The neccessity of socialism

[anomaly]

We've had some discussions like this on other threads, but I think the topic is very important, and deserves its own thread.

I was wondering who thinks that socialism, and thus the creation of a permanent (or 'semi-permanent') state, is neccesary as a transitionary period to communism, and who thinks that we can go directly to communism without this transitonary state?

[RedSkinheadUltra]

I'll reply with more later but these are required readings for this subject:

The State And Revolution by Lenin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/)
The Civil War In France by Marx (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/index.htm)

[Enragé]

we'll come to that when the time comes to settle that issue. We dont know what the exact situation will be in the future at that point.

[KptnKrill]

The state is without a purpose. It only complicates and makes achieving communism harder, if not altogether impossible..
Seems like during the short time I've been here this comes up *alot*....

[Enragé]

Seems like during the short time I've been here this comes up *alot*....

well its what seperates the 2 camps in revolutionary leftism (anarchists and socialists) so what do ya expect.

By the way, the state could serve a purpose. Sometimes it is necessary to organize things hierarchicly, even if this is uncommunist. Key is however to ensure that said hierarchy is controlled at any given time by the people.

[The Grapes of Wrath]

I just think that people will need time to change their mindsets from "me me me" capitalism (which is forced upon them in childhood) to humanitarian and altruistic communism. This will not (cannot!) happen in a day or month, or a year, or a decade ... or maybe even a century.

There is the need for the creation of a "new" man. But it will take time ... there will be many setbacks, maybe even a few times where people lose their way, but it is entirely achievable.

Socialism is this transitional phase that is needed. A mixture of old and new. Regardless of whether we "want" it, it needs to happen ... not because Marx said so, but because it is a sound notion, it makes sense.

You can't go from 0 to 60 without switching gears, and socialism is the perpetual switching of gears over time ... how long? Who knows.

Besides that, how does one know when communism has been reached? Is there a memo? "Umm, yea, did you get that memo? We are in communism now ... umm, yea, I'm gonna go ahead and get you another copy of that memo. Umm, yea, try not to forget, ok?"

Since communism is a pretty ambiguous term, no one will really know when they have reached, if at all. But I think that as a goal it is always worth working towards, because it may be unachievable since it is so ambiguous it is the something to strive for for always, it is the reason to always make things better, to try new ways and to learn from mistakes.

Things will always be perpetually changing and need changing because people are not perfect, and no system is perfect. There will always be room for change.

TGOW

[anomaly]

The problem with this socialism is that it historically hasn't been able to reach communism (or even, according to some, socialism). If we again attempt socialism, we do so with the midset that 'oh, we'll just do better this time'. History tends to repeat itself. Therefore, I think, after any revolution, some form of communism should be erected immediately. We need no state, and a state does not bring unity. The people will create it. And this unity will be able to defend the new society from any invaders, which has been one worry put forth by those strongly in favor of socialism.

I think we overestimate the struggle for a communist society. The only things we need for communism are the willingness of the proletariat (us), and a self-suffiecient territory. That is it. I propose we locate such a self sufficient area, and attempt to set an autonomous communist zone. Form here, we can coordinate mass revolution in other areas. But should we have a state? No, I don't think so. The state creates inequality, and that is what we're fighting. The monetary system itself is what we must destroy, and any state erected in a capitalist world must use a monetary system. Socialists will not destroy capital, rrather, they will only cahnge it. And if we only change capital, and not destroy it, then how can we guarentee that it will not 'change back' and we'll have a capitalist nation once again? All socialist revolution thus far have been, more or less, failures, with the possible exception of Cuba (although I certainly wouldn't want to live there).

But again, I stress that creating a communist autonomous zone may be much easier than we currently imagine. We can create 'liberated' self-sufficient zones with an armed citizenry. No state, no socialism, is required.

[The Grapes of Wrath]

The problem with this socialism is that it historically hasn't been able to reach communism

I this because socialism is fundamentally flawed or could it be because of unique cultural and historical situations that existed in the countries that attempted the experiment? Russia had its Stalinization, China had its Great Leap, the Warsaw Pact states were pretty much satellites of the SU and followed its example towards industrialization. Vietnam, Cambodia, Angola, Congo ... these places were all poor and unindustrialized (as was the Soviet Union) ... could that be why?

Each country that has attempted it has had its own problems unique that place. Maybe the Leninist style party is to blame ... maybe drastic centralization. there are numerous possibilities ... don't throw the baby out with the bath water.


