Basics of Communism

[Stargleam]

I'm very new to politics; one of my friends recommended this site. In particular I'm interested in communism. Could anyone give me a description in layman's terms of basic communist principles? What I've managed to pick up so far--if I've got this right--is that communism is decentralized democracy; everyone has power and can vote over the issues that affect them, but nobody has any more power than another individual. Private property is bad because it allows for the exploitation of the proletariat. Russian and Chinese "communism" isn't true communism, but state capitalism. ...What major things am I missing?

Also, my parents are a conservative and a liberal; the conservative nearly keeled over when he heard me talking about "the non-evils of communism" with my brother, and the liberal still thinks that the people who live under communism aren't content with the system. When I said that there hadn't been a truly communist country, they told me that there never would be. Does someone have a good argument for this?

Again, I'm a newbie, so don't murder me if I've got something wrong.

Thanks
*.:Stargleam:.*

[fa2991]

I'll do my best.


What I've managed to pick up so far--if I've got this right--is that communism is decentralized democracy;First you should differentiate between communism and socialism.

Communism is the end goal, and socialism is the means.

A communist society would

1. Have abolished social classes
2. Have abolished private property (i.e. society at large democratically owns all property)
3. Have abolished wages
4. Distribute goods according to need (i.e. free education, health care, food, housing, etc.)
5. Have no government
6. Have no currency or markets

Communism cannot be created immediately, so society must go through a type of society called socialism first. Once socialism is nurtured and perfected, communism will eventually develop.

Socialism is the stage of society where the proletariat (the workers) take over the means of production (land, factories, etc.) and abolish private property. Wages, currency, government, and distribution according to how much you work (not what you need) are usually still intact, but will hopefully fade away eventually.

Socialism is the purest form of democracy in theory, but many socialist societies have run into problems developing real democracy. There are many theories for how socialist societies should be run - the main schools of thought on this are Leninism and Anarchism.


everyone has power and can vote over the issues that affect themIt varies. Some communists are against voting (anarchists, usually), some believe we should elect delegates, some believe in direct democracy, etc.

However, all communists believe in workplace democracy - that everyone should have control over their own workplaces, which should be run as co-operatives, which means that workers would democratically run the factories and farms and that everyone would be paid the same wage.


but nobody has any more power than another individual.Ultimately, yes, once communism is attained there would presumably be no domination.

However, socialism must come first. There are different theories on this. Anarchist communists believe that socialism should have no hierarchy and that no one should have power over anyone else, whereas Marxist, Leninist, etc. communists believe that some people should have power over others, but that these people should be democratically chosen and accountable to workers.


Private property is bad because it allows for the exploitation of the proletariat.Yes, among other things. This argument basically says that people who own property get rich and control society by taking advantage of other people's work. For example, the people who own Wal-Mart are obscenely rich, but derive their money from commodities other people worked to create.


Russian and Chinese "communism" isn't true communism, but state capitalism. ...What major things am I missing?
Again, remember the difference between socialism and communism. Russia and China were/are run by communists, but no one thinks they were actually communist societies. Presumably, they were socialist societies preparing for communism, but some people (like Noam Chomsky, Emma Goldman, etc.) believe that workers didn't have any real power in the USSR, etc., so these countries weren't socialist at all.

They are called "state capitalist" by people who believe that they were not actually democratic socialist countries. Some communists believe they were/are socialist, however, and don't use this term.

Communists criticize capitalism by saying that it is exploitative and unfair and that society is controlled by a selfish ruling class - the owners - that live off of and oppress the working class. The USSR, China, etc. are called "state capitalist" by their critics because bureaucracies formed in these countries (especially under Stalin) whereby an elite class of government officials took on the role previously held by the owners under capitalism.

So the state in these countries acted like capitalists did under capitalism by oppressing the working class. Hence the term "state capitalist."


the people who live under communism aren't content with the system. Communist responses to this vary. Some people on here will tell you, for example, that Cuba is a democratically run socialist country that satisfies the people's needs, and some will tell you that it is "state capitalist."

Theoretically, socialism should be as democratic and liberating a system as there can be, but there is often a problem making this happen in practice.

"Socialist" countries that dominate the people and are undemocratic but that are founded on socialist revolutions are often called "deformed" or "degenerate workers states" because they are not capitalist countries, but gave failed to create socialism. This guy: :trotski: (Leon Trotsky) wrote a lot about deformed workers states. He believed that the Soviet Union was a deformed workers state because it was founded as a socialist country, but Stalin derailed the revolution and made it a state capitalist country.


When I said that there hadn't been a truly communist country, they told me that there never would be. Does someone have a good argument for this?It depends on why they think "there never will be." Give some more details and I'll try to help you with a reply.

[Nachie]

Welcome to the wonderful world of confusing ideas!

There is one thing and one thing only that you need to know about communism. Once you understand it, you will have the key to seeing through every lie that anyone will ever try to feed you about it, and more importantly you will be well on your way to discovering what it means to you and why it is relevant to your life.

