Would liberalism and conservatism still exist?

[Sinister Intents]

My question is: When full free access communism is achieved, would liberalism and conservatism still exist in a sense? I'd think not, but I guess I'm more starting this thread to attain better knowledge on liberalism and conservatism.

[Wonton Carter]

In a sense, maybe. There will probably be people who want to go back to the old way, but they'll be greatly outnumbered at that point. Liberals (in the American sense) support capitalism, so they would be put alongside the conservatives, because they are basically the same at that point.

On social issues, social conservatism would also be largely wiped out at that point.

[BIXX]

Liberals and conservatives would not be relevant. For one they are both liberals.

But they'd probably be relegated to the likes of feudalists and people who believe that we should go back to the roman slave state.

[Sinister Intents]

Liberals and conservatives would not be relevant. For one they are both liberals.

But they'd probably be relegated to the likes of feudalists and people who believe that we should go back to the roman slave state.

How are they both liberals? Typically liberals are the reformists, or the more socially deviant, and the conservatives are the ones that want to keep things the same or go back to some shitty/fucked up 'golden era' of some sort.

[BIXX]

How are they both liberals? Typically liberals are the reformists, or the more socially deviant, and the conservatives are the ones that want to keep things the same or go back to some shitty/fucked up 'golden era' of some sort.


Liberalism was born in the "enlightenment", it has values such as private property, democracy, "justice", etc...

Both liberals and "conservatives" are concerned with these things but they have different viewpoints about them. They're just different tendencies within liberalism.

[Remus Bleys]

No of course not. The American view of Liberalism and Conservatism only exists in America, and is not really found in Europe (though, I hear that some of it is being "imported"). These ideologies are bourgeois ideologies, and via the lack of domination of the base by the bourgeoisie, the lack of capitalist domination of the superstructure, and the constant attacking of these ideologies by Communists will all ensure that will not - nay, cannot - exist in Communism, be this free access or lower phase.

[Jemdet Nasr]

To address the 'in a sense' part of the OP, what do you guys think of the possibility of conservatism being redefined in the context of full communism (i.e. conservatives being those that wish to maintain the current, communist society), and liberalism being redefined as... something?

[Kingfish]

Well Im not sure about liberalism but conservatism will always exist as its a relative ideology. A Romney supporter and a Russian communist in the late 1980's equally are both conservatives. The same could be said for progressives, yes their specific stances will change but the underlying reasoning and logic that defines the "ideology" will not.

If by conservative and liberal you were talking about the current American position I would argue that the material conditions that create such schools of thought would no longer be present (otherwise the attainment of communism wouldn't have happened) and accordingly they would only exist in the same way the serious monarchists in the west do; an internet novelty.

Of course the great transition and transformation of these conditions would certainly take a great deal of time and effort.

[Comrade #138672]

These ideologies would simply wither away over time.

[Црвена]

There wouldn't be liberals and conservatives and a political spectrum the way there are today, just people with different opinions.

[DOOM]

Ideology is opportunistic teleology, created by socio-economic relations (the whole Base-Superstructure thingy, you get what I mean). These relations wouldn't exist in full blown communism anymore. So reasoning from a marxist point of view, I don't believe that ideologies would exist.

[Tim Cornelis]

Ideologies in general would disappear. Ideological emerged from capitalism in relation to capital, how to facilitate it, how to manage it, or sometimes how to deconstruct it (communism). In communism, where no abstracted forms of decision-making exist, ideologies serve no purpose.

[ProletariatPower]

There would be no "Liberals" and "Conservatives" but there will probably always be those who press for progress in society (not implying the Liberals in the modern American sense actually genuinely do this) and those that seek to stagnate or regress society.

[Blake's Baby]

In the context of the revolution both liberals and conservatives would be reactionaries - wanting to turn back to an earlier form of society. In our current society, perhaps there are people who genuinely want it to be the middle ages again (probably not to be a peasant and die of TB at the age of 25 however) and maybe there would be in the socialist society of the future, but ultimately, there is a class basis to ideology, and I can't see the argument 'hey! I think it would be better if you lot all gave up being free and came to work for me, while I get fat from your labour!' being very persuasive. Approximately the same level of persuasive as asking freed slaves to go and work for nothing for their former masters would have been in post-Civil War USA.

[ckaihatsu]

My question is: When full free access communism is achieved, would liberalism and conservatism still exist in a sense? I'd think not, but I guess I'm more starting this thread to attain better knowledge on liberalism and conservatism.





To address the 'in a sense' part of the OP, what do you guys think of the possibility of conservatism being redefined in the context of full communism (i.e. conservatives being those that wish to maintain the current, communist society), and liberalism being redefined as... something?


This is a valid question to begin with, since a post-capitalist social order would still be a *material* one, with collective decisions to-be-made over material potentials.

