What is communism?

[Captain Marvelous]

Can anyone explain to me what is communism. Also can anyone explain the origins of the terms "left wing" and "right wing". Thanks.

[Das_ALoveStory]

Woah. Well, big question here. We don't really know what communism will look like, but the basic idea is that it is at a time after the trasitionary stage of Socialism, there will be no money, state, classes and such. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" sums up how people "get things". Also, private property is abolished. This is a really basic answer and you should get more elaborate answers later but I don't have much time.
As to the left and right wings, I'm not sure about their origin terms but the right represents mostly capitalist parties while the left has mostly socialist or (ugh) reformist parties.

[Grenzer]

Can anyone explain to me what is communism.

Communism is a stage of society in which classes do not exist. There is little controversy on this. Where disagreements occur; however, is on how we should get there.

[Le Rouge]

"The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left. One deputy, the Baron de Gauville explained, "We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp." However the Right opposed the seating arrangement because they believed that deputies should support private or general interests but should not form factions or political parties. The contemporary press occasionally used the terms "left" and "right" to refer to the opposing sides"

Wiki

[Bostana]

Commune De Paris is a perfect example of a commune and how a society should look

[GoddessCleoLover]

I recommend reading The Manifesto and The ABCs of Communism by Nikolai Bukharin and Evgen Preobrazhensky.

[AmericanCommie421]

In a simple definition, it is a society in which there are no class distinctions. Class being the relation of one to what are called the means of production(the resources society uses, mines, factories, etc.). These will be put into the hands of those who work in them and use them. There will be no state, contrary to popular belief the goal of Marxists is no state, the state being seen as a force of coercion. Given a simplification any ideology loses its character and will seem as being no more than Utopian or, depending on the intention of the one doing the simplifying, harmful or a great step forward in society. If you are a beginner I highly recommend these two short documents by the two men who are seen as the founders themselves, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

[GoddessCleoLover]

Am familiar with The Manifesto, of course but don't believe that I ever read Engels' FAQ, and thought it was definitely worthwhile. Back in the day, I found Bukharin and Preobrazhensky's primer to be the best of its class, certainly more intellectually stimulating that Liu Shaoqi's How to be a Good Communist. Liu's primer was probably highly appropriate to a largely rural China in the 1950's and any criticism of Liu ought not be interpreted as any justification fo Mao Zedong's despicable and criminal treatment of Liu Shaoqi, among many other victim's of Mao's insane policies.

[Brosip Tito]

Commune De Paris is a perfect example of a commune and how a society should look
Marx referred to the Paris Commune as an example of the DoTP. Not of the final stage of communism.

[Ostrinski]

Communism is when some guys with guns paint their faces red and come take all your stuff.

[Franz Fanonipants]

communism is a system of social-labor organization that theoretically provides human beings the opportunity to labor in a fashion geared towards their social wellbeing rather than the profit of an individual who commodifies their labor.

[Caj]

In its broadest conception, communism is global classlessness.

[Revolution starts with U]

Left and right wing terminology developed out of the French assembly during the early revolution

[daft punk]

Communism - no money, no police, no army, no countries, no politicians, no rich people, no poor people. Everyone is part time worker, part time planner. The working week is very short.

socialism - something along the way to communism

transition - something along the way to socialism

no socialist or communist country has ever existed

left wing - anything remotely in the direction of communism
right wing - in favour of a few rich people owning the factories and companies, employing workers to make a profit.

[robbo203]

Communism - no money, no police, no army, no countries, no politicians, no rich people, no poor people. Everyone is part time worker, part time planner. The working week is very short.

socialism - something along the way to communism

transition - something along the way to socialism

no socialist or communist country has ever existed

left wing - anything remotely in the direction of communism
right wing - in favour of a few rich people owning the factories and companies, employing workers to make a profit.

One needs to realise that the distinction between socialism and communism never existed in traditional Marxist and Anarchist theory. It was actually Lenin who invented the idea of socialism as a transtional stage prior to communism (though at times Lenin himself reverted to the old Marxian usage of treating socialism and communism as synonyms)

[daft punk]

One needs to realise that the distinction between socialism and communism never existed in traditional Marxist and Anarchist theory. It was actually Lenin who invented the idea of socialism as a transtional stage prior to communism (though at times Lenin himself reverted to the old Marxian usage of treating socialism and communism as synonyms)

Words change their meaning. Marx used both to mean the same thing, but he also talked about a higher and lower stage of communism. Lenin also used the words synonymously, and also talked about a higher and lower stage, calling the lower stage socialism. This was the one I put up as a definition.

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/o.htm#socialism

marxist encyclopedia gives some quotes to define socialism.

"The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible because it will be impossible to seize the means of production – the factories, machines, land, etc. – and make them private property.... Marx shows the course of development of communist society....which [firstly] consists in the distribution of consumer goods "according to the amount of labor performed" (and not [yet] according to needs)."
"But the scientific distinction between socialism and communism is clear. What is usually called socialism was termed by marx the "first", or lower, phase of communist society. Insofar as the means of production becomes common property, the word "communism" is also applicable here, providing we do not forget that this is not complete communism."
Vladimir Lenin
The State and Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm)
Chpt. 5: The first phase of Communist Society (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s3)

[CommunityBeliever]

Communism is a lot like the free internet, it is a global network of equal peers cooperating with one another without the use of money and without any central authority or state. Here is a separate thread about this: Communism and the internet (http://www.revleft.com/vb/communism-and-internet-t168487/index.html?t=168487).

[daft punk]

The internet is a good example. The bloke who invented it realised how important it would be so he refused to patent it, which would have restricted it's availability to all.

[Ned Kelly]

I don't like doing this, but have a read of 'What is Marxism' by Emile Burns

[Captain Marvelous]

Communism - no money, no police, no army, no countries, no politicians, no rich people, no poor people. Everyone is part time worker, part time planner. The working week is very short.

socialism - something along the way to communism

transition - something along the way to socialism

no socialist or communist country has ever existed

left wing - anything remotely in the direction of communism
right wing - in favour of a few rich people owning the factories and companies, employing workers to make a profit.

No money - what would be used instead?

No police - what alternative do you have in mind?

No army - why not, and what alternative?

No countries - why not?

No politicians - agreed

No rich / poor people - what's the problem with that?

Everyone works part time - why? What if someone wants to work as long as they like?

[Franz Fanonipants]

daft punk is dumb, there are better explanations that aren't just utopian tomfoolery.

[Captain Marvelous]

?

[daft punk]

No money - what would be used instead?


Everything would be free.



