Questions about Communism

[RedCommieBear]

I've considered myself a democratic socialist for a while now. Obviously, I agree with the the basic ideas of socialism. Worker control over the means of production, a worker's democracy, etc. However, I've always been hostile to communism. Equating it with the regimes of Stalin and Mao. So, instead of being ignorant, I decided I should learn about communism before I just wrote it off. I am now aware that Stalin wasn't exactly "true" communism, and had a lot in common with facism.

But, beyond this, I remain mostly uninformed. So I decided to ask the RevolutionaryLeft community several questions.

How democratic is communism? Would opposition (capitalists) be allowed to form political parties to represent their ideology and be allowed freedom of speech? I'm also uneasy about the ideas of democratic centralism, could you try to convert me?

Is it possible to be religious and be a communist? As I have read from a poll, a vast majority of the members of this message board are atheists or agnostic. Many Americans, our very religous. Is communism inherently atheist? And if so, would people be allowed religious freedom under communism?

Does communism always support an armed revolution, or is it possible for a peaceful transition?

It's a fact that most of the revolutionaries (Trotsky, Lenin, etc.) came from fairly decent backgrounds. What about "professional revolutionaries"? What are there purpose?

Would a communist party allow everyday people to join? As far as I know (and correct me if I am wrong), it was quite a privilege to be a part of the communist party in the Soviet Union. Wasn't the main difference between Bolsheviks (spelling?) and Mensheviks (spelling) their views how a party would be made up of (Bolsheviks supporting a small and dedicated group, Mensheviks supporting a large party of activists).

I think that's all I have to ask. Thank you very much for reading, and responses are much appreciated.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

How democratic is communism? Would opposition (capitalists) be allowed to form political parties to represent their ideology and be allowed freedom of speech? I'm also uneasy about the ideas of democratic centralism, could you try to convert me?

In Communism there is No Democracy - because there is No Goverment, and as democracy is a form of goverment, it cannot exist.

In Communism, Its not a matter of choice - Marx predicted that in their anger, workers would become so angry that they would destroy the capitalists - its not a matter of what we want, but what will happen.

Capitalists certainly wouldn't be able to, as the nature of a capitalist means they will try to infringe on other people's rights and enslave them - yet I suppose theoretically (all that really matters though is what actually happens), opposition parties would be allowed to exist as long as they don't try to infringe on individual freedoms.



Is it possible to be religious and be a communist? As I have read from a poll, a vast majority of the members of this message board are atheists or agnostic. Many Americans, our very religous. Is communism inherently atheist? And if so, would people be allowed religious freedom under communism?

Communism only fights harshly against Radical religion - such as Jihadists and Crusaders - but in a communist society it wouldn't really matter if your a self-praying Christian, Jew, or Muslim - as long as you don't go around killing those not of your religion, or something like that.

Yet many of the vanguard of the proletariat movement do not have time to pay attention to religion, when there are material matters to be solved. "First comes the stomach, then the morals" - Old German Saying



Does communism always support an armed revolution, or is it possible for a peaceful transition?

very old question...the sad answer is that, there cannot be anything but a violent revolution, for the workers will never in truth be able to muster any abilities but violence in retaliation against their families and rights, the peaceful transition is termed 'Social Democracy" as a peaceful transition into Communism/Socialism, which was mildly popular but seen as severly unrealistic -

Would Bill gates, in all seriousness, suddenly give up all his 40 billion and become a factory worker? I think not


It's a fact that most of the revolutionaries (Trotsky, Lenin, etc.) came from fairly decent backgrounds. What about "professional revolutionaries"? What are there purpose?

Professional Revolutionaries? Well, If I'm understanding you correctly - these are the people who came from Bourgeois classes and thus possess the intellectual abilities not known to workers - such as knowledge of this theory and all that, so that they can help guide the workers movement along to revolultion, and aid the revolution intellectually and as a organizing force



Would a communist party allow everyday people to join? As far as I know (and correct me if I am wrong), it was quite a privilege to be a part of the communist party in the Soviet Union. Wasn't the main difference between Bolsheviks (spelling?) and Mensheviks (spelling) their views how a party would be made up of (Bolsheviks supporting a small and dedicated group, Mensheviks supporting a large party of activists).


