What is Communism? - A Brief Definition

[redstar2000]

I wrote this while the Che-Lives board was down...and because the question is constantly raised by people new to the board and to the left. I hope it will be useful.

=====================

Communism is a hypothetical social order in which there are no classes and consequently no state as an organ of class rule.

It is postulated that such a society will have little in the way of public authorities or "government" and that whatever is found to be useful will be "ultra-democratic" and rely heavily on internet referendums (direct democracy). These public authorities will almost exclusively be concerned with the large-scale co-ordination of production and distribution of goods and services, and most of their "decisions" are likely to be suggestive rather than compulsive.

There will be no formal "nation states" in a communist world, though many of the names may persist as geographic designations.

There will be no production of "commodities" -- goods and services produced for sale -- instead goods and services will be produced for use -- either by the producers themselves or freely given to those who will make good use of them.

There will be no "currency" as such; no money...though old currency units may be used for record-keeping purposes, they will have no independent utility.

Individual compensation will vary little, and that according to "need"...the ability to actually use what is appropriated from the public total.

People will have the freedom to gravitate to the "work" that they find most intrinsically rewarding for its own sake. But there will be considerable informal pressure to "work" at something useful. The stereotypical "lazy bum" will be an object of scorn and/or pity. Work that is so "bad" that no one wishes to do it will either be automated, shared out in some collective fashion so that no one has to do very much of it, or simply dispensed with altogether.

The social life of a communist society will be extraordinally libertarian; very few of the taboos and and even fewer of the regulations that presently exist will still survive. Religion, if it survives at all, will be in the nature of a hobby, without the power to influence people's lives in any significant way.

Prestige in a communist society will come from competence and reliability...the highest respect will go to those who've demonstrated their ability to perform especially useful work that many will want to emulate.

The most utterly detested crime in communist society will be the attempt to "hire" wage-labor for the purpose of producing a "commodity". This will be regarded in the same way that we currently regard human sacrifice or chattel slavery...as an unspeakable horror and an attempt to "bring back" an old and disgustingly inhumane social order, namely capitalism.

Thus, the hypothetical features of a communist society, as extrapolated from the ideas of Marx and Engels.

Since such a social order has never existed for any significant period of time, we presently have no way of "knowing" if it will actually "work". More importantly, it is really unknown what kinds of things must be done and must be avoided to successfully manage the transition from capitalism to communism...although there are many theories about this. It seems likely that there will be several centuries of "trial and error" before the human species manages this transition successfully.

:cool:

[Ian]

Great post Redstar.

Assuming that you made this thread to stop the weekly thread with the exact same title (at least it seems that often one pops up) I think it serves its purpose well, it is 'Marxism without the crap' and is a good introduction.

Maybe a good sticky?

[The Feral Underclass]

Marxism is a philosophy of existance isn't it?

It shows us why we act and behave the way we do. It shows us how our consciousness works in realtion to our material world and what we do within it.

It also shows how our society is evolving and that [b]Communism is what society will evolve into.

Is this right?

[redstar2000]

It also shows how our society is evolving and that Communism is what society will evolve into.

Is this right?

Yes, that's a reasonable way to summarize the matter, with the understanding that "evolve" is a very long term way to look at what in the short run might be a whole series of revolutions.

The "evolution" from feudalism to capitalism took centuries and involved a whole series of revolutions and counter-revolutions as well as periods of slow change.

Also be cautious with the phrase "will evolve". To someone who has studied the matter a bit, to say that there "will" someday be communism on a global scale seems like a simple and obvious conclusion from what has happened in history thus far; but to people unfamiliar with the evidence, such a statement has all the "appeal" of the bland assertion that "Jesus will return."

Technically speaking, we really can't say there "will" be a global communist society until there actually is one...and the Marxist hypothesis is confirmed by direct and overwhelming evidence.

But if you ask me, it looks like a very good bet.

:cool:

[The Feral Underclass]

Could you tell me REDSTAR what in your oppinion is right and wrong about this piece of writing?