It is this: "communism" is not a form of government, it's not a form of economy, it's not a form of organization, and it's not a future society that will be called "communist".

"Communism" is an ongoing organic process embedded in the actual conditions of people who are living right now; it is the eternal human desire for liberty and cooperation that rises again and again throughout history, and has taken countless forms according to the objective situation through which it manifests.

There is no blueprint for communism, there is only the constant flowing process that we are living. There are any number of theories and ideologies seeking to analyze the communist process, organize it, direct it in some way, or otherwise explain it scientifically... but all you NEED to know is that communism is the struggle for control over our own lives. How this takes shape for you and how you think you should act in accordance with that desire is what's important. The rest is just other people's interpretations, and you're under no obligation to accept them :)

"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from premises now in existence." - Karl Marx

[Stargleam]

It depends on why they think "there never will be." Give some more details and I'll try to help you with a reply.

I wish I knew why there never could be. The only detail I could get out of her was that it was impossible to create a "perfect" government of any kind.

[Stargleam]

Oh. I forgot to mention in my original post, I know that communism is supposed to destroy social classes.

[fa2991]

I wish I knew why there never could be. The only detail I could get out of her was that it was impossible to create a "perfect" government of any kind.

Then she's just one of many people who falsely believes that communism is "utopia" or "perfection." They can be hard to talk to. Basically, a response should be along the lines that a "perfect" society is impossible, but that communism is the configuration of society that will produce the most free, just, and democratic results.

Usually when someone makes this argument it's a sign that they don't know much (if anything) about communist theory. They often base their conception on the stereotype that modern communists are wide-eyed dreamers like the "utopian socialists" from centuries ago who believed, among other things, that under socialism the oceans would transform into lemonade.

[Stargleam]

Usually when someone makes this argument it's a sign that they don't know much (if anything) about communist theory. They often base their conception on the stereotype that modern communists are wide-eyed dreamers like the "utopian socialists" from centuries ago who believed, among other things, that under socialism the oceans would transform into lemonade.

Yes; I have feeling that typical American anti-communist propaganda has a lot to do with my parents' opinions. My dad is a history fanatic; he reads lots of history books, but I doubt the history books have anything good to say about communism.

[fa2991]

Yes; I have feeling that typical American anti-communist propaganda has a lot to do with my parents' opinions. My dad is a history fanatic; he reads lots of history books, but I doubt the history books have anything good to say about communism.

Probably not.

One must remember that we are the country that fought a decades long war against "socialism." We're also the only major industrialized country without a purposeful socialist party. Not to mention that America's best and brightest socialists were mostly all deported, jailed, or killed in the 20s and 30s. Positive perspectives can be hard to find.

[Stargleam]

Yes. Sadly, all of my communist/Marxist friends--who, I should note, are the most logical, clear-headed people I know--are my age: high schoolers.

[fa2991]

Yes. Sadly, all of my communist/Marxist friends--who, I should note, are the most logical, clear-headed people I know--are my age: high schoolers.

Well, that would make sense, since you're a high school student. :D

[Stargleam]

(laughs) I have friends who are out of high school. Maybe I should clarify; it's not just my only communist friends; it's the only communists I know at all.

[Nikolay]

Have you ever read the Communist Manifesto? It helped me understand more about what Communism is.

Also, trying using this site: marxists.org. This site also helped me a lot.

[Chimurenga.]

I'd recommend this:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

and then follow it up with The Communist Manifesto.

[mikelepore]

What I've managed to pick up so far--if I've got this right--is that communism is decentralized democracy; everyone has power and can vote over the issues that affect them, but nobody has any more power than another individual.

I argue that "decentralized" is nothing but the personal preference of some individuals, and they have tried to sneak that in by saying that it's part of the definition. What they should say is, if the people someday get to vote on what kind of new system to implement, then they will vote that the system should be made decentralized. As for myself, I consider a high degree of centralization to be necessary.

[Stargleam]

Thanks guys, Marceau and proletarianrevolution and mikelepore. No, I've never read The Communist Manifesto, I'll have to see if I can find a copy.

[Stargleam]

Oh. Counterpoint for "a doctor and a janitor would be paid the same," please?
...I thought in communism there isn't a currency? :confused:

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

Oh. Counterpoint for "a doctor and a janitor would be paid the same," please?
...I thought in communism there isn't a currency? :confused:
You're right there is no currency in communism so nobody is payed anything. Both the doctor and the janitor have important roles to play in society and in communism they are equal.

[Stargleam]

Thank you. I know some people who constantly bring this point up, and it's annoying me to death.:mad:

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

Your welcome:)!

[Weezer]

The Communist Manifesto is overrated. I recommend the Principles of Communism by Frederick Engels.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

[Broletariat]

Thank you. I know some people who constantly bring this point up, and it's annoying me to death.:mad:
There's also the fact that I would seriously doubt that a position as "janitor" would even exist in a Communist society. People can pick up after their own damn selves and free-up labour for more productive activities. What's easier, having one person work 8 hours to clean up a mess or someone taking a minute or two to throw trash away or clean up their own spill before it gets sticky?

