Disillusioned With Communism

[Tim Cornelis]

The more I think about the sheer complexity of a world economy, the less feasible I find communism :(

I know workers' self-management works. I can imagine the distribution of consumer goods according to needs.

The problem arises with international allocation of raw materials and natural resources. For example, why would lithium miners in Bolivia ship lithium to a battery factory in Scandinavia?

The mutual aid and solidarity between workers and within a community can hardly exist between Bolivian miners and Swedish battery manufacturers. They could in theory exchange goods, but communism is not an exchange economy. And to facilitate exchange money would need to be re-introduced.

What means does communism have to stimulate the cultivation of raw materials and the international sharing of natural resources?

"We'll find out after the revolution, no blueprints", wouldn't it be the greatest laughing stock of human history if we have a world revolution only to find out that the system doesn't work only because of the absence of international "flow" of raw materials?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I don't think your disillusionment lies with the system but just being undereducated about how much the world will change once revolutions occur.Within capitalist society of course workers wouldn't ship materials to workers whom they haven't met,but our jobs as leftists is to help society develop towards that point.Also remember that the workers are working towards socialism under a socialist state, so the leadership would be the ones deciding what goes where.All in all it will be international solidarity and exchange in the early stages.Once barriers have been overcome your worries will be forgotten as absolute within the new world.

The motivation under communism will be to live and prosper.For society as a whole to live, be happy and so forth without any kind of exploitation.More directly though it will be to advance with new technologies and sciences.Capitalism has help us back to much it is insane. Had it not been for capitalism we would be on Mars by now.

Perhaps read some Marx, Lenin, and so forth?

[runequester]

The USSR abolished rationing almost immediately after ww2, while it persisted in capitalist UK until 1950. Obviously a planned economy can do just fine.


What will have a hard time working is individual, isolated countries. Look at Cuba for example.
You need an "economy of scale" where things can be produced in large enough quantities to distribute throughout the population. If nation boundaries start breaking down, this of course becomes easier.

[Tim Cornelis]

I perfectly know that a planned economy can work per se.

Both the above comments seem to not have gotten what I was trying to say.

First, I am speaking about world communism, i.e. a stateless, moneyless communist world so there wouldn't be a "socialist state".


Within capitalist society of course workers wouldn't ship materials to workers whom they haven't met

Uhm... yeah they do. Bolivian miners mine lithium, their employer ships it to Swedish battery manufacturers and the consumer buys the batteries. The Bolivian miners have never met the Swedish workers yet they ship it to them because they benefit directly from it because it generates income.

In a communist world without money there is no reason why Bolivian miners will toil and sweat an extra two hours a day to produce lithium to ship to Sweden.

Within communes there is this stimulation: the commune takes care of you, you take care of the commune. But this is not the case on an international scale. You do not receive something from Sweden directly in return which stimulates you to produce lithium for them.

If I work in a hemp cooperative, we produce hemp as fabric for the community to make clothing (somewhere in England say). Fine, in return the community allows me to satisfy my needs, this is my reward. This stimulates me: mutual aid and solidarity within the community. But what stimulates me to produce hemp for Chileans? Why would I do that?


Perhaps read some Marx, Lenin, and so forth?

Neither Lenin nor Marx describe in fair amount of detail how communism works, they considered this "utopian".

[Rafiq]

Because whoever thinks that Workers as a whole are just going to 'do stuff for good' without a strong management is fooling themselves.

If communism were to ever work it would have to be a highly organized society, with different divisions of it doing different things.

[Sensible Socialist]

I In a communist world without money there is no reason why Bolivian miners will toil and sweat an extra two hours a day to produce lithium to ship to Sweden.

Do the Bolivian miners want to use batteries that come from Sweden? If so, they surely have an incentive to ship lithium to Sweden. Or, for that matter, do they enjoy any product that comes from another region of the world?

[Geiseric]

this thread is about semantics, proto capitalists weren't worried about this stuff before their revolutions, why should we? It's all pointless, we can't see the future. we want to make everything more efficient and have the end product cheaper than in a capitalist society, just work with that.

[ZeroNowhere]

It sounds more like you're disillusioned by mutualism or something tbh.