Why I am Not A Stalinist

The Stalinists have argued quite angrily against the notion that Stalin was a tyrant, who oppressed the workers of Russia and who betrayed the Revolution. In fact some of them have gone as far as to call Stalin a great communist leader.

To my understanding Marx talked about two phases of Communism. The lower face called Socialism, and the higher face known as Communism.

Once the revolution had happened, the lower phase of Communism, or Socialism would come into effect. The transition of Capitalism into Communism would begin. The dictatorship of the proletariat "...ie the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class.." would safguard the interests of the working class as a whole and bring about "Democracy for the vast majority of the people, and suppression by force ie, exclusion from democracy, of the exploiters and oppressors of the people." Lenin goes onto say "...this is the change Democracy undergoes during the transition from capitalism to communism"

In the 'Critique of the Gotha Programme' Marx talks about the higher face of Communism, which he describes as "...after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

The true definition of Communism, laid out by Marx means the withering away of the State. The state will become irrelevant. In 'State and Revolution' Lenin goes into detail to explain Marx's famous quote. According to Lenin True communism will be reached when "...people have become accustomed to observing the fundamental rules of social intercourse and when their labor has become so productive that they will voluntarily work according to their ability. "The narrow horizon of bourgeois law", which compels one to calculate with the heartlessness of a shylock whether one has not worked half an hour more than anybody else - this narrow horizon will then be left behind. There will be no need for society, in distributing the products, to regulate the quantity to be received by each; each will take freely "according to his need."

To me this means the ultimate in consciousness. After the masses gain the revolutionary spirit they will take power from the capitalists and fight for this higher stage of existance. Where human beings can operate in the kind of way Marx and Lenin where talking about.

Therefore, when people say that the real definition of Communism, is "A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people." completely contradicts what Marx the father of modern day communism spoke off. What this describes is a strong version of the lower phase of Communism, called Socialism by most people.

Now, how do you define the word tyrant? I will take the definition from www.dictionary.com:

ty·rant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trnt)

1. An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions.
2. A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner.
3. An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person.

The word Oppression is defined as such:

op·pres·sion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-prshn)

a. The act of oppressing; arbitrary and cruel exercise of power.
b. The state of being oppressed.

---------------------------------------

It is clear to see the beginning of Stalins steps towards power. Lenin clearly outlines his concerns in a letter to Trotsky "Comrade Stalin, having become General Secretary, has concentrated enormous power in his hands: and I am not sure that he always knows how to use that power with sufficient caution. I therefore propose to our comrades to consider a means of removing Stalin from this post and appointing someone else who differs from Stalin in one weighty respect: being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite, more considerate of his comrades."

Stalin had gained the support of Lev Kamenev and Gregory Zinoviev who argued against the publication of Lenins last will and testemant calling trotsky as the leader of the SU. Zinoviev and Kamenev continued to support Stalin. When Trotsky called for more democracy within the Party they accused him of creating divisions.

In 1925 Stalin managed to have Trotsky removed from the Central Committee and then relinquished his support for Zinoviev and Kamenev who where later executed for apparently being apart of conspiracy with Trotsky against the Soviet government. This had come about after the assassination of Sergy Kirov, who was in staunch opposition to Stalin in the Politburo over plans to allow some workers to recieve a higher wage.

Stalin then quickly established himself further as the leader of the Soviet Union. In 1936 he appointed Nikolai Yezhov as head of the secret police, who then arrested and executed people who where critical of Stalin. Those people included Nickolai Bukharin, Alexei Rykov, Genrikh Yagoda, Nikolai Krestinsky and Christian Rakovsky. All found guilty of conspiring with Trotsky and shot.

"The dreadful famine that engulfed Ukraine, the northern Caucasus, and the lower Volga River area in 1932-1933 was the result of Joseph Stalin's policy of forced collectivization. The heaviest losses occurred in Ukraine, which had been the most productive agricultural area of the Soviet Union. Stalin was determined to crush all vestiges of Ukrainian nationalism. Thus, the famine was accompanied by a devastating purge of the Ukrainian intelligentsia and the Ukrainian Communist party itself. The famine broke the peasants' will to resist collectivization and left Ukraine politically, socially, and psychologically traumatized."

