Questions on Communism

[BeginnerRevolutionary]

I'm relatively new to the site, but I have a general understanding of socialism and communism. However I do have some questions in regards to communism.

First, in a communist society, where does military come into play? For example, when we have a stateless society where emphasis is put on the proletariat, how does nation defense come into the picture? I know that one defense that I've heard is that periodically stationed throughout a nation will be strategically placed caches of weapons in which should the need arise, the people take up arms against invaders. I find this a little unrealistic and am wondering in a communist society how a military would come into being and would be supported.

Also, I am a little unclear as to how to distinguish what exactly Stalinism, Leninism, and anarchy are. What are main differences between them, how do they relate to communism, and in a nutshell what could they be defined as?

Any historical examples, etc would be great in helping me understand. And please don't hesitate to give plenty of details.

Thanks much.

[RedLenin]

Ok first off communism cannot work if there are nations. Your correct to assume that if the U$ were to fall we would be invaded and conquered. For communism to work we have to tear down the borders. We have to smash the state on a global level. Without the state there will be no nations because nations are simply land that the state owns. Land is not a commodity to be bought and sold. No nations would eliminate the need for a military. On to your second question. Stalinism and Lenninism are authoritarian forms of "socialism". I do not condider it socialist because under Stalin and Lennin an elite buerocracy controls everything, not the working class. Basically Lennin believed that the working class could not reach socialism on it's own and needed to be guided by an elite vanguard make up of the most important members of the working class. Stalin didn't add anything to marxist theory. He was not a totalitarian leader who really had nothing to do with socialism or communism. If you are looking for working examples of communism read into the spanish civil war. You can find a lot of info here. flag.blackened.net (http://flag.blackened.net) I hope this answers your questions.

[Abstrakt]

In order for communism to start, doesn't a militia have to be formed first, to overthrow whoever is ruling?

[RedLenin]

Well if you want to use violence yes. Although not ONE big militia. I think a decentralized network of workplace and community militias can overthrough capitalism. If you are refering to state socialism to communism the same applies. This is why I am opposed to state socialism. The new "workers state" will not surrender it's power for communism. If we think we need a state after a revolution, then one will always form. It will be a never ending cycle of states and revolutions. Power corrupts the best.

[Essential Insignificance]

I'm relatively new to the site, but I have a general understanding of socialism and communism. However I do have some questions in regards to communism. First, in a communist society, where does military come into play? For example, when wehavea stateless society where emphasis is put on the proletariat, how does nation defensecomeinto the picture?

Well first... the "proletarian class" -- characteristic of the "capitalist mode of production" will no longer exist... just as the bourgeois won't. Revolution will dissolve class distinctions; "class" usually in a Marxist sense, being defined by an individual's our an group's relation to the "means of production"... or "means" of material life.

And of course all be have equal own the means of production.

Well... I would imagine "worker militants" would be formed if "under- attack" from capitalist, imperialist nations.

It would quite difficult to state how "well-trained" this workers would be, but if invasion was an always imminent concern, as it would be with Imperialistic, capitalist nations "lucking around".

It would be expected that they would not be sluggish, ill-formed or ill-equipped.


Ok first off communism cannot work if there are nations. Your correct to assume that if the U$ were to fall we would be invaded and conquered. For communism to work we have to tear down the borders.

Well, not necessarily.

I think that a "land mass"... whilst still "in name" being a "nation" could move straight to communism, post-revolution. Thus being totally classless and stateless... while till remaining a distinct "nation", in name.

But the problem is, would a specific land mass, with a specific amount of people, be fully able to self-stain and regenerate themselves with the natural resources available of that specific land mass?

I don't know... maybe capitalists will be willing to "trade"... but the question is, would we be willing to "trade" with them?

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 08:07 PM
First, in a communist society, where does military come into play? For example, when we have a stateless society where emphasis is put on the proletariat, how does nation defense come into the picture? I know that one defense that I've heard is that periodically stationed throughout a nation will be strategically placed caches of weapons in which should the need arise, the people take up arms against invaders. I find this a little unrealistic and am wondering in a communist society how a military would come into being and would be supported.
Well, the "nations" thing will probably not exist when the military dissapears. "Communes" can easily find a way to defend themselves. In such a society, people will try to have peace, so if there's some kind fo danger in one of them, others will react. That wouldn't be very problematic. The problem is for example, if there are still capitalist nations. In that case, local armies can join forces if necessary.


Also, I am a little unclear as to how to distinguish what exactly Stalinism, Leninism, and anarchy are. What are main differences between them, how do they relate to communism, and in a nutshell what could they be defined as?

