Surveillance and regulation in a Communist society?

[EvigLidelse]

I had this discussion with my friend the other day, and I just thought of how the "ideal" communist society would handle all the surveillance and regulation needed to maintain the ideology and its ways? Police?
After the revolution, what means would be used to handle the new, uprising protests against the reform? There's actually a lot of supporters of capitalism you know that probably would use violence in the same way as many activists do today.

And who would organize this police?

[Winter]

In an ideal communist society there would be no need for surveillance and regulation. If somebody were to harm another individual, actions by the people would be taken against the attacker. What the nature of those actions would be depends on the circumstances. If somebody were to threaten to bring back capitalism at this point, people would probably laugh and take it as a joke.

After the revolution comes Socialism. Before Communism can come about a workers party must take control of the state and establish a socialist system. There would be need for surveillance and "police" appointed by the vanguard party in a socialist society.

But once more, I would say that the people themselves are the best method to keep an eye out against reactionaries and revisionists, while being led by the vanguard party in control of course. History has shown that this was very effective, especially in China during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.

So essentially, beaurucratic systems of surveillance and police are only secondary means compared to the dedicated masses.

[Red_or_Dead]

And who would organize this police?

In a communist society (meaning after the transitional period of socialism) any organising into any kind of group, including any potential repressive forces, and running those groups is down to the people, as opposed to now, when it is state run and organised.

It may be done in communes, councils, whatever. The point is that it has to have the mandate of the majority.


After the revolution, what means would be used to handle the new, uprising protests against the reform?

Armed forces, of course.

[EvigLidelse]

Armed forces, of course.

And those would be all volunteers? Workers?

[Lost In Translation]

And those would be all volunteers? Workers? Right after the revolution has been completed, the workers would just be armed groups of people would defend the revolution from any bitter capitalists that just don't quit. Not all of them would be, and those who are would only take that position until the capitalists have been thoroughly defeated.

[BIG BROTHER]

Well in a communist society I seriously doubt anyone will want to return to capitalism, just nobody today(or at least a significant group of people) want to return to feudalism. Anyways in case something threatened communism, workers militias would be set up, and the masses would movilise just like winterdemise said in the cultural revolution.

[EvigLidelse]

Well in a communist society I seriously doubt anyone will want to return to capitalism, just nobody today(or at least a significant group of people) want to return to feudalism. Anyways in case something threatened communism, workers militias would be set up, and the masses would movilise just like winterdemise said in the cultural revolution.

Well, it's not like communism is superior to capitalism - they're more like two different systems that benefit different groups. Socialism and Communism has failed so many times and gone back to capitalism.

[Lost In Translation]

But this is right after the revolution, where it is apparent the workers have won, but the bourgeois won't admit it. After this phase is over, i do agree that nobody would want to return to capitalism.

[EvigLidelse]

In an ideal communist society there would be no need for surveillance and regulation. If somebody were to harm another individual, actions by the people would be taken against the attacker. What the nature of those actions would be depends on the circumstances. If somebody were to threaten to bring back capitalism at this point, people would probably laugh and take it as a joke.

After the revolution comes Socialism. Before Communism can come about a workers party must take control of the state and establish a socialist system. There would be need for surveillance and "police" appointed by the vanguard party in a socialist society.

But once more, I would say that the people themselves are the best method to keep an eye out against reactionaries and revisionists, while being led by the vanguard party in control of course. History has shown that this was very effective, especially in China during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.

So essentially, beaurucratic systems of surveillance and police are only secondary means compared to the dedicated masses.

So do you believe a society like this can exist? That people wouldn't steal AT ALL? And do you think that you can give the people the responsibility to deal with all that? Do you really think that it would be a stable and effective solution?

[Winter]

So do you believe a society like this can exist? That people wouldn't steal AT ALL? And do you think that you can give the people the responsibility to deal with all that? Do you really think that it would be a stable and effective solution?

In a communist society there would be no need to steal. Everybody will have equal access to everything! People don't steal for the sake of stealing but for survival and comfort.

What kind of responsibility would one have to have? If people have access to everything they need there would be no need to steal anything, especially if everyone has access to the same goods you do.

It would be extremely stable and effective because in Communism, everybody has access to every need. According to your abilities, according to your needs.

