Communism: how should it look like?

[SacRedMan]

Dear comrades,

As we know we all hope that we once free the people and the world of the terror and mass exploitation that capitalism made and bring them communism.

But, how should our communism look like? A democracy? A dictatorship where all power is in the hands of one man? Or like Marx wrote, where all power belongs to the working class.

We should all agree that if we want a communist state, a dictatorship isn't the awnser because many people will be against it. So that falls away.

A democracy? Austro-Marxism isn't proved wrong yet, but a social-democracy has proved that it doesn't work.

Now about Marx. Marx wrote that the proletarians are the state, that everything belongs to the state, so that everything belongs to the proletarians. But if we have a country with 50million inhabitats, how can each individual rule over the country? By a democracy like we have now, where everyone votes? Or like in the USSR, where everyone that is a member of the communist party votes inside the party, a parlementairy democracy...

Or do we have to make another way to practice communism?

What is your opinion and what should you recommand?

[The Idler]

A classless, stateless, wageless, moneyless society based on common ownership and democratic control with production solely for use not profit where people have free access to resources.

[SacRedMan]

A classless, stateless, wageless, moneyless, stateless society based on common ownership and democratic control with production solely for use not profit where people have free access to resources.

:thumbup: Yes! That's the best one for me! Totally agree! :thumbup1:

[The Man]

A dictatorship where all power is in the hands of one man?


If there is a 'Dictatorship', then it's not Communism..

[SacRedMan]

If there is a 'Dictatorship', then it's not Communism..

That's treu, but what about Juche?

[GallowsBird]

If there is a 'Dictatorship', then it's not Communism..


Unless it is a dictatorship of the proletariat! :p

[The Man]

That's treu, but what about Juche?

Well, the DPRK isn't Communist. It's impossible to have a Communist country.

[SacRedMan]

Well, the DPRK isn't Communist. It's impossible to have a Communist country.

Qué? :confused:

[The Man]

Qué? :confused:

A Communist Country/State is a contradiction in terms.. They are actually just Socialist. Communism can only occur once the whole world is Socialist.

[SacRedMan]

A Communist Country/State is a contradiction in terms.. They are actually just Socialist. Communism can only occur once the whole world is Socialist.

That's a stage indeed. If we want to archieve communism we need socialism first.

[The Man]

That's a stage indeed. If we want to archieve communism we need socialism first.

That's right. The Anarchists oppose the Socialist Stage, and want to go straight to Communism..

[red cat]

Unless it is a dictatorship of the proletariat! :p

Communism won't be any class dictatorship. There won't be any classes in communism, so the concept of a class exercising dictatorship over another is not applicable to it.

[Gorilla]

Every society no matter what the mode of production contains little cellules of other modes of production inside it. Every feudal empire has a small merchant caste that practices capitalism on a small, restricted scale. When the Roman empire was working the antique slave mode of production there were still pockets of the asiatic mode of production inside it. So on that premise, we'd look for cellules of limited communism at work today and generalize outward.

The largest scale on which partial communism is practiced right now is American college campuses. I mean the prestigious ones, where living and dining in common is still practiced, not the lower-down schools that nickel and dime you with off campus living and a la carte meal plans. Once you've paid your tuition, all housing and eating is free of charge and practiced in common. The means of production (classrooms, library books, scientific and computer labs) are available for all students and faculty to use, either on a completely unrestricted basis or by a fairly easy process of filing a request. For communism on a society-wide basis, extend this to everybody and remove the once you've paid your tuition part.

So imagine a large university, say a Big Ten school, but with farms and factories on campus and people of all ages. Or imagine New York, but with common dormitories and dining halls, workshops, libraries, labs etc. That might give you an idea.

(Some might object that university students' labor is non-productive. That's based on the false assumption that ideological production is non-material. In fact they're engaged in the extremely lucrative production of prestige, which the capitalist state and corporations are self-evidently willing to pay top dollar for.)

Of course, advanced capitalism resembles an Armenian merchant's shop in the Ottoman empire only vaguely, so an analogy like this gives you only a limited perspective, but it might be a start.

[Comrade J]

There are a hell of a lot of apparent 'communists' here who it seems have never even turned the first page of the manifesto or any other Marxist text. So many people just seem to have learnt about the Soviet Union in history class and then declare themselves communist.

