Communism

[DimSumMetal]

Hi, I have some questions about communism I want to ask, also, I would like to ask that only communists will answer because I already heard the anti-communist response to those questions.

1. How can we be sure that communism won't bring more Stalins/Maos?
2. What are the advantages of communism over anarcho-communism?
3. Why do communists adore the CCCP/USSR so much? I mean, wearing shirts, pins, hats, raising flags and such of it, it failed and brought stalinist reigns upon some states of it.

thanks!

[Ostrinski]

1. How can we be sure that communism won't bring more Stalins/Maos?Worker's power

2. What are the advantages of communism over anarcho-communism?Same thing.

3. Why do communists adore the CCCP/USSR so much? I mean, wearing shirts, pins, hats, raising flags and such of it, it failed and brought stalinist reigns upon some states of it.Those are just Marxist-Leninists. They don't make up the whole of the communist movement.

[JeVousAimeGuillotine]

1. Hi, welcome! First of all, you need to understand that Stalin and Mao did not preside over communist countries. Communism is the classless, stateless goal of communists, but has never been achieved. It is often arguable that what Stalin or Mao presided over was even socialism. I tend to think that Stalin's Russia was one that almost immediately left the workers' state towards a more state capitalist society--or war communism, which shifted the means of production into the bureaucrats. As for Mao, I'm not very well read on him, and I wish I could give you a more thorough answer, but from what I do know, he certainly wasn't the leader of communist nation. Communism, when achieved, will not be led by dictators or extreme totalitarians. Rather, it will be led by the collective proletariat. I know that seems counter-intuitive, but the people really will work together to govern society, not as a state, but as a people.

2. Communism and anarcho-communism are really only separated by the method of revolution. In traditional Marxist communism, there is a general concensus that the contradictions of capitalism and the organic composition of capital would eventually lead to a financial crisis so overwhelming that the natural result will be to replace capitalism with socialism. In a way of thinking, it is a preference towards gradualism, rather than a coup détat of Marxist revolutionaries. Anarcho-communism is really just the idea of abolishing the state, money, private property, authority, etc. and replacing with the will of the people in a single swift revolution.

3. I think that most communists view the CCCP and the USSR through a Marxist analysis. We may differ as to how we analyze those two states, but there is no dogma in Marxism. We, as communists, don't believe in the notion of doctrine or scripture to describe what we support or oppose. For instance, I can hardly consider myself a Trotskyist or a Stalinist, but I can see the point of view from both sides in a dialectical manner. Both sides voice their opinions, but one view does not exclude the other from the common goal of communism. Some express their adoration for the cause by sporting uniforms, banners, flags, etc. However, when it all comes down to it, the props are just props, and most communists want to have a real conversation about the flaws of the CCCP and the USSR, in order to adjust our philosophy and correct parts of communist theory that may have contradictions. At the core of Marxist analysis, there is a common interest in the removal of injustice in the world, and replacing it with a government of equal interest. Not one that gives underserving citizens resources that are unmerited--but one that rewards work with the fruits of labour, rather than an exploited wage. Communism is really about the sweat of a man's brow, rather than the weight of his wallet. I hope that answers some of your questions.

[DimSumMetal]

Worker's power
Same thing.
Those are just Marxist-Leninists. They don't make up the whole of the communist movement.
What do you mean by Worker's power? can you further explain it please?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Hi, I have some questions about communism I want to ask, also, I would like to ask that only communists will answer because I already heard the anti-communist response to those questions.

1. How can we be sure that communism won't bring more Stalins/Maos?
2. What are the advantages of communism over anarcho-communism?
3. Why do communists adore the CCCP/USSR so much? I mean, wearing shirts, pins, hats, raising flags and such of it, it failed and brought stalinist reigns upon some states of it.

thanks!

1. Communism can't bring about more Stalins/Maos because communism is a classless and stateless society. Communism is the ends that every socialist (whether anarchist, Trotskyist, council communist, etc.) work toward. I believe that, as Marx said, society needs to pass through a transitional state, known as the dictatorship of the proletariat, before reaching the end of communism. Unlike it's name, the dotp is actually a highly democratic society. Marx considered capitalist democracy to be a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and could only be offset by proletarian democracy, or a dictatorship of the proletariat. Engels felt the Paris Commune, a direct democratic society, was a historical example of the dotp. This transitional state would be used to defend the revolution from violent counter-revolution and would be in place until communism could be instituted.

