A Communist society

[The Cheshire Cat]

What would a communist society look like? For example, what if someone who lived in an area with no near television factories wanted to buy a television?

Since there is no state to tell him where he could buy a television and there are no commercials, he had to travel a long way and ask many people where he could buy a television.

And how does the factory know how many televisions it should produce?

And how is education provided in a state-less society? For good and free education, people have to pay taxes, but to whom?

There has to be some sort of central organ to arrange everything. This central organ would look an awful lot like a state and it would hold alot of power.

How would be dealt with problems like this?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

What would a communist society look like? For example, what if someone who lived in an area with no near television factories wanted to buy a television?

No one knows what a communist society would look like (...a socialist one on the other hand).

There would be no money so one couldn't "buy" a television.If one wanted one and there wasn't any nearby (solo or communal) than I don't think it would be very hard to request one from another area.


Since there is no state to tell him where he could buy a television and there are no commercials, he had to travel a long way and ask many people where he could buy a television.Internet and cell phones make this easier, there would still be modern transportation so the person wouldn't have to travel great distances just for a commodity.


And how does the factory know how many televisions it should produce? Televisions, and other commodities, will be produced pending on the societal need at the time;if people want televisions than that is what will be produced under a planned (socialist) economy.


And how is education provided in a state-less society? For good and free education, people have to pay taxes, but to whom?Teachers will work because they love teaching... again, no money involved in a communist society; people work because they enjoy it and it makes them happy. In fact, without the strain of money more teachers would be able to educate better since they wouldn't be strapped for resources.


There has to be some sort of central organ to arrange everything. This central organ would look an awful lot like a state and it would hold alot of power.There is still a state in socialism, under communist theory everything will be run without a state in part due to the obsolete function of one.

[The Cheshire Cat]

No one knows what a communist society would look like (...a socialist one on the other hand).

There would be no money so one couldn't "buy" a television.If one wanted one and there wasn't any nearby (solo or communal) than I don't think it would be very hard to request one from another area.

Internet and cell phones make this easier, there would still be modern transportation so the person wouldn't have to travel great distances just for a commodity.

Televisions, and other commodities, will be produced pending on the societal need at the time;if people want televisions than that is what will be produced under a planned (socialist) economy.

Teachers will work because they love teaching... again, no money involved in a communist society; people work because they enjoy it and it makes them happy. In fact, without the strain of money more teachers would be able to educate better since they wouldn't be strapped for resources.

There is still a state in socialism, under communist theory everything will be run without a state in part due to the obsolete function of one.

So no one really knows how to run a communist society? Does everyone assume things will just be produced according to the needs without anyone informing the factory workers how big the actual needs are?

And what to do with someone who refused to work? There is no state to punish them, so I guess it would be up to the society to 're-educate' this man and get him to work?

P.S
Does anyone know why people are learned, at least at my school, that socialists and communists strive for a state which holds all nodes of production and holds all the power?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

So no one really knows how to run a communist society?

A communist society will be run by the workers, you said look like.


Does everyone assume things will just be produced according to the needs without anyone informing the factory workers how big the actual needs are?

One can assume there will be a large interconnected web of information exchange; nothing will be produced blindly.


And what to do with someone who refused to work? There is no state to punish them, so I guess it would be up to the society to 're-educate' this man and get him to work?

Under socialism he will still be given housing and food, he will simply be deprived of luxuries that he will have to work for if he wants. If he wanted to he could sit on his butt the entire time but I imagine such would be very boring after a while without junk food and entertainment.


P.S
Does anyone know why people are learned, at least at my school, that socialists and communists strive for a state which holds all nodes of production and holds all the power?

What do you mean by 'hold all the power'? At any rate a socialist society is controlled by the workers who own the means of production.

[ColonelCossack]

You don't need a state to do things like education, put up street signs, etc. A state is not the same as some form of administration. A state exists for one class to subjugate the other. The administration etc will probably be carried out democratically by the workers. It's a "free association of producers".

Of course, we don't know what a truly communist society will look like,*so this is all speculation.

[The Cheshire Cat]

Under socialism he will still be given housing and food, he will simply be deprived of luxuries that he will have to work for if he wants. If he wanted to he could sit on his butt the entire time but I imagine such would be very boring after a while without junk food and entertainment.

What do you mean by 'hold all the power'? At any rate a socialist society is controlled by the workers who own the means of production.

