is communism centered around materialism? and how is communism inevitable?

[jaiden]

i dont get it, everytime i hear a communist say something it's always about material conditions. everything was a result of material conditions. but what does that mean? so material conditions shape a person and shape history?

also, completely different question, but marx said communism is inevitable. since communism is a stateless, classless society etc how do you reckon this would be achieved properly since it has never yet? also how would a world revolution occur? and a world government?

[Demogorgon]

Yes, Communism is centered around historical materialism. The world is shaped by material forces.

As for Communism being inevitable, Marx didn't say that, he said the choice was between "Socialism or Barbarism", in other words if Communism is not achieved we will eventually descend into barbarism.

You have to remember though, that according to our outlook, history is shaped by class conflict. Changes in society come about when one class overthrows another. It stands to reason that eventually the working class will overthrow the bourgeoisie.

[Red_or_Dead]

i dont get it, everytime i hear a communist say something it's always about material conditions. everything was a result of material conditions. but what does that mean? so material conditions shape a person and shape history?

I admit that my knowledge on this is limited, so ill leave this one to be answered by someone who can handle it better.

also, completely different question, but marx said communism is inevitable. since communism is a stateless, classless society etc how do you reckon this would be achieved properly since it has never yet? also how would a world revolution occur? and a world government?

Well, Marx may have said it, but I wouldnt go as far as saying that it is inevitable - we have to work towards it to achieve it, it wont just fall out of the sky, obviously.

As far as how to achieve it... Well, there are as many theories as there are communists. Some will tell you this, some will tell you that, but something that we all agree upon (communists and anarchists) is that it has to be a result of a revolution, in which the working class will bring down the old order (capitalism), that will be at one point followed by a classless, statless society. Now, some claim (I believe it is the anarchists - an anarchist please correct me if Im wrong) that we should establish such an order right away, or in a short period of time after the revolution. On the other hand, some (communists - that includes me) think that the revolution should be followed by a transitional period - socialism, in which we would be progressing towards a statless, classless society.

As to how would a world revolution occur, I have to say that I dont know. Maybe it will start in one or two countries, and then spread. Maybe it will start at several places at a time - we dont know it yet.

As far as the world government goes - remember, communism is a stateless and classless society. There will be no government.

[Slovo]

Hi, jaiden. Material conditions and 'materialism' are not synonymous. Materialism is a philosophy which recognises all things as 'material' and based around material interaction. Materialism is a focus on action rather than ideas. This philosophy is relevant to Marxism, as Demogorgon said, specifically in terms of 'historical materialism'. Historical materialism is a way of looking at history, at society which can similarly be described as being based around the material interaction of aspects of human society, at it's core, the economic system. It is from this perspective Marxists view social, historical change. Marxists recognise that 'material conditions' are at the core of human existence. Social interaction, society, is focused around economic interaction.

[Bright Banana Beard]

For anarchism, it is desirable and not inevitable.

[Glenn Beck]

everytime i hear a communist say something it's always about material conditions. everything was a result of material conditions. but what does that mean? so material conditions shape a person and shape history?

I think the best summary that clears this up (at least for me) is a quotation of Marx that says "Men make their own history, but not as they please."

Historical materialism isn't to say that everything is the result of blind forces that just toss human beings around. If that were the case then there would be no need for a revolutionary theory, if the future was already set in stone we could, in fact we would have no choice but to just look forward to watching all the pieces falling into place rather than bothering to try to understand and steer the course of history.

But since the past sets the stage for the present and the present for the future, it should be possible to predict what may happen next (I mean isn't planning for the future what human society is all about?). Marx's idea was that by looking at the conflicts within a society one would see which problems would need to be solved in order to move forward. Capitalist society has various contradictions which is what makes it more dynamic than previous social orders that remained stable for centuries but were very stagnant. But this very dynamism makes it unsustainable for various reasons, including the original arguments about the decline of profitability, the worsening of conflict between rich and poor, these prior two reasons causing major wars, and now the ecological limits to expansion that get harder and harder to ignore.

