. That is, manipulating the bourgeoisie into a socialist state, then stripping their capitalism away from them altogether with the dissolution of that state into Communism.


Another problem I have is that the two most successful Communist nations, the USSR and PCR, both had violent purgation programs that removed all opposition. How is that democratic? How is that Communist? Unless that's considered part of the revolution of overthrowing bourgeoisie thought and process, I don't see how that was very egalitarian and fair to those purged. The PCR killed Maoists after Mao's death, and Stalin had Leninists and Trotskyists killed. Does this qualify these states as not anything near a state of the Communizing process with this brutality and authoritarianism, or is the Marxist part of the left side of the political spectrum severely divided between real left (that is, personal freedom and such) and perceived left (championing leftism without actually practicing it, such as the USSR and PCR did)?

A CAVEAT!
I do know that for 5 years, 1917-1922, Russia had some real Communism action going on. Workers were allowed to organize and decide democratically and other such facets of planned Communist society, in which Lenin ruled, but as soon as Stalin defeated Trotsky for rule of the USSR, it turned into the state we all knew and hated, which maligned Communism for the real Communists.

[ContrarianLemming]

In a Communism, am I mistaken in the sense that I feel everything should be done on a series of councils, and not leaving the power to any one person?

you can leave specific tasks for delegates to do.


I feel that decisions should be made by members of a council who are ultimately elected through rigorous layers of councils to get only the people who are absolutely the most desired choice get to the major-decision making area.

I think it should be random, delegates and council members don't need to be skilled, not at all, there only job is to present the views and objections of the commune.


Ideally I would have it (with different names, number of layers, etc. This is just a template):
Towns elect their zone guy
Zone council elects their one/many regional people from within their ranks to avoid serious competition.
Regional does the same thing, sending to the toplevel
Toplevel does rigorous council making with various degrees of consensus required for certain decisions.

and that's the confederation.



Am I wrong? Recently I feel aligned to Maoism, but would aligning myself as a Maoist say that I'm for the election of a Premier/General Secretary/Leader? Trotskyism encouraged the real DoP, which I am undecided about the necessity of, rather than a top-level bureau which acts 'in the name of the people', if you understand what I'm saying.

Trotskyism encourages the "real" DoP as much as any other marxist group. Maoism is basically Marxist Leninism for third world countries.


Is this leadership question, being centralized/decentralized, a main wedge in the Communist spectrum?

Yes, all marxist leninist variants are centralized, all anarchists are decentralized.


From what I understand:
Stalin's regime - centralized correct
Trotskyism - decentralized Unknown, never attempted (In "theory" stalin was democratic, lets wait for practice)

Maoism - I don't know - It's centralized

(I do realize Maoism is actually Marxist-Leninist-Maoist)
Marxism-Leninism - Not sure, centralized into the vanguard party? -Correct





I also widely regard the USSR under Stalin a complete and utter lie as 'Communist', considering people had no say in the government, people were restricted, there were no freedoms, people couldn't do the jobs they wanted to, nothing was democratic. Even if it was just the DoP stage of the theory Stalin had in mind, it was nothing even close to DoP at all. It was oligarchy tinged with red.

Replace the word "Stalin" with "Lenin" and this would be just as accurate


I'm not sure about China. It seems to me that Mao wanted to make China Communist, and his actions evince that, but Deng Xiaoping ruined his work when he died. I'm not sure about whether I'm right or wrong. He caused a lot of strife, but he also actually encouraged people to work together and form communes during his Great Leap Forward, but eventually forced them. Is that considered at least an attempt at Communism? It seems to me that Maoism is the best vehicle for arriving at Communism, but I don't want to be proclaiming a tendency to find out I've been a sheep and following something I'm against.


In China, basically indenticle to Russia, people set up factory commitees, workers councils, cirect democracy etc and, just like in Russia, all these things were brutally crushed by the Maoists


In terms of democracy, Trotskyism seems what I should identify with. It has democracy, and an authentic DoP. I don't think that Communism has to sweep across the world to survive, but I do believe in the setting up of a vanguard party to educate the members that aren't in it into its ranks, and to solidify the proletariat in its struggle.

All Marxist groups have "authentic" DoP's in a sense. Communism in one country, what you ascribe to, is at odds with the grand majority of far leftists.