Luxuries like what? And I hope there still will be entertainment in a communist society?:)

By hold all the power I mean control production, education, defense, etc. etc. etc. Theye say it's basicly just like what we have now, except the private companies. But it does not really matter, since it isn't the truth anyway.

[Strannik]

The general idea is that everything is done by voluntary associations of workers. That includes running information networks so you have constant access to up-to-date information about any sector or instance of the economy. None of these associations possesses violence monopoly like a modern state organ. They have no power to force people to do anything. They are just people coming together to get something done that they themselves or society in general wants done. When their purpose is fulfilled, they disband themselves.

[The Cheshire Cat]

You don't need a state to do things like education, put up street signs, etc. A state is not the same as some form of administration. A state exists for one class to subjugate the other. The administration etc will probably be carried out democratically by the workers. It's a "free association of producers".

Of course, we don't know what a truly communist society will look like,*so this is all speculation.

I'm sorry, I just was in doubt how much power would be given to the administration organ.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Luxuries like what? And I hope there still will be entertainment in a communist society?:)

Junk food (sweets, candy, extravagant foods, etc), high definition televisions, video games and game systems, private motor vehicles (ATVs, Snowmobiles, etc), entrance to plays and cultural events.... so in this line of thought I consider luxuries. Though such may be different by differing communities.


By hold all the power I mean control production, education, defense, etc. etc. etc. Theye say it's basicly just like what we have now, except the private companies. But it does not really matter, since it isn't the truth anyway.

The workers will control everything as they run everything (though defense will probably be left up to citizen militias organized by the community).

[daft punk]

What would a communist society look like? For example, what if someone who lived in an area with no near television factories wanted to buy a television?

Since there is no state to tell him where he could buy a television and there are no commercials, he had to travel a long way and ask many people where he could buy a television.

And how does the factory know how many televisions it should produce?

And how is education provided in a state-less society? For good and free education, people have to pay taxes, but to whom?

There has to be some sort of central organ to arrange everything. This central organ would look an awful lot like a state and it would hold alot of power.

How would be dealt with problems like this?

The state is force used to maintain a ruling class - police, army, prisons etc. In a workers state this is to defend against attack by other countries of capitalist counter-revolution.

Once you have a socialist world the state will fade away, there will be no countries, very little crime as everyone has everything they need. You have to have the masses taking an active part in democratic planning and the ultimate goal, communism is where everyone is equally involved in planning as well as work. The working week would be very short. Your TV could be delivered to you.

The factory would know how many to make based on previous years. Most people would only need a TV if their old one broke and couldn't be repaired, or if they had a kid who needed its own telly. However second hand ones would be available as well as new, ie if your kids left home and you had a spare one you would get it collected for use by someone else.

There would be an emphasis on a sustainable green economy so you couldnt keep ordering new tellys and chucking your old ones out. There would be strict quality control so they would be built to last many years. Your telly would also be a computer attached to the internet and would be part of your involvement in planning in fact.

[MotherCossack]

You don't need a state to do things like education, put up street signs, etc. A state is not the same as some form of administration. A state exists for one class to subjugate the other. The administration etc will probably be carried out democratically by the workers. It's a "free association of producers".

Of course, we don't know what a truly communist society will look like,*so this is all speculation.

that sounds nice.

i just have a few little queries:

what is the welfare state then? because i am reasonably sure it represents the part of our current form of government which the poor rely on most.... furthermore i would be very concerned if any thought of abolishing it was considered before great lengths had been gone to, and much effort undertaken to, ensure that it's dependents would be catered for and something, preferably better, been created to succeed it.

[americans should, i guess, ignore the above...... due to the fact that they don't have one.]

About the NHS.... it does not , i suppose, require a state to run it.... but the body created to administrate such a huge, essential service, would have to be very large and in possession of an extensive network of communication on a great many very different levels..... e.g. as far as i know, organ donation and transportation is best not handled by the royal mail!
such a body may begin to look very large and inpersonal.... i do wonder how it will be attempted in the early days of a fledgling communist society.
even the socialist state, which is dedicated to decentralization, may have problems.... some aspects of specialized health care do seem to necessitate a centralized approach.

[Igor]

you'll know what it looks like if you've been watching smurfs

[The Cheshire Cat]

No one knows what a communist society would look like (...a socialist one on the other hand).

There would be no money so one couldn't "buy" a television.If one wanted one and there wasn't any nearby (solo or communal) than I don't think it would be very hard to request one from another area.

Internet and cell phones make this easier, there would still be modern transportation so the person wouldn't have to travel great distances just for a commodity.

