definition of communism

[Lowtech]

it appears to me that "primitive communism" is greatly misunderstood by leftists today. regardless of the technological stage of society, communism is still communism.

Humans in prehistory and aboriginal groups today lived and live within economically communistic groups, free of economic oppression and political subversion. i see no way in which they would not be communist.

communism is inherently humanistic and should be seen as such.

to those who would disagree with me; is there some arcane definition of communism unavailable to the rest of us?

Does economic communism not count in eyes of some socialists because it is not itself authoritarian?

If economic and political liberation for all isn't enough to satisfy the definition of communism, then it would appear to me the agenda of some socialists may encompass more than what communism is meant to provide.

[Art Vandelay]

My definition would be that communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society of free producers; so pretty much the basic definition. The main difference with primitive communism was the society wasn't industrialized. Therefor communism as it will develop in the future, will not resemble primitive communism very much.

[Art Vandelay]

Does economic communism not count in eyes of some socialists because it is not itself authoritarian?

Also what does this even mean? I don't see how communism (being stateless and classless) could ever be construed to be 'authoritarian.'

[Althusser]

For communism to exist it has to be an industrialized society.

[Decolonize The Left]

it appears to me that "primitive communism" is greatly misunderstood by leftists today. regardless of the technological stage of society, communism is still communism. Humans in prehistory and aboriginal groups today lived and live within economically communistic groups, free of economic oppression and political subversion. i see no way in which they would not be communist.

Not really.

"Communism" is an economic system which needs capitalism to reach its zenith before it can come to pass as elaborated by Marx and Engels. What you are calling "primitive communism" was not communism, but a collectivist economic system.


to those who would disagree with me; is there some arcane definition of communism unavailable to the rest of us?

Communism, in my mind, is nothing other than:

An economic system based upon the maxim 'to each according to need, from each according to ability.'


Does economic communism not count in eyes of some socialists because it is not itself authoritarian?

Only those so-called leftists who think that authoritarianism is compatible with communism - I do not think it is.


If economic and political liberation for all isn't enough to satisfy the definition of communism, then it would appear to me the agenda of some socialists may encompass more than what communism is meant to provide.

Depends on what we mean by communism. My definition above is, as far as I know, the simplest.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Taking a label that emerged out of the development of capitalism and applying it to diverse "primitive" societies seems deeply problematic; not to mention symptomatic of the worst parts of the European liberal-scientific ideology.

That said, many "primitive" societies certainly met the criteria of, "'From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." If we want to simply say "That's communism!" then certainly those societies were (or, in some cases, are) communist. Of course, I think we should approach communism not as a utopian goal, that can be summed up in phrase (or even a tome!), but as a project. In this sense we can talk about communism as emerging out of / against capitalism not in the abstract, but as a concrete struggle in which we are engaged.

Yup.

[ind_com]

Marx and Engels defined modern communism in the context of 19th century Europe. Actually there is much more to modern communism rather than just classlessness. For example, it does not follow directly from classlessness that a communist society will not denounce homosexuality and other gender and sexual identities. Therefore, if we want to describe communism more accurately, then we must take into account the fact that a modern communist society will be devoid of any kind of oppression of human by human, in any social aspect. The primitive 'communist' societies discriminated very much against other tribes, and gave rise to slave societies through wars of conquest against each other. They also had unscientific beliefs, which possibly allowed discrimination against sexual minorities and women.

[greenjuice]

stateless, classless, moneyless society of free producers
...organized around communal ownership of means of production.

[Lowtech]

Also what does this even mean? I don't see how communism (being stateless and classless) could ever be construed to be 'authoritarian.'I agree. I suppose I was getting the false vibe that the popular opinion might have been that communism requires an authoritarian structure, which is a notion I strongly disagree with
Marx and Engels defined modern communism in the context of 19th century Europe. Actually there is much more to modern communism rather than just classlessness. For example, it does not follow directly from classlessness that a communist society will not denounce homosexuality and other gender and sexual identities. Therefore, if we want to describe communism more accurately, then we must take into account the fact that a modern communist society will be devoid of any kind of oppression of human by human, in any social aspect. The primitive 'communist' societies discriminated very much against other tribes, and gave rise to slave societies through wars of conquest against each other. They also had unscientific beliefs, which possibly allowed discrimination against sexual minorities and women.this is exactly the clarification I was hoping for. This reply is so good infact I feel quite stupified lol...you've addressed effectively my concern that the economics of primitive societies were being over looked out of bias. I still feel that early humans (and existing aboriginies) should be appreciated for being examples of natural communism.

