[Leninist]

Why would you go to the whitehouse? All they have is a monopoly on violence and mountains of bullshit how can they help you?

Well I won't argue with that but it is the center of political power in the US

At the moment all you have to offer is promises that one day you will have something to offer and that is a hard sell. What you need to do is demonstrate a working prototype. Communists are not particularly numerous these days but there are surely enough of you to organise some kind of functioning enterprise that demonstrates communism as a viable way to produce and distribute the goods that people desire. As a suggestion, since you are mostly interested in helping the poorest with basic necessities, why not a have your prototype businesses focus on affordable housing, food production and insurance?

Actually in the late 1800's there were several worker owned and operated co-ops in the US (real workers, not just hippy teens) and they did quite well. But then they were squeezed out by bigger businesses who wanted them gone. I wish I could do more but I live in the middle of the corn fields of Illinois and aside from trying to get my classmates to unionize their retail jobs, there's not much I can do right now. But I am hope to go to Chicago soon and work for the CPUSA chapter there.

This is a possible example of a modern communist society

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/o ... age-utopia

I am encouraged by this. You may not believe this but I have a soft spot for communism and its concerns. The USSR did go wrong in some respects, as you say, but in the 20th century the mistakes were understandable. The 20th century was the century of hyper-statism, the taking and wielding of state was the holy grail for all, capitalists, communists, ethno-communitarians (fascists), all were jumping over themselves to get the state. In the context of the 20th century the Leninist doctrine was appropriate. But we are in a different century now and the state as the last remnant of feudalistic thinking is waning. The market people, the people you call capitalists, already know this and more and more they are dumping it and circumventing it rather than attempting to control it. You need to catch up on your thinking, and evolve a new doctrine fit for the 21st century, one that does not focus on wielding the destructive power of the state.

The problem with what you suggest is the same problem Anarchism and Libertarian-ism has always had, you need the state to transform society. Without an organized work in areas like infrastructure, education, and the economy, we cannot advance equally. Science tells us that the human personality and our intelligence is not so much genetic as based upon your diet while a child, quality of education and even parenting style. Without the state to organize the most efficient means of education and diet (the Japanese are an example of a people who good diet and education can do for you), and perhaps even parenting, we can never really be equal. One day, there will be no state, but right now we need a state through which to organize the people. We need to organize the political system using a system of workers' councils, and once the people have reached the optimal level of intelligence, culture, we reach post scarcity and the economy is completely organized by the proletariat, then we will dismantle the state and allow the people to effectively govern their selves.

As for the capitalists dumping the state, I think you are being to rigid in your interpretation of them They will do whatever they need to make a profit and retain control. In fact, the American state is becoming more oppressive in many ways, dismantling certain rights in the name of security. They dismantle regulations because they want to spread their influence and break down national barriers to make greater profits. Marx said all of this.

[Vera Politica]

You don't give the right wing and corporations enough credit. The fact is that in my country (USA) we are still recovering from years of anti-Soviet propaganda being shoved down the public's throat. Many older people view communism like it is synonymous with Satan. They pushed us down, and we were not strong enough to stop them. Our crime is that we have not gotten up.

And one other thing, be careful not to associate liberals and communists. Whatever the propaganda might say, we are not the same. Most of the American "left" as it currently stands is liberal, which might be better termed as progressive. They aren't socialist in any way shape or form, they mostly just serve different corporations than the right and ask for higher taxes.

Maybe I do not give the right-wing enough credit, but anti-Marxist sentiment is dismissed by both the right and left-wing in the West, especially in the United States. And while it is true that anti-Soviet propaganda demonized Marxism, what have many Marxists done about this? Most of them have attempted to shield themselves from criticism in the most cliched way: "Oh but, you know, that wasn't really Marxism after all, Marx certainly would not have agreed with that." This type of defense legitimates the consensus among most people: Marxists are idealists. Now this could not be further from the truth. Marxists have, historically, put forward some of the most vigorous critiques of idealism and political utopianism, especially concerning liberal thought. We should be just as critical about those who defend Marxism by trying to disassociate it with certain kinds of Marxists and with real politics. I confess that when I was young I would make this kind of defense. I am now much more in sympathy with Stalinism, not because I think that it is necessarily a good model for any future political organization, but only because, like many revolutions in the past, it was an important early failure and it would be hypocritical and intellectually dishonest to measure Stalin or the Soviet era in general against an ideological test that not even historical capitalism and liberalism would measure well against.

