How does a communist state run?

[blazeofglory]

I am posting to LEARN and I hope no one here takes my ignorance as a cause to insult me! and, I AM a leftist from Nepal.

When I try to picture an ideal communist state, it of course is Utopia. But the thing is, if a country went to cent percent communism like the Soviet Union and the China of the past, how would the situation be?

Let us take the life of a child for example:

A child is born.
He belongs to the state, and not to the parents - legally.
he starts growing up. Its the state who fund his education. Now, once the child's of age, you and I assume that he needs to choose the career. No, the headache is borne by the government. It decides what he needs to study on the basis that what the nation needs at this point of time.
And, for the child (who's 18 now), he cant choose what he wants to study, and of course since there is AN EQUAL DIGNITY OF ALL SORTS OF LABOR, a road digger would earn the same as an engineer who is engineering the road. and so its the same for a child as well, why does he need to study hard to become an engineer?And there is no absolute value of money, there's something called *Tickets*. Once a person does some work he gets a number of tickets which is like a pass for a train or a bus or for him to purchase a square meal.

And suppose there's a farmer. suppose he owns a land. He works day and night and during heavy rains so that he can get maximum production.

in case of a communist state: the land doesnt belong to the farmer. i mean it does, but it belongs only partly to him bcoz in communism there is no OWNERSHIP

and it doesnt really matter to him whether or not to produce a high quantity. He becomes lazy and doesnt work as hard as he used to!!! coz however much he works its the same he earns.

And, where's the choice? A person gets no choice to do anything. Isn;t this against human nature? For example, everyone in communist china had to wear blue jeans coz they produced that ! there was definitely no choice!

I hate Darwinism - which says SURVIVAL of the fittest

but again, thats the way of life. And communism challenges this. I applaud that fact!

BUT HOW CAN A PERSON WHO WANTS TO BE AN ARTIST FARE WELL IF HE HAS BEEN ASKED TO BECOME A BUS DRIVER?



Whatever I asked is my personal question ? I HAVE NO EVIDENCE that such things actually happen but this my assumption

I want to be proved wrong and want to extend my socialist view to communistic but please give me PRACTICAL and REALISTIC answers to my question..

[lombas]

What you are describing is what Ayn Rand largely countered in her Anthem. I think the critique should not be taken lightheartedly, and that the consequences in our answer need to be based on reality and the direct needs of the people.

First of all, a child does not "belong" to the state. The state is an entity, not a emotional human being. Nothing "belongs" to the state as it is not a person. Everything, on the other hand, belongs to the people. So children are not "owned" by any one. However, as they are young, unexperienced and need (see first paragraph: direct needs) guidance, there are guardians for him: his natural parents or those who qualify to bear the responsibility.

Secondly, no one "chooses" a profession for someone other than the person himself. Otherwise you get one lousy Prozac nation never seen in the course of history. Like you say, what if an artist is required to be a bus-driver? Some artists in the present ARE bus-drivers, but is does create a fascinating problem.

Just my two cents.

:)

[Raúl Duke]

communist state
Correction: Socialist State.

Communism is stateless and moneyless.


A child is born.
He belongs to the state, and not to the parents - legally.

A child belongs to neither...he is not property. He will have guardians, for sure, and they will at first be her parents. However, if the parents start abuse the child (or depending on the situation, the state/government/commune) the choices will be: a kibbutzim-style child rearing methods, a foster family, another relative, or to live alone. Actually, these choices will be presented to the kid at all times and he could change home anytime (although he has to be deemed "old enough" to make the choice, one choice is more for young adults: deciding to live alone.).


Its the state who fund his education. Now, once the child's of age, you and I assume that he needs to choose the career. No, the headache is borne by the government. It decides what he needs to study on the basis that what the nation needs at this point of time.
And, for the child (who's 18 now), he cant choose what he wants to study, and of course since there is AN EQUAL DIGNITY OF ALL SORTS OF LABOR, a road digger would earn the same as an engineer who is engineering the road. and so its the same for a child as well, why does he need to study hard to become an engineer?And there is no absolute value of money, there's something called *Tickets*. Once a person does some work he gets a number of tickets which is like a pass for a train or a bus or for him to purchase a square meal.