On the other hand, Maoism has the most rational approach with New Democracy. That is, manipulating the bourgeoisie into a socialist state, then stripping their capitalism away from them altogether with the dissolution of that state into Communism.

In practice I find Maosim the worst variant of Marxism.


Another problem I have is that the two most successful Communist nations, the USSR and PCR

Neither were communist.


both had violent purgation programs that removed all opposition. How is that democratic? How is that Communist? Unless that's considered part of the revolution of overthrowing bourgeoisie thought and process, I don't see how that was very egalitarian and fair to those purged. The PCR killed Maoists after Mao's death, and Stalin had Leninists and Trotskyists killed. Does this qualify these states as not anything near a state of the Communizing process with this brutality and authoritarianism, or is the Marxist part of the left side of the political spectrum severely divided between real left (that is, personal freedom and such) and perceived left (championing leftism without actually practicing it, such as the USSR and PCR did)?

these alleged communist nations, from their very beginnings, were enemies of socialism, the first thing mister Lenin did when in power was crush the local workers councils and local government and worked to create a highly authoritarian government, Stalin's policies weren't that much different from his. China is the same story, once the Marxists get power, they crush the workers they previously encouraged.


I do know that for 5 years, 1917-1922, Russia had some real Communism action going on. Workers were allowed to organize and decide democratically and other such facets of planned Communist society, in which Lenin ruled, but as soon as Stalin defeated Trotsky for rule of the USSR, it turned into the state we all knew and hated, which maligned Communism for the real Communists.

We need to get some things straight:
* Lenin and Trotsky crushed this "real communism" brutally, they supressed all oppostion, they crushed the anarchists (who were there allies in the war) and they crushed the kronstadt communists (they were "real" communists)
* Workers were not "allowed" to make decisions democratically, they took democracy for themselves, Lenin and Trotsky destroyed this.
* Stalins policies were pretty in line with Lenin's

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

* Lenin and Trotsky crushed this "real communism" brutally, they supressed all oppostion, they crushed the anarchists (who were there allies in the war) and they crushed the kronstadt communists (they were "real" communists)


Kronstadt mutiny, real communists? By what stretch of the imagination does this war-time uprising disruptive to the civil war (serving the interests of the whites) raging in Russia at the time constitute the "real communists"?

[Invincible Summer]

I find it intriguing how one can qualitatively assess the "worseness" of a variant of Marxism.

[red cat]

Instead of commenting on the level of correctness of facts and analysis of certain other posters in this thread, I will prefer to see how, if at all, the OP uses other threads on these topics to counter them. :)

[superborys]

Instead of commenting on the level of correctness of facts and analysis of certain other posters in this thread, I will prefer to see how, if at all, the OP uses other threads on these topics to counter them. :)

Are you insinuating that I'm unintelligent? :P

I think the questions I've asked and the responses that I've gotten mostly answser my questions. Unless Aeon135's answers are blatantly biased or wrong, I think I grasp the whole idea.

So it is what I've thought: In practice these ideas were used against the workers, but when Communists adhere to these tendencies they mean in theory, not how the people who practiced them used them, right?

When you say what you said, you're asking if I'll be a sheep and follow blindly the first answer I get to my question, or will I compare them with other people's answers, perhaps even your and Helios+'s, in comparison to Aeon135, no?


I find it intriguing how one can qualitatively assess the "worseness" of a variant of Marxism.

I agree. Any form of government can work if there isn't corruption and all people are like-minded, so I see no reason that Maoism can't work with the elements of bourgeois manipulation, if the people that use it aren't corrupt and are intelligent.



Marxism-Leninism - Not sure, centralized into the vanguard party? -Correct
And ideally the vanguard party would be most, if not all, of the proletariat, and it would actively try to increase its size and educate the proletariat to 'class consciousness' and rationality, and all the other useful aspects of a person? Certainly your aforementioned Stalin/Lenin vanguard party which spurred the workers into revolution, only to reign over them with the party become dictators, would not be this vanguard party.

Furthermore, would the 'centralized' system be in the confederated type you talk about? If so, I have no problem with centralization, and I feel that my communicated definition may be incorrect to what you heard.
When I said centralized, I meant centralized into one or very few people, such as Stalin, Mao, Trotsky, etc. When I say decentralized, I meant when there's councils to prevent concentration of power in one body.


All Marxist groups have "authentic" DoP's in a sense. Communism in one country, what you ascribe to, is at odds with the grand majority of far leftists.