[Tim Cornelis]

Do the Bolivian miners want to use batteries that come from Sweden? If so, they surely have an incentive to ship lithium to Sweden. Or, for that matter, do they enjoy any product that comes from another region of the world?

They don't need batteries from Sweden since they have their own lithium and therefore can produce their own batteries. And of course they want raw materials from other regions in the world, but this implies some quid pro quo. "We give you an X amount of lithium and you give us a Y amount of steel", i.e. barter exchange. Money is a facilitator of barter and exchange and we may see its return as a result.

[Tim Cornelis]

It sounds more like you're disillusioned by mutualism or something tbh.

No... Mutualism has a system for allocation of raw materials: the market.

A communist world can plan all it wants, but if there is no internal stimulation there is no products to distribute.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

.Also remember that the workers are working towards socialism under a socialist state, so the leadership would be the ones deciding what goes where.All in all it will be international solidarity and exchange in the early stages

Capitalism has help us back to much it is insane. Had it not been for capitalism we would be on Mars by now.



Your first point simply describes State Capitalism and, hopefully, is not what the world will look like post-Capitalism. The workers will decide what goes where, the leaders will merely implement such ideas, on a rotating basis. In any future Socialist revolution that improves upon the 20th Century attempts, there will be no Stalins, no Maos and no Castros.

Your second point is also inaccurate. Capitalism - as Marx not only acknowledged but stressed as important to any basic understanding of a materialist concept of history - unleashed a tornado of productive forces and technological innovation. It improved many things in the world - technological advances, mass production of food, basic goods and ultimately things that were once the utmost luxuries - beyond the wildest aims of the Feudal system.

The point about Capitalism is that it has only been able to do this at severe human cost, and over time (As it develops) with the wrong aims in mind. Socialism aims to innovate for innovation's sake, and to be productive for consumption's sake. Capitalism aims any and all economic activity, simply and purely for profit's sake. Thus, it's answer, as it develops, to the increasing problems of scarcity, is not to rationally plan or allow people to make their own decisions, but to simply scour the land for profit opportunities. Thus, as Capitalism grows, we will see an increase in war, imperialism and on a national level, more anti-worker exploitation by increasingly more authoritarian means. At some point, it will be enough for the workers and they will rise up. When that happens, we need to be there to educate, agitate and provide organisational expertise, not to hijack the revolution and then 'lead' a 'Socialist State', whatever that is.

[syndicat]

The more I think about the sheer complexity of a world economy, the less feasible I find communism :(

I know workers' self-management works. I can imagine the distribution of consumer goods according to needs.

The problem arises with international allocation of raw materials and natural resources. For example, why would lithium miners in Bolivia ship lithium to a battery factory in Scandinavia?

The mutual aid and solidarity between workers and within a community can hardly exist between Bolivian miners and Swedish battery manufacturers. They could in theory exchange goods, but communism is not an exchange economy. And to facilitate exchange money would need to be re-introduced.

What means does communism have to stimulate the cultivation of raw materials and the international sharing of natural resources?

"We'll find out after the revolution, no blueprints", wouldn't it be the greatest laughing stock of human history if we have a world revolution only to find out that the system doesn't work only because of the absence of international "flow" of raw materials?
you're right to have these doubts. i don't think communism, as you define it, would work at all. and to say "We'll wait til the revolution to figure it out" is a ridiculous assertion...you're asking people to trust in...what? if the mass movement doesn't have a plan it's most likely elites or would-be elites who have their plans would win out. that's what happened in the Russian revolution.

the only way an economy could be not based on exchange is if each person produces everything for their own consumption....like self-subsistent peasants. not a workable idea.

but exchange doesn't have to be market exchange. if you do work and others benefit and they do work and you benefit, there is exchange.

the thing is to have a way to engage in exchange that is socially controlled in a way that ensures dominance of the values of solidarity and self-management and justice. mutualism aka market socialism has no real answer to this question.

this is what led me to the idea of coordinated negotiation, such as between organized communities of workers and of residents/consumers. between nations there can be exchange that isn't based on looting carried out by elites. this happens because one of the parties is a country where there is an elite class that subordinates and exploits its own working class, and they use their position to then exploit labor and resources in other countries.

as far as exchange between the workers in Sweden and Bolivia, as long as both benefit and the benefits are not captured or monopolized by the historically dominant country (Sweden in this case), there isn't a problem.

unequal exchange at present is based on the dominance of the core capitalist countries, their monopolization of capital in the hands of an elite, and they can exact ruinous interest rates, extend their dominance to workers in other countries.