And suppose there's a farmer. suppose he owns a land. He works day and night and during heavy rains so that he can get maximum production.

in case of a communist state: the land doesnt belong to the farmer. i mean it does, but it belongs only partly to him bcoz in communism there is no OWNERSHIP

and it doesnt really matter to him whether or not to produce a high quantity. He becomes lazy and doesnt work as hard as he used to!!! coz however much he works its the same he earns.

Why can't he not choose a career himself? It doesn't matter if his career isn't highly productive: you could attempt to create "volunteer organizations" which uses volunteers to work on important tasks.

Or you can "merge jobs" (merging certain "mental jobs" with their "physical job" counterpart); construction worker and civil engineers become into one job, thus the civil engineer not only make construction plans alongside other engineers but also builds the project alongside these engineers.

Tickets are like money...but are to be expected in a socialist state.

About the lazy farmer...since there are tickets they act somewhat the same as money when it comes to incentives: more tickets mean more goodies. The farmer would work for more tickets. Unless they pay him the same no matter what...he would continue to work at a specific rate, but work he would since without these tickets he would starve!

Kinda like wage slavery ain't it?

In communism, where there is no money this becomes a sort of problem, since he might actually do nothing yet still have access to common goods. Many things can be done to solve this problem. He might be "socially compelled" to work, maybe in the new society "lazy people" would be frown upon. The commune might decide to limit his access to goods or only allow those necessary to live (i.e. no "luxury goods'). Maybe this wouldn't happen to most people: People usually look forward to do some kind of productive activity. As long as there is no body telling you to work, in a specific way and time, you might actually see work in a different light.

There might be better ideas about this: so I leave it to the other comrades to answer completely that question.


BUT HOW CAN A PERSON WHO WANTS TO BE AN ARTIST FARE WELL IF HE HAS BEEN ASKED TO BECOME A BUS DRIVER?

We don't force him to be a bus driver.

Actually, some people might take one job (of their choice) and still be an artists. You can just make art in your spare time.

Others might solely work as artists, but they could also be volunteers in many important community projects.

Again, there might be better ideas about this: so I leave it to the other comrades to answer completely that question.

[Dr Mindbender]

Under communism the state belongs to the people, not vice versa.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Hello, blaze.


He belongs to the state, and not to the parents - legally.


People don't belong to anyone. To say someone belongs to the state is to propose fascism, which is what Leftists fight against. Only the means of production are collectively owned.



Now, once the child's of age, you and I assume that he needs to choose the career. No, the headache is borne by the government. It decides what he needs to study on the basis that what the nation needs at this point of time.

Person X could still pick the career of his choice. The communities would decide what commerce they want, but no one is going to be "forced" to work.



AN EQUAL DIGNITY OF ALL SORTS OF LABOR

Equal salary/wage isn't inherently socialist. I certainly don't believe a doctor should be making the same as a janitor. However, since we're talking about communism, the labor market would either be destroyed or reduced to the point that only work that people want to do remains [art, movie making, animal care].


and it doesnt really matter to him whether or not to produce a high quantity. He becomes lazy and doesnt work as hard as he used to!!! coz however much he works its the same he earns.

If the farmer doesn't work hard, the community and/or other workers will intervene and tell him to work harder or leave for another job. It's their wages/food supply at stake.


And, where's the choice? A person gets no choice to do anything. Isn;t this against human nature? For example, everyone in communist china had to wear blue jeans coz they produced that ! there was definitely no choice!

I know "Maoists" will attack me here, but China was never on the path to communism. Of course everyone has a choice. That's why Leftists propose abolishing the state. Few of us, if any, want to eliminate one's choice of [mp3 players, jeans, computers]. Despite popular misconceptions, communism is not about making everyone clones. It's about abolishing classes, the state, money, and eventually unwanted labor.

With socialism you could still go to the local clothing store and pick out the clothes of your choice. We as Leftists believe both the STATE and PRIVATE BUSINESS are inferior to the people. Direct democracy allows the community to pick what industry it wants to invest in. The workers get to collectively decide on their own wages and how their work place is run.

Private property is an oxymoron when applying it to commerce because the rule of thumb is, "I can do what I want with my property so long as it doesn't affect person Y or his property." Commerce affects us all, so it can't be privately owned.

