Is this thread under FBI surveillance?
Do you think I would know if it was?
Do you enjoy being a communist?
Generally speaking, yes.
However, it leaves one with a bi-polar view of the world. On the one hand, we know that our society's greatest hour has yet to come. On the other, it feels like it is further away from our grasp than ever. It is both hopeful and hopeless.
You could call me a wannabe communist, but I have serious concerns about how basic society would function.
Anyone should, when dealing with something that has never existed before.
How exactly would the justice system function under an anarcho-communist society? Crime wouldn't disappear entirely, would it, so would we still have a court system or police departments?
Presumably.
On a similar note, how would goods be distributed? Could people just take whatever they want?
Are we talking about communism or socialism? In socialism we would presumably still have functioning markets. In communism, we wouldn't need them, because where the system failed to provide for all by design, moral people would fill the gap. Make no mistake, communism requires people to behave with at least a vague sense of virtue.
If so, wouldn't this system be abused?
Possibly. If it is, then the process will continue to improve until it cannot.
If not, someone would have to arbitrarily decide what to give who, therefore defeating the purpose of communism, right?
Which is why the role of distribution is a social one. Everyone decides what everyone gets.
I keep hearing that government would be "redundant" or "unnecessary" under a perfect communism. Is this true, and what exactly does it mean?
(Sorry if these questions have already been asked.)
Government exists primarily to protect private property, which is the source of wealth and power for the rich and powerful. Once that is removed, the need for such an institution diminishes greatly.
Make no mistake, there will still be organizational structures and administrative bodies, but not of the impositional kind. Think of it as democracy, applied to all facets of life.
In a perfect theoretical communist society, how would you decide which laws to enact?
Democracy.
I'm a leftist myself. Communist, anarchist, socialist, what have you, the label isn't entirely important, but I believe in class struggle directed to create the kind of society I'm sure the reds here would quite like.
Indeed we do, my old friend. It is good to see you around these parts again!
I participated somewhat in the occupy movement, and now having seen how that works, I was left, paradoxically, both inspired and disheartened. Inspired by the way people can work together for a common goal and by seeing the awareness that people actually do have about class conflicts and their desire to change it. Disheartened by the disjointedness, the more 'radical liberal' bent on things, as in working within the system, to make changes, as well as seeing the movement attracting the likes of people who, while they may label themselves as such, didn't really have a firm grasp of much leftist theory and were far more idealistic. Distracted by, to me, such minuscule, deranged, or otherwise seemingly daft things, be it what looked like more of a desire to simply cry out at any sign of authority without reason- such things can easily be tackled with dialectic arguments, but here was more... cliche teen angst-y feelings, as well as seeming to be prone to paranoia, which while somewhat understandable, when leading to conspiracy theories, compromises much of the faith I'd have in some of these people- boiling things down to such simple answers (it's all THEM and they hate US, etc) shows a lack of understanding of how the system really works, and creates paper tigers, a problem, for sure. I realize these people exist within all forms of movements, but these people are often the most vocal, most likely to make some visible action.
I can sympathize with this. It more or less matches my armchair Occupying conclusions about the movement.
So my question regarding all this is: What do you see as the role of a red, or at least of yourself, TODAY? How do you attempt to bring about the changes you want to see? How do you fight ignorance, within and without any organization you may be associated with?
It is a Lenin quote that inspires me the most. "Patiently explain, and we will have our majority." Erode the ideological foundations of capitalism wherever they exist. Prove people wrong, talk about the truth. Don't get tied up with Marxist theoreticizing where you don't have to; find everything examples to talk about. How the elites get around the law, the influence of money in politics, why it is impossible for everyone to get promoted. At your job, point it out to your colleagues in ways they can empathize. Explain the importance of a union, explain why they make so little and your bosses make so much, and why that's even possible. To the libertarian types at work, use the OSHA and Department of Labor "know your rights" posters that should be present, or even the existence of the MSDS book. Cater your arguments to your audience, and always state things in common-tongue ways. You'll be surprised how often even conservative people will agree with socialist principles when they don't realize that they're socialist!
The powers that be naturally try to stop it. There are common people who see everything you do as evil. Then there are those, as I described, by your side who lack understanding but have a great energy to them, and surely will cause problems. A complex issue, to be sure, but one that must be addressed if any progress is to be made.
It is surely an uphill battle, and it will take a long time. But if you believe it to be worth your effort, then it is no real obstacle.
Spasiba
Sudavolstvyem tovarisch.
Do you agree that communism already had its historical chance to become something beneficial & great for humanity but it turned out to be a total failure everywhere where people attempted to implement it? If yes, why do you think it utterly failed and what would you modify in it to really become such an utopian, beautiful dream as in the original 19th century conception?
I don't believe it has ever gotten the chance. The closest it might have come was a few weeks in the Spring of 1871, though a decent argument might be made for an approach of socialism in 1970s Scandinavia. I regard the Soviet experiment as an understandable, but ultimately doomed venture. Not because of any wrong actions on the part of the Soviets (please note the wording there, so that we do not enter into the silly argument that might otherwise surely follow), but because Russia was barely capitalist, much less the fully developed capitalist society that begs to share its mass-produced goods fairly.
Do you consider modern social democratic welfare states, such as those in Scandinavia, as capitalist in the negative sense? And why do you think that communism could ever be or even pretend to be any better alternative for a good life than this Nordic model of social democratic welfare state?
First, understand that I have great admiration for the Scandinavian social democracies. However, while it might produce a decent standard of living for everyone, which is certainly a goal of socialism, the institution of private property exists, and there are still large disparities of wealth which create unequal political tiers. These forces are constantly trying to undo that which has been created to quell their power and privilege. In Sweden, for example, they have been rather successful at rolling back those welfare gains. Even in Britain, for the first time in decades serious talk about the future of the welfare state is being made.
The point is not to create a society which cares for all - who wants to be babied? The point is to create one which is fair and just, which has destroyed the capability of one person to oppress or use another for his own gain, thus enabling all to meet their true potential. In such a society people could "build themselves up" without hindering others, because those avenues no longer oppress, and the very meaning of the phrase has changed from what it is today. Today to "succeed" means to find a place of economic security, which means occupying a place of exploitation in the social hierarchy. In communism such a feat would not be necessary, because all social positions would be equally safe, save that of the person who refuses to contribute despite being capable of doing so.