Of course, I am well aware that Communists and Liberals are not the same, but the general confusion here is not helped by Marxists. Many "liberal/pseudo Marxists" are quick to jump on the left-intellectual bandwagon. Really, Marxism should be taught, first and foremost, as, along with Fascism, the most important political shift in the West after the early modern period. Marxism is often misunderstood as a radical form of left-liberalism when, instead, it is radically anti-liberal, much like Fascism.

[Leninist]

Maybe I do not give the right-wing enough credit, but anti-Marxist sentiment is dismissed by both the right and left-wing in the West, especially in the United States. And while it is true that anti-Soviet propaganda demonized Marxism, what have many Marxists done about this? Most of them have attempted to shield themselves from criticism in the most cliched way: "Oh but, you know, that wasn't really Marxism after all, Marx certainly would not have agreed with that." This type of defense legitimates the consensus among most people: Marxists are idealists. Now this could not be further from the truth. Marxists have, historically, put forward some of the most vigorous critiques of idealism and political utopianism, especially concerning liberal thought. We should be just as critical about those who defend Marxism by trying to disassociate it with certain kinds of Marxists and with real politics. I confess that when I was young I would make this kind of defense. I am now much more in sympathy with Stalinism, not because I think that it is necessarily a good model for any future political organization, but only because, like many revolutions in the past, it was an important early failure and it would be hypocritical and intellectually dishonest to measure Stalin or the Soviet era in general against an ideological test that not even historical capitalism and liberalism would measure well against.

Of course, I am well aware that Communists and Liberals are not the same, but the general confusion here is not helped by Marxists. Many "liberal/pseudo Marxists" are quick to jump on the left-intellectual bandwagon. Really, Marxism should be taught, first and foremost, as, along with Fascism, the most important political shift in the West after the early modern period. Marxism is often misunderstood as a radical form of left-liberalism when, instead, it is radically anti-liberal, much like Fascism.

I find that I agree with almost, if not all, of what you say here. You make good points about western Marxists, and I apologize for accusing you of not knowing the difference. My only defense can be to look at historical examples of what they can do to us. The McCarthy trials, the black lists. And especially what happened when we were building up the Unions. American communists effectively built the Unions here, until we were pushed out by more reactionary elements of the labor movement who worked with the corporations and government. We should have done more, but for most of the 20th century the battle lines made it very hard to try to spread communism without being accused as un-American. Not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, but it makes it hard to spread one's ideology.

As for the Soviet Union, I again strongly agree with your points. I am no idealist. I have completely abandoned any faith in things like "the Human Spirit". Communism for me is simply the most logical way forwards. The Soviet Union was, as you say, a necessary event. We tried an experiment, and it failed. But we have learned, and I think that is perhaps the most important thing to convey in our modern message, "we have learned from our mistakes, we will not repeat them." In my mind, the greatest problem with the USSR was not that Russia was underdeveloped economically, but rather culturally. Russians had no strong belief in freedom to stave of the government becoming overly controlling, as most western countries do now.

[park]

In other words... Communists should be voting Republican?