I know I repeated myself several times, but this was to get the point across. :)

[Winter]

Well, it's not like communism is superior to capitalism - they're more like two different systems that benefit different groups. Socialism and Communism has failed so many times and gone back to capitalism.

Yeah, but the inbalance between the groups is so extreme that the vast majority of people would benefit from Communism whereas a tiny minority benefit from capitalism. So if you look at it that way ( utilitarian ) Communism is far more superior.

Communism has never been given an opportunity to fail. So you can't exactly back that claim up.

[Winter]

Well in a communist society I seriously doubt anyone will want to return to capitalism, just nobody today(or at least a significant group of people) want to return to feudalism. Anyways in case something threatened communism, workers militias would be set up, and the masses would movilise just like winterdemise said in the cultural revolution.

Good point Jose. I'm sure when capitalism first came around they had people who would want to support feudalism counter-rebel, but eventually capitalism won. The same would be with Socialism, but the examples of socialism that have occured in the world always ended up succumbing to the counter-rebellion. If socialism were to take off for a few decades, I'm sure the voices to go back to capitalism would fade as well.

[EvigLidelse]

Yeah, but the inbalance between the groups is so extreme that the vast majority of people would benefit from Communism whereas a tiny minority benefit from capitalism. So if you look at it that way ( utilitarian ) Communism is far more superior.

No, not really. Not only bosses, bourgeoisie etc benefits from capitalism. Every person with a high salary job in a capitalist society would probably make a lot less in a communist society. And what do you get from working extra hours in a communist society? People wouldn't commit in the same way as they do now.

And if communism is so good, why doesn't somebody form a communist party that would attract tons of votes because it's so beneficial? Why are you guys waiting for a revolution?



Communism has never been given an opportunity to fail. So you can't exactly back that claim up.

Yeah, and the nazi concentration camps never existed either. You can't say that communist parties actually haven't tried and succeeded to apply communism to some countries. The thing is that the communist states that exist now do have SOME elements of communism, so yes it has been tried partially. Pure communism would be hard to apply, since it's absolutely not effective in the long run and of course requires a lot of unconventional measures to be reached.

For example, people claim that Stalins Soviet wasn't communistic since it was led by a fascist leader and not the people. Although, it did have elements of communisms economic system etc. Communism has so many sides compared to other ideologies, it has a different way of ruling (next to democracy and dictatorship), it has a different economic system (which isn't like most other ideologies that works with capitalism) etc.

There are so many aspects of communism that you simply can't say that all of them has to exist for it to be communism. Why not analyze it instead and start calling it a communist economic system, communist rule etc?

If we look at another ideology, for example liberalism, it doesn't promote another type of rule nor another type of economic system. It's mainly just a market system and some law changes. Can you really compare ideologies like liberalism with communism? Can you really call communism an ideology?

(by the way, realized we're going off topic now...)

[Winter]

No, not really. Not only bosses, bourgeoisie etc benefits from capitalism. Every person with a high salary job in a capitalist society would probably make a lot less in a communist society. And what do you get from working extra hours in a communist society? People wouldn't commit in the same way as they do now.

And if communism is so good, why doesn't somebody form a communist party that would attract tons of votes because it's so beneficial? Why are you guys waiting for a revolution?



Yeah, and the nazi concentration camps never existed either. You can't say that communist parties actually haven't tried and succeeded to apply communism to some countries. The thing is that the communist states that exist now do have SOME elements of communism, so yes it has been tried partially. Pure communism would be hard to apply, since it's absolutely not effective in the long run and of course requires a lot of unconventional measures to be reached.

For example, people claim that Stalins Soviet wasn't communistic since it was led by a fascist leader and not the people. Although, it did have elements of communisms economic system etc. Communism has so many sides compared to other ideologies, it has a different way of ruling (next to democracy and dictatorship), it has a different economic system (which isn't like most other ideologies that works with capitalism) etc.

There are so many aspects of communism that you simply can't say that all of them has to exist for it to be communism. Why not analyze it instead and start calling it a communist economic system, communist rule etc?

If we look at another ideology, for example liberalism, it doesn't promote another type of rule nor another type of economic system. It's mainly just a market system and some law changes. Can you really compare ideologies like liberalism with communism? Can you really call communism an ideology?

(by the way, realized we're going off topic now...)

