True Communism

[Dimitri Molotov]

is communism a form of government or economic system? can someone give me a short "true communism for dummies" kind of description about true communism/marxism? :che:

[Broletariat]

Communism is a classless society, there would be no government at the final stages of Communism because government necessarily divides society into classes of governed and governors.

There are lots of different proposed ideas of how the economy would work, all are unified by the idea of abolition of private property. Private property as we currently understand it is neo-lockesian property, property based on jus ad rem premises (based on title), property would be redefined to be based on jus in rem premises (based on use and occupancy). There would be direct worker's democracy within their respective work environments so they could decide how they want to spend their time and what to do with their product after it has been made.

It's kind of hard to go on beyond that, ask more questions though so I have a grasp at what you're looking for.

[28350]

It's an economic system.

NB. This is different from FALSE COMMUNISM, who acts like a jerk and apparently eats babies.

[Zapatas Guns]

is communism a form of government or economic system? can someone give me a short "true communism for dummies" kind of description about true communism/marxism? :che:
Communism is an economic system. There are different transition periods that may take place before government is abolished depending on who you ask.

[Dimitri Molotov]

Communism is a classless society, there would be no government at the final stages of Communism because government necessarily divides society into classes of governed and governors.

There are lots of different proposed ideas of how the economy would work, all are unified by the idea of abolition of private property. Private property as we currently understand it is neo-lockesian property, property based on jus ad rem premises (based on title), property would be redefined to be based on jus in rem premises (based on use and occupancy). There would be direct worker's democracy within their respective work environments so they could decide how they want to spend their time and what to do with their product after it has been made.

It's kind of hard to go on beyond that, ask more questions though so I have a grasp at what you're looking for.

Thank you very much. that was exactly what i needed to know i appreciate your answer alot;) :hammersickle:

[Broletariat]

It's an economic system.


Communism is an economic system.

I would argue that an economic system and a political system are inextricably linked to each other and impossible to separate.

[Broletariat]

Thank you very much. that was exactly what i needed to know i appreciate your answer alot;) :hammersickle:

No problem man, that's what the forums are for and such fight the good fight and all that ask questions where you need to and we'll all learn together and other good hippy stuff

[28350]

I would argue that you are right, but that the economic system is more important.

That is, if I used the subjunctive.

[Broletariat]

I would argue that you are right, but that the economic system is more important.

That is, if I used the subjunctive.
I don't think you can isolate the economic system to even make the claim that it's more important.

[Dimitri Molotov]

wait this is what i understand, workers would make the product, decide what to do with it, and split the profit equally? if that is correct so far, does this mean there wouldn't be employers/bosses in a true communist economy?

[Broletariat]

wait this is what i understand, workers would make the product, decide what to do with it, and split the profit equally? if that is correct so far, does this mean there wouldn't be employers/bosses in a true communist economy?
"Profit" by definition cannot exist in a Communist society because profit is derived from worker exploitation, let me give an example of how a possible Communist society could operate.

A group of workers in separate industries could all decide to pool their resources collectively and just draw from them as needed completely doing away with currency entirely, or establishing a new type of currency that would more resemble theatre tickets in that you exchange it and then it's worthless. These would be rewarded based on something like amount of hours worked. Or there could be something like Energy credits where each person is assigned x number of energy credits and can redeem those energy credits for products that take that amount of energy to produce.

That is correct there would be no employers or bosses in a Communist society, nobody would be allowed to own something that they neither use or occupy.

[el_chavista]

can someone give me a short "true communism for dummies" kind of description about true communism/marxism? :che:
Marx studied the capitalist mode of economic production and proposed that mankind would be better off if the economic incomes -product of the collective effort of the workers- were used for the sake of all society without going through the wallets of a privileged elite of magnates-proprietaries.

[Zapatas Guns]

I would argue that an economic system and a political system are inextricably linked to each other and impossible to separate.


It doesn't HAVE to be but it can. I would argue that a political system is just where the power to control is centralized. I would argue and I do, that it should be centralized nowhere and the more power is distributed evenly across the public the better.

[Broletariat]

It doesn't HAVE to be but it can. I would argue that a political system is just where the power to control is centralized. I would argue and I do, that it should be centralized nowhere and the more power is distributed evenly across the public the better.
Are you saying that the political system is EXCLUSIVELY where the power to control is centralised? That's how I'm reading what you're saying to mean, please correct me before I continue if I'm wrong.

[Dimitri Molotov]

okay, this is even better than i thought! so in a communist society, there wouldnt be no need for money? i love that idea, i think money is a horrible thing. could you please give one more example of a communist economy? i almost understand it. i understand the movie ticket idea, but what would they be used for?

[Zapatas Guns]

Are you saying that the political system is EXCLUSIVELY where the power to control is centralised? That's how I'm reading what you're saying to mean, please correct me before I continue if I'm wrong.

In a simple answer yes.

Political systems are where authoritarian power is, be that in leaders, elected or not, or within an economic system tied to authority like capitalism.

[Broletariat]

okay, this is even better than i thought! so in a communist society, there wouldnt be no need for money? i love that idea, i think money is a horrible thing. could you please give one more example of a communist economy? i almost understand it. i understand the movie ticket idea, but what would they be used for?

