is communism still a good thing?

[bushsucks1]

Hey everyone,

i'm new here,and as i understand it,most of you are communists,like che,which is ok,i'm still a huge admirer of che,cuz of what he's done,he's shown that you can change the system if you want,but latley i've been questioning communism,cuz it seems to me that communism is wonderful on paper,in theory,but when it's applied it usually doesn't work out,for example in the old sovjet union,or now,in china,i'm also against kapitalism and globalisation,so my question is,what is the right form to govern a country? how do you think a country should be governed?

[RedAnarchist]

Eastern Europe didint even get to Socialism - it was a load of deformed workers states with puppet leaders getting their orders from the Kremlin.

China is corrupt and capitalist - almost an ideal for America to look up to.


A country wont exist in Communism - it will wither away. There is still, i think, one in the post-Revolution socialism.

[Subversive Pessimist]

Hey everyone,

i'm new here,and as i understand it,most of you are communists,like che,which is ok,i'm still a huge admirer of che,cuz of what he's done,he's shown that you can change the system if you want,but latley i've been questioning communism,cuz it seems to me that communism is wonderful on paper,in theory,but when it's applied it usually doesn't work out,for example in the old sovjet union


Hi.

In what way do you think that things in the Soviet Union "did not work"? They managed to turn a feudal country to an industrialised society.

The fact is that, although many communists supported the Soviet Union, it was not communist. It was, at least under Lenin and Stalin, authoritarian socialist.

According to communists, in order to achieve communism, society has to go through a stage of socialism. Marxists want this to be controlled by the working class as a whole (direct democracy?), while Marxist-Leninists does not believe this is practical and believes that we need a few communists, those with the highest class awareness to lead the revolution and the society afterwards. This was what happend in the USSR, China, etc.


China today is capitalist. After Mao died, Deng took over, and turned the country into a capitalist state.


After Mao died, they started opening up for socialism.

From there, it's supposed to go to communism, which has not happened in any of these societies.


The Che-lives dictionary says: (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=25786)

Communism

1. Any philosophy advocating a classless, stateless society without money or markets organized according to the principle “from each according to ability, to each according to need” 2. In Orthodox Marxist theory it is stage of history coming after socialism (dictatorship of the proletariat) when the state has “withered away” and society is run according to the principle “from each according to ability, to each according to need”




A country wont exist in Communism - it will wither away.


Maybe you could tell him how it will wither away? :)


Paz,
ComradeStrawberry

[Bolshevist]

According to communists, in order to achieve communism, society has to go through a stage of socialism. Marxists want this to be controlled by the working class as a whole (direct democracy?), while Marxist-Leninists does not believe this is practical and believes that we need a few communists, those with the highest class awareness to lead the revolution and the society afterwards. This was what happend in the USSR, China, etc.


Where do you get the idea that Leninists do not wish for the working class to seize power and use it?

[Subversive Pessimist]

Where do you get the idea that Leninists do not wish for the working class to seize power and use it?


I did not say that. My english may not be so good, and I might have expressed myself wrong. I said that: "the working class as a whole", meaning the whole working class.

I do believe that Leninists wish for the working class to seize power and use it. But I also think that there are only a few proletarians who will be organizing society. not the majority of the working class (correct me if I am wrong).

At least that is the experience when looking at examples like the Soviet Union, Cuba or China.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 12:12 PM
Where do you get the idea that Leninists do not wish for the working class to seize power and use it?
History.

[Bolshevist]

Of course, why didn't I think about that :rolleyes:

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 01:53 PM
Of course, why didn't I think about that :rolleyes:
Indeed.

[monkeydust]

Where do you get the idea that Leninists do not wish for the working class to seize power and use it?

From the Leninist idea that the workers don't use power directly themselves, but instead through some, supposedly "guided", leaders, who also happen to have the workers' interests at heart...apparently.

[New Tolerance]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 11:26 AM
Hey everyone,

i'm new here,and as i understand it,most of you are communists,like che,which is ok,i'm still a huge admirer of che,cuz of what he's done,he's shown that you can change the system if you want,but latley i've been questioning communism,cuz it seems to me that communism is wonderful on paper,in theory,but when it's applied it usually doesn't work out,for example in the old sovjet union,or now,in china,i'm also against kapitalism and globalisation,so my question is,what is the right form to govern a country? how do you think a country should be governed?
In my ideology communism would work by allowing workers to directly elect their managers, and the industries of society which are public shall be cooridnated by a directly elected assembly which guarantees the necessities of life (food, shelter, education etc) to all its citizens.

[4_star]

how exactly would the state wither away? how would the society function without some sort of central government? is this even possible?

[Essential Insignificance]

how exactly would the state wither away? how would the society function without some sort of central government? is this even possible?

These are all good questions, which usually stimulate great debate amongst the leading and contending ideologies -- such as, Marxists, Leninist and anarchists.

The "crucial" feature of the transition from post-capitalist society to (fully) communism is that it is "transitional", and thus not permanent. The transition's main character is that it still does not have a totally or even near -- "fair" mode of distribution of the social products. And if this kind of society is transitional in it's economic form, then continuing with Marxian logic, it will also have a transitional political form.

This is, in Marx's words, "the period of revolutionary transformation", and from this we can, perhaps "viciously" extrapolate some "truths".

That the transformation of the economic character, thus the ways and manner in which products are distributed; the manner in which the, the transformation from the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie to the dictatorship of proletarian state (a instrument for coercion) functions, to assert it newly founded power over the contending classes.

Marx thought that the "necessary" need for the state was because it is transitional. Marx thought and history pays testament to this, that, post capitist society's will face inventions from other (still) capitalists nations; the bourgeois of the old social order with the countries boarders would try desperately to restore the older manner of production, thus being counter-revolutionary.

Marx and Engel's thought that the development of production, the social production determined by society at large would make the existence of contending classes of society an thing of the past. And Engel's writes "In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out. Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master -- free"

In other words, the state will gradually "wither away" as the people take more control over their social character.

Now, for you're second question. Why do you think there needs to be a state for society to function properly? If you can answer this, then we shall continue.

[Essential Insignificance]

In my ideology communism would work by allowing workers to directly elect their managers, and the industries of society which are public shall be cooridnated by a directly elected assembly which guarantees the necessities of life (food, shelter, education etc) to all its citizens.

Sorry for the second post... I missed it on my first stroll.

What do you mean by "which are public"? Are you suggesting that they will not be all public? Or have I totally misinterpreted you? I think I have.

Thanks.