Communism

[Rolyin]

Communism in theory is grate but when it comes into being it is a shamble for the people you can not pay a waiter as much as a surgeon, surgeons do a more important job and therfor deserv to be rewarded with money.

[NovelGentry]

How bout we don't pay anyone anything. You seem to have a rather warped view of what communism is. The system has no money, consequently no one recieve pay for what they do.

[Paradox]

Communism in theory is grate but when it comes into being it is a shamble for the people you can not pay a waiter as much as a surgeon, surgeons do a more important job and therfor deserv to be rewarded with money.

Yeah, I would recommend you do a little research as to what Communism REALLY IS. Like NovelGentry said, there is NO MONEY in Communism. Also, you say "when it comes into being it is a shamble." Really? How would you know this? Communism has yet to be achieved. Communism is stateless, classless, and moneyless. Again, I think you should do some research before you go telling people misinformed things like this. ;)

[The Feral Underclass]

There are stickies in this forum which can help you understand communism better.

[Tycoon4aLL]

ya, comunism has yet to ever be achieved and while i still hold out hope, its faded over the years :hammer:

[Erin Go Braugh]

I like the idea of no classes...but how would things be run without currency? Bartering? Also, I dislike communism because of the "dictatorship of the proletariot (excuse my spelling) " phase. Screw authority.

[NovelGentry]

but how would things be run without currency? Bartering?

From each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her need.

[Super Mario Conspiracy]

I like the idea of no classes...but how would things be run without currency?

Of course it is hard to imagine a society without currency in the world we live in today. That is why I think that transission from capitalism to socialism, which will still use money (in it's own way) is necessary before transission from socialism into communism.

But then again, it is all up to the people. They decide how long they want to have a socialist society. Still, socialism is far more better than capitalism.


Also, I dislike communism because of the "dictatorship of the proletariot (excuse my spelling) " phase.

The so called "dictatorship of the proletariat" is the majority of the people. But don't worry, communism can not "be" huge countries like Russia or the US, but smaller societies, communes, more like city-states, where the government is truly controlled by it's citizens.

How do you think the people living in the far east corner of Russia feel when some president is creating rules for them, on the other side of (what would seem like to them) the world?


Screw authority.

There is no authority in communism. The people are their own authority.

[guerillablack]

Yeah, i'm confused how one country can be truely moneyless when the rest of the world revolves around money. Wouldn't that conflict?

And other members, please remember this is the learning lounge and they ask questions here for a purpose. This IS their research.

[RedLenin]

Well communism is moneyless and no it wouldn't be a barter system. Goods would be produced and you would take them from a storage area or something for free. Workers and consumers would coordinate production and consumption. And if you dont like the dictatorship of the proletariat, check out anarchism. It's marxism without the authoritarian crap.

[NovelGentry]

And if you dont like the dictatorship of the proletariat, check out anarchism. It's marxism without the authoritarian crap.

I could be wrong, but it sounds to me like you've confused what the dictatorship of the proletariat is.

Also, let me add on, from what I've read, it's not Marxism without the authoritarian class. It seems much more philosophical than Marxism, which although has it's roots in philosophy, develops into something of a science.

There a lot of assertion against Marxist principles by people like Bukunin, and in the end that seems about all he was good for.

[Super Mario Conspiracy]

Yeah, i'm confused how one country can be truely moneyless when the rest of the world revolves around money. Wouldn't that conflict?

I think that many socialists believe in the idea that there will be a form of global revolution. Just like globalization happens everywhere in the world, affecting everyone, so will the revolution. But in a good way, of course. :)

[captain donald]

Yeah, i'm confused how one country can be truely moneyless when the rest of the world revolves around money. Wouldn't that conflict?



I think that many socialists believe in the idea that there will be a form of global revolution. Just like globalization happens everywhere in the world, affecting everyone, so will the revolution. But in a good way, of course.


