what happen after worldwide revolution??

[wereanimal]

Do we have a worldwide communist government???

[Blake's Baby]

That depends on what you mean by 'government' I suppose. I'd say, no not really. But would we try to organise at the largest level we can? Absolutely. Would everything be decided from the centre? No.

[Alet]

What do you mean by that? What should happen? Our goal is to free the women and men of all countries from oppression, class hierarchy and alienation. Of course a revolution will aim for this and once it is achieved, the revolution was successful. What else should happen after that? Will we have a communist government? I hope we will not.

[Creative Destruction]

i don't even know how worldwide governance would work, except on select issues where the primary thing was coordination (like, say, healthcare.) it seems like it'd be too unwieldy.

[Guardia Rossa]

I'd guess on confederations, mainly based on the city/rural area, regionalized early on on culture/languages and then, when languages unite (go Neo-Indo-European and Neo-Altaic go) probably based on ecological regions. There would be contact between this confederations, some kind of coordination on the most pressing issues and on development.

There would be, of course, no State whatsoever.

[ckaihatsu]

We're used to thinking of 'government' as the be-all end-all fabric of society and social relations -- something that would have to be 'replaced' or 'updated' after a worldwide revolution, but we shouldn't forget that bourgeois government as we know it is basically a *tool* used in the interests of the wealthy to mitigate disturbances to their stability and status quo.

If transportation is needed so that wage-slaves can get to workplaces to be exploited, then that's overseen and maintained by 'government'. If middle-class parties get into disputes over where one person's property ends and the other's begins, then that's decided by 'government'. If national companies like Chrysler can't be allowed to fail, then that's handled by 'government'. (Etc.)

We have to begin by asking if *working class* interests are in actuality represented by 'government' -- if *not*, then the working class has to *rethink* what kinds of social coordination *would* be in their / our best interests, and *before* the worldwide revolution happens, I would say.

Some want to overthrow 'civilization' altogether and see the past 12,000 years or so as a *divergence* from the true humanity in conditions of primitive communism, but I happen to think that we should look forward to *building* on top of what capitalism has already developed for us, as it is today -- this means that *productivity* would be key, in line with what people explicitly express as their needs and desires.

Here's something that speaks to the 'how' of it:


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'



http://s6.postimg.org/nfpj758c0/150221_labor_credits_framework_for_communist_su.jp g (http://postimg.org/image/p7ii21rot/full/)

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Do we have a worldwide communist government???

No, we don't. The government means either the chief executive council of the state, or by synecdoche the state itself. And the state does not exist in communism, there are no bodies of armed men, either separate from or identical to the population, formed to carry out political coercion. What public power exists in communism is purely administrative and technical - the Central Assembly, for example, might consider the production plan for the next year or decide whether a new Antartic research station is needed. It would not decide what people you can fuck for what reasons, or if you can ingest certain chemicals.

And this administrative authority would necessarily be global, at least with respect to its most important function, the scientific planning of production and transportation. Planning a certain process should be done at the same scale at which the process happens - e.g. if you are planning a graduation party for an entire class, you will do very poorly if you just consider your friends and ignore the rest of the class. And modern industrial objectively socialised production happens on a global scale. So it needs to be planned at that scale as well.

Communism means the global society bursting from the bounds moribund capitalism has set for it, not a return to localist idiotism.

[mushroompizza]

Communism in the traditional Marxist sense is statelessness so if you are a "Marxist" I don't think you would believe Communism involves government at all. But if you are a nontraditional revisionist well then there will probably be a super UN that will act like the soviet congress for the world.

[cyu]

In order to have a worldwide government, you'd have to get everyone to agree to the same thing. You might have a few scattered individuals who defy the government, and you might label them as criminals and solve that problem using "traditional" methods of law enforcement. The more people that defy the government, the less you can call it worldwide government - the more it resembles open rebellion, separatism, or revolution.

Getting everyone to agree is difficult - the more people involved, the more difficult it becomes. It's also more difficult if you have to get people to agree to many ideas, rather than just a few - that is, the longer your government's "constitution", the more people will be able to find something they disagree with.