[Desperado]

I don't think this question should be wiped under the carpet as utopian. Indeed, it is of the utmost importance - visualising and then enacting the real life the practicalities of theoretical and generally abstract communal principles. This is revolution. You don't just smash the state and overthrow the bourgeoisie - capitalism is a social relation. And the visualising is important - it's not to be prescriptive, of course, and organisation will forever be spontaneous - but it is this flesh to the theoretical skeleton which creates the confident real life alternative for the proletariat.


proto capitalists weren't worried about this stuff before their revolutions, why should we?

You answer you're own question. There are few "proto communists" (emancipated proletarians, let us say) allocating goods according to communist principles in the world today, let alone on a global scale. There was however an emerging capitalist class and associated market under high feudalism.

[syndicat]

proto capitalists weren't worried about this stuff before their revolutions, why should we?

actually this isn't true. in the French revolution both the Girondin and Montagnard parties in the new legislature...mostly made up of lawyers and well to do merchants...were advocates of free markets...eliminating the old constraints of the guild system etc. so they had a program.

[black magick hustla]

communism isn't a state of affairs is the self-negation of the proletariat and work and the creation of a human community. it is not whether it is feasable or not it exists in the hearts and minds of men when they fight against everything that exists and capital and reject their role as objects of a moribund economy

[syndicat]

communism isn't a state of affairs is the self-negation of the proletariat and work and the creation of a human community. it is not whether it is feasable or not it exists in the hearts and minds of men when they fight against everything that exists and capital and reject their role as objects of a moribund economy

then you won't have any adequate explanation for the failure of communism in the past.

[black magick hustla]

then you won't have any adequate explanation for the failure of communism in the past.

how can "communism" fail in the past though? if you see communism as a just a sort of political programme implemented by conscious "communists", a very well thought out plan to deal away with society's ills then "communism" has failed. but the way i understand communism and i think marx did is not only a formal, programmatic concern (which is the formal program of the class party), but an organic matter that arises from men thrown into conflict with civilization. the formal program is contingent to the the organic content of communism, not the other way around. the "unconscious" insurrections in east berlin in the 50s were more communist in content than the "communists" in the communist party (who just expoused a formal consideration of communism). so as long as there is class conflict and a yearning for the world human community communism will exist, unless massive social collapse and barbarism turns all men into savage animals that are incapable of feelings of solidarity and freedom, although even the men with the most warped souls and minds like prisoners in high security prisons are capable of feelings of solidarity sometimes.

[syndicat]

how can "communism" fail in the past though? if you see communism as a just a sort of political programme implemented by conscious "communists", a very well thought out plan to deal away with society's ills then "communism" has failed. but the way i understand communism and i think marx did is not only a formal, programmatic concern (which is the formal program of the class party), but an organic matter that arises from men thrown into conflict with civilization. the formal program is contingent to the the organic content of communism, not the other way around.

1. communism...or abolition of class domination & exploitation, won't happen spontaneously

2. and, again, you have no real explanation for communism's failures in the past. communism is a movement. a conscious movement. certain the revolutionaries in the Russian revolution thought what they were doing had something to do with communism.

[Dean]

"We'll find out after the revolution, no blueprints", wouldn't it be the greatest laughing stock of human history if we have a world revolution only to find out that the system doesn't work only because of the absence of international "flow" of raw materials?

Before free-market capitalism, the Feudalists thought it was ridiculous to think that human beings would freely exchange and produce goods in a market, without direct demand from a kingdom.

Before finance capitalism, it was considered ridiculous that human beings would freely trade fiat currency, stock and futures as opposed to hard goods and production capital.

In the context of any authoritarian system, the notion of removing authoritarian incentives for labor appears ridiculous, since there is no apparent substitute. Of course, we know the substitute exists; it is the gift economy and labor-production in good faith. The capitalization of production leads to greater production with less labor, which incentivizes labor whether you get wages or not.