If it didnt spread, then why would the USA be so afraid of it. The minute it is successful will be the minute people across the globe open their minds.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by captain [email protected] 15 2005, 02:56 PM

If it didnt spread, then why would the USA be so afraid of it. The minute it is successful will be the minute people across the globe open their minds.
America is the center of global imperialism; historically it has been like this. Now it is struggling to keep its power imposed on the Middle East, which is spiralling out of its control, also the US is losing its control of South America as left wing movements are growing and spreading; like the Revolutionary sitiuation in Venezuela, the numerous Communist insurrections in Colombia and Chile. Recently a Socialist president has been elected in Brazil and wants to form a sort of anti-imperialist alliance with Venezuela and Cuba to stand up to the US.
If the flow of global capital is disrupted by attacking Imperialism; we can easily start to screw up the capitalist economic system in the US.

[NovelGentry]

America is the center of global imperialism; historically it has been like this. Now it is struggling to keep its power imposed on the Middle East, which is spiralling out of its control, also the US is losing its control of South America as left wing movements are growing and spreading; like the Revolutionary sitiuation in Venezuela, the numerous Communist insurrections in Colombia and Chile. Recently a Socialist president has been elected in Brazil and wants to form a sort of anti-imperialist alliance with Venezuela and Cuba to stand up to the US.
If the flow of global capital is disrupted by attacking Imperialism; we can easily start to screw up the capitalist economic system in the US.

Although this may all seem like a good thing, let's realize one thing, the majority of American's are still reactionary. This is a dangerous position to walk into, particularly. I've heard lots of people argue it will take revolutions of the third world to make a first world capitalist nation's revolution a reality. Maybe so, but I fear what kind of revolution it would be.

Materially speaking I don't advanced repression or depression being a very apt way of making revolutionaries out of reactionaries. It's more likely to make them more reactionary when the bourgeois can promise immediate help through their accumulated wealth.

Fast and swift depression is a scary time, one where fascism may seem like as viable an option for most as socialism does.

[Super Mario Conspiracy]

If it didnt spread, then why would the USA be so afraid of it.

They are afraid of great many things. The most common is probably strong unions and people helping other people freely.

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

I have one addition about the "dictatorship of the proletariat": this only exists as long as the slowly dying proletarian state exists: after that there's communism: a system without states, classes and currency, as has been made clear earlier in this topic.

[Super Mario Conspiracy]

Now, I hear many people saying "dictatorship of the proletariat" - but is not this "dictatorship" democracy? The will of the majority? Is this bad somehow?

[NovelGentry]

The reason it's called a dictatorship of the proletariat is that the former ruling class is given no say. They would not even have a right to vote on an issue, let alone free speech in an absolute sense. Then again, as it stands the current ruling class deprives us of the very same. Certainly they set up illusions of such things, but do we REALLY have this? and if we do, is it a secured right? No.

It is a democracy, a democracy amongst the working class, aka: the proletariat. However, this can hardly be seen as a true democracy as certainly not all people have a say. As such, the will of the proletariat is what is enforced, without question, without legal opposition, thus it is a dictatorship of the proletariat, a dictatorship of the entire working class.

Much like in the classical sense of the word you might have a Dictatorship of Bernard the Great, or some bullshit like that. Bernard the Great is a single man, the proletariat is a class.

[renegade_fire]

Obviously the USSR did have but under a "modern" communist society like the one we are talking about here with no money system would there be a need for a police force, army, navy, airforce?

[NovelGentry]

with no money system would there be a need for a police force, army, navy, airforce?

Police force can fly out the window, communal policing will be sufficient to do what the current police system does and more without most of the problems you see from an alienated police force. But so long as it's socialism, early term or even mid term I'm for a military. Invading army doesn't give a shit how many greenbacks you got printed in your wallet -- they want land, they want to stop the communist threat, and they want whatever resources this land has to offer. There has to be consistent protection for that. I call for a combination of workers militia and military, where the military is a constant mobilized force used for the defense of the nation. Workers militia can be mobilized if a threat does appear, and then compliment the army (which should be very small, in comparison to the workers militia in both man power and resources).