One might say "well, can't we just get everyone to agree to disagree?" At that point, is it still a worldwide government? Depending on your point of view, maybe.

[prap]

Do we have a worldwide communist government???

Hopefully not mate.

[Comrade Jacob]

A union yes, a global alliance but no it shouldn't be one government.

[ckaihatsu]

'Government' implies *governance*, and a post-capitalist social order would have *no interest* in governance.

Just ask yourself -- or whoever you're debating with -- what interests most people *today* have in 'governance'. The decision-making functions of bourgeois government only pertain to those who own significant amounts of property (wealth), so that the rules-of-the-game can apply somewhat evenly across the board. And even then we all know that larger 'players' have a larger impact on the game and its rules.

So the whole point of getting rid of bourgeois rule is to get rid of governance itself -- what *most* people are objectively concerned with are matters of work, housing, health, education, recreation, and materials. None of these areas would require 'governance' if private property relations are overthrown -- anyone involved in those areas could simply collectively self-organize themselves to handle any administrative tasks around such.

What *would* be at stake, in the absence of property concerns, would be collective production, and how to appropriately match liberated labor to mass demands for goods and services. My 'labor credits framework' at post #6 serves as a proposal that addresses this concern for a post-capitalist political logistics.

[willowtooth]

A union yes, a global alliance but no it shouldn't be one government.

would it be safe to say, that the only thing resembling a government in a stateless world would be a collection of international labor unions?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

In order to have a worldwide government, you'd have to get everyone to agree to the same thing. You might have a few scattered individuals who defy the government, and you might label them as criminals and solve that problem using "traditional" methods of law enforcement. The more people that defy the government, the less you can call it worldwide government - the more it resembles open rebellion, separatism, or revolution.

Getting everyone to agree is difficult - the more people involved, the more difficult it becomes. It's also more difficult if you have to get people to agree to many ideas, rather than just a few - that is, the longer your government's "constitution", the more people will be able to find something they disagree with.

One might say "well, can't we just get everyone to agree to disagree?" At that point, is it still a worldwide government? Depending on your point of view, maybe.

The problem with this post is that it assumes the only options are some kind of worldwide state (itself an impossibility), or everyone doing as they please. Obviously this is not the case - people have the ability to coordinate and reach an agreement. For example, we are currently pumping problematic amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Why do you suppose the members of a post-state society couldn't appoint delegates to work out some scheme to reduce this phenomenon? We know that the Invisible Hand of the Market isn't doing the trick, and it stands to reason that the Invisible Hand of Autogestion won't do it either.


would it be safe to say, that the only thing resembling a government in a stateless world would be a collection of international labor unions?

I think it's safer to say there would be nothing resembling government in a stateless world. No police, no courts, no ministries etc. The public authorities would be more like the power company, if everyone participated in the operations of the power company.

And labour unions are defensive organisations of the working class in capitalism. They fight for higher wages etc. But in socialism there is no working class, no wages, no employers or employees...

[Lord Testicles]

what happen after worldwide revolution??

A solid month of partying, drinking & fucking in the streets... probably.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

A solid month of partying, drinking & fucking in the streets... probably.

I would expect the entire stateless society to be eons of partying, drinking, painting, sculpting, acting, singing, doing drugs and fucking in the streets. And I'm not being facetious. Sure, people are going to do other things too. But a revolution and what comes after it are quite libidinal affairs. (Ooh me appreciation for Fourier is showing.)

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

i was going to say 'we party' but everyone else beat me to it


personally i'd probably just stay in bed

[Rafiq]

From the State and Revolution:


Lastly, only communism makes the state absolutely unnecessary, for there is nobody to be suppressed--“nobody” in the sense of a class, of a systematic struggle against a definite section of the population. We are not utopians, and do not in the least deny the possibility and inevitability of excesses on the part of individual persons, or the need to stop such excesses. In the first place, however, no special machine, no special apparatus of suppression, is needed for this: this will be done by the armed people themselves, as simply and as readily as any crowd of civilized people, even in modern society, interferes to put a stop to a scuffle or to prevent a woman from being assaulted. And, secondly, we know that the fundamental social cause of excesses, which consist in the violation of the rules of social intercourse, is the exploitation of the people, their want and their poverty. With the removal of this chief cause, excesses will inevitably begin to "wither away". We do not know how quickly and in what succession, but we do know they will wither away. With their withering away the state will also wither away.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm

