Can anyone succinctly explain communism? Everything I’ve read in the past said that the state owns the means of production and in practice (in real life) that seems to be the reality. However I encountered a random idiot on the Internet that claimed in communism, there is no state and it is a stateless society. I immediately rejected this idea because it was counter to what I knew about communism irl. In searching using these keywords, I came across the ideas that in communism, it does strive to be a stateless society. So which one is it? If it’s supposed to be a stateless society, why are all real-life forms of communism authoritarian in nature?
I think asking this question on a Lemmy.world community is a bit of a mistake. If you want an answer from Marxists, it would be better to ask it on an instance with more Marxists. As a consequence, there are numerous errors people have been making here that are a consequence of not really engaging with Marxist theory outside of Wikipedia definitions, the oversimplification of which has led to drastic errors in conclusions, the blind leading the blind.
Communism, for Marxists, would look like a Worldwide Republic with full Public Ownership and Central Planning. The issue you are runnung into is Marxist definition of the State. For Marxists, the State is an instrument of Class oppression. When you eliminate Classes, you so eliminate the State. Administration, planning, legal networks, etc would still exist without what Marx considered a “State” to be. Moreover, this is the fundamental difference between what Marxists want and what Anarchists want. From Engels, in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:
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.
The reason it isn’t instantaneous is because Marx and Engels believed Private Property could only truly be folded into the Public Sector once it had developed enough to be easily planned, and this happens at different rates across different industries, and to different degrees. The revolutionary aspect is still necessary and quite short-term, but once the Proletariat has siezed control the productive forces must be developed within the constraints of physical reality, ie you can’t will the system or decree it into being fully publicly owned and centrally planned. It’s a gradual process, but revolution is required up front because without it the Bourgeoisie maintain political power, and they need that power wrested from them before Socialism can even begin.
I highly recommend checking out my Introductory Marxist Reading List if you want to learn more, but feel free to ask any questions!
Seeing around this thread you clearly know your stuff. So it feels appropriate to reply to you with questions I have,
Somewhere in this thread one you thing you mentioned was the state/administration would have its exploitative elements removed and would just become an administrative and directive organization, slowly withering away. To me this feels contradictory, the same process that allow an organization to direct resources are surely the same process that allow an organization to exploit people?
I’ve probably failed to word that correctly, so to illustrate what I mean, the guy who control who gets what, can just say “do what I want or I’ll deny you blah”, now what the administrator wants can of course be influenced by money, like today’s politicians, but I’m sure there are plenty of other things people want and could seek to gain - or even just the joy of controlling people.
I suppose you can have checks, but that feels like a band aid if you accept what I said early, the institution in power is inherently able to exploit people - all checks have done is make it more difficult.
To me this is not a consequence of the state/administration being exploitative, rather a consequence of the state having authority to control resource flow at all.
I always camped in the areas of anarchist leftism, but I’m interested to see what you think and I’m not well read enough to comment properly so I imagine there’s a lot of mistakes in this reply so sorry in advance
I have more questions, but this is quite long already so I’ll leave it here
No problem, thanks for asking! 🙂
One thing I think you’re misreading is the State withering away. What we commonly think of as the “State,” ie the entire public sector, government, administration, etc is not the same as what Marx calls the State. For Marx, the State is the elements of Government that contribute to Class oppression.
Before we can continue, we need to know what a “class” even is to begin with. Elsewhere in this thread, people make reference to something like a “planner class,” but for Marx, no such thing exists. Rather, Classes are social relations with respect to ownership of the Means of Production and interaction with it. “Plumbers” are not a class, just like “managers” are not a class. The reason this is important, is because a classless society is one that holds all of the Means of Production in Common. In other words, full Public Ownership.
Circling back to the State, how does it “wither away?” The answer is that the Proletarian state, one dominated by the Proletariat and not the Bourgeoisie, gradually wrests from the Bourgeoisie its Capital with respect to the degree that it has developed. A Socialist revolution would not turn everything into Public Property instantly, markets and Capitalists would remain until the industries they govern develop enough that Public Ownership becomes more efficient and markets stagnate, ie monopolist phases where competition has run dry.