Well - Lenin had originally said in the "State and Revolution" that the Vanguard Party was but a party leading up to the Revolution - Before the revolution during capitalist ages, the Party would be strictly closed- allowing only those 'professional revolutionaries' in, along with workers to give the voice of the people, to guide the people along to revolution, as it doesn't help to have large incoherent meetings which produce no result.

After the true revolution, the party won't, or would be unable to mantain a rule - the people would overthrow it, or hopefully it would step down - as a political party implies politics, and politics implies goverment, and as we have said - In Communism there is No State.

"While the state exists there can be no freedom, when there is freedom there can be no state" - Vladimir Lenin


Hope I helped you out :)

[More Fire for the People]

However, I've always been hostile to communism. Equating it with the regimes of Stalin and Mao. So, instead of being ignorant, I decided I should learn about communism before I just wrote it off. I am now aware that Stalin wasn't exactly "true" communism, and had a lot in common with facism.
I suggest you take a critical view towards Stalinist Russia and Maoist China. For one they are not as ‘bad’ as history books make them out to be. However, they did fail. This is what we must learn from these regimes: what they did right and what they did wrong. Also, if Stalinism and Maoism have anything in common with fascism it is because fascists coopted a lot of things from the workers’ movement.


How democratic is communism? Would opposition (capitalists) be allowed to form political parties to represent their ideology and be allowed freedom of speech? I'm also uneasy about the ideas of democratic centralism, could you try to convert me?
There is no state under communism and thus no democracy in the sense of representative bodies. However, to build a communist society we must first establish socialism. Under socialism there would be freedom of speech, press, assembly, etc. for workers. The capitalists would have no political rights unless they joined the ranks of the working class.

Democratic centralism is essentially freedom of discussion and unity in action, or in other words the "democracy of the strike". An organization, like a party or a union, democratically decides what actions to take and thus once a consensus is reached everyone is expected to act according to the reached consensus until a time when revision of policy is allowed.


Is it possible to be religious and be a communist? As I have read from a poll, a vast majority of the members of this message board are atheists or agnostic. Many Americans, our very religous. Is communism inherently atheist? And if so, would people be allowed religious freedom under communism?
No. Communism is a society in which the world that has created religion — the world of poverty, excessive despair, alienation, etc. — has been overcome. Marxism is also a materialists conception of the world, i.e. it posits that only natural things exist. Under socialism people would be allowed to practice religion under the conditions that community centres are free at the time and that no children are invovled.


Does communism always support an armed revolution, or is it possible for a peaceful transition?
Yes and no. Communists struggle against an armed repressive machine — the capitalist state and all its resources. We would like a 'peaceful revolution' but realize such a thing is a near impossiblity.


It's a fact that most of the revolutionaries (Trotsky, Lenin, etc.) came from fairly decent backgrounds. What about "professional revolutionaries"? What are there purpose?
I think the concept of a professional revolutionary may be a bit of an outdated concept but essentially a profesional revolutionary is someone who dedicates a good portion of their time to the building up of revolutionary ideas, movements, etc.


Would a communist party allow everyday people to join?
I am still undecided. I think the Communist Party should consist of class consciouss members of the working class. Though, after every proletarian revolution there tends to be a huge increase in the number of class conscoiuss workers. For instance, after the October Revolution there was a flood of members into the Bolshevik party.


Wasn't the main difference between Bolsheviks (spelling?) and Mensheviks (spelling) their views how a party would be made up of (Bolsheviks supporting a small and dedicated group, Mensheviks supporting a large party of activists).
I think this is a gross simplification but close to correct. The Bolsheviks want a party of class conscious activist workers while the Mensheviks wanted any worker to be able to join.

Hope I was of help :)

[Delta]

First off I think it should be noted that I'm not a communist, but a libertarian socialist of the anarcho-syndicalist variety, so take what I say with a grain of salt. In addition, realize that there are various schools of thought within communism, and the answers to your questions are not necessarily concrete.


How democratic is communism? Would opposition (capitalists) be allowed to form political parties to represent their ideology and be allowed freedom of speech?

