[Ahovking]

How do you imagine how A Pure Communist Nation would work?

In terms of economics and political system.

[The Immortal Goon]

Communism, by definition, is not compatible with nationalism.

Marx's analysis is pretty heady, but he does make clear that capitalism is a world-wide system that will have a world-wide consequence.

National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.

The logic here is simple enough; capitalism is a world-wide system. If socialism, as a system, is a higher form of production born from the contradictions of a world system - it too should be international in scope.

It's, of course, not that cut and dry as the struggle to create a socialist system, so Marx correctly implies, takes on a national scope. But he is also right to lampoon socialists concerned only with socializing their own country exactly because it completely ignores the fact that capitalism is a global economy:

Lassalle, in opposition to the Communist Manifesto and to all earlier socialism, conceived the workers' movement from the narrowest national standpoint. He is being followed in this -- and that after the work of the International!

It is altogether self-evident that, to be able to fight at all, the working class must organize itself at home as a class and that its own country is the immediate arena of its struggle -- insofar as its class struggle is national, not in substance, but, as the Communist Manifesto says, "in form". But the "framework of the present-day national state", for instance, the German Empire, is itself, in its turn, economically "within the framework" of the world market, politically "within the framework" of the system of states. Every businessman knows that German trade is at the same time foreign trade, and the greatness of Herr Bismarck consists, to be sure, precisely in his pursuing a kind of international policy.

And to what does the German Workers' party reduce its internationalism? To the consciousness that the result of its efforts will be "the international brotherhood of peoples" -- a phrase borrowed from the bourgeois League of Peace and Freedom, which is intended to pass as equivalent to the international brotherhood of working classes in the joint struggle against the ruling classes and their governments. Not a word, therefore, about the international functions of the German working class! And it is thus that it is to challenge its own bourgeoisie -- which is already linked up in brotherhood against it with the bourgeois of all other countries -- and Herr Bismarck's international policy of conspiracy.

In fact, the internationalism of the program stands even infinitely below that of the Free Trade party. The latter also asserts that the result of its efforts will be "the international brotherhood of peoples". But it also does something to make trade international and by no means contents itself with the consciousness that all people are carrying on trade at home.

The international activity of the working classes does not in any way depend on the existence of the International Working Men's Association. This was only the first attempt to create a central organ for the activity; an attempt which was a lasting success on account of the impulse which it gave but which was no longer realizable in its historical form after the fall of the Paris Commune.

Bismarck's Norddeutsche was absolutely right when it announced, to the satisfaction of its master, that the German Workers' party had sworn off internationalism in the new program.

Engels is more blunt:

Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.

Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.

It will develop in each of these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.

Lenin, especially toward the end of his life, condemned the party when it attempted to declare that they were making a socialist system national. This is actually pretty interesting to follow insofar as Agitprop and women's issues were concerned. Regardless, Lenin:

Socialist revolution can triumph only on two conditions. First, if it is given timely support by a socialist revolution in one or several advanced countries. As you know we have done very much in comparison with the past to bring about this condition, but far from enough to make it a reality.

The second condition is agreement between the proletariat, which is exercising its dictatorship, that is holds state power,and the majority of the peasant population

But we have not finished building even the foundations of socialist economy and the hostile power of moribund capitalism can still deprive us of that. We must clearly appreciate this and frankly admit it; for there is nothing more dangerous than illusions (and vertigo, particularly at high altitudes). And there is absolutely nothing terrible, nothing that should give legitimate grounds for the slightest despondency, in admitting this bitter truth; we have always urged and reiterated the elementary truth of Marxism - that the joint efforts of the workers of several advanced countries are needed for the victory of socialism.

And there's little need to go in to Trotsky on this detail as he's become the poster-boy for it. In each of these cases it's important to point out that Trotsky - unlike some of his latterday admirers, did not see the Soviet Union as capitalist in any sense. He also saw that it had advances that needed to be protected from the outside world. It was a worker's state that needed to be defended - but in the same way Marx, Engels, and Lenin did not see it as being a socialist state - neither did he.

