Liberal Communism?

[Dahut]

Can a pure or stateless communism be achieved without an authoritarian regime and a dictatorship of the proletariat? I understand it protects from external and internal threats but is there any way this can happen without violating rights and freedoms. Do you think it is possible that there could be a bloodless transition from capitalism to communism? Basically is there anyway that there could a Libertarian (or social liberal sense) transition, that respects and even maximises human rights, freedoms and democracy or is this impossible and incompatible with achieving communist ideals?
Thanks.

Reason for edit: Clarification of 'liberal'

[Ballyfornia]

Can a pure or stateless communism be achieved without an authoritarian regime and a dictatorship of the proletariat? I understand it protects from external and internal threats but is there any way this can happen without violating rights and freedoms. Do you think it is possible that there could be a bloodless transition from capitalism to communism? Basically is there anyway that there could a liberal transition, that respected human rights and freedoms and democracy or is this impossible and incompatible with achieving communist ideals?
Thanks.

Well if you think about any place where Communists came to power they were very backward countries. So if it was a capitalist country that changed to communism there wouldn't be much need for over working the general populace and it would be able to deal with natural disasters better. So human rights should and hopefully would be respected.

[Aurorus Ruber]

Anarcho-communism aims for achieving communism without dictatorship, although anarchists would not generally characterize themselves as liberals.

[The Man]

Anarcho-communism aims for achieving communism without dictatorship, although anarchists would not generally characterize themselves as liberals.

Basically this. Look at the Anarchist FAQ.

[Gorilla]

Can a pure or stateless communism be achieved without an authoritarian regime and a dictatorship of the proletariat? I understand it protects from external and internal threats but is there any way this can happen without violating rights and freedoms.

No one really knows the exact way to achieve stateless communism. A lot of Marxists would argue that an authoritarian regime and the dictatorship of the proletariat are totally opposite things and DOTP would be radically democratic This was Marx's model for DOTP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune


Do you think it is possible that there could be a bloodless transition from capitalism to communism?

I am in favor of one but I suspect the present ruling class does not agree.


Basically is there anyway that there could a liberal transition, that respected human rights and freedoms and democracy or is this impossible and incompatible with achieving communist ideals?

Here is Mao on whether reactionaries should have free speech (he also tells his niece to skip school):

http://kasamaproject.org/2009/07/14/mao-zedong-should-reactionaries-have-free-speech/

[Die Rote Fahne]

Since when did "dictatorship of the proletariat" refer to a literal dictatorship?

Fucking a.

[GPDP]

Since when did "dictatorship of the proletariat" refer to a literal dictatorship?

Fucking a.

Be nice. Remember, not everyone is up to speed on Marxist terminology, and though back in the 1800's it was clear what was referred to by a "dictatorship" of the proletariat, nowadays in common parlance it is a word exclusively used to refer to a repressive authoritarian government with most or all power held by one or a few rulers. The fact that most socialist countries did indeed turn into such dictatorships does not help matters.

What we must do is clarify what we mean when we say we want a proletarian dictatorship, which is for state power to be held by the working class for the interests of the working class, as opposed to the current bourgeois dictatorship.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Be nice. Remember, not everyone is up to speed on Marxist terminology, and though back in the 1800's it was clear what was referred to by a "dictatorship" of the proletariat, nowadays in common parlance it is a word exclusively used to refer to a repressive authoritarian government with most or all power held by one or a few rulers. The fact that most socialist countries did indeed turn into such dictatorships does not help matters.

What we must do is clarify what we mean when we say we want a proletarian dictatorship, which is for state power to be held by the working class for the interests of the working class, as opposed to the current bourgeois dictatorship.

My apologies, this is Learning after all.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Can a pure or stateless communism be achieved without an authoritarian regime and a dictatorship of the proletariat?As others have mentioned - in Marxist terminology, "dictatorship of the proletariet" means collective class control of society (by the working class). This would require a great deal of democracy and cooperation from a huge number of people (since workers are the majority of society). But this kind of society, would be a "state" since worker's democracy is still the working class organizing society along what their needs and wants are. Many socialists argue that this worker's democracy is needed in order to then achieve a stateless and classless society. If workers organize society according to their interests, then they do not need to exploit anyone or any group to produce what they need - they produce it together! As the divisions and inequalities of present society become less of an issue for people living after a revolution, then any sort "state" tools they have set up become less needed and a stateless and classless society is a possibility.