2. Communism and Anarcho-Communism are basically the same thing. Communism has many variations such as council communism (the tendency I subscribe to), Trotskyism, DeLeonism, Marxism-Leninism, etc. etc. To group them all into one term, "Communism", makes it hard to really answer this question. The biggest difference would be that "communists" support a transitional state, the dotp, to reach communism while anarchists don't. (Even with this, some anarchists consider that the dotp doesn't meet the criteria of a state and are not opposed to the idea).

3. These are Marxists-Leninists (aka Stalinists). They do not represent all communists.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

What do you mean by Worker's power? can you further explain it please?

This varies from different communist tendencies. I am a council communist and see worker's power as existing through direct democratic councils in which the workers would make their voices heard and run society.

[DimSumMetal]

1. Hi, welcome! First of all, you need to understand that Stalin and Mao did not preside over communist countries. Communism is the classless, stateless goal of communists, but has never been achieved. It is often arguable that what Stalin or Mao presided over was even socialism. I tend to think that Stalin's Russia was one that almost immediately left the workers' state towards a more state capitalist society--or war communism, which shifted the means of production into the bureaucrats. As for Mao, I'm not very well read on him, and I wish I could give you a more thorough answer, but from what I do know, he certainly wasn't the leader of communist nation. Communism, when achieved, will not be led by dictators or extreme totalitarians. Rather, it will be led by the collective proletariat. I know that seems counter-intuitive, but the people really will work together to govern society, not as a state, but as a people.

but if we'll try to make the state communist, how can we make sure that such dictators won't rule us?



2. Communism and anarcho-communism are really only separated by the method of revolution. In traditional Marxist communism, there is a general concensus that the contradictions of capitalism and the organic composition of capital would eventually lead to a financial crisis so overwhelming that the natural result will be to replace capitalism with socialism. In a way of thinking, it is a preference towards gradualism, rather than a coup détat of Marxist revolutionaries. Anarcho-communism is really just the idea of abolishing the state, money, private property, authority, etc. and replacing with the will of the people in a single swift revolution.


If so, do you mean we just need to wait until a financial crisis will come and then move to socialism that will turn to communism?



3. I think that most communists view the CCCP and the USSR through a Marxist analysis. We may differ as to how we analyze those two states, but there is no dogma in Marxism. We, as communists, don't believe in the notion of doctrine or scripture to describe what we support or oppose. For instance, I can hardly consider myself a Trotskyist or a Stalinist, but I can see the point of view from both sides in a dialectical manner. Both sides voice their opinions, but one view does not exclude the other from the common goal of communism. Some express their adoration for the cause by sporting uniforms, banners, flags, etc. However, when it all comes down to it, the props are just props, and most communists want to have a real conversation about the flaws of the CCCP and the USSR, in order to adjust our philosophy and correct parts of communist theory that may have contradictions. At the of Marxist analysis, there is a common interest in the removal of injustice in the world, and replacing it with a government of equal interest. Not one that gives underserving citizens resources that are unmerited--but one that rewards work with the fruits of labour, rather than an exploited wage. Communism is really about the sweat of a man's brow, rather than the weight of his wallet. I hope that answers some of your questions.

Sorry, I still don't understand this part.
Why would someone wear flags and symbols of a disaster (or not a disaster? O_o)?

[DimSumMetal]

1. Communism can't bring about more Stalins/Maos because communism is a classless and stateless society. Communism is the ends that every socialist (whether anarchist, Trotskyist, council communist, etc.) work toward. I believe that, as Marx said, society needs to pass through a transitional state, known as the dictatorship of the proletariat, before reaching the end of communism. Unlike it's name, the dotp is actually a highly democratic society. Marx considered capitalist democracy to be a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and could only be offset by proletarian democracy, or a dictatorship of the proletariat. Engels felt the Paris Commune, a direct democratic society, was a historical example of the dotp. This transitional state would be used to defend the revolution from violent counter-revolution and would be in place until communism could be instituted.


But what will make sure that while going through socialism towards communism dictators won't come up and rule us?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

But what will make sure that while going through socialism towards communism dictators won't come up and rule us?

First, socialism and communism are the same thing. Only Leninists make a distinction between the two labels. Worker's control over society would make sure to stop "dictators" and popular revolution would make sure that the institutions for worker's control over production and community control over society were put in place.

[Thirsty Crow]

but if we'll try to make the state communist, how can we make sure that such dictators won't rule us?

We are not trying to make the state communist in fact. What we aim at is a radical social transformation, affecting political, cultural, economic and more broadly conceived social aspects of human life.
And in this sense, what we aim for is actually an abolition of the current form of the state (by "form" I mean the form of political organization engendered by capitalist social relations - the bourgeois state; which can in fact be differentiated, from the liberal democratic state, authoritarian state, or fascist state and so on) and its replacement with a different kind of political stucture (basically, soviets, mass assemblies, and workplace committees, with the key being the possibility of immediate recall of officers and direct participation by the "rank-and-file").