There's also a tendency to take this analysis as a direct refutation of everything Stalin and company did. This is also a simplification. The Soviet Union did modify the theoretical approach after they dropped the ridiculous Third Period garbage that would have been completely logical had one found that Socialism in One Country was a totally viable analysis.

It's funny, in a sense, that this is something that Trotsky gets saddled with. In fact, he thought the worker's revolution was further along in Russia than Lenin did. When debating what to do with labour unions, Trotsky and Lenin came to crossroads. Trotsky thought that, since the state was a worker's state that would later blossom into socialism, there was no real need for unions anymore since worker representation was already a manifestation of the state. Lenin disagreed:

Comrade Trotsky falls into error himself. He seems to say that in a workers’ state it is not the business of the trade unions to stand up for the material and spiritual interests of the working class. That is a mistake. Comrade Trotsky speaks of a “workers’ state”. May I say that this is an abstraction. It was natural for us to write about a workers’ state in 1917; but it is now a patent error to say: “Since this is a workers’ state without any bourgeoisie, against whom then is the working class to be protected, and for what purpose?” The whole point is that it is not quite a workers’ state. That is where Comrade Trotsky makes one of his main mistakes. We have got down from general principles to practical discussion and decrees, and here we are being dragged back and prevented from tackling the business at hand. This will not do. For one thing, ours is not actually a workers’ state but a workers’ and peasants’ state. And a lot depends on that. (Bukharin : “What kind of state? A workers’ and peasants’ state?”) Comrade Bukharin back there may well shout “What kind of state? A workers’ and peasants’ state?” I shall not stop to answer him. Anyone who has a mind to should recall the recent Congress of Soviets,[3] and that will be answer enough.

But that is not all. Our Party Programme—a document which the author of the ABC of Communism knows very well—shows that ours is a workers’ state with a bureacratic twist to it. We have had to mark it with this dismal, shall I say, tag. There you have the reality of the transition. Well, is it right to say that in a state that has taken this shape in practice the trade unions have nothing to protect, or that we can do without them in protecting the material and spiritual interests of the massively organised proletariat? No, this reasoning is theoretically quite wrong. It takes us into the sphere of abstraction or an ideal we shall achieve in 15 or 20 years’ time, and I am not so sure that we shall have achieved it even by then. What we actually have before us is a reality of which we have a good deal of knowledge, provided, that is, we keep our heads, and do not let ourselves be carried awav by intellectualist talk or abstract reasoning, or by what may appear to be “theory” but is in fact error and misapprehension of the peculiarities of transition. We now have a state under which it is the business of the massively organised proletariat to protect itself, while we, for our part, must use these workers’ organisations to protect the workers from their state, and to get them to protect our state. Both forms of protection are achieved through the peculiar interweaving of our state measures and our agreeing or “coalescing” with our trade unions.

Trotsky eventually fell back into line. But this wasn't because he did whatever Lenin said, it was because he was wrong and Lenin was correct. It was not a socialist state or close to becoming a socialist state where labour unions could be safely said to be irrelevant.

Lenin continued, toward the end of his life, warning the communists against the "bureacratic twist" that he had conceived of before:

