How is communism stateless?

[jmpeer]

I'm confused. I've heard that communism is stateless, democratic, and has centralized resource distribution. But unless state is symbolic of something like the capitalist state, statelessness would imply that there is no democracy or centralized resource distribution. What's the deal here?

[ContrarianLemming]

We have two meanings for communism

big C Communism (capital letter) = a state socialism, such as the Soviet Union or Cuba

small c communism (lower case) = a classless stateless democratic society

this is where you are getting the confusion from

[Tablo]

Except that big C communism isn't a term we use. That is a term used by people that follow right-wing propaganda.

[ContrarianLemming]

Except that big C communism isn't a term we use. That is a term used by people that follow right-wing propaganda.

I'm just trying to make it simple for someone who is clearly a newbie.

We do have different meanings for it.
edit:
statelessness would imply that there is no democracy or centralized resource distribution

we don't think this is true

[Tablo]

Alright, my bad. Just trying to clarify. :lol:

[JazzRemington]

I'm confused. I've heard that communism is stateless, democratic, and has centralized resource distribution. But unless state is symbolic of something like the capitalist state, statelessness would imply that there is no democracy or centralized resource distribution. What's the deal here?

There'd still be institutions that would be responsible for administrative affairs, such as record keeping, facilitating trade/communication/coordination between areas, etc.

[mikelepore]

In Marx's terminology, a classless society would be stateless by definition, because the term "state" is reserved to mean any aspects of governing that are the instruments of a ruling class for oppressing a ruled class, or otherwise protecting the materials interests of a ruling class, such as declaring unequal wealth distribution to be a formal law and using coercion to enforce it, or conducting imperialist wars. Nevertheless, the debate among Marxists continues because we do not agree on which aspects of governing remain genuinely necessary and are unrelated to holding down an oppressed class. For example, I believe that the existence of law makers and a law enforcement department would continue in a classless society, which some other Marxists disagree with.

[jmpeer]

Alright, thanks for the replies. I don't believe Marx's way of defining stateless is very accurate. But at least I understand what he means now.

[ZeroNowhere]

I just found this (http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/karl-marx-the-state.html) great article explaining Marx's views on the state, and it's definitely worth reading if you're interested in the subject.

[Dave B]

The following quote may be useful;

Frederick Engels Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
III [Historical Materialism]




As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a State, is no longer necessary.

The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production.



http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm)

The state essentially governs people or some part of the people in other words it represses, coerces or compels some part of the population to do what it would rather not.

As much as it does that it is a state.

In order to understand that the democratic administration of things or production in communism does not involve coercion of people requires an understanding of what communism is which is often sadly lacking.

However even statist crypto fascist authoritarians knew what it was;

V. I. Lenin From the Destruction of the Old Social System

To the Creation of the New




Communist labour in the narrower and stricter sense of the term is labour performed gratis for the benefit of society, labour performed not as a definite duty, not for the purpose of obtaining a right to certain products, not according to previously established and legally fixed quotas, but voluntary labour, irrespective of quotas; it is labour performed without expectation of reward, without reward as a condition, labour performed because it has become a habit to work for the common good, and because of a conscious realisation (that has become a habit) of the necessity of working for the common good—labour as the requirement of a healthy organism.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/apr/11.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/apr/11.htm)

So if all the people are performing labour gratis for the benefit of society without reward as a condition; or volunteering there is no more organised compulsion or coercion than in any other voluntary work.

That would involve a moneyless society of free access etc if taken to its ultimate conclusion.

The issue of the possible need of coercion or enforceable laws eg a state as regards non property related anti personal or social crimes is trivial in this respect and historically never really entered into the debate much.

In a labour voucher system a state would still probably be required to coerce and repress lumpen proletarian and bourgeois shop lifters etc



.

[Zanthorus]

statist crypto fascist authoritarians

It would be nice if we could keep the absurd slander under the lid in a thread which doesn't even deal with that subject anyway.