Marxists.org

Go to a nice café or your favourite room in the house or whatever, make a nice cold drink and get out your notepad and read articles on the MIA. If you want to be able to debate with people with standard arguments like "it wouldn't work"; "people are inherently selfish"; "Lenin/Mao/Stalin/Who-the-fuck-ever etc was a ****" then you need to have a reasonable grounding in theory as well as the history of the Soviet Union. Personally I'd argue that any supporter of Stalin is therefore not a communist, but that's another issue and I'm not getting into sectarianism.

If you're fairly uneducated on it then start with something relatively simple like Engels. I can understand that a lot of people still genuinely believe there should be an end to exploitation of the working class but don't know a lot of Marxist or Anarchist theory, I was in that position myself, but if you don't even have a basic knowledge then you can't really consider yourself a Communist or Anarchist. Learning about Stalin at school and thinking "yeah he was awesome!" and then declaring yourself as a communist is nonsense, and you won't be taken seriously.

[Geiseric]

Unless it is a dictatorship of the proletariat! :p

Funny since there wasn't a Dictatorship of the proletariat with Stalin, it was a dictatorship of the state as ruled by those who may have believed that they were representing the proletariat.

[☭The Revolution☭]

I talk about that in my new e-book. I have an idea, but it's in my book. If you want to know it, then just read the book because it's A LOT.

[The Man]

Funny since there wasn't a Dictatorship of the proletariat with Stalin, it was a dictatorship of the state as ruled by those who may have believed that they were representing the proletariat.

Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and Dictatorship of the State sound awfully similar. Since Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the state.

Stop trolling.

[☭The Revolution☭]

Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and Dictatorship of the State sound awfully similar. Since Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the state.

Stop trolling.

Not if the system is an actual SYSTEM, not a formal government.

[The Man]

Not if the system is an actual SYSTEM, not a formal government.

Oh the Government ruled, he meant?

[Obs]

Funny since there wasn't a Dictatorship of the proletariat with Stalin, it was a dictatorship of the state as ruled by those who may have believed that they were representing the proletariat.
It's also funny that you post this knowing this thread isn't about Stalin. One-track mind?

[OhYesIdid]

I believe "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" was another term for Direct Democracy, what with the proletariat being so many and all.
I believe Anarcho-syndicalism (http://libcom.org/thought/anarcho-syndicalism-an-introduction) is on the right track, since it both avoids a Sovietical transition state and is a transition in and of itself.
However, Comrade J has a very good point.

[Delenda Carthago]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_hr8iaA4NHXQ/S-AvfGBoerI/AAAAAAAANho/lZfQXJh_Ylw/s400/hammer%26+sickle+porn+%5Bback+in+the+ussr%5D.jpeg

[GallowsBird]

It's also funny that you post this knowing this thread isn't about Stalin. One-track mind?

Exactly, but we should all know by now that every other thread becomes a mighty Stalin-bash. :rolleyes:

Dammit wasted my 100th post...

[GallowsBird]

Funny since there wasn't a Dictatorship of the proletariat with Stalin, it was a dictatorship of the state as ruled by those who may have believed that they were representing the proletariat.

...

http://img810.imageshack.us/i/flamewar.jpghttp://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff517/Comrade_Number_One/flame_war.jpg
http://www.unmotivationalposter.com/wp-content/gallery/archive03/flame_war.jpg

[Dragovich]

It's almost impossible to have a truly Communist government. At least in a large country with a large population.

[SacRedMan]

It's almost impossible to have a truly Communist government. At least in a large country with a large population.


Explain.

[Dragovich]

A classless, stateless, wageless, moneyless society based on common ownership and democratic control with production solely for use not profit where people have free access to resources.

Look at what the second poster's post. This is the end result of Communism, not North Korea, not China, and not the Soviet Union. It's what is stated above. It sounds nice, doesn't it? I kinda liked it too but that's not going to happen. Ever.

There is always going to be classes in society. Even in a 'classless' society, leaders will eventually rise up and classes will form.

The rest is just unrealistic. You're basically fighting against human nature.

[Rafiq]

We are speaking of abolishing economic classes and their relations, not social classes like the popular kids in your school.

[Dragovich]

We are speaking of abolishing economic classes and their relations, not social classes like the popular kids in your school.

