Communists opposed to world government?

[AnarchistRevolutionary]

Are communists opposed to world government?

Two things that globalists and communists have in common is that both always speak of internationalism. The globalists in the pursuit of one world government seek internationalism for that very reason alone.

Let us not fool ourselves in this discussion as the creation of a world state will surpass any previous forms of historical tyranny if anybody bothers arguing for it's creation here.

Ironically the only thing that is a natural stop gap towards one world government tyranny is nationalism something which communists abhorr.

What is the communist perspective and solution to all of this?

[Dean]

Moved to Learning.

[#FF0000]

We ultimately want a global, stateless, nationless society.

Some capitalists want national borders made a little softer to ease the flow of capital from one place to another. We want national borders destroyed.

[Art Vandelay]

Communists oppose all governments.

[The Jay]

Communists oppose all governments.

Eh, not really. They are opposed to a state but not necessarily government. Workers' councils are a form of governance.

[Tim Cornelis]

Globalists? You have been watching Alex Jones haven't you?


Eh, not really. They are opposed to a state but not necessarily government. Workers' councils are a form of governance.

Perhaps in English it's true, but that makes it awkward in other languages. A 'government' is not that which 'governs'. In Dutch the words 'government' (overheid) bears no relation to 'governance' (bestuur) and I suppose it doesn't in most languages. But since they are so similar in English they get conflated. But a government is that which governs a state, while governance can be applied to any form of collective decision-making. Otherwise a board of directors is a government.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Communism would be a form of world government. Indeed, I've often seen Marxists and anarchists argue that it couldn't be any other way, dressed up in all the ideologically correct cant, of course.

People who claim to oppose "one world goverment" are almost always reactionary paranoid conspiracy theorists, in my experience. Such parochial chauvinism comes in both left-wing and right-wing flavours, of course.

[Art Vandelay]

Communism will be a society of free producers, not a government. Will their be organization? Of course, I don't think government is the best term for us to use, it carries certain connotations.

[Ostrinski]

Who are these globalists you speak of? I have never ever heard of them. Are they a weird underground grassroots movement or something?

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Communists oppose all governments.

DotP?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

TRA23 is still here? I thought he would have heroically sacrificed himself to the ban cannon to be an image of hope to the world of making revleft a better place by now!

Anyway, it seems you are confusing proletarian internationalism with Alex Jones conspiracies of one-world governments.

The idea that nationalism something in opposition to "tyranny" is laughable as well.

[Art Vandelay]

DotP?

Is a form of state (out of necessity) with the end goal of the abolishment of classes and states. I am pretty sure he was asking a question about what our end goal was.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Well, Karl Marx did say that capitalism would inevitably lead to one world government. We communists don't oppose this pe se, we just accept it as a historical inevitability and move on with our lives.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Communism will be a society of free producers, not a government. Will their be organization? Of course, I don't think government is the best term for us to use, it carries certain connotations.

Those connotations are born out of bourgeois preconceptions, not the actual state of things on the ground.

[AnarchistRevolutionary]

Communism would be a form of world government. Indeed, I've often seen Marxists and anarchists argue that it couldn't be any other way, dressed up in all the ideologically correct cant, of course.

People who claim to oppose "one world goverment" are almost always reactionary paranoid conspiracy theorists, in my experience. Such parochial chauvinism comes in both left-wing and right-wing flavours, of course.

This world government wouldn't be oppressive?

I find that hard to believe and a bit suspicious.

[AnarchistRevolutionary]

Who are these globalists you speak of? I have never ever heard of them. Are they a weird underground grassroots movement or something?

More specifically these globalists are international military industrial complex, international corporate banks, central banks, Bilderberg, World Bank, IMF, World Health Organization, U.N., NATO, and other entities working in direct concert with one another to achieve the same end.

[AnarchistRevolutionary]

We ultimately want a global, stateless, nationless society.

Some capitalists want national borders made a little softer to ease the flow of capital from one place to another. We want national borders destroyed.

That goal is unrealistic as human beings are territorial, cultural , and hold a variety of traditions that would resist such assimilation into one giant super structure of control.

