What is communism ?

[Traitorfish]

Yeah, but there is still authority. And in fact I was referring more to delegative democracy, since in representative democracy institutions and agents are given the authority to make decisions, which is at a different level and might arguably not be quite that bottom-up in structure.

I think that a lot of this comes down to whether we understand "authority" as implying imposition or not. If it does not, then you are probably correct.

I'd be interested to see an explanation of how that works. My conception of socialism as a transitionary stage (as opposed to one that has some permanence) presumes the existence of hierarchy before it fades away in a communist society.

That's the traditional mainstream Marxist line, certainly, but strains like Luxembourgism, Council Communism and Autonomism advocate a more libertarian form of socialism, somewhat similar in practice to anarcho-syndicalism or anarcho-collectivism. The main difference between the two would be that Libertarian Marxists are more willing to seize state apparatus and turn it on itself, while anarchists seek disregard it altogether.

 

[aelf]

I think that a lot of this comes down to whether we understand "authority" as implying imposition or not. If it does not, then you are probably correct.

Unless there is some way for people to always act in concert with the general will, some sort of imposition or ability to impose will always be present where there is authority, even if the authority issues from the will of the people.

 

[Traitorfish]

Unless there is some way for people to always act in concert with the general will, some sort of imposition or ability to impose will always be present where there is authority, even if the authority issues from the will of the people.

I guess what you're asking there is "is anarchy feasible", which is a rather lengthy discussion in itself.

 

[aelf]

I guess what you're asking there is "is anarchy feasible", which is a rather lengthy discussion in itself.

Well, my understanding of anarchy is one that is somewhat communitarian, and some kind of practical authority would tend to exist in communities.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, my understanding of anarchy is one that is somewhat communitarian, and some kind of practical authority would tend to exist in communities.

As I said, it's a lengthy discussion. It started in the 1840s, and doesn't show any sign of stopping.

 

[Gustave5436]

I guess not, but I understand hierarchy to be more or less implying the existence of structure and authority and not inherently capitalist.

All mammals are amniotes; this does not imply that all amniotes are mammals. Hierarchical systems imply a form of order, but order does not imply a form of hierarchy or authority.

 

[aelf]

All mammals are amniotes; this does not imply that all amniotes are mammals. Hierarchical systems imply a form of order, but order does not imply a form of hierarchy or authority.

I don't know where I said that order implies hierarchy or authority

 

[Perfection]

It's a brand.

 

[Tani Coyote]

It's an ideology that's meaning changes depending on if it suits your interests or not.

Right-wing: "Communism is tyranny, oppression, and state control of everything from your lives as well as every business from Microsoft to your kids' lemonade stands. Socialism is increasing government regulation and redistribution of the wealth."

Left-wing: "Oh you don't know the meaning of socialism or Communism; there can be no Communist state for the state does not exist in Communism. Communism is a stateless, classless utopian society. Socialism is the government taking control of everything to pave the way for this society."

Depending on your beliefs, whether Communism is evil or beautiful changes.

The logic also varies from "this is what it always becomes" and "this is what the book says."

In conclusion, a word that has lost meaning and has further reinforced my opinion that semantics aren't worth the debate; I selectively ignore all semantics wars since they achieve nothing.

Indeed, people spend more time debating the merits of the term's usage than any particular policy that exists. Instead of tackling the pros/cons of anarchism, collectivism, and whatnot, we'd rather attack the usage of the terms. Sad really.

 

[Dachs]

Why's that?

Neither A, B, or C are particularly accurate. C is only a part of it and the others have nothing to do with it.

edit: And people saying/implying Marx said the state should own the means of production: Just stop.

Reno's too cool for CFC these days, dude. You should probably argue with people who aren't five years in the past.

 

[Tee Kay]

It's a brand.

Indeed.

 

[Riffraff]

Nice necro

Maybe FredLC's post on the first page should be kept as reference for communism discussions...

 

[civver_764]

Reno's too cool for CFC these days, dude. You should probably argue with people who aren't five years in the past.

Ffffuuu

I'd be interested to see an explanation of how that works. My conception of socialism as a transitionary stage (as opposed to one that has some permanence) presumes the existence of hierarchy before it fades away in a communist society.

I imagine it as being directly democratic on the local level, and then as you get broader and broader the people send delegates, whom they can recall at a moments notice, to represent the interests of the people. The delegates aren't allowed to offer their own opinions in this scale unless they happen to be with the majority opinion.

There is still authority, of course. You can't murder people or anything. But the authority isn't imposed by forces above, but by everyone as a whole.

So I wouldn't really consider that hierarchical.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's an ideology that's meaning changes depending on if it suits your interests or not.

Right-wing: "Communism is tyranny, oppression, and state control of everything from your lives as well as every business from Microsoft to your kids' lemonade stands. Socialism is increasing government regulation and redistribution of the wealth."

Left-wing: "Oh you don't know the meaning of socialism or Communism; there can be no Communist state for the state does not exist in Communism. Communism is a stateless, classless utopian society. Socialism is the government taking control of everything to pave the way for this society."

You do realise that it is possible for one side to actually be correct, don't you? Especially when they're the ones actually drawing on the appropriate source material? An arbitrary median is never a good guide to these things.

(Also, very few contemporary leftists advocate Marxism, and few contemporary Marxists advocate ultra-statism, so that's just weird.)

 

[Onionsoilder]

Mostly C, partly A. B isn't really related, other than often being a means to A.

 

[Tani Coyote]

You do realise that it is possible for one side to actually be correct, don't you? Especially when they're the ones actually drawing on the appropriate source material? An arbitrary median is never a good guide to these things.

I'll take dialect and connotations over the dictionary when necessary. That is all.

Furthermore, I just don't bother with definitions. I focus on the actual policies. They can go ahead and waste their time debating the difference between socialism and communism and how their definition is oh-so-much-more correct.

I'll be focusing on the benefits and consequences of redistribution, high vs. low taxation, etc.

(Also, very few contemporary leftists advocate Marxism, and few contemporary Marxists advocate ultra-statism, so that's just weird.)

I'm mostly just quoting the opinions I've heard on and off the forum.

The right-wing definition is really just what many American conservatives would say; the left-wing definition is really just what many of the posters here would say.

I feel my personal definition is the most accurate: an ideology no one can agree on in terms of meaning.

 

[civver_764]

It's probably best to get the definition from communists themselves. Pretty basic logic. Why would you ask a conservative what communism was?

 

[Tani Coyote]

It's probably best to get the definition from communists themselves. Pretty basic logic. Why would you ask a conservative what communism was?

Why would the communists' definition be any less biased than a conservative's?

Communist: "This ideology is good and moral."

Conservative: "That ideology is horrible and can't lead to anything good."

I'll give the Communists credit though; regardless of the fact their ideological group is a mess because of so many definitions, all signs point to the world becoming a perpetual welfare state once labor and consumption as they exist become obsolete via technology.

 

[civver_764]

Why would the communists' definition be any less biased than a conservative's?

Because they ought to know their own beliefs.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Because they ought to know their own beliefs.

Oh really?

I've known textbook Communists who consider socialism willing and communism forced but describing the same system of collectivism.

Several. It's probably just an Americanism though. But even with that Americanism, they're very, very left by any measure of the word, these individuals.

So the incorrect usage - in terms of the textbook definition - of Communism and/or Socialism isn't limited to the right, oddly enough.

I can count four definitions of socialism and three of Communism. Hence why I've given up the semantics debates.