Televisions, and other commodities, will be produced pending on the societal need at the time;if people want televisions than that is what will be produced under a planned (socialist) economy.

Teachers will work because they love teaching... again, no money involved in a communist society; people work because they enjoy it and it makes them happy. In fact, without the strain of money more teachers would be able to educate better since they wouldn't be strapped for resources.

There is still a state in socialism, under communist theory everything will be run without a state in part due to the obsolete function of one.

I forgot to ask,btw, how would a communist society differ from a socialist one? Also, in that context, what would socialism mean? Because I've already seen a lot of meaning for socialism.

[Franz Fanonipants]

dear 12th century fellahin,

pls imagine the ba'ath party

signed,
revleft

e: which is to say that we don't know what it will look like, nor can we. we can assume that there will be continuity of certain elements of our world, technology will theoretically stay the same, energy production won't be super different, etc. but what we can assume is that the parceling out of technology, energy, and other goods will look different.

theoretically, really, thats what late-20th century technological improvements under capitalism have been geared towards, improving logistics w/a sideline of internet entertainment crap.

[Rooster]

What would a communist society look like? For example, what if someone who lived in an area with no near television factories wanted to buy a television?

You would go to your local depot and pick one up. You'd know where it is because you would supply it or know someone that supplies it, or you pass by it on your way to work, or you know someone who knows and you have the ability to communicate. This isn't rocket science. This isn't "how do I find the higgs boson?"


Since there is no state to tell him where he could buy a television and there are no commercials, he had to travel a long way and ask many people where he could buy a television.

The point of the state is to show you where to get a television now? :confused:


And how does the factory know how many televisions it should produce?

Maybe when they get a phone call to tell them to stop making them or to make more?


And how is education provided in a state-less society? For good and free education, people have to pay taxes, but to whom?

I'm fairly certain that most people would understand that teaching is important. Teachers teach because they want to, it's not like they do it for any financial gain. And as to the second point, what money? :confused:


There has to be some sort of central organ to arrange everything. This central organ would look an awful lot like a state and it would hold alot of power.

No there doesn't. Can't your imagination stretch that far?


How would be dealt with problems like this?

I think you've just artificially created problems that aren't there, to be honest.

[Rooster]

So no one really knows how to run a communist society? Does everyone assume things will just be produced according to the needs without anyone informing the factory workers how big the actual needs are?

Er, yes. It's not like we're blindly jumping into the unknown here. Capitalism teaches the proletariat how to run the world. It's one of the main motifs that Marx mentions.


And what to do with someone who refused to work? There is no state to punish them, so I guess it would be up to the society to 're-educate' this man and get him to work?

It's not re-educate and the concept of work here is wrong. Marx even says that people avoid work like the plague. Why? Because they don't like it. It's a soul destroying chore. This ties in with alienation and such.


P.S
Does anyone know why people are learned, at least at my school, that socialists and communists strive for a state which holds all nodes of production and holds all the power?

It's the same line that Stalinists spout (un)surprisingly. Marx says that the proletariat has to conquer political power and to nationalise all production, the dictatorship of the proletariat. You have to remember the context with which that was written though.


I forgot to ask,btw, how would a communist society differ from a socialist one? Also, in that context, what would socialism mean? Because I've already seen a lot of meaning for socialism.

It would only differ in level or production, not class content (relating to mode of production). Marx never said that socialism and communism were different. What he did say was that there might be a lower and higher level of communism, with at the lower end there'd still be some vestiges of bourgeois society.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I forgot to ask,btw, how would a communist society differ from a socialist one? Also, in that context, what would socialism mean? Because I've already seen a lot of meaning for socialism.

A socialist society still has money and a state where a communist society has no state or monetary currencies.

Communism: no war, poverty, or discrimination.

Socialism: The "lower phase" of communism in which all the above is still being corrected.

[The Cheshire Cat]

You would go to your local depot and pick one up. You'd know where it is because you would supply it or know someone that supplies it, or you pass by it on your way to work, or you know someone who knows and you have the ability to communicate. This isn't rocket science. This isn't "how do I find the higgs boson?"

I know this, this questions was more te be read in addition with the question you answered second. I'm not a complete fool.


The point of the state is to show you where to get a television now?

No. I'm not very good in expressing myself in the english language. Just use your imagination a little bit and I hope you will see what I mean.


And as to the second point, what money? :confused:

My fault, I find it hard sometimes to think in communist terms as I'm used to think in capitalist terms, like money. It's something I will just have to get used to.






