This thread is permanently archived
Commies, explain yourselves.
| For me, there is communism, which was a dictatorial failed try for at least coming near true communism,
Then there is communism lite, what China is doing now
And then there is True Communism which we'll never reach because it would mean we create an utopia and humans can't do that, or at least not any time soon.
| >Does your "communism" inherently require the ownership of ALL means of production by the state?
Yes, but it is important that the state is just a tool, democratically controlled by people.
>And what does that entail
International unity of the working class. And always beeing aware of the class enemy and of not becoming what you fight against.
| I am an anarcho communist, which entails communities that co-opt work and distribute power horizontally among the workers. Utilities and production facilities will stand but would be public use.
| If you even tried to learn about this "nebulous" communism you'd learn what it is. Not a commie but it is Classless, moneyless, workers own means of production, and stateless. The part that comes before communism according to Marxism is socialism, which is essentially communism except not stateless.
| OP here. Real quick, I ask this because a lot of self-declared communists ive talked to over the years have had very different opinions on things. I aknowledge that my fist question was a bit obvious, but that was the intent. Clearly reaffirm the most basic of assumptuons before moving forward. I know that typically communism associates with full state or communal ownership, I was just curious if that appkied to those here.
| Which brings me to a question of distribution equality. Exact equality, equality based on contribution, or equality based on need?
| >>364822 ok that clears it up quite a bit.
>>364824 the focus Would vary depending on what exact type of communism. If it was state based communism it's a lot more complicated because you would need to implement equity based systems to buy time and smooth the path to systematic equality. Anarchist or communal based communism could go almost directly into direct equality without any in beteeen steps.
| Would you maintain any concept of ownership? (Ie. Hey, that's MY sandwich) in both mentioned scenarios respectively.
| >>364837 of course. The common misconception is that when we say "abolish private property" folks go straight to "oh no my toothbrush" or something, but that falls under personal property, not private. Private property describes means of production like factories, mills, etc. The reason im wary of state run communism is that the boards and committees can claim personal land as state owned means of production and effectively evict folks with no warning or reason.
| What would define private property and means of production? Many craftsman create within their own residence. Would that count as personal or private, and what of the resulting crafts? Again, asking of curiosity of your personal opinions.
| >>364864 i use private property as an umbrella term, but means of production is used to describe property or spaces that are used to make goods in bulk. Private property would be made communal workshops, and folks would be free to produce their own or others goods at their leisure. If they create it, its personal by all means, even if its a means of production of its own, if its meant for personal use, it is personal.
1/??
| >>364886 However, under state communism then the products made through public means could fall under state property as it is made from state products and state maintained facilities. Thus, workers effort would be taken by the state which would create a new bourgeoisie,defeating the purpose of establishing communism.
| Oh man, its me (>>445833, >>6238a8, and >>9488a8), sorry about my id changes. Im on mobile bc im traveling right now.
| Billionaires must die
| How would harvesting and distribution of food work, ideally, for you? From start to finish.
| >>364911 bureaucracy that administrates socialist state isn't "new bourgeoisie" it's not even a class, how many types I need to remind this to trotskyists and anarchists.
| >>364969 for me it would be collective or state owned farms that make enough grain/rice/milk etc. according to the plan, then the state takes portion of these and sends them to food processing plants after which food products are redistribute to population throughout Public Distribution System. How much food anyone gets depends on age, health, job and profession of a individual.
| >>365175
In theory you are right. But in practise it failed so far. This doesn't mean we shouldn't try it again. But as a communist you must be aware not to be destroyed or tricked by the capitalists AND not to become what you fight against. That's a heavy burden for any honest socialist/communist. At least if he really wants to liberate people and not put them into a red painted capitalist or fascist system of opression and artificial dependencies on authorities.
| >>365175
If Trotsky was taking over the leadership instead stalin, the industrialization would be also forced brutally. But in the end he wouldn't let execute competent officers and honest communists with an unreasonable paranoia like stalin. I think the soviet Union would have been much more successful in any aspect and at least more sustainable and democratic under Trotsky. Stalin was a traitor who allied with nazists and capitalists only to secure his reign as dictator.
| >>365194 Trotsky obviously wanted to overthrow Stalin and in general was less competent in international politics (he wanted endless war). The only reason Stalin signed pact with Hitler was to give Soviet Union more time to industrialise and get ready for inevitable war with Hitler. Stalin also wanted to get his hands on few German technologies as well. His logic was to let Capitalists to fight each other and weaken themselves untill proles would overthrow the western governments.
| This is amazingly civil
| >>365208
No. It was stalin who overthrew Trotsky. Trotsky was meant to take over the heritage of the revolution, which was said by Lenin himself.
Also nice try to falsly interpret the ideas of "world-revolution" and "permanent revolution" into "endless war".