Sounds strange but it's true.It's like green parties.If everybody was dying for pollution instead of a minority then green parties would have more votes.People don't vote for Communism because they consider this level of exploitation acceptable.If they had to work 17 hours a day with a lower pay they would consider Communism

[The Immortal Goon]

People don't vote for Communism because they consider this level of exploitation acceptable.If they had to work 17 hours a day with a lower pay they would consider Communism

No. They would vote for a liberal reformer to tweak the system and everyone would worship the Bismarck that gave them social security and caps on their hours. It would be the same as it has been for the last two hundred years of this back and forth between reformer and reactionary. Nothing will be solved by the communist voting for the reactionary in hopes of awakening the masses. This logic would go further in voting for the reformer and showcasing how little is actually accomplished. Though this itself is a nowhere proposition. This has just happened in the United States

The Party of Order in the form of the GOP comes to power and takes down the reforms that Clinton had started in his conversion of the DNC from a reformist party to one of order.

The people demand a reformer after two administrations, and the DNC declares itself the Party of Reform and Obama comes into office. The population is placated, the NSA continues, the war goes on, the banks collect their money, the insurance companies are coddled, and what is the response.

The most organized opposition now is for the return of the Party of Order to undo the reformer.

Aiding in the victory of the reactionary is the kind of unthinking policy that caused Stalin to abandon the Third Period nonsense.

Further, it's an unmarxist policy. The reason these reforms exist in the first place is because of the perfection of international capitalism:

The revival of trade, after the crisis of 1847, was the dawn of a new industrial epoch. The repeal of the Corn Laws and the financial reforms subsequent thereon gave to English industry and commerce all the elbow-room they had asked for. The discovery of the Californian and Australian gold-fields followed in rapid succession. The colonial markets developed at an increasing rate their capacity for absorbing English manufactured goods. In India millions of hand-weavers were finally crushed out by the Lancashire power-loom. China was more and more being opened up. Above all, the United States — then, commercially speaking, a mere colonial market, but by far the biggest of them all — underwent an economic development astounding even for that rapidly progressive country. And, finally, the new means of communication introduced at the close of the preceding period — railways and ocean steamers — were now worked out on an international scale; they realised actually what had hitherto existed only potentially, a world-market. This world-market, at first, was composed of a number of chiefly or entirely agricultural countries grouped around one manufacturing centre — England which consumed the greater part of their surplus raw produce, and supplied them in return with the greater part of their requirements in manufactured articles. No wonder England’s industrial progress was colossal and unparalleled, and such that the status of 1844 now appears to us as comparatively primitive and insignificant. And in proportion as this increase took place, in the same proportion did manufacturing industry become apparently moralised. The competition of manufacturer against manufacturer by means of petty thefts upon the workpeople did no longer pay. Trade had outgrown such low means of making money; they were not worth while practising for the manufacturing millionaire, and served merely to keep alive the competition of smaller traders, thankful to pick up a penny wherever they could. Thus the truck system was suppressed, the Ten Hours’ Bill was enacted, and a number of other secondary reforms introduced — much against the spirit of Free Trade and unbridled competition, but quite as much in favour of the giant-capitalist in his competition with his less favoured brother. Moreover, the larger the concern, and with it the number of hands, the greater the loss and inconvenience caused by every conflict between master and men; and thus a new spirit came over the masters, especially the large ones, which taught them to avoid unnecessary squabbles, to acquiesce in the existence and power of Trades’ Unions, and finally even to discover in strikes — at opportune times — a powerful means to serve their own ends. The largest manufacturers, formerly the leaders of the war against the working-class, were now the foremost to preach peace and harmony. And for a very good reason. The fact is that all these concessions to justice and philanthropy were nothing else but means to accelerate the concentration of capital in the hands of the few, for whom the niggardly extra extortions of former years had lost all importance and had become actual nuisances; and to crush all the quicker and all the safer their smaller competitors, who could not make both ends meet without such perquisites. Thus the development of production on the basis of the capitalistic system has of itself sufficed — at least in the leading industries, for in the more unimportant branches this is far from being the case — to do away with all those minor grievances which aggravated the workman’s fate during its earlier stages. And thus it renders more and more evident the great central fact that the cause of the miserable condition of the working-class is to be sought, not in these minor grievances, but in the capitalistic system itself. The wage-worker sells to the capitalist his labour-power for a certain daily sum. After a few hours’ work he has reproduced the value of that sum; but the substance of his contract is, that he has to work another series of hours to complete his working-day; and the value he produces during these additional hours of surplus labour is surplus value, which costs the capitalist nothing, but yet goes into his pocket. That is the basis of the system which tends more and more to split up civilised society into a few Rothschilds and Vanderbilts, the owners of all the means of production and subsistence, on the one hand, and an immense number of wage-workers, the owners of nothing but their labour-power, on the other. And that this result is caused, not by this or that secondary grievance, but by the system itself — this fact has been brought out in bold relief by the development of Capitalism in England since 1847.