The easiest concrete example I can think of is a revolutionary militia. If there was a revolution but pockets of reactionaries attacking worker-controlled factories or engaging in terrorism to sabotage the ability of people to run things democratically, then people might decide that a militia should be organized to defend the factories and roads and communities and so on (think Egypt and all the neighborhood defenses that were set up to keep government hired thugs out). But if the threat is no longer an issue, why would people continue to force themselves to go out an patrol every week? The reason that capitalism generally relies on a standing army (one with absolutely no democratic rights or decision making) is because capitalism is based on competition and needs to constantly have an army or navy to enforce domestic peace (in a highly unequal system) and defend its economic interests from the constant threat of competitors (or to take resources away from competitors or weaker countries).


I understand it protects from external and internal threats but is there any way this can happen without violating rights and freedoms. Do you think it is possible that there could be a bloodless transition from capitalism to communism? Basically is there anyway that there could a liberal transition, that respected human rights and freedoms and democracy or is this impossible and incompatible with achieving communist ideals?
Thanks.I'd say that it is class society that keeps these thing mostly in the realm of abstract ideals rather than everyday realities. IMO one of the main goals of revolution is to reconcile the contradiction of the individual and society and make these ideals concrete for the vast majority. In capitalist society, our rights, as workers, only exist as long as they don't conflict with the interests of the ruling class (or if the ruling class has no choice and is forced to respect or grant certain rights). What kind of "individual freedom" do we have if we are owned body and soul by an employer for 8 hours a day and the rest of the time, our free-time is limited by how much we are paid, how much rent we have to pay and so on. Human rights are valued by our society only so long as it suits their interest - the US, for example supported Apartheid, and only cares about women's rights as an excuse to drop bombs in Afghanistan.

[caramelpence]

This was Marx's model for DOTP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune

Actually, Marx never referred to the Paris Commune as an example or model for the DOTP. Only Engels did, in his 1891 introduction to The Civil War in France. What Marx did say about the Paris Commune in his 1881 letter to Nieuwenhuis was "the majority of the Commune was in no sense socialist, nor could it be".

[El Rojo]

remember, a key aspect of liberalism is private property, which is the root of most of societies problems according to marxists. so the tow are mutually opposed

[hatzel]

remember, a key aspect of liberalism is private property, which is the root of most of societies problems according to marxists. so the tow are mutually opposedI think it's clear that the OP isn't necessarily talking about liberalism as a political current, just the word 'liberal' in the same way we say 'sexually liberal' or 'liberal Christianity', that is to say, with liberty, defined by being, in some respects, libre. It could just as easily be libertarian in this case, if we're going to use proper political terminology. Or, with a more in-depth knowledge of Marxism, they may in fact decide that this is itself adequately 'liberal', involving liberty...

[Zanthorus]

Actually, Marx never referred to the Paris Commune as an example or model for the DOTP.

This is true, however he rarely actually used the term 'dictatorship of the proletariat' anyway, and generally used more conventional terms like working-class government or working-class political power. Although in the speech (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/bio/media/marx/71_10_15.htm) he gave at the banquet held two days after the IWMA's London conference he does refer to the working-class conquest of political power, and later refer to the necessity of a period of 'proletarian dictature', seemingly implying that the two are essentially the same thing. Anyway, regardless of terminology Marx seemed fairly clear that it was "essentially a working class government, the product of the struggle of the producing against the appropriating class, the political form at last discovered under which to work out the economical emancipation of labor." Rereading the first and second draft manuscripts, it seems Marx was always fairly clear on that point.


What Marx did say about the Paris Commune in his 1881 letter to Nieuwenhuis was "the majority of the Commune was in no sense socialist, nor could it be".

True, but I don't think that the dictatorship of the proletariat for Marx is the same thing as socialism.

[bricolage]

And of course he did call it 'essentially a working class government'.

[Dahut]

I think it's clear that the OP isn't necessarily talking about liberalism as a political current, just the word 'liberal' in the same way we say 'sexually liberal' or 'liberal Christianity', that is to say, with liberty, defined by being, in some respects, libre. It could just as easily be libertarian in this case, if we're going to use proper political terminology. Or, with a more in-depth knowledge of Marxism, they may in fact decide that this is itself adequately 'liberal', involving liberty...

Sorry if it's a bit vague. I mean pertaining to liberty, so I mean governance that does not restrict and violate liberty and rights. But instead preferably maximises them.