superborys
27th May 2010, 05:47
I have been, since my registration here at RevLeft, trying to determine which party/branch of Communism I can relegate myself to. For a while I was torn between Anarcho-Syndicalism and some others, but tonight, while reading more about each branch, I have stumbled upon Council Communism, and I think it fits my qualifications entirely.
I haven't read entirely into it, but the concepts, and the fact that I, before knowing of Council Communism, thought that the early stages of Soviet Russia were quite Communist (the things in question being the soviets and how they actually mattered, until Lenin 'temporarily' banned them.), makes me think that Council Communism is probably the most reasonable of the ones I've read.
From what I've read, it represents real democracy, with the workers actually making decisions, and their decisions being based into a federation system where eventually things are decided upon, or in some other fashion I'm too lazy to describe here.
Am I missing something obvious about Council Communism, or am I fortunate enough that my views on Communism are shared so widely by people that it deserves a Wikipedia page?
In an unrelated question, I have been wondering how Communism can possibly be 100% fair regarding the proletarians. How would Communism fairly appropriate positions of labor to the people? I understand it's been suggested that people would just keep their current positions, but I can assure you if I shoveled refuse out of streets for a living, even if it was all I could do and was grateful to have a job, I would be extremely upset that, after partaking in a Communist revolution, I was not allowed to get a new job.
How would Communism fairly appropriate jobs? Why would some people get to design buildings and use their intelligence as they please whereas some people are stuck having to shine shoes and shovel garbage, so to speak?
I am really hung-up on this, and I feel if this cannot be answered, then Communism is just utopia.
However, if the theory that people have to work much less because of advancement in the means of production, then I can see it being not-so-unreasonable that people are expected to keep their old jobs, but I still see it as largely unfair.
I have discounted job rotation as viable, at least not in the upper echelons of society, because if one day a fisherman is told, "Go clean the floors with this mop", sure, he'll do it, but I'm almost certain he'll do a poor job of it at first.
A way I see to circumvent this is to test people for intelligence, and evaluate them for their skill, current collegiate degrees, etc., and then the people who are not qualified for a job that's very high-up are given the opportunity to go to school to further their job standing, and thus this process would increase the intelligence of society as a whole, all of this deciding and such being done under the guidance of not a bureaucracy, but councils. :D
Could anyone clarify this for me?
I haven't read entirely into it, but the concepts, and the fact that I, before knowing of Council Communism, thought that the early stages of Soviet Russia were quite Communist (the things in question being the soviets and how they actually mattered, until Lenin 'temporarily' banned them.), makes me think that Council Communism is probably the most reasonable of the ones I've read.
From what I've read, it represents real democracy, with the workers actually making decisions, and their decisions being based into a federation system where eventually things are decided upon, or in some other fashion I'm too lazy to describe here.
Am I missing something obvious about Council Communism, or am I fortunate enough that my views on Communism are shared so widely by people that it deserves a Wikipedia page?
In an unrelated question, I have been wondering how Communism can possibly be 100% fair regarding the proletarians. How would Communism fairly appropriate positions of labor to the people? I understand it's been suggested that people would just keep their current positions, but I can assure you if I shoveled refuse out of streets for a living, even if it was all I could do and was grateful to have a job, I would be extremely upset that, after partaking in a Communist revolution, I was not allowed to get a new job.
How would Communism fairly appropriate jobs? Why would some people get to design buildings and use their intelligence as they please whereas some people are stuck having to shine shoes and shovel garbage, so to speak?
I am really hung-up on this, and I feel if this cannot be answered, then Communism is just utopia.
However, if the theory that people have to work much less because of advancement in the means of production, then I can see it being not-so-unreasonable that people are expected to keep their old jobs, but I still see it as largely unfair.
I have discounted job rotation as viable, at least not in the upper echelons of society, because if one day a fisherman is told, "Go clean the floors with this mop", sure, he'll do it, but I'm almost certain he'll do a poor job of it at first.
A way I see to circumvent this is to test people for intelligence, and evaluate them for their skill, current collegiate degrees, etc., and then the people who are not qualified for a job that's very high-up are given the opportunity to go to school to further their job standing, and thus this process would increase the intelligence of society as a whole, all of this deciding and such being done under the guidance of not a bureaucracy, but councils. :D
Could anyone clarify this for me?