[blazeofglory]

To lombas

now when you say that everything does not belong to the state, but it belongs to the people,
the statement in itself is contradictory. Everything belongs to the people or "COMMUNE". So, even if we call it "people" it has the same essence, there is a combined ownership. The farmer who would love his property and try to work hard to produce more would no longer think the same because the land he works in would belong to a large mass of people. So, why is it necessary for him to work hard in rains and storms, he would rather snooze about.

Now, if you are right and if, as you say, there is a choice for profession, then this contradicts another assumption. In a purely communist government, the powerful bureaucrats decide where the makority of the manpower should go.

And, I agree to you, some artists in the present ARE bus-drivers, but that doesn't solve the problem, does it?


To JohnnyDarko

Thank you so much, I will be careful next time with state n communism ;)
yeah its moneyless, I made a little remark above.

ok, I agree to you that the child belongs to no one but himself, thats your point right?

ok I get clearer with the thing about VOLUNTEER ORGANISATIONS!!! I always take your example of construction worker and civil engineer BUT WOULD ANY CIVIL ENGINEER VOLUNTEER TO WORK AS A CONSTRUCTION WORKER GIVEN HIS YEARS OF STUDY!!!

well, you are right about the tickets for the farmer, I KINDA GO ALONG WITH YOU, I GET IT!

Now about the artist. I believe that in a communist country, professions without physical productivity like artists are not ALLOWED!! Maybe I am wrong, but thats what I guess.



To Ulster Socialist

Again, I repeat, the statement in itself is contradictory. look at what i wrote to lombas


To GeneCosta

Hi

ok, I get a clearer concept on this. (How do u define fascism? Dont ask me to look it up in other sites, just give me a view in a nutshell coz I would learn a lot that way),

SO, I will always remember that its only the means of production thats collectively owned. It answers MANY MANY of my queries.

As you say "Person X could still pick the career of his choice. The communities would decide

what commerce they want, but no one is going to be "forced" to work."
IF THIS IS TRUE, ITS A REALLY GREAT ACHIEVEMENT (for me as a learner of Marxism who is day by day inclining himself to Marxism) but again, the bureaucrats decide what way their economy is heading and in what does the larger mass of the population work in.

I still am not satisfied. I mean, what happened in communist USSR and China?


your view on equality of labor seems right to some extent but seriously comrade, i didnt understand fully.

ok, i am clearer about the lazy farmer.

Ok, so your realistic approach about china is applaudable... thank you

"With socialism you could still go to the local clothing store and pick out the clothes of your choice. We as Leftists believe both the STATE and PRIVATE BUSINESS are inferior to the people. Direct democracy allows the community to pick what industry it wants to invest in. The workers get to collectively decide on their own wages and how their work place is run.

Private property is an oxymoron when applying it to commerce because the rule of thumb is, "I can do what I want with my property so long as it doesn't affect person Y or his property." Commerce affects us all, so it can't be privately owned."

I liked this thing coz it is REALISTIC


comrades, do help me out.... more
coz i learnt a lot from the above posts and i wanna learn more!!!

Long live the revolution

[AGITprop]

the sweet smell of understanding.
now only if every bourgeois douche-bag out there understood and didnt give u a dirty look every time u said the word communism.

[blazeofglory]

Ender,

I really dont get what you are trying to say dude!

[Rawthentic]

In a purely communist government, the powerful bureaucrats decide where the makority of the manpower should go.
There is no bureaucracy under communism, since bureaucracy is a symptom of classes and states.

Its a society of free producers.

There is also no such thing as a "communist country", as there are no national borders under communism and it is a worldwide system.

I really think that you are confusing socialism with communism. The USSR and China were not communist, they were socialist states, which means that they had states (run by the proletariat instead of the capitalist class) and there of course were classes. The purpose of the socialist state is to transform into communism (I won't get too far into the what needs to happen in the transition period) as well as suppress the die-hard counterrevolutionaries who want to bring the old society back.

I hope that helps. :(

[RedStarOverChina]

It's always nice to see people who want to learn...I strongly identify with you, blaze.



I still am not satisfied. I mean, what happened in communist USSR and China?

We consider the social and economic system in Russia and China to be "State-capitalism".

That is, the state assumes the role of the capitalists in developing backward states such as Russia (1917) and China (1949). And Lenin openly acknowledges this.