History tends to repeat itself.

Indeed it does ... but it is there to learn from, and "we can do it better this time" is right.


I propose we locate such a self sufficient area

What is that and where the hell is it? There is no such thing as "self-sufficient" territory, things are kind of interlocked.


The monetary system itself is what we must destroy, and any state erected in a capitalist world must use a monetary system.

Very very drastic change. Work points replace them? Like in China? I cite it as an example. The CPC pulled out wages during their Great Leap Forward phase. This was a disaster ... for numerous reasons including loss of money, but mostly because they tried to go too far too fast (people just were not ready).

But the point is that caution is needed, or else disaster can result.


how can we guarentee that it will not 'change back' and we'll have a capitalist nation once again?

The fundamental question. There is no answer for this. All I can think of is that this will keep socialists "honest." Socialists will have work hard to move beyond this point, to find a point-of-no-return.

To prevent it from returning, positive change must take effect, this means few screw ups on the parts of socialists and communists. Caution is a good way to prevent or minimze the danger of mistakes.

But likewise, too much caution is dangerous as well.


I think we overestimate the struggle for a communist society.

What if we underestimate it? What happens then? What about people's physical comforts? How will normal people react to production problems that may arise? What happens if people begin to change their minds? or are not ready for it? What if we read things wrong? Could disaster result from our breakneck pace?

These are questions (and not limited to these!) that need to be asked and analyzed.


creating a communist autonomous zone

These zones sound fine, however, I must say, that it seems that these must be made up of the most dedicated and idealistic individuals ... which a revolution could need. They could serve as examples (as the Dazhai Oilfields did in China, until proven a fraud) but they could also prove a burden, something you must prepare for.

But again, how do you define communism? By political factors? Social or economic factors? All of the above? What about two out of three?

TGOW

[KptnKrill]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 04:46 AM
But again, I stress that creating a communist autonomous zone may be much easier than we currently imagine. We can create 'liberated' self-sufficient zones with an armed citizenry. No state, no socialism, is required.
I'm quite in favor of this idea.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by KptnKrill+Jun 18 2005, 02:28 PM--> (KptnKrill @ Jun 18 2005, 02:28 PM)
[email protected] 18 2005, 04:46 AM
But again, I stress that creating a communist autonomous zone may be much easier than we currently imagine. We can create 'liberated' self-sufficient zones with an armed citizenry. No state, no socialism, is required.
I'm quite in favor of this idea. [/b]
I imagine many are. See what the Zapatistas and Subcomandante Marcos have done? Now why can't we do that? (rhetorical...we can!)

Of course, for such an idea to be set in motion, we only need our fellow proletarians' support and a self-suffiicent area. If we can find an isolated one, so that armed struggle is not neccesarily needed, all the better. KptnKill, do you know of any such area? If not, no worry, we should begin to search for one. I do not think we need a huge, centralized effort, but rather many small localized ones. Wouldn't you agree? The main concern with this idea is that we'd be leaving out so many. I disagree. We'd be giving an example to so many. If we can create a fully functioning, successful commune, then the proletariat and supportive intellectuals worldwide can do the same. We must begin somewhere. Also, in the commune, who's to say we wouldn't plan and coordinate revolutionary activity abroad? Yes, if we had our own commune, a working example, many, many new things would become quite possible. I look forward to your input on this idea, KptnKill, ad other supportive comrades.

[Clarksist]

The problem with socialism, is that basically there aren't many people who will just "give up" power.

Previous Marxist revolutions have shown that the need for "conditioning" the people for communism isn't needed, and that the proletariat are more than willing to take up their positions in the next stage.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by The Grapes of [email protected] 18 2005, 06:51 AM

The problem with this socialism is that it historically hasn't been able to reach communism

I this because socialism is fundamentally flawed or could it be because of unique cultural and historical situations that existed in the countries that attempted the experiment? Russia had its Stalinization, China had its Great Leap, the Warsaw Pact states were pretty much satellites of the SU and followed its example towards industrialization. Vietnam, Cambodia, Angola, Congo ... these places were all poor and unindustrialized (as was the Soviet Union) ... could that be why?

Each country that has attempted it has had its own problems unique that place. Maybe the Leninist style party is to blame ... maybe drastic centralization. there are numerous possibilities ... don't throw the baby out with the bath water.


History tends to repeat itself.

