Help me [Archive]

View Full Version : Help me

bawbag

4th December 2008, 19:52

Demogorgon

4th December 2008, 20:16

I would just like to preface my answer with a welcome and also a word of caution that there is little consensus as to the answers to soe of your questions. So do not take anything I say as cast in stone.

Interesting username BTW...

OK,so- Communism is a political ideology that promotes the idea that everyone is equal, and we long for a classless society, and we, the workers would own the means of production, there would be no higher class, only the working class ( I understand that as it is working CLASS it makes it not classless, but 1 class means it would be classless, i'm just trying to put it in words I understand just now), please comment and educate me as it seems you guys are the only way i will understand communism, but if what i have there is correct it sounds right, but i do have questions,
The idea of a classless society means that when the working class takes power, equality will be achieved and class distinctions will vanish. It isn't an instant process

under communism, would there be any kind of government? if not how would decisions be made? if so, would this be a totalitarian government?
I think Government has its place, though it should function by direct democracy. There is disagreement on that though. At any rate we have seen what totalitarian Government does and I do not know what kind of fool one would have to be to want it.

would everyone really be paid the same? or EXACTLY the same?
would there be an abolition of money?Money is a touchy subject as it has to be understood as more than a means of exchange. It has power in of itself because it grants power and prestige and also immense influence to those with the power to introduce new credit into the economy, but at the same time attempting to describe how a functional economy could exist without a means of exchange is very difficult. Some argue for Labour-Credits as a replacement for money, and that is an idea worthy of close inspection. I see money continuing, at least for a while after socialism comes about though its nature will change as surely as it changed in the transition from feudalism to capitalism.

and this one sounds stupid but my ignorance has led me to it:
would there be material goods? like would i have my own xbox 360 and stuff? - (I cant word this better just now, so it's not clear what i mean)

We distinguish between personal possessions and private property. Private Property is defined as the means of production, things that can be used to produce other things, whether they be goods or services. We oppose that and believe such things should be the common property of all (though obviously individual objects can be allocated to specific people). Personal possessions on the other hand are things such as your videogame consoles. We do not oppose people having those.

As for the actual production of such things, I should certainly hope they still be made. It would be a rather bland world without entertainment, wouldn't it? Communism is human liberation, not monastic life.

4th December 2008, 20:17

OK so I am currently in my last year of school, doing Higher politics (my favourite subject), and part of the 1st unit is marxism, which is how i got into this and joined this forum, as I had pretty much been told all my life communism-bad, capitalism-good and although I never really believed this I never tried to learn about communism until now. So I joined this forum because I like it and find it interesting but as I go to school with alot of ignorant people there is no way for me to learn anything from my peers and establish any real opinions

Welcome!:)

So i dont know if i understand communism ATALL, just now I'm only looking to understand the basics so I am relying on you guys to correct or tell me if i am right in what i think communism is and answer my questions, please

Here people are more than cable to answer your questions, but each one of them probably will explain you the matters in a different way.You see in here there is a big amount of ideologies around revolutionary leftism, starting from Anarchists and leading to Stalinists, from trotskyists to left communists etc etc!
You should always though build your thinking and not relay on the opinions of other people.Books can be very helpful too!;)

OK,so- Communism is a political ideology that promotes the idea that everyone is equal, and we long for a classless society, and we, the workers would own the means of production, there would be no higher class, only the working class ( I understand that as it is working CLASS it makes it not classless, but 1 class means it would be classless, i'm just trying to put it in words I understand just now), please comment and educate me as it seems you guys are the only way i will understand communism, but if what i have there is correct it sounds right, but i do have questions,

Yeah, an equal classless society, no there wont be any workers class when communism is achieved those classes are for before communism!Communism is basically (for me at least) based on the simple phrase "From each according his abilities, to each according his needs".

under communism, would there be any kind of government? if not how would decisions be made? if so, would this be a totalitarian government?

No, government =/= communism!
Decisions are made by the whole commune, everyone has the right to take place in the decisions, decisions would probably be taken with direct democracy(voting of all the people)

would everyone really be paid the same? or EXACTLY the same?
would there be an abolition of money?

Not everyone will be "paid" the same, everyone will get what he needs, and thats not a standard value!
Yeah money will be abolished!

and this one sounds stupid but my ignorance has led me to it:
would there be material goods? like would i have my own xbox 360 and stuff? - basically i mean would everybody have the exact same stuff, same car, house, etc? (I cant word this better just now, so it's not clear what i mean)

The brand xbox may not exist, but material goods are a need of the people so people will continue to try improving technology so there would certainly be not exactly the same things but they could be even better, the evolution wont stop for a moment!Of course and not everyone will get the same house same car etc!You cant give the same house to a 6 members family and to a 2 members family, the same with car!Needs take place here, so as designing of the buildings car etc!

i'm not the smartest but i want to learn, and i still haven't picked up the ol' commie jargon, if you will.