These assertions are so full of errors and misunderstanding I cannot bear to continue this debate. Learn more about the subject and come back when you are ready to continue this conversation. Communism does not come about overnight, mind you.

[EvigLidelse]

I'm here to learn, tell me where I'm wrong and I'll start reading.

EDIT: And I've never claimed communism is supposed to come about over night? I'm saying myself that communism is a complex ideology that hasn't fully been applied.

[Winter]

It's often hard to tell who is an antagonist and who is here to genuinely learn.


No, not really. Not only bosses, bourgeoisie etc benefits from capitalism. Every person with a high salary job in a capitalist society would probably make a lot less in a communist society.

Yea, these are petty bourgeois. But you gotta understand they are still in the minority themselves compared to average minimum wage workers.


And what do you get from working extra hours in a communist society? People wouldn't commit in the same way as they do now.

By the time communism comes around the mentality of the people would be alot different than it is in our capitalist society. People would be more willing to put in for society, because in the end they benefit from it as well. First comes a workers revolution, then socialism, and then after years ( decades ) of socialism would come communism. Communism would not be able to come about til most first world imperialists are dealt with.


And if communism is so good, why doesn't somebody form a communist party that would attract tons of votes because it's so beneficial? Why are you guys waiting for a revolution?

Communism cannot come about via reformism. It must be brought by tearing down the system and replacing it with socialism. Before a revolution can occur, an organized vanguard party would be required, unfortunately there are many communist organizations unwilling to cooperate with others. Plus, the revolution cannot start in a first world country, but a third world country. When people in the first world countries will no longer have access to resources and cheap labor, then those people will feel the pinch.




Yeah, and the nazi concentration camps never existed either. You can't say that communist parties actually haven't tried and succeeded to apply communism to some countries. The thing is that the communist states that exist now do have SOME elements of communism, so yes it has been tried partially. Pure communism would be hard to apply, since it's absolutely not effective in the long run and of course requires a lot of unconventional measures to be reached.

What does this have to do with holocaust denial? Communism, a system with no currency, has never existed. The majority of the world must be undergoing or completing a socialist revolution for this to happen.


For example, people claim that Stalins Soviet wasn't communistic since it was led by a fascist leader and not the people. Although, it did have elements of communisms economic system etc. Communism has so many sides compared to other ideologies, it has a different way of ruling (next to democracy and dictatorship), it has a different economic system (which isn't like most other ideologies that works with capitalism) etc.

Stalin was by no means a fascist. He led a vanguard party that was doing what was necessary for the advancement of socialism. I think mainstream capitalist historians have gotten the better of you on this issue. In a true communist society, there are no rulers.


There are so many aspects of communism that you simply can't say that all of them has to exist for it to be communism. Why not analyze it instead and start calling it a communist economic system, communist rule etc?

Communism would be a complete change in the way everything operates. So it's not just focussing on rule. When an economic system comes into play it automatically changes everything, how we work and live.


If we look at another ideology, for example liberalism, it doesn't promote another type of rule nor another type of economic system. It's mainly just a market system and some law changes. Can you really compare ideologies like liberalism with communism? Can you really call communism an ideology?

(by the way, realized we're going off topic now...)

Yea, but the ruling part follows. Obviously those with the most amount of money will buy their way into power. It's an unintended circumstance ( for arguments sake ) of liberalism. Economic systems change everything in a society, becuase money and property is so intertwined with our lives in this day and age.

[EvigLidelse]

People would be more willing to put in for society, because in the end they benefit from it as well.


How do you see that as an argument? In our current system you gain 100% of the benefits from your extra work for yourself.



What does this have to do with holocaust denial? Communism, a system with no currency, has never existed. The majority of the world must be undergoing or completing a socialist revolution for this to happen.


So you're claiming that the pre currency ages were communism? There's alot more to communism, even though they didn't talk about commodities and such back then.



Stalin was by no means a fascist. He led a vanguard party that was doing what was necessary for the advancement of socialism. I think mainstream capitalist historians have gotten the better of you on this issue. In a true communist society, there are no rulers.


Am I claiming something else?
"For example, people claim that Stalins Soviet wasn't communistic since it was led by a fascist leader and not the people."



Communism would be a complete change in the way everything operates. So it's not just focussing on rule. When an economic system comes into play it automatically changes everything, how we work and live.