The thing is that Leninists argue that people is not ready for communism yet, so they need leadership from a vanguard. This vanguard takes power and manages everything. Supposedly this will eventually evolve into a communist society when the state isn't necessary. They consider Anarchism "utopian" and "impossible", and give a lot of importance to the vanguard party and centralized power, since they consider it necessary to defend the achievements from a possible counter-revolution. Anarchists argue that authority should be abolished, power held on a descentralized way, and there shouldn't be leaders, with a workers-controlled society, without any kind of transitional stage with a state, since that would lead to corruption, authoritarianism and basically what happens with every leninist country. Stalinism comes from Leninism and just refers to the practices of those who support Stalin (that is opposing Trotskyism by supporting Stalin's "socialism in one country" instead of Trotsky's "permanent revolution", and being more authoritarian, sometimes reaching reactionary points of view, and a few other things I won't mention here).


Any historical examples, etc would be great in helping me understand. And please don't hesitate to give plenty of details.

Well, most experiments that have been happening since 1917 are an example of Leninism (USSR, Cuba, China, Vietnam, North Korea, but each of them with their differences, such as Stalinism, Maoism, Juche, etc.). Most communes and the collectivization on the Spanish Civil War (which as defeated by Franco), as well as the Makhnovites in Ukraine are examples of what Anarchists want to achieve.

[Super Mario Conspiracy]

Ok first off communism cannot work if there are nations.

It greatly depends on how people are willing to achieve the revolution - step by step or directly to communism. All nations' people may or may not like the idea of socialism, even if it is the best system. Once they see how other nations with socialism get by much better, then they'll start asking why their own system is not working, or are insufficent to their needs.


Without the state there will be no nations because nations are simply land that the state owns.

And the state is controlled by the people. Remember that communism itself is built on communities - the world, for now, is too big in order for a big revolution to be effective.


Land is not a commodity to be bought and sold.

But it is owned by the people in that community or country. The state is not a corporation bent on profit and exploitation (in socialism).


This is why I am opposed to state socialism. The new "workers state" will not surrender it's power for communism.

But that state can be in effect for decades. When the people are ready, when the technology exists for everyone to be used, when there is no point of having a state, then it will be effectively disbanded.


If we think we need a state after a revolution, then one will always form.

But mind that many people are used to live in a society with a state. The world simply is not ready enough, they are not used to live in a society without a state. But as you said, it is up to the people to decide.


It will be a never ending cycle of states and revolutions. Power corrupts the best.

Not if that power is controlled by the majority of the people. A state should not, and will not, use it's power without asking the people. Else, they'll inflict democracy.


But the problem is, would a specific land mass, with a specific amount of people, be fully able to self-stain and regenerate themselves with the natural resources available of that specific land mass?

I believe that trade, in the transision between global capitalism to global socialism, would still be in effect. When other socialist nations appear, I think the world will form a global forum for discussion of how to help nations in need of resources not found in their own country.


Also, I am a little unclear as to how to distinguish what exactly Stalinism, Leninism, and anarchy are.

There are some general information on these links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leninism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

[BeginnerRevolutionary]

So let us say for the moment that communism is acheived in a given society. Is it not needed at some point to have a governing body of sorts to do such things as overseeing distribution of resources, etc?

Let's use the example of natural resources for example. Currently, under capitalism, I use x amount of kw/hr to power my house. I pay for the amount I use. Under communism, everyone would use the power that they need, but in the event that someone uses electricity in excess for whatever reason deemed outside of their need, would there be repercussions?

Would you not need a governing body of some sort for situations similar to these?

If I understand correctly, in a true communist society, people form communes which are groups of people that live together with communist idealologies integrated in their life. Each performs their abilities for their commune and in return get the means to live their life as needed.

Let us say for the moment that I live in a commune, and I kill someone. Is there law of any sorts in communes or communism? What exactly would happen to me should that arise? Is there vigilante justice involved? Or are there standards set up similar to status quo in regards to crime? Or is there even such a thing as crime?

I ask these questions not to criticize, but because I am truly curious. I'm a very detailed oriented person and that is why I ask such detailed questions. So again, please don't hesitate to spare me details.