[AnarchistRevolutionary]

TRA23 is still here? I thought he would have heroically sacrificed himself to the ban cannon to be an image of hope to the world of making revleft a better place by now!

Anyway, it seems you are confusing proletarian internationalism with Alex Jones conspiracies of one-world governments.

The idea that nationalism something in opposition to "tyranny" is laughable as well.

As anarchist I find little difference between the tyranny of communist governance versus a capitalist version. Both are oppressive.

One masquerades as international proletarianism and the other as private enterprise.

I am against all forms of management where I think people ought to self manage themselves in a direct democratic fashion.

[AnarchistRevolutionary]

TRA23 is still here? I thought he would have heroically sacrificed himself to the ban cannon to be an image of hope to the world of making revleft a better place by now!

Anyway, it seems you are confusing proletarian internationalism with Alex Jones conspiracies of one-world governments.

The idea that nationalism something in opposition to "tyranny" is laughable as well.

There are many different types of nationalism and find it laughable that you would lump them altogether. I also find it rather amusing that people here think global governance will be anything other than oppressive.

Having larger dominion of control within this planet it's potential for great tyranny is unrivaled.

[AnarchistRevolutionary]

Well, Karl Marx did say that capitalism would inevitably lead to one world government. We communists don't oppose this pe se, we just accept it as a historical inevitability and move on with our lives.

Historical inevitability?

Manifest destiny much?

[AnarchistRevolutionary]

Conspiracy theorist? Conspiracies in past, present, and those made to be introduced into the future never happen at all?

I pay attention to a variety of political and apolitical spectrums because I appreciate balance over political or ideological dogmatism.

That is all I will say upon that accusation.

[Art Vandelay]

Historical inevitability?

Manifest destiny much?

No Marxists just understand that due to the internal contradictions of capitalism, its demise is an inevitability; it is simply an unsustainable system.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

It's obvious that the anarcho-syndicalist AnarchistRevolutionary has no idea what anarchism is, or syndicalism is. Pretty obvious from posts defending bourgeois nationalism and arguing against internationalism.

For example, a stark contradiction between AnarchistRevolutionary's post about internationalism saying


That goal is unrealistic as human beings are territorial, cultural , and hold a variety of traditions that would resist such assimilation into one giant super structure of control.

and the anarchist Bakunin who writes


national revolutions must become international in scope. just as the European and world reaction is unified, there should no longer be isolated revolutions, but a universal, worldwide revolution.

from Revolutionary Catechism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1866/catechism.htm)

Any actual anarchist would argue for the spreading of the revolution and the destruction of nation states (and bourgeois nationalism). For some reason, this supposedly "anarcho-syndicalist" argues against this.

Obviously this means that the user is new to revolutionary leftist politics, and instead of making confrontational posts the user should be more focused on learning new information from a variety of viewpoints on the revolutionary left.

[#FF0000]

That goal is unrealistic as human beings are territorial, cultural , and hold a variety of traditions that would resist such assimilation into one giant super structure of control.

I think it's pretty weird to identify as an anarchist while believing anarchism is impossible.

[Ostrinski]

More specifically these globalists are international military industrial complex, international corporate banks, central banks, Bilderberg, World Bank, IMF, World Health Organization, U.N., NATO, and other entities working in direct concert with one another to achieve the same end.Nonsense. There is no super-sinister conspiracy on the part of the large industrialists and financialists of the world to create one central hegemonic body. Capitalists are very dependent upon nations and nationhood for their well being, because capitalism depends upon nations for its sustainability.

But please, tell us more about how not only capitalism is entirely compatible with a "one-world government" but in fact desirable for the ruling class.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

There are many different types of nationalism and find it laughable that you would lump them altogether. I also find it rather amusing that people here think global governance will be anything other than oppressive.

Having larger dominion of control within this planet it's potential for great tyranny is unrivaled.

So instead of a co-operative world government, we have..... split states (often ethnically based) who cry for their stretch of land to be restricted from outsiders and dominant. Yeah, that's totally freedom, yo. Hell, the very concept of bourgeois democracy is contradicted by the nation state.

There's no such thing as a 'good' form of Nationalism. It's a ridiculous and cultish belief that has long past it's time to be put down.