He argued that the capitalists in many backward countries such as Russia were too dependent on first world capitalists and are incapable of uprooting feudalism and develop infrastracture.

And, he argues, his form of socialism (State-Capitalism) will eventually lead the Russians towards communism because the big player, i.e., the state, no longer serve the interest of the capitalists but the society as a whole.

Of course, that has not happen...and to the citizens of Soviet Union, communism became "the line of horizon that you'll never reach".

Thus the bankruptcy of Leninist paradigm.

[Rawthentic]

Ughh, that is a bad misrepresentation of what Lenin is putting forward.

He called it "state-capitalism under worker's control" which was a stage towards socialism. It came from the understanding that modes of production could not be skipped, but they could be accelerated by the form of state-capitalism under worker's control, a form of capitalist mode of production seen over by the proletariat and that increasingly involved the masses in gaining control and power over society.

It did not mean that "capitalits" would industrialize under-developed nations, but that it could be done under the leadership of the proletariat that would (and did in Russia and China) lead and transform the bourgeois tasks and then proceed to make socialist revolution.



He argued that the capitalists in many backward countries such as Russia were too dependent on first world capitalists and are incapable of uprooting feudalism and develop infrastracture.
They were, thats why the proletariat had to do it.

[RedStarOverChina]

He called it "state-capitalism under worker's control" which was a stage towards socialism.

Pure rhetoric.

Was State-Capitalism ever under workers' control? Did Lenin ever experienment with the idea?

No!



They were, thats why the proletariat had to do it.

Rhetoric again.

No, the Vanguard had to do it. According to Lenin, workers alone could, at best, achieve unionism: they can't be trusted with that revolution stuff! That's why you have to let us "expert revolutionaries"/"Vanguards" do it for you.

Of course, what ended up happening, everyone knows. The Vanguard becomes the "new Bourgeoisie" and the institution "school of capitalism".

[Raúl Duke]

ok I get clearer with the thing about VOLUNTEER ORGANISATIONS!!! I always take your example of construction worker and civil engineer BUT WOULD ANY CIVIL ENGINEER VOLUNTEER TO WORK AS A CONSTRUCTION WORKER GIVEN HIS YEARS OF STUDY!!!

Well, in a way I discussed 2 different things:

One is the unity/combination/integration of some certain mental labor (engineers design projects, but in capitalist society they don't build them) and physical labor (construction workers build projects, but in capitalist society they don't build them).

Since in communism workers will be able to control the means of production, they basically decide how things are also built. Thus, the job of civil engineer becomes integrated/combined to the job of construction worker. The construction worker becomes both an engineer and a construction worker. At first, most construction workers probably (but maybe not) won't know how to design well, so civil engineers would help them on that as long as they [the civil engineers] also work on the construction of the project.

Due to the accessibility of education in a communist society, the new generation of "construction workers/civil engineers" would be able to do both 2 things, designing a project and building a project.

About the volunteer associations:

Usually there are some mental jobs that don't have a specific counterpart physical job and some physical jobs which people would decline from making a job out of it.

So to counter this we create volunteer associations which would deal with these undesired physical work. Usually, I suppose these organizations would be filled up with students or people which work mostly mental jobs.

If these organizations are able to operate in capitalism, they could surely operate in communism as well. They might even work better in a communist society.


ok, I agree to you that the child belongs to no one but himself, thats your point right?

In a way yes, although my main point is that people aren't "private property" to be own by either individuals or state. They are just...people.


Now about the artist. I believe that in a communist country, professions without physical productivity like artists are not ALLOWED!! Maybe I am wrong, but thats what I guess.

There are some mental jobs that involve little to no physical work yet are probably still going to be needed.

However, making art isn't specifically one of them.

While they might/could be frown upon for not doing anything physically productive...

We could try relegating art as a more of a hobby that any worker (including the construction workers I mentioned) can make art and showcase it to the world (now even more possible with the internet). Thus the "artist as profession" is replaced as "artist as hobby" or ""amateur" artists".

Although if someone decided to live on making art alone (an artist) than I really don't know what kinds of "controls" should be used if any. However, not everyone wants to or can be an artist so it's not that major of a problem.

There really would be no problem if the artist only job is art yet does volunteer work that is productive to society.

[Rawthentic]

Was State-Capitalism ever under workers' control? Did Lenin ever experienment with the idea?
Of course not, Russia was not state-capitalist.