Indeed it does ... but it is there to learn from, and "we can do it better this time" is right.


I propose we locate such a self sufficient area

What is that and where the hell is it? There is no such thing as "self-sufficient" territory, things are kind of interlocked.


The monetary system itself is what we must destroy, and any state erected in a capitalist world must use a monetary system.

Very very drastic change. Work points replace them? Like in China? I cite it as an example. The CPC pulled out wages during their Great Leap Forward phase. This was a disaster ... for numerous reasons including loss of money, but mostly because they tried to go too far too fast (people just were not ready).

But the point is that caution is needed, or else disaster can result.


how can we guarentee that it will not 'change back' and we'll have a capitalist nation once again?

The fundamental question. There is no answer for this. All I can think of is that this will keep socialists "honest." Socialists will have work hard to move beyond this point, to find a point-of-no-return.

To prevent it from returning, positive change must take effect, this means few screw ups on the parts of socialists and communists. Caution is a good way to prevent or minimze the danger of mistakes.

But likewise, too much caution is dangerous as well.


I think we overestimate the struggle for a communist society.

What if we underestimate it? What happens then? What about people's physical comforts? How will normal people react to production problems that may arise? What happens if people begin to change their minds? or are not ready for it? What if we read things wrong? Could disaster result from our breakneck pace?

These are questions (and not limited to these!) that need to be asked and analyzed.


creating a communist autonomous zone

These zones sound fine, however, I must say, that it seems that these must be made up of the most dedicated and idealistic individuals ... which a revolution could need. They could serve as examples (as the Dazhai Oilfields did in China, until proven a fraud) but they could also prove a burden, something you must prepare for.

But again, how do you define communism? By political factors? Social or economic factors? All of the above? What about two out of three?

TGOW
First, I haven't 'thrown the baby out with the bath water'. I simply don't see the point in waiting for self-proclaimed socialists to create a socialist state. We have many committed individuals who want to create communism, and skip socialism. All we need is a self-sufficient area and a revolutionary proletariat (some, like me, of the proletariat are already revolutionary...we just need some more). A good question is how to gain the popular support of atleast a majority of the proletariat (obviously unanimity among such a large group is impossible).

Yuo don't know what a self-sufficient area is? It is simply an area in which all needs are met...no foreign trading is neccesary. Really, what do we need? A source of water, shelter, and a source of food. That is it. From these basic resources, we could live a quite comfortable life. Also, with the input of certain individuals, doctors especially, life could be made quite comfortable. Even if needs can not be given from the commune...well...if there's a will, there's a way. But this also leads to the obvious conclusion that the larger the liberated area, the better.

Perhaps the reason the Great Leap Forward failed was because it was initiated by a socialist state, dependent upon capital for survival.

Other socialists too have said that this time we'll do things differently, we won't regress back to capitalism. Histroically, it just hasn't happened. But perhaps you can do things differently, who knows. But then when will you have your socialist state? There are many good prospects for socialism, I must say. Latin America is full of nations with revolutionary situations. Slim, a comrade on this forum, seems to be attempting to begin revolution in the UK. You have many chances right now, comrade.


I think your questions certainly deserve consideration. But I think they can be fixed rather easily, solved easily. Look at what the Zapatistas have done? I suggest we either begin such a commune with comrades in a 1st world nation, or we begin it with potential comrades, the proletarian of 3rd world nations. These people know what capitalism has done to them, and a large, very large disaster, I think, must take place to make them abandon this commune, which has destroyed capitalism, atleast in one area. If these areas do fail, and 'prove a burden', so be it. I'd say that the failed 'socialist' states of the past have proven quite a larger burden to our cause. If one commune fails, we can create another one. Such is the beauty of localization. I suppose, to answer your final question, I define communism by all three.

[cph_shawarma]

I just think that people will need time to change their mindsets from "me me me" capitalism (which is forced upon them in childhood) to humanitarian and altruistic communism. This will not (cannot!) happen in a day or month, or a year, or a decade ... or maybe even a century.
This is absolutely true. This will never ever ever happen. Communism is not a notion of altruism and humanitarianism, it is a notion of a worthy society for humans to live in, without the fetischised forms of life (encompassed in value). It is the material, human community. And this will not demand altruistic people.


