Well, the removed comment was about how people bastardize communism with a form of socialism and that “real communism” isn’t authoritarian.
“Real communism” is a classless, stateless, moneyless society where the means of production are communally owned, and people self-govern. Everything up until that point is some form of socialism where the means of production are owned by the people, through the control of the state. That is not possible in the real world, just like the idealistic capitalism on paper is not possible in the real world. Humans are too flawed to have perfect systems.
The absolute best you could ever hope for is some form of Democratic Socialism, where the means of production are owned by the people, through the means of the state, where the state is controlled directly by the people through democratic means. There is still going to be a state involved though, and all governments are authoritarian by nature. That’s the entire point of a state, to be the authority.
So, I was arguing against the comment that I directly replied to, thank you very much.
I think you’re drawing a harder line between socialism and communism than actually exists. Communism still has administration, it’s just without special bodies for class repression as all of society will be classless. Communism is essentially fully developed, global socialism.
Again, I am not the one that drew the line… The now removed comment did.
And no, you are the one now trying to blur the line. There is a hard line between socialism and communism, and that line is the existence of a State. Communism is by definition stateless. Marx was pretty explicit about that part.
Up until that, it requires a dictatorship of the proletariat. Which is de facto an authoritarian state to enforce the transition from capitalism to socialism, with the end goal of the state naturally withering away and losing all of its power.
That last bit is the impossible part in the real world. Give humans power and they will never naturally give it up. Power always corrupts. You will always get someone in there believing that they are truly chasing the common good, and they will use any means necessary to get there.
I’m not contradicting Marx here. Communism is stateless, yes, but that does not mean it is without administration. Here’s Engels in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:
When, at last, it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a State, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not “abolished”. It dies out. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase: “a free State”, both as to its justifiable use at times by agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the State out of hand.
Emphasis my own.
The administration of things and the conduct of the processes of production both directly imply some degree of vertical organization and accounting so as to plan production of the people, by the people, for the people. This is not considered a state as there is no special apparatus for the restriction of a class in society, as there is no class. It is merely the organization of classless society.
My point is that that is physically impossible in the real world. Engels is fundamentally wrong when he says " The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State."
That first act of the State is just that, the first act of the State. Once the State seizes power, it will NEVER naturally lose it.
You cannot have people without governing the people. People aren’t robots. They are diverse individuals with wildly differing moral compasses and ideas, and you absolutely need some sort of governance to resolve disagreements among the people, and a system of authority that enforces those agreements. You cannot have a society without laws, because there will always be people that don’t want to cooperate in society. And you cannot have laws without a State enforcing those laws, through the threat of violence.
I mean, hell, we live in a society right now where there are PLENTY of people that commit violent crimes, pedophilia, thefts, sexual assault, murder, etc. That isn’t going to somehow disappear. There will always be people like that. And that requires a State with a monopoly on violence to keep under control. And as long as you have a State, you will never have a truly classless society, because by virtue of having an authoritative body that governs the people, those in power are in a separate class than the rest of the people.
Again, you’re arguing against a strawman. Marxism is not about the abolition of administration, but of class society. Administration is not a class, and your vulgarization of the definition of class is what your entire argument rests upon. In reality, class is a relation to ownership of the means of production, and as such administrators that share collective ownership with all of society do not form their own class, but instead represent a subcategory of the rest of the working class.
Really, your argument is that it’s impossible to collectivize all of production and distribution. I disagree with this notion, it’s rather obvious at this point that markets are erasing their own foundations and that production and distribution are indeed socializing as Marx predicted. However, you are taking Marx for an anarchist when you make the assertion that the state itself is a class, and are horrendously butchering Marxism to do so.
If you’re going to argue against Marxism, you should do so based on the points that actually exist in Marxism, not an absurd strawman concocted in your own imagination.
The things is that a lot of communists take Soviet Union as a good example, consider Stalin a positive, use Soviet symbology, etc.
The way I read this, is whatever was in USSR, at any stage, is ok by them and is representative.
And then my lived experience have a bone to pick.
So I don’t mind yer opinions on organization of society, but as soon as I hear something along the lines of “akshully Stalin gud”, that’s a huge red flag (ba-dum-tssss)
Fair play. I find his analysis interesting and agree in many ways, but his conclusion about the inevitability of communist revolution are, well, wishful thinking.
Removed by mod
Well the thing is that the utopian communism people idolize does not, will not, and cannot exist in reality.