Since this is a gradual process, imagine every bit of Private Property wrested chips away at the State. The second Private Property reaches 0% and Public Property reaches 100%, there are no longer any classes, and thus no class to oppress. The “State” disappears, leaving only government, administration, and more behind.
As for the structural makeup of the socialist government, it would be most likely made up of “rungs,” a local rung, a regional rung with representatives from each local rung, a provincial, national, international, etc rung, as many as needed and as few as necessary for proper Central Planning. What you describe as people being able to just “take advantage” of that could happen, Communism isn’t some utopia of perfection, but such a society is far more resiliant as well as resistant to this than Capitalism, and more importantly builds up over time in a realistic manner.
Does that answer your question? Feel free to read from the reading list I linked earlier, also linked on my profile!
The answer is that the Proletarian state, one dominated by the Proletariat and not the Bourgeoisie, gradually wrests from the Bourgeoisie its Capital with respect to the degree that it has developed.
How does one get a Proletarin state? It seems that any state would be susceptible to corruption & greed? It’s what we have everywhere in the world.
Revolution is required to bring it about. You can observe the various successes and struggles faced by existing Socialist societies and historical Socialist societies to see what has worked and what hasn’t quite worked for how to organize it.
Moreover, every system is going to be susceptible to corruption and greed, Socialism would be more resiliant against it due to focusing production on fulfilling needs, rather than profits as a rule.
Revolution = power vacuum.
Human nature = craves power.
Not necessarily, this is extremely oversimplified.
First, Marxists advocate for building Dual Power, ie an existing “second government” to take the place of the first.
Second, Humans don’t “crave power.” Humans work towards their own self-interest, but this alone doesn’t translate to “power.”
Advocate. Its a nice sediment. But in reality a strongman will fill that vacuum. Always has, always will.
Let’s substitute the word power for dominion. The “ideal” human doesn’t want power or dominion, but you and I don’t live in that world. People in every nation on this Earth have a presiding desire for control; control nature, control the elements, control others. Everywhere humans want control over others.
It may not be the way we want it to be, but it is how it is.
Thank you for such a great response and answer, although I feel I’ve sold my knowledge of leftist ideas a bit short since you have given me a introduction into all of it as well as your answer. But you did answer my question well so a follow up question, given that people could take advantage of the government in some sense, is it not a concern that new class styled system could take hold, one centered on favors from the central government.
Another question which is probably less boring than my last couple, is do Marxist want to see eventual end of all oppressive forces, not just class based. To that extent I would think having a central government would be incompatible since it would allow for some one to take advantage of their position.
Separately, I would think most people can solve their problems if given the means to do so, or the access to those with knowledge - is further centralization really the solution?
I’ll take a skeptical look at your reading list. But you’ve given me some incredible insight into the ideas of Marxists, so thank you for that!
Sure, I’ll take a crack at these!
For your first question, we have to question what it would mean to revert from full Public Ownership to some kind of Private Ownership. Such a method would require a revolution, to change hands from the global population to an elite few, but how would they do that? Communism is international, there’s little need for an army at all at that point, and police would be replaced largely by social workers. Such an upbeaval of the status quo would require a massive upset.
If you mean from within the system, ie slowly boil the frog and peacefully remove all democracy, I would ask you to explain how that would happen given the democratic forces at play and overall economic basis being one requiring everyone in society to be able to participate to their fullest extent, as well as why, when such a system would be at relative abundance.
At earlier stages in development, ie Socialism, sort of? However, I reiterate, planning is not a class, it’s a form of labor.
For your second question, I suppose I would say yes, Marxists don’t believe Communism to be the “end.” However, it is unlikely that such a system would move in favor of decentralization, as decentralization removes democratic input and paves the way for competition and markets to resurface into Capitalism. Engels’ work Anti-Duhring is centered on such a concept, though it isn’t on my reading list.