>His logic was to let Capitalists to fight each other and weaken themselves untill proles would overthrow the western governments.
Great Plan. Did it work?
| >>365216 "Lenin testament" was obviously faked and Trotskyist conspiracy was clearly being organised. Stalin the best pupil of Lenin was obviously gonna take power, he had the most support while Trotsky was hated by the majority.
| >>365216
To a degree. The Warsaw Pact nations didn't adopt communism because they read Marx, you know.
>>365236
I'm sure there probably was a Trotskyist conspiracy somewhere, but I dodn't buy for a moment that the document was faked.
What was Lenin's wife's agenda in lying about it? Contrarily, several of the most powerful members of the politburo had plenty of reason to suppress the document by any means, even long after their power was stabilized.
| >>365391 The authors of this legend of the "Lenin Testament "are - Trotsky, Fotieva, Zinoviev, Bukharin. They "inserted" these texts into the political arena long before the actual death of V.I. Lenin. They waited until such time as Lenin was no longer able to write, dictate or read the materials, they wrote these documents as a political method of struggle against J.V. Stalin.
| >>365401
Should we guess who is the Author of your "inserted legend in lenins testament" legend?
I mean, it's ridiculous to discuss if stalin was a monster. Even he admitted it himself when his first wive died: "I've lost any interest for humanity/humanism"
| >>365449 “There are some men who do not die. Stalin is among them.
Stalin was an example of creativity, humanism and an edifying example of peace and heroism! … Everything he did, he did to serve the people." - Salvador Allende
| >>365391
The only purpose of the Warsaw pact satelites was to serve as a buffer zone for tsar stalin the red in his pseudo-communist empire. He just was shocked how fast the once allied Wehrmacht marched through Russia and that his new allies will do the same. Stalinists gave a fuck about improving/repairing the soviet satelites.
| >>365456
You have a source for that?
At least it doesn't justify the USA's intervention.
I mean back than also alot of left activists were Maoists, which is even more insane.
Also there are pretty good willed statements on Hitler by prominent "moderate" conservatives, such as churchill.
| >>365459
No, I won't stop offending your false truth. Just send me to the Gulag like it your big idol stalin did it.
| >>365401
That doesn't address any of my points though. Besides, the testament attacks Trotsky too.
>>365458
It doesn't matter if Stalin didn't give a shit about them, my point was that he succeeded in spreading communism. I find it perfectly realistic that someone as astute in foreign policy as him would've strategized to bide time & expand the Soviet empire once his competitors had exhausted themselves, because that was exactly FDR's plan for the US capitalist economic empire.
| >>365175 counter arguement:classes in a state communist system are based upon authority, and if a heirarchy is enforced where one authority can impose and abuse the lower classes, then communism has failed the lower class.
| >>365459 he's right though. Every move made by stalin through the Warsaw pact was to enforce a buffer between the western world and Moscow. He was more worried with protecting his authority and maintaining the state, and not producing equity/equality.
|
| Hitler/Stalin alliance is an absurdity. Above was correct, it was simply a move by both to stall for time against the inevitable war. Germany didn't want to fight on both fronts at the time, and USSR wasnt ready for an industrial war yet. Both signed what was little more than a cease fire to stall for time before inevitably betraying another. Stalin and Hitler were bitter enemies.
| So, I guess moving on, what would each of your ideal political systems be like for a communist society? I'm guessing this is where these divisions largely stem from?
| >>365512
If the enitre lower class is an authority, then nobody has more authority than anyone else. How is that different from there being no authority?
| >>365516 It's also an issue deeply embedded into Marx and Engels' work. To paraphrase it goes around the lines of "you need Communists in order to teach the people" but that sets conditions of those that "have" the Communist knowledge and those that don't. It sets the footprint for the class system within a Socialist state. This can end up with huge implications and can allow tyranny to rule over such as the case was over Romania and the USSR.
| >>365537
=w=
True, true.
I don't know. I'm not even communist, don't think its possible unless we get 100% automated workforce.
| >>365552
Therein lies an interesting discussion. What does workers' ownership of the means of production imply when the means of production are automated, & are themselves 'workers' in a sense?
| >>365559
To me that basically means workers are free. Arts humanities invention innovation exploration are the only goals left to pursue. Access to needs is everywhere, money becomes obsolete and thus unnecessary.
| >>365552 >>365559
The full automatic workforce will come, either as stupid machines and simple work tools in communism or as a era of enslavement in capitalism (where it is not predictable if humans enslave automats or automats enslaves humans). Capitalism in the end is a class system/society. Sure, the sun shines from time to time, but on the long term and in the end rain falls down on the earth. It's a law of nature, which only can be bended with consciousness.
| >>365537
Look now at Romania and the former USSR countries. I don't know what the communists did there over decades, but I'm sure it was not teaching communism or at least marx & engels.