The obvious answer to the basic question is as follows: human beings will work to provide for themselves. The difference is simply cutting out the middleman. It's not like international demand/production registration is impossible. It's just not clear why cutting capitalism out of the model will make the system grind to a halt. Indeed, this is little more than cutting out one form of incentivization, when there is a far greater incentive that has always been there - the incentive for prosperity, production, innovation, etc.

[Queercommie Girl]

it is not whether it is feasable or not it exists in the hearts and minds of men when they fight against everything that exists and capital and reject their role as objects of a moribund economy


If "communism" is not a hypothetically possible future society in a serious sense, but merely a kind of "moralistic tool" to make me into a better person in the "here and now" then I'm not a "communist". My interest has never really been about "improving myself". I'm already fed up with religious preaching and self-help books as it is.

[Veovis]

We are permeated - impregnated if you will with the capitalist paradigm from birth. It's completely normal that you (and I, and everyone) have trouble picturing a post-revolutionary society. So many things that we take as 'common sense' but really aren't are going to have to change.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I don't understand the need to abolish money.

[Veovis]

I don't understand the need to abolish money.

There's no particular "need" to abolish it; it would be superfluous in a system where people can get what they need without paying for it.

[Decommissioner]

The problem arises with international allocation of raw materials and natural resources. For example, why would lithium miners in Bolivia ship lithium to a battery factory in Scandinavia?

Why wouldn't they? If worldwide communism has been achieved and nations have been torn down, why wouldn't a bolivian miner ship lithium to sweden? There would be no such thing as a "bolivian" miner nor would there be a "sweden." Why wouldn't an oklahoman farmer ship wheat to bolivia? I honestly don't understand how this could be viewed as a potential problem since all spatial, national and class boundries have been broken.

With communism and technological advancements, humans will no longer feel isolated from other human beings, no matter how far away. This is already true in times of crises, people already work to give to those in need. Imports and exports will be doubly important in a global communist society, and there definitely will be a global government (I say "government" not state) to help coordinate the needs and demands of all people worldwide.

[Tim Cornelis]

Why wouldn't they? If worldwide communism has been achieved and nations have been torn down, why wouldn't a bolivian miner ship lithium to sweden? There would be no such thing as a "bolivian" miner nor would there be a "sweden." Why wouldn't an oklahoman farmer ship wheat to bolivia? I honestly don't understand how this could be viewed as a potential problem since all spatial, national and class boundries have been broken.

With communism and technological advancements, humans will no longer feel isolated from other human beings, no matter how far away. This is already true in times of crises, people already work to give to those in need. Imports and exports will be doubly important in a global communist society, and there definitely will be a global government (I say "government" not state) to help coordinate the needs and demands of all people worldwide.

You are misunderstanding. I´m not saying they wouldn´t because of nationality, but what motive does a lithium miner from central america have to labour six hours a day to ship lithium to Scandinavia, whilst if he didn't he would only be working two hours a day to supply his local federation with enough lithium.

[Zealot]

This is actually a good question and I don't think I've seen an adequate answer thus far.

[blake 3:17]

I think it could also just be OK if all sorts of stuff wasn't shipped thousands and thousands of miles away.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Internationalism anyone?

[Tim Cornelis]

IMO, it may be possible to organise an artificial world market where intermediate and raw materials are supplied using a fixed exchange rate taking into account demand for the product (based on parecon-model of price mechanism). Then the industries and communes would have an incentive to produce goods for beyond their own commune. And of course we should strive for the greatest amount of self-sufficiency, which becomes more realizable as technological improvements increase.

However, I can imagine the critique of this, the perpetuation of an exchange economy, albeit only in case of raw materials.

[Revolution starts with U]

Why do Virginians ship natural gas to colorado (if they do.. idk)? Why do people let other people who are better suited to do things than themselves, do those things? Becuase it is easier.
Why would miners in Bolivia, who are now living on a comfortable income mining, open up a battery factory when Swedes have more infrastructure for it?