What at first glance even I considered to be nothing short of the same naivity present throughout the book that would later be decimated by the scope and brutality of the counter-revolution, is actually rather profound: At first, the logical response one would form is simple - a society which does not have definite standards in place, enacted by a formal institution, is capable of degenerating its standards - i.e. without a universal, codified law then nothing will account for what could only inevitably be variations in behavior regionally throughout the globe.But hypothetically, in a world where the conditions of life and relations to production are shared universally, then the lack of predispositions to systemic, or phenomenal "excesses" (as Lenin calls them) would themselves be universal, and would not have to be enforced by law - as we all know, laws are sustained by the fluidity of class antagonism. What are the implications here?

Firstly, that hypothetically, it is not up for question that such "excesses" will have to be regulated by civic laws, by the power of state based coercion in the process of destroying the remnants of the previous order. Considering the complexity of the global totality, one shouldn't shy away from the prospect that this could take centuries. This, in reality, is what is meant by "withering away" - this, alleged 'new society' forms out the carcass of a militant state (proletarian dictatorship) with complex organs of class suppression in the long term. The connotations here are not positive, but negatively positive, that is to say, a reinforcement of the possibility that things as they are do not have to exist. When Lenin claims this or that about Communism as a future society, or when any honest Marxist does - they do not actually regard a kind of future society in itself, but a mere recognition of its possibility, a fervent rejection of the bourgeois metaphysical, and superstitious explanations for the nature of power and social development. The point of Communism "as a society" is not what we should do but that we can do it, that problems otherwise construed as eternal problems of man and nature are in fact problems unique to our specific historic epoch. The point isn't that we have to take all of these precautions in order so that our utopia is realized, the point is to pose the rhetorical question: Why wouldn't this result? Why would, for example, another class society arise?

In this sense, we should also heed attention to Hegel's idea of the state, not simply as a means of expressing class power - but the manifestation of 'freedom' in universality. For example, during the discovery of agriculture and the widespread cultivation of plants, there was nothing which prevented the rise of a class society, for these societies lacked historic self-consciousness. The point isn't a Hobbesian one - that violent power is necessary to sustain peace and freedom, but that a universal thread-in-common wherein the perpetuation of the productive relations is sustained - in other words - an institution that binds the world together beyond the proximity of the individual, the community or whatever you want. I challenge anyone who so loosely speaks of statelessness to even in a utopian fashion explain how a global totality wherein the ability to feed, clothe and shelter the world over is irrevocably inter-connected with itself, can do without this, i.e. a mere union of autonomous collectives and communities cannot in that while they might adequately represent the interests of those of whom they are composed of, they cannot act beyond proximity of their immediate interests.

What's the answer today? That you don't need to abolish government to destroy the existing means of governance, and abolish relations of private property.

[ckaihatsu]

We might also look at it in the 'technological', or 'pragmatic' sense, similarly to how people now regularly use mp3s instead of CDs or cassettes for music.

If a 'perfect storm' of conditions manifest to counter the continuation of *capital*-based relations -- the summary punishment of Greece, the stagnating world economy, negative interest rates, universal learning and coordination over the Internet, etc. -- workers might find it to be a mere baby-step to simply assume control over productive activities, while the maintainers of the status quo are weighted-down by disarray and bewilderment.

There's the revolutionary tradition of seeing the transition as something Kafka-esque, wherein gargantuan layers of bureaucratic processes would have to all be neatly unraveled and laid bare, to expose line-by-line political bankruptcy, but this conception may simply be an outdated heritage itself. Workers self-activity is something that can pick up the slack in a single *moment*, leaving bourgeois property practices in the rear-view mirror forevermore.

[cyu]

it assumes the only options are some kind of worldwide state (itself an impossibility), or everyone doing as they please. Obviously this is not the case - people have the ability to coordinate and reach an agreement. For example, we are currently pumping problematic amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Why do you suppose the members of a post-state society couldn't appoint delegates to work out some scheme to reduce this phenomenon? We know that the Invisible Hand of the Market isn't doing the trick, and it stands to reason that the Invisible Hand of Autogestion won't do it either.