[Lokomotive293]

Well, Karl Marx did say that capitalism would inevitably lead to one world government. We communists don't oppose this pe se, we just accept it as a historical inevitability and move on with our lives.

Where did he say that? Because everything I've read about Imperialism and capitalism depending on nations points to the contrary.

[AnarchistRevolutionary]

Where did he say that? Because everything I've read about Imperialism and capitalism depending on nations points to the contrary.

Capitalism is very internationalist in it's aims just like communism only for different reasons with a completely opposite platform.

International capitalist private monopolies of enterprise and business are very successful because they have eliminated the nationstate by reducing nations to competing corporate consumer market blocks.

The monopolizing oppressive global elites are not loyal to nation, culture, or ideologies as they are only concerned with profit.

They exhibit communist, socialist, or capitalist ideologies whenever it suits them or when it becomes profitable to do so in a divide and conquer fashion.


No Marxists just understand that due to the internal contradictions of capitalism, its demise is an inevitability; it is simply an unsustainable system.

I would argue that both capitalist and communist statism is unsustainable.

I have loyalty to neither platform and view both with suspicion or skepticism.

[Blake's Baby]

There is no 'communist statism'. Communist society will be classless and stateless, or it isn't communist, because that's what 'communist' means.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

I would argue that both capitalist and communist statism is unsustainable.


The internet is well known for it's ambiguity so I have a few questions to ask, AnarchistRevolutionary, that might make things run a little smoother.

Firstly, could you explain to me the term "communist statism" because I lack the required knowledge that you have.
Secondly, what is a world government in your eyes?
Finally, what does Anarchism mean to you and how do you view other anarchists?

[RedSun]

Just because communists seek to abolish national frontiers it doesn't mean that they argue for a world government. As many people already said communism presuppose a stateless society so the concept of a giant superstructure makes no sense. You can have small communities working cooperatively without a central political structure above it.

[den röde skogshuggaren]

Many may disagree with me but I think communism can work within the borders of one nation or country(I'm okay with light borders simply to define the culture/people). If it ends up as a worldwide thing that's fine with me though!

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Point 19 of Engels' Principles of Communism explains why nothing can be isolated. In other words, a state of communism (as in condition) cannot exist by itself in one isolated area, nor can a state of socialism (post revolution transformation stage). The key is the global market.

— 19 —
"Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.

Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.

It will develop in each of these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.

It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range."

[Thirsty Crow]

Are communists opposed to world government?

Two things that globalists and communists have in common is that both always speak of internationalism. The globalists in the pursuit of one world government seek internationalism for that very reason alone.

The globalists do not seek one world government. Rather, they advocate the removal of barriers to free and unhindered capital flow accross the world while the role of the national state remains crucial in that.

And yes, communists actually advocate a "world council", which could function as a co-ordinating and consultative body (co-ordinating the distribution of goods and means of production, linking up various geographically distant regions). But does that mean that we advocate a tyranny of a small handful of bureaucrats? Hell no.


International capitalist private monopolies of enterprise and business are very successful because they have eliminated the nationstate by reducing nations to competing corporate consumer market blocks.
This is a potentially dangerous illusion.

The nation-state is not eliminated. The very medium of globalization was actually the national state, which has taken up the role of easing regulations (in this sense, socialdemocrats speak of the weak state), but in other aspects it has even strenghtened its position, and function, in "globalized" capitalism.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Where did he say that? Because everything I've read about Imperialism and capitalism depending on nations points to the contrary.

You are thinking Lenin and Sam Adim. Marx never believed this, though then again Marx was notoriously bad at understanding imperialism. Nevertheless:


From the first section of the Communist Manifesto

"The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.
The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.
The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.
The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier, and one customs-tariff."

[Lokomotive293]

You are thinking Lenin and Sam Adim. Marx never believed this, though then again Marx was notoriously bad at understanding imperialism. Nevertheless:

Well, Marx never lived to see imperialism... Also, there's nothing about capitalism leading to one world government, or the emergence of some form of capital that exists independent from, or above, nations in that quote, as far as I can tell. It's just about production being organized on an international level, and capitalism spreading over the whole world.