[RedLenin]

For you to kill someone would be totaly unnaceptable. Wheather there will be a written law or not will be up to the people. Anarchy, for instance, doesn't mean no rules, just no rulers. If you did kill someone I would imagine you would be either banished or placed in a commune of fellow killers. Or maybey an island? :) But why would you kill someone? What would motivate you to do this? If there is no private property, oppression, exploitation, or economic inequality then what would make you want to kill someone? Under communism/anarchism most crime would be eliminated. Of course this would not be utopia so there will be the ocassional "crime". It would be up to the communes on what to do with these people. And if someone takes more than they need, workers may simply not make that good for him/her. Workers and consumers would coordinate production and consumtion.

On to your next point. If you saw someone beating someone else you would simply beat him or her in defense of your fellow human. I believe this would work in the rare instance that you saw this type of thing. Others have suggested democraticaly organized commune militas with rotating members. I do not share this belief because there is nothing stopping this group from abusing it's power. I think ordinary members of the commune would defend each other. As they should.

So basically I don't think crime will be much of a problem at all. People will live together, work together, self-govern together, and defend each other. If communism/anachism works the way it is supposed to, there will be no crime and humans will cooperate with each other for the betterment of humanity. :)

[BeginnerRevolutionary]

I'm all about the betterment for humanity and its progression. That's what drew me to communism in the first place.

With regards to the issue of dividing resources and overconsumption....If someone does take more than they need, and supervision of some sort is needed, who decides that and who would oversee that? I'm not understanding where you would draw the line, and who would decide what that line is, what would fall outside of a person's needs and be unacceptable. Would one person oversee these distributions? Or some, or the commune as a whole?

It would seem, at face value, if the entire commune were to need to oversee decisions such as these, as well and any number of other issues, they would need to congregate at some point and reach conclusions about what to do as a society. But at that point, how would they arrive at their decisions? A majority vote? Something likening an electoral college? Or simply an arbitration.

So am I correct then, in assuming that communism and anarchism are one in the same? Or is there some subtle or not-so-subtle difference I'm missing?

Back to the issue of crime....It is probably true that with the implementation of communism motives for crimes will probably be reduced, but not altogether eliminated. On the murder issue....In the event that I did commit murder, how would the commune decide what to do with me? Would there be an arbitrator? A trial? Is there "innocent until proven guilty" principles in communism? What if I didn't actually murder someone, and am being framed for a crime I didn't commit? Is there a panel of people which decide my fate, similar to a jury? Would you not have to have one person making a decision to my fate, in which case it wouldn't be communism. Or would you have a handful of people making the decision in which case it would be more socialistic?

Sorry for all the questions....

[RedLenin]

In communsim decisions would be made democraticaly by neighborhood meatings and a deligate system. It starts with neighborhood assemblies. These assemblies decide on issues affecting that neighborhood. This would be done through consensus decision making. We would have people lead the assemblies through rotation. Like one day I lead it and the next day you do. This would ensure that everyone is a leader. These assemblies would also elect delegates who do nothing more than represent the communities in communal congresses affecting the community as a whole. For instance if we were trying to decide wheather environmental protections should be implemented in the commune, the neighborhoods would elect delegates to represent the in the communal congresses. When a delegate decides to vote on the issue, the vote he makes will be decided by the neighborhood assemblies. This method of decision making would be the same even up to global. This makes it so that everyone has a say in decisions proportionate to the degree that they are affected and makes sure that ultimate power rests at the bottom, with the people.

Now, anarchism and communism are basically the same thing. Though it should be noted that anarchism seeks to abolish all authority from political all the way to schools and the family. I do not think marxists believe in this as we anarchists do.

On to crime. The same method of decision making would apply for crime too. Depending on the situation it could be handled by the neighborhood or the commune. If you punched someone in the face against their will, you would probably be get sentenced to community service. If you murdered someone, it would be a communal decision with the communal congresses voting on what to do with you, their votes being aproved by the neighborhood assemblies.

And don't worry about questions, ask away. Learn all you can I am glad to help.

[BeginnerRevolutionary]

Let me make sure I understand...

I am going to assume, unless told otherwise, that any elections taken place would occur on a "majority rules" basis.

It begins with neighborhood assemblies. I am assuming that a neighborhood would simply be part of a commune, similar in that a neighborhood is now. Leaders are chosen through rotation per session. These neighbor hoods would choose delegate. Representatives, if you will. In broader matters, when decisions are made with regards to the commune, the vote that the delegate casts will be based on the decisions of the neighborhood he represents. And so on and so forth up to the global level. Correct me if I'm wrong.....

The only question I have in regards to that would be on the basis in which any decision is voted upon. Let us use the example of the recent US election. The final vote was 48 to 51 percentages. If we go by a majority rules system, is that really the voice of the people, and the decisions of the people if we have nearly half of the people opposed to the final decision being made?

