What is Communism/Socialism?

[w0lf]

What is it, in a notshell.

Is communism a free society? Freedom to pick jobs and such?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

socialism, a given territory democratically controlled by a proletariat who control the economy through public ownership. Most would agree that it cannot exist in isolation.

Communism, when the world has gone socialist all over, there will no longer be need for a 'state' as no longer any other class can challenge the proletariat. So the 'state' is no longer needed, and is defunct, leaving a stateless form of socialism.

[sanpal]

Communism is stateless classless selfgovernment society with moneyless planned economy.
Socialism is state class democratic society with money and market economy.

It is correct to distinguish 'bourgeois socialism' when ruling class is bourgeoisie from 'proletarian socialism' when ruling class is proletariat.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 09:50 pm
Communism, when the world has gone socialist all over, there will no longer be need for a 'state' as no longer any other class can challenge the proletariat. So the 'state' is no longer needed, and is defunct, leaving a stateless form of socialism.
That is an orthadox marxist interpritation, and not a universal definion.

I think, that "a stateless classless society run by a federation of peoples assemblies" is a good summary of communism that both Libertarian and Authorotarian communists can broadly agree on.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by William Everard+November 28, 2007 11:36 pm--> (William Everard @ November 28, 2007 11:36 pm)
[email protected] 28, 2007 09:50 pm
Communism, when the world has gone socialist all over, there will no longer be need for a 'state' as no longer any other class can challenge the proletariat. So the 'state' is no longer needed, and is defunct, leaving a stateless form of socialism.
That is an orthadox marxist interpritation, and not a universal definion.

I think, that "a stateless classless society run by a federation of peoples assemblies" is a good summary of communism that both Libertarian and Authorotarian communists can broadly agree on. [/b]
No we don't, we don't know how communism will look.

[RedStaredRevolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 05:20 pm
What is it, in a notshell.

Is communism a free society? Freedom to pick jobs and such?
Basically the end result of communism is the same as the end result of anarchism. The main difference between the two is how as stateless classless society shall be achieved. Some communists believe that there needs to be a transitionary workers controlled state to protect from inner and outer threats. Anarchists, and the other part of the communists, think that a new state, even one run by workers, would not willing give up power in the end and would just create another ruling class.

then theres a difference between Socialism (a dictatorship of the proletariat), in the political sense of the word, and socialism (an economy where workers own the means of production), in the economic sense of the word.

[Synaptic-Plasticity]

you know if the entire world were communists, we wouldn't have these computers to discuss vital issues like this on.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Synaptic-[email protected] 29, 2007 02:37 pm
you know if the entire world were communists, we wouldn't have these computers to discuss vital issues like this on.
Says who?

[RedStaredRevolution]

Originally posted by Synaptic-[email protected] 29, 2007 10:37 am
you know if the entire world were communists, we wouldn't have these computers to discuss vital issues like this on.
what are you talking about?

[w0lf]

Okay, thanks guys.

[Question?]

Originally posted by Synaptic-[email protected] 29, 2007 02:37 pm
you know if the entire world were communists, we wouldn't have these computers to discuss vital issues like this on.
how wouldnt we :huh:

[Connolly]

Okay, thanks guys

That was a nice introduction to communism wasnt it? - a conflicting mess :D

[Eleftherios]

The other Communism is the doctrine for the liberation of the working class

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 11:07 pm
The other Communism is the doctrine for the liberation of the working class
I'd view it more as being the doctrine for the liberation of humanity, which requires a proletarian revolution and the subsequent dictatorship of the proletariat.

[JWG]

Originally posted by SovietPants+November 29, 2007 11:45 pm--> (SovietPants @ November 29, 2007 11:45 pm)
[email protected] 29, 2007 11:07 pm
The other Communism is the doctrine for the liberation of the working class
I'd view it more as being the doctrine for the liberation of humanity, which requires a proletarian revolution and the subsequent dictatorship of the proletariat. [/b]
Hello SovietPants,

I keep reading about a rule of a dictatorship. This causes me to see a conflict.

A liberation and new society ruled by the working class, or truly ran by the "people" followed by what I know dictatorship as, "a person with absolute power", in this case of the people.

Would this not easily lead back into an oppressed state if such a single person or party becomes corrupt and no longer follows policy and decisions based on what the people under them is saying?

Again, I'm new to all of this. Please enlighten me.

[RedStaredRevolution]

Originally posted by JWG+November 29, 2007 09:12 pm--> (JWG @ November 29, 2007 09:12 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 11:45 pm

[email protected] 29, 2007 11:07 pm
The other Communism is the doctrine for the liberation of the working class
I'd view it more as being the doctrine for the liberation of humanity, which requires a proletarian revolution and the subsequent dictatorship of the proletariat.
Hello SovietPants,

I keep reading about a rule of a dictatorship. This causes me to see a conflict.

A liberation and new society ruled by the working class, or truly ran by the "people" followed by what I know dictatorship as, "a person with absolute power", in this case of the people.

