what is true communism?

[danyboy27]

my personnal definition of it would be: a stateless, classeless society.

what yours?

[yuon]

Well, for me, that definition is a little broad. After all, I could discuss various anarchistic type society blueprints which aren't communistic.

Definitely communism is stateless and classless. However, it is only one type of society that has those characteristics. Generally people talk about economics in situations like this, because, that is the defining characteristic, what sort of economic system is in place.

Most people would suggest that the principle "from each according to their need, to each according to their ability" is required for a communist society. Personally, I can see all sorts of possible problems with that principle.

As well, I can suggest that it is possible for a communistic society to have a social hierarchy (and thus not be anarchistic). Perhaps a religious hierarchy, where the priests have the final say in how things are?

[red cat]

my personnal definition of it would be: a stateless, classeless society.

what yours?

Such a system did exist earlier(ancient communism). However, when we talk of communism, we refer to what can be a possible state of the society in future. Assuming that Marxism is true, there can be only one type of communist society in future, whose internal contradictions follow uniquely from qualitative leaps from the present society. Communism can be defined as a classless society(statelessness follows from this) that appears after class distinctions cease to exist.

[Green Dragon]

It depends entirely upon the communist/socialist with whom you communicate.

[Durruti's Ghost]

COMMUNISM: A stateless, classless, moneyless society in which goods and services are provided through democratic associations of workers and are freely available to all.

COLLECTIVISM: A stateless, classless society in which goods and services are produced through democratic associations of workers and are distributed by the collective according to each person's contribution.

MUTUALISM: A stateless, classless society in which goods and services are produced through democratic associations of workers and are traded on a market.

ANARCHISM: A stateless, classless society in which goods and services are provided through democratic associations of workers.

SOCIALISM: A classless society in which goods and services are provided through democratic associations of workers.

[spice756]

Well a true communism has no law , court , rules or state.Now some anarchist want cops and prisons and other don't

The prisons , jails and cops are big debate among anarchist .Some anarchist what private property and other do not.

In communism people own stuff not a person but a group.In Socialism the state owns stuff.

It like the natives they own and share every thing.Both Socialism and communism is sharing. And people work has group not one.

[rebelmouse]

communism and anarchism are the same:

A stateless, classless, moneyless society in which goods and services are provided through democratic associations of workers and are freely available to all

people who want private property are not anarchists than many lost people try to include themselves in anarchist movement with their occupying of our idea. so, don't believe to everybody when he represent himself as something.
anarcho-capitalist are just capitalist, they are not anarchists, for example. anarchism is not only abolishing of the state and making of freedom for capital, than anarchism is abolishing of capital (and hierarchy, etc). so, some people can't call themselves anarcho even they do it.

[spice756]

There are different types of anarchy rebelmouse.

[Ovi]

There are different types of anarchy rebelmouse.

Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. You can't be an anarchist (against all authority) and a capitalist at the same time. It's like Communism and communism, they don't have much in common.

[yuon]

Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. You can't be an anarchist (against all authority) and a capitalist at the same time. It's like Communism and communism, they don't have much in common.

Err, true you can't have anarchist capitalism. But you can have more than just anarchist communism. Anarchism has a large amount of different possibilities, with supporters all claiming that their particular version provides the most freedom.

Personally, I'm in it for the freedom, what are you in it for?

[Durruti's Ghost]

Not all anti-capitalists are communists. Bakunin, for example, was a collectivist but not a communist.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Not all anti-capitalists are communists. Bakunin, for example, was a collectivist but not a communist.

I disagree with your assessment that collectivism is not communism. What makes you say that?

[Durruti's Ghost]

I disagree with your assessment that collectivism is not communism. What makes you say that?

In collectivism, goods and services must be purchased from the collective with labor-credits (or whatever the collective calls the medium it uses to reward contributions); in communism, goods and services are freely available to all as needed or desired (though in cases of shortages, rationing can be used to ensure equitable distribution).

[Old Man Diogenes]

I disagree with your assessment that collectivism is not communism. What makes you say that?

The only difference between anarcho-collectivism and communism is that, in communism goods are distributed based on need, and in collectivism goods and workers salaries are determined in democratic organizations based on the amount of time they contributed to production.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Interesting. I thought collectivism was more a broad term for allowing collective decision making to have authority over members. Distribution based on production kind of sucks. Are people with disabilities thrown to the wolves? What is the reason for that distinction?

[RGacky3]

my personnal definition of it would be: a stateless, classeless society.

THe personaly definition is meaningless, whats meaningful is what most people understand it to be, or the traditional meaning.

Which is classless, stateless society, i.e. Anarchism.

I personally think the word communism has been made a little too mystical, as if its some magical utopia almost impossible to reach. I peronally think that some places like the Zapatista territories, where there are not really classes, and where there is no state control, can be called communism broadly, I know many people disagree, but thats what I think.

[Bud Struggle]

THe personaly definition is meaningless, whats meaningful is what most people understand it to be, or the traditional meaning.

Well what MOST people take Comminism to mean is the Soviet Union and all its works and pomps. I just saw a show on TV Sunday saying "the Communist did this and the Communists did that" and all the while they meant the Soviets.

Quite distracting but that's how the vast amount of people understand Communism, at least in the USA.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, "soviet" to me is a word for "council" not "government of the Soviet Union" and therefore the "soviets" didn't do this or that. On the other hand the members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union did.

So is it any worse to call them 'communists' than 'soviets'? I'd argue that in one way it's more exact.

On the other hand, I'm one of those "well it isn't my sort of communism" types. I don't think what they were doing was communism (Russia wasn't communist), but they were members of the Communist Party, so they as individuals were 'communists' from that point of view, but not 'real' communists...

[Bud Struggle]

Well, "soviet" to me is a word for "council" not "government of the Soviet Union" and therefore the "soviets" didn't do this or that. On the other hand the members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union did.

So is it any worse to call them 'communists' than 'soviets'? I'd argue that in one way it's more exact.

The point I was comming from is that they called THEMSELVES the Soviet Union. I was refering to their name rather than to what they did with the name.

On the other hand, I'm one of those "well it isn't my sort of communism" types. I don't think what they were doing was communism (Russia wasn't communist), but they were members of the Communist Party, so they as individuals were 'communists' from that point of view, but not 'real' communists...

Yea, I can agree with that. Personally, I'm the kind of Capitalist that helps children get free medical help and that builds slums into nice middle class housing and donates money to feed the hungry. I'm not the kind of Capitalist that exploits the poor and creates dictatorships in third world countries and has kids working in Asian sweat shops.

No sir-ee! Not me!

[Durruti's Ghost]

Interesting. I thought collectivism was more a broad term for allowing collective decision making to have authority over members. Distribution based on production kind of sucks. Are people with disabilities thrown to the wolves? What is the reason for that distinction?

Well, a collectivist society can have some sort of social insurance system set up for people with disabilities or people who develop major (or, hell, even minor) illnesses. The point is that even if some elements of communistic distribution are present, the majority of distribution is based on the contributions of the individuals.

Generally, collectivists are socialists who accept the classic "zomg but there are no incentives!!!" argument against socialism and are thus trying to find a way to make socialism compatible with material incentives. Pointing out the possibility of a collectivist society is an easy way to refute this argument against socialism--although it is kind of a cop-out, since one can easily refute it while still leaving communism as a possibility. Communism>collectivism, of course.