When was this written?
Miles
Results 1 to 19 of 19
Communism is not a ‘nice idea’; it’s a material necessity. Not a nice idea? Actually, for most of the past century we have been told that it’s a very bad idea, because it means a totalitarian state, poverty wages, superpower politics, labour camps, etc. But despite the vast lie that communism=Stalinism, the idea still persisted that Stalinism wasn’t really communism at all, certainly not the communism envisaged by Marx. But there’s another line of defence: what happened in Russia proves it’s no more than a ‘nice idea’, unworkable in practice because of human nature or the complexities of the modern world. In fact, the very attempt to put it into practice is bound to end in something horrible. So better put up with what we’ve got…
Our point of departure – that of Marxism – is that communism isn’t a ‘nice idea’ because it’s not some scheme invented by well-meaning reformers, but corresponds to a necessity and a possibility provided by the dynamic of history. It’s a necessity because the present organisation of human society – capitalism – has reached a point where it is the system that can’t work for humanity. It has developed man’s powers of production to an unprecedented degree, but in such a manner that these very powers are turning against mankind and threatening to overwhelm him. This is evident when we look at the way technology and science are being used not to free mankind from useless toil and satisfy the basic material needs of the human species, but to create vast arsenals of extermination, to despoil the natural environment, and to serve the needs of a tiny exploiting minority. The very continuation of capitalism, in fact, has become a danger to humanity’s survival, whether through war, ecological collapse, or a combination of both. So getting rid of the present system is not just a nice idea, it’s a historic necessity that is imposed on mankind. It’s possible because the system has set in motion forces that can overcome it: the productive capacity to create abundance and thus end exploitation, and a social class which has a material interest in making a revolution against capitalism, in abolishing capitalist social relations. But note that necessity does not equal inevitability: communism is possible, but so too is the other alternative: the collapse into total barbarism.
When we answer the question ‘what is communism’, it is often necessary to begin with negatives. Certainly by saying ‘it’s not the USSR, China or Cuba’. But more generally by showing what features of the present system have to be got rid of. We could, for example, say:
a) Communism is a society without classes. It’s a basic axiom of the dominant ideology that society always has one bunch of people at the top and the rest at the bottom, with a few in the middle. In other words, that class divisions have always existed and will always exist. In fact, class society is quite a recent invention historically speaking. For tens of thousands of years human beings lived in a ‘primitive’ form of communism, also imposed by necessity. Class divisions emerged over a long period but finally gave rise to the first ‘civilisations’. So communism does set itself a pretty ambitious task is saying it’s going to get rid of thousands of years of class exploitation, which took various forms before capitalism arrived on the scene (despotism, slavery, serfdom…). But at the same time the existence of primitive communism disproves the argument that there’s something ‘natural’ about class divisions. They arose at a certain stage of history because of the old egalitarian social relations became a barrier to the development of the productive forces; but the present social relations have themselves become a barrier to further progress; what is now needed is to get rid of class divisions and private property and create a true community, where all wealth is controlled by the community for its own needs, not for the needs of a privileged minority;
b) Because it’s a society without classes, it’s a society without a state. The state has not been there for all time but arose as society split into contending classes, with the function of preserving social cohesion in the interests of the dominant class. Get rid of class divisions and you get rid of the state. This is already an answer to all those who argue that the more the state controls the economy, the closer we get to socialism or communism;
c) Communism is a society without money. In other words: unlike in capitalism where everything is produced for sale and to make a profit, in communism the motive of production is to meet human needs. Money will become unnecessary because production and consumption are no longer mediated by exchange. Again, this is possible because it has finally become feasible to produce enough for everybody’s needs, so goods can be freely distributed, even if, as with the problem of the state, this can’t be solved overnight. And it’s a necessity because producing for profit is the source of all the contradictions of the capitalist economy – the tendency towards the fall in the rate of profit and the crisis of overproduction. These contradictions once spurred capitalism to become a world wide system, and in this sense laid the foundations for communism, but at a certain point they became the source of growing catastrophes which demand a fundamental reorganisation of the whole system of production;
d) Communism is also a society without national frontiers. Capitalism developed the nation state as its ‘highest’ form of unity, but again, the very form of the nation state has become a fundamental obstacle, a danger for humanity, because capitalist competition has essentially become economic and military warfare between armed powers for the control of the globe. But despite this ‘war of each against all’, the system still functions as whole and it is impossible to escape its laws inside one region or country. The revolution has to be worldwide, and the new social organisation has to use all the earth’s resources in common. This is evident, for example, when it comes to dealing with the ecological crisis.