[DimSumMetal]

We are not trying to make the state communist in fact. What we aim at is a radical social transformation, affecting political, cultural, economic and more broadly conceived social aspects of human life.
And in this sense, what we aim for is actually an abolition of the current form of the state (by "form" I mean the form of political organization engendered by capitalist social relations - the bourgeois state; which can in fact be differentiated, from the liberal democratic state, authoritarian state, or fascist state and so on) and its replacement with a different kind of political stucture (basically, soviets, mass assemblies, and workplace committees, with the key being the possibility of immediate recall of officers and direct participation by the "rank-and-file").
but then what's the different between this and anarcho-communism?

[JeVousAimeGuillotine]

but if we'll try to make the state communist, how can we make sure that such dictators won't rule us?
The proletariat has to be informed. It is not enough simply to be satisfied with ANY revolution that calls itself socialist, if it is not socialist. Socialism involves a global revolution that must replace all bourgeois authority with authority held by the proletariat. The practical way to avoid this is to keep yourself informed. The more communists that refuse to adhere to false interpretations of Marxian analysis, the more efficient the revolution will be.




If so, do you mean we just need to wait until a financial crisis will come and then move to socialism that will turn to communism?
I would like to turn to Che for this question, for he adequately states my position on this question better than I can.


"The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall"--Che Guevarra
I interpret this as meaning that as communists, we must be the instigators of social revolution. This does not mean to force change on a world that is not ready to rid itself of capitalist exploitation, but rather to make our voice heard--inform people as to why we are communists--and when the time comes, it is our job to lead the revolution. We cannot wait in anticipation for the world to revolutionize itself.




Sorry, I still don't understand this part.
Why would someone wear flags and symbols of a disaster (or not a disaster? O_o)?
The best way I can describe this practice is by inferring that as communists, we try to have a sense of solidarity with the history of our movement. It is for that same reason that Americans wear flag pins and sport camo jackets in support of the military.

[Positivist]

Workers control means no leaders whatsoever. By workers control is meant councils made up of workers who make economic decisions for their community. These decisions would be made through democratic means and would engage the whole of the community. Decisions effecting multiple communities would be made through the debate of council representatives.

[Thirsty Crow]

but then what's the different between this and anarcho-communism?
I'm not so sure since I didn't loon into anarcho-communism that much.
But it seems to me that you're confused by the two ways the term communism is being used.
The first denotes political organizations, the real and existing movement as well as its theory (or ideology, if you would call it that).
The other refers to a different mode of production, and a different social-political formation in comparison with capitalism. Just as capitalist social relations have replaced feudal relations of direct and personal dependency, so to will the social relation of capital and wage labour be replaced by the free association of producers - or communism (classless, stateless in the sense of the lack of a political structure based on class relations).

Anarcho-communism is not used in this second way, but only in the first.

[Geiseric]

The "no leaders," idealism is irrelevent, organs of workers power will inevitably rise as a result of class struggle and as Communists we need to work to organize these organs (such as soviets and workers councils in europe) to revolutionize the toiling masses to build towards an overthrow of the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie.

[daft punk]

1. Hi, welcome! First of all, you need to understand that Stalin and Mao did not preside over communist countries. Communism is the classless, stateless goal of communists, but has never been achieved.

correct



It is often arguable that what Stalin or Mao presided over was even socialism.

It was not socialism



I tend to think that Stalin's Russia was one that almost immediately left the workers' state towards a more state capitalist society--or war communism, which shifted the means of production into the bureaucrats.

It wasn't state capitalism or war communism under Stalin. We call it a degenerated workers state.




As for Mao, I'm not very well read on him, and I wish I could give you a more thorough answer, but from what I do know, he certainly wasn't the leader of communist nation. Communism, when achieved, will not be led by dictators or extreme totalitarians. Rather, it will be led by the collective proletariat. I know that seems counter-intuitive, but the people really will work together to govern society, not as a state, but as a people.

Mao and Stalin both wanted China to be capitalist. That plan failed.




3. I think that most communists view the CCCP and the USSR through a Marxist analysis. We may differ as to how we analyze those two states, but there is no dogma in Marxism. We, as communists, don't believe in the notion of doctrine or scripture to describe what we support or oppose. For instance, I can hardly consider myself a Trotskyist or a Stalinist, but I can see the point of view from both sides in a dialectical manner. Both sides voice their opinions, but one view does not exclude the other from the common goal of communism.

