this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2023
0 points (50.0% liked)

Communism

9641 readers
16 users here now

Discussion Community for fellow Marxist-Leninists and other Marxists.

Rules for /c/communism

Rules that visitors must follow to participate. May be used as reasons to report or ban.

  1. No non-marxists

This subreddit is here to facilitate discussion between marxists.

There are other communities aimed at helping along new communists. This community isn't here to convert naysayers to marxism.

If you are a member of the police, armed forces, or any other part of the repressive state apparatus of capitalist nations, you will be banned.

  1. No oppressive language

Do not attempt to justify your use of oppressive language.

Doing this will almost assuredly result in a ban. Accept the criticism in a principled manner, edit your post or comment accordingly, and move on, learning from your mistake.

We believe that speech, like everything else, has a class character, and that some speech can be oppressive. This is why speech that is patriarchal, white supremacist, cissupremacist, homophobic, ableist, or otherwise oppressive is banned.

TERF is not a slur.

  1. No low quality or off-topic posts

Posts that are low-effort or otherwise irrelevant will be removed.

This is not a place to engage in meta-drama or discuss random reactionaries on lemmy or anywhere else.

This includes memes and circlejerking.

This includes most images, such as random books or memorabilia you found.

We ask that amerikan posters refrain from posting about US bourgeois politics. The rest of the world really doesn’t care that much.

  1. No basic questions about marxism

Posts asking entry-level questions will be removed.

Questions like “What is Maoism?” or “Why do Stalinists believe what they do?” will be removed, as they are not the focus on this forum.

  1. No sectarianism

Marxists of all tendencies are welcome here.

Refrain from sectarianism, defined here as unprincipled criticism. Posts trash-talking a certain tendency or marxist figure will be removed. Circlejerking, throwing insults around, and other pettiness is unacceptable.

If criticisms must be made, make them in a principled manner, applying Marxist analysis.

The goal of this subreddit is the accretion of theory and knowledge and the promotion of quality discussion and criticism.

Check out ProleWiki for a communist wikipedia.

Communism study guide

bottombanner

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
muad_dibber@lemmygrad.ml
CaptCalhoun@lemmygrad.ml
fidel_castro@lemmygrad.ml
supercooper25@lemmygrad.ml
Magpieinthesky@lemmygrad.ml
AnarchoBolshevik@lemmygrad.ml
0
My brain just found a solution to how a world would work for both communists and anarchists post a leftist revolution (hexbear.net)
submitted 1 year ago by Twink@hexbear.net to c/communism@lemmygrad.ml
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Posting to 'grad because I don't know where that'd belong on 'bear. I hope it's OK!

I genuinely cannot see how anarchism could work large scale, but there are anarchist spaces: anarchist communes. I think after a leftist revolution the world would be generally communist, but there would be independent anarchist communes. I think that'd be a true way anarchists and communists could coexist in reality. Alongside one another but not forced to abandon their political stances.

all 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Yes, but how are any sort of regulations, rights, laws, or etc, going to be enforced on the communes?

There are federal sized entities for a reason, and using the United States for example, doing everything that the USDA, Corp of Engineers, CDC, FDA, Department of Commerce, Department of Education, and so on, would be next to impossible for a commune sized government.

For example, lets say the commune makes money in a socialist state by selling food products. How will they react when government inspectors roll in to make sure that food safety standards, workers rights, hygiene, and regulations are all being followed?

Another example, let’s say that there is a streamlined and standardized curriculum and learning standards for children in the country, operated by state run public schools with teachers on public payroll. How will education standards be maintained in the communes? How will literacy, education, and so on be enforced?

There would need to be government overreach and “intervention”, to maintain even the simplest of standards. So while it’s not “direct control”, a commune would still need to bend in some regards to a central power, something I doubt anarchists would like at all.

[–] taiphlosion@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This exactly, how would anything work large scale at all?

[–] ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 year ago

The same simple question arises. Where are they getting medicine from?

Or are they going to treat stage 3 cancer with herbs and remedies?

[–] Blake@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

The same way it does now - everyone doing their small part in service of a greater goal. At present, people are motivated by money - someone has money and will give you some if you do some small part in service of their greater goal. Imagine if, instead of that, people did things in service of a greater goal that benefits everyone, and in return, instead of money, they receive a share of that greater goal back to them - in the form of all of their needs being met.

People can organise very effectively and dynamically to achieve goals without coercion. For example, the entirely of the open source movement. Some of the largest, most complex software projects in the world are designed by consensus.

[–] Blake@feddit.uk -2 points 1 year ago

Why is the goal to force things onto people, instead of building things by consensus that works for everyone? If you have standards and rights that are actually made for the benefit of everyone, what reason would communes have to disregard them?

For your example: anarchists run food co-ops today and they manage to meet standards of hygiene and safety just fine under capitalism, so I don’t know why you feel like it would be any different under any other system.

Anarchists also homeschool very commonly in co-operatives, and in my experience the quality of education is significantly better, and almost more importantly, the kids are way better socialised and confident because of the number of trusted adults they have around to interact with and who help them.

I don’t think most anarchist would have a problem with the rights and health of people being put before their own freedom. The problem anarchists have is that states inevitably have led to oppression - the likelihood of a transitional state actually succeeding in implementing communism is pretty low, so understandably they are hesitant to support the creation of a transitional state.

[–] taiphlosion@lemmygrad.ml 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why not just be a communist instead of an anarchist?? What's so spooky about being a communist that you have to adopt a much more useless ideology?

[–] Blake@feddit.uk -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Communism and anarchism aren’t necessarily in opposition - in fact, they’re usually not, and it’s pretty common for an anarchist to also be a communist, hence the term “anarcho-communism”.