Between 1929 to 1933, Stalin attempted to force the Ukranian peasants into forced collectivzation. There is hard evidence in the form of documents that shows how "...in 1932 Stalin raised Ukraine's grain procurement quotas by forty-four percent. This meant that there would not be enough grain to feed the peasants, since Soviet law required that no grain from a collective farm could be given to the members of the farm until the government's quota was met. Stalin's decision and the methods used to implement it condemned millions of peasants to death by starvation."

A decree from the Soviet government:

http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit...gif/k3grain.gif (http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/images.gif/k3grain.gif) for the russian version or

http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit...it/k2grain.html (http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/k2grain.html) for the english version.

The peasents attempted to fight the forced collectivsation. In response to their abstinence "Stalin...dispatched 25,000 fanatical young party militants from Moscow - earlier versions of Mao's Red Guards - to force 10 million Ukrainian peasants into collective farms. Secret police units of OGPU began selective executions of recalcitrant farmers. When Stalin's red guards failed to make a dent in this immense number, OGPU was ordered to begin mass executions." This was apart of a book written by a Ukranian woman who's family where forced onto these farms.

In Martin Amis Book 'Koba the Dread' he outlines the atrocities commited by Stalin. How families where removed from their houses and sent to concentration camps where many of them died, either of hunger or of the cold.

To highlight further Stalin's oppression of workers in his country "Every factory had large display boards erected that showed the output of workers. Those that failed to reach the required targets were publicity criticized and humiliated. Some workers could not cope with this pressure and absenteeism increased. This led to even more repressive measures being introduced. Records were kept of workers lateness, absenteeism and bad workmanship. If the worker's record was poor, he was accused of trying to sabotage the Five Year Plan and if found guilty could be shot or sent to work as forced labour on the Baltic Sea Canal or the Siberian Railway."

Stalin went even further when "With the modernization of industry, Stalin argued that it was necessary to pay higher wages to certain workers in order to encourage increased output. His left-wing opponents claimed that this inequality was a betrayal of socialism and would create a new class system in the Soviet Union. Stalin had his way and during the 1930s, the gap between the wages of the laborers and the skilled workers increased."

In the Communist Manifesto it states in connection to the attitude of a communist "In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole."

I doubt very much that anyone can argue that execution and concentration camps, forced collectivization and the creation of a pseudo class system was, and is in the interests of the proletariat.

So. I think you can easily apply Stalin with all the definitions of a tyrant, and you can connect his actions with the definition of oppression. In fact Stalin cared nothing for the masses of people he murdered in the name of Communism. Did he not say "the death of one person is a tragedy, the death of a million a statistic."

Therefore, according to the dictionary definition and the popular belief, Stalin infact was a tyrant who did oppress the workers of Russia using force. It also proves that Stalinism is not true Communism. But merely a deformed extension of Socialism. And it is up to real Communists, those wanting to fight for consciousness and for the interests of the working class to argue, nay fight with fists, those people who wish to idolize and give virtue to the very ideas which have pushed the workers of the world into a deep hatred, of the very belief which calls for their emancipation.

[redstar2000]

Could you tell me REDSTAR what in your oppinion is right and wrong about this piece of writing?

No.

First of all, it lies outside the subject matter of the thread. There is a thread in the History Forum called "The Crimes of Stalin" which goes into that stuff in exhaustive detail, for those who are interested.

Secondly, as I've said in many posts, I think the Leninist variant of Marxism was a mistake and should be discarded as no longer useful to 21st century communists.

And thirdly, my own opinion of the "crimes of Stalin" is that most of them were the inevitable by-product of material conditions in Russia; Trotsky or anyone else would have done the same things, more or less.