There would be no need for money as we know it now. Currency that can be accumulated is in inherent opposition with a classless society. My last example of a Communist economy mostly focused on distribution what with the currency and all that. Production wise workers would manage their own labour, since they ARE the ones working it makes more sense that they know more about their own jobs than do the corporate big-shots telling them how to operate following strict corporate policy. Heck my Father used to work on an Oil refinery owned by Exxon and he told me "There was two ways to work out there, the right way or the Exxon way, and we go with the Exxon way." So workers would be able to solve the problems they see in their work-places themselves instead of having to go through the slow-pains of appeal to a higher authority to get permission to do menial things.

The theatre ticket analogy of how currency would exist in a Communist society is just to show that currency couldn't be accumulated. The most common idea I've heard is labour credits awarded based on how many hours of work you've done. So maybe a loaf of bread costs 5 minutes of labour credits, so you spend your 5 minutes at the grocery store but it becomes worthless after you exchange it for that bread.

[Scary Monster]

I think one of the most important points of communism that needs to be understood is that what Marx calls the abolition of Private Property is the abolition of private ownership of the tools that produce what people need. These tools are things such as crop-producing land, factories, business offices and buildings, etc, and giving direct control of these to the public, instead of private entities dictating what should be done with these. And when i say private entities, that includes the **state** which is still run by the few (the "Bourgeoisie"), and not directly by the public. Communism still allows for people to have private possessions, such as a car, house, an xbox.

[Broletariat]

In a simple answer yes.

Political systems are where authoritarian power is, be that in leaders, elected or not, or within an economic system tied to authority like capitalism.


I think you're trying to draw a difference where there really is none. The State owns land and tells you how to live while you're on it, and so does the Capitalist. They're both organised based on vertical-hierarchy so the power-structure is inherently linked together and largely the same.


I think one of the most important points of communism that needs to be understood is that what Marx calls the abolition of Private Property is the abolition of private ownership of the tools that produce what people need. These tools are things such as crop-producing land, factories, business offices and buildings, etc, and giving direct control of these to the public, instead of private entities dictating what should be done with these. Communism still allows for people to have private possessions, such as a car, house, an xbox.

I don't like using the term "abolition of private property." I think it scares too many people away. I prefer the term "redefining property to be based upon use and occupancy." That makes a lot more sense in my opinion.

[28350]

Yeah, but the "abolition of private property" sounds badass.

[Broletariat]

Yeah, but the "abolition of private property" sounds badass.
badass or not, you have to consider the perspective of the mainstream. They don't instantly draw a difference between private and personal property so when you say destroy private property the idea sounds very harsh until you explain it. Phrasing it the way I have instantly explains itself.

[Zapatas Guns]

I think you're trying to draw a difference where there really is none. The State owns land and tells you how to live while you're on it, and so does the Capitalist. They're both organised based on vertical-hierarchy so the power-structure is inherently linked together and largely the same.



I don't like using the term "abolition of private property." I think it scares too many people away. I prefer the term "redefining property to be based upon use and occupancy." That makes a lot more sense in my opinion.

So if you are on a property and you use it and it is yours why do you need the state at all? The state only exists in capitalist countries to protect private property. In a socialist/communist country like that of the 20th century, the state enforced the state ownership of the property but you don't need the state at all. Again I tell you to look at where the power is centralized. If you and I and everyone on this board hold equal economic power, no one person can take control of everything. With capitalism, the goal is to achieve more economic power than your neighbor, which means less power for you and I and less freedom for you and I.

If we live in a commune it is not really a political structure because power is not central anywhere. The way the power will be distributed will depend on the nature of the revolution and the circumstances that brought it about.

I think we have different definitions of things.

[Broletariat]

So if you are on a property and you use it and it is yours why do you need the state at all? The state only exists in capitalist countries to protect private property. In a socialist/communist country like that of the 20th century, the state enforced the state ownership of the property but you don't need the state at all. Again I tell you to look at where the power is centralized. If you and I and everyone on this board hold equal economic power, no one person can take control of everything. With capitalism, the goal is to achieve more economic power than your neighbor, which means less power for you and I and less freedom for you and I.

If we live in a commune it is not really a political structure because power is not central anywhere. The way the power will be distributed will depend on the nature of the revolution and the circumstances that brought it about.

I think we have different definitions of things.

Whoa yea I definitely think we have different definitions of things. The question you're asking is essentially based on the point I make, we don't need the State at all. The State, much like the Capitalist, illegitimately claims ownership of property.

[Zapatas Guns]

Whoa yea I definitely think we have different definitions of things. The question you're asking is essentially based on the point I make, we don't need the State at all. The State, much like the Capitalist, illegitimately claims ownership of property.

The state can claim property in a communist country as easily as in a capitalist one, I don't like this, which is why the best description I can come up with for myself is an anarchist.

[Broletariat]

The state can claim property in a communist country as easily as in a capitalist one, I don't like this, which is why the best description I can come up with for myself is an anarchist.
I've stated my definition of Communism in my first post as a classless society, one without a government. When I refer to Communism I refer to the end-result we're all looking for. I would call the end-result of a successful Anarchist revolution a Communist society, I just see Anarchism as a means just like Socialism.

[Zapatas Guns]

I've stated my definition of Communism in my first post as a classless society, one without a government. When I refer to Communism I refer to the end-result we're all looking for. I would call the end-result of a successful Anarchist revolution a Communist society, I just see Anarchism as a means just like Socialism.

I can't argue with you on that. I agree.

[Broletariat]

I can't argue with you on that. I agree.
Yea, I don't think you and I have many ideological differences, just semantic differences :)