No police - what alternative do you have in mind?

Well, there would be virtually no crime. Any crimes that did occur could be dealt with by the community.



No army - why not, and what alternative?

No countries, no need for an army.




No countries - why not?

No need, countries would gradually become redundant. Communism needs global planning.



No rich / poor people - what's the problem with that?

No need, not desirable, incompatible with the interests of humanity.



Everyone works part time - why? What if someone wants to work as long as they like?
They can do, but there would be little point.

[NorwegianCommunist]

I would say that communism is a idiology where no social classes exist (poor, middle class or rich basically) and the state owns all bussinesses and factories etc. and pay between workers are equal.
And that rase (cultural background, religion, skin color) does not matter in how you are treated in that communist society.

I hope your liked my answar and I hope it helped you understaning the basic's easier =)

[Lolumad273]

Communism is a system of society where workers are in control of the means of production. Everyone is a worker. There are no masters, and no slaves. Workers would be free to pursue their most creative, and productive faculties without the worry of making ends meet.

[ed miliband]

COMMUNISM IS THE REAL MOVEMENT WHICH ABOLISHES THE PRESENT STATE OF THINGS

it is also a hammer

[daft punk]

Communism is the dictatorship of one man based on a huge privileged bureaucracy, over a couple of hundred million, and anyone who wants to complain can sod off to the gulag or firing squad.

Only kidding. Not really. Kidding that is. :)

[Franz Fanonipants]

Communism is the dictatorship of one man based on a huge privileged bureaucracy, over a couple of hundred million, and anyone who wants to complain can sod off to the gulag or firing squad.

Only kidding. Not really. Kidding that is. :)

hey bro the best part of silly utopians like you is that you are literally happy to swallow capitalist lies

all the time

[Captain Marvelous]

Everything would be free.

Well, there would be virtually no crime. Any crimes that did occur could be dealt with by the community.

No countries, no need for an army.

No need, countries would gradually become redundant. Communism needs global planning.

No need, not desirable, incompatible with the interests of humanity.

They can do, but there would be little point.

The idea that everything can be free isn't realistic at all. It's a nice idea amongst a small group of people who want to do things that way, but beyond that, I don't think that can ever catch on.

What makes you think that crime wouldn't exist under any system? Again, nice idea but unrealistic.

What makes you think that countries can become redundant?

Rich and poor people. Again, idealistic. There will always be people who work hard and gain a lot from it, and others who don't.

Why do you think there's no point in working full time? How are you judging this? Everyone thinks in their own individual way. Some people think of work as simply a means to an end, and others see it as a fulfilling way to spend their time.

[daft punk]

yep, I just eat 'em up! I love those juicy capitalist lies!

er, what capitalist lies? That Russia was communist?

[GoddessCleoLover]

Bourgeois intellectuals love to propagate the notion that the Soviet Union was socialistic or even communistic since workers are well aware of the iniquities there. The bottom line is that workers ARE well aware of what occurred in the Union starting with the forced collectivisation disaster and if we are ever to regain the trust and confidence of the working class we have not be honest and forthright about Soviet history.

[robbo203]

Words change their meaning. Marx used both to mean the same thing, but he also talked about a higher and lower stage of communism. Lenin also used the words synonymously, and also talked about a higher and lower stage, calling the lower stage socialism. This was the one I put up as a definition.

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/o.htm#socialism

marxist encyclopedia gives some quotes to define socialism.

"The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible because it will be impossible to seize the means of production – the factories, machines, land, etc. – and make them private property.... Marx shows the course of development of communist society....which [firstly] consists in the distribution of consumer goods "according to the amount of labor performed" (and not [yet] according to needs)."
"But the scientific distinction between socialism and communism is clear. What is usually called socialism was termed by marx the "first", or lower, phase of communist society. Insofar as the means of production becomes common property, the word "communism" is also applicable here, providing we do not forget that this is not complete communism."
Vladimir Lenin
The State and Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm)
Chpt. 5: The first phase of Communist Society (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s3)

This is not quite accurate.

Firstly Marx did not call the first stage of communism , socialism. That was Lenin. Also it should also be noted that Lenin's equation of "socialism" with the "first" phase of communism bore little relation to Marx's own depiction of the latter. Where Marx advocated a system of Labour vouchers, Lenin in The State and Revolution talked of "all citizens being transformed into hired employees of the state" when the very existence of a state was incompatible with communism in Marx's view - be it the lower phase or the higher phase of communism(http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm)

Not only that, in the same year that saw publication of The State and Revolution, Lenin contradicted himself by putting forward yet another definition of socialism. In The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It(1917) he now argued that "socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly". How socialism can be both the lower phase of communism and a state capitalist monopoly (albeit one alledgedly made to serve the interests of the whole people) is, to say the least, puzzling.

It was this later definition of "socialism" which is clearly quite distinct from communism and not merely the first or lower stage of communism that is particularly notable as gross departure from Marxian usage of the term socialism

[PhoenixAsh]

The idea that everything can be free isn't realistic at all. It's a nice idea amongst a small group of people who want to do things that way, but beyond that, I don't think that can ever catch on.

There are several ideas about the concept of deviding goods and products after a revolution. One such idea is the voucher system. I suggest the search option on the forum to find relevant threads.

But why would the concept of free purchase be unrealistic in your opinion?



What makes you think that crime wouldn't exist under any system? Again, nice idea but unrealistic.

Crime would exist. But as crime is being analised the vast majority of crime/criminal offenses are withing property sphere of society or done for material gain. Depending on the society you currently live in a lot of what is called a crime now...won't be designated as such after a revolution.

Those would phase out.




What makes you think that countries can become redundant?

Well to answer that question I want to know what you think a country is and why you consider it special or a necessary concept.



Rich and poor people. Again, idealistic. There will always be people who work hard and gain a lot from it, and others who don't.

Well you are making a classic mistake: equating wealth with working hard. A lot of people work their asses off and have nothing to show for it.

Mostly wealth is not accumulated through your own hard work....wealth is accumulated by extracting surplus value from somebodies labour. Wether you do this directly or indirectly.



Why do you think there's no point in working full time? How are you judging this? Everyone thinks in their own individual way. Some people think of work as simply a means to an end, and others see it as a fulfilling way to spend their time.

Recent management tools suggest flexible working hours based on output instead of fixed hours work best to increase production and profit. Capitalism is rapidly proving that the way we work is not always beneficary to output, growth or expansion. In fact...the way we work is often detrimental to it. The more flexibility you allow within mutual agreements often works better than 9-5 or 9-8 working hours.