Finally, as I have again said in many posts, to dwell endlessly on these stone-age disputes is foolish and counter-productive for communists in advanced capitalist countries. Our lives as modern wage-slaves in late capitalism have no resemblence to the conditions of workers in Russia c.1917 or China c.1949. Focusing disproportionate attention on those matters is the equivalent of speaking to contemporary workers in Latin.

We know what communism is--at least in the kind of broad outline I've suggested. We know that we neither need nor want any Lenins or Stalins or Trotskys or Maos around to fuck things up, intentionally or unintentially.

We should be looking to the future...and let the dead bury their dead.

:cool:

[The Feral Underclass]

Secondly, as I've said in many posts, I think the Leninist variant of Marxism was a mistake and should be discarded as no longer useful to 21st century communists.

This I can not answer with sufficient knowledge right now. But I do not think you can say that he is usless nin the 21st Century. What he talked about I believe is still obtainable and I think it is important to keep focused on what it was Lenin was trying to achieve. I also think that Lenin is important to show mistakes that where made, which enables us to move forward. To simply say that he has no relevance is like denying that revolution happened.

And thirdly, my own opinion of the "crimes of Stalin" is that most of them were the inevitable by-product of material conditions in Russia; Trotsky or anyone else would have done the same things, more or less.

Again, I am not sure whether this is right. I suppose we will never no.

Finally, as I have again said in many posts, to dwell endlessly on these stone-age disputes is foolish and counter-productive for communists in advanced capitalist countries.

I disagree with whole-heatedly. I think it is extremly important to make sure that we clearly define ourselves from what Stalinism is. To often I am coming against people who identify communism with Stalin, and it takes alot of persuading to try and convince them that Communism is not about what happened in Russia. So to disregard this and call it counter productive is quite dangerous. We must know exactly where we stand, and indeed Why we are not Stalinists, in order move the movement on.

Stalin has done our cause great damage and we must fight it, not only within the movement, but also fight the common misconceptions of the average person.

Our lives as modern wage-slaves in late capitalism have no resemblence to the conditions of workers in Russia c.1917 or China c.1949

Again I disagree. Although the enviroment and material conditions are not the exactly the same, we still live in the same oppression, we still are fighting the same fight. Capitialism still exists and the same problems keep on happening.

[redstar2000]

LC, if you actually do run into a lot of people who want to talk about Stalin...I suppose then that you have to talk about Stalin.

On those rare occasions when it happens to me, I patiently explain that Russia was a primitive and in some areas barbaric country in 1917...and such countries tend very strongly to produce barbaric rulers, regardless of what color flags they wrap themselves in.

That was then, this is now. Stalin has no relevance to the 21st century; he's dead and will be remembered, if at all, as a harsh Russian nationalist who defeated the Nazis, kind of a "second edition" of Peter "the Great".

The shadow of Lenin is much longer...and gloomier. Most of the people who consider themselves "left" revolutionaries of one sort or another still think the idea of a "vanguard party" is "the way to go", inspite of massive evidence to the contrary.

I find myself arguing with those people all the time.

Getting out from under the shadow of Lenin once and for all is an absolute necessity if we are to make progress.

And it is very tough going, indeed.

:cool:

[The Feral Underclass]

Are you trying to tell me, in your daily activity of trying to spread the word of Communism, you never get anyone saying "Oh, it's a nice Idea but look what Stalin did?" because if you don't then maybe you should stop speaking with all your academic friends and get out on the streets :)

I do actually run into alot of people who try and dispell communism with this silly argument that Stalin some how symbolizes communism and if your a Communist your automatically a Stalinist.

Granted, he is dead, and as an ideologist I doubt very much that he is relivent in the 21st century, but that dosnt mean he is not significant in the eyes of the workers around the world when it comes to communism. In fact children learn in school that Stalin was a communist, and if you look in school books and indeed dictionaries they all apply Stalin to their definitions of communism.

Don't you agree that in order to progress consciousness of the proletariat you first need to argue against these kind of common misconception? Because if you agree, as I do, that the vangaurd thing isn't the way forward, the only other option I can see is mass education of the workers. And for those who don't have an understanding of history, Stalin is going to be the first thing you come up against, I am sure about it.