Human beings are not capable of it.
What are you specifically arguing against? Who are the Utopian communists of today? The solarpunk community?
Well, the removed comment was about how people bastardize communism with a form of socialism and that “real communism” isn’t authoritarian.
“Real communism” is a classless, stateless, moneyless society where the means of production are communally owned, and people self-govern. Everything up until that point is some form of socialism where the means of production are owned by the people, through the control of the state. That is not possible in the real world, just like the idealistic capitalism on paper is not possible in the real world. Humans are too flawed to have perfect systems.
The absolute best you could ever hope for is some form of Democratic Socialism, where the means of production are owned by the people, through the means of the state, where the state is controlled directly by the people through democratic means. There is still going to be a state involved though, and all governments are authoritarian by nature. That’s the entire point of a state, to be the authority.
So, I was arguing against the comment that I directly replied to, thank you very much.
I think you’re drawing a harder line between socialism and communism than actually exists. Communism still has administration, it’s just without special bodies for class repression as all of society will be classless. Communism is essentially fully developed, global socialism.
Again, I am not the one that drew the line… The now removed comment did.
And no, you are the one now trying to blur the line. There is a hard line between socialism and communism, and that line is the existence of a State. Communism is by definition stateless. Marx was pretty explicit about that part.
Up until that, it requires a dictatorship of the proletariat. Which is de facto an authoritarian state to enforce the transition from capitalism to socialism, with the end goal of the state naturally withering away and losing all of its power.
That last bit is the impossible part in the real world. Give humans power and they will never naturally give it up. Power always corrupts. You will always get someone in there believing that they are truly chasing the common good, and they will use any means necessary to get there.
I’m not contradicting Marx here. Communism is stateless, yes, but that does not mean it is without administration. Here’s Engels in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:
Emphasis my own.
The administration of things and the conduct of the processes of production both directly imply some degree of vertical organization and accounting so as to plan production of the people, by the people, for the people. This is not considered a state as there is no special apparatus for the restriction of a class in society, as there is no class. It is merely the organization of classless society.
My point is that that is physically impossible in the real world. Engels is fundamentally wrong when he says " The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State."
That first act of the State is just that, the first act of the State. Once the State seizes power, it will NEVER naturally lose it.
You cannot have people without governing the people. People aren’t robots. They are diverse individuals with wildly differing moral compasses and ideas, and you absolutely need some sort of governance to resolve disagreements among the people, and a system of authority that enforces those agreements. You cannot have a society without laws, because there will always be people that don’t want to cooperate in society. And you cannot have laws without a State enforcing those laws, through the threat of violence.
I mean, hell, we live in a society right now where there are PLENTY of people that commit violent crimes, pedophilia, thefts, sexual assault, murder, etc. That isn’t going to somehow disappear. There will always be people like that. And that requires a State with a monopoly on violence to keep under control. And as long as you have a State, you will never have a truly classless society, because by virtue of having an authoritative body that governs the people, those in power are in a separate class than the rest of the people.
Again, you’re arguing against a strawman. Marxism is not about the abolition of administration, but of class society. Administration is not a class, and your vulgarization of the definition of class is what your entire argument rests upon. In reality, class is a relation to ownership of the means of production, and as such administrators that share collective ownership with all of society do not form their own class, but instead represent a subcategory of the rest of the working class.
Really, your argument is that it’s impossible to collectivize all of production and distribution. I disagree with this notion, it’s rather obvious at this point that markets are erasing their own foundations and that production and distribution are indeed socializing as Marx predicted. However, you are taking Marx for an anarchist when you make the assertion that the state itself is a class, and are horrendously butchering Marxism to do so.
If you’re going to argue against Marxism, you should do so based on the points that actually exist in Marxism, not an absurd strawman concocted in your own imagination.
This is also how I feel about the concept of societal anarchy.
The things is that a lot of communists take Soviet Union as a good example, consider Stalin a positive, use Soviet symbology, etc.
The way I read this, is whatever was in USSR, at any stage, is ok by them and is representative.
And then my lived experience have a bone to pick.
So I don’t mind yer opinions on organization of society, but as soon as I hear something along the lines of “akshully Stalin gud”, that’s a huge red flag (ba-dum-tssss)
It’s very funny to describe something you weren’t alive for as “lived experience”
Removed by mod
Fair play. I find his analysis interesting and agree in many ways, but his conclusion about the inevitability of communist revolution are, well, wishful thinking.