Communism on a global level?

[Issaiah1332]

Okay...so we look into the future to when communism is now on an international level. What if a country needs oil and a country like Saudi Arabia has plenty of oil...but refuses to share? And why should they...they need oil for themselves and think that it would be smart to save some. What is done in a situation like this?

Just thinking...:confused:

[Dimentio]

If there are still countries, there is no communism.

[Red_or_Dead]

Ive been wodering the same thing. Serpent is right when he says that if there are countries there is no communism, but Im sure that a stateless condition wont immediately follow a possible world revolution. Still, if there are communities, how will they act in a situation like this, and how will socialist countries act (in the period between the revolution and a statless condition)? Isnt keeping all the oil (in this example) something that might develop into nationalism (its ours, were keeping it), and simply giving it away stupid and unfair (since workers in one country would have to work to produce it, and the workers of another country would simply get it for nothing)? Of course, it could be sold, but who or what determines the price?

[STI]

I'd expect that the people in "the former Saudi Arabia" would recognize that whoever else wants/needs to use the oil would use it to serve a function that would, somewhere along the line, produce goods the "former Saudi Arabians" would want or need, and, not needing all the oil stored in the region, would be willing to share.

There will probably be discussion, heated at times, over what resources should be used, when, and by whom. Thoughtful argument and community decision-making would facilitate those decisions.

[Red_or_Dead]

I'd expect that the people in "the former Saudi Arabia" would recognize that whoever else wants/needs to use the oil would use it to serve a function that would, somewhere along the line, produce goods the "former Saudi Arabians" would want or need, and, not needing all the oil stored in the region, would be willing to share.


Well, that is a possibility, but in that case it would have to be pretty clear about whos giving what in return. We cant just expect the "former Saudi Arabians" to give and not know what (if anything) they will be getting in return. As I said, the oil takes (and will take) work, resources, tools, logistics, and a whole lot of other shit to produce. Even crude oil takes a lot of work to get out of the ground in the first place. We cant just expect that a region where oil is the n.1 export will give it, without being very clear on what they are getting for it. Of course, this goes not just for oil, but for any other commodity as well.

I think that state planning would answer this problem, if we use it on a larger, global scale (countries would plan things together). That is for as long as countries exist, that is. Ultimately, we should aim for self sufficency of regions, communities, towns, ect.



There will probably be discussion, heated at times, over what resources should be used, when, and by whom. Thoughtful argument and community decision-making would facilitate those decisions.

I agree. And if that happens, we should also aim for the abolition of military, at least on the scale on which it now exists. Its a fairer negotiation when the other side doesnt have enough weapons to blast you of the face of the earth.

[STI]

Of course, this goes not just for oil, but for any other commodity as well.

There's the key - since every other good and service would be desired by the "former Saudi Arabians" and would require oil to produce, why wouldn't they be willing to share? There's more oil in Saudi Arabia than can be used by those in Saudi Arabia, so what would they have to gain by hoarding it?

Would they be worried about "getting screwed"? Quite possibly. And if those concerns were founded, they'd have to let the "community at large" (the entire world) know that they aren't happy and they want more to come in. People in other regions, knowing they need oil to do what they want, would be willing to oblige.

[INDK]

Ive been wodering the same thing. Serpent is right when he says that if there are countries there is no communism, but Im sure that a stateless condition wont immediately follow a possible world revolution.

But statelessness will follow each revolution in each area. Remember, revolution on a worldwide scale will not be simultaneous - even though I dispute his ways of getting there and heavily oppose his theory in general, Trotsky had it right with his Permanent Revolution theory. The revolution must be widespread, but it must spread - world revolution taken as literally as the title of it would be foolish.


Still, if there are communities, how will they act in a situation like this, and how will socialist countries act (in the period between the revolution and a statless condition)? Isnt keeping all the oil (in this example) something that might develop into nationalism (its ours, were keeping it), and simply giving it away stupid and unfair (since workers in one country would have to work to produce it, and the workers of another country would simply get it for nothing)?