These are all negative definitions. Which doesn’t mean that communism is just negation. Marxists have always avoided ‘recipes’ but from the young Marx onwards there have been attempts to describe in positive terms what communism, especially in its more advanced phases, will be like: labour as a source of pleasure not torture; the fusion of work, science and art; man’s harmony with nature ‘without and within’ and thus the overcoming of the conflict between consciousness and instinct….
For us, these attempts by Marxists to describe the distant communist future are not ‘utopian’ because they are based on real human capacities: as Trotsky put it, the average human being will one day be as creative as Goethe or Shakespeare, but Goethe and Shakespeare are also only human, products of real human life. But they are also not utopian because communism is, as Marx put it, is “the real movement that abolishes the present state of affairs”. In one sense, this movement is the movement of all the exploited and oppressed classes in history, but more specifically, it is the movement of the proletariat, the working class. From the beginning Marx based his understanding of communism on the recognition that there was a class in society whose struggle had an implicitly communist dynamic - a class which could only emancipate itself by emancipating the whole of society from thousands of years of exploitation.
The proletarian struggle contains a dynamic towards communism because this is a class that can only defend itself in an associated manner, through the widest possible solidarity – and the society of the future is a society founded on solidarity. It contains a dynamic towards communism because communism is the first society in history where mankind will have a conscious mastery of its own productive powers – and the class struggle of the proletariat cannot advance without becoming increasingly conscious of its methods and its goals. From the beginning therefore, these fundamental needs of the class movement, the need for solidarity and the need to become conscious of its goals, gave rise to organised forms – trade unions, mutual aid societies, cooperatives on the one hand; and political organisations or parties on the other. Constantly subject to the pressure of the dominant class and its ideology, these forms often disappeared or were captured by the enemy class, but the class struggle constantly gave rise to new forms more suited to its own evolution.
Thus, as capitalism reached the end of its ascendant course, as it entered its epoch of decline, the proletarian movement was no longer simply confronted with the need to define and defend itself within the existing order, but to turn defence into attack and mount a challenge to the very foundations of that order. Marx had deduced that the class struggle would lead to revolution from the first defensive skirmishes of proletarians hardly evolved from their artisan roots. But even in his lifetime the capacity of the working class to storm the heavens was demonstrated in practice by the Paris Commune, the first “workingman’s government”, the first indication of the capacity of the working class to overturn the existing state power and set up its own form of power. The capacity of the proletariat to organise itself as a force antagonistic to capital was further demonstrated by the mass strikes in Russia in 1905, and on an even higher level by the revolutionary wave that arose in response to the First World War, the highest point of all being the seizure of power by the soviets or workers’ councils in Russia. The workers’ councils, as Lenin observed, were the finally discovered form of the dictatorship of the proletariat. A form which allowed the whole working class to regroup, to control its struggles through mass assemblies and revocable delegates, to fuse the economic and the political dimension of the struggle, to arm itself and destroy the bourgeois state. A form, finally, which allowed the consciousness of the working class to progress by leaps and bounds, influenced decisively by the intervention of the most advanced fraction of the class, the communist party.
The revolutionary wave that followed the war was defeated. In Russia, where the working class for the first time took power at the level of an entire country, the revolution was strangled by isolation and the very instruments that had served it at one stage turned against it at another. But from this tragic experience, vital lessons were learned, in particular: the necessity for the workers’ councils to maintain their autonomy from all other political institutions that may arise after the destruction of the old apparatus of power; the impossibility of the communist party taking on tasks that belong to the class as a whole, above all the exercising of political power; the understanding that the nationalisation of the economy does not mean a break with capitalist social relations.