Simply put:
Now within capitalism work hours establish wage.
From the perspective of the worker:
If there is no wage then work hours become less significant.
From the perspective of the employer:
Work hours are established to maximise profits by minimalising the wage costs. More hours work per employee equals less pay costs.

In an output and no profit oriented society....the work can be shared between many more hands. Because there is no reason to minimalise employees.

This means people would have freedom. Working fulltime when they want or working part time when they so desire to spend time doing other things.

[Lolumad273]

Daft Punk saying that there's no reason to work full time resulted in a misunderstanding, I believe . I think he was saying that, in order to provide for all of society's needs (considering leisure a need, and the goods that go along with it), people don't need to work 8 hours a day. 3-5 hours a day, 4 days a week is probably enough. There is a lot of wasted potential in our current paradigm.

Workers' self management would allow them to work full time, if they wanted. Hard work would never be discouraged.

[CommunityBeliever]

The idea that everything can be free isn't realistic at all. It's a nice idea amongst a small group of people who want to do things that way, but beyond that, I don't think that can ever catch on.What is unrealistic about it? Free information is already a reality, anyone with internet access can get basically any book, song, computer program, or movie for free. Although the capitalists might call you a "pirate" for downloading some of these things.

As I mentioned in post #17 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2373232&postcount=17) communist society is like an extension of the internet. Just as the internet is a network which gets information delivered to your home for free today, communist society there will be an extended network which not only delivers all the information you need to your home, but all other personal goods as well:


Information: we already have the internet to deliver free information to our homes. In communist society there will be no artificial scarcity so you will be able to get basically all information for free.
Energy: in communist society there will an enernet (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA811EPzwLI) which is an analogoue of the internet for energy. The enernet will deliver free energy to everyone in the world. Nuclear fusion will provide more then enough energy to satisfy everyone's wants and needs.
Water: most homes already have running water and with future desalination technology we will have so much water resources there is no reason we will have to charge for it.
Material goods: there will be sophisticated manufacturing hubs which will be able to automatically convert any digital design on the internet into a physical good and then we will have pipelines to deliever these goods to anyone's home in the network.

Of course, in communist society there will still be some criminals, for example somebody might try to abuse the network, in which case we can shut them off. In the worst case scenario, for the most destructive of criminals, we can confine them to their home and shut them off from all services other then food and water. So if there are any criminals they will just confined to their homes rather then thrown in prison.

[daft punk]

The idea that everything can be free isn't realistic at all. It's a nice idea amongst a small group of people who want to do things that way, but beyond that, I don't think that can ever catch on.

Well, in the UK we have free healthcare. Some places have free public transport. There would be nothing to stop a socialist society gradually making things free. Obviously you have to be able to easily produce enough for everyone, in an environmentally friendly sustainable way. We would build stuff to last, stuff that can be repaired. You would not get a new mobile phone every few months just to 'look cool'. But everyone would have a computer, the internet, a home, free public transport, free food and on.



What makes you think that crime wouldn't exist under any system? Again, nice idea but unrealistic.

What sort of crime would exist in a system where everyone was equal and had everything they needed, and most things they could ever want? There wouldn't be mugging or burglaries would there? We know that things like domestic violence would decrease to almost nothing. Murder would be extremely rare indeed. We would get rid of some of the sexist stereotypes that cause crime as well as the economic base. If a woman wanted to leave her husband she would be provided with a house and a job. Drugs would be produced by the state with addicts getting their fix from doctors and maybe soft drugs sold like alcohol.



What makes you think that countries can become redundant?
Countries were invented by capitalism, loosely speaking. They are not relevant to a global communist planned economy. I think they would gradually fade away to just historical interest.



Rich and poor people. Again, idealistic. There will always be people who work hard and gain a lot from it, and others who don't.

Not in a communist society. Some might work harder than others, but the only thing they would gain would be respect.




Why do you think there's no point in working full time? How are you judging this? Everyone thinks in their own individual way. Some people think of work as simply a means to an end, and others see it as a fulfilling way to spend their time.

Yes, and if they love their work they can probably do more hours, depending on resources. But in communism you would not just have one job and you would be involved in planning as well as work.

[daft punk]

Bourgeois intellectuals love to propagate the notion that the Soviet Union was socialistic or even communistic since workers are well aware of the iniquities there. The bottom line is that workers ARE well aware of what occurred in the Union starting with the forced collectivisation disaster and if we are ever to regain the trust and confidence of the working class we have not be honest and forthright about Soviet history.

I think the disaster started as soon as Lenin died in 1924. Stalin managed to get immediate control and by 1927 the economy was way off the track envisaged by Lenin. This was why he was then forced to adopt Left Opposition policies of collectivisation. However he did it too late, too fast, very brutally, and for the wrong reasons.


This is not quite accurate.

Firstly Marx did not call the first stage of communism , socialism. That was Lenin.

That is not what I said, I said Marx sometimes used the words communism and socialism synonymously. For instance Engels wrote Socialism, Utopian and Scientific. Marxism was called scientific socialism. In the Condition of the Working Class Engels calls Marx "the great founder of Modern Socialism".




Also it should also be noted that Lenin's equation of "socialism" with the "first" phase of communism bore little relation to Marx's own depiction of the latter. Where Marx advocated a system of Labour vouchers, Lenin in The State and Revolution talked of "all citizens being transformed into hired employees of the state" when the very existence of a state was incompatible with communism in Marx's view - be it the lower phase or the higher phase of communism(http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm)


Where does Marx say there will be no state in the early stages?



Not only that, in the same year that saw publication of The State and Revolution, Lenin contradicted himself by putting forward yet another definition of socialism. In The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It(1917) he now argued that "socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly". How socialism can be both the lower phase of communism and a state capitalist monopoly (albeit one alledgedly made to serve the interests of the whole people) is, to say the least, puzzling.

It was this later definition of "socialism" which is clearly quite distinct from communism and not merely the first or lower stage of communism that is particularly notable as gross departure from Marxian usage of the term socialism

Well, you have to bear in mind Russia was a backward country, and attempting socialism in a backward country was not really something seriously considered by any Marxist before 1906 Results and Prospects. Lenin didnt even come round to this view until 1917. So, obviously, marx wrote very little on this possibility.

The Bolsheviks had to build industry. It was never gonna be socialism straight away, so Lenin called his industry building 'state capitalism' to distinguish it from socialism, which was the goal. Yes he did change a bit as time went on, and depending on what he was trying to stress and to whom.