Then how is such a society truly classless? I'm asking out of curiosity and of course to have people to debate me. :p

So don't be offended.

[dernier combat]

Then how is such a society truly classless? I'm asking out of curiosity and of course to have people to debate me. :p

So don't be offended.
Rafiq probably meant that social cliques would not necessarily cease to exist, which have no material basis anyway (rather, members of cliques have a variable status which applies to them only as a result of other people's perceptions of them).

Society is divided (in to classes) economically - i.e. according to the place of individuals in the processes of production and management. There is a false dichotomy between economic and social class, though I think in this case Rafiq simply used the wrong term to describe what kind of group "popular" people constitute within a given larger group.

The society is, after the destruction of the different relations to the means of production (e.g. capitalists own MoP and workers sell their labour for a wage by utilizing the MoP to create profit for the capitalist) and in turn the abolition of classes whose existence result from the different relations to MoP, classless and equal from a socio-economic perspective.

[dernier combat]

There is always going to be classes in society. Even in a 'classless' society, leaders will eventually rise up and classes will form.
Social classes do not manifest out of nothing. Social classes arise from different relations to means of production. Unless, in a communist society, the old distinctions between worker, propertied manager/boss and non-propertied manager (or even slave, feudal lord, etc.) arise again due to some sort of gross collective mismanagement, classes will stay dead.


The rest is just unrealistic. You're basically fighting against human nature.
The existence of people who portray characteristics opposed to standard qualities of human nature disproves the idea that a single "nature" can apply itself to all humans. There cannot be exceptions to the rule of human nature (by definition it must apply to all humans), thus a single human nature does not exist.

[stella2010]

Organised.

[stella2010]

...

http://img810.imageshack.us/i/flamewar.jpghttp://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff517/Comrade_Number_One/flame_war.jpg
http://www.unmotivationalposter.com/wp-content/gallery/archive03/flame_war.jpg


Thats how hard i'm lighting it.

[Obzervi]

A classless, stateless, wageless, moneyless society based on common ownership and democratic control with production solely for use not profit where people have free access to resources.
But how will you prevent people from not working and then taking the fruits of production? Meaning I don't believe its possible to implement true communism with at least a bit of authoritarianism involved. If people refuse to work they should be dealt with and educated.

[red cat]

Mass authoritarianism. Nothing else.

[Robocommie]

Mass authoritarianism. Nothing else.

The individual must completely suborn his will to the masses, eh?

[red cat]

The individual must completely suborn his will to the masses, eh?

The communist masses, yes.

[Robocommie]

The communist masses, yes.

And what form exactly does this vague expression of "the masses" take? And is there any room at all for an individual to dissent against the collective will of the masses? Or will it essentially be the tyranny of the majority? Who determines and interprets the will of "the masses"?

[red cat]

And what form exactly does this vague expression of "the masses" take? And is there any room at all for an individual to dissent against the collective will of the masses? Or will it essentially be the tyranny of the majority?

In a society where classes cease to exist, the numerical majority will decide whether to give someone that space or not, depending upon the situation. There is nothing to be worried about. As I mentioned earlier, these are communist masses; the same that enable and uphold the emancipation of humanity from all exploitation. So there is no reason to think that the masses will tie up a random dissenting individual and sacrifice him to the volcano-god.

[Robocommie]

In a society where classes cease to exist, the numerical majority will decide whether to give someone that space or not, depending upon the situation. There is nothing to be worried about. As I mentioned earlier, these are communist masses; the same that enable and uphold the emancipation of humanity from all exploitation. So there is no reason to think that the masses will tie up a random dissenting individual and sacrifice him to the volcano-god.

Then how is it authoritarianism?

[red cat]

Then how is it authoritarianism?

I thought it meant that when practiced by the masses ?

[Pretty Flaco]

It should be unrecognizable from a fascist dictatorship.

lol jk, i kid

[Robocommie]

I thought it meant that when practiced by the masses ?

Well, I mean when you use the word "authoritarianism" it implies a militantly repressive body, of strict, unquestioning authority, with no room for dissent, with no protections for the individual. Authoritarianism is a word associated with fascism, to me, not socialism, which should be democratic. To me the only just society is majority rule with respect for the rights of the minority.