Thats positive that you want to learn!

thank you for reading and thanks for your replies

No problem at all!Glad to help!:thumbup1:

Fuserg9:star:

Oneironaut

4th December 2008, 23:46

OK so I am currently in my last year of school, doing Higher politics (my favourite subject), and part of the 1st unit is marxism, which is how i got into this and joined this forum, as I had pretty much been told all my life communism-bad, capitalism-good and although I never really believed this I never tried to learn about communism until now. So I joined this forum because I like it and find it interesting but as I go to school with alot of ignorant people there is no way for me to learn anything from my peers and establish any real opinions

Welcome! I joined this forum when I was in a situation much like yours.

OK,so- Communism is a political ideology that promotes the idea that everyone is equal, and we long for a classless society, and we, the workers would own the means of production, there would be no higher class, only the working class ( I understand that as it is working CLASS it makes it not classless, but 1 class means it would be classless, i'm just trying to put it in words I understand just now), please comment and educate me as it seems you guys are the only way i will understand communism, but if what i have there is correct it sounds right, but i do have questions.

We do advocate for a classless society. Workers would own the means of production. It will take time for us to reach a point where classes do not exist, but communism lays the groundwork for doing such! It involves the complete restructuring of society along the lines of "from each according to her ability, to each according to her need". This means that people will contribute to society what is in their means to do so and what is socially necessary, and nothing more! From here, as long as she contributes what is in her means to do so, and what society deems as necessary, her needs will be provided for.

under communism, would there be any kind of government? if not how would decisions be made? if so, would this be a totalitarian government?

No. A communist society would have no government. I am an advocate of production being planned by cooperating workers' councils, or a national council composed of delegates who can be recalled at any time from all the various workers' councils. We can't say 100% what communism will look like, but there are some fundamental aspects of society that we can reason too.

would everyone really be paid the same? or EXACTLY the same? would there be an abolition of money?

Everyone would receive equal compensation for the work they contribute. I think labor credits are a good idea : http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=103&Itemid=137

and this one sounds stupid but my ignorance has led me to it:
would there be material goods? like would i have my own xbox 360 and stuff? - basically i mean would everybody have the exact same stuff, same car, house, etc? (I cant word this better just now, so it's not clear what i mean)

Of course we will have entertainment! Like Demogorgon said, we are for human liberation not a monastic lifestyle! And no people wont have the same stuff, people will still be able to choose what they want!

thank you for reading and thanks for your replies

It's my pleasure. :)

ernie

5th December 2008, 12:22

would everyone really be paid the same? or EXACTLY the same?
would there be an abolition of money?
I think that, in communism, nobody should be "paid" anything. Everybody would be given what they needed and everybody would contribute what they wanted. That's how I interpret the slogan from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

We are so used to thinking about getting paid for work that it's hard, even for some leftists, to imagine otherwise. But is it "natural" that we should be materially rewarded for working? Just because that's how it happens now (albeit the rewards are rather unfair), it doesn't mean that is how it has to be.

Grunt

5th December 2008, 13:19

WELCOME!

The other comrades have already done a terriffic job in
explaining and -on the whole- I agree with them.

RevLeft is usefull for learning, very usefull.

But it doesn't replace reading! May I suggest:

• 'The communist manifesto' by Karl Marx
• 'Teach yourself Marx' by Gill Hands
• 'Wages, Price and Profit' by Karl Marx
• 'Wage Labour and Capital' by Karl Marx
• 'Ten Days That Shook the World' by John Reed

and (although other comrades will strongly object):

• 'Socialism on Trial' by James P. Cannon and Joseph Hansen

That should get you started. :)
___

[...]and i still haven't picked up the ol' commie jargon, if you will.

Neither have I! :) I still don't talk the lingo. Don't worry -
just: Be curious! Ask outright questions! And: Be yourself!

Best of luck!

ZeroNowhere

5th December 2008, 19:02

But it doesn't replace reading! May I suggest:

• 'The communist manifesto' by Karl Marx
Oh, come on. Everybody bloody suggests that, I have no idea why. Crud, for that matter, they don't add that Marx considered the 10 planks antiquated in 1872...
Anyways, I'm fairly sure that one wouldn't learn more about socialism from that than from just asking here anyways.