[Captain Marvelous]

There are several ideas about the concept of deviding goods and products after a revolution. One such idea is the voucher system. I suggest the search option on the forum to find relevant threads.

But why would the concept of free purchase be unrealistic in your opinion?



Crime would exist. But as crime is being analised the vast majority of crime/criminal offenses are withing property sphere of society or done for material gain. Depending on the society you currently live in a lot of what is called a crime now...won't be designated as such after a revolution.

Those would phase out.




Well to answer that question I want to know what you think a country is and why you consider it special or a necessary concept.



Well you are making a classic mistake: equating wealth with working hard. A lot of people work their asses off and have nothing to show for it.

Mostly wealth is not accumulated through your own hard work....wealth is accumulated by extracting surplus value from somebodies labour. Wether you do this directly or indirectly.




Recent management tools suggest flexible working hours based on output instead of fixed hours work best to increase production and profit. Capitalism is rapidly proving that the way we work is not always beneficary to output, growth or expansion. In fact...the way we work is often detrimental to it. The more flexibility you allow within mutual agreements often works better than 9-5 or 9-8 working hours.

Simply put:
Now within capitalism work hours establish wage.
From the perspective of the worker:
If there is no wage then work hours become less significant.
From the perspective of the employer:
Work hours are established to maximise profits by minimalising the wage costs. More hours work per employee equals less pay costs.

In an output and no profit oriented society....the work can be shared between many more hands. Because there is no reason to minimalise employees.

This means people would have freedom. Working fulltime when they want or working part time when they so desire to spend time doing other things.

The concept of free purchase isn't unrealistic. The concept of the entire world wanting to go along with such a system, or more to the point any system, isn't. You mention a revolution, but I see no signs of that. Are you talking about a revolution that you'd like to see happen maybe within the next few hundred years?

The concept of a country is similar to the concept of a household or neighbourhood. A bunch of people living close to each other, with something in common, ie culture, language, whataver. Whatever any of us think about the idea of having countries, the point is that they exist and I can't see how you could even hope to change that. And why would you anyway? If people want there to be countries then let there be countries.

Wealth can be accumulated in all kinds of ways, some of them noble, some of them not. Hard work can be productive, or not. Work of any kind can be fulfilling (and therefore one will want to do more of it), or not. Depends on the individual.

I agree that the standard model of getting paid per hour / week / month isn't always the best way. I would suggest finding a job where you're paid on performance rather than a fixed wage.

[Captain Marvelous]

Well, in the UK we have free healthcare. Some places have free public transport. There would be nothing to stop a socialist society gradually making things free. Obviously you have to be able to easily produce enough for everyone, in an environmentally friendly sustainable way. We would build stuff to last, stuff that can be repaired. You would not get a new mobile phone every few months just to 'look cool'. But everyone would have a computer, the internet, a home, free public transport, free food and on.


What sort of crime would exist in a system where everyone was equal and had everything they needed, and most things they could ever want? There wouldn't be mugging or burglaries would there? We know that things like domestic violence would decrease to almost nothing. Murder would be extremely rare indeed. We would get rid of some of the sexist stereotypes that cause crime as well as the economic base. If a woman wanted to leave her husband she would be provided with a house and a job. Drugs would be produced by the state with addicts getting their fix from doctors and maybe soft drugs sold like alcohol.


Countries were invented by capitalism, loosely speaking. They are not relevant to a global communist planned economy. I think they would gradually fade away to just historical interest.


Not in a communist society. Some might work harder than others, but the only thing they would gain would be respect.




Yes, and if they love their work they can probably do more hours, depending on resources. But in communism you would not just have one job and you would be involved in planning as well as work.

Yes it's good if certain things can be made to be free, but people will always want to barter.

You say that those who work harder than the rest would only get respect. Is respect not a good thing? What about keeping busy and active, being around other people, and all the other things that a person can personally gain from a hard day's work? Do they not count for anything?

I'm not getting a very good impression of communism. It seems to me like a system designed around the collective rather than the individual. And I don't think there will be any kind of revolution ever because I can't imagine huge numbers of people going for that. Most systems have their faults and communism is no exception. Usually when certain people are unhappy with one system what tends to happen is that they concoct another system in reaction to it and then hope that everyone will one day agree, which ends up being as imperfect as that which is being reacted against, albeit in different ways. I'm sure most of you here mean well but I don't think you're ever going to see your vision come true. And, importantly, there's probably very good reasons for that.

[CommunityBeliever]

I'm not getting a very good impression of communism. It seems to me like a system designed around the collective rather than the individual. Communism isn't designed around the collective anymore then the Internet already is. If you don't like the idea of a being part of a global collective then perhaps you should disconnect from the Internet.


A bunch of people living close to each other, with something in common, ie culture, language, whataver. Whatever any of us think about the idea of having countries, the point is that they exist and I can't see how you could even hope to change that. In the 21th century we already becoming a global community. We already have a global communications system (the internet), a global culture (pop culture), and a global language (English). The ongoing process of globalisation is also the process of becoming a type-1 civilisation on the Kardashev scale:

JdILmgJGuvw

Wealth can be accumulated in all kinds of ways, some of them noble, some of them not.There is an excellent quote from Jean-Luc Picard in Star Trek: "People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of things. We've eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions. We've grown out of our infancy." We are still in our infancy today and that is the only reason differences in wealth still matter to us.


You say that those who work harder than the rest would only get respect. Is respect not a good thing? What about keeping busy and active, being around other people, and all the other things that a person can personally gain from a hard day's work? Do they not count for anything? The primitive communists were often nomadic, traveling from place to place all the time in search of food and water. The creation of countries, homes, and states created the sedentary lifestyle, which in its extreme case leads to all the obesity and inactivity we see today. In future communist society we won't be tied to the land anymore so people will travel all around the world just like the primitive communists did.

[Captain Marvelous]

Yes I know that the world is in some ways becoming more of a global community and I think that's a bad thing. I prefer indivuality and diversity rather than everything being uniform, and many people feel the same. That's why there will always be diversity.

And I agree that there's more to life than accumulating stuff. However, and this is a very easily missed point, a big part of life involves challenges, diffuculty and hardship, and the lessons that can be learned from life experiences. To take away challenges and make everything easy is to rob people of something very valuable.

I think it's just best to let people live their lives how they want and leave it at that.

[CommunityBeliever]

I prefer indivuality and diversity rather than everything being uniform, and many people feel the same. That's why there will always be diversity. The primitive communists marvelled in face of the diversity of life in nature, before the technologies of civilisation began to destroy the environment, nature, and wildlife. In future communist societies there will be environmental reconstruction projects so that there will still be a diversity of life, but there won't be a diversity of flaws, violent antagonisms, and dehumanising commodification.