[RedLenin]

Unfortunatly you are right that some people will not get their way. But lets say we did decide on say, a delegate, with a 48 to 51 percentage. The 48 percent would probably not be happy but the people still have the power to recall him. If one day the neighbor hoods decide to recall him for some reason, ie. not doing his job, then they can.

Yes some will not get their way but it is very unlikely that EVERYONE will agree on something. There will always be people for it and opposed to it. We can not change this because all people have different beliefs.

But I think this system truly does give the people the final say. Everyone may not always agree, but everyone is given the opertunity to participate in the political process and even have control over what their leaders do unlike the current "representative democracy".

Now majority vote will not always be the way to make a decision. If you were deciding weather to wear a blue or red shirt, the community would not vote on it. You would decide. Everyone would have control over their personal life.

This system may not allow everyone to get exactly their way, but it does give everyone a say. It maximizes freedom while ensuring an advanced society as well. If we were to eliminate majority rules, society would kinda suck because nothing would ever get decided. :)

[Commie Rat]

inthe end when the whole world is communist then there wil be no major enemy [ ie other countries] no there will be no need for major armed forces

[BeginnerRevolutionary]

Is there any realistic way to transition the whole world at once into communism? Was there any writing from Marx or Engles about that?

Say a country did after much struggle achieve communism in a true sense. Would not the populace be afraid of simply being invaded/taken over by a rival country?

[RedLenin]

It depends on what revolution you want to destroy capitalism. If you want violence then the decentralized network of militias will still be intact because you are right when you say the whole world will not go at once. If you want a non-violent social revolution, then defensive militias will have to form in order to defend the population.

Although this would just be for a limited time. Once the social revolution begins, it will spread. Oppressed people all around the world will rise up. Some battles will be lost, and some countries will maintain authoritarian/capitalist for a while, but the revolution itself cannot be killed. The governments and ruling classes of the world can murder the revolutionarys, but they will never murder the revolution.

Eventually the global revolution will be won. After it is, the militas will be disbanned, and we will live in a world of peace and freedom.

Also, Marx and Engles did not write about an instant transition to communism, but suggested going through state socialism as a transitional stage. I reject this because it would be authoritarian and abuse it's power.

An alternative transition stage would be syndicalism, or workers unionism, where the workers take control of the economy. Read more at anarchosyndicalism.net (http://anarchosyndicalism.net)

[BeginnerRevolutionary]

The next things I have question on would be education and science. How they would work in a communist society.

Education: Would it work similar to the setup now? Elementary up until high school and then is there a choice for college? If so, would there be competition between schools? This is a problem facing America today is the competition between schools and then the prospect of charter schools. Would the teachers and professors still be considered a "worker"?

Science: Say we have a research institute. Would what they research and develop need to first be shown how it would benefit society? Like for example, people now get research grants to do work that they personally would like to do. Would science in the R+ D department work the same way?

Lastly, and kind of off topic.....For the sake of argument, let's say the entire world was communist. What language would we speak? I'm not sure how that would work....

[BeginnerRevolutionary]

Also, how would economic troubles affect people?

For example, countries import/export things now. For example, the US imports I don't even know how much oil. In a communist society where we don't have governments or corporations like OPEC to govern, how would we go about getting people in the "formerly known as US" area? Would there still importing and exporting, and if so doesn't there have to be some central group that oversees and governs quantity?

And it doesn't have to be oil. Could be anything. Steel, lumber, etc..

[RedLenin]

Education can work differently. If you want normal communsim, it would work a lot like today. The students would still be opressed by teachers, the principal, the administration, etc. The schools would be a public service and free for everyone and there would be no need for schools to compete, as they would serve only to edjucate the youth. Under anachist communism, school would be VERY different. Teachers and students would run the school together, students could choose the classes they want to take, the grading system would be abolished, there would be no attendence policies, students could do what work they want, stay as long as they want, eat when they want, etc. Schools would be free institutions providing the means for education. Teachers would be considered workers because they provide an essential service to society.

Scientists would also be considered workers. After needs are met of course. All the needs have to be met first, and then the possibilites are endless.

If the entire world was communist, I'd assume there would still be multiple languages. Students would probably learn multiple languages as well. Of course the entire world does not have to be communist like I said earlier. There could be nations, just not border restrictions.

The workers would control the economy. It's quite simple. We would have to import and export, so the workers syndicates would control this. Every aspect of the economy will be controled by the workers.