Would this not easily lead back into an oppressed state if such a single person or party becomes corrupt and no longer follows policy and decisions based on what the people under them is saying?

Again, I'm new to all of this. Please enlighten me. [/b]
In theory it's supposed to be a state, run by the vanguard (class conscious section of the proletariat), to help oppress the bourgeosie and counter-revolutionaries. This doesn't always happen in practice though. The main reason why Anarchists opposed the DotP is because they believe that it will corrupt those in its rank and just become an actual dictatorship.

[bezdomni]

In theory it's supposed to be a state, run by the vanguard (class conscious section of the proletariat), to help oppress the bourgeosie and counter-revolutionaries.

That's bullshit. The role of the vanguard of the proletariat is the raise the consciousness of the masses under capitalism and lead the masses to revolution. The vanguard of the proletariat still plays a role in socialism (especially in early socialism), but they do not "run" the society. The vanguard of the proletariat is actively engaged in the breaking down of the inequalities and contradictions that makes their existence necessary. This dynamic is true for the socialist state as well (breaking down the contradictions and antagonisms that makes its existence necessary).

So no, the vanguard of the proletariat doesn't "run" the socialist state. Also, it doesn't "oppress the bourgeoisie and counterrevolutionaries". The socialist state has to fundamentally keep the proletariat in power, but it also will have to allow reactionaries to express their ideas relatively freely and will actually have to try to learn from reactionaries.

At the same time, the socialist state cannot allow counterrevolution - but this can and must be done by relying on the masses, rather than by bureaucratically purging out and exterminating anything that appears to be counterrevolutionary.


The main reason why Anarchists opposed the DotP is because they believe that it will corrupt those in its rank and just become an actual dictatorship.

No, the main reason anarchists oppose the dictatorship of the proletariat is usually because they've never read Marx or Lenin.

Either that, or the dictatorship of the proletariat is actually contrary to their material interests...so, in practice, they oppose what can actually lead to liberation...preferring instead to make castles in the air.

You're taking a horribly idealist view of the state and the role of the proletariat in transforming society.


A liberation and new society ruled by the working class, or truly ran by the "people" followed by what I know dictatorship as, "a person with absolute power", in this case of the people.

The statement in bold is where you make a mistake, comrade. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a class dictatorship, not the rule of an individual person.

A good example of the dictatorship of the proletariat is socialist China. You can find a lot of resources on the socialist experience in China here (http://thisiscommunism.org/Soc_Exp.htm). Let me know what you think.

[YSR]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 09:27 pm


The main reason why Anarchists opposed the DotP is because they believe that it will corrupt those in its rank and just become an actual dictatorship.

No, the main reason anarchists oppose the dictatorship of the proletariat is usually because they've never read Marx or Lenin.
Just because you don't agree with anarchist conclusions doesn't mean that they're not anarchist conclusions. Please don't purposefully obfuscate the anarchist position on the DotP.

[blackstone]

Comrade SovietPants claims this,


That's bullshit. The role of the vanguard of the proletariat is the raise the consciousness of the masses under capitalism and lead the masses to revolution. The vanguard of the proletariat still plays a role in socialism (especially in early socialism), but they do not "run" the society. The vanguard of the proletariat is actively engaged in the breaking down of the inequalities and contradictions that makes their existence necessary. This dynamic is true for the socialist state as well (breaking down the contradictions and antagonisms that makes its existence necessary).


Yet, the party he supports and it's chairman says this,



Originally posted by Bob Avakian Chairman of RCP
the party--and, in a concentrated way, the party leadership--will have a disproportionate influence, shall we say, over society. It will have a disproportionate influence over what happens in society. Not because we're determined to run everything--but because that's the reality of it.

So, yes, the vanguard party, in this case RCP, because they will have "disproportionate influence" over society, they will "run everything" because "that's the reality of it".

And that is the reality of it, if you use a vanguardist approach to revolution.


No, the main reason anarchists oppose the dictatorship of the proletariat is usually because they've never read Marx or Lenin.

Either that, or the dictatorship of the proletariat is actually contrary to their material interests...so, in practice, they oppose what can actually lead to liberation...preferring instead to make castles in the air.

You're taking a horribly idealist view of the state and the role of the proletariat in transforming society.

I personally think that's a weak attack Soviet. In my experience many anarchists were Marxists or Leninists before they started to adopt anarchistic principles, values and strategies.

As YSR said, please don't purposely distort anarchist position on the DoTP.

[bezdomni]

So, yes, the vanguard party, in this case RCP, because they will have "disproportionate influence" over society, they will "run everything" because "that's the reality of it".

And that is the reality of it, if you use a vanguardist approach to revolution.


There is a difference between having "disproportionate influence" over society and "running society". Any group that leads a revolution will have disproportionate influence over the society that grows from that revolution...the good thing about a communst revolution with the method of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is that the party that is at the forefront of society will be a party of the masses.

I mean...if anarchists had a revolution, the "best anarchists" would have a disproportionate amount of influence over whatever local organs of "non hierarchical democracy" there are. The thing about having centralized, structured leadership is that people are completely responsible for their actions and can be immediately removed from their position if they fuck up.