To avert that catastrophe there is only one course possible – the forward policy.

Forward! Forward! Forward!

[park]

No. They would vote for a liberal reformer to tweak the system and everyone would worship the Bismarck that gave them social security and caps on their hours. It would be the same as it has been for the last two hundred years of this back and forth between reformer and reactionary. Nothing will be solved by the communist voting for the reactionary in hopes of awakening the masses. This logic would go further in voting for the reformer and showcasing how little is actually accomplished. Though this itself is a nowhere proposition. This has just happened in the United States

The Party of Order in the form of the GOP comes to power and takes down the reforms that Clinton had started in his conversion of the DNC from a reformist party to one of order.

The people demand a reformer after two administrations, and the DNC declares itself the Party of Reform and Obama comes into office. The population is placated, the NSA continues, the war goes on, the banks collect their money, the insurance companies are coddled, and what is the response.

The most organized opposition now is for the return of the Party of Order to undo the reformer.

Aiding in the victory of the reactionary is the kind of unthinking policy that caused Stalin to abandon the Third Period nonsense.

Further, it's an unmarxist policy. The reason these reforms exist in the first place is because of the perfection of international capitalism:

So you think that today there's the same possibility to convince workers to vote Communist parties as in 1917?I don't agree.Communist parties had more votes back then.Today some workers don't even understand that they're exploited and think they are paid right.Only if governments go back to that level of exploitation masses will recognise the problem and consider Communism.With the current regulations Communism is dead because nobody is upset with owners.

[The Immortal Goon]

So you think that today there's the same possibility to convince workers to vote Communist parties as in 1917?

In Russia? Certainly not. The "First World" doesn't even have a peasantry.

Communist parties had more votes back then.

In Russia at the time amongst the proletariat this is true. It has absolutely nothing to do with an election between the Czar and the Duma though.

Today some workers don't even understand that they're exploited and think they are paid right. Only if governments go back to that level of exploitation masses will recognise the problem and consider Communism.With the current regulations Communism is dead because nobody is upset with owners.

This is explicitly not true even in the case of Russia. The people that thought this way voted for the Duma instead of the Czar.

[park]

In Russia? Certainly not. The "First World" doesn't even have a peasantry.


In Russia at the time amongst the proletariat this is true. It has absolutely nothing to do with an election between the Czar and the Duma though.

This is explicitly not true even in the case of Russia. The people that thought this way voted for the Duma instead of the Czar.

I'm talking about almost all nations.In early 1900s much more workers were voting Communist parties because exploitation was bigger than today.Now most workers accept this lower level of exploitation because they're satisfied with it and some don't even recognise they are exploited.If we go back to that exploitation Communism could come back.

[Leninist]

[
I'm talking about almost all nations.In early 1900s much more workers were voting Communist parties because exploitation was bigger than today.Now most workers accept this lower level of exploitation because they're satisfied with it and some don't even recognise they are exploited.If we go back to that exploitation Communism could come back.

Ah my friend, that is where you miss understand capitalism. The reason there is less exploitation in say, the US, is because the workers got fed up but rather than a revolution they unionized. after a while the capitalists got fed up with paying so much to workers and now because of free trade agreements they try to ship as much work out as possible, and now it is the Asians and south Americans who get really badly exploited. Soon it will probably be the Africans to. And here in the US the Unions are dying and so soon they might come back here, or they'll mechanize production and tell everyone to fuck off. but the point is the exploitation never stops, it just moves or transforms. Even if they mechanize they'll still be exploiting us.