Maybe when they get a phone call to tell them to stop making them or to make more?







No there doesn't. Can't your imagination stretch that far?

I think you get me wrong. I didn't mean a central organ to arrange everything, just for seperate things, like the production of tv's.

If there isn't some central administrative organ for the production of tv's, no one will give the call to stop to tell them stop making tv's or to make more tv's.

[The Cheshire Cat]

It's not re-educate and the concept of work here is wrong. Marx even says that people avoid work like the plague. Why? Because they don't like it. It's a soul destroying chore. This ties in with alienation and such.

Could you explain this a little bit better? First you say people teach because they like it, now you say that (marx said that) people avoid work?:confused:

[The Cheshire Cat]

A socialist society still has money and a state where a communist society has no state or monetary currencies.

Communism: no war, poverty, or discrimination.

Socialism: The "lower phase" of communism in which all the above is still being corrected.

Thanks for answering. I already had a vague idea it would be this, but someone else told me it is wrong, so I got confused.

Wouldn't it be more fair to call Capitalism right-wing, Communism left-wing and Socialism neutral or no-wing or whatever? Since in socialism there is both capitalism and communism?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Wouldn't it be more fair to call Capitalism right-wing, Communism left-wing and Socialism neutral or no-wing or whatever? Since in socialism there is both capitalism and communism?

Capitalism is economically right-wing
Socialism is economically left-wing (same for communism as it eliminates economics as a field).

I wouldn't say that there is both socialism and capitalism in the lower phase of communism (i.e socialism).I think you are confusing having monetary currencies for a capitalist system. While the two are intertwined deeply, under socialism workers controlling the workplace and the economy being run democratically, there is no capitalist mode of production (hence, no capitalism, only socialism).

Socialism is not neutral as it has a clear and precise platform (as described above).

[The Cheshire Cat]

Capitalism is economically right-wing
Socialism is economically left-wing (same for communism as it eliminates economics as a field).

I wouldn't say that there is both socialism and capitalism in the lower phase of communism (i.e socialism).I think you are confusing having monetary currencies for a capitalist system. While the two are intertwined deeply, under socialism workers controlling the workplace and the economy being run democratically, there is no capitalist mode of production (hence, no capitalism, only socialism).

Socialism is not neutral as it has a clear and precise platform (as described above).

But if you have a country that has alot of socialist things, but also a lot capitalist things, some people would still call it socialist. In their view socialism could also mean a more or less political neutral tendency, right?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

But if you have a country that has alot of socialist things, but also a lot capitalist things, some people would still call it socialist. In their view socialism could also mean a more or less political neutral tendency, right?

They can call welfare states and social democracies whatever they want but that doesn't make it socialism.Real socialism isn't neutral.

[The Cheshire Cat]

They can call welfare states and social democracies whatever they want but that doesn't make it socialism.Real socialism isn't neutral.

Okay, is there some 'weaker' form of capitalism?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Okay, is there some 'weaker' form of capitalism?

No, there is only capitalism; no such thing as 'weaker forms.'

[GoddessCleoLover]

Isn't there a difference between American "savage" capitalism and the type of capitalism that exists in northern and western Europe?

[Rafiq]

No one knows what a Communist society will look like, and frankly, we don't intend on creating a blueprint any time soon, either.

Our end goal isn't a communist society. That's foolish. Our end goal is to fight for our class interest, and taking state power is the highest expression of the interests of the proletariat.

Communism isn't a state of affairs which is to be achieved. It's a movement that abolishes the capitalist mode of production. It, like Capitalism, is a process.

Basically, that's a Marx quote which I just re worded a little bit.

If you became a Leftist because you think communism is going to be fun and cool, you've found the wrong side of the political spectrum (If that even exists).

None of us know what a communist society is going to look like. And for those of us who think they do, they can't prove it will function, or surpass the economic gains made by the capitalist mode of production.

We can recognize that capitalism itself is slowly deteriorating, and that there are so many contradictions within the very accumulation of capital, eventually, it will cease to function. None of us, I don't think, expect a revolution any time soon. You've picked a good time to become a Leftist, because things are heating up again, for the first time in twenty five years.

[Omsk]

You've picked a good time to become a Leftist


I would like to add up on this,with a great quote from Vladimir Lenin:

It is not difficult to be a revolutionary when revolution has already broken out and is in spate, when all people are joining the revolution just because they are carried away, because it is the vogue, and sometimes even from careerist motives. It is far more difficult—and far more precious—to be a revolutionary when the conditions for direct, open, really mass and really revolutionary struggle do not yet exist.