When you say at odds, you mean that there's a huge contention over whether or not you can progress directly from dictatorship of the bourgeoisie to a communism, or if you require a socialist proletariat-state to 'initiate the uninitiated' to socialism?

When you say that Lenin was just as bad, are you saying that all of the major leaders of the Russian Communist revolutions were nothing more than dictators? Surely these dictators, like I've said, had theoretical views of democracy, otherwise I should hope this forum's users wouldn't so readily align themselves with authoritarianism while championing democracy and freedom.


In practice I find Maosim the worst variant of Marxism.

While it doesn't directly teach me anything to know why you think that, certainly it will help me to understand why people go with certain tendencies, and it will probably help me to choose one myself.

I think that the vanguard party would be necessary post-revolution, namely because if capitalism/feudalism were able to rise to power during the proto-communism of cavemen, certainly they can do it when people think they're safe in Communism. It would be there mostly to keep people educated on what Communism is and isn't, and how to avoid another state arising.


I'm sorry if I'm asking questions that seem elementary or silly, but I'm new to formalized and systemic Communism. I'm more used to hearing it as 'workers working together for the good of themselves and their society, without money, class, or oppression'. I'm not so used to the different methods of getting there, policies while there, etc.

Seriously, thank you guys so far.

[superborys]

bump?

[ContrarianLemming]

My answers are not wrong ,they are biased, no doubt. Red cat was refering to me, not you.

[ContrarianLemming]

So it is what I've thought: In practice these ideas were used against the workers, but when Communists adhere to these tendencies they mean in theory, not how the people who practiced them used them, right?

correct.


When you say what you said, you're asking if I'll be a sheep and follow blindly the first answer I get to my question, or will I compare them with other people's answers, perhaps even your and Helios+'s, in comparison to Aeon135, no?

I assume that's what he means.


I agree. Any form of government can work if there isn't corruption and all people are like-minded, so I see no reason that Maoism can't work with the elements of bourgeois manipulation, if the people that use it aren't corrupt and are intelligent.

All people are corrupt to some degree, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, this is elementary to me. This is why I am not a Marxist Leninist, there are no perfect people are all governments are corrupt to some extant, when you give power to someone you cannot hope that they will be perfect leaders, Marxist Leninism "hopes" that once the government they set up is in place, that it wont become tyrannical. This Marxist Leninist government is given absolute power to destory the capitalists, thus, they are absolutely corrupted by the power. This is the logic of th vangaurd party, as if the workers, as you have insinuated, are to stupid to manage their own affairs, to ignorent to care about anything other then horse racing as mister Lenin put it. Vangaurdism, Leninism in general, is based on the idea that workers will always be to stupid and reactionary to ever do anythingt meaningful, thus they need a super group, a vangaurd of "pure" communists to lead these sheep. A group of professional revolutionaries who promise to serve the interests of these mindless sheep. We must recognise that there is no such this as a good leader, we must take away the means by which people abuse others, the tools by which violence is used, like the state. The moment you put another class in power of the state, you create a new abusing class.



And ideally the vanguard party would be most, if not all, of the proletariat, and it would actively try to increase its size and educate the proletariat to 'class consciousness' and rationality, and all the other useful aspects of a person? Certainly your aforementioned Stalin/Lenin vanguard party which spurred the workers into revolution, only to reign over them with the party become dictators, would not be this vanguard party.

Lenins party dd not spur people into revolution, the revolted in spite of Lenins party. All the workers joining the vangaurd doesn't make the leaders more legitimate.


Furthermore, would the 'centralized' system be in the confederated type you talk about? If so, I have no problem with centralization, and I feel that my communicated definition may be incorrect to what you heard.
When I said centralized, I meant centralized into one or very few people, such as Stalin, Mao, Trotsky, etc. When I say decentralized, I meant when there's councils to prevent concentration of power in one body.

This centralized system would be just as I mean it: centralized, confederation is the anti centralized. Leninists call it "Democratic Centralism", its always centralized with little or no local government and never democratic. If theres democracy then it would be crushed by the new rulers, for the good of the sheep.




When you say at odds, you mean that there's a huge contention over whether or not you can progress directly from dictatorship of the bourgeoisie to a communism, or if you require a socialist proletariat-state to 'initiate the uninitiated' to socialism?