The main economic power is in our hands. All the vital large enterprises, the railways, etc., are in our hands. The number of leased enterprises, although considerable in places, is on the whole insignificant; altogether it is infinitesimal compared with the rest. The economic power in the hands of the proletarian state of Russia is quite adequate to ensure the transition to communism. What then is lacking? Obviously, what is lacking is culture among the stratum of the Communists who perform administrative functions. If we take Moscow with its 4,700 Communists in responsible positions, and if we take that huge bureaucratic machine, that gigantic heap, we must ask: who is directing whom? I doubt very much whether it can truthfully be said that the Communists are directing that heap. To tell the truth they are not directing, they are being directed. Some thing analogous happened here to what we were told in our history lessons when we were children: sometimes one nation conquers another, the nation that conquers is the conqueror and the nation that is vanquished is the conquered nation. This is simple and intelligible to all. But what happens to the culture of these nations? Here things are not so simple. If the conquering nation is more cultured than the vanquished nation, the former imposes its culture upon the latter; but if the opposite is the case, the vanquished nation imposes its culture upon the conqueror. Has not something like this happened in the capital of the R.S.F.S.R.? Have the 4,700 Communists (nearly a whole army division, and all of them the very best) come under the influence of an alien culture? True, there may be the impression that the vanquished have a high level of culture. But that is not the case at all. Their culture is miserable, insignificant, but it is still at a higher level than ours. Miserable and low as it is, it is higher than that of our responsible Communist administrators, for the latter lack administrative ability. Communists who are put at the head of departments—and sometimes artful saboteurs deliberately put them in these positions in order to use them as a shield—are often fooled. This is a very unpleasant admission to make, or, at any rate, not a very pleasant one; but I think we must admit it, for at present this is the salient problem. I think that this is the political lesson of the past year; and it is around this that the struggle will rage in 1922.

Will the responsible Communists of the R.S.F.S.R. and of the Russian Communist Party realise that they cannot administer; that they only imagine they are directing, but are, actually, being directed? If they realise this they will learn, of course; for this business can be learnt. But one must study hard to learn it, and our people are not doing this. They scatter orders and decrees right and left, but the result is quite different from what they want.

It was only long after this that Trotsky put Lenin's ideological victory over his own, as well as Lenin's subsequent warnings to the party into a coherent theory that explained the general arc of Soviet history.

In doing so, he pulled from Lenin's conception of a worker's state that was not socialist - which had been counter to his own earlier conception. It was only then that the formalized theory of the Worker's State was made.

To go back to the beginning of the post, the worker's state - for all its flaws - was still worth protecting as it was a vanguard against the capitalist system and still had the potential to grow into a socialist state had capitalism itself been given another blow.

[fuser]

How do you imagine how A Pure Communist Nation would work?

In terms of economics and political system.

A communist nation is oxymoron. Beside communism is not a normative philosophy i.e in simple terms we don't have crystal ball lying in front of us to tell you "How communism will look like" same as it was impossible for a 9th century thinker to predict how capitalism will look like.

[Decky]

A communist nation is oxymoron.

This.

I think the OP means socialist.

[Cartertonian]

we don't have crystal ball lying in front of us to tell you "How communism will look like"...

This is the perennial problem when asking this sort of question of the Left, Ahovking.



They all appear to operate on the basis of, "anything's gotta be better than this."

...

But, with the exception of a few psychopaths who offer up the Stalin era of the Soviet Union as some kind of Heaven on Earth, they can't tell us what, 'anything', will be.

[Decky]

But, with the exception of a few psychopaths who offer up the Stalin era of the Soviet Union as some kind of Heaven on Earth

It was compared to Tsarism. When you start with a massive shit hole and leave it considerably better (but still nowhere near perfect) then you have still left the world a better place.

Try telling women (over half of the fucking population) that Stalinism didn't improve their lot. I guess they were better of barefoot, illiterate and pregnant in some farming village?

[Cartertonian]

Ahh. Diversionary tactics.

There's no doubt that the Russian Revolution ultimately did some good for the people of Russia, but at what price? It's not as clear that it was good for the peoples of the many other lands they subjugated.

I'm sure if I went around and shot or imprisoned everyone who disagreed with me, the impediments to my aspirations would be reduced and I would be better able to impliment my unipolar and self-interested agenda. Along the way, I might do a bit of good to some people...but it would be a bit late for the others I'd murdered or disappeared.

[fuser]

Carter as I said, could a capitalist in feudal era exactly describe "capitalism of today"? No.

Communism is not realization of moral ideas

Anyways, as you mentioned stalin, we differentiate between communism and socialism and there seems to be a lot confusion over this. A brief outline of a socialistic society can indeed be given, namely "abolition of private property", workers getting the control of their work place etc.