Westerners (especially Americans) are still recovering from all the crap of the cold war, but the right wing's error is that they think we are "in the dustbin of history" and they have largely slacked off their propaganda. But people are waking up. And we communists just need to show them (especially the youth) that they need to give up all that crap with things like occupy wall street and and co-ops, stop reforming the system, and rewrite it. because as long as we try to work with people who are rich and greedy, no matter how much we should compromise, they will always try to pull more for themselves. And the wonderful thing is that the rich could probably stop us, but their own greed will force them to constantly make the situation worse and worse for themselves and better for us.

[mum]

Is Communism Dead?

Yes

In a way it is certainly dead. In some ways, not so much.

I can only speak for the political culture and general knowledge of my country.

Most people realise that communism is archaic, oppressive, authoritarian, and intellectually devoid on all levels.
There are of course commies in this country, some of them realise they are, and others are the extreme environmentalists that simply hate people and want to control everyone, the environment is just an excuse. I think the term is "watermellon"

As long as the people who understand freedom (and of course think it is a good idea) continue to use reason and logic to destroy communist type rantings by the far left, at worst the balance will be maintained.

[Leninist]

Yes

In a way it is certainly dead. In some ways, not so much.

I can only speak for the political culture and general knowledge of my country.

Most people realise that communism is archaic, oppressive, authoritarian, and intellectually devoid on all levels.
There are of course commies in this country, some of them realise they are, and others are the extreme environmentalists that simply hate people and want to control everyone, the environment is just an excuse. I think the term is "watermellon"

As long as the people who understand freedom (and of course think it is a good idea) continue to use reason and logic to destroy communist type rantings by the far left, at worst the balance will be maintained.

That made as much sense as if I watched fox news in Latin, which I don't speak.

[Andrea_Chenier]

As Karl Marx once put it, Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.. Hence, Communism will never die as long as capitalism's contradictions are not solved.

[Technology]

The abolishing of the present state of things does not necessarily mean that a classless, moneyless, stateless, international society can come out of the other side.

[The Immortal Goon]

That's right. Marxists have always argued "barbarism" may happen too.

[Technology]

Alternatively, what you might find is that the two stage Marxist process eventually creates a new post-capitalist paradigm in which defenders of the socialist mode of production become the new reactionaries holding everyone back from the purer communist ideal.

If socialism (in the Marxist sense) wins, it's not a given that communism will. A new order may form around national socialisms (not in the Nazi sense), blocking the way to pure communism. Marxists tend to discount this because their own philosophy involves a transition which is a package deal they would aim to follow through wholly on as good, consistent Marxists, but this assumes every country will stick to the letter of Marxist theory once capitalism falls by the wayside rather even though the momentum of national systems and a "dictatorship of the proletariat" will be considerable.

Stalin dealt with this by spelling out the notion of "socialism in one country", but it's still all packaged in a framework that assumes that the individual developments of each socialist nation are co-developments, and once capitalism is smashed, they will converge on the same ultimate goal of communism, rather than trying to entrench their national socialism, which they've already been trained well to do against the constant onslaughts of any changes which could mean a counter-revolutionary return to capitalism. I suspect they'll be doing this long after the material conditions which make capitalism possible have passed.

[Leninist]

Alternatively, what you might find is that the two stage Marxist process eventually creates a new post-capitalist paradigm in which defenders of the socialist mode of production become the new reactionaries holding everyone back from the purer communist ideal.

If socialism (in the Marxist sense) wins, it's not a given that communism will. A new order may form around national socialisms (not in the Nazi sense), blocking the way to pure communism. Marxists tend to discount this because their own philosophy involves a transition which is a package deal they would aim to follow through wholly on as good, consistent Marxists, but this assumes every country will stick to the letter of Marxist theory once capitalism falls by the wayside rather even though the momentum of national systems and a "dictatorship of the proletariat" will be considerable.

