Log in

View Full Version : Government in Communism



Bradyman
23rd October 2003, 03:10
I was wondering what are your guys thoughts about how the government should function (if you want any) in a communistic society.

I've heard much about the necessary participation and involvement of people in politics as well as a successful democracy. But I fear, as many here do, that any form of government would created inequalities and a ruling class.

So what are your thoughts?

sanpal
23rd October 2003, 04:35
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 03:10 AM
I was wondering what are your guys thoughts about how the government should function (if you want any) in a communistic society.

I've heard much about the necessary participation and involvement of people in politics as well as a successful democracy. But I fear, as many here do, that any form of government would created inequalities and a ruling class.

So what are your thoughts?
The State and Communism, how is its coordination?

By A.Dmitriev:

The phrase which is widely used at many argumentations about communism is "Communist State". This phrase took right for existence earlier, but nowadays its application causes confusion in theory.

"Communist State" is nonsence. The right and scientific answer must be the next:
Socialistic State must be created by communists with their scientific knowledge so it means that the Soc. State must be the State of democracy and dictatorship of the CLASS (not a party!) of proletarians and the Soc. State must organize a commune into the self-State.
At that there are no state government inside of commune and even simply state government interferention into affairs of commune: commune is ruled with
self-government only.

In the long run, if the commune is growing up and if the power of bourgeois confederacy
gathered round socialist society slacken then the Socialist State with the commune independently working inside it step by step dies off (scales down). Thus the COMMUNE scales up and becomes stronger but not the State contrary to stalinists and stalinism.

Such is the dialectics of correlation between the State and communism and it cannot be another one.



By A.Dmitriev (in Russian language):


Во многих рассуждениях о коммунизме употребляется фраза "коммунистическое
государство". Она имела право на существование, но сегодня ее употребление
вносит путаницу в теорию.

"Коммунистическое государство" - это нонсенс. Правильно, научно обоснованно
вопрос должен быть поставлен так: СОЦИАЛИСТИЧЕСКОЕ государство,
организованное коммунистами с позиций науки, а потому государство демократии
и диктатуры КЛАССА (не партии!) пролетариев организует внутри СВОЕГО
государства коммуну (общину). При этом внутри коммуны нет никакого
государственного управления и даже простого государственного вмешательства в
дела общины: коммуна практикует ИСКЛЮЧИТЕЛЬНО самоуправление.

Со временем, если коммуна разрастается и если падает мощь окружающего
социализм буржуазного лагеря, то социалистическое государство, внутри
которого самостоятельно действует коммуна, постепенно отмирает. Таким
образом, разрастается и укрепляется не государство - в противоположность сталинистам и сталинизму, а КОММУНА (община).

Такова диалектика взаимоотношений государства и коммунизма и другой быть не
может.

А.Дмитриев

Guest1
23rd October 2003, 05:11
once the capitalist class has been eliminated, the working class should turn its sight on the only other enemy of the people, the government. In fact, they should always be trying to contain and diminish its power, but definitely once they take power from the capitalists they should concentrate on that. The government is probably a necessary evil for a while, but we should chip away as much unnecessary power form it as possible. Work towards bottom-up democracy, regain the right to control your own body, your sex life, your mind, wittle down military might, etc...

redstar2000
23rd October 2003, 13:27
Try this...

Demarchy: A Democratic Alternative to Electoral Politics by Brian Martin

http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/92kio.html

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

crazy comie
23rd October 2003, 14:51
The prolitarian class dictates the rules in a dictatorship of the prolitarian
then once class disstinctions have been abolished power dissolves and the state seases to exist.

sanpal
20th November 2003, 22:42
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 03:10 AM
I was wondering what are your guys thoughts about how the government should function (if you want any) in a communistic society.

I've heard much about the necessary participation and involvement of people in politics as well as a successful democracy. But I fear, as many here do, that any form of government would created inequalities and a ruling class.

So what are your thoughts?

Диктатура пролетариата и коммунизм.

А.Дмитриев.


Если только Вы не анархист-фундаменталист, то Вам нечего бояться
СОЦИАЛИСТИЧЕСКОГО правительства и, как Вы говорите не уточняя, правящего
класса. Ведь правящим классом, осуществляющим демократию и диктатуру, должен
быть пролетариат. А он, в отличие от буржуазии, может прийти к власти лишь
тогда, когда созреет до понимания необходимости уничтожения социального
неравенства (если к власти придет не развитый до такой степени пролетариат,
то он непременно скатится в мелкобуржуазное болото, будет побежден
буржуазией).

