Discussing the Discourse - Question Format Recommended

[Dodes]

1. Means of production.

Under communism, contrary to popular belief, private property is not seized for the government. It can be however, and has been. There are differences between a command (or control) economy and a planned economy, you could even have syndicalism work with communism.

Really the idea is to abolish private property rather than to seize it, though saying that can cause some misconceptions and frankly sounds like you're advocating primitivism when you say it. Much along the idea of eventually abolishing classes, though the abolishment of private property would come much sooner than that and communism is much designed to create a new class as an improvement over the current - the same way the bourgeois were a preferable improvement upon the nobility.

Simply put, to eliminate large-scale influence of wealth as an influence of power, the new governmental institutions would make laws among a constitution that would enforce cooperatives among economics and democratic workplaces. Though it is not that easy as a "one size fits all" solution, so inevitably more and more localized representation would have to dictate at what level and severity this would be enforced. Even then, this could case problems as local representatives would possibly become corrupt and thus there would have to be other branches of government with feasible jurisdiction to step in and correct these inevitabilities. 

2. The State

A lot of the solutions here are overall minor improvements upon the standing principles of republics as the real source of compounding political corruption and centralization of power has been fueled by  interference by economic powers. Shorter term limits, investiture restrictions, greater council jurisdiction over higher ranking bodies, and an absolute overhaul on the practice of lobbying to name a few. Generally though, further decentralization and what could be hopefully considered progression of democratic evolution.

3. Theorized New Class

It's very likely that with the limit of involvement one single individual can take in politics and the abolishment of individual economic control, a new group will form after revolution of influence on common people and politicians. To call it a political party would be inaccurate but will easily be classified as an external organization, possibly utilizing technological advances. It's extremely hard to say what action should be taken to confront this problem, but hypothetically it may be taken as a given and as an improvement upon the current ruling class of bourgeois.

 

[Bromden]

Mmhm, so how do you make the new leaders or decision-maker-technology-based-non-party or whoever those who dictate, not to use their power for their own good?

 

[Dodes]

That's an inevitability. Though the easiest and simplest way without going into detail is to make it that they need more than themselves to get what they want and make it so that no-one is an official long enough. The higher up you would be, the shorter amount of time you are allowed to be so, though it would not limit you from assuming a role lower on the hierarchical chain.


Example:

1
2
3
4
5

The higher the number, the higher your hierarchy, though each number's quantity would correlate to the time limit of occupation you can have. Additionally a 2 could never become a 1 and vice versa, though a 3 could become a 1 if they were never a 3 again, and then a 4 could be a 1, but then be a 4 again, but having a shorter time than others 4s.

Of course this creates a problem with, for lack of a better word, "puppets", which is why clarity in governmental actions is so important. [Honestly I forgot what the actual word is, but clarity is really close or so I think]

 

[Bromden]

So the answer is "I don't know".

 

[Mad Vader]

The term limits are set as a clumsy way to alleviate abuse of power, not fight it.
There are also much more drastic and fun ways to do this since ancient times, like exile after serving a term as a high-ranking public official, or duplication of important public offices so two people serve in the same capacity instead of one, diluting their power and forcing them to keep tabs on each other.
Legal prosecution and impeachment are much more straightforward ways to fight abuse, but then you run into their network of buddies. This is where an opposition party would help if you had one.

3. Theorized New Class

It's very likely that with the limit of involvement one single individual can take in politics and the abolishment of individual economic control, a new group will form after revolution of influence on common people and politicians. To call it a political party would be inaccurate but will easily be classified as an external organization, possibly utilizing technological advances. It's extremely hard to say what action should be taken to confront this problem, but hypothetically it may be taken as a given and as an improvement upon the current ruling class of bourgeois.

Also known as networks, lobbies, parties, clans, cabals, etc. You don't have to theorize their existence or invent new names, as you can see them everywhere today and throughout history.
You can't stop people from, formally or informally, pooling their influence and power to advance their common interests, frequently at the expense of other groups or even the general public. Ganging up on others is simple common sense, watch any reality show.
Such networks don't need to hold formal positions of power to have influence, and will promote their own candidates for economic and political positions exercising real power, maintaining their grip.
Decentralizing power may weaken these groups by making them really work only at local level. But then they could take over a town and the central government may be too weak to curb their excesses. No sheriff riding into town to clean it up.

Communists - if successful and done in a left communist manner- will steal private property but not personal. Of course that is going to have a lot of problems - I've heard plenty of criticism from such practice from my rightist comrades - but communism has always been about doing things the hard way instead of the easy way and not flinching on what has been set out to be done.

I hope you are not proud of the fact that massive state theft of private property is hard. You are talking about ruining lives of many people and need to be sensitive about that. Showing regret instead of bragging about difficulty is a more mature approach.
Maybe you haven't seen the real life victims after the post-WW2 large scale nationalizations in newly communist countries, mugged and then ostracized by the new authorities.
Or you don't care about people you brand as ideological enemies and want them to go away. In that case, don't expect much sympathy yourself.