[Lowtech]

Of course, I think we should approach communism not as a utopian goal... if I looked toward a utopian goal, I wouldn't be praising aboriginal peoples for attaining a more communistlike society than we "the great modern people" have yet to realize.

Capitalists call communism utopian because they want us to believe that a better world is a good idea that isn't attainable. if you described the modern world to someone who lived 100 to 200 years ago, they would call this a utopian fantasy. Capitalism is itself utopian, they believe subjugation to be something people will indefinitely accept as an unchangeable reality.

I wouldn't make such a dig to imply that i am a utopianist, where is your analysis of economics and your explianation of how the plutocratic class subjugates humanity? Moreover, It shouldn't be hard to explain communism simply.

If you can't explain something simply, you don't understand it well enough.

"Yup."

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I wouldn't put much praise in the hunter-gatherer societies of today. Many are nothing like the originals due to the fact that:

A) Freely obtainable resources are now either scarce or privately owned.

B) As with A, most subsistence foods and animals are now commercially farmed in large quantities in most parts of the world.

C) Because of A and B, one will most likely find a better quality of living in modern societal relations, even if they are being treated like shit and getting paid one dollar a day.

The hunter-gatherer societies of the modern era come off as a degenerated relic of a past long passed, rather than an inspiration we can learn from. But hey, maybe I'm wrong.

[Baseball]

if I looked toward a utopian goal, I wouldn't be praising aboriginal peoples for attaining a more communistlike society than we "the great modern people" have yet to realize.

Capitalists call communism utopian because they want us to believe that a better world is a good idea that isn't attainable. if you described the modern world to someone who lived 100 to 200 years ago, they would call this a utopian fantasy. Capitalism is itself utopian, they believe subjugation to be something people will indefinitely accept as an unchangeable reality.

I wouldn't make such a dig to imply that i am a utopianist, where is your analysis of economics and your explianation of how the plutocratic class subjugates humanity? Moreover, It shouldn't be hard to explain communism simply.

If you can't explain something simply, you don't understand it well enough.

"Yup."


It is certainly true that the socialists of the 19th century would be impressed of the great advances capitalism has brought to humanity (perhaps they would question their beliefs that there is a "zenith" to capitalism at which point it would be ripe for the socialist revolt).
But I fail to see why any socialist would then look to pre-industrial social and economic arrangements as any sort of step forward.

[Jason]

After some worldwide apocalypse, people would be reduced to living in small groups. In such a society, money and status becomes useless. The only important things are food, shelter, armed protection, and clothing.

[human strike]

"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things." - Karl Marx, The German Ideology.

I think this should be one's starting point when defining communism.

[Lowtech]

It is certainly true that the socialists of the 19th century would be impressed of the great advances capitalism has brought to humanity (perhaps they would question their beliefs that there is a "zenith" to capitalism at which point it would be ripe for the socialist revolt).
But I fail to see why any socialist would then look to pre-industrial social and economic arrangements as any sort of step forward.capitalism cannot be credited for anything man made or devised, as any mechanism designed to retain value for a plutocratic class serves only to inhibit productivity and negate it's usefulness. Capitalism has produced nothing but artificial scarcity, poverty, class struggle and humanity wide economic subjugation. This fantasy that capitalism has brought advances to humanity cannot be mathematically substantiated and is invalidated by simple observation alone.

[Lowtech]

After some worldwide apocalypse, people would be reduced to living in small groups. In such a society, money and status becomes useless. The only important things are food, shelter, armed protection, and clothing.

Ideas are good, science and mathematical principle is better. We should not define communism in political, ideological or even ethical terms, but rather the specific technical analysis of how capitalism mathematically subjugates humanity.

society as a whole needs to understandy why capitalism is the worst thing ever devised by man, and have this presented to them as a verifiable fact.