Government under Communism

[DaRk-OnE]

Would there be any form of Government under true Communism ?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Not under true Communism, no. Under true Communism there would be no classes and no class antagonisms, and therefore there would be no need for a state to regulate the excesses of the upper classes, and the anger of the lower classes.

However, many on this board (including myself) believe that in order to achieve true Communism (and that's what we all want), we must first establish a Socialist government that will, through nationalization of industry and redistribution of wealth according to the Communist principles of equality and common ownership, eliminate the class antagonisms which exist today. Only then can society progress into true Communism, with no state.

[Enragé]

I always find it awfully abstract, when people explain how the perpetuation of a state can lead to it withering away.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 09:37 PM
I always find it awfully abstract, when people explain how the perpetuation of a state can lead to it withering away.
The state is perpetuated in such a form that it ultimately negates its own purpose. Once the grounds for its existence are abolished (by its own hand), its withering away is inevitable. Nothing abstract about it, really.

[apathy maybe]

See also http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=56643 on "anarchist government".

Communism is meant to be a society that does not include classes or hierarchical institutions. In other words an anarchism. It includes the feature of communal "ownership" of property.

As a type of anarchism, government in the sense of hierarchical oppressive social structure would not exist.


People who call themselves anarchists (such as my self), generally oppose the idea put forward by RedStar1916 as we think that such as state will not "whither away". We think that states and governments are as unnecessary and "evil" as capitalism.


“”’’

[grove street]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 2 2006, 04:04 AM
See also http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=56643 on "anarchist government".

Communism is meant to be a society that does not include classes or hierarchical institutions. In other words an anarchism. It includes the feature of communal "ownership" of property.

As a type of anarchism, government in the sense of hierarchical oppressive social structure would not exist.


People who call themselves anarchists (such as my self), generally oppose the idea put forward by RedStar1916 as we think that such as state will not "whither away". We think that states and governments are as unnecessary and "evil" as capitalism.


“”’’
You just can't abolish the state at a click of a finger and hope everything will fall into place, there needs to be some kind of transition phase between state and stateless, but the problem is most attempts at Communism have all ended up as a socialist state ruled by a burecratic elite who are in no hurry to hand power over to the workers.

I believe that before true communism can be acheived there needs to be some kind of phantom government, who's whole purpose is to organize the people and slowly bit by bit step back into the darkness and hand power over to the people, until all power is in the peoples hands and the phantom government dissapears.

Heres an example the phantom government oragnises arears of a country into communes/soviets. Once the soviets are set up and functually running the government hands all power to the soviets. Government sets up a coal mine union, once it's up and running the govt steps back and lets the workers run it ect.

There needs to be somekind of movement/government to organise the people, but this governments sole purpose should only be to organise the people, once it has done that then it needs to give up the little power that it has.

[LoneRed]

since when is communism a "type" of anarchism?

[rebelworker]

The problem with the theory that communism can be set up by a small minority and then left for the workers to pick it up is that people dont work that way.

Ive often heard that the anarchist vision of transformation to communism is impossible because of human nature. I would argue the oposite, people will not jump onto communism someone else has built, they have to build it themselves.

The kind of eleitism that is the basis for grovestreets post is alot of what I have a problem with in leninism in general.

The state will clearly not wither away, people who run the state will see it in their interest to defend their power. The people will never "be ready" in their opinion because there will enevitable be conflict between their individual vision of what society should look like and what the mass of the population will come up with togeather.

Obviously anarchist and other "anti state" communists beleie in some form of governance, but most of us dont use the language "state" because we are trying to differentiate ourselves between our very different version of revolutionary transformation of society and the vision of stateist reformism that I would characterize as bolshevism.

If your interested dark-one we are starting a new anarchist study group in the "study groups" section of "learning"" on this page. We will be discussing differnt theories of revolution and probably an anakysis of the russian revolution from an "anti stateist" position.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Ive often heard that the anarchist vision of transformation to communism is impossible because of human nature. I would argue the oposite, people will not jump onto communism someone else has built, they have to build it themselves.
People's opinions and views, and by extension their aspirations are shaped mainly by their surroundings, and by society. The state is the sole institution with sufficient power to alter social conditions to any great extent (or at least they will be after the revolution, i.e. when the bourgeoisie are removed from power).



The state will clearly not wither away, people who run the state will see it in their interest to defend their power. The people will never "be ready" in their opinion because there will enevitable be conflict between their individual vision of what society should look like and what the mass of the population will come up with togeather.
I agree that in a dictatorship (that is an actual dictatorship, where a small group of people have all the power no matter what) it is highly possible that the possession of absolute power could alter the mindset of one or more dictators such that holding onto their power takes priority over the progression of society into true Communism. However, I personally believe that any Socialist state should be a democratic one.



Obviously anarchist and other "anti state" communists beleie in some form of governance, but most of us dont use the language "state" because we are trying to differentiate ourselves between our very different version of revolutionary transformation of society and the vision of stateist reformism that I would characterize as bolshevism.
As I have stated above, not all Socialists believe in the formation of a government identical to that which was formed by the Bolsheviks.

[rebelworker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 06:07 PM

People's opinions and views, and by extension their aspirations are shaped mainly by their surroundings, and by society. The state is the sole institution with sufficient power to alter social conditions to any great extent (or at least they will be after the revolution, i.e. when the bourgeoisie are removed from power).


I agree that in a dictatorship (that is an actual dictatorship, where a small group of people have all the power no matter what) it is highly possible that the possession of absolute power could alter the mindset of one or more dictators such that holding onto their power takes priority over the progression of society into true Communism. However, I personally believe that any Socialist state should be a democratic one.


As I have stated above, not all Socialists believe in the formation of a government identical to that which was formed by the Bolsheviks.
To the first part I would say that this is again a very manipulative and eleitist view of social transformation and regular working people will resist this "alteration", as I think they should.

The new order must represent the will of the active revolutionaries, not the manipulation of the "vanguard" party.

To the second part I think there should be no real "state" but a federation of progressive councils.

Even trade unions are hinderd by a burocratic culture.

For the third part I agree with you, and Im one of them.
I dont work with many anarhcists whodont see themselves as apart of the communist or socialist ttadition, and I work with many communists and socialist who do not self identify with anarchism.

[Enragé]

edit; nvm

[Janus]

Would there be any form of Government under true Communism ?
There would be an abstract form of government in its original and most basic definition. That is there is a still a body who govern but that body are the people themselves.