The DoP is the socialist transition. there one in the same. It probably the biggest disagreement.


When you say that Lenin was just as bad, are you saying that all of the major leaders of the Russian Communist revolutions were nothing more than dictators? Surely these dictators, like I've said, had theoretical views of democracy, otherwise I should hope this forum's users wouldn't so readily align themselves with authoritarianism while championing democracy and freedom.

It's hard to say really. The revolution in russia never went according to plan, the plan was that a european country, preferably germany (as it was the most advanced) would have a revolution and this is where the centre of socialism would be, this is because Russia was such a backwards peasant society at the time, Marx always said that a revolution must happen in an industrial society, where capitalism has reached its limit. A revolution was attempted in Germany but it was destroyed, so in my view, Lenin basically started whipping the country into indistrialization. Maybe he was honest about wanting communism, maybe not. As far as I can tell, Leninism was a right wing varient of socialism that diverged from the mainstream more libertarian marxist thought of the time. Before te revolution Lenin changed his tune and started talking about workers councils and democracy etc, then, once in power, he went back to his old views. The hammer hurts, the peoples hammer hurts just as much.



While it doesn't directly teach me anything to know why you think that, certainly it will help me to understand why people go with certain tendencies, and it will probably help me to choose one myself.

I don't think many Leninists are authoritarian, I think there more libertarian then most, on the political compass, no one here ever comes out in the authoritarian section.
But, I think it takes a certain amount of denial or authoritarianism to justify what Lenin did, or even admire him as many do.


I think that the vanguard party would be necessary post-revolution, namely because if capitalism/feudalism were able to rise to power during the proto-communism of cavemen, certainly they can do it when people think they're safe in Communism. It would be there mostly to keep people educated on what Communism is and isn't, and how to avoid another state arising.

"keep people educated"
pretty soon I can imagine that turning into a police state.
Your analogy is very flawed, things are so different now that you can't make that analogy. Fuadalism and Capitalism were all based on violence and initiated by force, people didn't "let it happen" without realizing it was bad. People new it was and fought it, there are many examples. If you bgin a communist revolution the workers arn't about to "get comfortable" and let capitalists slowly take over. There not going to, as so many leninists say about anarchism "lay down arms" and simply let capitalists take over again.


I'm sorry if I'm asking questions that seem elementary or silly, but I'm new to formalized and systemic Communism. I'm more used to hearing it as 'workers working together for the good of themselves and their society, without money, class, or oppression'. I'm not so used to the different methods of getting there, policies while there, etc.

Questions are never silly :)
The way I see it, there are to ways to get to communism, the risky one and the risky one.

[superborys]

So I can in no way consider myself Marxist-Leninist if I want decentralized, democratic governments to prevail? I could agree with centralization if it were a participatory government, or councils still. I don't think I could trust the leadership if it were in a few people elected the way they are now. I would only be comfortable with either randomly selected leaders, or councils. But I suppose that's the definition of participatory democracy. If that means decentralization, then I cannot consider myself Marxist-Leninist, if that ideology requires centralization. How could it possibly be democracy if it becomes nothing more than a representative democracy? Unless worker's coalitions and councils for their individual things are encouraged. I could agree with that if it were centralized leadership and decentralized internal functions.

I.E. In Communist nation A, the people elect a couple of councils, where money is not an object, and the 'politician' thing is illegal. They're just regular people who want to help lead the country. Then, when these people govern the country as a whole, the populous sets up a large amount of worker's councils to govern work in their area for just themselves, people establish things like that, so centralized on the outside, decentralized on the inside.

Is that even feasible? It sounds much too good to be possible. A few good preventative measures is that because it's classless, the people leading can't separate them, and in the constitution it states you cannot pass legislation based on individuals. It actually comes to pass that there's no way for a politician to have an ulterior motive because there aren't taxes to be exempt from, there aren't things to get free as opposed to at a cost, etc. I would also require such things like voting on important things, and high amounts of consensus to be required in a leading council before the voting process could begin, and popular vote must also be passed at an equal or higher rate.

Am I just idealistic, or is this pretty similar to what people think too?

Also, I cannot, for the life of me, decide on what my tendency would be. Is it obvious from my posts? I just can't decide, and it feels like I should choose one.