The overall point is, money can disappear, but we're still going to have to be on the ball. Worker's militia is simply too slow to mobilize (particularly if everyone's working for the day). There's no defense until the tanks are already rolling into the city.

[Super Mario Conspiracy]

As such, the will of the proletariat is what is enforced, without question, without legal opposition, thus it is a dictatorship of the proletariat, a dictatorship of the entire working class.

This does not sound like socialism to me.


Police force can fly out the window, communal policing will be sufficient to do what the current police system does and more without most of the problems you see from an alienated police force.

Do also remember that there can not be any theft in a socialist society - everybody owns everything, so I'm only "stealing" something I already own. I believe this would reduce crime-rate significantly.


But so long as it's socialism, early term or even... _ ...an power and resources).

Good idea. Though, much more special ops and intelligence would be very useful. As time progress, "invasions" would become less frequent. They are, virtually, non-existant today. But intelligence, to know before they know, to see and show the International Community, that is power. Know thy enemy... :)


The overall point is, money can disappear, but we're still going to have to be on the ball.

But by the time when we no longer use money, will battle tactics and such even resemble of what we are doing today?

[NovelGentry]

This does not sound like socialism to me.

Perhaps you lack understanding of what socialism is.


Do also remember that there can not be any theft in a socialist society - everybody owns everything, so I'm only "stealing" something I already own. I believe this would reduce crime-rate significantly.

You seem to be confusing socialism with communism here, or at the very least one of the later stages of socialism. Indeed man will be able to acquire products in socialism as private property, and indeed people will "pay" for these products, but it will NOT be free market, nor will the credit be in circulation, centralized bank, centralized credit etc.


Good idea. Though, much more special ops and intelligence would be very useful. As time progress, "invasions" would become less frequent. They are, virtually, non-existant today. But intelligence, to know before they know, to see and show the International Community, that is power. Know thy enemy.

There's this little place called Iraq, possibly you've heard of it. There's no reason for a capitalist nation at the moment to invade another capitalist nation, there's plenty of reason for them to invade socialist nations or any nation that does not bow to their almighty dollar.


But by the time when we no longer use money, will battle tactics and such even resemble of what we are doing today?

Why would money change the tactics of military forces? Do you mean we won't invade other countries for their resources or for market control there? No, of course we wouldn't, that's why I said for defensive measures, and also why a socialist military can be very small.

[Super Mario Conspiracy]

Perhaps you lack understanding of what socialism is.

Well, I actually adopted socialism as my political choice just about 8 months ago. Most of the time in 2004 I was pretty neutral. But I'm posting on another forum and I learned from another member there.

But, as far as I know, in socialism, there is a government. They follow a democratic procedure, of course, because that is the only way of determining what the people want. People themselves are free to work whenever they want, there is nothing that forces them to work everyday. After all, the society is based on the people's will - why else would it be a socialist society in the first place?

The more people work, the more they will recieve. There will be "rich" and "poor", but the "rich" will never be billionaires compared to other people, as they are today. The scale will be significantly less, and nobody will live in the streets, because one of the human rights are: free housing, free food, fresh water, free education and free healthcare (this is in socialism).

Now, the "rich" will be doctors, teachers, constructers and so on. The people who benefit the most to society, in other words. Every possibility is open to everyone - it is up to them to decide what they want to do with their lives, and not worrying about surviving the day.

This is a shorter concept of what I know.


Indeed man will be able to acquire products in socialism as private property, and indeed people will "pay" for these products, but it will NOT be free market, nor will the credit be in circulation, centralized bank, centralized credit etc.

Yes, but there will be no point of stealing anything.


Why would money change the tactics of military forces?

No, I meant that when we have a society without money, which can take hundreds of years, the army tactics and such would have changed too.

[NovelGentry]

Well, I actually adopted socialism as my political choice just about 8 months ago. Most of the time in 2004 I was pretty neutral. But I'm posting on another forum and I learned from another member there.