Originally posted by Marx and Engels in German Ideology+--> (Marx and Engels in German Ideology)The communists do not preach morality at all ... They do not put to people the moral demand: love one another, do not be egoists, etc.; on the contrary, they are very well aware that egoism, just as much as selflessness, is in definite circumstances a necessary form of the self-assertion of individuals. Hence, the communists by no means want ... to do away with the "private individual" for the sake of the "general", selfless man.[/b]


There is the need for the creation of a "new" man. But it will take time ... there will be many setbacks, maybe even a few times where people lose their way, but it is entirely achievable.
No, this is mere behaviorism and from-above Stalinism (either in its "democratic" form of Trotskyism or radical leftism, or in its "original" form). This has nothing to do with Marx's notion of communism as a proletarian movement (and not a movement led by petty-bourgeois and intellectuals). If you had studied the communist insurrections you would have noticed something, that people become ready to found society anew during the revolution. "The leftists say that you have to change people to make a revolution, but Marx says no: you make the revolution and people will change." (I believe this is Mario Tronti, but not certain).


Originally posted by Marx and Engels in German [email protected]
...revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.


Socialism is this transitional phase that is needed. A mixture of old and new. Regardless of whether we "want" it, it needs to happen ... not because Marx said so, but because it is a sound notion, it makes sense.
Marx never said it, merely ideological socialist of all kinds (national-, real-, african, arabian, functionary etc.). I would like you to show where Marx said that socialism (in the sense of a permanent state, with a "mixture of old and new") is a necessary part of the transition to communism (in fact he never said so, on the contrary he denounced such idiocy in Critique of Gotha).


You can't go from 0 to 60 without switching gears, and socialism is the perpetual switching of gears over time ... how long? Who knows.
Which completely misses the point of the revolution. This is mere reformism, why do you even call yourself "socialist" if you don't want anything different from capitalism (which no socialist ever wants)?


Since communism is a pretty ambiguous term, no one will really know when they have reached, if at all. But I think that as a goal it is always worth working towards, because it may be unachievable since it is so ambiguous it is the something to strive for for always, it is the reason to always make things better, to try new ways and to learn from mistakes.
I will leave you with a Marx-quote here:


Marx and Engels in German Ideology
Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from premises now in existence.


Things will always be perpetually changing and need changing because people are not perfect, and no system is perfect. There will always be room for change.
The only correct thing you wrote. Congratulations!

[The Grapes of Wrath]

I sort of feel that I was treated harshly here, and I feel the need to defend myself here.


I simply don't see the point in waiting for self-proclaimed socialists to create a socialist state.

Fair enough.


Yuo don't know what a self-sufficient area is? It is simply an area in which all needs are met...no foreign trading is neccesary.

I know what you mean, I'm simply stating that no such place really exists if you think about it ... unless you mean ...


Really, what do we need? A source of water, shelter, and a source of food. That is it. From these basic resources, we could live a quite comfortable life.

A very, very primative state of being! Those are the basics of life yes, but I think that people deserve better things ... lik electricity. I kind of like refrigerators, microwaves, computers, tvs, phones to call people, pasteurized foods, (the list goes on) ... and I know I am not alone in my feelings on these things.

Now, if you want to have these things for people to improve their lives, you will need them to be produced from raw materials to products, you will need many different parts, you will need many different products to support these things. And that means an economy. Not all raw materials are available in all areas, and they are not unlimited ... it is called natural scarcity (however, man-made scarcity is the biggest problem). In other words, trade is sort of needed.


Perhaps the reason the Great Leap Forward failed was because it was initiated by a socialist state, dependent upon capital for survival.

Actually, the GLF was an attempt by Mao to skip the phase of socialism and jump right to communism. This was to be accomplished by using physical strenght of men to compensate for the lack of capital ... so capital was unimportant, at least in the creation of the communes, because that was the whole point.


All we need is a self-sufficient area and a revolutionary proletariat (some, like me, of the proletariat are already revolutionary...we just need some more). A good question is how to gain the popular support of atleast a majority of the proletariat

Question of all questions. "Some more" does seems to be an understatement though.


I think your questions certainly deserve consideration. But I think they can be fixed rather easily, solved easily.

Well, call me a natural pessimist, but I feel that they will be very very hard to fix, but at least my questions deserve consideration, score one for me there.


These people know what capitalism has done to them, and a large, very large disaster, I think, must take place to make them abandon this commune, which has destroyed capitalism, atleast in one area.

Like the Great Depression? ... communism sure happened after that. How about the depression of the 1880s and 90s? ... there was no revolution? How come? Could these same reasons be valid today?