[communard71]

I think in a post-communist world, the idea of motivation will be very different for workers. Your Bolivian miners will not have to work 8-14 hours/day because there will be no capitalist who needs that added profit. And as was mentioned before, infrastructure (which may run the gambit of complexity), may exist in one place and not another, at least initially. Money is a potent weapon used against the workers of any country. In future Bolivia, the workers will mine the lithium two hours/day and not worry about their paychecks because they won't have to pay for housing or food or ridiculously priced extraneous stuff. Also, capitalists use a great deal of violence to ensure those lithium shipments get to Switzerland. Any system, whether communist, capitalist or anarchist (parecon model) which uses violence to support itself is inherently unstable and quite honestly, evil. The question shouldn't be: "I don't see how communism works because there are significant blind-spots with its future operation" but rather should be: "how can we support any system who exploits and injures millions of people every day and wrecks the planet because the alternative seems difficult to implement in its entirety?" Questions are good and normal, but disillusionment in the face of a corrupted, exploitative and violent system that ensnares the lives of billions in largely negative ways is actually unconscionable.

[manic expression]

They don't need batteries from Sweden since they have their own lithium and therefore can produce their own batteries. And of course they want raw materials from other regions in the world, but this implies some quid pro quo. "We give you an X amount of lithium and you give us a Y amount of steel", i.e. barter exchange. Money is a facilitator of barter and exchange and we may see its return as a result.
Sorry I'm late to this party...I think you're bringing up some really good points. Economics is a big weak point of mine but I'd like to put in a few thoughts.

I actually agree that money isn't something to be entirely afraid of, I think it can't really be done away with until scarcity no longer exists. Like you said, it's either money in some shape or form or you have some weird barter system that can't actually work. Most people would rather receive x wages for what they produce and then take that money to go to the movies with their friends instead of lugging around a bunch of belt-buckles and exchanging some of them for a place in the theater (after all, there are only a certain amount of seats available).

I think the basis of socialist (or whatever you want to call it) production is this: a.) that the workers exert political control over their communities and thus their workplaces; b.) that there is no market for large-scale labor; c.) that no one makes money through the mere ownership of the means of production (ie no exploitation); d.) that the necessities of all are the first priority of society.

If all those conditions are met (and maybe I forgot a few), I don't care how you organize it. The last condition might imply some form of centralized planning, but you can do so much within those parameters. Want to set up different brands of batteries with their own logos and slogans and see which people like more? I don't see why not...one battery factory might get more in wages than another, but first of all everyone's necessities will be taken care of so everyone has a good roof over their head and a good doctor ready to help them out when they're sick so that's no problem. So long as the wages going to the first factory are drawn 100% from their own labor and none of them are getting money off of mere ownership, I don't see a huge problem.

Maybe I'm totally wrong, but it's something I've been wondering about.

[Rafiq]

I know you don't like when we tell you this, but we can't explain to you how the hell communism would work because we don't know. Blue prints are a waste of time.

and what is this nonsense about "what if it doesn't work after a revolution?"

You assume that this will be some kind of planned action of Utopian Socialists or something, it is not.

When the Bourgeois class overthrow the old fuedal class they didn't lay down blueprints and try to see what would work and what would not in terms of the economy. They asserted their class interest, as the new dominant class, and capitalism manifested from that.

The same will come when workers take power, they will assert what is in their interest as a class, and whatever replacement for capitalism will simply manifest itself into such and society will organize in a matter to adjust to it.

[Rowan Duffy]

I know you don't like when we tell you this, but we can't explain to you how the hell communism would work because we don't know. Blue prints are a waste of time.

and what is this nonsense about "what if it doesn't work after a revolution?"

You assume that this will be some kind of planned action of Utopian Socialists or something, it is not.

When the Bourgeois class overthrow the old fuedal class they didn't lay down blueprints and try to see what would work and what would not in terms of the economy. They asserted their class interest, as the new dominant class, and capitalism manifested from that.

The same will come when workers take power, they will assert what is in their interest as a class, and whatever replacement for capitalism will simply manifest itself into such and society will organize in a matter to adjust to it.

This is rubbish from top to bottom. When the bourgeois class overthrew the feudal class they knew exactly what they were replacing it with. The dynamic engines of capitalism were being freed, land was being appropriated, the state monopolies were completely financialised and the revolutionary war was immediately used as an engine of private profit out of state coffers backed by the script printed on the back of expropriated church properties.

If we don't know what kind of economy we're going to structure we're fucked. I'd go even further and agree with Bukharin and Djilas in saying that if we don't already have the germ of the new economy we're fucked. We need to know exactly what we're doing or we'll get capitalism or total chaos. The former being less likely to induce reactionary disaster and civil war than the later, but neither of them desirable.