So, for instance, once capitalism is overthrown, the people of the world might decide that a good long 'rest' is in order, and that some time could be taken to *explore* the unfolding of the new society -- this would equate to a mass turn towards leisure, with only a basic liberated-labor force tasked to the regular maintenance and upkeep of sufficient, humane conditions for all.

In material terms this would be a certain *stasis*, since more efforts *could* be directed towards technological- and/or humanities-oriented projects, but aren't.

Or -- perhaps more efficiencies could be realized in that context if there were more political-administrative efforts to organize liberated labor at greater scales, for larger projects. But such potentials go unrealized due to that shift towards leisure and mere maintenance.


[2] G.U.T.S.U.C., Simplified

http://s6.postimage.org/wvo45xzhp/2_G_U_T_S_U_C_Simplified.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/wvo45xzhp/)


Universal Pattern of Organization of Living Systems and Viable Human Social Systems

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2548017&postcount=167

[Broviet Union]

Yeah, there will still be contrarians who imagine that the system is making people soft or eroding values. I can't imagine that ever going away, even in an obviously superior society.

[Sinister Intents]

To address the 'in a sense' part of the OP, what do you guys think of the possibility of conservatism being redefined in the context of full communism (i.e. conservatives being those that wish to maintain the current, communist society), and liberalism being redefined as... something?

I love what Ckaihatsu said based off our two posts in this thread, he's a very educational user and it is truly wonderful to have him here. (he?)

To me 'conservatives' under full communism would be the people who would want to maintain the same social orders, to negate progress, and/or to regress society to a previous era. Perhaps these conservatives would be pro-capitalist protesters (elderly people I'm assuming...) who want there beloved America back or whatever nation or shitty construction they favor. The liberals would be the more progressive individuals, or those who are perfectly fine with an amorphous and constantly changing society, people who'd be more liberatarian maybe. I'm trying to think of how they can be redefined in some way.

Assuming a DotP is created the liberals would be the ones who would want to demolish the state immediately after it is unnecessary for it to exist, and the conservatives may want to maintain party rule and strengthen the power of the state. Perhaps the conservatives would be in power and persecute those in the way of the brutal state.

[Tim Cornelis]

full communism, by the way, is a meme, not a phase in social development of the socialist mode of production.

[Sinister Intents]

Couldn't it be said that the libertarian socialists are the liberals per se; the authoritarian socialists the conservatives? One seeks destruction of the state, and the other seeks to reform it, so as to transition in a longer more protracted manner?

[Maraam]

Couldn't it be said that the libertarian socialists are the liberals per se; the authoritarian socialists the conservatives? One seeks destruction of the state, and the other seeks to reform it, so as to transition in a longer more protracted manner?

You could, but that wouldn't be liberalism or conservativism - the question there would be 'what would happen to different socialist strands under communism'.

That's pretty unpredictable, as if you're talking about the what would happen in the historical period during the transition from socialism to communism following the end of global capitalism, then we can't predict because we don't know the precise mechanics of what that transition would look like.

If we're talking about different political opinions once 'full' communism has already been established, then there would be differences of opinions, but as ckaihatsu has pointed out, it would largely take the form of differences over how to allocate resources.

[Evil Stalinist Overlord]

Couldn't it be said that the libertarian socialists are the liberals per se; the authoritarian socialists the conservatives? One seeks destruction of the state, and the other seeks to reform it, so as to transition in a longer more protracted manner?

This may be the case. I also think social conservatism will always exist in some form or another since there's no set "end" stage for social liberalism. Yes, the current prejudices and hatreds will wither away over time but, as many have pointed out in this thread, Liberalism and Conservatism are, out of context, relative terms that depend on their place and time. At any rate, both of those would probably become dirty words so their socialist evolution would likely be espoused under different terms, maybe the names of their contemporary proponents.


full communism, by the way, is a meme, not a phase in social development of the socialist mode of production. Yo if that's the case then what's the point.


Assuming a DotP is created the liberals would be the ones who would want to demolish the state immediately after it is unnecessary for it to exist, and the conservatives may want to maintain party rule and strengthen the power of the state. Perhaps the conservatives would be in power and persecute those in the way of the brutal state. Alternatively, "Liberals" in this case would also possibly want to jump the gun and skip a necessary transition stage. It all depends on the specific conditions to know which position at any point is right.

[ckaihatsu]

I love what Ckaihatsu said based off our two posts in this thread, he's a very educational user and it is truly wonderful to have him here. (he?)


'He' -- yes, definitely.... (Clearing throat for a deep, raspy, phlegmy, manly effect....) (grin)

[ckaihatsu]

Assuming a DotP is created the liberals would be the ones who would want to demolish the state immediately after it is unnecessary for it to exist, and the conservatives may want to maintain party rule and strengthen the power of the state. Perhaps the conservatives would be in power and persecute those in the way of the brutal state.





