What is communism ?

[I am the Future]

A and C. B is just a tragic inevitbility

 

[carniflex]

"do you mean Communism in theory, or in practice?"

I mean: what true Communism is, to your mind:
"Communism in practice" if you think that what we call theory makes no sense.
"Communism in theory" if you think that what we call practice is everything but communism.

Communism is an economical system where the means of production are owned collectively.

I disagree.
1. The fact that means of production are owned collectively does not imply plan or market. It depends on your definition of collectively. So, the fact that the means of production are owned collectively is not an economical system.
2. I think that the fact the means of production are owned collectively is a definition for socialism, more than for communism.

However, i mostly agree with your analysis of the usually called "communism in practice", that you call "socialism", though i think this is neither communism nor socialism.

It's funny you didn't make a multi-choice poll. That would have been easier to analyze the results.

I had thought about it.
It would have been easier to analyze what is the total for A or B or C.
However, I would have been more difficult to analyze what associations are made if some are. That's the point i wanted to analyze.

 

[luiz]

Nobody know for sure how communism is supposed to be in the first place. In his writings, Marx spent much more time trying to describe the exploitative mechanics of capitalism then the functioning of his envisioned utopia.

Some vague principles are stated, like collective ownership of the means of production. Marx also states that after the transition phase is complete there would be no more state. How he would implement such society is a mystery. So each post-Marx commie writer tries to find out some new formula or method to achieve this.

 

[Irish Caesar]

I disagree.
1. The fact that means of production are owned collectively does not imply plan or market. It depends on your definition of collectively. So, the fact that the means of production are owned collectively is not an economical system.
2. I think that the fact the means of production are owned collectively is a definition for socialism, more than for communism.

IIRC, collective ownership of means of production was considered one of the main points of communism by Marx and Engels.

And in an ideal communism, there is no "plan" or "market." The idea was a worldwide (system? nation? state?) run by the working class, and government really wasn't laid out in the Manifesto. Marx just complained that the current system was bad and he offered some tips to change it. Those are the basis of communism.

 

[carniflex]

In his writings, Marx spent much more time trying to describe the exploitative mechanics of capitalism then the functioning of his envisioned utopia.

Yes.
Marx' main aim was to describe the exploitative mechanics of capitalism.

Marx also states that after the transition phase is complete there would be no more state. How he would implement such society is a mystery.

I think that Marx thinks that once the state has been used to abolish the exploitative mechanics of capitalism And once the principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" has become reality, the state, having no more aim, disappears.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

I said A, B and C because B is the only way to enforec it so it is very much a part of communism. I think it was just left out because it sounds bad and doesn't help sell the idea.

 

[Zarn]

It's A (an economic system), which is an awful system.

 

[carniflex]

IIRC, collective ownership of means of production was considered one of the main points of communism by Marx and Engels.

According to Marx, collective ownership of means of production is part of the socialism step.
Communism is the "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" step.

 

[ComradeDavo]

FredLC's post was intresting.

I see Communism as a vague idea of equality and unity, where the means of production are not owned by any one/group of individuals, but by the state as a whole. This idea was around long before Marx.

In practise Communism has come to mean a rather different thing to that, as it is of course associated with the Soviet Union and the authoritarianism that ruled that state.

It has also become tied to the idea of violent revolution. This is due to Marx, and was furthered by Lenin, Mao and alike. Of course, whilst Marx meant the proteleriate as a whole rising up, Lenin altered it to mean a group of organised revolutionaires whose purpose was to 'guide' the people.

Communism has elvolved over time from the vague idea to Marsxism, from Marxism to Leninism, and then from that into various offshoots.

 

[Mise]

As with the capitalism thread, Communism can be defined as Option C and the other two options may or may not follow from there. (Option A definately will, and option B probably will.)

 

[marshal zhukov]

Nobody know for sure how communism is supposed to be in the first place. In his writings, Marx spent much more time trying to describe the exploitative mechanics of capitalism then the functioning of his envisioned utopia.

Some vague principles are stated, like collective ownership of the means of production. Marx also states that after the transition phase is complete there would be no more state. How he would implement such society is a mystery. So each post-Marx commie writer tries to find out some new formula or method to achieve this.

From what I understand Communism is Socialism without Government, while what you called "transition phase" would be socialism, which is phase the Soviet Union stayed at, the soviets never went into the last phase of the Socialist Revolution. That is why I say the the USSR was never a communist country.