If one commune fails, we can create another one. Such is the beauty of localization.

What about the people there? Are they just supposed to patch up their shattered lives? All they worked for is gone ... their lives have not improved, maybe worsened. This is what is dangerous about your idea, very dangerous. You are talking about disrupting things that do work for a

I'm sorry if I am being cautious but with people's lives, livelihoods, their safety and the like on the line, I don't want an untested theory that could destroy these things. Time to feel things out may sound horrible, but patience is a virtue, you cannot rush a society, you cannot rush mindset.


Communism is not a notion of altruism and humanitarianism, it is a notion of a worthy society for humans to live in, without the fetischised forms of life (encompassed in value). It is the material, human community.

I say "tuh-may-toe" you say "tuh-mah-toe." Do you mean material possessions? Taking material possessions out and having a human community, where value does not exist over human relationships? ... sounds pretty altruistic to me.


No, this is mere behaviorism and from-above Stalinism (either in its "democratic" form of Trotskyism or radical leftism, or in its "original" form).

Read Ernesto Guevara's "Man and Socialism in Cuba."


"The leftists say that you have to change people to make a revolution, but Marx says no: you make the revolution and people will change." (I believe this is Mario Tronti, but not certain).

Yea, that's what I said. "New Man" growing out of the revolution and change. "Make the revolution, and people will change" ... yea, people have to change in order to reach communism. This change is called socialism ... it coincides with the change in relation to production, in relation ot politics, in relation to human interactions. That's a good quote, too.


Marx never said it

Eh, guess I mean Lenin or somebody then.


Which completely misses the point of the revolution.

Umm, I don't think the revolution will swoop down and instantly everyone will be revolutionary. It might need a little time called socialism.


This is mere reformism, why do you even call yourself "socialist" if you don't want anything different from capitalism (which no socialist ever wants)?

Umm ... I'm trying my best to be realistic and think things through. I don't know what you trying to do, but I'm not like you, so I will not try to bash what I think you think you are. Or draw conclusions of you.

Do me a favor, treat me with a little bit more respect than that.



We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things.

So, in other words, communism is an action, and not a way of organizing society? So, after this stuff is destroyed ... we have reached?


The only correct thing you wrote. Congratulations!

Nice sarcasm ... uncalled for. There is no need to be a sarcastic prick ... congradulations all the same though.

TGOW

[JonnyT]

On socialism:
As has been mentioned, socialism requires a state, which in turn requires some form of heirarchy for its survival. Such a state would not simply "wither away" as is generally suggested, for the simpel reason that the state would be occupied by people. History shows that whenever people have power, they tend to be very reluctant to give it up voluntarily. In a socialist world I would take the role of an anti-state revolutionary - and probably get killed into the bargain due to socialism's all-encompassing field of state power. Not fun.

On the "autonomous zone" theory:
Finding a self-sufficient area and making it, well, self-sufficient, is a very attractive idea; however, as a revolutionary tactic, its usefulness is debateable. One need only look at the "Free State of Christiania" in Copenhagen, Denmark, for an example of this - a (largely) self-governmening people's republic in nation's capital, and yet Denmark does not appear to have moved particularly further along the radical path.
The "go off and live on a commune" idea reeks of self-centred lifestylism, the idea that if you live by your own principles somehow others will do the same. That's fine for those who live on the commune, those in the rest of the area on the other hand remain pretty much fucked.

The alternative:
Building resistance means being willing to exist within capitalist society and fighting for change among that society. It means building and promoting self-organisation wherever you may be - work, school, university, wherever.
As for the longer picture: the "dual power" theory holds a lot of appeal for me personally. Build up free, collectively-run alternatives to state/corporate power in the here and now, be it on health, education, or whatever; said collectives would then take the role left in a post-capitalist society, thus avoiding the need for a "transitory" state.

- Jonathan.

[encephalon]

I think it's known that I am in favor of socialism as a transitory period.

I don't believe this transitory period will be a decade or two of socialism. It will be centuries.

Nor do I think socialism needs to be centralized, which many seem to think is the only way to go; nor should it function as does a capitalist state. A great many changes would have to be made to the state infrastructure to allow for the proletariat to control it rather than a small ruling class group. And there is no such thing as an autonomous area. Even worse, trying to have a stateless area from which to spread a revolution would be foolish, if it were at all possible. One nuke and you're a memory.