Stalinism was created as an ideology of counter-revolution. Most Stalinists simply don't realise this, Even Mao you could say, when he was competing for power against the Stalin-backed capitalist KMT. Mao wanted China to be capitalist for a few decades, and then to move on to socialism later.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Why would someone wear flags and symbols of a disaster (or not a disaster? O_o)?


Some people wear the hammer and sickle because it is most often used to represent the base ideals of communism and as a symbol of their political beliefs. These people would be ignoring and presumed difficulties on the part of the Soviet Union while the ideoogical Marxist-Leninists would believe that the USSR was not a disaster.

[Rooster]

but if we'll try to make the state communist, how can we make sure that such dictators won't rule us?

You can't make a state communist. Communists mostly deal with the production process, the economy, how things are made and the relation that people have to factories and their places of work. This means, basically, that we are talking about classes and class struggle. The state is an expression of a class society. Communism is broadly speaking about the abolition of all classes and as a result, is for the abolition of the state.


If so, do you mean we just need to wait until a financial crisis will come and then move to socialism that will turn to communism?

Socialism and communism are pretty much refer to the same thing. But, socialism happens within capitalism. The production process is socialised under capitalism ie, a person no longer creates everything (or mostly everything) they need, production takes place in big factories where labour is divided like on a production line, etc. The things that are made though by the workers is appropriated by the owner of the factory (or the place of work) who actually hasn't made anything. So when the productive forces of society comes up against the way things are being distributed, then something has to give. You can't really force this. It takes a mass consciousness to realise this and that there is a different way forward. To think that you could just seize power and do without that is utopianism.


Why would someone wear flags and symbols of a disaster (or not a disaster? O_o)?

Poor fashion choice.

[tachosomoza]

but then what's the different between this and anarcho-communism?

Communism is anarchy. No state, no class, no money, worker control of means of production. Before we reach communism, we go through a stage of increased state power called socialism.

[Offbeat]

Before we reach communism, we go through a stage of increased state power called socialism.
OP should note that many of us disagree with this statement.

[Railyon]

+over 9000

Especially the state issue is ambiguous as fuck because if you just say "state", people not accustomed to what Marxists mean by the dictatorship of the proletariat will automatically assume a bourgeois state. Remember who we're talking to here. And there's quite a lot of disagreement over what constitutes a state, so I'd be very careful with that... what some call state, I wouldn't.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

+over 9000

Especially the state issue is ambiguous as fuck because if you just say "state", people not accustomed to what Marxists mean by the dictatorship of the proletariat will automatically assume a bourgeois state. Remember who we're talking to here.

Yeah, that's so true.

Here is a group I created on this subject (and yes, I advertise it every chance I get :D). http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=932

[Thirsty Crow]

Communism is anarchy. No state, no class, no money, worker control of means of production. Before we reach communism, we go through a stage of increased state power called socialism.
This actually implies that the bourgeois state might be conquered and left in tact - with only the concrete polciies enacted by it and its reached quantitatively changed.
How is this increased state power going to recede then given the historical example of the restructuring of the Russian ruling class after the October Revolution (in other words, the restructuring took place with respect to the position and composition of the capitalist class, with the old borugeoisie expropriated in favour of a collective national capitalist in te form of the Soviet state)?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

1. How can we be sure that communism won't bring more Stalins/Maos?
This is implying that Stalin and Mao are as bad as the west makes them out to be. But in the final stage of communism, we don't have leaders or a state so there isn't anyone like Stalin.
2. What are the advantages of communism over anarcho-communism?
What they want is not really different only how to get there is different.
3. Why do communists adore the CCCP/USSR so much? I mean, wearing shirts, pins, hats, raising flags and such of it, it failed and brought stalinist reigns upon some states of it.

Because it is the closest any country has ever gotten to socialism.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

1. How can we be sure that communism won't bring more Stalins/Maos?
This is implying that Stalin and Mao are as bad as the west makes them out to be. But in the final stage of communism, we don't have leaders or a state so there isn't anyone like Stalin.
2. What are the advantages of communism over anarcho-communism?
What they want is not really different only how to get there is different.
3. Why do communists adore the CCCP/USSR so much? I mean, wearing shirts, pins, hats, raising flags and such of it, it failed and brought stalinist reigns upon some states of it.

Because it is the closest any country has ever gotten to socialism.

The person who started this thread should know, again, not everyone agrees with the following.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

The person who started this thread should know, again, not everyone agrees with the following.

Which part of my answers are you talking about?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Which part of my answers are you talking about?

