Comment

The confusion is between communism as an economic system and communism (more properly, Marxism-Leninism) as a political system.

Economically communism is a classless, stateless, society.

Most Marxist-Leninist states take the position that transitioning to that instantly is impossible, and you need to build the material conditions for it by transitioning through capitalism (be that state capitalism or some other form) to socialism to communism. The Communist Party of China for instance has a goal of achieving socialism by 2050.

That’s a very simplified version anyway, and some (Trotskyists mostly) disagree that a transition period is necessary.

source

Sort:hotnew top

JustAnIdiotPlsIgnore@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
I see. So there is supposed to be an authoritarian state in the transitionary period, is what you are saying?

Interesting, I was under the impression the real life forms had just failed; one group got into power and just said “naw” and then stayed in that authoritarian ‘state.’

source
- xmunk@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  Most attempts at communism so far have been from single party governments. Those trend quite quickly into authoritarianism regardless of the intent (you might get lucky with a long lived strong man with a deep ethical drive - aka Lenin) but chances are your single party will be coopted by an asshole.
  
  Every time we’ve tried a communist government at a large scale we’ve really horribly failed but it has worked at smaller scales. It may be impossible beyond a limit like Dunbar’s number but I think it’s worth trying a few more times (especially if we can get the US to stop trying to constantly sabatoge it).
  
  source
  - trxxruraxvr@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    
    you might get lucky with a long lived strong man with a deep ethical drive - aka Lenin
    
    Wouldn’t call him especially long lived
    
    source
    xmunk@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    Oh yeah- that’s kind of the issue. I was more highlighting him for his deep ethical figure. Lenin was a complicated man and, if he had the time he may have turned into a pure dictator, but he really never got a chance. The October Revolution led directly into the Civil War and Lenin had a stroke midway through that. By the time the dust settled Lenin was already significantly impaired and on his last legs. It sucks because (while he wasn’t the nicest) he was a pretty cool dude and a true believer in the cause.
    
    After his death everything immediately went to shit - with the death of Armand only Trotsky had the cloud to claim leadership and he was extremely militant. People romanticize him (understandably because the other option was a right turd) and if he had become Chairman the whole “ruler for life” thing probably wouldn’t have happened, but, Trotsky saw the only acceptable path forward as continual and total war to convert nations into soviet councils until nothing else remained. This would have meant a lot of suffering and inevitable collapse.
    
    So instead of Trotsky some dickweed of a clerk said "Nuh, uh, with his last breath Lenin said I should be ~~Emperor, King~~ Chairman? Nah, let’s call it “General Secretary” and be all humble… and that’s how we got the unpolished turd that was Stalin.
    
    source
  - JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    Curious, what small scale examples are you thinking of? Those might be a good model.
    
    Just trying things and seeing what sticks puts millions of lives on the line. Seems risky. But maybe eventually we can predict mass human behavior well enough to develop a control loop that keeps an unstable system stable without succumbing to selfishness/power grabbing? But that seems dangerously close to just hoping AGI will save us all.
    
    source
    sevan@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    There have been many groups that form communes within a larger system. Sometimes its built around a religion (or cult), sometimes around various ideals, like artist communes. In my opinion, what makes these work is that they’re small (your reputation matters), people join it voluntarily, and people can be kicked out if they don’t uphold the ideals. So, you don’t need a state to enforce the rules aside from a mechanism to remove people who don’t participate fairly. And because they are within a larger entity, they don’t have to deal with things like national security or foreign affairs. I don’t think that model scales to a national level.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
    niartenyaw@midwest.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    I recommend reading The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber for more details on societal structures of the past
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - MITM0@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    The main reason it devolves into authoritarianism is Outside interference
    
    source
  - dubyakay@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    So the solution for trying next time is to become resistant to sabotage.
    
    source
- RobotToaster@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  Your impression is basically the Trotskyist view.
  
  Stalin himself answered your question in an interview with an American reporter some time ago.
  
  Yes , you are right, we have not yet built communist society. It is not so easy to build such a society. You are probably aware of the difference between socialist society and communist society. In socialist society certain inequalities in property still exist. But in socialist society there is no longer unemployment, no exploitation, no oppression of nationalities. In socialist society everyone is obliged to work, although he does not, in return for his labour receive according to his requirements, but according to the quantity and quality of the work he has performed. That is why wages, and, moreover, unequal, differentiated wages, still exist. Only when we have succeeded in creating a system under which, in return for their labour, people will receive from society, not according to the quantity and quality of the labour they perform, but according to their requirements, will it be possible to say that we have built communist society.
  
  You say that in order t o build our socialist society we sacrificed personal liberty and suffered privation.
  
  Your question suggests that socialist society denies personal liberty. That is not true. Of course, in order to build something new one must economize, accumulate resources, reduce one’s consumption for a time and borrow from others. If one wants to build a house one saves up money, cuts down consumption for a time, otherwise the house would never be built.
  
  How much more true is this when it is a matter of building a new human society? We had to cut down consumption somewhat for a time, collect the necessary resources and exert great effort. This is exactly what we did and we built a socialist society.
  
  But we did not build this society in order to restrict personal liberty but in order that the human individual may feel really free. We built it for the sake of real personal liberty, liberty without quotation marks. It is difficult for me to imagine what “personal liberty” is enjoyed by an unemployed person, who goes about hungry, and cannot find employment.
  
  Real liberty can exist only where exploitation has been abolished, where there is no oppression of some by others, where there is no unemployment and poverty, where a man is not haunted by the fear of being tomorrow deprived of work, of home and of bread. Only in such a society is real, and not paper, personal and every other liberty possible.
  
  www.marxists.org/reference/archive/…/01.htm
  
  source
  - rockerface@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    Stalin talking about “no oppression” is quite ironic
    
    source
    Deestan@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    Easy: purge the oppressed!
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - JustAnIdiotPlsIgnore@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    This doesn’t really answer any of my questions, only raises more. Unless of course he is making the point that an authoritarian government is the “saving up for the house” but it’s clear with his next statements in the interview, that’s not the case.
    
    source
    Baaahb@feddit.nl ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    You’ve got it, really. The difference between stalin and hitler is largely one of rhetoric. There’s definitely political differences, but gulaging that many people, in the name of “saving up for the house” of no more oppression… Both used a political system that had nothing to do with authoritarianism and perverted it to their own ends. Both called it socialism, both lied.
    
    source
Cowbee@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
There are a few key misconceptions here.

MLs do not take the stance that you need to go through “State Capitalism.” The State playing a role in Markets a la the NEP is still considered a Socialist state even if production isn’t socialized, but this isn’t 100% necessary though it is beneficial in underdeveloped sectors.

Secondly, Communism for Marxists looks like full Public Ownership and Central Planning in a worldwide republic. The State for Marx was the aspect of society that enforced class distinctions, so upon reaching full Public Ownership, even with a government, there is no “State” in the Marxist convention. Per Engels:

The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society – the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society – is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not “abolished”, it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase “a free people’s state” with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so-called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.

Finally, the CPC considers China to be Socialist already. The 2050 metric is to be a “great, developed Socialist nation.” The CPC subscribes to the stageist theory of Socialism whereby each phase in Socialism has unique characteristics, not that they are not yet Socialist.

source