 

[Dodes]

I'm not denying there have been external organizations such as you named that have indeed been very influential in the past and present, but the key word I am using is "class" and the emphasis is on the utilization of new technology.

There is no magic solution that suddenly removes corruption and power abuse, if you do have one, I'd love to hear it as I've been searching for one for quite a while.

Also this narrative that I and other communists are all soulless beings bent on ruining and then running people's lives you are pushing is getting a bit tiring. There isn't a nice or easy way to do this and doing so you are walking on a tight rope. That's one of the two major points of discourse, understanding the best way to do things before doing them. I'd probably even be content and not see the need of suffering and risk of greater suffering if capitalism did not primarily move its problems geographically and the ruling class did not have such influence as it does. There is going to be suffering and death and there is no way around that, yet the most important aspect is to minimize that as not to ignite a process that creates institutions and system that is worse than the current one to be replaced, as it has been done so many times before.

 

[Bromden]

"Class" is a bad keyword here, because the current classes are verily permeable. If I was any good at money wrangling I could easily become a burgeois enemy of your ideals.

It's sad to hear there is no magic solution against corruption and power abuse, because without one your utopia is destined to fail.

There is no nice and easy way to achieve what you want, nor one that has a substantial chance to succeed as you'd want it. It will be a grand scale ****up if ever attempted.

 

[Mad Vader]

I generally like lefties, I'm not pushing the idea they are soulless beings unless they speak like soulless beings.
Some of your remarks are dehumanizing your ideological opponents, and you seem not to care less if they were shot out of hand or their lives destroyed. All of that already happened on a massive scale and is considered, well, evil. Maybe you could learn from that and adapt, and don't take the class warfare of old pamphlets too literally. Those who don't study history... you know what.
We live in different times with different sensibilities.

 

[Dodes]

The funny thing is, is that you just defined contemporary left communsim 

 

[Wolfhead]

How do you think people will live in your newly-established communist state? You are ripping quite a few layers of infrastructure by seizing the means of production.

Given that your system of government is quite ideological, how will you maintain your ideology without some form of authoritarianism? Quite a few people will disagree with it. If you give them a vote they will try to take you off from the government. But if you don't, you are taking their personal freedoms and giving them a reason to do it by force.

How will you deal with dissidents? Are they to be sent to a camp or prison for disagreeing with the government? Will they be forcefully re-educated? What if a good portion of the populace rises against your methods?

In a planet with a globalized market, how will you go about acquiring resources and commodities your state doesn't have? How will the people as individuals afford anything other than what the state have?

How will wealth distribution work in your state? Would people have to work for money to pay for housing, food, transport and education, or will everything be given freely by the state? How will employment work in a non-capitalist country, given that most of our current job opportunities derive from the private sector?

 

[Eктωρ]

I love it when my hippieism piss off the marxist kids cause I'm not supporting their ideals of revolution. Speaking as a History Student, communism's aims are really, really noble, but I don't really trust most socialists.

 

[Dodes]

How do you think people will live in your newly-established communist state? You are ripping quite a few layers of infrastructure by seizing the means of production.

Given that your system of government is quite ideological, how will you maintain your ideology without some form of authoritarianism? Quite a few people will disagree with it. If you give them a vote they will try to take you off from the government. But if you don't, you are taking their personal freedoms and giving them a reason to do it by force.

How will you deal with dissidents? Are they to be sent to a camp or prison for disagreeing with the government? Will they be forcefully re-educated? What if a good portion of the populace rises against your methods?

In a planet with a globalized market, how will you go about acquiring resources and commodities your state doesn't have? How will the people as individuals afford anything other than what the state have?

How will wealth distribution work in your state? Would people have to work for money to pay for housing, food, transport and education, or will everything be given freely by the state? How will employment work in a non-capitalist country, given that most of our current job opportunities derive from the private sector?

I don't think I can effectively answer your question of how people will live as it's so board and vague it's hard what to say exactly. If this is a prelude to a more specific question, I'd appreciate it if you just asked that.

Communism at its core concepts are not ideological, or are as just as ideological as republicanism (not the American conservationists). History has pushed the political spectrum continually "left". The sects of leftist and rightist communists will eventually become the new left and right. It's also feasible in the distant future that politics will be moved left again, this could be a never-ending progression for all we know.

Really depends on the methodology of the dissidence, obviously if it's violent they'll be enforced to detention under the law to be determined by a court system. Before you wave the hypocrisy card, remember that communism itself - regardless of its internal ideologies - does not define the methodology to achieve socialism.

Trade with capitalist countries is not ruled out by communist countries, though it is likely that many capitalist countries will refuse to trade with communist and vice versa. This is where internationalism comes into play, but that's not practical for obvious reasons, so the main idea is to implement communism in leading countries not only to ensure self-reliance but to also prevent other major capitalist countries from creating economic obstacles regarding trade.