Despite the historic defeat suffered by the working class at that time, despite all the horrors that followed in its wake - Stalinist and Nazi terror, a second imperialist world war – we do not therefore conclude that the communist revolution is an impossible dream, but remain determined to preserve and develop these lessons so that they can feed into the revolution of the future.
-International Communist Current
"Communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution." - Karl Marx
Pale Blue Jadal
When was this written?
Miles
Winter 2006, why?
"Communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution." - Karl Marx
Pale Blue Jadal
i love it! ok i found it!!!
we need more revolutions and less "isms"
I was wondering if it pre-dated the League's "What is Communism?" statement, which is similar.
Miles
Does it?
"Communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution." - Karl Marx
Pale Blue Jadal
It cannot be created the Leninist way that is what history has shown us for sure.
"Government is an association of men who do violence to the rest of us." Leo Tolstoy
"In existing States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it." Peter Kropotkin
Plagiarise, plagiarise, let no one's work evade your eyes!
oh yeah it can not be created the leninist way...history has shown us that...what way has history shown us from which it might be created? very easy to denounce the actual revolutions that took place, soviet union, china and cuba .....show us another way where it has achieved success.... if u dont have an alternative that has not been proved by history do kindly not insult these fevolutions for which people gave lives..wonder what makes u qualified to pass comments on lenin, stalin, mao and castro..spend time in exlie, forests and prison as they have done and then try to demean them..dont try to pass judgements on people who have suffered lost more than u ever will..u will never reach their level of hardship...funny how u in your comfortable home pass judgement on people who have taken part in actual wars and lived like animals only for their ideals...have some shame,,
In what ways were they a "success"?? In instituting state capitalism? In executing millions and blackening the good name of socialism for generations? Sorry, I don't call that a victory.
The Iranian Revolution succeeded too, should I refrain from denouncing that "success"??
Wow, lets think of the all the reactionary revolutions and revolts throughout history that people gave their lives for....Monarchists, fascists, Nazis , religious fundamentalist all "gave their lives' for their cause too, does that mean I shouldn'lt criticize them? Or is it just the people and revolutions you have put up on a pedestal?
Nor will I reach their comforts: Castro came a very wealthy family and lives better than most Cubans do, he drives around in a Mercedez when most Cubans don't drive at all and if they do its in 50 year old cars on the verge of breaking down.
Mao had an indoor pool installed inside his house.
And even if they did suffer "hardships" so did lots of other people, including reactionaries and religious fundamentalits, your point?
Your right.
I should never, ever pass judgment on the Nazis and fascists which gave their lives for their cause, lived like animals and took part in actual wars. Ditto for the Christians, Jews and Islamists who all died for their cause and suffered hardships too. Good point.
"Government is an association of men who do violence to the rest of us." Leo Tolstoy
"In existing States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it." Peter Kropotkin
I am sorry, what does that have to do with this thread?
Please don't turn this thread into a sectarian debate, can an admin split the thread?
"Communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution." - Karl Marx
Pale Blue Jadal
I fear it was you who started the sectarianism, my friend.
I quote from your work:
"Yes, the brutalities of progress are called revolutions. When they are over, this fact is recognized---that the human race has been treated harshly, but it has progressed."
(Victor Hugo, in "Les Miserables")
Join me in discussing the rise of revolutionary anti-imperialist movements worldwide and in the India-Pakistan region, on my blog:
www.wrathofhephaestus.wordpress.com
I don't think it's plagiarized. I do think ours might have influenced the author of theirs, though. If so, that's cool.
Miles
It's not actually my work.
No matter what you believe, that's the truth. Just take a look at all those glorious Stalinist states now... right, they are all full blown capitalist states. Care to wonder why?
Yes, especially looking at the way they are doing right now, it is very easy.
Show us where your way has achieved any success other than capitalist success?
It might be possible but I am not sure... To my knowledge, comrades from the ICC learned about the existence of the Communist League in Summer - Fall 2006 but perhaps their US section did know about CL from before.
Anyway, I don't think it is really a big deal.
"Communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution." - Karl Marx
Pale Blue Jadal
I expected to see anarchists bashing Marxism here, but to me it seems childish and silly to believe Leninism is a 'failure'. The hippie-like belief that we can attain a free society by some kind of vague non-violent (or totally non-dictatorial) revolution is simple utopianism. Do you think when the revolution comes, the current rulers aren't going to fight back? We need a system to keep them from causing further havoc, and the only real way to do that is to exercise militant Leninism for a period until the revolution can be fully consolidated.
I would argue that you should. The Iranian revolution freed the country from imperialism and institued a number of socialist-minded advancements in society. Today, they are one of the few governments that speak out against Western empire.
I would be interested to see where Cuba has 'executed millions'. By even the highest estimates, a few thousand have been killed since 1959, most after public, televised trials.
I don't think anyone here is supporting non-violent revolutions as a means.
Also, I don't think anyone denies that a revolution is authoritarian, quoting the Friends or Durruti:
(or something along those lines)
Leo Uileann is also a Marxist, yet he is against the "glorious" stalinist States.
Actually, I find the reverse to be true in my opinion; its silly and childish to believe that Leninism is a sucess when, history as shown, none of them have ever reached communism or had any significant "whitering" of the state and while most have instead turned to capitalism.
Almost everyone here knows that they are going to fight back with all they got, especially if we become a real and large threat.
"My heart sings for you both. Imagine it singing. la la la la."- Hannah Kay
"if you keep calling average working people idiots i am sure they will be more apt to listen to what you have to say. "-bcbm
"Sometimes false consciousness can be more destructive than apathy, just like how sometimes, doing nothing is actually better than doing the wrong thing."- Robocommie
"The ruling class would tremble, and the revolution would be all but assured." -Explosive Situation, on the Revleft Merry Prankster bus
Actually, they all have.
Kasama Project- We Are the Ones
South Asia Revolution - Information Project
Kasama Threads
"Settle your quarrels, come together, understand the reality of our situation, understand that fascism is already here, that people are dying who could be saved, that generations more will live poor butchered half-lives if you fail to act. Do what must be done, discover your humanity and your love in revolution." - George Jackson
The title of the thread caught my eye too. On December 1, 2001, I published an article called What Is Communism And How Can We Achieve It?
[QUOTE In what ways were they a "success"?? In instituting state capitalism? In executing millions and blackening the good name of socialism for generations? Sorry, I don't call that a victory.
]
executed millions? research for urself and see. the UN estimates that life expectancy under stalin doubled and is still higher than it is today. he executed millions and life expectancy figures as per the UN says it is so high. must be some millions he executed.
[QUOTE The Iranian Revolution succeeded too, should I refrain from denouncing that "success"??
] you should study what factors made it a sucess and what we can learn from it
[QUOTE Wow, lets think of the all the reactionary revolutions and revolts throughout history that people gave their lives for....Monarchists, fascists, Nazis , religious fundamentalist all "gave their lives' for their cause too, does that mean I shouldn'lt criticize them? Or is it just the people and revolutions you have put up on a pedestal?
] only someone as silly as u can say these. everybody knows class struggle is a struggle for life and death. so nazis gave their life for their class. how this compares to lives given for the proletraian class struggle i dont know. realize that in class struggle it is a matter of life or death, it is silly to assume that only class conscious revolutionaries can give their lives for a cause, our enemies can too thats why we have to fight with our lives. the difference is here in the cause. one is life for a given order of exploitationa and another against the same. so thats where u pass ur judgement if u did not know.
[/QUOTE Nor will I reach their comforts: Castro came a very wealthy family and lives better than most Cubans do, he drives around in a Mercedez when most Cubans don't drive at all and if they do its in 50 year old cars on the verge of breaking down.] yes and i guess u were in the mountains of sierra maestra for all those years with castro and faced all those hardships. i admire u comrade!
and i think all those in this forum who beileve in withering away of the state like a miracle are anarchists or ignorant of marxism. lenin never sadi that the state will wither away immediately and i am with him. ur dreams of a state less society ina state where all its enemies are capitalist states waiting to crush it is 100% utopia.
be practical and be a good leninist and hence a good marxist