[–] simply_surprise@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 year ago

We believe that the Anarchists are real enemies of Marxism. Accordingly, we also hold that a real struggle must be waged against real enemies.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm

[–] taiphlosion@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, a redundant term that doesn't make any sense. I used to be one till I found out they have no answer for deconstructing and preventing racism.

[–] Blake@feddit.uk 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Any model for an anarchist society without an answer to how to dismantle and prevent racism - or any other kind of oppression of a minority - is not, in my view, anarchist. Anarchism requires the elimination of unjustified hierarchies. If racism exists, then a race hierarchy exists, which is inherently unjustified.

How that is achieved is a very different matter, and there’s a wide variety of thought on the subject and lots of differing opinions.

Personally I think the starting point has to be that our society is completely intolerant of anything which elevates or denigrates people based on race, gender identity, disability, sexual orientation, spiritual belief, etc. so long as their beliefs do not promote any other kind of intolerance.

As for how this is implemented, again there’s great diversity of thought, but in general I feel like the process should look something like education, then arbitration, then banishment. Obviously, in extreme cases of hate speech or for particularly hateful examples some steps might be skipped or abridged, I don’t think a one-system-fits-all solution can be designed or is even desirable.

An absence of inherent detail for how everything would be implemented is a feature, and not a flaw, of anarchism IMO, because it’s helpful that questions like this are resolved by consensus, not by decree or dogma. Anarchism is all about building a cohesive, peaceful society, not about enforcing our personal will on others.

For example, I have never experienced racism, so it would be totally foolish and ignorant of me to think that I have all the answers for how to solve it.

[–] taiphlosion@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For example, I have never experienced racism, so it would be totally foolish and ignorant of me to think that I have all the answers for how to solve it.

And case closed.

[–] Blake@feddit.uk -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is such an absurd take that I can only assume you’re trolling.

[–] taiphlosion@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What's absurd about it? You don't got the answers, Sway.

[–] Blake@feddit.uk 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You: Anarchism doesn't have any answers!

Me: Anarchism isn't about "having answers", it's about FINDING answers as a collective

You: 😏 Yea exactly you got no answers dumbass 😏

[–] simply_surprise@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You: Anarchism doesn't have any answers!

Me: Anarchism isn't about "having answers", it's about FINDING answers as a collective

You: 😏 Yea exactly you got no answers dumbass 😏.

In the 200+ years anarchism has existed, has that method of "finding answers" proved effective?

When?

/* ok, 159 years. The First International was 1864.

[–] RedQuestionAsker2@hexbear.net 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

OP: I found a way for anarchists and communists to coexist after the revolution!

Every ML in the thread: anarchism doesn't work.

Lmao

[–] absentthereaper@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My biggest issue with it tbf is even trying to approach it as open minded as I could, I do not understand how you'd keep what you took. Eventually, the grinding of gears between the state and the commune(s) will lead to either a co-opting of the commune(s), or an utter shunning of them from an inability to standardize rules, regulations, and practices; and I don't quite see how that helps either of us.

[–] Blake@feddit.uk -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If there’s no profit incentive, and the standards/regulations are suitable, then there’s no reason for communes to disregard them. If the standards (or rules) are reached by consensus, then I don’t see why it couldn’t work. Unless, of course, the state is working for the benefit of a minority at the expense of society as a whole.

[–] absentthereaper@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Unless, of course, the state is working for the benefit of a minority at the expense of society as a whole.

This is exactly what I was worried about. Who arbitrates who the state is working for when a communist state would be for the laborers, and by the laborers; or otherwise, not be communist? I don't trust in the skills of discernment in individualists enough to have faith that one of these hypothetical communes wouldn't just go wrecker because they perceive a 'work towards the benefit of a minority'.

[–] Blake@feddit.uk -1 points 1 year ago

Who determines whether or not the actions of a state are in the best interests of society? That’s a great question, with a variety of answers depending on your preferred flavour of communism, anarchism, Marxism, etc. but the broad answer is that, well, we all do - as in, we, the working class.

Societies are necessarily structures composed of individuals, and therefore, individuals need to be involved in the decision making somewhere, it’s unavoidable.

There isn’t really anything you wrote which is uniquely applicable to a commune that isn’t also applicable to a transitional state. For example, what’s to stop such a state from determining that some innocent commune is involved in anti-communist, anti-worker’s rights activities and going wrecker, as you put it? Either by mistake, or for some malicious purpose, such as for the individual benefit of some individual in that structure?

You distrust individualists to exist outside of a state, but you trust them enough to be responsible with all of the instruments and powers of the state - that is quite strange to me indeed!

I tend to believe that, at the moment at least, humans are pretty selfish, ego-driven and tend towards making irrational choices. That’s why I believe that no-one should really be trusted with power over others that isn’t absolutely, 100% necessary for the functioning of society.

Also, just to clarify, there’s no such thing as a communist state - that’s a contradiction in terms. Communism, definitionally, is a classless, moneyless, stateless society - I’m guessing that you meant a transitional state, or a communist society, but a communist society couldn’t really “enforce” laws in the traditional top-down way that we think of those things.

[–] EmmaGoldman@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Abdullah Öcalan has a very sensible structural layout for blending Anarchist and Communist sensibilities into a constructive system for governance on the local, regional, and global scales.

Democratic Confederalism

[–] ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 year ago

That idea would make little sense. He attempts to use the idea of Democratic Confederalism as a way to show how Kurdistan can become independent, and had no connection to anarchism in any way.

Confederacy in almost every form has been a miserable failure throughout history. There are to many moving parts and points of failure.

[–] kristina@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

just give them a park to frolick on lmao