Was just trying to hint that the only possible worldwide "government" would be an anarchist "government" xD But yes, if you assume free association, people will agree with each other for whatever projects they feel strongly about, and take appropriate action. In cases like stopping greenhouse gases, if your favorite group feels strongly about the pollution coming from some factory, I'd imagine they'd just trash the factory if they feel strongly enough about it.

Of course, if trashing the factory leads to death and injury, you'd imagine the "anti-pollution brigade" would first give a warning to polluters to stop, before they come and enforce their own brand of justice. This in effect is the establishment of a "proto-government" and "early law" - that is, you're taking matters into your own hands, and you give a warning about the kind of justice you'll be enforcing. When that becomes a regular occurrence, then you get the traditional setup of government and law.

Ironically, one might say that new governments are formed by "anarchists" - yet as the generations pass, there is a divergence between the idea of government and taking matters into your own hands.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Was just trying to hint that the only possible worldwide "government" would be an anarchist "government" xD But yes, if you assume free association, people will agree with each other for whatever projects they feel strongly about, and take appropriate action. In cases like stopping greenhouse gases, if your favorite group feels strongly about the pollution coming from some factory, I'd imagine they'd just trash the factory if they feel strongly enough about it.

Of course, if trashing the factory leads to death and injury, you'd imagine the "anti-pollution brigade" would first give a warning to polluters to stop, before they come and enforce their own brand of justice. This in effect is the establishment of a "proto-government" and "early law" - that is, you're taking matters into your own hands, and you give a warning about the kind of justice you'll be enforcing. When that becomes a regular occurrence, then you get the traditional setup of government and law.

Ironically, one might say that new governments are formed by "anarchists" - yet as the generations pass, there is a divergence between the idea of government and taking matters into your own hands.

That is not what I was talking about. That is brick-throwing raised to the level of a political principle. Humans are capable of coordination of a global scale. That's the point. Instead of having two groups of hormone-addled teenage males throw bricks at each other, we can appoint delegates to discuss the issue and work out what factories need to change their operation. Of course some people will lose in the discussion, but most people are more than capable of handling that.

[cyu]

Not directly related, but reminded me of http://www.revleft.com/vb/pseudoscience-and-quackery-t192586/index.html?p=2824456#post2824456

People in the oil industry don't want to lose their jobs, they don't want their careers to end. People in the military don't want to have to explain every year why they still need funding. If capitalism didn't force unemployed people into shame and poverty, then we'd be able to get rid of useless jobs once and for all. Until then, we'll have fake scientists telling us that smoking doesn't cause cancer, the NSA digging up dirt on Congress to ensure they get funding, and the useless, continuous environmental depletion of planned obsolescence.

[Cliff Paul]

A solid month of partying, drinking & fucking in the streets... probably.

There was a post here a few years back where someone said something along the lines of: "I can't wait for communism and being able to fuck people while waiting at the bus stop".

And everyone was just :confused:

[consuming negativity]

have you ever seen star trek?

mostly joking, but seriously, we're going to have a lot more time on our hands and we're going to need things to do. i think exploring space would be a good next milestone of human progress. see the universe once when we look inside ourselves, then again on the outside when we explore it. bringing consciousness to the entirety of the universe is going to be fucking dope

[RedMaterialist]

After the revolution the working class will defend socialism against the bourgeois counter-revolution in a protracted violent and bloody struggle; afterwards, if successful, it will begin the long process of suppressing out of existence the capitalist classes. The most difficult class to suppress will be the petit-bourgeois who will have gone underground to hide their former class status. After a period of time, during which the revolution will remain "permanent," all previous remnants of the bourgeois classes will disappear and the sole remaining class will be the working class. Once there is no longer any class to be suppressed and exploited, the state, as the expression of class exploitation, will slowly begin to wither away and die. Communism will emerge from the collapse of socialist dictatorship of the proletariat.

[mushroompizza]

After a world revolution we'd party! Raid the shelves of a Walmart smoke some fatties shoot guns in the air then go to sleep.