Communism is a political ideology that promotes the idea that everyone is equal, and we long for a classless society
Equal in what?
For example, I'm certainly not as fast as many people, not as knowledgeable in quantam physics, etc. Though yes, we do fight, not simply 'long', for a classless society. Of course, we also theorize on how it should be done, to the dismay of some people who claim that we should decide after a revolution, I'm not sure why.

and we, the workers would own the means of production, there would be no higher class, only the working class ( I understand that as it is working CLASS it makes it not classless, but 1 class means it would be classless, i'm just trying to put it in words I understand just now)
The working class would lose its class character, as there would be no higher classes, and thus there would be no class. In other words, everyone is equal in terms of relationship to the means of production, thus there is no class.

It involves the complete restructuring of society along the lines of "from each according to her ability, to each according to her need".
Anarcha-feminist slogan?
Also, not necessarily. For example, Marx advocated a labour voucher system until 'labour was not a means of life, but life's prime want', after which 'from each... to each...' could be implemented. In modern times, we would use instead what are known as labour credits, using modern technology. Of course, most people trace the origins of the 'from each... to each' quote to Marx, but it's actually from Louis Blanc (who was actually just reversing someboy else's slogan, etc).

under communism, would there be any kind of government? if not how would decisions be made? if so, would this be a totalitarian government?
It depends. If a man governs himself, then is there government involved? If so, then yes, but it would be government of the people, not over. Of course, socialists are generally split over whether to use consensual democracy (of course, even the strongest advocates of this generally acknowledge the need for direct democracy occasionally) or direct democracy. Of course, Marx and Engels believed that one needed elected administrative functions, an idea carried developed by Daniel De Leon. While Bakunin was quick to condemn the word 'election' as implying ruling, Marx pointed out the position of manager in a workers' co-operative, who would, of course, have to be elected. This would probably be done with recall votes possible at any time, probably not using a first-past-the-post system, etc. As these people would be directly responsible to the rank-and-file, as they could be voted out at any time, it would eliminate problems caused by politicians being able to do whatever the hell they want under current representative democracy.
Of course, such a government, or 'administration of things' as Engels terms it, would deal only with economic matters, while social matters would probably be deciided simply through direct democracy. How decentralized this would be is a subject of debate.
Certainly, no totalitarian governments. Well, certainly, there are advocates of one, they used to call themselves 'Blanquists' back in Marx's time, not they call themselves 'Leninists' (of course, some Leninists adhere instead to Lenin's anarchistic promises in 'State and Revolution'). It was them that Marx coined the term 'dictatorship of the proletariat' to differ himself from, as they advocated a minority 'Educational Dictatorship'.
Engels on the Blanquists:
""Brought up in the school of conspiracy, and held together by the strict discipline which went with it, they started out from the viewpoint that a relatively small number of resolute, well-organized men would be able, at a given favorable moment, not only seize the helm of state, but also by energetic and relentless action, to keep power until they succeeded in drawing the mass of the people into the revolution and ranging them round the small band of leaders. This conception involved, above all, the strictest dictatorship and centralization of all power in the hands of the new revolutionary government."
The USSR are regarded as either state capitalist (in that it was capitalism, as identified by class relations, and the upper echelons of the CP formed the capitalist class), or a deformed workers' state (by Trots).

would everyone really be paid the same? or EXACTLY the same?
would there be an abolition of money?
As I already detailed, many socialists have advanced a theory of labour credits. These would basically be given to people based on fixed criterion. Generally socially necessary labour time for each product produced combined is one of them, some say that the other main factor should be supply and demand for the labour (so that the industries balance each other out), others by democratic vote on whether a job is dangerous, etc, and stuff like that, others a combination of both, etc. It would not circulate (it would be destroyed by using it at a shop, and created through labour), though it could probably be exchanged and given away, etc (though this isn't exactly universally agreed upon). Of course, others advocate not using money nor labour credits, but instead using a 'free access' system. Of course, generally, to prevent parasites (who would resemble capitalists under capitalism) from just getting products without doing productive labour, presumably how much one worked would be recorded, etc, and often advocates of the theory just end up supporting invisible, subjective labour credits.
Of course, then there are mutualists, etc.
As for everybody being compensated the exact same, that's a silly myth that people have been spreading for ages. It's false, unless one is using free access (in which case how much stuff you can get would still generally depend on how much labour you did), where nobody gets paid at all.