I don't see how can a complex society work without a state, and I don't think Marx saw it either.

PS: Good job on the lula impeachment thing, FHC in 2006

 

[Rambuchan]

Voted "other".

Communism is an economical system where the means of production are owned collectively. This ownership *in theory* does not have to represent a party or any authority of any kind. In fact, the absence of central authority is the point of communism.

The theoretical build of communism resemble enormously a form of enlightened anarchy, and it's not a "social system" just like bald is not a hairstyle - it's more about the lack of a "social system", which *should* have been outgrown by humanity by the time communism is reached.

To bury from scratch a common misconception, in communism there is private property - as long as the property is not a mean of production. That means you can keep from your underpants to your family jewels - what you "can't" own individually is a farm or a factory (I put this in quotation marks because in theory, this is less about "prohibition" than about the "extinction of the concept of owning supra-individual goodies").

Socialism, on the other hand, is an embryo, a transition formula between capitalism and communism, where a powerful central authority (not necessarily dictatorial) is committed to the redistribution of means of production. The failure of the communism theory seems to be that socialism, the intermediary, tends to deform into tyrannical entities (aberrations such as Stalinism, Maoism and Castrism) to perpetuate itself, and create a bureaucratic elite instead of s capitalistic elite, falling to the same problems of the previous system, added with a whole bunch of problems of it’s own.

Thing is, the theory of communism adopted the idea of armed resolution (probably, influenced by the successes of the French Revolution and of the US independence, which have given the world the impression that you could really change things with a will to fight and a noble heart), but it was very poorly executed in real world – specially because communism was envisioned originally as the path of development of a rich and modern society, where the wealthy of capitalism and the conscientiousness of people mixed together, creating the means and the mindset for the proletarians to take over.

What happened in the real world was the contrary. Poor, backwards countries adopted it as means to destroy failing states and rebuilt them with a new grand vision, without abiding to it’s theoretical construct, no less. Quite frankly, it’s no surprise it was such a failure.

Regards .

Yup, yup. This is it. The posts disagreeing with this are wrong IMO.

 

[FredLC]

I disagree.
1. The fact that means of production are owned collectively does not imply plan or market. It depends on your definition of collectively. So, the fact that the means of production are owned collectively is not an economical system.

I don't get exactly the content of your disagreement; particularly for I never actually came out and spoke of a planned market. Merely, the access to the means of production would be without restriction. Nevertheless, this is hard to realize without planning.

Still, it is economical in the sense that the core of the theory deals with economical entanglements. Whatever other changes happens are not a base of the theory, just what follows - so communism in fact didn't "intend" to end social struggle (Karl Marx did, of course, what does not change the fact that his economical proposal were theoretically in other scope) - it is just the "natural consequence" of it (just like capitalism does not intend to create economical oppression, but can't help that it happens).

2. I think that the fact the means of production are owned collectively is a definition for socialism, more than for communism.

Nah, in both they are owned by people. In socialism, they are handled by a "strong government", in communism, by an advanced anarcho structure pulverized in form of local assemblys called "communas".

However, i mostly agree with your analysis of the usually called "communism in practice", that you call "socialism", though i think this is neither communism nor socialism.

Yup. I actually call what happened in practice "deviation" (or stalinism/maoism/castrism). It's mcahnics, however, resemble the theoretical structure of socialism much more than that of communism.

Regards .

 

[marshal zhukov]

Communism is an economical system where the means of production are owned collectively. This ownership *in theory* does not have to represent a party or any authority of any kind. In fact, the absence of central authority is the point of communism.

Socialism, on the other hand, is an embryo, a transition formula between capitalism and communism, where a powerful central authority (not necessarily dictatorial) is committed to the redistribution of means of production. The failure of the communism theory seems to be that socialism, the intermediary, tends to deform into tyrannical entities (aberrations such as Stalinism, Maoism and Castrism) to perpetuate itself, and create a bureaucratic elite instead of s capitalistic elite, falling to the same problems of the previous system, added with a whole bunch of problems of it’s own.

What happened in the real world was the contrary. Poor, backwards countries adopted it as means to destroy failing states and rebuilt them with a new grand vision, without abiding to it’s theoretical construct, no less. Quite frankly, it’s no surprise it was such a failure.

Regards ..