No, the Vanguard had to do it. According to Lenin, workers alone could, at best, achieve unionism: they can't be trusted with that revolution stuff! That's why you have to let us "expert revolutionaries"/"Vanguards" do it for you.

Of course, what ended up happening, everyone knows. The Vanguard becomes the "new Bourgeoisie" and the institution "school of capitalism".
You've never read "What is to be Done?" have you? The fact is, that, workers left to their own devices in the union struggle (piecemeal reforms or wage increases) can only achieve a trade union consciousness. It is the task of communists to provide leadership in mass political struggles that can raise the insights of the proletariat to revolution.


Of course, what ended up happening, everyone knows. The Vanguard becomes the "new Bourgeoisie" and the institution "school of capitalism".
Duh, revisionism needs to be combatted. Its either proletarian leadership upholding the socialist road, or capitalist leadership that advocate a return to market reforms and capitalism. I wouldn't expect you to be able to analyze the return of capitalism in either the USSR or PRC, its all "Ah, lENiN Led tO stAlIn!" for you.

[RedStarOverChina]

Of course not, Russia was not state-capitalist.

O RLY?


Originally posted by Lenin in 1918+ "Left wing childishness and petit-bourgeois mentality"--> (Lenin in 1918 @ "Left wing childishness and petit-bourgeois mentality")

At present, petty-bourgeois capitalism prevails in Russia.
...
Economically, state capitalism is immeasurably superior to the present system of economy [/b]

And here's the kicker:


[email protected] 1918, same article
If we introduced state capitalism in approximately 6 months' time we would achieve a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in our country.


And those "6 months" ended up becoming 72 years...And then it's free-market capitaism again!



You've never read "What is to be Done?" have you? The fact is, that, workers left to their own devices in the union struggle (piecemeal reforms or wage increases) can only achieve a trade union consciousness. It is the task of communists to provide leadership in mass political struggles that can raise the insights of the proletariat to revolution.

Actually, yeah I have. And you are just repeating what I said which summarised What Is To Be Done.



I wouldn't expect you to be able to analyze the return of capitalism in either the USSR or PRC, its all "Ah, lENiN Led tO stAlIn!" for you.

No, I would say Leninism led to Stalin.

[The Grey Blur]

State capitalism doesn't exist! It was a flawed theory made up then discarded by Ted Grant, a British Trotskyist and then adopted by Cliff, founder of the SWP. It's a joke, I can't take seriously anyone who actually thinks it is anything other than a nice easy general term to dismiss any efforts by workers to overthrow capitalist rule that didn't end up in some utopia.

[RedStarOverChina]

Eh, Lenin was talking about state-capitalism even before Ted Grant was born.

[Rawthentic]

And those "6 months" ended up becoming 72 years...And then it's free-market capitaism again!
You don't know what you are talking about do you?

Russia was not state-capitalist, you won't prove it, Cliffites won't prove it, and neither will anyone else. It's a slap in the face to the materialist conception of history. Its only clear to see how the Bolshevik Party led the Russian proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie and landowning class. But as I said previously, I can't expect any materialism out of you.


Actually, yeah I have. And you are just repeating what I said which summarised What Is To Be Done.
Then re-read it, because you obviously did not understand it, nor can you refute Lenin's analysis.


No, I would say Leninism led to Stalin.
Yeah, you say a lot of things, but it all stops there.


Eh, Lenin was talking about state-capitalism even before Ted Grant was born.
In completely different contexts and approach.

[Janus]

Most of your questions have been answered before in this forum so I would encourage you to use the search function.


and it doesnt really matter to him whether or not to produce a high quantity. He becomes lazy and doesnt work as hard as he used to!!!
Laziness is spawned by disinterest in one's work which is a scenario that would not occur in a society in which members choose what they want to do.


And, where's the choice? A person gets no choice to do anything. Isn;t this against human nature? For example, everyone in communist china had to wear blue jeans coz they produced that ! there was definitely no choice!
The Zhongshan suits were only required wear for CP cadres though there was a point when most people wore them because Western fashions were considered bourgeois. The lack of choice in products was caused by the lack of focus on consumer goods production. However, this does not mean that a market is required for product variety and the best example of this would be the open source movement.