Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

The Socialism/Communism Discussion Thread

socialism communism Marxism MLM anarchism leftism class war dialectical materialism USSR Stalin

  • Please log in to reply
528 replies to this topic

#521
Cyber_Rebel

Cyber_Rebel

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 276 posts
  • LocationNew York

Even as a socialist it is very difficult for me to imagine an actual as described "stateless" communism. It seems to align greatly with what anarchist (and indeed they have overlapped) desire, but how can such a "condition" exist without being enforced? 

 

Anarcho-Syndicalism or Libertarian Socialism where the model is completely decentralized and the means of production controlled by worker-unions, would seem closest to the ideal. However, there still would need to be some established rules in play that prevents allegiances or the eventual return of a monopoly. I just don't understand how "good will" will prevent this.

 

Ironically, America would be an ideal testing ground for this version of communism, owing to its more individualist nature when compared to authoritarian communism. The federal gov. would be weaker just like in America's early period, with local gov. being much stronger, made up of further decentralized unions of communes. While anarchist/stateless communist would just abolish the overarching fed gov. entirely, I question how one deals with any "rogue" communes or groups unless an agreement or pact is reached between all in this hypothetical society. 

 

It just seems like something that works best on a smaller scale in a different time period. I could maybe see it with full automation and decentralized A.I. as a safeguard in place of an enforcing national government. 



#522
10 year march

10 year march

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 219 posts

Even as a socialist it is very difficult for me to imagine an actual as described "stateless" communism. It seems to align greatly with what anarchist (and indeed they have overlapped) desire, but how can such a "condition" exist without being enforced? 
 
Anarcho-Syndicalism or Libertarian Socialism where the model is completely decentralized and the means of production controlled by worker-unions, would seem closest to the ideal. However, there still would need to be some established rules in play that prevents allegiances or the eventual return of a monopoly. I just don't understand how "good will" will prevent this.
 
Ironically, America would be an ideal testing ground for this version of communism, owing to its more individualist nature when compared to authoritarian communism. The federal gov. would be weaker just like in America's early period, with local gov. being much stronger, made up of further decentralized unions of communes. While anarchist/stateless communist would just abolish the overarching fed gov. entirely, I question how one deals with any "rogue" communes or groups unless an agreement or pact is reached between all in this hypothetical society. 
 
It just seems like something that works best on a smaller scale in a different time period. I could maybe see it with full automation and decentralized A.I. as a safeguard in place of an enforcing national government.


Socialism is not just a fully planned economy it is the transitional period between capitalism and communism.

Communism is a classless stateless society.

Socialism has intensified class conflict and aims to eliminate the bourgeoisie so there is only once class.

Once the whole world is socialist and is only one class who share the means of production through the state and the productive forces (more or less economy) is developed enough the state will no longer be needed and will slowly dissolve.

#523
Cyber_Rebel

Cyber_Rebel

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 276 posts
  • LocationNew York

I realize that it is (socialist mixed economies) described as such. I just do not believe the world is "ready" or at the point where that version of Communism is feasible on a mass scale. I think technological change, which indeed drives sociological and political change needs to be considered when arguing how a stateless society would function. 

 

I personally really do believe that we need to move away from how our current mode of operation is done, because it is unsustainable now even in the best case scenario near future. However, I think a thriving Social Democracy and later a post capitalist Democratic Socialism with a focus on solving structural societal issues (climate change, wealth-income inequality, education) is needed to address this. Many Marxist just dismiss this transition point and want to go guns blazing to "dictatorship of the proletariat" and then stateless Communism, which I find very crude. 

 

How will the whole world be socialist without some kind of massive conflict, mass revolt, or mass coercion on the part of stronger socialist state actors? I think reformist (ie like Bernie Sanders & AOC) are the way to go, rather than bloody revolution. Political discourse would change naturally, as the Overton-window is gradually shifted in a more left wing direction. 

 

Of course, I'm also someone who does believe some free markets are necessary in order to drive technological change and appease basic appetites of the masses. Human nature is both selfish and altruistic, which I think the most extreme of Capitalist & Communist fail to realize.



#524
Erowind

Erowind

    Anarchist without an adjective

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,290 posts

I cant understand what is the difference between socialiism and communism??

 

Folks are giving you needlessly complex answers. 

 

Means of production = Facilities or other such resources that are used for producing goods through labor. 

 

Capitalism = An economy where the means of production are privately owned by a class of people (capitalists) who extract wealth (labor value) from the working class--anyone who isn't financially independent and relies on wage labor to survive--who themselves do not own a means of production. 

 

Socialism = An economy where the means of production are owned, administrated and profited from by the working class themselves through democratic, anarchic or other means. 

 

Communism = A stateless, classless and moneyless society that is supposed to come after socialism in classical marxist theory. 



#525
Cyber_Rebel

Cyber_Rebel

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 276 posts
  • LocationNew York

Decided to respond @Erowind here from blog: 

 

 

 

 

10ym never said anything about Demsocs to my knowledge. His critiques, barring the fascism claim, are on point and why I critically support Sanders and hope his campaign opens the way for a resurgence in class politics beyond social democracy.

I'm also not convinced sanders can't win but time will tell. That said social democrats do historically side with capitalists and defend status quo. Rosa Luxemburg was thrown in a river by social democrats.

 

I only said DemSoc because of the Americanized usage of the term. I know that's not what Bernie nor AOC actually are, but it's worth noting that the organization AOC is from (DSA) actually does want to move past Capitalism in its stated mandate. Just not the way a full Commie would, and more like how a Social Dem might, with organization and reform. 