However, and this is a very easily missed point, a big part of life involves challenges, diffuculty and hardship, and the lessons that can be learned from life experiences. To take away challenges and make everything easy is to rob people of something very valuable. Once we get rid of the class society and states which have tied us to the land and which have produced the sedentary lifestyle, everybody will be able to travel the world, meet people and go to conferences, confront challenges, and have life experiences to a greater extent then ever before.

[Bolshevik_Guerilla_1917]

And in the Communist Manifesto when they say abolishion of private property they mean the bourgeoies property, it then gets redistributed amongst the people

[The Douche]

Communism is the hammer with which we smash our enemies.

But seriously communism is a liveable experience which means struggle against alienation (both in terms of political alienation and economic alienation), culminating in a world free from work and representation.

[Rooster]

And in the Communist Manifesto when they say abolishion of private property they mean the bourgeoies property, it then gets redistributed amongst the people

No, it doesn't just get redistributed. The means of production are made common, available freely to all to use.


I would say that communism is a idiology where no social classes exist (poor, middle class or rich basically)

Basically correct. Marx saw the proletariat as being the only class that was progressive and with it's own emancipation, it emancipates all classes from capitalist production. This results in there no longer being any classes (ie, no bourgeois and no proletariat), classes that relate to the production process.


and the state owns all bussinesses and factories etc. and pay between workers are equal.

And this is wrong. There wouldn't be a state. A state is an expression of a class society, of one class dominating another (or more depending on the epoch). The means of productions will be held in common, not held by a state. There's a fundamental difference here.

[PhoenixAsh]

The concept of free purchase isn't unrealistic. The concept of the entire world wanting to go along with such a system, or more to the point any system, isn't. You mention a revolution, but I see no signs of that. Are you talking about a revolution that you'd like to see happen maybe within the next few hundred years?

You know...nobody really saw a revolution comming in Russia either. So however long it takes. And it won't be that long. What we are seeing now is a slow but rapidly increasing move towards bonapartism and corporatism. A counter reaction will come. Wether that reaction is succesful is another matter entirely.


The concept of a country is similar to the concept of a household or neighbourhood. A bunch of people living close to each other, with something in common, ie culture, language, whataver.

The only thing I have in common with the people in my country is maybe some language and the nationality I am apparantly born with. But that is not the concept of a country we are talking about. We are talking about the country as in state. An entity of authority governed by the elite.



Whatever any of us think about the idea of having countries, the point is that they exist and I can't see how you could even hope to change that.

Well...they didn't exist. They were created. So basically...before they were created we were doing without them. The concept of country is property. We abolish property as such. So no countries exist. That doesn't mean that there are not regional cooperations or ties. But the concept country as in state will cease to exist.



And why would you anyway? If people want there to be countries then let there be countries.

If peopel want there to be genocide let there be genocide? Just because some people want a country....and mind you....the concept of nation and state and subsequently nationalism has been hammered into us from childhood...doesn't mean we should have it.



Wealth can be accumulated in all kinds of ways, some of them noble, some of them not. Hard work can be productive, or not. Work of any kind can be fulfilling (and therefore one will want to do more of it), or not. Depends on the individual.

No...actually...it doesn't. You can NOT create wealth out of nothing. Wealth has to come from somewhere. So either you are selling products which extract surplus value from somebody else or somebody is doing that to you.


I agree that the standard model of getting paid per hour / week / month isn't always the best way. I would suggest finding a job where you're paid on performance rather than a fixed wage.

Try finding a job period. In the meantime the rich seem to get richer while there is an ever increasing army of unemployed.

[daft punk]

The concept of free purchase isn't unrealistic. The concept of the entire world wanting to go along with such a system, or more to the point any system, isn't.

Evidence? Reasons? You simply dont know that. Anyway, 90% would be good enough.



You mention a revolution, but I see no signs of that. Are you talking about a revolution that you'd like to see happen maybe within the next few hundred years?

of course



The concept of a country is similar to the concept of a household or neighbourhood.

Not really. The modern nation state was created by capitalism to suit capitalism, over the last 400 years. Obviously families have existed a lot longer.



A bunch of people living close to each other, with something in common, ie culture, language, whataver. Whatever any of us think about the idea of having countries, the point is that they exist and I can't see how you could even hope to change that. And why would you anyway? If people want there to be countries then let there be countries.

Because socialism needs a globally planned economy.

[Captain Marvelous]

I can't see it ever happening. Ok, so paint me a picture of how life would be like if your dream ever did become a reality.

Also I have a couple of questions. When will I be able to view my posts immediately after posting them? And I notice that I have a few reputation points. Out of curiosity, can I view comments? Do people make comments when giving or removing points?

[Rooster]

I can't see it ever happening.

And they laughed at Columbus when he said the world was round.

[daft punk]

This is very true

s9MszVE7aR4

[PhoenixAsh]

I can't see it ever happening. Ok, so paint me a picture of how life would be like if your dream ever did become a reality.

Also I have a couple of questions. When will I be able to view my posts immediately after posting them? And I notice that I have a few reputation points. Out of curiosity, can I view comments? Do people make comments when giving or removing points?

After 10 posts you are free from post moderation.

Some people apparantly thanked your posts. You can see who and what post in your user control panel.

You can either thank a post....which gives +1 to rep...in the bottom right of the post by clicking the button saying "thanks". And you can also remove your previously given thanks....which will then substract 1 from the total rep. You do not get a message for the reason. Everybody can see that you thanked the post.

You can also give a more personal and secret karma....by clicking the scales in the upper right corner of a post. You are then required to leave a message. You can also give negative karma this way. How much depends you add or substract depends on your rep power. Negative rep will show up in your control panel as red. Positive as green. Nobody but the user you rep can see that you negrepped or posrepped the post.

That is the basics of it.

[Revolution starts with U]

John wakes up, washes and prepares for his day. His love is technical engineering. He spends part of his day/week at free university learning his trade. Afternoons he often heads to a local, free, hospital to service their machines. Other days he goes to automated factories and services their machines. Evenings he heads home for dinner with his family, before heading to the local watering hole, to socialize with friends.

Works pretty easy, actually. (Note this is merely a tentative possibility)

[Lanky Wanker]

I think he was saying that, in order to provide for all of society's needs (considering leisure a need, and the goods that go along with it), people don't need to work 8 hours a day. 3-5 hours a day, 4 days a week is probably enough.