Однако приход к власти в государстве пролетариата вовсе не означает
уничтожения на следующий же день после политического переворота социального
неравенства. Как уже было сказано, это неравенство уничтожается ТОЛЬКО В
КОММУНЕ и только если она вообще уже организована. В окружающем же коммуну
социальном пространстве остаются существовать как класс пролетариев, так и
класс буржуазии (а также полупролетариев, полубуржуазии и т.д.) Между ними,
соответственно, остаются существовать и классовые противоречия
(противоположности). Но разрешением противоречий ЗДЕСЬ занимается уже не
правительство буржуазии и буржуазный парламент, а СОЦИАЛИСТИЧЕСКИЕ парламент
и правительство.


Таким образом, после социалистического политического переворота и прихода к
власти коммунистов, придерживающихся научного (марксистского) мировоззрения,
социальное неравенство и государственное управление исчезают. Но... исчезают
только в коммуне и только по мере постепенного разрастания коммуны, вплоть
до мирового масштаба.

The Dictatorship of the proletariat and Communism
by A.Dmitriev.

If you are not a fundamental anarchist so you mustn't beware of
SOCIALISTIC government and ruling class (though you haven't given the
definition of ruling class).
In that case the ruling class, which realizes democracy and dictatorship,
must be a proletarian one.
But they, in contrast to bourgeoisie, would come to power only when they
have "grown up" for understanding of necessity to abolish social inequality
(if "not matured to such an extent" proletariat will come to power they
sertainly will slip to petty-bourgeois "morass" and would be beaten with
bourgeoisie).


However, coming of the proletariat to power in the State doesn't mean the
abolishment of the social inequality the next day after political upheavel
(revolution). As stated above, the social inequality is abolished ONLY
IN COMMUNE, if it moreover has been organized. In the social area
surrounding the Commune, the classes of the proletariat and
bourgeoisie (and hemi-proletariat and hemi-bourgeoisie, etc.) go on to
exist. Accordingly it contradictions between opposite classes go on
to exist too. And these issueses (contradictions) could be settled
by the SOCIALIST parliament and socialist government but not
the bourgeois parliament and bourgeois government.


Thus, after socialist revolution and after coming of communists
(who follow the scientific (marxist) ideology) to power,
then socialist inequolity and State government will die out ,
but ... die out in_commune_only as commune will be expanding
till the World scope.

Revolution Hero
20th November 2003, 23:04
I advise Bradyman to read Lenin’s “State and Revolution”.

Comrade Ceausescu
20th November 2003, 23:42
I believe that in the socialist transition phase,the communistn party needs to be the vanguard of the people, and lead them.They listen to the people,but educate them as well.this is because many of the working class may have not been educated in a capitalist society where there needs were not supplied.If and when a truly communistic (classless) society is achieved,I believe that the help of the party will slowly decrease until the people are dependent on there community,and give much to it,and get much in return.

Bolshevika
21st November 2003, 01:37
Originally posted by Revolution [email protected] 21 2003, 12:04 AM
I advise Bradyman to read Lenin’s “State and Revolution”.
Yes, this is a great pamphlet on what Leninism is and how the withering away of the state is brought about.

S.B.
21st November 2003, 02:10
Comrades


The idea of government within communism is altogether a misnomer,for communism,as envisioned by Marx and Engels is that of a stateless society or rather better termed as socio-political anarchy.

The act of governance with its demand for a state to enforce its regulations cannot rightly co-exist alongside of communism,therefore,this question of government in communism is not at all a practical approach to either.


S.B.

crazy comie
21st November 2003, 15:24
The final stage of communism will have no goverment

Morpheus
23rd November 2003, 07:06
Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 23 2003, 02:51 PM
The prolitarian class dictates the rules in a dictatorship of the prolitarian
then once class disstinctions have been abolished power dissolves and the state seases to exist.
If it's really a social revolution then it will immediately abolish classes. If it isn't then it's just an exchange of one set of masters with another. The state must be smashed along with the class system. I see no reason why bourgeoisie should be allowed to exist after the revolution.

crazy comie
24th November 2003, 15:36
the most importent thing is not giving the beauracrates power.