So when you hear the slogan "socialism or barbarism", it is simply drawing attention to the fact that capitalism has passed the point of being a positive development and is now stuck in a rut just like the decadent society it overthrew (think King Louis and his ridiculous palace). Through hard work we human beings must transcend it and build a better society, or else we will end up spending centuries picking up the pieces after this great machine we have built spins out of control. It has happened many times before, a society's contradictions going unresolved and leading to a collapse. The Mayans, Rome, and Easter Island come to mind.

So to clarify, communism isn't necessarily inevitable, but the end of the current system is and that can either occur by moving to a higher level (ie. moving towards communism) or by a major collapse (and the bigger they are the harder they fall, this collapse would be way worse than any Dark Age that came before).

Also there is a wide consensus that the strict and naive view that everything is determined by the economic base of society (ignoring the metaphor that a house is built ON its base, not by it) is a severe misinterpretation of Marxist thought and its been called "economism", "economic determinism" or "vulgar marxism" by critics. It has been popularized as a definitive interpretation of Marx by certain elements in liberal academia for obvious reasons. I wish I could say they just made it up for purposes of propaganda but sadly it's not a very uncommon mistake among socialists at all.

I hope this helps

[Glenn Beck]

Sorry for the double-posting but heres a good bit from wiki:

The dynamic of history according to Marx was shaped precisely by the clash of those interests (class struggle), and that clash could not be understood simply in terms of economic self-interest, because it also involved human needs, customs, traditions, morals and values encompassing a whole way of life. On the other hand, Lenin wrote that "an idea that captures the minds of the masses becomes a material force," meaning that the said needs, customs, traditions, morals and values can be equated to economic forces.

The end result of economic determinism in this view is both economism (a narrow focus on how people earn their livelihood) and economic reductionism (the attempt to reduce a complex social reality to one factor [the economic] such that this one factor causes all other aspects of society). This, according to some[who?] plays directly into the hands of the business class, and ultimately ends in an anti-working class position, whereby the allegiance of the working class is just a "tool" to be used by the political class to modernise an economy, with the aid of forced labour, if need be.

IMO this misunderstanding comes from a confusion with an older Dualist way of thinking about things. Obviously if everything is material then nothing is non-material. All the things that fell on the "spiritual" side of the old artificial split between material and non-material does not just dissappear, but has a material existence. Hence things like ideas and customs are not irrelevant or simply determined by "material factors" like economics. Since in this way of thinking there is nothing to contrast material factors with, they are both material forces that influence and develop as part of eachother's environment (kind of like different genes influence the way a being comes out together).

[trivas7]

i dont get it, everytime i hear a communist say something it's always about material conditions. everything was a result of material conditions. but what does that mean? so material conditions shape a person and shape history?

also, completely different question, but marx said communism is inevitable. since communism is a stateless, classless society etc how do you reckon this would be achieved properly since it has never yet? also how would a world revolution occur? and a world government?

When people talk re material conditions all this means is that before they can do anything else -- make art, love, go to the moon, etc. -- people have materials needs for food and shelter and friendship, etc. that first have to be met. We have no choice re it, we are human animals with animal needs.

No, Marx never said that communism is inevitable, he said that communism was the logical next step of human evolution after capitalism, if people were smart enough to realize it.

[Niccolò Rossi]

No, Marx never said that communism is inevitable, he said that communism was the logical next step of human evolution after capitalism, if people were smart enough to realize it.

Communism is not the product of a great mind, a mere ideal to be realised. Communism is not a "logical next step" dependant on people being "smart enough to realize it".

You are right, however, when you say communism is not inevitable. Communism exists merely as a tendency, it is product of the class struggles, were the proletariat is compelled by it's exploitation and alienation to abolish itself as a class and the social relations of capitalism.

Honestly I'm completely and utterly shocked to see you make such comments.

[Bud Struggle]

Communism is not the product of a great mind,

That's what us OIers keep telling you Commies!

[Trystan]

also, completely different question, but marx said communism is inevitable. since communism is a stateless, classless society etc how do you reckon this would be achieved properly since it has never yet? also how would a world revolution occur? and a world government?

The idea is that history progresses through the overthrow of the oppressing class by the oppressed class. In this case it's the proletariat that overthrows the bourgeoisie. Because the proletariat has no class beneath us, we can build a communist society. I think.

I don't think Marx ever thought that it was absolutely inevitable though.