As for arguments against socialism, I've never seen one with any substance. Some claim that socialism has proven a failure, though socialism has never existed. Some claim that it leads towards too much hierarchy, but once again I contend that it need not be centralized; the economy can and should be run largely by democratic syndicates.

As for money: it's an arbitrary assignment of value. But it serves a mathematical function, which is something we will always need. We will always need to know the cost of something, even under communism, and even if it is only labor cost. We wlil need to know how much energy must be expended to build a house; we will also need to know how much labor is needed to make a waffle. Both of them require labor, of which can be measured by the same stick. The difference between money and what we need in the future is an exchange value, which is what most needs to be eradicated. Thinking we can somehow get rid of all forms of value measurement is not only unrealistic, but unless you're a primitivist it is entirely impossible. Try planning the construction of a car without considering the cost of labor. It's impossible to plan ahead without a measurement.

[Urban Guerrilla]

Pending on different definitions of Socialism, people will mostly prefer just to go straight to Communism.

[violencia.Proletariat]

the idea of the autonomist zone, where would you do this. i mean were not talking about couple of acres of land no? a big place for all leftists to come and as a base for revolution? what government would let you have that land and not try to force you off. its not realistic. you would have to take up arms to keep it.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 02:25 AM
the idea of the autonomist zone, where would you do this. i mean were not talking about couple of acres of land no? a big place for all leftists to come and as a base for revolution? what government would let you have that land and not try to force you off. its not realistic. you would have to take up arms to keep it.
This deserves responding to. I'm not sure where we would do this. Likely somewhere in Latin America, which, as most of you know, I think is ripe for revolution. No, not a couple of acres of land. We could make a city self-sufficient, so probably we're talking the size of an average city. I propose we do what the Zapatistas have done. We conduct armed revolution, but on a localized level. No government in their right mind would 'let us have it'. And yes, taking up arms to keep it is only realistic. Hopefully some agreement could take place that serves to make peace with the state, and limits aremd conflict. But look at the Zapatistas, the Mexican government hasn't yet succeeded to expel them. Why can't we succeed?

[anomaly]

Grapes of Wrath, I'll respond to your posts directed to me in order:

Yes, it is fair.

I think you realize what I mean later on in your response...

A city, which is what would be revolutionized, could be made self-sufficient, don't you think? Agricultural measures would need to be taken to ensure our survival, but industrial measures could also be pursued. It really depends on what the people want. In Latin America, most people are very poor. Most aren't used to having microwaves, TVs, and computers, so why would they suddenly require these things? I'm not talking about revolution in the USA here. And besides, the technology for the modern luxuries you describe is out there. Why can't we duplicate atleast some of them?

Let's not use the GLF as an example of my aims, but rather what the Zapatistas have done.

Some more, yes. I think many of the proletariat are communists truly, but are simply politically ignorant at the moment.

Yes, score for you.

Do you actually think it only takes one bump in the road for people to see the failures of capitalism? Do not look at the rich USA, but rather at the poor global south. People there know of no good that stems from capitalism, and many starve. These people would not be supportive of change?

I don't think what I propose gambles with human lives. I'd model it after the Zapatistas as closely as possible. Their autonomous zone has workeed rather well.

[cph_shawarma]

Communism is not a notion of altruism and humanitarianism, it is a notion of a worthy society for humans to live in, without the fetischised forms of life (encompassed in value). It is the material, human community.

I say "tuh-may-toe" you say "tuh-mah-toe." Do you mean material possessions? Taking material possessions out and having a human community, where value does not exist over human relationships? ... sounds pretty altruistic to me.
No, we don't even speak the same language, apparently. Communism is not altruism, it is as simple as that. However, communists don't deny that people are capable of altruism, but communism has no morality (and can thus not consist of altruism, which is morality). Value is at the center of the relationship of capital and that is why it must be crushed. To say that one wants a human-worthy community has nothing to do with altruism, I'm striving towards it for partially egoistic reasons (I want it and need it).



No, this is mere behaviorism and from-above Stalinism (either in its "democratic" form of Trotskyism or radical leftism, or in its "original" form).

Read Ernesto Guevara's "Man and Socialism in Cuba."
No, I'm not gonna read some half-witted Stalinist with a guerrilla-touch. Neither parties, nor guerrillas will ever make me free.