Just to add onto this -- I can't remember where I read it or if my mind is just making this up, but I'm sure Marx said something about how the human race is fully developed at the point which we have surplus labour to play with. Neanderthals didn't have time to sit around playing Scrabble as their energy was spent pretty much entirely on meeting their basic needs to survive. Obviously this isn't a problem at the moment, but people like footballers and actors would actually contribute to "useful" labour (as well as football/acting), therefore cutting down the necessary hours for everyone.

[daft punk]

John wakes up, washes and prepares for his day. His love is technical engineering. He spends part of his day/week at free university learning his trade. Afternoons he often heads to a local, free, hospital to service their machines. Other days he goes to automated factories and services their machines. Evenings he heads home for dinner with his family, before heading to the local watering hole, to socialize with friends.

Works pretty easy, actually. (Note this is merely a tentative possibility)

Often, they will go to the local community restaurant, where locally grown organic food is prepared and cooked, and served free of charge. This too is a social occasion, especially for the kids who may well sit with their friends.

[Gold Against The Soul]

What makes you think that crime wouldn't exist under any system? Again, nice idea but unrealistic

Of course it would exist but in a very limited way compared with any current industralised society. Similar to Britain in the early post-war era. You could leave your front door open. Well, of course, you had nothing to nick! :)

This is already evident now in countries which are more equal - they have less crime and less social problems generally. See Wilkinson et al - The Spirit Level and the follow ups to that. And it isn't just the case that robbery etc is lower but there is less violent crime which is shown often to be status driven. People who believe they aren't worth very much tend to be much more sensitive to be disrespected. Classic example in Britain, the guy who attacked and murdered someone because he queue jumped! (and he actually got the wrong guy!). This type of so called random violence isn't as common in more equal societies because people are often more confident in terms of self-worth and don't feel so disrespected when someone queue jumps.

[Lanky Wanker]

Evenings he heads home for dinner with his family, before heading to the local watering hole, to socialize with friends.


Do I smell nuclear family? :D

Sorry, studying sociology at school engraves small things like this into your mind...

[Captain Marvelous]

Of course it would exist but in a very limited way compared with any current industralised society. Similar to Britain in the early post-war era. You could leave your front door open. Well, of course, you had nothing to nick! :)

This is already evident now in countries which are more equal - they have less crime and less social problems generally. See Wilkinson et al - The Spirit Level and the follow ups to that. And it isn't just the case that robbery etc is lower but there is less violent crime which is shown often to be status driven. People who believe they aren't worth very much tend to be much more sensitive to be disrespected. Classic example in Britain, the guy who attacked and murdered someone because he queue jumped! (and he actually got the wrong guy!). This type of so called random violence isn't as common in more equal societies because people are often more confident in terms of self-worth and don't feel so disrespected when someone queue jumps.

Fair enough, I agree that there would be less crime of certain kinds. By the way I think that equality is overrated, at least in certain areas. Life is more fun when you create your own opportunities.

[Captain Marvelous]

John wakes up, washes and prepares for his day. His love is technical engineering. He spends part of his day/week at free university learning his trade. Afternoons he often heads to a local, free, hospital to service their machines. Other days he goes to automated factories and services their machines. Evenings he heads home for dinner with his family, before heading to the local watering hole, to socialize with friends.

Works pretty easy, actually. (Note this is merely a tentative possibility)

How would John pay for his dinner?

[TrotskistMarx]

From what I read in this site, and from other marxist websites. Communism will take place after the end of socialism. Socialism is the political system between the end of capitalism and the begining of communism. In a communist system there won't be governments, I think that there won't be borders between nations, there won't be nation-states, there won't be classes, there won't be money. And all corporations, and businesses will be owned by every citizen of the world.

I am not really sure, how the economic system of communism without money would work. But from what I read, I suspect that humans will be more psychologically advanced. The egocentric paradigm will fadeway, and replaced by the altruism, cooperativism behaviour in most people. Humans will not be the anti-socials, social-phobics, greedy people you see all over the world. The psychologic evolution of humans is very important. Because all goods and services won't be sold and bought. So if people need a car or food, they just get them, grab them from the providers.

In the other traits, I am not sure how it will work, but I think that there will be a lot less crime, less diseases, no wars and mankind will reach a higher state of consciousness and happiness

thanks


.



Can anyone explain to me what is communism. Also can anyone explain the origins of the terms "left wing" and "right wing". Thanks.

[Ostrinski]

How would John pay for his dinner?Food under this productive arrangement isn't a commodity, so no payment.

[daft punk]

higher state of consciousness

Y9gWA491H4U
Yeah, consciousness is determined by the material world around us.

[Strannik]

Communism is total subordination of property rights to social needs. Communism is singularity of property :P

I understand, that in higher stage of communism all wealth is "owned" socially, individuals have right to use it only as long as collective approves it. Since there's generally enough for everybody and society as a whole is very well educated, nobody minds. If you need something, you get it. If you no longer need it, you give it back to society. All property, from individual's point of view, could be seen as services.

I belive, that in certain circumstances communist society could give control over large amount of capital to an individual or a small group of individuals, but only when and as long as society approves how they use it.

Communism is antithesis of what petty bourgeoise dreams of. Petty bourgeoise dreams of working hard, buying a small house and living until the end of their days hoping world at large doesn't notice them. In communism such people do not exist. People are no longer interested in things by themselves, they are only interested in what they can do with them. As soon as they do not want to drive anymore, they see no point in owning a car.

All you ever need in communism to achieve your dreams is work. Everything else (education, means of production) is taken as granted.

No money - communism has no use for it, since nobody can buy anything. They only borrow from society. In instances, where they use limited resources, these recources are measured directly (similar to what Resource Based Economy people have in mind).

No police and army - communism is a dynamic society. Crews are established by voluntary association to deal with problems and they disband themselves when they are no longer needed. Crime as a constant social force does not exist in communism. No one has to steal or rob for living. If an individual goes nuts for some reason or a natural catastrophe happens, a team is assembled to take care of this, but they go on to other things when the emergency is taken care of. It could be said that communism establishes police and army only when they need it.

There are no countries - since systematic social violence plays no longer any role in humanity's internal relations, the permanent violence monopolies (states) no longer exist. In that sense, there are no countries. That said, since communism gives everyone access to information and capital, resulting diversity of cultures could actually be much larger than it is now.

Since there are no longer states, there are no longer people who think what the states should do. So no politicians. However, there will problably still be people who specialize at organizing popular support for extraordinarily large projects?