| >>365566 you clearly don't understand that transitioning from socialist system back to capitalist one fucks up a lot of things. That's why Russia and Romania aren't at western nations level of economy yet.
| >>365566 not only that, but Ukraine, etc, were all practically agrarian when they were claimed by the USSR, and were locked in as the farmlands for the union. They didn't benefit as much from the industrial plans as Moscow or St. Petersburg did. So that, coupled with the whiplash from shifting to capitalism made for a corrupt oligarchy.
| >>365623
According to your logic China and Vietnam
- either never were socialist systems, (which means not everything labelled as socialism actually was socialism)
- or they were socialist systems that made a economically successful transition to capitalism (which means the same as sidenoted above)
- or they were and still economically successful socialisms
- or they were shitty capitalist systems transforming into economically pretty successful socialist ones.
So, pls. pick one.
| >>365645
Ex-soviet oligarchy are no except when it comes to corruption. Western oligarchs are just a bit smarter how to deal with the public. Bread and games like in ancient rome. And much opium. But their hyporcite masks fall one after another. The smart western businessesmen have the same rotten inhumane hearth and mind like their ex-soviet oligarch brothers.
| >>365537
The issue is that marx and Engels scientificically proved the crisis cycles and the finally unavoidable total crash of the capitalist system. But by articulating it and founding a political movement based on this conclusions they underestimated the capitalists and how they'll deal with it. Capitalism could trap humanity in an eternal circe of destruction and reconstruction. The capitalists were the winners of any wars so far, on the back of the divided common people.
| >>365657 China and Vietnam were socialist systems that successfully transitioned to capitalism. yes.
| I have always wondered how communism gonna handle production and distribution of luxury items like jewelry and such
| >>366005
Historically communist countries don't make luxury things very well.
Soviet cars for example were terrible because they had no competition. While ford was trying to outsell their competitors.
On a related note, ford treated his workers like shit and was extremely antisemetic.
| >>366029 Japanese cars ended up beating a lot of markets to the point where they had to be forbidden from exporting but this is going a tad off topic.
| >>366029
Where they really that terrible? I often hear (even from people that didn't like what they experienced under the banner of communism) they were much more reliable or at least simpler and better standardized.
Sometimes less is more and slower progression is better than the acceleration and division we experience now, which makes backwardness great again.
| >>366088 I am from former communist country and I can say various things were more reliable and build to last.
| >>366109 I'm assuming you are talking about soviets, and soviet cars really suck
Anyways, cars can be manufactured for masses via factories and such, when talking about luxury I meant things difficult to manufacture, thus making it impossible to provide it to everyone
| >>366157
During cold war capitalists promised people luxury for everyone, to prove their system is better. Now, as there is no concurrence anymore this promise turns out beeing just a temporary measurement. Now luxury is something exclusive again and class diffrences rise continuously. Great job!
| >>366157 Soviet cars sucked but at least they were easy to fix. And other things were long lasting from radios to tvs
| >>366300
Just look what people drive now on the peak on capitalism: It's like they want to prepare for war. Or why do they drive arround in this ridicolous houswife-tanks (SUVs). Sucking 100 liters per meter and make you aesthetically look like the guy with the giantic external braces who got bullied in school. Except the drivers will never grow up and have good teeth as a reward.
| >>366445
American cars today are smaller than they've ever been. They used to be large for luxury's sake, so it felt like "driving your living room down the road." Imagine that, the very quality that was capitalism's top selling point.
On top of that, even modern SUVs are far more useful & comfortable than tin cans on wheels. I for one have never found a 'fuel efficient' car I can sit up in without my head touching the roof.
| Or are we talking about the Russians? Because the foremost problem with the automobile market there, imo & from my admittedly limited time there, is just that they don't make em like they used to.
| >>366881
I don't believe in any of your statements. It's like the total contradiction to my perception. Do we live in the same world?
Have you ever tried out European cars?
| Dude had a question about communism and you guys started talking about capitalism and cars, jeez
| >>367049
I mean its in relation to communist cars.
Honestly I'm happy with how civil this was. Hope more threads are like this
| >>367007
I've been several times & on each occasion I found ducking into the rentals/taxis/Uber cabs to be similarly claustrophobic. Everything I see these days is more the size & shape of a fighter cockpit than a car from my youth.
