On that topic, I already got your opinion on this, but what do most of you think of Distributism?
It's one of those ideas which is nice on paper, but is basically unrealistic. (Heh, bet a lot of people find some irony in a communist saying that...
) It's essentially reactionary- in the literal, non-pejorative sense- in that it seeks to reverse the historical tendency towards the centralised accumulation of capital, and so really isn't a viable program from a Marxist point of view.
Well let's say we have a community with some highly valued resource, how can we prevent that community from using that position to achieve unfair status?
How would they? Communism is a post-commodity society, they'd have no mechanism by which to actually gain leverage.
It is questianable if the collective ownership is good thing. The past event's proove it is not. As far as i understand you, your idea of communism totaly deny the communist state that existed ?
I don't deny it at all, I just state that it did not represent a non-capitalist social formation. The Marxist conception of capitalism goes beyond legal structures and ideology, important as those may be, and in that framework the Marxist-Leninist states were merely state-capitalist regimes with sturdy social welfare systems.
And so we come to the question, will the people reach the level of development, when the majority will embrace the idea of communism ? (and this again is of course a statement made by communists, that communism demands higher level of intelectual and social development) and according to other this will never happen, because the ideas of communism contradict with the human nature. But as this is not a discussion thread(as the moderator pointed to me) i will ask you when do you think the people will be ready for communism ? Is anywhere on Earth possible now ? Which country is closest to it according to you ?
It's more complex than that. Social revolution emerges out of class struggle, and class struggle bestows a class conciousness, and a awareness by the members of a social class of that social class and its position within society, but that doesn't necessarily mean an acceptance of X theoretical or ideological system. Marx himself discussed the Paris Commune as representing a revolutionary workers' state (setting the exact question of how one defines "state" aside for the moment), and as a political formation which would, had circumstances been more favourable, have naturally concluded in communism, despite the fact that the barest handful of Marxist were represented among the militants and leadership of the Commune. Marxism, properly understood, is not the One True Path To Communism, but a theoretical framework for understanding society and thus obtaining a better understanding of how communism may be built, and building an actual body of praxis upon that. It is useful, but it is neither essential, nor indicative of a greater effectiveness; the Spanish anarchists of the 1936-39 revolutionary period were far in advance of the Trotskyists and Stalinists in that regard, despite taking only from Marx what they felt they needed, because they and their organisations were able to embodied the struggle of the working class in a way which the Spanish Marxists were unable to.
(just joking, disregard).