But, as far as I know, in socialism, there is a government. They follow a democratic procedure, of course, because that is the only way of determining what the people want. People themselves are free to work whenever they want, there is nothing that forces them to work everyday. After all, the society is based on the people's will - why else would it be a socialist society in the first place?

The more people work, the more they will recieve. There will be "rich" and "poor", but the "rich" will never be billionaires compared to other people, as they are today. The scale will be significantly less, and nobody will live in the streets, because one of the human rights are: free housing, free food, fresh water, free education and free healthcare (this is in socialism).

Now, the "rich" will be doctors, teachers, constructers and so on. The people who benefit the most to society, in other words. Every possibility is open to everyone - it is up to them to decide what they want to do with their lives, and not worrying about surviving the day.

This is a shorter concept of what I know.

I would not equate early socialism ot a welfare state, as you have with free necessity. You would work for your needs, this is the only way to ensure the bourgeoisie do not continue exploiting the population. Afterall, if they get free things anyway, they would be exploiting the workers still if they refused to work post-revolution.

You have a very "later term" socialism view of socialism. Which may be ok, but I'm not sure you can assure such things immediately, nor am I sure people will do so.

You seem to have the right ideas here, but what threw me was your statements about the abolition of private property and money. Money will not exist in current form, but a system of credit would, and would HAVE to initially to ensure proper due from labor time put in to society. Socialism must be the building blocks for a society that can function under communism, overstepping what we can assume from both revolutionary and reactionary people immediately will only lead to failure.


Yes, but there will be no point of stealing anything.

Well of course there would, if indeed you refused to work for what you need/wanted, you may very well attempt to steal it. The issue is moreso that your labor becomes on par with the system. Every hour of labor in must account for every hour of labor out, when this is the "method of pay" so to speak, there would be very little reason to steal if the current exploitation was gone. I don't think that many people don't want to work, I think most people do, and will work happily if they are in a situation where their labor is paid in what it's worth, and this will be the case. As such there may be a significant decrease in property related crime, but it will not disappear completely.

Remember the current means of production will be made public and open to all. Thus they will have no proper owner, but if someone were to take these and stop someone else from using them, that WOULD be a crime.


No, I meant that when we have a society without money, which can take hundreds of years, the army tactics and such would have changed too.

Indeed they may, but I would hope after a certain amount of time the rest of the world would join us in creating freer societies and the need for the military would end altogether.

[Super Mario Conspiracy]

Afterall, if they get free things anyway, they would be exploiting the workers still if they refused to work post-revolution.

But when the revolution is over, all wealth will be equally distributed among everyone. Every person will start from "zero".

The "lowest" level you can get to, in our world today, is out on the streets, with no food, fresh water and no place to stay. Healthcare and education is out of the question, free or not.

In what I discussed, I meant that the "poorest" person in socialism will have a place to stay, fresh water and food each day, free healthcare and free education. That's it. That is a basic human right that all men and women on this planet should have.

Then, if you want a TV, a car, a computer, and so on, then you'll have to work for it. The more and better you work, the more things you can get, but you will never end up in the streets without hope and without any future.

Now, all bosses and corporate executives would begin from "zero" too, they wouldn't get any special positions right away, of course. Remember that democracy is one of the absolute basics in socialism, without it... it simply wouldn't be socialism.


You have a very "later term" socialism view of socialism. Which may be ok, but I'm not sure you can assure such things immediately, nor am I sure people will do so.

Of course not. But then again, socialism can only be achieved if people want it. Forcing it, wheter it is good or not, can not be an option. People need to know why, how and so on, more information.


Money will not exist in current form, but a system of credit would, and would HAVE to initially to ensure proper due from labor time put in to society.

Yes, in that sence. You will be able to buy, but not to own in the insanity we can own things today.


As such there may be a significant decrease in property related crime, but it will not disappear completely.

Yes, my fault. I'm computing too far ahead :D .