Stalin dealt with this by spelling out the notion of "socialism in one country", but it's still all packaged in a framework that assumes that the individual developments of each socialist nation are co-developments, and once capitalism is smashed, they will converge on the same ultimate goal of communism, rather than trying to entrench their national socialism, which they've already been trained well to do against the constant onslaughts of any changes which could mean a counter-revolutionary return to capitalism. I suspect they'll be doing this long after the material conditions which make capitalism possible have passed.

Well I think the difference between capitalist and possible socialist reactionaries is simply the difference of motivation and perspective. From a capitalist perspective, it can be highly beneficial to stir up nationalist sensitivity in the home country to help beat out competition. But to a socialist, at least one who is consistent with Marx, the goal is always to move towards communism unless there is some ulterior motive, like an entrenched bureaucracy which has nothing to gain by giving more power to the people themselves and gradually disassembling itself. That is what happened in the USSR. But In a socialist system where the people are educated and organized enough to be the main players in the economic and political scene, they have nothing to lose by moving further towards communism. All it means for them is better living standards.

Now of course nationalism is not always rational, and may lead socialists off the path, just look at China, but that was a very special situation following the most turbulent period in China's history, so I don't think we can judge based on that. The thing is that once communism is economically, politically and culturally possible, there is virtually no reason NOT to go for it, unless one has entrenched interests.

[Snidely Whiplash]

The Clockwork Rat:

Did a communist take your girlfriend or something? Your writing suggests an uncommonly deep-seated loathing for commies.

Don't be too hard on the poor benighted bugger. He is simply regurgitating what Christapitalism has inculcated into his reactionary rent-a-mind since birth.

Beetle-browed Archie Bunkers like him long for a return to the good o'l heyday of Jesus, G-Men, Tailgunner Joe, Leave-it-to-Beaver, and Father-Knows-Best. If he/she had lived through those days, like I did, he/she would be singing a different tune, I assure you.

[Technology]

But to a socialist, at least one who is consistent with Marx, the goal is always to move towards communism unless there is some ulterior motive, like an entrenched bureaucracy which has nothing to gain by giving more power to the people themselves and gradually disassembling itself. That is what happened in the USSR. But In a socialist system where the people are educated and organized enough to be the main players in the economic and political scene, they have nothing to lose by moving further towards communism. All it means for them is better living standards.

Now of course nationalism is not always rational, and may lead socialists off the path, just look at China, but that was a very special situation following the most turbulent period in China's history, so I don't think we can judge based on that. The thing is that once communism is economically, politically and culturally possible, there is virtually no reason NOT to go for it, unless one has entrenched interests.

They will have entrenched interests. The national interest alone is a distrust of the conditions created by merging their culture with another and making a collective humanity. For some socialist leaders, their consistency with Marxism will only last as long as it takes to smash capitalism and rise to power.

The other entrenched interest is one that is created by the existence of a vanguard party. The vanguard party is needed if the workers cannot achieve socialism on their own, but this very fact creates a distrust between the two groups. The vanguard party has a perfectly rational reason to try to keep control; they can't decentralize too much for fear of opening up gaps counter-revolutionaries and reactionaries can squeeze into. This has been the common justification for authoritarianism when transitioning to a new system.

The conflict arises from deciding when to stop. When should the state start to "wither away"? Should we just wait for it to spontaneously happen somehow and trust theory that much? If freedom can only be spoken of when the class enemies no longer need to be held down by the "dictatorship of the proletariat", when is this? When does the inverted class rule of the proletarian state become the no class rule of pure communism and end with common property upon the Earth?

Obviously, the Marxists will say that they can't read the future, and that's perfectly fine if you're prepared to accept that there will be a socialist-communist conflict. Without a clear map to communism (Impossible you say? Exactly.), those in power will have an incentive not to gradually dismantle national and state power, but to maintain it due to indeterminacy over whether its safe to do so.

