Communism

Hello.

I was curious to see what people have to say about this.

I'm a left wing person (nearly communist...). I'm not left wing in the sense of USSR or something like that because I believe communism has never been implanted, only pseudo-communism which was really another form of fascism.

I voted for the 2nd choice.

jfmff, I think you are misinformed. There is no complete economic equality in Communism as some ignorant people suggests.

Edited by Barış

i definatly think communist ideals are the way they need to be and need no reforms. you cant reform a goverment thats based on the ideas of one man. then it wouldnt be communisum anymore.

I'm not sure why you say that complete economic equality is impossible and would like to be illustrated about it.

Anyhow I do follow the ideal of each one according to his/her possibilities, to each one according to his/her needs. I think that's true communism and the rest is fake.

Anyhow the most important thing for communism is the control of production means, the Capital. And that is even more urgent to solve now that we are in the Toyotist phase of Capitalism when the issue of control has become central in class war.

O course I voted 1, though  would never vote a Communist Party unless they have first reviewed their ideology in pro of Libertarian Communism. Totally abandoning Leninism and, in general, any kind of Marxist authoritarism.

Originally posted by jfmff I admit my ignorance. I'm not an expert on the subject. But could you explain your POV?

I was not blaming you, but I just don't like it when people describe Communism as: "The lazy and the hard-working get the same money."

That's a cheap excuse. I mean which ideology do you think is perfectly suitable for humans?

You can elaborate communism in two meanings:

a) an ideology

b) a form of society

As an ideology, it's aim is to 1) bring an end to capitalism, whose main characteristics are the private ownership of the means of production and the endless accumulation of capital in the hands of a few through the exploitation of human labour. 2) establishing a classless communist society, in which the means of production are publicly owned, so exploitation is ended everybody's needs are met on the basis of " each one according to his/her possibilities, to each one according to his/her needs" Marxism is the philosophical basis of this ideology.

Communism isn't against human nature, because the first human societies are the primitive communal ones where everybody produced together and everybody was taking according to their need. On the contrary, the class societies where many are exploited by the few are later created societies.

 

Edited by kotumeyil

Originally posted by kotumeyil Communism isn't against human nature, because the first human societies are the primitive communal ones where everybody produced together and everybody was taking according to their need. On the contrary, the class societies where many are exploited by the few are later created societies.

I'm not an historian but I think that this view of ancient societies is a bit naif.

Originally posted by AlbinoAlien marxism is the basis of communisum! how can communists abbandon there ideologies of marxism and still be communist? besides, libertarianisim is the complete opposite of communisum.

Marxism is not the basis of Communism. You are ignoring the great ideological and political struggle that took place inside the 1st International between Marxists (Authoritarian Socialists) and Anarchists (Libertarian Communists). Particularly between Marx and Bakunin.

While Marx' work is most interesting in many senses, his political preferences are not necessarily the only ones to consider. Also Marxism is not just at the origins of the so-called Communism (Leninism) but they are equally behind those of Social-Democracy. Actually Communists abandoned the Socialist International (2nd International), not because they were Marxists (those remaining also were) but because they were Leninists.

Modernly, another important Marxist current has arosen, commonly known as Workers' Autonomy. It's more important thinker is maybe Italian professor Toni Negri but it's not as much an intelectual current but a praxis: workers organize as they wish, the Leninist theories of the Party leadership are obsolete (they belong to Fordist phase of Capital, which ended several decades ago). As mass production has been replaced by social production (still under control of the Capital) also the mass worker has been replaced by the social worker, allowing and demanding totally new ways of social and political revolutionary organization. With this evolution radical Marxists, rediscovering the unedited chapter IV of The Capital, have approached again Anarchism (that is Libertarianism, as was always understood by most people).

If communist parties reformulated their ideologies they wouldn't be communist parties.

Should people give up on Marxist-Leninist communism, leave the party and start or form another one? Yes.

(And preferably they should give up ideologies altogether.)