Your answer to number 3.

[tachosomoza]

This actually implies that the bourgeois state might be conquered and left in tact - with only the concrete polciies enacted by it and its reached quantitatively changed.
How is this increased state power going to recede then given the historical example of the restructuring of the Russian ruling class after the October Revolution (in other words, the restructuring took place with respect to the position and composition of the capitalist class, with the old borugeoisie expropriated in favour of a collective national capitalist in te form of the Soviet state)?

This isn't Russia. We're under entirely different circumstances than 1917.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

This isn't Russia. We're under entirely different circumstances than 1917.

Which is exactly why increased state power is not a good idea.

[Franz Fanonipants]

being concerned with dictators is like being concerned about the post-revolutionary gdp

[La Comédie Noire]

3. Why do communists adore the CCCP/USSR so much? I mean, wearing shirts, pins, hats, raising flags and such of it, it failed and brought stalinist reigns upon some states of it.

Marxism-Leninism had a historical prestige because they could argue they were the only ones to put communism to the real world test. However with the fall of the wall and the collapse of Marxism Leninism, we are starting to see new perspectives.

Though some traditions die harder than others.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I just wanted to help clarify what is meant by "state." I would adhere to Lenin's definition "armed bodies of men organized to protect property relations." Meaning that the state in the US is comprised of the armed forces, police force, spy agencies (CIA, FBI, et al.). The protect private property. They protect the interests of those that are big holder's of property (industrialists, bankers, etc.), that is, the bourgeoisie.

Communism, according to most everyone that considers themselves to be Marxists, can occur after capitalism has been overthrown, and the new society is established so well that there is no longer any need for a state, as such. There will be no generalized want, people will be materially well-off. No reason for nation-states. Just people that freely associate. Now there could certainly still be government -- in fact, I assume that there would be. But we will be able to, once and for all, put away most or all of the fucking guns. Right after proletarian revolution, the workers' state will be needed to protect and extend the revolution from reaction.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Marxism-Leninism had a historical prestige because they could argue they were the only ones to put communism to the real world test. However with the fall of the wall and the collapse of Marxism Leninism, we are starting to see new perspectives.

Though some traditions die harder than others.

How was it the collapse of Marxism-Leninism?
After Stalin there were only revisionists, so what has the fall of the wall to do with the "collapse" of Marxism-Leninism?

[Rooster]

How was it the collapse of Marxism-Leninism?
After Stalin there were only revisionists, so what has the fall of the wall to do with the "collapse" of Marxism-Leninism?

You've outlined the reason perfectly. Marxism-Leninism can't explain the fall of the USSR on a materialist basis and has to resort to idealistic and utopian fantasies like revisionism. It abandons marxist materialist analysis in favour of political example.

[Railyon]

How was it the collapse of Marxism-Leninism?
After Stalin there were only revisionists, so what has the fall of the wall to do with the "collapse" of Marxism-Leninism?

If Marxism-Leninism was that strong, how could revisionists come to power? Why would anyone let them stray from the true path?

[Franz Fanonipants]

If Marxism-Leninism was that strong, how could revisionists come to power? Why would anyone let them stray from the true path?

i don't believe any of this revisionist business

but for sure basically any experiment is flawed

a worker's state will not be an eternal utopian experiment

[Blake's Baby]

The person who started this thread should know, again, not everyone agrees with the following.

You don't think that the post-revolutionary society that existed at any time after November 1917 was the closest humanity has ever come to the establishment of socialism? As, logically, humanity must have come 'closest' at some point, when would you see that point as being/having been?

I'm really not wanting to agree with a Stalinist here, as I'm aLeft Communist, but I find it hard to argue with the idea that the state that emerged from Novemeber 1917 was the closest to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat that has ever existed - closer than the Commune, because it lasted longer, covered a much wider area, brought in a massively greater population, re-organised society in a host of ways the Communards could only dream of, provoked a massive revolutionary wave across the whole world, enriched Marxist praxis immensely...

I don't think any previous (well, really there was only the Commune) or subsequent revolutionary struggles (May '68, for instance, or the collectivisations in Spain, or Hungary '56) went anything like as far as the Russian Revolution.

OK, the DotP isn't socialism, but the two are linked causally and chronologically. It wasn't socialism, but it was the closest we got to implementing socialism, wasn't it?

[tachosomoza]

I shouldn't have said that to a beginner. Sorry. :laugh:

When we say state, we refer to the workers' state, not the bourgeois state that furthers reaction. State power means protecting the new order from reactionaries and the institutions of reaction, by any means necessary.