Couldn't it be said that the libertarian socialists are the liberals per se; the authoritarian socialists the conservatives? One seeks destruction of the state, and the other seeks to reform it, so as to transition in a longer more protracted manner?


I really think the only reason we even *associate* revolution with the possibility of an authoritarian state is because the Russian Revolution didn't pan out the way it could have -- as things turned out a heavy-handed state was *necessary*, arguably, just for basic sovereignty and internal cohesion, the same as any other country on the map in this bourgeois world.

I mean to say that I doubt *anyone* would be arguing for a 'strong state' if actual conditions allowed for it to be abolished at once -- that's the whole *point* of a revolution, and the only authoritarianism necessary would be to repulse the bourgeois counter-revolutionary opposition.

So really it's about privilege vs. revolution, and not 'shades of gray' among revolutionaries regarding "how fast" or "how slow" bourgeois rule should be overthrown.

[Remus Bleys]

Couldn't it be said that the libertarian socialists are the liberals per se; the authoritarian socialists the conservatives? One seeks destruction of the state, and the other seeks to reform it, so as to transition in a longer more protracted manner?
What are you talking about? Have you ever read State and Revolution? The "authoritarian" Lenin discussed the need to abolish the state.
The revolutionary totalitarian Amadeo Bordiga furiously denied that the workers movement should make legal demands.
It is a cornerstone of so-called "authoritarian socialists" that the current state needs to be abolished and replaced with the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat - that spares no means; be they "authoritarian" or "libertarian." This is not the result of a blind worship of violence nor insurrection, but of rather the result of time and time again the need to protect the Revolution from those who would oppose it - first, by destroying the bourgeois state, in order for socialists to gain "authoritarian" control of the superstructure and then, the establishment of Proletarian Dictatorship - which is only necessary insofar as state power needs to be used against all that which would prevent communism from being established, and when this isn't necessary, it withers away. The state is the representative of the proletarian class, the whole of that class, which will fight to establish the communist mode of production. When such a mode of production is firmly generalized the state withers away in that respect to being a state, and it know only has the task of a mere government of people, which will assault the birthpangs of capitalism and any previous society not already abolished by Capitalism, and when Communism has established its total, complete, real domination, and when this is complete, the government over man is withered into the mere administration of things.
After somberly realizing that the state is in the interests of the capitalist class and that it is a tool of violence and class domination (suppression of class struggle), the so-called authoritarian socialists demonstrate themselves to being, yet again, the most anti-reformist tendency of all.

[Blake's Baby]

Couldn't it be said that the libertarian socialists are the liberals per se; the authoritarian socialists the conservatives? One seeks destruction of the state, and the other seeks to reform it, so as to transition in a longer more protracted manner?

Only by completely misunderstanding the question.

It's more like the 'lbertarian socialists' are flat-earthers, while the 'authoritarian socialists' recognise that the earth is spherical.

The point is not 'seeking to reform the state so as to transition in a longer more protracted manner'. It's the recognition that the state will exist as long as classes exist, and classes will exist as long as property exists, and as long as the world is divided into hostile camps (ie, as long as the world revolution/world civil war is going on) then property, classes and the state cannot be done away with. Unlike the 'libertarian socialists' who want to solve the problems of property, class and the state by wishing.

[BolshevikBabe]

I certainly think it's incorrect to say ideology will disappear once we reach communism, because ideology has to be understood as a kind of consciousness based in the prominence of ideas over matter. That will still exist in communism, it will simply take different forms. The struggle between old and new ideas will continue in classless society, as Mao pointed out.

However, liberalism will become as minor and outlandish as feudal revivalists are today - the preserve of a few strange nostalgists with blogs. As for conservatism in the proper Burkean sense, it's largely being relegated to that rather minor and defunct corner already - all the modern "conservatives" are actually just classical liberals really.

[Sabot Cat]

I think you would just have generational conflicts in the political sphere. The elderly and middle-aged would have more conservative social mores versus the younger people, perhaps on issues without clear consensus among leftists like whether or not artificial intelligence constitutes conscious life, or if pornography is inherently exploitative, and so on and so forth.

[Sinister Intents]

I think you would just have generational conflicts in the political sphere. The elderly and middle-aged would have more conservative social mores versus the younger people, perhaps on issues without clear consensus among leftists like whether or not artificial intelligence constitutes conscious life, or if pornography is inherently exploitative, and so on and so forth.

That's pretty much what I was thinking would happen, you'd get these petty conflicts about the most absurd semantical things. Makes me think in a way people would still discuss the Vanguard and DotP when there would no longer exist the need for such a thing.