As for whether or not humanity will eventually move into a more Anarchist style, there’s little to suggest so far that mass, complex industry will simplify itself to where there is a total reversion from full public Ownership and central planning to incredibly simplified individual ownership and planning. I won’t say it’s impossible, but new analysis within Communism would have to observe its trends and predict the next phase of society to be based on atomization and individualism, rather than mass cooperation.
Marx never “decided” that Socialism was good so it should happen, rather, Capitalism’s natural tendency to centralize and teach society how to scale industry further and further and plan it meant Socialism was the next logical step. Such analysis would have to be done again, within Communism, and observe such phenomena to make it valid analysis.
Hope that helps!
Maybe you can clarify for me, as I’m not knowlegeble in Marxism: When the state withers away, what is the central organisation called, that manages the means of production? I thought that would also be called functions of a state. Thanks
Engels calls it “the Administration of Things,” I’d call it government. Really, the heart of the matter is that many people think Marx was advocating for decentralization, which does not logically follow from the rest of Marxism advocating for central planning and whatnot, leading to a weird misconception of a lot of centralization and somehow dissolving, which is evidently false.
We can think of it as a “State” remaining as long as we recontextualize what that means with respect to Marxism, the modern colloquial sense of a State would remain in an altered form is all.
Ah, so it is just a case of a specific definition of “state”. What are the attributes of a state in that definition (as they do not include "the Administration of Things)? Goes totally against my intuition with that word
The state is fundamentally a tool of class oppression. Such aspects would include private property rights, and other enshrinements of class distinctions, which are gradually erased as property is collectivized. Additionally, aspects like policing would transform to be more akin to social workers as the economic reasons for crime would be dramatically minimized, things like that.
If you want an answer from Marxists, it would be better to ask it on an instance with more Marxists.
Is there a listing somewhere where Lemmy instances are grouped by the sociopolitical ideologies of their members?
Not written out, as far as I’m aware. Lemmy.ml is more broadly federated than Lemmy.world, however, so it can cast a wider net. Perhaps asking on c/socialism or c/communism would be a good bet for OP. Per your question, though, it really is just found out either by checking each instance or feeling it out if it isn’t explicitly stated.
I don’t think I’m able to read people well enough from text comments to gauge whether or not they are Marxist or something else, lmao.
That’s fair! Marxists are most commonly found on Lemmy.ml, Lemmygrad.ml, and Hexbear.net. Lemmy.world skews very liberal and is defederated from the latter 2, so as a consequence asking on Lemmy.world gets a very oversimplified view of Marxism.
If you want to learn about Marxism, you can check my reading list linked in my top level comment or on my profile.
something that doesn’t work, easy.
One of those is the ideal version that Marx described as the ultimate goal and that can never be made by humans anyway because humans just don’t behave like that. The other one is what you actually get if you follow the Marx Manifesto and his idea of an “intermediate state” that could bring you to the end goal. (And if you go compare it with plain OG Fascism, both look way too much alike.)
There are other things called “communism”, both the word and the concept are way older than Marx. There are even ideas that begun in that umbrella but we don’t actually group in any singular concept, and instead are “just the way things are” nowadays.
I recommend reading Blackshirts and Reds, Communism and Fascism have historically been entirely different and equating them is not really justified.
I’m not who you responded to, but they have a good point. The difference being who is favored and who is not. In fascism there are in groups and out groups. The real life forms we have today of communism follow that same rule. I think the distinction is who is being targeted. Try to speak out against the Russian government in Russia, it won’t go well. The same thing would certainly happen in a fascist state. Pointing out the small differences between the two is akin to making the distinction between a pedophile and a hebephile. They are both authoritarian in nature.
Frankly, this is wrong. I am not trying to be rude here, so please don’t take it that way, but as you admitted in the original post you aren’t very informed on this subject to begin with. If you haven’t seen it, I highly recommend reading my top-level reply to this thread as well.