[superborys]

Another question:

How would we decide who gets luxuries and who doesn't? I know that utilities, food, clothes, medicine, etc, come standard with just working, but how can we decide what amount of work mandates how many luxuries you get?
I am entirely in the dark here on that. If the government decides, then you have effectively a money system, but with work-hours. And who designs the games? Those aren't needs, they're wants. Will it just go without saying that the nation's economy would be so strong that we would have to abolish no luxuries, and people could just choose from whatever they wanted?

[Invincible Summer]

Marxist Leninism "hopes" that once the government they set up is in place, that it wont become tyrannical. This Marxist Leninist government is given absolute power to destory the capitalists, thus, they are absolutely corrupted by the power. This is the logic of th vangaurd party, as if the workers, as you have insinuated, are to stupid to manage their own affairs, to ignorent to care about anything other then horse racing as mister Lenin put it. Vangaurdism, Leninism in general, is based on the idea that workers will always be to stupid and reactionary to ever do anythingt meaningful, thus they need a super group, a vangaurd of "pure" communists to lead these sheep. A group of professional revolutionaries who promise to serve the interests of these mindless sheep. We must recognise that there is no such this as a good leader, we must take away the means by which people abuse others, the tools by which violence is used, like the state. The moment you put another class in power of the state, you create a new abusing class.

...




"keep people educated"
pretty soon I can imagine that turning into a police state.

The thing is, the vanguard isn't a "new ruling class." It's not a condescending "commie nanny" designed to tell the workers how to do things. Look at the world today - we have fucking teabaggers claiming Obama is a "Fascist Communist" and people who think Sweden is a full-blown socialist country. You don't think that people need a bit of a nudge in the right direction regarding revolutionary communist ideas? And then those who become receptive to these ideas are then part of the vanguard too. As I see it (which may not be the orthodox view), the vanguard is just a group of people who are trying to "spread the word" about communism to gain more grassroots support. It's not guys in suits shouting orders to "sheep."

[red cat]

Are you insinuating that I'm unintelligent? :P


Absolutely not. The Marxist method of deduction is quite difficult to grasp if you don't live in an area of intense class struggle.



I think the questions I've asked and the responses that I've gotten mostly answser my questions. Unless Aeon135's answers are blatantly biased or wrong, I think I grasp the whole idea.

So it is what I've thought: In practice these ideas were used against the workers, but when Communists adhere to these tendencies they mean in theory, not how the people who practiced them used them, right?

When you say what you said, you're asking if I'll be a sheep and follow blindly the first answer I get to my question, or will I compare them with other people's answers, perhaps even your and Helios+'s, in comparison to Aeon135, no?

If I were you, I would try to find out whether some group has actually established and is maintaining anything similar to a communist or socialist society. If such a peoples' democracy existed somewhere, I would certainly prefer to learn more about the party that led the masses in organizing it, and its guiding ideology.

[superborys]

So, redcat, what you're saying is that in your point of view is that all of this talk on this forum is theory? No Communism has ever existed somewhere, not even temporarily in the Paris Commune?

I also interpret from your post that you feel that all of the previous 'Communist' parties were nothing more than scandalous dictator-parties, that all of them weren't Communist, just with that moniker, no?

[superborys]

I've just in the past few days read up on anarcho-syndicalism, and it sounds right up my alley. If things aren't decentralized, they must at least be participatory, otherwise how can you assume freedom? How are you any freer, any more democratic if you're just electing officials to do the same shit you are today? They can just rip you off like they can now. However it comes about, I feel that the government must be participatory to work in communism. People will just stop caring otherwise, unless enormous propaganda campaigns are set in place.

Do you disagree? Participatory or decentralized I feel are the only ways to succeed.

So that makes me either anarcho-syndicalist or what kind of Communist?

[Invincible Summer]

I've just in the past few days read up on anarcho-syndicalism, and it sounds right up my alley. If things aren't decentralized, they must at least be participatory, otherwise how can you assume freedom? How are you any freer, any more democratic if you're just electing officials to do the same shit you are today? They can just rip you off like they can now. However it comes about, I feel that the government must be participatory to work in communism. People will just stop caring otherwise, unless enormous propaganda campaigns are set in place.

Do you disagree? Participatory or decentralized I feel are the only ways to succeed.

So that makes me either anarcho-syndicalist or what kind of Communist?

Don't worry about labels, but Anarchists generally are considered Communists, but not necessarily the other way around.