I suppose the easiest way to describe wealth distribution in socialism is similar to the welfare state, though I would not compare it at all to Keynesian economics. To say anything would be freely given - a traditional narrative built on misconception - would be incorrect as there still would be currency exchanged for goods and services while being earned by producing goods and services, that's not a strict guideline as handicapped persons would have benefits to substitute their inability to produce goods and services on equal level as non-handicapped persons. I couldn't pick out anything too radically different in employment methods, especially in early socialism, though I'm sure I'm forgetting something by taking it as a given.

I love it when my hippieism piss off the marxist kids cause I'm not supporting their ideals of revolution. Speaking as a History Student, communism's aims are really, really noble, but I don't really trust most socialists.

You still isolationist-reformist?

 

[Wolfhead]

I don't think I can effectively answer your question of how people will live as it's so board and vague it's hard what to say exactly. If this is a prelude to a more specific question, I'd appreciate it if you just asked that.

I suppose it all depends on how your state will be installed in power. But I assume it will be through revolution, since it's the least time consuming form. In that case, you'll be destroying a good part of the infrastructure of the country. Not to mention it'll be somewhat of an ordeal to seize all the commodities a modern country needs and put it in the hands of people who know what they're doing. My question is, do you have a plan to keep people healthy, fed, and with clean water, usable sewer systems, hospitals, police, et cetera, after your revolution? Or will you let people die, as you rebuild the infrastructure?

Communism at its core concepts are not ideological, or are as just as ideological as republicanism (not the American conservationists). History has pushed the political spectrum continually "left". The sects of leftist and rightist communists will eventually become the new left and right. It's also feasible in the distant future that politics will be moved left again, this could be a never-ending progression for all we know.

That doesn't really answer my question. It took more or less a hundred years to build capitalism as we know it, how will you keep your ideology in place in a country whose population was mostly capitalist until then, without enforcing it through authoritarian means? People don't like change.

Really depends on the methodology of the dissidence, obviously if it's violent they'll be enforced to detention under the law to be determined by a court system. Before you wave the hypocrisy card, remember that communism itself - regardless of its internal ideologies - does not define the methodology to achieve socialism.

It's a rather bleak form of government, then. But let's assume it's a non-violent dissidence. What then?

Trade with capitalist countries is not ruled out by communist countries, though it is likely that many capitalist countries will refuse to trade with communist and vice versa. This is where internationalism comes into play, but that's not practical for obvious reasons, so the main idea is to implement communism in leading countries not only to ensure self-reliance but to also prevent other major capitalist countries from creating economic obstacles regarding trade.

That would imply a return to the cold-war practices of sticking your cock in other countries' cakes. Also do you think countries like the US would stand still while you do it? Does that seem smart to you?

 

[Eктωρ]

You still isolationist-reformist?

I'm a countercultural person. I told you I believed in self sustained communities workin together with cooperaed manufactures, right? That's wha I always say, I think people should auto organize. But this economic thing is not what I focus on the most, I'm usually talking about a psychedelic society and a change of mind in people, and thus am regarded as kind of politically ignorant. Specially by radical marxists.

 

[Dodes]

-

A revolution is not defined as an armed struggle, but let's assume it comes to that, how will the infrastructure of any given country be destroyed in a good part? To what extent is the damage? Is it irreplacable? Is it worth not having a revolution to preserve said infrastructure?

Even the Spartacus Rebellion in Germany, which is a prime example of not only an initiation of armed struggle (though technically it was in support of a mass union strike and attempted seizure) and one that is early in a communist class consciousness effort - the most likely time that a civil war would drag into a prolonged engagement that would cause such destruction of infrastructure to prevent adequate healthcare, food and water supplies, law enforcement, etc. - did not come anywhere close towards what you are predicting.

Maybe you're just thinking that all communist revolutions are vanguard parties rather than spontaneous uprisings?



That's exactly what pre-socialist communism is about, it's not about creating a revolution/reformation as soon as possible, it's about building a proletariat that is class conscious. These are basic communist tenets, you can find them on the first pages of Wikipedia (I imagine).



If it's a non-violent dissidence then you allow it.



How exactly are internal uprisings "sticking your cock in other countries' cakes", even if the internal uprisings are in countries that are major producers and home to essential natural resources, similar to the satellite states of the soviet bloc? Also the US is the most essential country to have a revolution - or reformation - for communist to succeed, do you think its coincidence that it's the most capitalistic and anticommunist country in the world?

I'm a countercultural person. I told you I believed in self sustained communities workin together with cooperaed manufactures, right? That's wha I always say, I think people should auto organize. But this economic thing is not what I focus on the most, I'm usually talking about a psychedelic society and a change of mind in people, and thus am regarded as kind of politically ignorant. Specially by radical marxists.

You just described isolationist-reformist ....