First, to get the obvious sticker out of the way, the Russian Federation is undeniably Capitalist, Socialism was dissolved and the former state was sliced up and sold for parts at garage sale prices to wealthy Capitalists. The USSR was dissolved in the early 1990s, 3 decades ago, and with it the Socialist economy was also dissolved. An estimated 7 million people died due to the sudden destruction of the economy and the utter crumbling of previously government provided services, like free healthcare and education, a process known as “Shock Doctrine.”
Secondly, Fascism and Communism. You really need to read the book I recommended, Dr. Michael Parenti has an easy to read writing style packed with wit and rigorous historical analysis, however I will respond as best I can to the points you yourself brought up.
It is correct that both Fascism and Communism have an “in-group” and an “out-group,” but if you don’t actually see which group is represented and which group is oppressed by which system, you come to false conclusions. Fascism’s in-group is undeniably the national bourgeoisie, the Capital owners that profited immensely off of the various fascist movements, such as Ford, Hugo Boss, Krupp, many of which exist to this day in some form. The out-group is also undeniably the proletariat, the working class. Often times, somewhat due to the Nietzchian influence, ethnic groups such as Jewish peoples and Slavic peoples were targeted, along with any organized members of the working class, especially Communists. Fascism is a sort of “immune system” for Capitalism.
What about Comminism? Well, it’s the exact opposite. Communist movements have historically come from the Proletariat (as well as the peasantry, especially in China where there wasn’t a large Proletariat at the time of its revolution), and have served the Proletariat greatly. The oppressed class is the Bourgeoisie. What this historically has translated to is AES states (or “Actually Existing Socialism”) working towards huge literacy programs, massive education expansion, rapid industrialization, and generous social services. The USSR, for example, provided completely free healthcare and education, and had lower retirement ages than the United States, the social safety net actually inspired FDR’s New Deal as a means to prevent revolution within the United States during the Great Depression.
Moreover, the USSR and the Nazis saw the vast majority of the fighting in WWII. 80% of Nazi deaths came from the Eastern Front, it was the strategy of the West to let both the Nazis and the Communists fight it out and grind each other to a pulp. Truman spoke this of the strategy:
If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don’t want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances.
Ultimately, the real issue here is trying to dress up a massive difference as a small one, and using it to equate two polar opposites. Again, I highly encourage you to read the top level comment. No, AES states are not and have never been perfect, but they have also been in no way shape or form comparable to fascist states, in who they serve or how they functioned, and to equate them is a massive error.
Let me know if you have any questions!
Motherfuckers really will downvote a non-stupid question on !nostupidquestions
It’s not whether it’s stupid or not, but that it’s actively belligerent and exposes the antagonism of OP against learning new things. Awful example to set for the community
Basically.
Most “Communist” countries practices Vanguardism, the idea of a “Vanguard Party” that is suppose to look out for the people, and act in the interest of the people, taking absolute control of the country, destroy capitalism and implement communism, then when communism is achieved, the state would naturally “wither away”, ceasing to exist.
Yea… imagine how that works in practice. Once a party gets into power, they aint ever giving it up, thats the problem.
Vanguards are never supposed to “give up” power, rather, they are meant to be extensions of the Working Class, ie the most politically experienced and trained among the Proletariat, connected to and accountable to the rest of the Proletariat. The State isn’t the same as government, for Marx. The State is an instrument of class oppression, once all property is in the public sector there ceases to be classes, and thus the elements of government upholding class distinctions cease to have a purpose and “whither away.” 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.
But there doesn’t cease to be classes, there is now the “planning” class with no check on their power. Are the common people who supposed to rise up again and overthrow the planners when they obviously and inevitably become selfish and corrupt? This is the logical leap communist theory never answered.
First, there’s no such thing as a “planning class.” Managers within Capitalist businesses are still Proletarian, planning is just a different form of labor. Such a distinction would mean that “plumber” is a class, as well as “doctor.” What determines a class isn’t the form of labor, but the relation to ownership, and in a fully Publicly Owned economy the planners are not the owners.