Rich people are those who have access to capital. Poor people are those who have no access to capital. In communism, everyone has equal opportunity to access capital, so these terms have no meaning. Should I call you rich because you like sailing and golf?

In communism everyone works as long as they "like". Since your individual identity under communism is the result of your work, happy and proud people under communism are those who are working all the time.

[Captain Marvelous]

I think it would be better for there to be a system which creates an incentive to voluntarily share things than one which forces you to. People like freedom, they don't like being told what to do, which is why communism just won't ever catch on. People are naturally averse to it. I mean, if I own a house, it's my house, not yours. I worked for it and paid for it and it doesn't belong to anyone else. Same with my food, and my underwear. You can't have it, it's mine. People generally resent being told to share things and with good reason.

[hatzel]

I mean, if I own a house, it's my house, not yours. I worked for it and paid for it and it doesn't belong to anyone else. Same with my food, and my underwear. You can't have it, it's mine. People generally resent being told to share things and with good reason.

None of this has any relevance whatsoever to communism, no.

...even without pointing out the obvious inapplicability of the "I worked for X and paid for X"-argument in a communist society, still nobody's making any claim on your underwear...

[CommunityBeliever]

I think it would be better for there to be a system which creates an incentive to voluntarily share things than one which forces you to.

The bourgeoisie denies access to the means of production to the international proletariat by force. The only way for us to gain access to the means of production is through measures of force against the small segment of less then 1% of the population that is refusing to share access to these things.


Same with my food, and my underwear. You can't have it, it's mine. Nobody is going to take your food or your underwear, that is personal property. Communists only seek to eliminate bourgeoisie property, which is a luxury not available to 99% of the world's population.

[Dark Matter]

Communism has been a major historical theme since the Bolshevik Revolution of Russia in 1917. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels popularized the communist ideology in their 1848 work, Communist Manifesto. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, founder of the Bolshevik Party, was inspired by this work and eventually became the first Communist ruler of Russia.Communism sounds like a good idea. In the purest form of communism, all people hold all land, factories and so on in trust, as it were. In this way, all goods are shared equally by the people. There is no poverty — nor is there an upper class. In the Depression-era America of the 1930s, many people joined the Communist Party because it seemed to be sympathetic to the needs and desires of the worker, rather than to the bosses.Unfortunately, communism in practice tends to be somewhat different, as those who have lived in the 20th century know. Communism as practiced by Lenin, Stalin and Chairman Mao is an entirely different proposition. This kind of communism sets up an authoritarian government, with the best goods and services going to those in government.

It was not uncommon in Soviet Russia for people to vie for government jobs — not because they were such fans of communism, but because they got a larger apartment. Capitalists gripe about corruption, but communist governments are just as rife with it as capitalist systems. Government members tend to rationalize that they deserve the best of everything because they are governing for the people.
Another problem with political communism is that governments tend to focus on “production” as the ultimate goal. Production is usually defined as that which comes from factories and farms. As a result, the arts may suffer under a communist regime. This was certainly true for years in China, when Chairman Mao instituted the “cultural revolution.” Since these governments tend to become insular and paranoid, they also usually form a secret police force to quash any hint of revolution by the people. Communism would probably function well if humans didn’t have the unfortunate tendency toward greed. Some argue that if everyone had the same, no one would want more. This, of course, has been proven to be a fallacy over and over again. If there are no goals to achieve, and nothing to work toward except a production quota, where is the incentive to excel? Capitalism is not a perfect system either. It just functions better in the face of human greed than other systems do, as it offers the carrot of financial gain for hard work. An article like this cannot delve into the minutiae of communism. However, there are many excellent resources on the Internet that discuss communism as an ideology as well as a political system. Communism is worth researching for a better picture of an ideology that helped shape history in the 20th century.


wow damn im tired now going to sleep mode.

[Captain Marvelous]

Communism, like a lot of isms, seems to be just an extreme reaction. The rich have the most stuff so let's go the other extreme and make everyone share.

[Revolution starts with U]

How would John pay for his dinner?

He goes to the grocery facility and fills up his kart. He still has to checkout, so we can track inventory and consumer preference. But there is no currency, as such.


Communism, like a lot of isms, seems to be just an extreme reaction. The rich have the most stuff so let's go the other extreme and make everyone share.

You're talking about left lib's, not Commies, buddy.

[daft punk]

my underwear. You can't have it, it's mine.

If you think I want your underwear you are seriously deluded cap'n.

[Gold Against The Soul]

Communism, like a lot of isms, seems to be just an extreme reaction. The rich have the most stuff so let's go the other extreme and make everyone share.

Bit of a lazy cliche, that is. And it starts from a presumption of scarcity. You don't need to be a communist to realise that is nonesense.

[TrotskistMarx]

I suspect that a communist system will be a real advanced futuristical technologically advanced system. And from a psychologic, physiological point of view, humans will also be more evolved, stronger and better physically, and mentally. People will overcome all the psychologic depressions that people have today, pessimism, greed, envy, avarice, paranoia, avoidant personality disorders, social-phobia, agora-phobia (Fear of being outside in open spaces). Surmenage, abulia, anedonia, thyroid diseases, diabetes, cancer, heart diseases, glaucoma, and many many other physiological problems that the majority of the world's people have that lead to inferiority feelings, to narcissism, selfishness and hatred toward others, caused by an existential vacuum by lack of achievements, lack of knowledge and poor health.

I stress the importance and need of humans overcoming their greed and narcissism, and ultra-selfishness that are an impediment right now to establish a communism system without money, without cops and without jails. Because if we apply an anarcho-communism system right now in this world of humans who are in a psychologic state of barbarism. It would lead to a civil war, chaos and to a sort of Mad Max worst case scenario.

So I think that in the *DICTATORSHIP OF THE WORKING CLASS (THE SOCIALIST TEMPORARY TRANSITIONAL PREPARATORIAL STAGE BETWEEN THE END OF CAPITALISM AND THE START OF COMMUNISM)* in that transitional stage the government needs to help the masses evolve toward *altruist* strong, smart possitive super-humans mentally and physically prepared to live in that anarchist-communist world. Thanks


.



In a simple definition, it is a society in which there are no class distinctions. Class being the relation of one to what are called the means of production(the resources society uses, mines, factories, etc.). These will be put into the hands of those who work in them and use them. There will be no state, contrary to popular belief the goal of Marxists is no state, the state being seen as a force of coercion. Given a simplification any ideology loses its character and will seem as being no more than Utopian or, depending on the intention of the one doing the simplifying, harmful or a great step forward in society. If you are a beginner I highly recommend these two short documents by the two men who are seen as the founders themselves, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

[Lolumad273]

How would John pay for his dinner?
My friends always ask me questions like this. There is no money. He gets dinner because food is necessity, and because he's a productive member of society, and leisure is as important as anything.