[Cartertonian]

"A brief outline of a socialistic society can indeed be given, namely "abolition of private property", workers getting the control of their work place and shooting everyone who disagrees with you etc."

Fixed.

[fuser]

That is too much waste of bullets, when we can simply hang them.

[Decky]

Waste of good workers, send them to the gulags so they can repay their debt to society and possibly be rehabilitated through labour.

[Cartertonian]

...so they can repay their debt to society...

What debt would that be, Decky? Disagreeing with the numbnuts who are in charge? Isn't the ability to freely do that worth standing up for?

[Decky]

What debt would that be, Decky? Disagreeing with the numbnuts who are in charge?

The "numbnuts" who are in charge (in this hypothetical) are the vanguard party of the international working class. They are the temporal manifestation of its will and their goals are beyond question.

Isn't the ability to freely do that worth standing up for?

Post revolution (once the party are in charge) the working class have already seized power so any actions against the party (strikes, criticism etc) are blows against the working class and need to be punished accordingly.

[Cartertonian]

...their goals are beyond question.

No-one's goals are ever beyond question, Decky...

Ergo...

Post revolution (once the party are in charge) the working class have already seized power so any actions against the party (strikes, criticism etc) are blows against the working class and need to be punished accordingly.

...'The Party' is not to be trusted and should be open to criticism and dissent. Unless you assume that the mythical 'working class' are some kind of hegemonious hive-mind with no conscience, cognisance or will of their own.

Furthermore, how did the Vanguard Party of the International Working Class come by this remarkable state of unquestionable omniscience? Certainly, as an educator, I'd be interested to know how an all-knowing state of mind can be achieved. Or, if you strip away all of the Soviet Mystique, are you simply admitting that the only way an odious totalitarian regime - whatever it's stripes - can function is if those who support it willingly submit to the delusion that their Dear Leaders must be omniscient?

[Decky]

This should help.

In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?

The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

[Oxan]

I'd like to extend on OP's question by asking something a little more specific.

From my understanding of alienation, it occurs when a worker produces a product in order to acquire the means for his survival. So how would production continue in pure communism? People won't simply trade the goods they produce for goods another produces, because isn't that continuing alienation? I'm sure the answer is quite simply, but I've only recently begun reading Capital, and otherwise I only know bits and pieces of Marxism.

I'll just apologise right away for what I think will turn out to be a silly question.

[fuser]

The alienation ocuurs because the working class has no control over the product, he is producing i.e. in this case, he has no say whatsoever how the product will be traded.

In communism, it will be the producer of the product who will be determining the fate of "finished product" i.e 'democratization of work places'.


Edit : typo.

[Oxan]

The alieanation ocuurs because the working has no control over the product, he is producing i.e. in this case, he has no say whatsoever how the product will traded.

In communism, it will be the producer of the product who will be determining the fate of "finished product" i.e 'democrasitation of work places'.

What about the transfer of goods between people or groups? How would that work, considering pure communism is moneyless? Is it more likely to be through barter?

As a side note, I'd like to thank you fuser for the informative posts I've read from you in other threads, as I've been trying to understand everything.

[fuser]

It really can't be answered as in Marx's word "Communism is not about realization of preconceived ideals". It will automatically work out itself according to the socio economical basis of the society at that time. After all let's say communism becomes a reality in 2134, a person of that age will be in far more better position to write about exact and detailed nature of communism than us.

As per your specific question, the feint answer will be

from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

In some form barter will indeed exist but on larger scale even barter will not be needed. Given that you are a productive member of society all your needs will be taken care of. There is no need for any "exchange".

[Oxan]

I agree that those about to undergo transition into communism are in a better position to decide how it'll work, but surely this creates difficulty in gaining support for communism, if communists themselves don't even have the faintest idea about how it'll work beyond 'from each according to his ability to each according to his needs'.