Secondly, there are checks on elected officials, I am not sure at all where you are getting the notion that there are none. Recall elections have been a core aspect of Marxist theory of organization since near the beginning, as well as concepts such as Democratic Centralism.
“Common people” are not distinct from “planners,” nor would the “Common people” be able to do away with the concept of planners and management. Again, from 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.
It’s not that Communist theory “never answered” your questions, its that nobody that is familiar with Communist theory would raise such questions as they don’t make any sense in context. Does that make sense?
So communism is a multi party system with state elections? You just invented democracy my dude. Oh, sorry, maguc stateless elections. With no corruption. No one is in charge, there is no one behind the curtain pulling the leavers, right?
Communism is democratic, yes. This can have multiple parties (which is in practice in several AES states), but generally having different parties is not the same as having democratic control. It’s arguably more important to be able to vote on what you want, or who you want to do it, within an existing party or party-less system. As an example, among a local council, rather than voting on a party, it makes more sense to vote on which representative from said council will participate in the regional council, not necessarily which party.
Secondly, again, you are confusing a “State” in the Marxist sense, ie the elements of government that denote class distinctions (private property rights, as an example) with the colloquial sense of the word “State,” which is largely synonymous with government. Communism would have a government, complete with elections and representatives, without a state, hence me bolding Engels when he says "The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production." You cannot direct the processes of production without, you know, directing production.
Moreover, corruption likely will never fully go away, but it will be minimized over time, certainly in comparison to modern Capitalism, and even early Socialism. Communism isn’t some Utopia free from any worry or problem, and Marxists are the first to point this out. It’s usually non-Marxists that pretend Communism is supposed to be perfect and thus impossible, actually.
That doesn’t answer my question unfortunately. In fact kinda muddies the water. Wikipedia says that it strives to be stateless, but how does that contend with the real life versions of communism that most certainly have a state?
A stateless society is one with a power vacuum. Some one will claim the title of leader and often it’ll be someone of little virtue.
Kind of. Marx’s theory of the State was about Class Oppression, when you eliminate Class there isn’t really a State for Marx, ergo full Public Ownership and Central Planning is considered Communist. You are more referring to Anarchism.
Are these “cental planners” robots or humans?
In all likelihood, a mixture of both! The concept of “Cybernetics”, or productive control systems being applied to a centrally planned economy, has been an aspect of Marxism for centuries. Here’s another interesting article on calculating prices in a planned economy.
what you refer to as
real life versions of communisms are in fact attempts to establish communism by communist parties within their respective nation states. communism has bever been reached - and none of these parties in power ever said that they had.
the way you use the word (associating USSR, China, Cuba, N Korea with communism) is the result of cold war propaganda. more accurate terminology for these (horrible!) dictatorships would be authoritarian regime with state-monopolized capitalist economy.
all summarized communism is an ideal economy where each gives what they can and gets what they nees, where necessity is at the core and not the accumulation of wealth.
This isn’t actually true. AES states are Socialist, the concept of “State Capitalism” refered more to the NEP period. Communism is always meant to be based on Public Ownership and Central Planning, because Marx observed Capitalism’s natural tendencies to centralize and develop intricate internal planning mechanisms.
The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
Regardless of your opinions on the successes or failures of AES, they were and are very much in line with the Marxist notion of Socialism.
could you at least say what you are quoting when using citations for your argument?
that being said: collective ownership of the means of production (what socialism means) is a direct contradiction to nation-states as long as these are unable to reflect the collective will within their structures.
Ah, fair enough! This is Engels in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, one of the best introductions to the philosophical aspects of Marxism in my opinion.
As for your point, public ownership and central planning requires infrastructure to direct production and people/algorithms to fulfil those roles (not getting into Cybernetics at this point as that’s another can of worms). All Communists espouse democratic values, usually in the form of “units” that elect representatives from within themselves to a higher unit, in a ladder approach, with instant recall elections available as a countermeasure. Furthermore, the concepts of Democratic Centralism and the Mass Line are critical for Marxist organizational theory.