Utopian socialism is the most horrible misnomer ever. The most utopian idea that has ever existed is the messianic notion that we'll somehow have it all magically sorted out for us just after we manage to overthrow the state. Pure religious fantasy. I can't think of anything more utopian than that.

[ComradeOmar]

Unfortunatly it is next to impossible for true communism to ever work anyway. Why bother with dreaming of a communist state anymore.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Unfortunatly it is next to impossible for true communism to ever work anyway.
Demoralization and disillusionment are dangerous, at worst leading an individual back to bourgeois politics or being apolitical.

[Comrade_Stalin]

The more I think about the sheer complexity of a world economy, the less feasible I find communism :(

I know workers' self-management works. I can imagine the distribution of consumer goods according to needs.

The problem arises with international allocation of raw materials and natural resources. For example, why would lithium miners in Bolivia ship lithium to a battery factory in Scandinavia?

The mutual aid and solidarity between workers and within a community can hardly exist between Bolivian miners and Swedish battery manufacturers. They could in theory exchange goods, but communism is not an exchange economy. And to facilitate exchange money would need to be re-introduced.

What means does communism have to stimulate the cultivation of raw materials and the international sharing of natural resources?

"We'll find out after the revolution, no blueprints", wouldn't it be the greatest laughing stock of human history if we have a world revolution only to find out that the system doesn't work only because of the absence of international "flow" of raw materials?

This is one of the reason you need to use a plan economy and not just a exvhange economy. It neededs to be planned for lithium to be shiped to the battery factory. But you will find people on this site who will still be against a plan economy.

[La Peur Rouge]

The problem arises with international allocation of raw materials and natural resources. For example, why would lithium miners in Bolivia ship lithium to a battery factory in Scandinavia?

The mutual aid and solidarity between workers and within a community can hardly exist between Bolivian miners and Swedish battery manufacturers. They could in theory exchange goods, but communism is not an exchange economy. And to facilitate exchange money would need to be re-introduced.

What means does communism have to stimulate the cultivation of raw materials and the international sharing of natural resources?


I was thinking about almost the exact same question the other day. Keep in mind this is just how I imagined it could be fixed, and my understanding of economics is pretty basic. Feel free to criticize.

You have the Sweden commune, and the Bolivian commune. They both need resources. I believe that having an International Warehouse of sorts would fix this problem, this doesn't have to exist physically but let's say a list of resources (on the internet perhaps, that every commune can see) that each commune:

a) can give away because they have an abundance of it.
b) needs because the resource is not found in that area of the world/etc.

Bolivia commune sees Sweden commune has cars it can give away, Bolivia commune needs cars. Sweden commune sees Bolivia commune is giving away lithium. Sweden commune needs lithium. Bolivia commune delegate contacts Sweden commune delegate and confirm that their respective communes have what they are in need of. Bolivia commune ships lithium to Sweden commune. Sweden commune ships cars to Bolivia commune. They have a mutual need for each other. Just like workers within a commune have a mutual need for each other. And none of this requires currency, only communication and cooperation.

Workers in Car Factory need shoes. Workers in Shoe Factory need cars. Cars and shoes both get sent to the Community Store, workers from both factories go attain the items they need. Shoe Factory workers wouldn't stop working when every Shoe Factory worker has shoes, because the rest of the commune needs shoes. A commune wouldn't stop producing things, because the rest of the world may need something it produces and vice versa.

Communism is international, Bolivians wouldn't be mining lithium for Swedes, they'd be mining lithium for society as a whole. The entire world needs to cooperate as one massive community, and with capitalism gone I don't see that being a problem.

Edit: And of course you wouldn't want to waste resources and way over-produce something, it needs to be done scientifically. With a constant link to what each commune needs and has to give away I don't think it would be hard.

[Rocky Rococo]

Unfortunatly it is next to impossible for true communism to ever work anyway. Why bother with dreaming of a communist state anymore.

Because come what may, dreaming that dream keeps us pointing in the right direction in the things that do happen. It gives us a compass and a measuring stick for the events, conflicts and choices of our life and times. Paradox or not, ideals have practical purposes like that.