[Rafiq]

I would like to add up on this,with a great quote from Vladimir Lenin:

It is not difficult to be a revolutionary when revolution has already broken out and is in spate, when all people are joining the revolution just because they are carried away, because it is the vogue, and sometimes even from careerist motives. It is far more difficult—and far more precious—to be a revolutionary when the conditions for direct, open, really mass and really revolutionary struggle do not yet exist.



It's true, however, that doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that it isn't surprising many are becoming Leftists due to the systematic implosion of capitalism.

[The Cheshire Cat]

No one knows what a Communist society will look like, and frankly, we don't intend on creating a blueprint any time soon, either.

Our end goal isn't a communist society. That's foolish. Our end goal is to fight for our class interest, and taking state power is the highest expression of the interests of the proletariat.

Communism isn't a state of affairs which is to be achieved. It's a movement that abolishes the capitalist mode of production. It, like Capitalism, is a process.

Basically, that's a Marx quote which I just re worded a little bit.

If you became a Leftist because you think communism is going to be fun and cool, you've found the wrong side of the political spectrum (If that even exists).

None of us know what a communist society is going to look like. And for those of us who think they do, they can't prove it will function, or surpass the economic gains made by the capitalist mode of production.

We can recognize that capitalism itself is slowly deteriorating, and that there are so many contradictions within the very accumulation of capital, eventually, it will cease to function. None of us, I don't think, expect a revolution any time soon. You've picked a good time to become a Leftist, because things are heating up again, for the first time in twenty five years.

Why is a communist society not our goal? Is it because communism is a movement, or something else?

And I don't think anyone chooses a political tendency based on coolness and fun.

[Ostrinski]

A socialist society still has money and a state where a communist society has no state or monetary currenciesI disagree here. Sure there will be money laying around, if that's what you mean, but it'd be pretty useless as under socialism production is oriented toward usefulness and not exchange.

[Ostrinski]

It isn't as if the rise of capitalism and the market was predicted, or initiated by some all knowing individual or group of individuals. It just kinda happened, as a reaction to the decaying previous societies that laid out the framework for capitalist production. Same with the feudal manor model, same with cooperative productive relations. To try and predict it supposes that we have some kind of control over how a post-capitalist society will be organized, which we don't.

[ckaihatsu]

Our end goal isn't a communist society. That's foolish. Our end goal is to fight for our class interest, and taking state power is the highest expression of the interests of the proletariat.

Communism isn't a state of affairs which is to be achieved. It's a movement that abolishes the capitalist mode of production. It, like Capitalism, is a process.




No one knows what a Communist society will look like, and frankly, we don't intend on creating a blueprint any time soon, either.


That said, I'll add that it can be both inspiring and instructive to theorize about potentialities and possibilities for what a socialist and/or communist society could look like.


future technology




e: which is to say that we don't know what it will look like, nor can we. we can assume that there will be continuity of certain elements of our world, technology will theoretically stay the same,


I think *at most* we can assume that technology won't *get worse* than what we generally have today, but, just to throw a couple of scenarios out there:

- What if an "ultimate showdown" of the worldwide class struggle was far less than decisive, and caused massive losses of human life (etc.), with both the use and loss of titanic weaponry -- let's say with the weapon's elimination agreed-upon as the final transitional event that ushers in the post-capitalist socialist society. In such a scenario the technological clock might be "rolled back" according to a consensus in a bid to allay and move past class-divide tensions. (In other words, it would be an anti-civilizational move, similar to the desecration of arguably fetishistic great works of art.)

- What if, after overthrowing capitalism, the nascent socialist society realized that technological progress had been too *hampered* by the commodity production system, and agreed en masse to devote all energies to its rapid advancement, in certain directions? Such a society might make the 20th century look like the Stone Age by comparison.





energy production won't be super different, etc. but what we can assume is that the parceling out of technology, energy, and other goods will look different.


I prefer to see energy production as an outstanding question facing humanity, one that needs to "catch up" to where the field of information logistics (the Internet) has *triumphed*.

Since our political program prioritizes the final and unwavering satisfaction of basic human needs, cracking the energy question would be paramount to this.


centralized administration




I [don't] mean a central organ to arrange everything, just for seperate things, like the production of tv's.

If there isn't some central administrative organ for the production of tv's, no one will give the call to stop to tell them stop making tv's or to make more tv's.