[dawt]

There's also the fact that I would seriously doubt that a position as "janitor" would even exist in a Communist society. People can pick up after their own damn selves and free-up labour for more productive activities. What's easier, having one person work 8 hours to clean up a mess or someone taking a minute or two to throw trash away or clean up their own spill before it gets sticky?
This is another thing that sets apart the production process in capitalism and communism. During capitalism, workers are replaceable because each and every one of them only takes care of one step during the production of goods, thus getting alienated from the products and their purposes etc.

WTF is alienation? I too asked myself this question at some point. In communism, people produce products to make their lives easier, safer etc - in capitalism people do it for profit. Many times they are the same, but just walk around a super market or watch TV commercials for an hour and you'll notice many products don't serve much of a purpose besides making the producer a profit. Now that's just stupid.

[Broletariat]

WTF is alienation? I too asked myself this question at some point. In communism, people produce products to make their lives easier, safer etc - in capitalism people do it for profit. Many times they are the same, but just walk around a super market or watch TV commercials for an hour and you'll notice many products don't serve much of a purpose besides making the producer a profit. Now that's just stupid.
Are you saying that what you have listed after your question is alienation? Because I've come to understand alienation to mean that the product of a worker's labour is used against him/her to empower the bourgeoisie, hence alienated labour.

[dawt]

Give me an example of what you mean. I guess it could mean both, the term does have different meanings in different contexts and theories but at the moment I'm kind of tired and possibly confused.

The way I'm using the term is the way I've come to understand it from Marx. The way I understand alienated labor, is that the worker has no say in the creation of the product and only contributes to a tiny degree in its production. He is told by somebody else what to do and how to do it. And in the end, he doesn't even own what he produced, instead being "compensated" with something that has absolutely no connection to the product itself: Money. By being completely replaceable in the production process, he is furthermore alienated from his co-workers and more generally from other people in total and ultimately from himself and mankind. The original sense behind the production of a product and the product itself is lost and replaced by the profit motive and hunt for money.

[Broletariat]

Give me an example of what you mean. I guess it could mean both, the term does have different meanings in different contexts and theories but at the moment I'm kind of tired and possibly confused.

The way I'm using the term is the way I've come to understand it from Marx. The way I understand alienated labor, is that the worker has no say in the creation of the product and only contributes to a tiny degree in its production. He is told by somebody else what to do and how to do it. And in the end, he doesn't even own what he produced, instead being "compensated" with something that has absolutely no connection to the product itself: Money. By being completely replaceable in the production process, he is furthermore alienated from his co-workers and more generally from other people in total and ultimately from himself and mankind. The original sense behind the production of a product and the product itself is lost and replaced by the profit motive and hunt for money.
I was thinking more alienation in the sense that the worker's create commodities which go on to empower the capitalist by giving them a profit, so that the way the worker is forced to survive is by helping his/her class-enemy.

[ContrarianLemming]

Some minor points:

* Communism does not negate currency
* Communism is not marxism, if you equate communism with Marxism then you marginalize Anarchism.
* All points so far are only opinions, ones a seriously disagree with for the most part.

CL

[Zanthorus]

The way I'm using the term is the way I've come to understand it from Marx. The way I understand alienated labor, is that the worker has no say in the creation of the product and only contributes to a tiny degree in its production. He is told by somebody else what to do and how to do it. And in the end, he doesn't even own what he produced, instead being "compensated" with something that has absolutely no connection to the product itself: Money. By being completely replaceable in the production process, he is furthermore alienated from his co-workers and more generally from other people in total and ultimately from himself and mankind. The original sense behind the production of a product and the product itself is lost and replaced by the profit motive and hunt for money.

Marx did focus on all those things. However none of them is how Marx used the term alienated (Or "estranged") labur. Marx's theory of alienation is a theory of the alienation of human productive powers:

"We proceed from an actual economic fact... that the object which labor produces – labor’s product – confronts it as something alien, as a power independent of the producer."

In the production process the worker creates surplus-value for the capitalist in the process of meeting her own needs. In her efforts to reproduce her own material existence she reproduces the capital relationship. She attempts to enrich herself but in doing so she only increases her own poverty, her distance from the material human community.

[Stargleam]

Haha. So how about if I read the Principles of Communism, and if I have extra time on my hands I'll read The Communist Manifesto?

[know2b]

You should read both. They worked the Principles into the Manifesto, if I remember right. Think of the Principles as an introduction to the Manifesto.

[fa2991]

Haha. So how about if I read the Principles of Communism, and if I have extra time on my hands I'll read The Communist Manifesto?

Realistically, you could probably read them both in one sitting if you have copies of both of them.

[Stargleam]

A university library would probably have copies of The Communist Manifesto, right?

[#FF0000]

A university library would probably have copies of The Communist Manifesto, right?

Almost definitely, yes.

[Stargleam]

That would be helpful. :) I should have access to copies soon, then.