Freedom of speech is essential in a free society. The capitalists will not be able to have political parties because there will be no government. They could organize themselves and try to reinsert capitalism into the public life, but it isn't likely to have much effect because who is going to subject themself to capitalist exploitation when they don't have to? Plus all the means of production are owned by all, so the capitalists wouldn't have any means of production with which to extract surplus labor from the people. Decisions made within a society may often be made in terms of direct democracy, where everyone gets a say in the decision in proportion to the amount that the decision affects them.


Is it possible to be religious and be a communist?
Is communism inherently atheist? And if so, would people be allowed religious freedom under communism?

Members of RevLeft debate whether it is possible to both be religious and be communist all the time. I could tell you how I feel, but that's irrelevent because there will be others that disagree. Ideally communists are atheists, so if that makes communism inherently atheist then yes. People should have religious freedom at all times, and so in a communist society they would have that.


Does communism always support an armed revolution, or is it possible for a peaceful transition?

A peaceful transition is desired, but I don't think it is very likely. The revolution will likely be violent, but the violence should be minimized as much as possible.


I hope this helps somewhat :D

[rouchambeau]

I would like to add something, but there isn't really anything I can say that RevolutionaryMarxist hasn't already stated (quite well, actually).

[nickdlc]

How democratic is communism? Would opposition (capitalists) be allowed to form political parties to represent their ideology and be allowed freedom of speech? Very democratic. There are no political parties only workers councils that make decisions on how things should be run. Capitalists don't exist since their monopoly over the means of production would have been destroyed.


Is it possible to be religious and be a communist? No, but it is possible to live within communist society and hold on to religious beliefs. It would probably be like living today and believing in zeus though .... useless.


Would a communist party allow everyday people to join? There is no communist party, the revolution isn't a party affair. If we allow any party to substitute itself for the working class communism will be impossible. Workers power means workers power.

[Zero]

'Democratic' isn't exactly specific, as representitive "democracy" falls in that category as well. Best bet is to read around, as describing one part of the Communist society alone, is leaving a great deal to the imagination.

Also, please don't equate Democratic Centralism with Communism. That is a Leninist Socialist idea, and is not held by about half of us.

[sanpal]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 10 2006, 09:52 PM

Would a communist party allow everyday people to join? As far as I know (and correct me if I am wrong), it was quite a privilege to be a part of the communist party in the Soviet Union. Wasn't the main difference between Bolsheviks (spelling?) and Mensheviks (spelling) their views how a party would be made up of (Bolsheviks supporting a small and dedicated group, Mensheviks supporting a large party of activists).


What are (would be) strong sides of Communist Party?

1) mass character
2) ideology correspond to the interests of majority of (working) people
3) possession of scientific economic theory (somebody couldn't object to communist theory not to contradict logic)
etc


On point 1
More members - stronger Party. In ideal - all proletariat (plus sympathetic (semi-)bourgeoisie).

On p.2
It is clear as noonday

On p.3
Within the limits of the possibility

Acceleration of activity (unwarrantable increasing) on the point 1 could be lead to contradiction between the point 1 and the point 3
So it needs balance.

[RebelDog]

In Communism there is No Democracy - because there is No Goverment, and as democracy is a form of goverment, it cannot exist.

I utterly disagree. In communism there is ultra-democracy, meaning that people will have control over their communities futures and the future of the human race to the greatest degree possible. Democracy is control by the people, so lacking today. Government is only a poor example of democracy, not an inseprable component of democracy. If democracy does not exist in communism/anarchism then how do we progress?

[More Fire for the People]

I utterly disagree. In communism there is ultra-democracy, meaning that people will have control over their communities futures and the future of the human race to the greatest degree possible.
No. Democracy means politics while communism is post-political.Thirdly, in speaking of the state “withering away", and the even more graphic and colorful “dying down of itself", Engels refers quite clearly and definitely to the period after “the state has taken possession of the means of production in the name of the whole of society", that is, after the socialist revolution. We all know that the political form of the “state” at that time is the most complete democracy. But it never enters the head of any of the opportunists, who shamelessly distort Marxism, that Engels is consequently speaking here of democracy “dying down of itself", or “withering away". This seems very strange at first sight. But is is “incomprehensible” only to those who have not thought about democracy also being a state and, consequently, also disappearing when the state disappears. Revolution alone can “abolish” the bourgeois state. The state in general, i.e., the most complete democracy, can only “wither away".

