this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
96 points (78.9% liked)
Memes
50414 readers
566 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch06.htm
What does "Commune" entail in this context?
A Commune, in Marxist-Leninist theory, is a revolutionary political-economic structure where the proletariat collectively owns and democratically controls the means of production, abolishing capitalist hierarchies and bourgeois state machinery. It is rooted in the analysis of the Paris Commune of 1871 by Marx and Engels who saw it as a prototype of proletarian dictatorship. The key aspect of a commune is that it embodies direct workers' democracy, dismantling the separation between state and society. Lenin further expanded this as a transitional framework where a decentralized network of soviets composed of laborers self-govern, eroding class distinctions and advancing toward a stateless, classless communism.
Are there any examples of this 'late stage Communism'? I thought it was more about the central planning aspect. And if not are the USSR/China/Russia even Communist?
Late-Stage Communism must be global, so no, it hasn't existed yet. The USSR and PRC are examples of Socialist countries governed by Communist parties trying to bring about Communism.
Does a global expansion require imperialism? Getting the entire world to sign up before dissolving sounds pretty mission impossible.
If by Imperialism you mean millitant expansionism, no. If by Imperialism you mean the form of economic extraction practiced by countries like the US, also no. The basis for the abolition of borders isn't one of legalistic matters, but economic redundancy. Borders become more and more unnecessary in more and more interconnected economies, and even become a barrier on progress, ergo they will wither over time much the same way the state would.
It's an ideological competition between different ways of organizing society. We have a western model of capitalist organization and the socialist model advanced by China. The western model is visibly failing in every regard right now, so there is every reason to expect that more and more countries will look to Chinese model as a result.
I feel like the Chinese model is already way too far into pragmatism to ever idealistically flip the switch to abolishing their state at the endgame.
The abolition of the state isn't a legalistic choice, but a result of the abolition of class. The abolition of class is an economic result, not a legalistic choice either.
I think you're confusing the state with all government and structure, which isn't what Marxists are talking about when we speak of the withering of the state.
So if everyone gets rich we have Communism?
Also I read some of your other link as well, but it went into tangents about elite friend groups and while it was interesting I felt like watching one of those 2 hour videos about speedrunning where you get a huge infodump but are not sure what to take away from it.
Not exactly. The economic foundations for the abolition of class are in the increasing socialization of production and the decay of market forces lending themselves to collective planning and cooperative functions. That's the extreme oversimplification, but as these classes fade away so too do the mechanisms of enforcing them via the state. In China's case, as long as they continue to combat corruption and focus on developing the productive forces, they will regularly develop further along the Socialist road, erasing the contradictions remaining from Capitalism until Communism is achieved globally.
As for the Tyranny of Structurelessness, it's about why formalizing structures is necessary. I brought it up specifically in the context of vanguardism, the implication being that formalizing a vanguard is better than letting informal elites guide a movement without democratic structures in place.
Okay but how does it solve this im14andthisisdeep Facebook meme?
People will always want more, Communism isn't a vow of poverty, it readily acknowledges that production will continue to improve when Humanity has become Capital's master, rather than its slave.
Greed is boundless for some. If anything Capitalism is the perfect example of this. I don't see how having enough will fix it for them.
When I look at the open-source community the way altruistic projects reach sustainable success is with a beneficial dictator which is authoritarian but has correct intentions.
I don't really see how that's a problem for Communism. People go without megamansions all the time in Capitalism, and it isn't just those who can afford them that want them. Satisfying a much larger quantity of needs is a good thing.
Sure but how can Communism prevent someone from trying to acquire more wealth than they need?
Comrade Cowbee already followed with great responses but I want to add that we usually forget to factor in why would someone want more?
That's easy to answer currently because we live in a capitalistic world where individualism and greed are taught to us since we are little and are constantly hammered into our heads. We must consume, we must have more, etc.
That will not be the case in a communist society. At that stage of development, these capitalistic ideals would not be alive in the collective consciousness of people. So, while today we can ask why wouldn't someone want more, someone from that future might ask why would I want more if I already have everything I need?
I don't think the idea of Communism that exists in your head is the same understanding of Communism that Marxists have, if that's the question you're asking. Could you explain how you think someone would go about "trying to aquire more wealth than they need" in a Communist system to begin with, and why it would be an issue?
I'm trying to understand where the differences are in our understanding so I can better get across what I'm talking about, I'm not trying to insult your intelligence or anything.
Sure, so I'm completely unfamiliar with the whole Commune structure and am wondering how wealth would be acquired and distributed. Are people rewarded for their labor and how does ownership work?
Depends on the level of development of Communism, and we won't know what is applicable to when until we get there. Communism isn't a Utopia invented by Marx, but a prediction for the future based on analysis of politics and economics throughout history and the present, ergo we have to develop into it and see where it actually takes us.
In general, though, with a fully publicly owned and planned economy, people would be rewarded for their labor, yes, but it might take the form of labor vouchers, a different form of currency, etc designed to not be transferable to others in the economy individually, but with the social fund as a whole. This system of varying "prices" can be solved for using various feedback loops called "cybernetiks."
I recommend reading Prices in a Planned Economy, it's a useful intro to how to think about abolishing the commodity form.
General said founders will also has a business mind instead of just blind fanaticism.
This is all so wrong. First of all, most anarchist advocate for prefiguritive politics, or "building a new world within the shell of the old" which is why things like Food Not Bombs exists, along with many many other anarchist projects specifically aimed at building a stateless, moneyless, classes society. They don't NOT want to simply abolish the state completely overnight.
Anarchists have come up with a WHOLE lot of ways that a society could be run, and they generally don't think that there's a one size fits all solution that would work for everybody.
You haven't read a single thing about anarchism that didn't come from a Marxist source, have you?
The fact that anarchists can't agree on a unified course of action is a big part of the reason why all these different ways of running society that people have dreamed up remain firmly in the realm of fantasy.
There are at least six feuding Marxist orgs where I live, I don't think this is a valid critique of anarchism.
Sure, in initial stages you'll have many different orgs. This was the case during Russian revolution as well. However, eventually a single unified vanguard emerges and people get on the same page regarding how to move forward. There is no mechanism for creating a unified vanguard under anarchist approach where there is no central authority by design.
Good point.
What a fucking straw man definition lmao
FTFY
Also to me the biggest reason I call myself an anarchist is that I respect the diversity of not only tactics for abolition of the state and capital, but also the diversity of ways communal living may look when influenced by difference socioecological conditions.
A socialist revolution cannot magically abolish relations that have been internalized by a society born out of capitalism. The notion that you can just flip a switch and transition from one type of society to another is precisely what underpins anarchist achievements to date.
Marxists and Anarchists have a different view on what the "state" entails, and what constitutes "class." The former see the state as an instrument of class oppression, while the latter see it as an institution of hierarchy. The former see class as relations to production, the latter see class as relations of hierarchy.
I recommend reading my comment here where I go over why this is the case, and why Marxists see Communism as a fully publicly owned and planned economy, while Anarchists see Communism as a fully decentralized network of communes, and neither recognizes the other as truly "stateless" or "classless" due to these differences.