Indeed they may, but I would hope after a certain amount of time the rest of the world would join us in creating freer societies and the need for the military would end altogether.

Yes. We can only wait and see how other countries react.

[Asadam]

Back to the currency...I think if only one ore only some countries have communist government without money in the world that will be operable. That countries need a government who use money, but only! for trading with non-communist countries. They pay with internationally accepted money for what they need.
There's another situation if the bigger part of the world are communist. In that case there's really don't need money.

[NovelGentry]

But when the revolution is over, all wealth will be equally distributed among everyone.

No, all wealth will be in the hands of everyone, not equally distributed. There is no equal distribution, EVER. It's technically unfeasible and would be time consuming for things that need to be regularly distributed. We convert the old means of production to public property. Establishing communes for sets of industries. When the revolution is over, nothing will be distributed unless people work, just the same as in capitalism. The difference is very simply that these products are to be equalized in terms of "price" with the labor power used to produce them.

There is going ot be no "starting at 0" the state is not going to come and rip everyone out of their houses and reallocate them to different parts of the country... and if they do it is by no one's power but the people's as they must be the true controllers of the state as well as the production (which thereby includes distribution).


In what I discussed, I meant that the "poorest" person in socialism will have a place to stay, fresh water and food each day, free healthcare and free education. That's it. That is a basic human right that all men and women on this planet should have.

Yes, and they will WORK for it. The basic "human right" requires people to work for it. If you were the only person on this earth (I hate to tell you) you would have to work for your food. You would have to work to make yourself a home. You would have to work to give yourself healthcare. So on and so on.

This is not "free stuff" as it is often implied by everyone. It is paid for in someone's work. My statement was very simply that the bourgeoisie, the old ruling class, who never contributed to the actual production of the current wealth, would be doing little more than further exploiting the working class if they were to do NOTHING after the revolution. Everyone will do something, if you do not, somoene will have to do something for you to support you. We are NOT at communism at that point and socialism is a far different beast. Socialist production demands a form of labor credit to be sustainable -- and that labor credit will be what gets you the things you need.


Then, if you want a TV, a car, a computer, and so on, then you'll have to work for it.

Yes, you will work for those too, but make no mistake, under socialism you will work for necessity. We have no magical machine that creates the necessities of life. Not yet anyway. Will you be provided with "loans" of sorts to give you what you need in order to make what you need? Of course. EVERYONE will have shelter, healthcare, food, etc... but on the condition they work and that such work contributes equivalent labor power.


Now, all bosses and corporate executives would begin from "zero" too, they wouldn't get any special positions right away, of course. Remember that democracy is one of the absolute basics in socialism, without it... it simply wouldn't be socialism.

On this, we agree. Unlike the working class their property WILL be stripped of them, as it was never created by them and was consistently generated out of the exploitation of the working class.


Of course not. But then again, socialism can only be achieved if people want it. Forcing it, wheter it is good or not, can not be an option. People need to know why, how and so on, more information.

Agreed, but what I was pointing out from this scenario is your idea of "free goods" cannot be ensured by early socialism. We simply haven't the means to do so yet. Contemplate this... how long does it take you to see a doctor in a non-emergency (and even sometimes IN an emergency). The fact is, we do need MORE of certain things in this world. We have an overproduction of manufactured goods, although this will take a hit too when we are no longer exploiting the third world for such things, and thus we may see even less of an output in services.

We need time to balance this, and the only way to do that is with a strict relation of labor power to consumption rights. We have to at the very least equalize the labor power being put into the system and the consumption of the products coming out of that labor power. Only once we are aware of the overproduction can we actively seek to build a truly free society where even if you don't work you are supplied with such necessities. We may ALREADY have this, but you'd never know it under capitalism simply because there are people who can't afford food, thus scarcity is done away with through supply and demand dynamics. We need scarcity to be done away with through oversupply. While we believe it is possible, given the material conditions laid down by capitalism, we must ensure it before we move on.


Yes, in that sence. You will be able to buy, but not to own in the insanity we can own things today.