There should also be inter-national tendency wars. The very lack of a clear, spelled out path to communism, makes this an intrinsic unintended feature of the Marxist path to a post-capitalist world. The disincentives to communism will form around intranational distrust, international distrust, and the in-group interest created by a socialist republic system with representatives distinct from the workers. In order to prevent a new conflict paradigm, communists must come up with actual plans for tackling these things, otherwise they'll be all at sea even if they defeat capitalism.

[Leninist]

They will have entrenched interests. The national interest alone is a distrust of the conditions created by merging their culture with another and making a collective humanity. For some socialist leaders, their consistency with Marxism will only last as long as it takes to smash capitalism and rise to power.

The other entrenched interest is one that is created by the existence of a vanguard party. The vanguard party is needed if the workers cannot achieve socialism on their own, but this very fact creates a distrust between the two groups. The vanguard party has a perfectly rational reason to try to keep control; they can't decentralize too much for fear of opening up gaps counter-revolutionaries and reactionaries can squeeze into. This has been the common justification for authoritarianism when transitioning to a new system.

The conflict arises from deciding when to stop. When should the state start to "wither away"? Should we just wait for it to spontaneously happen somehow and trust theory that much? If freedom can only be spoken of when the class enemies no longer need to be held down by the "dictatorship of the proletariat", when is this? When does the inverted class rule of the proletarian state become the no class rule of pure communism and end with common property upon the Earth?

Obviously, the Marxists will say that they can't read the future, and that's perfectly fine if you're prepared to accept that there will be a socialist-communist conflict. Without a clear map to communism (Impossible you say? Exactly.), those in power will have an incentive not to gradually dismantle national and state power, but to maintain it due to indeterminacy over whether its safe to do so.

There should also be inter-national tendency wars. The very lack of a clear, spelled out path to communism, makes this an intrinsic unintended feature of the Marxist path to a post-capitalist world. The disincentives to communism will form around intranational distrust, international distrust, and the in-group interest created by a socialist republic system with representatives distinct from the workers. In order to prevent a new conflict paradigm, communists must come up with actual plans for tackling these things, otherwise they'll be all at sea even if they defeat capitalism.

I won't say its impossible, because that's just stupid. But as Lenin says in "The State and Revolution" you don't CREATE a communist state. Rather, you create a setting in which the most positive attributes of man are allowed to grow and develop until we reach the point that we have reached the point where the state as a regulatory body ceases to have a purpose. Your assumption is that we cannot do away with nationalism, which in a truly socialist setting we could, with relative ease. The things which cause nationalist fervor, exploitation by outside forces, hard times blamed on foreigners, things which give cause for national unity, will cease to be a problem. In fact nationalism is a relatively new concept in the age of our species, and nothing we cannot live without.

Communism cannot exist without reaching post scarcity or something very close to it, and in a socialist system where the goal is always to try to create as much as is needed as efficiently as possible, we could reach that. The reason you think this is so likely is that you think with the perspective of someone who has been raised in the system of short-term self interest, putting oneself before the whole, and as such you do not believe we are truly capable of moving past it. But you see, that is the entire point of the socialist stage of existence, to set the stage for communism. It will probably take several generations living under socialism to reach the point where we can move to communism, and I am quite certain that even if we started now, neither you nor I, despite my relative youth, would live to see it.

oh and I should mention, the representatives of which you speak would NOT be distinct from the workers, at least if I understand you correctly. They would generally be people elected by the workers, from among them, to represent them, and these representatives would effectively form the organizational backbone of the economy and political system.

