Usually, when Americans think "Communism," they think "Totalitarian regime bent on killing, infringing liberties, and setting up long feed lines to starve people." This is horridly wrong. If you've read "Follow the Directions," then this should make more sense. What those people called "Communism" was what happens when you try to reach Socialism without reaching Capitalism first. You can't produce for everyone and bad things happen. So, then, what is this actual Communism?
Communism is practically identical to Socialism, however, there's a twist. Whereas Socialism maintains the idea of being a State, Communism dissolves the State, the class, the private ownership, etc. and sets up complete autonomy with remarkably limited, Libertarian-style government. As you have probably noticed, the USSR was nothing like that at all, having one of the largest governments ever.
In essence, Communism is Anarchy, but with different steps involved.
Communism = (Socialism, Dissolution of State)
Anarchy = (Dissolution of State, Socialism)
They're just two methods of reaching the same thing.
So what would Communism imply?
-No class. Everyone is completely equal on an economic standpoint, and money is gradually phased out.
-No private property. Everything is owned by everybody, and is then distributed to you (kind of like renting for life).
-Democracy. Workers would elect more workers to represent the masses and govern them. Additionally, as the dictatorship is of the proletariat, the representatives are subject to recall and removal at any time (to preserve representation and eliminate corruption).
-Socialism (See What is Socialism?).
Now sure, there are many more details and such, but they are relatively insignificant and can be discussed in the COMMENTS. Also, concerns and debates go in the same area.
NEXT TIME: How Would Socialism Even Work?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So how exactly would you carry out an organized working class revolution against the bourgeois? What would be necessary for it to happen?
ReplyDelete1. Mass working-class anger. I believe that I mentioned in a comment about how Capitalism's reliance on bubble-economics will inevitably lead to a major "bubble" burst, leaving millions of workers enraged and suffering while a handful of Capitalists bask in the money they made while the bubble was high. But, with only 40% of Americans in the lower class and 50% in the middle class, how do we achieve a substantial enough number to tackle the Capitalists?
ReplyDelete2. A larger wealth gap. Currently, America has enough diversity class-wise to make the Socialist revolution completely impossible. It would have the same effect as the upper-middle class white males in the Tea Party: none. The target is around that of France during the revolution, but translated into modern terms. We need a wealth gap where 3% have all the power and resources. We need a relatively miserable working class constituting the remaining 97%. Thankfully, the bubble economic burst is enough to shake the class number, so that burst needs to be huge. We're talking a Depression as bad as the Great Depression, or worse. That should be substantial.
3. A vanguard party or similar. While all of the chaos is going on, somebody will need to print the information to organize the revolution. Lots of Socialist literature, theories, and ideas are going to be everywhere. This can be accomplished by a Communist Party (which should be put down after the revolution), or through a major news system. Imagine an organization like FOX NEWS, but Socialist at a time where every worker is pissed off. Pretty effective, eh?
4. Armaments. Without guns, blunt objects, sharp objects, or weapons in general, a revolution of the working masses would not be able to defeat a small bourgeoisie and the army it could hire. Therefore, the 2nd Amendment should be used to stockpile weapons in a multitude of secret bunkers across the nation until such events unfold.
5. Lack of central leadership. Central leadership has caused nothing but problems for revolutions. With France, Robbespierre's control led to everyone going bananas and killing/destroying much more than necessary. With Lenin, Mao, and Ho Chi Minh, the results are pretty obvious: mass murder and lasting tyranny. Instead, Socialism must be a moderately Libertarian movement that seeks to overthrow the status quo first, and then formulate a workers' government second. It was Rosa Luxemburg who said, "Freedom only for the members of the government, only for the members of the Party - though they are quite numerous - is no freedom at all." Clearly, Socialism can be nothing but a liberating, Democratic, and equal revolution, free of central control.
I guess I could see how we could get to that point considering our government still hasn't adequately addressed the problems leading to the last financial collapse. Our government doesn't have the foresight to catch an economic problem before it happens; instead they wait and scramble to fix it afterwards.
ReplyDelete