6d ago

Communism

Can anyone succinctly explain communism? Everything I've read in the past said that the state owns the means of production and in practice (in real life) that seems to be the reality. However I encountered a random idiot on the Internet that claimed in communism, there is no state and it is a stateless society. I immediately rejected this idea because it was counter to what I knew about communism irl. In searching using these keywords, I came across the ideas that in communism, it does strive to be a stateless society. So which one is it? If it's supposed to be a stateless society, why are all real-life forms of communism authoritarian in nature?

You're viewing a single thread.

114 comments

Basically.
Most "Communist" countries practices Vanguardism, the idea of a "Vanguard Party" that is suppose to look out for the people, and act in the interest of the people, taking absolute control of the country, destroy capitalism and implement communism, then when communism is achieved, the state would naturally "wither away", ceasing to exist.
Yea... imagine how that works in practice. Once a party gets into power, they aint ever giving it up, thats the problem.
- True even if your movement has pure intentions and is run mostly by capable idealists, which is rare in itself. Power corrupts.
- Vanguards are never supposed to "give up" power, rather, they are meant to be extensions of the Working Class, ie the most politically experienced and trained among the Proletariat, connected to and accountable to the rest of the Proletariat. The State isn't the same as government, for Marx. The State is an instrument of class oppression, once all property is in the public sector there ceases to be classes, and thus the elements of government upholding class distinctions cease to have a purpose and "whither away." Per Engels:
  The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society – the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society – is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not “abolished”, it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase “a free people’s state” with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so-called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.
  
  But there doesn't cease to be classes, there is now the "planning" class with no check on their power. Are the common people who supposed to rise up again and overthrow the planners when they obviously and inevitably become selfish and corrupt? This is the logical leap communist theory never answered.
  
  First, there's no such thing as a "planning class." Managers within Capitalist businesses are still Proletarian, planning is just a different form of labor. Such a distinction would mean that "plumber" is a class, as well as "doctor." What determines a class isn't the form of labor, but the relation to ownership, and in a fully Publicly Owned economy the planners are not the owners.
  Secondly, there are checks on elected officials, I am not sure at all where you are getting the notion that there are none. Recall elections have been a core aspect of Marxist theory of organization since near the beginning, as well as concepts such as Democratic Centralism.
  "Common people" are not distinct from "planners," nor would the "Common people" be able to do away with the concept of planners and management. Again, from Engels:
  The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society -- the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society -- is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase "a free people's state" with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so-called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.
  It's not that Communist theory "never answered" your questions, its that nobody that is familiar with Communist theory would raise such questions as they don't make any sense in context. Does that make sense?
  
  So communism is a multi party system with state elections? You just invented democracy my dude. Oh, sorry, maguc stateless elections. With no corruption. No one is in charge, there is no one behind the curtain pulling the leavers, right?
  
  Communism is democratic, yes. This can have multiple parties (which is in practice in several AES states), but generally having different parties is not the same as having democratic control. It's arguably more important to be able to vote on what you want, or who you want to do it, within an existing party or party-less system. As an example, among a local council, rather than voting on a party, it makes more sense to vote on which representative from said council will participate in the regional council, not necessarily which party.
  Secondly, again, you are confusing a "State" in the Marxist sense, ie the elements of government that denote class distinctions (private property rights, as an example) with the colloquial sense of the word "State," which is largely synonymous with government. Communism would have a government, complete with elections and representatives, without a state, hence me bolding Engels when he says "The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production." You cannot direct the processes of production without, you know, directing production.
  Moreover, corruption likely will never fully go away, but it will be minimized over time, certainly in comparison to modern Capitalism, and even early Socialism. Communism isn't some Utopia free from any worry or problem, and Marxists are the first to point this out. It's usually non-Marxists that pretend Communism is supposed to be perfect and thus impossible, actually.

114 comments