[Technology]

I won't say its impossible, because that's just stupid. But as Lenin says in "The State and Revolution" you don't CREATE a communist state. Rather, you create a setting in which the most positive attributes of man are allowed to grow and develop until we reach the point that we have reached the point where the state as a regulatory body ceases to have a purpose. Your assumption is that we cannot do away with nationalism, which in a truly socialist setting we could, with relative ease. The things which cause nationalist fervor, exploitation by outside forces, hard times blamed on foreigners, things which give cause for national unity, will cease to be a problem. In fact nationalism is a relatively new concept in the age of our species, and nothing we cannot live without.

Nationalism is just an extension of tribalism, which is not new at all. The only new thing is that people were identifying with the nation state rather than smaller units, and even then that's only if you believe the Marxist view of history is at all accurate on that issue. The claim that historical nations and empires pre-capitalism didn't have any strong sense of belonging to communities distinct from outsiders is dubious.

Historically, patriotism has been used to bolster the socialist nations just the same as any other. This caused tendency fall outs within the socialist world during the Cold War. You imagine that if capitalism wasn't there, they would all unite completely somehow (Who would give up rulership? Would Russian workers be prepared to be out-voted by Chinese workers?). I don't know, but if people can't unite to fight their enemies, why would they be able to unite when their enemies are defeated? It sounds more likely that they would start fighting over new socialist mode divisions.

There are biases which transcend our relationships with the means of production, and there are biases which incorporate our collective relationship in relation to some other groups' relationship.

Communism cannot exist without reaching post scarcity or something very close to it, and in a socialist system where the goal is always to try to create as much as is needed as efficiently as possible, we could reach that. The reason you think this is so likely is that you think with the perspective of someone who has been raised in the system of short-term self interest, putting oneself before the whole, and as such you do not believe we are truly capable of moving past it. But you see, that is the entire point of the socialist stage of existence, to set the stage for communism. It will probably take several generations living under socialism to reach the point where we can move to communism, and I am quite certain that even if we started now, neither you nor I, despite my relative youth, would live to see it.

The problem is that there are different socialisms distinct to the conditions of different nations. Stalin recognized this. An extension of that is recognizing that this creates a point of conflicting interests when it comes to "merging the world".

The other (perhaps more fundamental problem) is that it isn't purely a dichotomy between self-interest and group-interest. There can be competing group-interests (evidentially, there are) even if people aren't purely thinking of themselves. Each person or groups vision for others must win over other the visions of others. Since history shows us that not all Marxisms are the same thing (other Marxists on this forum have criticized you for rejecting Stalin, for example), it is a given there will be competition, and where some parties lose big, history indicates again that the conflict has a tendency to converge on violence.

Would Mao, Stalin, Castro, and Tito's administrations (to name a few) all amiably melt into a pool of homogenous communism post-capitalism? I think not. Not with relative ease. I think there might have just been a fair few wars over whose socialism was more amenable to communism first.

oh and I should mention, the representatives of which you speak would NOT be distinct from the workers, at least if I understand you correctly. They would generally be people elected by the workers, from among them, to represent them, and these representatives would effectively form the organizational backbone of the economy and political system.

Well then, you would hope not to copy what actually existing socialist nations did. Representatives are needed to cut through competing ideas and create one vision for the administrative area in question, so it is intrinsic to a representative system that there is a distinct interest by those ruling. One way to tackle this would be to draw leaders at random from the most intelligent and competent workers (but who decides what that is?), however the crazy risk inherent in this means people would be wary of a leadership system that lacks momentum, and moreover the vanguard who brought in the revolution would have a vested interest not to transition to such a system.

With representatives, the people are not making policy; they are choosing a package deal of policies attached to the party they vote in. The people who want to run will be people who want to see their vision dominant, either for personal gain, or out of altruism. Either way, they will want to ensure their vision is maintained, and if they have a party, they will want to gather power to it, so the more of a party based system you have, the more there is a distinct group interest that develops (you could almost say a class interest...) even if the members of the party are workers. You see, they are workers who believe in a distinct set of managerial policies which will differ from the thousands upon thousands of different sets of policies other groups of workers or individuals might come up with. This is a problem inherent to republics, socialist or not.