This has little relation to ownership. It very simply allows us to say that one hour of labor from an individual could cover multiple doctors appointments of say 20 minutes. Something that without health insurance is not possible to any laborer today. By equalizing the production and consumption people gain the opportunity to "afford" such things -- whether they acquire said product or service is completely up to them.

[NovelGentry]

Back to the currency...I think if only one ore only some countries have communist government without money in the world that will be operable. That countries need a government who use money, but only! for trading with non-communist countries. They pay with internationally accepted money for what they need.

It's interesting that you brought this up because I was just discusisng it the other day with someone. Although I disagree with your usage of communist and countries/government in the same sentence (communism is nationless, borderless, stateless), I understand what you're saying.

Socialist nations who have no circulated form of credit, no money/currency will still, more than likely, require products of other nations, incluidng non-socialist ones. How do we handle this? More to the point, how do we handle this without exploitation of working classes in other nations?

It's a tough question, but one I'm working on.

[Asadam]

It's simple: the people need a government which work for the workers. If we can reach that estate, the income of the communist state won't be from exploitation. The state has to calculate, what are the people want, and sell only amount of the worker's 'fruit' what they need.

[Super Mario Conspiracy]

There is going ot be no "starting at 0" the state is not going to come and rip everyone out of their houses and reallocate them to different parts of the country...

Yes, but who is going to decide where all that wealth is going to? Who is going to keep it without misusing it?


Yes, and they will WORK for it. The basic "human right" requires people to work for it.

Of course it does. But I can't work with something if I don't know or understand it, or if I have some kind of decease. I'm not saying that these things just come out of the nothing - but that it is required in order for people to be able to grow up and work.


On this, we agree. Unlike the working class their property WILL be stripped of them, as it was never created by them and was consistently generated out of the exploitation of the working class.

Yes - it was this I meant when I said that their power and wealth would be redistributed among the people.

[NovelGentry]

Yes, but who is going to decide where all that wealth is going to? Who is going to keep it without misusing it?

The wealth of the working class belongs to the working class. I don't know why anyone would think of stripping someone of the working class of a home, just to relocate them somewhere else in another home. There's no need to take from the working class what the working class has supposedly "acquired" under capitalism. On the contrary, most such things which have outstanding debt should be removed of that property. Working class family on their third mortgage? Mortgage is gone... house is theirs. End of story. Why do you assume someone has to be in control of the wealth? Why does the wealth have to "go" anywhere? Why does someone have to "keep" it?


But I can't work with something if I don't know or understand it, or if I have some kind of decease. I'm not saying that these things just come out of the nothing - but that it is required in order for people to be able to grow up and work.

You can and will work in positions where you need relatively little training and need to be uneducated, if indeed you are not educated. If you wish to become educated you may very well go to school and work towards a job which you would find more pleasing. If you decide to sit aorund and do nothing, I hope you have someone who can "pay your way."

I'm not talking about people who can't work. I'm talking about people who won't work.


Yes - it was this I meant when I said that their power and wealth would be redistributed among the people.

Yes, but you said others would start from "zero" as well. It was one of your first statements. Why should any working class person be stripped of what little they were allowed to acquire under the capitalist system? They've been exploited all their lives just to get what little they have... so we reset them to 0? That doesn't seem right -- nor justified materially. The current wealth doesn't disappear, and what we take from the bourgeoisie should be more than enough to sustain a working system where once again the production and consumption are in equilibirum at the least.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by Erin Go [email protected] 10 2005, 08:03 PM
I like the idea of no classes...but how would things be run without currency? Bartering? Also, I dislike communism because of the "dictatorship of the proletariot (excuse my spelling) " phase. Screw authority.
Then you are probably some kind of anarchist ;)

Allthough I do not see what is wrong with the people having their own government.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 04:08 PM
Yeah, i'm confused how one country can be truely moneyless when the rest of the world revolves around money. Wouldn't that conflict?


I dont really think that true communism can happen in one country like that any way.