 

I wouldn't mind going further, just so that it's done carefully without the mistakes of the past. Not sure what your take is on Mao's or Stalin's mass famines and the like, or if you view it as propaganda like @10 yr. march or @Joe would. Not saying that any modern move past Capitalism would produce a similar result mind you, just that I think it's best to acknowledge what went wrong with past policy so as to make any so called "revolutionary effort" a better outcome. 

 

Shame about Mrs. Luxemberg, but we're not all like that. Bernie certainly isn't, nor any modern Social Dem I've seen. Also good to remember not all Capitalist were/are douchebags. Socialism got a start with well meaning and kindhearted reformist who wanted to look out for their workers.

 

 

 

 

violence and tyranny already do exist. Our prison population is higher than the USSR's during the gulag and over 20million people worldwide die of preventable causes like famine, bad water and curable disease because it's unprofitable to help them. That's not even getting into the endless wars and financial slavery forced on the poorer countries and working class.

 

I mean more in an immediate sense, but I understand what you mean in regards to the current issues. Climate change will only exasperate it, and the U.S. private prison scheme exists largely for profit.

 

I don't deny radical level change needs to happen, only to what extent and how it happens. I know you are much more in favor for a "stateless" ideal like Noam Chomsky, but it's just hard for me to envision how that would work, especially on a mass scale at this point in time. You already know what my issues with @10 yr. march's dictatorship of the proletariat are; it's just too authoritarian for my taste. Even if it were someone like Bernie. 



#526
10 year march

10 year march

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 219 posts

Decided to respond @Erowind here from blog: 

 

 

 

 

10ym never said anything about Demsocs to my knowledge. His critiques, barring the fascism claim, are on point and why I critically support Sanders and hope his campaign opens the way for a resurgence in class politics beyond social democracy.

I'm also not convinced sanders can't win but time will tell. That said social democrats do historically side with capitalists and defend status quo. Rosa Luxemburg was thrown in a river by social democrats.

 

I only said DemSoc because of the Americanized usage of the term. I know that's not what Bernie nor AOC actually are, but it's worth noting that the organization AOC is from (DSA) actually does want to move past Capitalism in its stated mandate. Just not the way a full Commie would, and more like how a Social Dem might, with organization and reform. 

 

I wouldn't mind going further, just so that it's done carefully without the mistakes of the past. Not sure what your take is on Mao's or Stalin's mass famines and the like, or if you view it as propaganda like @10 yr. march or @Joe would. Not saying that any modern move past Capitalism would produce a similar result mind you, just that I think it's best to acknowledge what went wrong with past policy so as to make any so called "revolutionary effort" a better outcome. 

 

Shame about Mrs. Luxemberg, but we're not all like that. Bernie certainly isn't, nor any modern Social Dem I've seen. Also good to remember not all Capitalist were/are douchebags. Socialism got a start with well meaning and kindhearted reformist who wanted to look out for their workers.

 

 

 

 

violence and tyranny already do exist. Our prison population is higher than the USSR's during the gulag and over 20million people worldwide die of preventable causes like famine, bad water and curable disease because it's unprofitable to help them. That's not even getting into the endless wars and financial slavery forced on the poorer countries and working class.

 

I mean more in an immediate sense, but I understand what you mean in regards to the current issues. Climate change will only exasperate it, and the U.S. private prison scheme exists largely for profit.

 

I don't deny radical level change needs to happen, only to what extent and how it happens. I know you are much more in favor for a "stateless" ideal like Noam Chomsky, but it's just hard for me to envision how that would work, especially on a mass scale at this point in time. You already know what my issues with @10 yr. march's dictatorship of the proletariat are; it's just too authoritarian for my taste. Even if it were someone like Bernie. 

These Russians certainly liked the dictatorship of the proletariat still fighting for it 2 years after capitalism was restored "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjBmtkW3Tl8"

 

if you don't have a dictatorship of the proletariat you loose plain and simple the powerful capitalists in your own country and country's abroad will destroy you and no reforms will get through.

 

Our current capitalist "democracy's" undemocratically coup and drone strike any social democrat from a non imperialist country

 

Look how the DNC is treating Bernie there own party member who is a centre left (capitalist) imperialist who wants to increase the extraction of wealth from the third world to give concessions to first world workers whist not touching private property at all and only slightly reducing tax loopholes.



#527
10 year march

10 year march

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 219 posts

anti-bernie%2Bmeme.JPG



#528
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,795 posts

I suppose that 10 Year March believes that only an absolute and unconditional surrender to Australia would have been acceptable.

 

 

 

Look how the DNC is treating Bernie there own party member who is a centre left (capitalist) imperialist who wants to increase the extraction of wealth from the third world to give concessions to first world workers whist not touching private property at all and only slightly reducing tax loopholes.

 

Upon what do you base this conclusion?

 

As far as I can tell, Bernie wants a level playing field.  If you trade with our country, you treat your workers with a certain level of respect, you follow democratic norms, and you follow practices that ensure environmental justice.

 

Correct if I am wrong, with specific examples please.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#529
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,795 posts

"Every great movement must experience three stages: ridicule, discussion, adoption."

 

John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)

 

"Everything is impossible, until it happens."

 

Nelson Mandela

 

Edit: Apparently the actual Mandela quote was "It always seems impossible until it's done."


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: socialism, communism, Marxism, MLM, anarchism, leftism, class war, dialectical materialism, USSR, Stalin

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users