Authoritative VS Voluntary Communism

[closetcommie]

Help me out here, comrades. As I've stated earlier, I'm not necessarily new to communist theory, but I'm not really well read on it, and I don't have anybody in "real time" to chat with about it.

In reading a lot of posts, I see a lot of discussion about previous examples of communism (or so-called previous examples), where the revolution was too authoritative, or autocratic, and wasn't built on democratic principles, etc. I've also read some opinions where some have said they would only support communism if it were voluntary, and not compulsory, etc.

The discussion of communism or socialism brings out a lot of idealism among conversants, but how could communism being brought about pragmatically? Many societies in Western Civ have devolved, where the aristocrats lost control, and/or the working class or peasants took over -- or the working class provided an engine for a revolution of sorts, actual, or at least political. Not all of these have miraculously given birth to communist societies.

The most radical devolution of a capitalism society in the last hundred years is probably the fall of the Weimar Republic. As fortunes fell, Germany became ripe for revolution, and while communism became a possiblity, the reds had competition, namely fascism, which eventually won out.

After globalization completely realigns western economies (meaning, the point at which it has completely annihilated the middle class, and turned all non-elites into the working poor), we'll see the first time in world history where most of the "advanced" nations become ripe for revolution. Again, though, there is no inherent gene that kicks in and starts making people quote Marx and Engels -- revolutions will naturally occur, and will be directed through organizations and charismatic individuals who provide the most coherent pathway to the alleviation of the worker's suffering. Some may swing communist, but in places where capital is still strong, it may swing fascist.

I don't believe communism can be successful if by the time these revolutions occur, that what constitutes communism are lofty ideals held by people who think such ideas will naturally occur without strong leadership and guidance. Capitalism requires the masses to be ignorant, and these ignorant masses will be the building blocks of any society that survives the inevitable meltdowns caused by unfettered capitalism.

Is it pragmatically possible, really, for communism to occur spontaneously, where 100% of any nation's workers will arise in unison, or will strong persuasive leaders be required? Is it logical to presume that even in a successful communist revolution, that 100% of the nation's workers will want socialism, and won't fall under the propaganda of a competing revolutionary agenda?

While committee-based, democratically elected governance will be the preferred eventual outcome of any communist revolution, is it realistic to expect, or even want, that approach during the actual revolution?

Methinks we'll require strong people like Lenin, Castro, Mao in order to enact successful governmental change, that such change won't be automatically welcomed by 100% of the workers, and such "communism" will thusly NOT be "voluntary" to all. There are several different "strains" or "interpretations" of communism/socialism/anarchism -- and none will be successful because they are the most true, but because they ran the best propaganda campaigns during the "harvest" period.

Given that the working class is hardwired by manipulative capitalism and their sweet drug of rampant consumerism -- won't successful campaigns have to comply with this paternalistic programming? At least until we "own" the "server?"

Enlighten me . . .

[celticfire]

I think its wrong to assume past examples weren't based on democratic rights and to generally write them off - it smacks of laziness and lack of communist critical spirt. I personally think the Russian Revolution and Chinese Revolution were profoundly democratic.

Is it pragmatically possible, really, for communism to occur spontaneously, where 100% of any nation's workers will arise in unison, or will strong persuasive leaders be required? Is it logical to presume that even in a successful communist revolution, that 100% of the nation's workers will want socialism, and won't fall under the propaganda of a competing revolutionary agenda?

Well if that did happen I'd be right there with bells on, but it seems more like a whole lot of idealism. History has shown that we usually only wrench away small enclaves from the imperialists, wether base areas or even nations - but not entire continents - and never "at the same time" - it's taken pain staking revolutionary struggles and civil wars. So I think for many reasons its important to bring forward real revolutionary leaders and rally to support them and protect them; while at the same time struggling with them and keeping them in check.