"The leftists say that you have to change people to make a revolution, but Marx says no: you make the revolution and people will change." (I believe this is Mario Tronti, but not certain).

Yea, that's what I said. "New Man" growing out of the revolution and change. "Make the revolution, and people will change" ... yea, people have to change in order to reach communism. This change is called socialism ... it coincides with the change in relation to production, in relation ot politics, in relation to human interactions. That's a good quote, too.
No, that's not what you said. You said that socialists had to change people, but that is the complete opposite of what I said. You say the first part of the quote, I say the last part. You say we have to change people, I say no. People will collectively self-change in the course of the struggle, no socialist, no elite will ever be able to constitute Utopia.



Which completely misses the point of the revolution.

Umm, I don't think the revolution will swoop down and instantly everyone will be revolutionary. It might need a little time called socialism.
Well, spontanism is not my melody, but neither is your from-above behaviorism. Revolution occurs in change and the capital-negating actions are already a part of the factual proletariat's totality of actions. Not everyone needs to be revolutionaries in order for a working class, communist revolution to occur. Look at history and name one working class revolution or insurrection where everyone involved have been revolutionaries.



We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things.

So, in other words, communism is an action, and not a way of organizing society? So, after this stuff is destroyed ... we have reached?
Communism has two manifestations: as movement and as community. As movement it is the negation of capital. As community noone knows, but it must be constituted by positive actions (in contrast to the negative actions of communism as movement).



The only correct thing you wrote. Congratulations!

Nice sarcasm ... uncalled for. There is no need to be a sarcastic prick ... congradulations all the same though.
I'll be a sarcastic prick when I want to. Especially when people think they have found the solution to all world's problems.

[anomaly]

This is an updated response of 'where would I do this' for my idea of localized revolution. Slim currently seems to have a rather promising revolutionary base in Britain, and he claims they will be ready for revolution by 2007. I suggest that in Britain, we chip away at the main Island harboring scotland, England, and Wales. If we can liberate any one of these three territories, we can separate them into communes connected through trade networks, and thus create a single, self-sufficient network of communes. If slim doesn't want to go so large-scaled, and prefers easier local revolution, then I've suggested to him that we liberate a network of cities, and render each city a single self-sufficient (in needed areas only) commune. Each commune will then be connected in a trade network. This depends, however, on what Slim wants to do, and the British people, for that matter.

[The Grapes of Wrath]

To say that one wants a human-worthy community has nothing to do with altruism, I'm striving towards it for partially egoistic reasons (I want it and need it).

Neat ... but that still doesn't change the fac tthat incentives are a motive, and are normally thought of not existing in communism ... except for the concept of the working for the community instead of for the egotistical individual.


No, I'm not gonna read some half-witted Stalinist with a guerrilla-touch. Neither parties, nor guerrillas will ever make me free.

In that case, I'm not gonna read some German intellectual (Marx) who was not in touch with reality and couldn't support his family and had to use his son-of-a-factory-owner friend (Engels) to pay for him his entire life ... or maybe you should read and think as much as you can before you make conclusions, as I have. It can go both ways my friend.



No, that's not what you said. You said that socialists had to change people

Actually, I did not say that (I looked back through what I said). I never once said that socialists as people should change minds, I stated that socialism as an ideology is the change of minds that is needed to reach communism.


People will collectively self-change in the course of the struggle, no socialist, no elite will ever be able to constitute Utopia.

No, I didn't say that either. If you are going to quote me, quote me right.


Look at history and name one working class revolution or insurrection where everyone involved have been revolutionaries.

Look at history and name me one that has achieved communism. For socialism, no, not everyone need be a revolutionary. But for communism, yes, the majority do, because communism is built by people for the sole purpose of changing their lives and how they percieve the world ... all of this starts in socialism, which is the period that changes minds and mindsets for the creation of communism (as well as the physical organizations of the world).


Communism has two manifestations: as movement and as community.

So the organization of the community, its underlying principles of production and distribution as well as its idea of human interaction is not an ideology? ... I fail to understand what the hell you are talking about.


I'll be a sarcastic prick when I want to. Especially when people think they have found the solution to all world's problems.

Ok, fair enough. But do me a favor and be sarcastic to the communist and Anarchists that you find along they way, because they all seem to have "found the solution to all [the] world's problems." ... and least be a prick equally to all.


anomly
what the Zapatistas have done

We can't throw out someone's experience because we don't like it. The GLF happened and we can learn from it, it is an example of what not to do. I'm sorry, but the Zapatistas are no the only example, the world is not that simple.