Nyder
29th November 2003, 07:06
So your plan is to elect a communist government who would gain enormous power to completely reform capitalist society into a communist one.

Then, after that's done (most likely after much Stalinistic state terror), the Government will kindly vote itself out of existence and give up its totalitarian power for utopian communist society where people work together peacefully for the betterment of mankind. :rolleyes:

Anyone who actually thinks that will happen is a complete naieve moron. Your really putting your neck on the line by giving so much power to politicians and thinking they will never abuse it. The people of Germany, Russia, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, etc - all paid for this idiocy with their freedom.

redstar2000
29th November 2003, 13:34
The people of Germany, Russia, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, etc - all paid for this idiocy with their freedom.

Nyder, what are you babbling about here?

Here is what preceded "Stalinism" in those countries that you mentioned...

Germany--the Third Reich.

Russia--semi-feudal autocracy.

North Korea--Japanese occupation/military dictatorship.

Cuba--U.S.-sponsered colonial dictatorship.

Vietnam--French occupation/military dictatorship (North) and U.S. occupation/military dictatorship (South).

If these people "paid" for Stalinism "with their freedom", they must have all gotten a steep discount.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

opie
29th November 2003, 15:11
Wouldn't communism "need" a type of government whether its just a town meating or a full scale democracy. Because someone needs to plan out the distribution of products and all the other things a society of people need

Morpheus
29th November 2003, 22:05
Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 02:34 PM
North Korea--Japanese occupation/military dictatorship.
Actually the Japanese pulled out a couple months before the US & Russia could occupy Korea. In that time workers' started taking over the factories, peasants the land & self-managed communes were set up. In Seoul a provisional Korean government was set up, but its' power was weak and mostly limited to the capital. There was quite a bit of freedom in these few months. It was very close to anarchy, despite the fact that the Korean anarchist movement had been mostly wiped out after its' defeat in their Manchurian guerilla war. The USSR & US each imposed brutal client states on their half of the peninsula in order to squelch this 'threat of a good example.'

Morpheus
29th November 2003, 22:06
Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 04:11 PM
Wouldn't communism "need" a type of government whether its just a town meating or a full scale democracy. Because someone needs to plan out the distribution of products and all the other things a society of people need
You can plan things without a government. The state is not the only form of organization.

crazy comie
1st December 2003, 16:11
marx just said that the state will fade away and "When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character"[QUOTE]communisty manifesto so as to mean there may well be town meetings etc

Guest1
1st December 2003, 18:10
but really, don't you think the best way for the revolution to go is to start eliminating the state right away?

as people see what happens when they collectivize factories and eliminate government power, the fight against the return of the bourgeoisie and the government will earn their passion. it is only buy providing quick change and quick results that you can hope to succeed and keep it.

crazy comie
3rd December 2003, 16:21
Well of course marxists would try to iliminate the state as fastly as possible.

Mike Fakelastname
4th December 2003, 01:38
I agree with most of the people here, and Lenin. The best way to achieve Communism without getting stuck at Socialism and then moving onto a Capitalistic society again is to do away with the state as much as possible right away. Maybe let them keep their morality laws like no murder, and maybe keep them around for a little while for the sole purpose of organizing the demise of itself. I think this is what needs to happen.

Guest1
4th December 2003, 04:46
wow... I'm really not sure what to say. Lenin... and destroying the state as quickly as possible... in the same boat. strange.

crazy comie
4th December 2003, 16:15
It isent really that strange lenin did wan't the state to dissaper.

sanpal
6th December 2003, 00:20
I suppose only naive persons believe in idea that they will get communism as soon as they have destroied the state (as quickly as possible). An individual must at first "destroy the state in his head", he must be ready to do some unpleasant work to solve living problems by means to take part in self-government. But the most important thing is to throw out of his head "the money", in other words, 'purchase and sale thinking'. Evaluation of ware or product of labour must be done as time of average socially necessary labour per unite of production. If you would start evaluation of working or service with market value, with money so you can get free market capitalism or state monopoly capitatism (socialism) or
their mixing (social-democracy).

Could you say that one and all persons of now-a-day society are ready for communism?
What to do with the discordant ones?