[...]

Democracy means equality. The great significance of the proletariat's struggle for equality and of equality as a slogan will be clear if we correctly interpret it as meaning the abolition of classes. But democracy means only formal equality. And as soon as equality is achieved for all members of society in relation to ownership of the means of production, that is, equality of labor and wages, humanity will inevitably be confronted with the question of advancing father, from formal equality to actual equality, i.e., to the operation of the rule "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". By what stages, by means of what practical measures humanity will proceed to this supreme aim we do not and cannot know. But it is important to realize how infinitely mendacious is the ordinary bourgeois conception of socialism as something lifeless, rigid, fixed once and for all, whereas in reality only socialism will be the beginning of a rapid, genuine, truly mass forward movement, embracing first the majority and then the whole of the population, in all spheres of public and private life. (Lenin)

[thatraykid]

Communism and religion? atheist/theists and politics...

"Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a future classless, stateless social organization based upon common ownership of the means of production and the absence of private property."
Wikipedia.

thus Christian/Churchy religious followers will have a hard time to live with Communism. but other forms of religion, some of the not so mainstream religions will probably have an ideology to co-exist with communism and flurrish with more hope and good for the people.. i beleive to say bluntly that Christianity is strongly Capatilist. christianity is built on alot of lies, deceit, and holds alot of Capitalist ideas. and this is just my idea remember that..


plz tell me what you think..i need smart criticism to make me stronger

oh ya reading through some of the blogs and entries it sounds like some of you have communism mistakened with Anarchism.... very very different ideas and we should start a post based on the differences and people opinions of each ideology.
thanks for your time

tHatRaYkid....

[RedCommieBear]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 05:26 PM
i beleive to say bluntly that Christianity is strongly Capatilist. christianity is built on alot of lies, deceit, and holds alot of Capitalist ideas.
You would think so, based on the fact that so many capitalists try to justify their actions through Christianity.. But, really, Jesus may have been the first communist/socialist/anarchist.

For example, here's a quote from the Bible... (Acts Chapter 4)

"32 Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed
private ownership of any possessions, but verything they owned was held in common. 33 With
great power the apostles gave their testimony to the ressurection of the Lord Jesus, and
great grace was upon them all. 34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many
as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold."

Doesn't that kind of sound like "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."?

Here's a quote from Hugo Chavez on Jesus...

"He [Jesus] accompanied me in difficult times, in crucial moments. So Jesus Christ is no doubt a historical figure — he was someone who rebelled, an anti-imperialist guy. He confronted the Roman Empire… Because who might think that Jesus was a capitalist? No. Judas was the capitalist, for taking the coins! Christ was a revolutionary. He confronted the religious hierarchies. He confronted the economic power of the time. He preferred death in the defense of his humanistic ideals, who fostered change… He is our Jesus Christ." - Hugo Chavez

You also may want to check out the Wikipedia articles...

Christian Communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism)

Christian Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_socialism)

Christian Anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism)

Jesus Radicals - Another Christian Anarchist Site (http://jesusradicals.com/)

Thank you all very much for the replies, They were extremely appreciated.

[More Fire for the People]

Yeah, Jesus sure was good communist with quotes and followers like these:
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" (1 Corinthians 14:34-35).

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (1 Timothy 2:11-14).

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their husbands in every thing" (Ephesians 5:22-24). "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God" (1 Corinthians 11:3). "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord" (Colossians 3:18).

"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array" (1 Timothy 2:9). "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering" (1 Corinthians 11:15).

[RedCommieBear]

Jesus and Feminism (http://www.everystudent.com/wires/women.html)

I knew bringing up religion was a bad idea, and I knew that I would be in the minority. And yes, some of the "followers" of Jesus have commited genocides on large scales. Facism heavily used Christianity in its propaganda.. However, I believe that the teachings of Jesus are a showcase of anti-capitalism and liberation.

I won't try to push my religion on you, but I will defend it.

[Issaiah1332]

From an unbiased view, I think that communism allows for religion. In fact most communist feel the same way. Although most are atheist.