[Red Economist]

"We'll find out after the revolution, no blueprints", wouldn't it be the greatest laughing stock of human history if we have a world revolution only to find out that the system doesn't work only because of the absence of international "flow" of raw materials?

Rejecting the idea of having blueprints as purely utopian is wrong, but basing those plans purely on philosophical speculation alone IS utopian. 'Planning' is a necessity of Communism to organise the economy and social activity.

Developing effective planning methods should be considered BEFORE having the revolution as part of an understanding of 'scientific socialism' (i.e. Marxism) and to make sure that the revolution actually will work.

The effectiveness of a 'plan' or 'blueprint' is dependent on the predictive powers of communist ideology. given the historical experience of communism, the ability of communist to make accurate predictions regarding the future is still very weak. so I share some of your disillusionment with the 'how' and 'why' of communism.


The mutual aid and solidarity between workers and within a community can hardly exist between Bolivian miners and Swedish battery manufacturers. They could in theory exchange goods, but communism is not an exchange economy. And to facilitate exchange money would need to be re-introduced.

The development of transnational corporations gives a (capitalist) planning apparatus (from which a communist system of planning can emerge). globalisation also creates international infastructure to transport goods and services world-wide.
Depending on how 'internationalist' the revolution is, the development of capitalism goes a certain distance to overcome economic nationalism and centralise the world economy.


What means does communism have to stimulate the cultivation of raw materials and the international sharing of natural resources?

In Direct Anzwer to your question, your essentially challanging the notion of 'incentives' to work under Communism.

Marx and Lenin agreed that the first stage of communism would continue to use money and bourgeois legal mechanisms of economic compulsion (i.e. wage labour) because the workers haven't escaped bourgeois consciousness.

Money give us an 'incentive' to work because we are compelled to exchange our labour for means of subsistence. our unwillingness to work in the first place is because of our alienation, i.e. we are forced to work for someone else.

Personally, I would think 'abolishing money' is necessary to eliminate these mechanisms of compulsion. However, I almost certian this is still not a workable idea at present, as it requires turning the banks into planning agencies with people being class conscious enough to accept and embrace this change.

Beyond this, however, as Communist society overcomes the 'alienation' of the worker from his labour, labour becomes 'life's prime want'.

Whilst this is still very simplistic, because someone is not being 'compelled' to work for someone else (and being exploited), labour becomes our own and becomes the primary means of expressing our identity.

This works (in theory) because man is a social being, who produces the means for his/her own existence through social labour. consequently, there is no 'antagonism' between individual needs and social labour, as our 'egotism' is caused by alienation and 'corrected' through a (communist) form of education and ideology.

[Rafiq]

This is rubbish from top to bottom. When the bourgeois class overthrew the feudal class they knew exactly what they were replacing it with. The dynamic engines of capitalism were being freed, land was being appropriated, the state monopolies were completely financialised and the revolutionary war was immediately used as an engine of private profit out of state coffers backed by the script printed on the back of expropriated church properties.

If we don't know what kind of economy we're going to structure we're fucked. I'd go even further and agree with Bukharin and Djilas in saying that if we don't already have the germ of the new economy we're fucked. We need to know exactly what we're doing or we'll get capitalism or total chaos. The former being less likely to induce reactionary disaster and civil war than the later, but neither of them desirable.

Utopian socialism is the most horrible misnomer ever. The most utopian idea that has ever existed is the messianic notion that we'll somehow have it all magically sorted out for us just after we manage to overthrow the state. Pure religious fantasy. I can't think of anything more utopian than that.



Perhaps I am full of shit. Perhaps what we need to do is allow the proletariat movement to adjust itself to it's demands, formulate a new ideology and overthrow the class enemy. As to what that is I don't know... But the solution offered by Libertaria Socialists and Blue printers is bound to failure.


Actually you misinterperated my post, thinking about it. When the proletariat gets to power theyll know what to do, of course. But we don't know what the material conditions will be when that happens and therefore cannot predict what the proletariat will do. Unless of course, the revolution happens tommarow.

[u.s.red]

Owners of lithium mines have no difficulty shipping lithium to battery factory owners in Sweden. Would miners who owned the lithium they produced not have the ability to use computers to communicate with battery factory workers for amount, date of delivery? Money would still function as a medium of exchange, but the workers would own the money as well as their product.