Many societal functions -- especially services -- can be seen to be *dependent* on some sort of a centralized administrative function -- the coordination of fire services comes to mind as one such example. (Meaning that it's time-critical and shouldn't be left to be taken care of on an ad-hoc basis.)

Other pro-centralization arguments are about realizing economies of scale and preventing duplication of effort.


labor-intensive production ("luxuries")




Luxuries like what? And I hope there still will be entertainment in a communist society?:)





Junk food (sweets, candy, extravagant foods, etc), high definition televisions, video games and game systems, private motor vehicles (ATVs, Snowmobiles, etc), entrance to plays and cultural events.... so in this line of thought I consider luxuries. Though such may be different by differing communities.


The use of the term 'luxuries' actually invokes a context of moralizing. I say this because, while we *can* use the term objectively, as counterposed to the more-basic necessities of life, it nonetheless is in a gray area, since one can simply argue that *pleasure* (non-work, non-oversight) of some sort is part of the necessities of life.

From a material standpoint spices for food used to be difficult to come by for a certain region of the world in centuries past, but are now today commonplace. A moralizing 'luxury' stance would have problems here since spices are obviously not *essential* to life and living but could not readily be *denied* to most today since they are so readily procurable.

I'll suggest, instead, a *labor-intensity-based* redefining of this term, for the sake of materialism, if it to be actively usefully used.


Also:


[10] Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy

http://postimage.org/image/1bxymkrno/


[7] Syndicalism-Socialism-Communism Transition Diagram

http://postimage.org/image/1bufa71ms/

[Bostana]

Perfect Example:

Commune De Paris
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I disagree here. Sure there will be money laying around, if that's what you mean, but it'd be pretty useless as under socialism production is oriented toward usefulness and not exchange.

That's what I mean... besides, in a socialist society money still will be needed in reference to trading with other countries so as long as a world economy remains.This would be in the early period.


The use of the term 'luxuries' actually invokes a context of moralizing. I say this because, while we *can* use the term objectively, as counterposed to the more-basic necessities of life, it nonetheless is in a gray area, since one can simply argue that *pleasure* (non-work, non-oversight) of some sort is part of the necessities of life.

From a material standpoint spices for food used to be difficult to come by for a certain region of the world in centuries past, but are now today commonplace. A moralizing 'luxury' stance would have problems here since spices are obviously not *essential* to life and living but could not readily be *denied* to most today since they are so readily procurable.

I'll suggest, instead, a *labor-intensity-based* redefining of this term, for the sake of materialism, if it to be actively usefully used.

I agree, I was simply saying basic examples. I did say that the community would be the ones ultimately to decide what is considered "luxury" and what isn't.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Why is a communist society not our goal? Is it because communism is a movement, or something else?

Communism is our goal, socialism is simply is step towards that goal; hence, "the lower phase" of communism.

[Deicide]

I have no idea.

Catalonia or the Paris Commune (with some alterations) on a world scale would be interesting.

Although some leftists would love to see a society with statues and paintings of Stalin everywhere. (again)


Communism is our goal, socialism is simply is step towards that goal; hence, "the lower phase" of communism.

We've already tried implementing ''Communism'' by stages at least 10 times. They all turned into dictatorships.

Do we really need to try again?

[ckaihatsu]

I agree, I was simply saying basic examples. I did say that the community would be the ones ultimately to decide what is considered "luxury" and what isn't.


Well, yes and no -- the 'yes' part is that a socialist / communist society would probably be a fairly tightly-knit one, since it would be a thoroughly *intentional* society (unlike what we have here under capitalism, an empire of patchwork fiefdoms). Since all production would be *planned* production everything would therefore be regulated, as a matter of planning.

On the other hand all production would be so efficient and bounteous that I could easily see "corruption" being possible, perhaps even as a matter of course. There'd be nothing to stop "lower-stage" "market" relations from peeking out everywhere -- not that private accumulations would make a comeback, but rather that tapping into liberated production for the sake of consumption would be unstoppable. In a world where virtually everyone is a co-producer, anyone who *isn't* one would simply need a favor from someone who *is*. Many "luxuries" might very well be had there by merely convincing a liberated laborer to leave the machine running an extra few minutes or so.

[Rooster]

Could you explain this a little bit better? First you say people teach because they like it, now you say that (marx said that) people avoid work?:confused:

Labour under capitalist conditions is alienated labour with the products being produced by the direct producers, the proletariat, being alienated from them as a result. So the production process is an oppressive and unpleasant process. We all know this when get go to work. We don't care about the work because it's not our work. When we produce things, we don't care because they don't belong to us, we only care about the wage we get. If you have a day off work, you might go drinking the night before but you wouldn't make yourself get up on your holiday and put up shelves in your house at 9am with a hangover. This relates to the production of commodities and commodity fetishism and such. The point of all this is that Marx suggests that the way to cure this problem of alienated labour would be socialism.