Adding headroom & legroom means you either warp the shape or the car or enlarge the whole thing, & either way it becomes less aerodynamic. Cars with room for people of very above average height are more costly to make, less fuel efficient, &... (1/2)
| because customers favor cars that're more fuel efficient & that look a certain way, they sell worse. Thus they simply aren't produced.
| >>367366
customers favor cars that're more efficiently advertised by experts of mass manipulation. Marketing makes people buy shit they don't need with money they don't have. It's no coincidence that car industry (besides lobbying) spends more money to marketing than to actual research and development.
| not commie related but it's interesting to note how Europeans and Asians prefer smaller cars over Americans
| >>367425 SUV's are very popular in Japan, China and most of Europe so it's not always the case. It's just a good family car and gets the job done. Although I'm not one to say since I'm a pedestrian and don't want to drive a car.
| >>367516 ive been thinking about how in places outside of the US, its arguable that the pedestrian infrastructure has been developed far more under socialist policy, but here in most places it's straight up hostile to pedestrians or even bikers for that matter. The capitalist structure has favored extravagant use of resources and made cars the favored mode of transportation.
1/2
| Combined with lobbying to destroy the public transportation industry (rail and bus), you're practically required to have a car, and it's completely unreasonable. Hell, even companies that are "equal opportunity" discriminate on this, asking whether or not you have a car, usually worded as "reliable transportation" which is an excellent way to NOT describe public transportation in the US.
| >>367522 I think this is a common problem in countries with giant expanses of land. Even Russia's roads largely favor cars and from what I've looked up of Brazil, it's the same case. European cities are far more tightly packed together and you're forced to make compromise while US cities were built a century or so ago under a perfect square grid.
My experienced with public transport across cities hasn't been great though. The people you end up riding with..
| >>367516
Yeah it's a good car for families who give a fuck about their children or their childrens children. Be cause if every family thinks SUVs is a good car for families they fuck up the whole planet in one hour driving arround.
| *sigh* SUVs are useful for larger families who do lots of activities. Yes, theyre inefficient as a single vehicle, but more efficient than using multiple vehicles. For low occupancy theyre stupid, but for moving 6+ people and cargo in a single group, its better than multiple cars or a van. And not everyone shoild use one all the time. Theyre situational vehicles for a specific demographic. However, yes some idiots use them like idiots.
| >>368395
What you say sound's reasonable, even thought I don't understand how a SUV is superior to a van or minibus. But:
>However, yes some idiots use them like idiots.
This is an understatement. Everyone I go by car (which does not happen often) or Bus, I see SUVs with one or two persons driving arround like the last assholes on earth. And I live in a big city, which has a very good public transport infrastructure. No need to contribute to traffic jam, search a parking place etc.
| As an SUV driver who drives cross-country relatively often, I enjoy having the space to sleep & live in in lieu of paying for a hotel. Environmentalism aside it more than pays for the difference in mpg that way.
| >>369286
It's not like you can't sleep in any other kind of car. Or just go in a motel, which offers you a bed, a shower and breakfast for a few bucks.
Also environmentalism not aside.
To me SUVs where from the beginning a marketing gag of car industry to sell people an onroad car looking like an offroad car. It's for those people who want to look like lumberjacks but never would or need to do lumber. A status symbol and fashion to fill the inner emptiness caused by capitalism.
| Isnt that large pick-up trucks like a raptor or a tundra?
| >>369294
But the space (I don't mean headroom but sheer volume) allotted by an SUV allows for more comfort even after the room taken up by a cooler of fresh food, a cooler of water, hoses for a shower, all the tools of a kitchenette, tools in case of car trouble, & several changes of clothes hung up.
I could instead get a sketchy motel room, as you said, but my SUV fits all the amenities of a motel except a TV & toilet, & with careful packing still has 4 usable seats.
| >>369860
I've considered it, but short of a mattress or an indoor shower, I don't really have anything else that would be of much use to fit, & I almost never have more than four travelling with me.
A few years back I was literally living out of my car for a while, so I've gotten to the point I don't mind sleeping in the seat. What I have is just enough to make it comfortable for myself & still practical to take passengers when the need arises.
| Hi, communist Russia here. I'm just here to tell you that I am loving communism today. I am enjoying the free non-market economy of Russia where we eat bread every day of the week. I hope you have fun with your coal mines capitalist pigs. Have a nice day. *wink*~
| "Communist"/Socialist Africa with leaders like Patrice Lumumba and Kwaneh Nkrumah was better for the people than white mans capitalism supporting black religious fundamentalists, capitalists and fascists. Western capitalism could not survive with out exploiting ressources and labour from whacky dictatorships they actively support. Also western capitalism already would have died if there wasn't the "communist" dictatorship in china, serving as "worlds workbench".
| As the time passes it gets more and more visible where capitalism leads mankind again: Nationalism, Racism, Fascism, Religious fundamentalism.
This thread is permanently archived
| Because "communism" is a slightly nebulous term, I'm curious to what it means to you gurls. Lets start with a big one. Does your "communism" inherently require the ownership of ALL means of production by the state? And what does that entail, wheter it does or does not.
This is not a thread to argue the merits of communism nor to discuss the evils of capitalism. Its to analyze what communism entails to those here who are particular to that ideology.