Of course, Stalin will be "remembered as a harsh Russian nationalist who defeated the Nazis" but that wont be until after we have clearly defined our differences as communists.

wot d'ya think?

[redstar2000]

...then maybe you should stop speaking with all your academic friends and get out on the streets.

Would you believe that I don't know a single person in academia? It's true.

...but that doesn't mean he is not significant in the eyes of the workers around the world when it comes to communism. In fact children learn in school that Stalin was a communist, and if you look in school books and indeed dictionaries they all apply Stalin to their definitions of communism.

Well, sure. The stink lingers a while after the corpse has been buried. But do we help matters any with lengthy and arcane excursions into the details of the Stalin era? Does it do us any good to repeat endlessly and in tedious detail "Stalin Bad! Us Good!"

Granted that you do run into someone now and then who is really interested in the details and there are many sources on the net where they can be found, I just can't believe most people have time for that old crap.

Even in America, where anti-communist propaganda is more ubiquitous than anywhere else on earth (except possibly Vatican City), I can't recall being queried about Stalin by an ordinary person even once. (That doesn't mean it didn't happen...just that it was so rare that I can't remember a specific occasion.)

The people who generally want to talk about Stalin are right-wingers and left-wingers (especially Trotskyists, of course)...or so it has been my experience.

Speaking personally, my advice is never argue with right-wingers about anything unless you outnumber them three to one or better...they're not interested in argument, they're looking to start a brawl.

With other lefties, it depends on where they're coming from; I know enough to poke gaping holes in all of the "official" versions, but I usually end up asking them why they are interested in this at all...and then try to give as balanced and fair analysis as I can.

If an ordinary person without a left background asked me about Stalin today, I think I would answer "What an odd question. Are you interested in Russian history?"

:cool:

[apathy maybe]

No matter that people don't talk to you about Stalin and Communism, in many peoples minds the two are linked. People are taught in History classes that the USSR was communist. There is a very big bias against the type of Socialism that was practiced in the USSR and the fact that they called themselves communist means that people link what happened with what it is called. It is like trying to wear a swashtike (sp?). An antient symbol for luck and yet the NAZIs are now so linked with it that to wear one is to say that you support those ideas.

[kelvin]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 8:42 am on June 21, 2003
I wrote this while the Che-Lives board was down...and because the question is constantly raised by people new to the board and to the left. I hope it will be useful.

=====================

Communism is a hypothetical social order in which there are no classes and consequently no state as an organ of class rule.

:cool:


Mammals have universal patterns of behavior. Social dominance and hierarchal social structure is universal among mammals. Whales do it, hamsters do it, simians do it, homo sapiens do it, and Australopithecus anamensis did it. Every human ancestor for 10 million years did it. As long as we are mammals there will be classes, hierarchal society, and social pecking order.

Several centuries? It is a safe bet to say the homo sapiens will not establish a true classless society. Maybe the species that replaces homo sapiens in the next 100, 000 years will.

(Edited by kelvin at 2:43 pm on June 27, 2003)

[redstar2000]

Social dominance and hierarchal social structure is universal among mammals...As long as we are mammals there will be classes, hierarchal society, and social pecking order.

Obviously, kelvin, you have never lived with a cat.

Actually, our closest relatives, the bonobo chimps, have no discernable "pecking order" or "hierarchy"...at least no field studies have ever demonstrated such a thing.

Anything said about the social patters of Australopithecus anamensis must be totally speculative, of course.

It is a safe bet to say the homo sapiens will not establish a true classless society.

Since it is rather unlikely that you or I will live to see the outcome, the "safety" of your bet resides solely in the fact that you won't be around to have to pay off your loss.

And even if you were, since there'd be no money, you wouldn't have to pay up anyway.

But people would point at you and laugh.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 5:05 pm on June 27, 2003)

[Purple]

This thread should really be made sticky.........

[Vinny Rafarino]

PROPOGANDA

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Propaganda from who?