Also, to your other post, just because you're equal to the man working next to you, doesn't mean you can't explore ways to better yourself physically, or cognitively. In fact, it would be easier to take up a different trade, considering you wouldn't have to worry about pay cuts, or potential lay offs. There will be more opportunities to explore the most creative faculties of the mind.

[Strannik]

In early socialism, I believe one basically rents stuff from society for one's labour. As long as one rents it, its theirs. If they no longer want it, it goes back to society. The result of that is for most people that they get in practice access to much larger variety of goods and services compared to capitalism. Permanent access to limited resources (capitalism) is exchanged for temporary access to most resources. From petty bourgeoise viewpoint this is scary, yes, because theoretically, if you stop contributing to society you lose everything you have. And petty bourgeoise dreams about living in a small house and not contributing to anything unless they feel like it. But in practice, at least where I live most people rent their houses, cars and basically everything else anyway for their wages are way too low to buy them. So at one point even petty bourgeoise might notice that they might as well rent their stuff from society, especially since working conditions are much better under socialism.

[Franz Fanonipants]

In the 21th century we already becoming a global community. We already have a global communications system (the internet), a global culture (pop culture), and a global language (English). The ongoing process of globalisation is also the process of becoming a type-1 civilisation on the Kardashev scale.

lawl that sure is a lot of psuedo-scientific gibberish to justify presentism/historical chauvinism.

[Franz Fanonipants]

anyways OP refer to my original post on the thread. ask questions from there.

these dummies are going to talk all kinds of utopian, theoretical bullshit.

what marxism is about, simply, is a realignment of relationships to labor. in the current system capitalists, those who control the production of commodities, leverage their control over the commodity of labor (what workers do) in the pursuit of profit through a variety of means. imperialism, drug addiction, corruption, alcoholism, racism, and other illnesses of capitalism.

Marxism is a critique of capitalism, whereas Communism is an answer to that which seeks to dissapate capitalism as a system, replacing it with worker's control over their production. its that simple. anything else is gilding the lily/thinking about the angels dancing on the heads of pins, as daft punk has demonstrated.

[Captain Marvelous]

Ok, communism is left, nazism is right. Are they total opposites or are they the same in some ways?

[hatzel]

I suspect that a communist system will be a real advanced futuristical technologically advanced system. And from a psychologic, physiological point of view, humans will also be more evolved, stronger and better physically, and mentally. People will overcome all the psychologic depressions that people have today, pessimism, greed, envy, avarice, paranoia, avoidant personality disorders, social-phobia, agora-phobia (Fear of being outside in open spaces). Surmenage, abulia, anedonia, thyroid diseases, diabetes, cancer, heart diseases, glaucoma, and many many other physiological problems that the majority of the world's people have that lead to inferiority feelings, to narcissism, selfishness and hatred toward others, caused by an existential vacuum by lack of achievements, lack of knowledge and poor health.

I stress the importance and need of humans overcoming their greed and narcissism, and ultra-selfishness that are an impediment right now to establish a communism system without money, without cops and without jails. Because if we apply an anarcho-communism system right now in this world of humans who are in a psychologic state of barbarism. It would lead to a civil war, chaos and to a sort of Mad Max worst case scenario.

So I think that in the *DICTATORSHIP OF THE WORKING CLASS (THE SOCIALIST TEMPORARY TRANSITIONAL PREPARATORIAL STAGE BETWEEN THE END OF CAPITALISM AND THE START OF COMMUNISM)* in that transitional stage the government needs to help the masses evolve toward *altruist* strong, smart possitive super-humans mentally and physically prepared to live in that anarchist-communist world. Thanks.

Yeah sorry but seriously almost everything you've written there is complete and utter balderdash. To put it simply.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Ok, communism is left, nazism is right. Are they total opposites or are they the same in some ways?

nazism has nothing to do with labor, rather it's a racial ideology.

as a marxist, i believe the history of race is contingent on historical context and class struggle.

nazis believed that race was an eternal, ahistorical, and classless fact and that the state/race was a vessel that transcended time.

[CommunityBeliever]

lawl that sure is a lot of psuedo-scientific gibberish to justify presentism/historical chauvinism. I forgot there is also global political organisation: the United Nations. The UN discusses some threats to planet Earth like asteroids and comets. At the recent 49th session of COPUOS the asteroid 2011 AG5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_AG5) was discussed. Astronomers estimated that this asteroid has a 0.16% percent chance of hitting Earth by February 5, 2040. We already are a global civilisation that is capable of dealing with issues on a planetary scale. This is not gibberish.

[Franz Fanonipants]

This is not gibberish.

it actually is a ton of it

you're literally worshipping every single late capitalist lie about globalization you can

[daft punk]

Yeah sorry but seriously almost everything you've written there is complete and utter balderdash. To put it simply.

No it isn't, and if you think it is, you have to give good reasons, otherwise it is just yet another useless post you have made. Oh, and nobody, and I mean nobody, uses the word balderdash.

[TrotskistMarx]

You know something? I think that lots of philosophers and thinkers even if they are not marxists and active supporters of the socialist ideology, they predicted a world socialist government. The philosopher Nietzsche in the book the Will to Power, at the last part of that book, predicted an "international racial union" to create a stronger human society. And he claimed that the whole world will work like one big consciousness, like one big car, and each citizen of the world will be a piece of that vehicle. I think that the anarchist-communism state-less stage of political human development, will be the superman stage. Where each human will be a super-human. Because humans will have more personal liberty and more independence, than today's global slavery.

.



Communism isn't designed around the collective anymore then the Internet already is. If you don't like the idea of a being part of a global collective then perhaps you should disconnect from the Internet.

In the 21th century we already becoming a global community. We already have a global communications system (the internet), a global culture (pop culture), and a global language (English). The ongoing process of globalisation is also the process of becoming a type-1 civilisation on the Kardashev scale:

JdILmgJGuvw
There is an excellent quote from Jean-Luc Picard in Star Trek: "People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of things. We've eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions. We've grown out of our infancy." We are still in our infancy today and that is the only reason differences in wealth still matter to us.

The primitive communists were often nomadic, traveling from place to place all the time in search of food and water. The creation of countries, homes, and states created the sedentary lifestyle, which in its extreme case leads to all the obesity and inactivity we see today. In future communist society we won't be tied to the land anymore so people will travel all around the world just like the primitive communists did.