On communism

[black magick hustla]

Is socialism really possible in a grand scale?

Since the development of the division of labor, inequality has been the landmark of civilization. Sure, it is true that people arent greedy perse, but in order for there to be civilization, there needs to be division of labor.

I have been thinking and thinking--is it possible to keep the division of labor and achieve communism at the same time? I mean, until now there hasnt been an egalitarian society in a grand scale.

Don't misinterpret me, I am still a communist. However, sometimes I doubt if it is possible, and such question has been bugging me lately. I would like you people to help me.

[LoneRed]

I pretty much think about it daily, I do think it's possible, I don't see any other choice. I think that we have these thoughts, because that's what we've been taught to think. I see how it's partly just an analytical attitude to all beliefs, but i see how that could've been put in our heads, especially our generation. I believe people to be better persons, i think capitalism is a mask on ones true identity. I think people will know things have to be done, and logically find ways to solve them. I also see huge advances in industry and services, so many routine jobs can be done by machines. That means more working class, finding other ways to help out, and i assume grateful as the job the machine is doing is most likely a droll, boring, mundane task. I'll get back on this issue, i got to do some more thinking.

[red_che]

I do believe communism can be achieved on a grand scale (world scale). But that communism cannot be achieved in one day. There is a revolutionary transition/phase to communism which Marx termed "First Phase of Communism" and Lenin called Socialism.

It is this phase that which every society will undergo while other societies are not yet socialist. Until such time that most countries, or at least in my belief, one-third of all the countries are socialist can communism be ultimately achieved. Engels explained in The Principles of Communism:


Originally posted by Frederick Engels+--> (Frederick Engels) 17
Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?

No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society.

In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.[/b]


Frederick Engels
19
Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.

Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.

It will develop in each of the these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.

It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.

[KC]

Of course there can be. Division of labour has been around since before class society and it will continue to be around after it.

[Leo]

Since the development of the division of labor, inequality has been the landmark of civilization. Sure, it is true that people arent greedy perse, but in order for there to be civilization, there needs to be division of labor.


I have been thinking and thinking--is it possible to keep the division of labor and achieve communism at the same time? I mean, until now there hasnt been an egalitarian society in a grand scale.

This is a quite brilliant thing to say. Primitivism is born out of, or we can say develop from the rejection of the division of labor. Yet, communism is, quite contrary to primitivism, further development and advancement of the division of labor. So not only is this possible, but necassary.

[Hannibal_Barca]

I think not only is it possible but probable , how ever not at the same time , meaning I think at some point every country will go throw a socialism phase expecially the highly developed capitalistic ones of today.
The gap between the working Lower to middle class and the Elite continues to widen despite the propoganda spins , at some point it will reach a breaking point. Socialism in practice is as old as dirt , as is capitalism , there inherantly at odds with each other. Life is cyclical.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 11:36 PM
I pretty much think about it daily, I do think it's possible, I don't see any other choice. I think that we have these thoughts, because that's what we've been taught to think. I see how it's partly just an analytical attitude to all beliefs, but i see how that could've been put in our heads, especially our generation. I believe people to be better persons, i think capitalism is a mask on ones true identity. I think people will know things have to be done, and logically find ways to solve them. I also see huge advances in industry and services, so many routine jobs can be done by machines. That means more working class, finding other ways to help out, and i assume grateful as the job the machine is doing is most likely a droll, boring, mundane task. I'll get back on this issue, i got to do some more thinking.
Oh, I am pretty sure most people are not "bad", "greedy", or whatever the fuck anyone without a grasp of history says.

Also, we all know how inefficient can capitalism be--alot of work hours get wasted in service sector shitjobs that outgrew from the bureacracy needed to mantain the means of production centralized in a few hands. We all know how the market destroys commodities for the sake of mantaining prices.


Of course there can be. Division of labour has been around since before class society and it will continue to be around after it.

Er.

If anything, the development of agriculture--which led to division of labor--where the origins of civilization and thus class society.

The division of labor that existed before class society was VERY rudimentary, and it was already developing into the state--and with it class society.


This is a quite brilliant thing to say. Primitivism is born out of, or we can say develop from the rejection of the division of labor. Yet, communism is, quite contrary to primitivism, further development and advancement of the division of labor. So not only is this possible, but necassary.

I know, and I prefer class society than primitivism. Primitivism would lead to mass death.

Until now, I think socialism is possible but only in very ADVANCED countries--where post-scarcity makes it possible to nullify the inherent antagonisms of division of labor.

[KC]

If anything, the development of agriculture--which led to division of labor--where the origins of civilization and thus class society.


The division of labour was around before the development of agriculture.

[Leo]

The division of labour was around before the development of agriculture.

The most important division of labour before the development of agriculture was based on gender.

[KC]

The most important division of labour before the development of agriculture was based on gender.

That and later division of labour within the tribe.

[chimx]

but can we compare those types of pre-historical labor divisions? labor division, in a marxist sense, means to imply the alienation from the laborer from his or her product. are the labor divisions based on gender you are speaking of alienated labor, or byproducts of natures natural gender divisions? i think it is important that this distinction be acknowledged.