Teachers on the other hand, don't teach for monetary gains (mostly because there really isn't that much). If you ever speak to a lot of teachers, particularly young ones, they teach because they want to give something back to the community or they teach because they think it fulfils them as creative labour. Which might be true. When you're in a factory making bolts all day or sticking peas into a can, you couldn't give two shits. It's not creative labour any more.

[Rooster]

A socialist society still has money and a state where a communist society has no state or monetary currencies.

Communism: no war, poverty, or discrimination.

Socialism: The "lower phase" of communism in which all the above is still being corrected.

You can't have your cake and eat it. You can't just say that socialism has money and states (ie, classes) and then say it's the lower stage of communism. That implication is that you're going from one class society to one without, with no revolution.

[Rooster]

I know this, this questions was more te be read in addition with the question you answered second. I'm not a complete fool.



No. I'm not very good in expressing myself in the english language. Just use your imagination a little bit and I hope you will see what I mean.



My fault, I find it hard sometimes to think in communist terms as I'm used to think in capitalist terms, like money. It's something I will just have to get used to.



I think you get me wrong. I didn't mean a central organ to arrange everything, just for seperate things, like the production of tv's.

If there isn't some central administrative organ for the production of tv's, no one will give the call to stop to tell them stop making tv's or to make more tv's.

I'm not trying to pick on you or trying to suggest that you're a fool. Secondly, I think you might be coming at this from the wrong direction. If you have a job, you know what your job needs. All production processes can be controlled by workers and ran by workers because it's them that does the work. We can debate for a long time about how to distribute the products of labour without coming to a conclusion. My own opinion is that you don't need a state or a central organ to direct production. That's just not feasible and would create such a bureaucratic mess, a mess that would become impossible to untangle (a la the USSR). We should be thinking about socialism in relation to capitalism. Capitalists do not need a central organ or state to dictate production. It could but it doesn't. The place where the TV's go, be it a co-operative or some sort of depot, would be the ones that would be doing a stock check, would be the ones that look at the numbers going in and out and would be the ones that would be able to predict how much product they would need, just like in a capitalist economy. I don't see any reason for why there must be a central organ to direct all production. People wouldn't be living in complete isolation from each other.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

You can't have your cake and eat it. You can't just say that socialism has money and states (ie, classes) and then say it's the lower stage of communism. That implication is that you're going from one class society to one without, with no revolution.

I'm only parroting what Lenin said (I believe it was Lenin): socialism being a less "developed" version of communism.

[Rafiq]

Why is a communist society not our goal? Is it because communism is a movement, or something else?

It's that specific thinking that is Alien to Marxism. Proletarians themselves didn't struggle and exert their class interest because they wanted to exert their new society. They did it because it served their class interest. That type of thinking ends up with the concept that we should morph material conditions to Communism, and that Communism is our ultimate goal, regardless if the proletarian movement awakens from it's grave and chooses a different Ideology to store it's class interest in.

Communism itself was initially, before, a conservative religious fundamentalist concept (If we are excluded Abstract communism, and are talking about the communism of the 16-17th century).

Marx pointed out that even the most backward of ideologies or terms could end up serving the most progressive of classes. In turn, communism became progressive, (Anti Racism, Anti Sexism, etc.).

Communism itself is a movement and not a state of affairs that we have to struggle and sacrifice in order to "Unlock". The future is not blocked by some door, in which our goal is to find the key and open it to venture out to the land of communism.

The truth is, as communists, we don't know what communist society looks like. Therefore, as Marxists, we don't try and make arguments in favor of the functionality of such a society, we instead point out the root problem of today's society (As Radicals, of course), modern capitalism, and strike that. Criticizing capitalism is more favorable to our movement than asserting the functionality of a future society we put forward. After all, capitalism is the system in which the class enemy of the proletariat dominates society. It is this system we as communists seek to destroy, as a final expression of the interests of the proletarian class.

Abstractly, if we get into an intellectual discussion, we should of course talk of capitalism's progressive nature, when it was first introduced and manifested. Of course we oppose feudalism, etc. However, we should look at things like reactionaries, who seek to destroy capitalism and revert back, as a dead cause that we refuse to acknowledge with any serious critical analysis (The Bourgeoisie already took care of that problem).