FredLC really good post!!! Explained the whole very briefly. I am not going to quote everything, because it would take too much space again. Rambuchan has just done that.

I just couldn't agree with you on the "such a failure" part. Socialism had many flaws but despite all the lack of freedom, socialism was successful in lifting people out of absolut poverty in a more efficent and effective way that Capitalism has proven to be.
Even the US with all its wealth has more than 10% of its population living below the poverty line, that is unacceptable. Moreover as flawed as Soviet socialism was the Soviets were still capable of ending poverty, unemployment, putting MIR into space, maintaining and arming over 2.000.000 soldiers, building an absurdly huge Navy ( I know that that was useless, but it serves to show the capabilities of the system), not to mention the ICBMs.
Any system that allows that can't be considered a failure by any stretch of the word.
Overall Capitalism is a much superior, better system, because productivity raises faster in Capitalism

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

Communism is the rule of a country by one political party.

Socialism is a government controlled economy.

 

[carniflex]

Nah, in both they are owned by people.

Of course.
But communism is more than that.

In socialism, they are handled by a "strong government", in communism, by an advanced anarcho structure pulverized in form of local assemblys called "communas".

To my mind, Socialism (social ownership, to be short) doesn't imply centralization or decentralization.
Communism doesnt any more. Communism is just C.

But that's just definitions.
Regards

 

[Richard Cribb]

B is also a part of communism since in the ideal state there is only need for one party.

Communism and state is an oxymoron.

Clearly, only the A appeared as a proper definition of communism.

Not at all.

To bury from scratch a common misconception, in communism there is private property - as long as the property is not a mean of production. That means you can keep from your underpants to your family jewels - what you "can't" own individually is a farm or a factory (I put this in quotation marks because in theory, this is less about "prohibition" than about the "extinction of the concept of owning supra-individual goodies").

True. Some of us prefers to call personal belongings as your tooth-brush possessions instead to distinguish clearly from the property-fetishists, i.e the "propretarians" who for some reason call themselves libertarians.

An abomination. A fallacy. A system that opposes nature and reason.
A system where the individual is abolished. It's like a giant prison.
Without competition there's no progress.

You really don't know much about this,do you?

As the Austrian Economist, Ludwig Von Mises, thought: it's a system where prices can't be calculated, so how can the burocrats decide what is needed what is not needed, what has more or less value, etc.

In communism there is no state nor private property, and consequently no bureacrats. Didn't His Holyness von Mises even get that?

Read: Ludwig Von Mises "Socialism" and "Human Action"
The errors of Socialism, a work by Friedrich A Von Hayek

Thanks, but no thanks.
Keep your snake-oil to yourself.

However, i mostly agree with your analysis of the usually called "communism in practice", that you call "socialism", though i think this is neither communism nor socialism.

I agree completely about this.

To my mind, Socialism (social ownership, to be short) doesn't imply centralization or decentralization.
Communism doesnt any more. Communism is just C.

Correct.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

A and C. C in theory which becomes A in practise, which of course might lead to B under the wrong circumstances.

Published the 14th Oct.... Out of the 30 OECD countries Sweden pays the most in taxes in relation to BNP - 50,7 % of BNP. In comparsion the taxes in the US is 25.4 % of BNP and the average is about 36 % of BNP.

Isn't this a pretty good indication of how communistic a country is?

 

[Marla_Singer]

Lucearful... could you explain me where in communism appears the part "from each according to their ability". Abilities aren't really a determining factor. It's not because Stakhanov was a hard worker that he was better paid than his lazy buddy beside him who was taking advantage on the fact the dude was working for 3.

As such, I'm sorry to say that I have to disagree with C.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Lucearful... could you explain me where in communism appears the part "from each according to their ability". Abilities aren't really a determining factor. It's not because Stakhanov was a hard worker that he was better paid than his lazy buddy beside him who was taking advantage on the fact the dude was working for 3.

As such, I'm sorry to say that I have to disagree with C.

Quite easy. It doesn't.
USSR was not a communistic society. Stakhanovism runs completely counter to the core principle in communism.So does, as I already wrote several times on this forum, a huge, oppressive state apparatus.
Furthermore, not only were not the USSR and its satelites communistic(something they didn't claim themselves), those countries were not even socialistic(something they claimed). Or is it really anybody that thinks that the proletariat had the political power in those countries?