A note on my above statement: world revolution is not simultaneous in that it is not achieved simultaneously. I would say there would be a relatively high hostility, if not outright class warfare, by the time any 'sub-revolution' succeeds anywhere. With this, proletarian victory would overtake countries, no matter if the bourgeoisie itself still exists and the proletariat exists as a class in and of itself - there would still be large Socialist implications in the running of the country during revolution. See, as an Anarchist, I don't believe in transition periods - but during revolution there will be a time when the bourgeoisie and the proletariat still exist, and class warfare is outright and open, and the proletariat will already by instating Anarchist societal shifts.

I'm beginning to ramble, however. Let me return to the central point - there is widespread workers' victory. There is an extensive proletariat and advanced class struggle - do you not think the proletarians of each countries will aid and unite in fighting their respective bourgeoisies? There would be a network of revolutionary proletariat - and from this each proletariat would most likely aid each other with resources to keep the working class alive and fighting. If there was any thinking, at all, of a Socialist-controlled area saying "it's mine, you can't have it" they are enemies of the working class revolution. Mutual aid would need to be international during revolution so any greedy countries, even those dressed in red, would be considered the proletariat's enemy, ultimately.


Of course, it could be sold, but who or what determines the price?

Aid from one proletariat to another would be collectivized, I imagine.

[Issaiah1332]

One would think that no one would hoard anything, being that by giving something such as oil, other things can be made that help benefit them as well...such as plastic.

We must keep in mind to stray from the notion of bartering...we must not literally trade, but communally use our resources to further the advancement of everyone.

[INDK]

Exactly. I envision basically a network of cooperative proletarians, fighting their respective bourgeoisies whilst aiding other proletariats in doing so. There would need to be support from revolutionary movement to revolutionary movement.

[BIG BROTHER]

I think in the end, they would give the oil, knowing that in a communist society they would be able to get anything else they didn't have.

[Red_or_Dead]

But statelessness will follow each revolution in each area. Remember, revolution on a worldwide scale will not be simultaneous - even though I dispute his ways of getting there and heavily oppose his theory in general, Trotsky had it right with his Permanent Revolution theory. The revolution must be widespread, but it must spread - world revolution taken as literally as the title of it would be foolish.



I think that statelessness will follow in a certain amount of time, and I believe that it will take a lot of time. But in the meantime communist countries will have to develop a system of how to interact with each other, and thats more or less what I was talking about. Of course, the developed system should remain in place after countries wither away, and be used to interact between communities (as I imagine that there will always be communities in one way or the other). As for the revolutionary proccess, I agree, it is unrealistic to expect that it will happen all at once. I imagine that that too could take a long amount of time (possibly with a few wars thrown in between), but not nearly as long as the transition from the post-revolution to a statless state.


I'm beginning to ramble, however. Let me return to the central point - there is widespread workers' victory. There is an extensive proletariat and advanced class struggle - do you not think the proletarians of each countries will aid and unite in fighting their respective bourgeoisies?

Imo, that would not only be desirable, but neccesary.


There would be a network of revolutionary proletariat - and from this each proletariat would most likely aid each other with resources to keep the working class alive and fighting. If there was any thinking, at all, of a Socialist-controlled area saying "it's mine, you can't have it" they are enemies of the working class revolution. Mutual aid would need to be international during revolution so any greedy countries, even those dressed in red, would be considered the proletariat's enemy, ultimately.


Again, something that is not only desirable, but necesary. Thats why, imo, we should keep countries and armies in the revolution itself, as well as in the beginning stages of transition to communism. Also, we should keep a very anti-revisionistc stance, to prevent reactionaries from rearing their ugly heads.



Aid from one proletariat to another would be collectivized, I imagine.

Even if its collectivized, it must be ensured that the distribution is fair, and that there are no countries (or regions, communities, or whatever) that would be getting more then they are giving, and vice versa. And as I said earlier, we should aim for self sufficency of communities. The above mentioned should be only used for resources that have to be traded (if that is the right word for it, anyway). No point for us to get wheat from, idk, Ukraine, if we can grow our own.


Would they be worried about "getting screwed"? Quite possibly. And if those concerns were founded, they'd have to let the "community at large" (the entire world) know that they aren't happy and they want more to come in. People in other regions, knowing they need oil to do what they want, would be willing to oblige.

I agree with that.