I think that one would be able to sit down and read the the Bible or any other religious manuscript. Most feel that religious freaks always trying to cause religious wars are the type that will not be allowed in communism.

But I have always wondered how christians, muslims, ect. will be able to gather in communism for the main reason that this would create classes. Christians, muslisms, hinduist, buddhist, ect.

[Janus]

oh ya reading through some of the blogs and entries it sounds like some of you have communism mistakened with Anarchism.... very very different ideas and we should start a post based on the differences and people opinions of each ideology.
Anarchists seek to achieve communism.


I think that communism allows for religion
It allows for it but there is no need for it.


In fact most communist feel the same way.
Not really.


But I have always wondered how christians, muslims, ect. will be able to gather in communism for the main reason that this would create classes. Christians, muslisms, hinduist, buddhist, ect.
They would be separate religious groups with differing agendas. But like I said, communism would make religion obsolete.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Jesus and Feminism

I knew bringing up religion was a bad idea, and I knew that I would be in the minority. And yes, some of the "followers" of Jesus have commited genocides on large scales. Facism heavily used Christianity in its propaganda.. However, I believe that the teachings of Jesus are a showcase of anti-capitalism and liberation.

I won't try to push my religion on you, but I will defend it.

You know since Redstars gone the religion forum has been much less interesting.

Start a thread there defending your religion so we can debate you.

[violencia.Proletariat]

However, I believe that the teachings of Jesus are a showcase of anti-capitalism and liberation.

Capitalism didn't exist when Jesus reportedly live so that philosophy obviously wouldn't be related to capitalism.

However this reported man was not a communist and his teachings are not about liberation, but submission. Luke 19:27


I won't try to push my religion on you, but I will defend it.

You cannot succesfully defend reaction and mysticism.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

All jesus said was dealing with money, not direct capitalism.

Religious Priests find capitalism quite nice - a easy cover for them while they can make the most money they can get their hands on - if you look throughout history, the priests have always been the literal rulers over the Church -

for they are 'the only way you can reach god', 'the mouths of god', and other quasi-divine titles etc.

[YSR]

oh ya reading through some of the blogs and entries it sounds like some of you have communism mistakened with Anarchism.... very very different ideas and we should start a post based on the differences and people opinions of each ideology.

With all respect and whatnot: Janus is right. We anarchists call it anarchy, the communists call it communism. But it's the same thing.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

very true :)

[RedCommieBear]

I agree, being an anti-capitalist in a pre-capitalist society is impossible. However, I do believe Jesus, had he been born in a capitalist society, would've been against it. Isn't anti-capitalism just another way of saying "I hate rich people and love working class people"? It's just a conclusion I've some to...

Matthew Chapter 19

23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Mathew Chapter 19

21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.

What Would Jesus Do? (http://www.uvm.edu/~ashawley/evolve/wwjd.html)

This is not an agruement of win or lose. It's an arguement about philosophy. Neither of us will "win" this arguement. I will have my beliefs. You will have yours. No amount of intellectual discussion will change this..

Please don't consider me someone who should be in the "Opposing Ideologies" forum. We disagree on this issue. In fact, I will disagree quite often on this board. However, at the end of the day, I consider all of you comrades...

(Note: Edited for an error, put a quote where there shouldn't of been one)

[RebelDog]

Thirdly, in speaking of the state “withering away", and the even more graphic and colorful “dying down of itself", Engels refers quite clearly and definitely to the period after “the state has taken possession of the means of production in the name of the whole of society", that is, after the socialist revolution. We all know that the political form of the “state” at that time is the most complete democracy. But it never enters the head of any of the opportunists, who shamelessly distort Marxism, that Engels is consequently speaking here of democracy “dying down of itself", or “withering away". This seems very strange at first sight. But is is “incomprehensible” only to those who have not thought about democracy also being a state and, consequently, also disappearing when the state disappears. Revolution alone can “abolish” the bourgeois state. The state in general, i.e., the most complete democracy, can only “wither away".

I cannot see how the state is the most complete democracy. When I talk of democracy I mean in its classical sense, people-rule, not elections, decisions directly made by people deciding their communities futures and the future of this planet in the greatest possible sense without the iron rule of capitalism. Anything else to me is the vanguard. Tell me how we should decide what to produce?