And I don't think anyone chooses a political tendency based on coolness and fun.


Well, no, but many choose a political tendency because they think communism is going to be a nice society.

[Rafiq]

That said, I'll add that it can be both inspiring and instructive to theorize about potentialities and possibilities for what a socialist and/or communist society could look like.


future technology



It's essentially a waste of time. We don't know what a socialist or communist society could look like.

[ckaihatsu]

The truth is, as communists, we don't know what communist society looks like. Therefore, as Marxists, we don't try and make arguments in favor of the functionality of such a society, we instead point out the root problem of today's society (As Radicals, of course), modern capitalism, and strike that. Criticizing capitalism is more favorable to our movement than asserting the functionality of a future society we put forward.




It's essentially a waste of time. We don't know what a socialist or communist society could look like.


Your point is understandable here, and I wouldn't belabor an argument or try to "sell" a future vision of socialism as a way of building solidarity, but at the same time it's *worth* the mental exercise, especially for those already disgusted with capitalism.

It may be seen as a thought-experiment in a kind of "future sociology" based on certain given political societal axioms going forward.





Well, no, but many choose a political tendency because they think communism is going to be a nice society.


Well, no one should be expecting a circle of hands around the globe while we all sing Kumbayah, but certainly a socialist / communist society would be *closer-knit* and *more socialized*, necessarily, since everyone would control production in common. Without a class division there would be no social basis anymore for the social ills so prevalent today, like poverty, social stratification, racism, sexism, etc.

[Marvin the Marxian]

For capitalism and its states to be overthrown, the working class as a class must become sufficiently educated, organized, and motivated to seize economic and political power for itself. Once it does so, it de facto establishes itself as a new state, the dictatorship of the proletariat. The period of the transitional society is thus entered.

During the transitional period, I expect to see money and markets eliminated. Production will be socialized, with goods placed in common stores for distribution. People who are able to work must work in order to get any share of the common supply of goods. Those who are unable to perform any useful labor will still be entitled to the necessities of life, if not more. The "credits" one receives, either by performing socially useful labor or through social welfare provision, will be redeemed for products at the common stores. Credits won't be money, because they won't circulate.

What constitutes socially useful labor will be determined by social economic planning. This planning should be as democratic as possible. Common rules for increasing and decreasing production should be agreed upon. Such rules might vary from one industry to another. I expect calculation in kind to be the order of the day here. Other economic regulations would also be agreed upon, all through mass democratic participation of the proletariat.

For a given economic period, a factory that produces televisions could either be told how many televisions to produce under a central economic plan, or it could decide how many based on a procedure that it's legally obligated to follow. In the latter case, I expect this to be based on both the supply of its various inputs and the expected demand for new televisions during the period. For example, if it produced 2,000 televisions last month, but only 1,000 of them were distributed to individuals, then it should probably lower production by some amount over the next month.

A person would presumably know of at least one consumer center near her where she could redeem credits for a television. Consumers' unions and other such organizations would keep consumers informed of these locations.

The social economic plan, either through legal regulations or more direct means, would provide for how many people are to be employed as teachers. Textbooks and other teaching materials could be provided by teachers' unions instead of the for-profit publishing houses that exist under capitalism. As equal amounts of labor-time would receive equal credit, a person would work as a teacher because she wants to and because there's a position available for her.

This is just a sketch of the kinds of things that I think would be established during the transitional period, and would pave the way toward socialism.

[ckaihatsu]

I agree overall with your sketch of how socialism could / should look, and, on a side note:





The social economic plan, either through legal regulations or more direct means, would provide for how many people are to be employed as teachers. Textbooks and other teaching materials could be provided by teachers' unions instead of the for-profit publishing houses that exist under capitalism. As equal amounts of labor-time would receive equal credit, a person would work as a teacher because she wants to and because there's a position available for her.

This is just a sketch of the kinds of things that I think would be established during the transitional period, and would pave the way toward socialism.


I'll make the argument here that many middle-class professions, including teaching, are inherently politicized in their societal role since they constitute the social machinery of society / civilization as it is.

Teaching as an institution *may* very well continue for this very reason -- even under socialism / communism -- although from a strictly *functional* point of view it's not really needed *at all* -- especially with our present-day Internet access to communications, information, knowledge, and wisdom.

*Any* institutionalized power relationship is problematic from a political point of view because it may implicitly be denying each 'student' (etc.) a more-active *political* role by suppressing their political individual sovereignty.