Integrity of a communist society

[Naroc]

Hi
I've been wondering about this for a few days now, my question is: How does a communist society keep its integrity? Isn't it required that anybody who lives in such a society/community has to advocate that kind of system? And if not, how does it keep itself established without the use of Violence against an opposition (Not as we have seen not too long ago in history or even today in diverse "Communistic" and "Socialistic" Nations).

I hope my question's not too dumb or anything and that you can tell me your view on these kind of things.

Greetings, Naroc

[Blake's Baby]

Well, I'm not a big believer in systems ever reaching perfection, but my question would be, that given that the system we have is so obviously brutal, corrupt, and broken, isn't it worth trying to make it better? If it works to benefit even 60% of the population, that's a lot better than the current... what, maybe 6%?

Still; I can't really see why anyone would object to a happier safer world with less work, more free time, better amenities, more freedom and creativity... and if they do, fine, they can go and sit in a dark hole if they like. It's only when they try to prevent other people having the benefits that we're all going to be working for that we'd take action.

[ckaihatsu]

One way of looking at revolution -- now that computers and digital devices are ubiquitous -- is to think of it as an 'upgrade', for our entire global society.

Without meaning to sound too technocratic, we might see most people just wanting to live their lives, without having to deal with the additional concerns of politics that revolutionaries and other left-wingers do.

So, while we *do* want broad-based mass support, that support could be *tacit*, for initiatives and actions that usurp capital-based rule and oppression -- perhaps similar to what we're seeing to some extent currently going on in Tuzla and in other cities in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

It's tricky, though -- too much political specialization is called 'substitutionism', and would tend to produce a technocratic-type elite. Too *diffuse* a movement would wind up looking something like Occupy, where a main prevailing sentiment was to have *no* formal explicit demands.

Many, myself included, conceive of revolution as having to *always* be an ongoing process, which would mean that most 'work' would be of the social-political kind, in having *everyone* step-up to a continuously active role in the matters of mass co-administration over social production.

But as long as lesser-involved people will at least *consent* to the flow of politics in a revolutionary direction, the whole society would maintain its revolutionary integrity, I would surmise.

[tuwix]

Hi
I've been wondering about this for a few days now, my question is: How does a communist society keep its integrity? Isn't it required that anybody who lives in such a society/community has to advocate that kind of system?


No.



And if not, how does it keep itself established without the use of Violence against an opposition (Not as we have seen not too long ago in history or even today in diverse "Communistic" and "Socialistic" Nations).


For example this way:
E88gOuI3XJQ

The movie shows a society in a phase of primitive communism. The state of primitive communism is natural state of humanity. The humanity was introduced from this state to feudalism and to capitalism by violence that happens everyday. The poor people are robbed by rich ones everyday. Only a liberation from this ongoing theft will be end of some form of violence.

And state capitalism that indeed has been fighting an opposition (in the Soviet Union, Cuba, etc.) has nothing to do with socialism and communism.

[Zanters]

Humans change based on the material conditions, so I'd imagine that integrity of a Communist society will be much different from a capitalistic one. Human nature as we know it will change as our society does.

I should really study more on material dialectialism and analyzing before I comment, so feel free to correct me for those who are more studied than I.

[Blake's Baby]

I don't think you need to apologise for not having studied, though the phrase 'material dialectialism' is a crime before the god of language. What I expect you mean is 'dialectical materialism', but then, most of us think it's junk as a theory anyway. Historical materialism (ie the Marxist analysis of history) is what you need to be looking at, in my opinion.

[Rafiq]

Because dialectics was vulgarized by Communist states, it is dismissed by users here. Dialectics is necessary in understanding historical materialism, when you recognize it as a non-metaphysical doctrine.