Once again, I never said it focused on rule or anything. What are you argumenting against?



Yea, but the ruling part follows. Obviously those with the most amount of money will buy their way into power. It's an unintended circumstance ( for arguments sake ) of liberalism. Economic systems change everything in a society, becuase money and property is so intertwined with our lives in this day and age.

Liberalism is a oftenly a democracy type ideology as well as most other ideologies. It's hard to buy yourself into power.

-
And I agree with you on the economy, and thank you for taking your time to respond.

[Winter]

So you're claiming that the pre currency ages were communism?

I didn't claim anything like that. Just because I said communism is a system which lacks currency does not mean all systems without currencies are communist.



"For example, people claim that Stalins Soviet wasn't communistic since it was led by a fascist leader and not the people."

The Soviet Union was not a Communist society. It was a Socialist society, and even that is debatable according to many here.




Liberalism is a oftenly a democracy type ideology as well as most other ideologies. It's hard to buy yourself into power.

We're told that but it isn't true. Just look at corporate lobbyists. They buy out represenatives that supposively represent us. Their loyalty goes to the highest bidder, not the people.

[EvigLidelse]

I didn't claim anything like that. Just because I said communism is a system which lacks currency does not mean all systems without currencies are communist.

No, listen to what you just said -


Communism, a system with no currency, has never existed. The majority of the world must be undergoing or completing a socialist revolution for this to happen.




We're told that but it isn't true. Just look at corporate lobbyists. They buy out represenatives that supposively represent us. Their loyalty goes to the highest bidder, not the people.

Yeah, you're probably right. And I'm just claiming it's hard, I'm not saying it's impossible. Taking bribes wouldn't make you look so good.

[Winter]

You're reading it wrong. Let me rephrase it.

"Communism, which is a system with no currency, has never existed..."

I'm not implying a system without currency has never existed, just communism has never existed in the modern age. So Russia, China, Albania, Cuba, ect., never obtained the stage of communism.

[Winter]

Taking bribes wouldn't make you look so good.

Here in America, it's a socially accepted political process! It may be different where you are but people speak of the topic of lobbyists non shalantly like there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, but in reality we should all be appalled!

[EvigLidelse]

But is the "which is a system with no currency" so important then? I thought that you meant that communism has never existed since the "no currency" part is a very important part of it, thus it has never existed?

Explain..

[Winter]

But is the "which is a system with no currency" so important then? I thought that you meant that communism has never existed since the "no currency" part is a very important part of it, thus it has never existed?

Explain..

I was emphasizing that because you were getting communism confused with socialism. Socialism still has a currency, communism does not.

[EvigLidelse]

Okay, I see. Thanks..

[Socialismo_Libertario]

Liberalism is a oftenly a democracy type ideology as well as most other ideologies. It's hard to buy yourself into power.


This is the most thoughtless comment I have ever heard. In order for one to be able to make their views public and promote their message they need to organise an election campaign, this requires money. Just have a look at US pre-election campaigns and the amount of money involved in supporting them and you will see that financial backing is important in order for someone to even have the slightest of chances to get elected.

In fact in most cases the candidate elected is the one able to afford the most expensive pre-election campaign. How is this different from buying yourself into power ? Election campaigns are nowadays won by the rich and the multinationals and the universally observed party polarisation does not allow space for other ideas to prevail

[EvigLidelse]

True, but I was actually thinking more of how it is here in Sweden. Since we have parties here with well known opinions, members participate in debates etc, they don't have to spend a lot of money on that.

But I agree with you on the USA situation..

[Sendo]

I find it hard to believe that there will be enough ordinary people who will be counter-revolutionaries to justify such a grievous trampling of rights to privacy. Anyone who advocates such a police state has no right to complain when, say, the NSA watches any of us. Because then you can only be a hypocrite or just a whiner who doesn't like the fact that right-wingers are using the power they possess.

Use violence against a rogue army group or capitalist private army, yes, but wiretapping and other nonsense should be made a thing of the past. I believe in freedom of speech and rights to privacy, and the right to speech must be absolute or it is meaningless.

If a socialist country/territory/whatever were established, the vast majority would be provided for, have jobs, and should have freedoms (like to speech and privacy) that would render a police state unnecessary.

[EvigLidelse]

And by a police state, you mean?