Do not look at the rich USA

Here you are right, that I will admit easily, I am not an egotistical maniac.

However, I have only one reserve to this. It seems that to change the "poor south" and other such areas requires a change in the industrialized countries as well. Sounds a little Trotskyist but it is a valid idea. Look at the IMF, the WTO and World Bank for instance ... owned by the rich countries ad used to control the poor. Take out the rich, and free the poor.

But you were right, I was looking at things in the context of my own country.

And with that I am done with this thread. Badger me all you want, I will hold my tongue. I urge you to look at the people around you, your neighbors, your co-workers, your classmates, and people on the street (I mean really look!) and decide if they truly are ready for communism. (Because I would not be ready, it is too much to even fathom).

Would communism benefit them? Yes, it is to benefit all, but decide if they are ready. Decide of they need a change of mindset, decide if individual material incentive will still rear its ugly head and possibly destroy what has been worked towards. Decide if taking some of the most revolutionary people and putting them in communes will benefit everyone ... or will people simply ignore them and continue to work in their old (traditional?) ways.

I do believe in communism as the abstract and ambiguous term that we define it as, but I do differ with about 90% of you on this site in regards to how it will (or should) be reached. All I have to say to defend myself is that it will take time, and moving too fast (too radical) can be dangerous ... think about it, truly think about it.

Is socialism needed? ... I think that history has shown us that it is, and I think that a walk down the street will tell us that it is as well.

I guess I'll end on a plea (which is kind of sad and degrading ... oh well). Think about this stuff. Think about people, look at them, study them, ask them ... based on their reactions, you decide what is needed. And unfortunately for some, I do believe that what they will find will support this conclusion. What we want it to be is secondary to what it is.

TGOW

[anomaly]

TGOW, if we simply look at the bourgeois class of the world, us Americans, then I'd say no, no one is ready for change. We are all too materialistic (as in how much we want and what we want). But look at the global south, and you'll see that people are suffering. They are obviously ready for any change. Communism is one such change, and no the Zapatistas certainly aren't the only model of how to help these people, but the Zapatistas community works, and works rather well. I'm a practical person, so I'll choose the movement that has worked. The only problem with socialism is that it historically has not reached communism, nor even (In some opinions) socialism itself. Socialist revolutions have all inevitably failed. The Zapatistas model of a localized revolution seems to work. I leave you all to choose: mass revolution, and the construction of socialism (which has always failed), or localized revolution, and the construction of communism (which has recently succeeded).

[cph_shawarma]

Neat ... but that still doesn't change the fac tthat incentives are a motive, and are normally thought of not existing in communism ... except for the concept of the working for the community instead of for the egotistical individual.
Once again, read the Marx quote I gave you in my first post. "The communist by no means want to do away with the private individual for the sake of a general, selfless man."


In that case, I'm not gonna read some German intellectual (Marx) who was not in touch with reality and couldn't support his family and had to use his son-of-a-factory-owner friend (Engels) to pay for him his entire life ... or maybe you should read and think as much as you can before you make conclusions, as I have. It can go both ways my friend.
Well, I have read Guevara before and I wasn't very impressed. As I said before, I will not read some half-witted Stalinist with a guerilla touch, since it doesn't give me any understanding of either the world or the movement which will crush it.


Actually, I did not say that (I looked back through what I said). I never once said that socialists as people should change minds, I stated that socialism as an ideology is the change of minds that is needed to reach communism.
You said that socialism was needed in order for people to become "revolutionary" and be ready for communism. Thereby you imply that some people (read revolutionaries) will have to educate the workers in order for them to constitute communism. This is Leninism from-above, and totally anti-Marxian. Also read one of the quotes in my first post. Self-change will occur in struggle, a struggle which revolutionaries will have to intervene.



Communism has two manifestations: as movement and as community.

So the organization of the community, its underlying principles of production and distribution as well as its idea of human interaction is not an ideology? ... I fail to understand what the hell you are talking about.
No communism is not an ideology. Communism does not speak of the future manifestation of society, it is hid in the shadows of the future and must be created in struggle. As I said, communism has two manifestations: as movement (it exists today as capital-negation, for example pirating and taking food or stuff from work) and as community (which we have only seen glimpses of in earlier communist insurrections, for example Paris '68, Hungary '56 or even The Commune of 1872).