The next step would be the ownership of factories, mines, computers, etc in common by all the people. Then the production of the mines and factories would be a matter of administration of things not persons.

[Tim Cornelis]

I think in a post-communist world, the idea of motivation will be very different for workers. Your Bolivian miners will not have to work 8-14 hours/day because there will be no capitalist who needs that added profit. And as was mentioned before, infrastructure (which may run the gambit of complexity), may exist in one place and not another, at least initially. Money is a potent weapon used against the workers of any country. In future Bolivia, the workers will mine the lithium two hours/day and not worry about their paychecks because they won't have to pay for housing or food or ridiculously priced extraneous stuff. Also, capitalists use a great deal of violence to ensure those lithium shipments get to Switzerland. Any system, whether communist, capitalist or anarchist (parecon model) which uses violence to support itself is inherently unstable and quite honestly, evil. The question shouldn't be: "I don't see how communism works because there are significant blind-spots with its future operation" but rather should be: "how can we support any system who exploits and injures millions of people every day and wrecks the planet because the alternative seems difficult to implement in its entirety?" Questions are good and normal, but disillusionment in the face of a corrupted, exploitative and violent system that ensnares the lives of billions in largely negative ways is actually unconscionable.

But if I can work 1 hour and supply my commune with the necessary resources, or have to work 2,5 hours to supply all of the world with necessary supplies. I'd choose the first, no? Unless my communes stimulates me to work 2,5 hours by whatever means chosen (e.g. scarce goods would be rationed to lithium miners).


Owners of lithium mines have no difficulty shipping lithium to battery factory owners in Sweden. Would miners who owned the lithium they produced not have the ability to use computers to communicate with battery factory workers for amount, date of delivery? Money would still function as a medium of exchange, but the workers would own the money as well as their product.

The next step would be the ownership of factories, mines, computers, etc in common by all the people. Then the production of the mines and factories would be a matter of administration of things not persons.

I'm not questioning the logistics of the problem, but without money what incentives there are. And I'm not repeating the old "under communism no one wants to work", I'm saying solidarity is what makes people work but I doubt organic solidarity between lithium miners and battery producers can exist.

And what la peur rouge said might work, but there is a danger of barter (and thus exchange) being re-established if the two say "we give you cars, you give us lithium".
It might work, and we cannot know fore sure until after the revolution, but if it does not work it is nice to have a "back up plan". And this back up plan, imo, should be a world federation for the allocation of raw materials and intermediate goods that establishes a price mechanism based on demand communicated by the communes all over the world. An artificial "market" economy, but only for international allocation.

[Thirsty Crow]

And I'm not repeating the old "under communism no one wants to work", I'm saying solidarity is what makes people work but I doubt organic solidarity between lithium miners and battery producers can exist.

In fact, you do repeat the right wing mantra of necessary incentives and that communism is unable to provide these, ergo no work being done, ergo social decay.
Another thing, you shoould really replace "lithium miners" and "battery producers" with Bolivians and Swedes (if I got the example right). You're trying to pose this problem as something other than it obviously is, in this scenario - a problem of national and regional solidarity (regional since, as you've remarked, we can assume that very few labour hours will be needed to fulfill the needs of the very limited, geographically and demographically speaking, commune in question).

And such problems will not be transcended by some sort of a social mechanism ensuring everything will be ok (a mechanism like - oh, the state will wither away, there will be no racism...), conscious social action is needed. And I hardly see how such tremendeous gains in personal freedom (reduction of the working day) might come to petty bargaining over that hour and a half which could be spent producing for the battery producers, if attitudes and values of solidarity and co-operation are disseminated throughout society - by means of culture, education and so on.

In fact, it's counter-intuitive to assume that lithium miners won't be conscious of the fact that their social existence and living standard also depends on the labour of other communards directly for them (the miners), so the most reasonable thing to conclude would be to assume that there could develop a generalized sense of reciprocity, and concerning the fact that technological gains will probably further labour productivity and yet ameliorate the conditions of work (alongisde a favourable, for genuinely human activity suitable, workplace organization and management), I can't see how this would represent an insurmountable obstacle for global communism.