The true way is to create among capitalist surroundings of any country local communist unions without state governing . If it is a parliamentary country so communist unions could elect their delegates to bourgeoise parliament of the country to protect their interests.

If living conditions in communist sector of the country become better in comparison with capitalist sector so communist sector must grow. This way will lead the human society to the situation when the state must disappear

crazy comie
8th December 2003, 15:45
Communism must educate and preper pepole before the state will disapper.

sanpal
15th December 2003, 22:33
Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 8 2003, 04:45 PM
Communism must educate and preper pepole before the state will disapper.
Yes, of course, communism must educate and prepare people only if communism
is in existence practically even if locally. I picture to my-self as a group
of people become proprietor of some means of production (it's
unimportant by virtue of what causes it happened, it's another topic)
and creates production of consumer goods for home consumption, creates
own proper medicine and education services, concern about children and old
people, etc. If particular spetialization of production does not let to
produce all articles of consumer goods (communist sector is too small)
so missing goods must be bought using free market of capitalist sector.
Unclaimed surpluses of consume goods could be used as marketable
surpluses in capitalist sector (for sale).

So communist sector can exist like an economically independent creation,
like a great factory among another independent bourgeois units but so long
as marketless (non-bourgeois, without money and wages) interrelations
between members of communist sector is in existance. As soon as
money will be used for measuring of quantity of labour and for
distribution of ware and services inside communistic sector so
communist sector is just transformed into socialist sector and later
if bureaucracy and corruption will win then socialist sector
could be transformed into capitalist sector and disappear as a sector
in the ocean of the capitalistic relations.

To exist and win in severe competitive
to economic struggle, labour productivity in
communistic sector should be higher,
than in capitalist sector of economy.

In the event that vital conditions in communistic sector
appear more attractive to people, outflow will begin
labour from capitalist sector of the state in
communistic sector and the communistic sector will extend.
Creation of manufactures and new workplaces in com.sector
will reduce a share of the consumer goods bought in capitalist
sector.

the COMMUNISM SHOULD WIN ECONOMICALLY, BUT NOT VIOLENTLY (Stalin reprisals)

crazy comie
16th December 2003, 14:50
communism can't become truley communist whilst there is still a bourgeoise state you may only be able to go to the lowest leveal of communism the dictatorship of the prolitarian

sanpal
17th December 2003, 00:21
Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 16 2003, 03:50 PM
communism can't become truley communist whilst there is still a bourgeoise state you may only be able to go to the lowest leveal of communism the dictatorship of the prolitarian

On the one hand it is true, for the bourgeois ideology will influence negatively consciousness of people, especially young.
But I would tell, that it is not absolutely true. The communism can not be wrong (the lowest level) only because it does not cover all society as a whole. Communistic relations between people can arise at once, as soon as they will agree among themselves upon fair distribution of products of joint labour activity.

The history of XX century has shown, that this problem for mankind still remains insuperable, behind exception of very small collectives where distribution of products of work is carried out according to a share of the labour contribution of the worker in the common business.

But even if the small collective is organized on bourgeois relations, that is employment of one workers is carried out others for the certain wages at the price of a labour on a labour market about any fair compensation for work to speak it is impossible. And unimportantly who supports bourgeois relations in a society whether the bourgeois state either the social democratic state or the socialist state though any of the listed states has a different degree of approach validity. But does not exclude hierarchy.

Until then while isolated communistic collectives will not find a not bourgeois way to be united, they will not represent special threat for bourgeoisie and any dictatorship of proletariat in this case it is not required as such collective, communistic inside, outside has usual bourgeois relations among other bourgeois units and associations.

But if to assume association of communistic collectives in a uniform network as marketless sector of market economy,
Then the bourgeoisie can feel the serious economic competitor and will try to neutralize communistic sector.
Protection of interests of proletariat in this case is necessary, for what it is possible to use institute of democratic authority of the state - parliament and where representatives from proletariat can be chosen voting.

If representatives of proletariat will make the majority then redistribution of a part of the property of bourgeoisie for the benefit of communistic sector of economy can be carried out by lawful way in parliament. In case of insubordination of minority to the law dictatorship of proletariat should be used.

Socialist it is possible to name the state which is not interfering and even assisting occurrence and development of communistic sector in any bourgeois state.

crazy comie
18th December 2003, 12:11
There is no point in small communes other than an escape from capitalism.