You can't break down every inequality and contradiction from capitalism overnight - that's just the nature of things.We can either ignore that reality and fail every time we want to make a revolution, or we can live with it and create socialism to break down these inequalities and move on to an actual liberated society.

I have never for a moment doubted that anarchists have their "hearts in the right place", so to speak. However, I don't think anarchism can actually lead to a liberated society.

In fact, I used to be an anarchist (before I was a Marxist-Leninist). Providing a counter example to your experiences...although I wouldn't know if it is more common for people to move away from anarchism or towards it in relation to Marxism-Leninism. It would depend on a lot of things.


As YSR said, please don't purposely distort anarchist position on the DoTP.

It's hard not to, because the anarchist position rests on a distortion of what the dictatorship of the proletariat actually is.


Just because you don't agree with anarchist conclusions doesn't mean that they're not anarchist conclusions.

Yeah, they're conclusions that rest on assumptions that aren't true. Ergo, your conclusions aren't true.

[blackstone]

There is a difference between having "disproportionate influence" over society and "running society". Any group that leads a revolution will have disproportionate influence over the society that grows from that revolution...the good thing about a communst revolution with the method of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is that the party that is at the forefront of society will be a party of the masses.

My first comment is that you claim there is a difference between the two, yet Avakian doesn't make that same differentiation. He, unlike you, recognizes that this disproportionate influence is what gives them the ability to "run society". The vanguard Party will have a monopoly on the decision making process. A communist revolution with the method of MLM is can not be a party of the masses. It can't be because for the very fact of this "disproportionate influence", this is authoritarian. And i believe you are wrong. Every other revolution in history saw what you said, groups that lead a revolution will have a disproportionate influence over the society that grows from that revolution. In all previous revolutions, this disproportionate influence over society was necessary because it was a minority ruling over the masses.


"All the preceding classes that got the upper hand, sought to fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society at large to their conditions of appropriation (production). The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their own to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurance of, individual property." (CM-p.20)


But a communist revolution empowers the masses, so why should they not influence decisions in proportion in which it effects them? Why should a group have a monopoly of the decision making process.

That's a contradiction, one that Bob Avakian tries to solve but fumbles because of his class interests.


I mean...if anarchists had a revolution, the "best anarchists" would have a disproportionate amount of influence over whatever local organs of "non hierarchical democracy" there are. The thing about having centralized, structured leadership is that people are completely responsible for their actions and can be immediately removed from their position if they fuck up

False. A society incorporating anarchistic values, aims and principles will be a society that is participatory and egalitarian. Each actor in society would influence decisions in proportion in which they are affected by them. The thing about centralized, structured leadership is that it's harder to remove people from their positions the higher they rank in the Party's hierarchy. In fact, all libertarian communists to my knowledge propose that delegates are subject to instant recall. So arguing for centralized structure because of that feature is moot.


You can't break down every inequality and contradiction from capitalism overnight - that's just the nature of things.We can either ignore that reality and fail every time we want to make a revolution, or we can live with it and create socialism to break down these inequalities and move on to an actual liberated society.

This is a straw man fallacy Soviet. You know as well as I, that anarchists do no proclaim that inequality can be equalized and all forms of oppression erased from capitalism over night.


In fact, I used to be an anarchist (before I was a Marxist-Leninist). Providing a counter example to your experiences...although I wouldn't know if it is more common for people to move away from anarchism or towards it in relation to Marxism-Leninism. It would depend on a lot of things.
If you was an anarchist, you must not have been a very well read one because you continue to spew myths and half truths.



It's hard not to, because the anarchist position rests on a distortion of what the dictatorship of the proletariat actually is.
And what exactly is this anarchist distortion?

[RedStaredRevolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 11:27 pm

In theory it's supposed to be a state, run by the vanguard (class conscious section of the proletariat), to help oppress the bourgeosie and counter-revolutionaries.

That's bullshit. The role of the vanguard of the proletariat is the raise the consciousness of the masses under capitalism and lead the masses to revolution. The vanguard of the proletariat still plays a role in socialism (especially in early socialism), but they do not "run" the society. The vanguard of the proletariat is actively engaged in the breaking down of the inequalities and contradictions that makes their existence necessary. This dynamic is true for the socialist state as well (breaking down the contradictions and antagonisms that makes its existence necessary).

So no, the vanguard of the proletariat doesn't "run" the socialist state. Also, it doesn't "oppress the bourgeoisie and counterrevolutionaries". The socialist state has to fundamentally keep the proletariat in power, but it also will have to allow reactionaries to express their ideas relatively freely and will actually have to try to learn from reactionaries.

At the same time, the socialist state cannot allow counterrevolution - but this can and must be done by relying on the masses, rather than by bureaucratically purging out and exterminating anything that appears to be counterrevolutionary.
Damn dude, my bad. "Vanguardists" that ive talked to before have given that reason. I should have put that that wasn't the only interpretation of the DotP but your idea isn't universal.

Im not even going to respond to the rest of your post because your just being a dick.