would there be material goods? like would i have my own xbox 360 and stuff? - basically i mean would everybody have the exact same stuff, same car, house, etc? (I cant word this better just now, so it's not clear what i mean)
We are not puritans. Well, some are, but they're all freaks.
Anyways, we are only human, and thus lazy. Now, imagine that all the homeless were working (which would be tragedic for the economy under capitalism, and never last anyways), as there's no reason that they can't other than capitalists seeking profits. Now, the capitalists, financial advisors and such also labour. This would send the work hour down considerably, and combined with technological innovation, we would soon enough give you much more time to play around and pursue your own interests.
Certainly, everybody would be given housing, medical care, and such. However, people may want different cars, hopefully the public transport system could be optimized so as to make it a better alternative to buying a car, etc, thus different people would get different cars, etc. I don't see why this should change under socialism, and it's mainly something of a strawman rather than something we actually believe. Nobody ever said, "Under socialism, everybody gets the same shit."

Oneironaut

5th December 2008, 19:21

Anarcha-feminist slogan?

Not that I know of. I just felt like typing it as such.

Rosa Lichtenstein

5th December 2008, 19:38

An excellent introduction to Marxism can be found here:

http://users.comcen.com.au/~marcn/redflag/archive/harman/hmw/index.html

Grunt

5th December 2008, 20:21

Oh, come on. Everybody bloody suggests that, I have no idea why. Crud, for that matter, they don't add that Marx considered the 10 planks antiquated in 1872...
Anyways, I'm fairly sure that one wouldn't learn more about socialism from that than from just asking here anyways.
I still consider it important and a must-read.
(Of course one must have a general idea of the social
and political circumstances at the time it was written.)

-------

@Rosa:

Good link, looks like good stuff.:)
Will read as soon as I can!
Thanks! :star2:

cb9's_unity

5th December 2008, 21:30

A lot of people have put up some very helpful posts so i'll just give a few more things to help those new to communism.

For me communism is a stateless, classless society. Most people here will agree with that. Socialism is the classless state period between capitalism and communism, well at least in the marxist term of the word. The term socialism in general usually almost anything that is anti-capitalism and pro further social equality and working class liberation.

Also please make the difference between private property and personal possession. When people talk about the 'property less masses" they don't mean people walking around completely naked because they literally don't have a cloth to their name.

So basically in communism you will not have anyone just going and taking stuff because everyone owns everything. That was a concept that alluded me for quite a while before it was well explained to me.

ZeroNowhere

6th December 2008, 05:00

Socialism is the classless state period between capitalism and communism, well at least in the marxist term of the word.
Be careful here. Marx used the word 'socialism' interchangeably with 'communism'. De Leon and Debs only used 'socialism'. Marx never referred to some kind of 'classless statist period', rather that as long as there were classes, there would have to be a state. The Anarchist FAQ seizes upon this, saying, "Oh no! If there's still a bourgeoisie after a revolution blah blah blah!" Yeah, there is. Let's go with the Spanish Revolution. Did the bourgeoisie still exist? Yes, they were funding Franco (or backstabbing the anarchists, in the case of the USSR bourgeoisie). Did they still exist within the communes? No. However, they did still exist, and thus bourgeois class interests still existed, thus socialism on a small scale (that is, since socialism is international) is the enforcement of proletarian class interests over that of the bourgeosie, thus a "workers' state". Of course, Marx got tired of Bakunin using the term "workers' state", since Bakunin meant a completely different thing.

bawbag

10th December 2008, 17:21

thanks everyone for your inputs, i really have a better understanding of communism and it sounds really good, I have been reading more about it aswell

"From each according his abilities, to each according his needs".

Does this mean that, if I had 1 child and I worked to the best of my abilities and worked really well, and you had 3 children and worked to the best of your abilities but you weren't as good at the job as I was, you would get more than me because you did work and worked your hardest and you have more children so you have more to support, and I would still get what I needed because I have worked well and I still have a child to support? am i getting this right?

and also I'm not sure if this fits in here but maybe some one can have ago

what is the difference between socialism and state socialism?

are all socialists communists? and are they anti capitalist?

thanks again, I like reading what you guys have to say,

Sam_b

11th December 2008, 02:22

Is that Higher politics as in Higher Modern Studies? If so its great :D

I did it to Advanced Higher and did it on the BNP and class consciousness. Very interesting course.

bawbag

11th December 2008, 19:38

no I did Higher Modern Studies last year and passed :lol: so the teacher is running Higher Politics along with it as a different subject, it is actually really good:thumbup1: