5 ms·

> Communism, by definition, is free of state. That hinges on achieving post-scarcity. While Communists sometimes proclaimed that as a utopian future, it is har

> Communism, by definition, is free of state. That hinges on achieving post-scarcity. While Communists sometimes proclaimed that as a utopian future, it is hard to see how it could have come to pass. Firstly because communism would need some kind of perpetual enforcement apparatus for its ancillary goals like ensuring an end to religion and belief in the supernatural. Secondly, that political philosophy put so much emphasis on the working masses as the class to support and identify with, that one doubts it would permit a future where there were no longer any working masses. I’m reminded of some Maoist literature I once found in a Chinatown bookshop: in discussing the Peking Man fossil, the book claimed that what separated Man from the apes was his ability to labor, and if a person did not work hard, he was not a true human being.

vidarh 3y ago
Leninist-derived forms of communists argue for a transitional period, but many other forms of socialism and communism argues it needs to come to pass by destroying the state, and Marx himself shifted towards that, e.g. when after the Paris Commune criticised them not for not replacing the state but for not going further in tearing down the old state (a shift that gave the basis for e.g. libertarian Marxism) That was also the principal criticism against both Marx and later the Bolsheviks from the left: That rather than "need some kind of perpetual enforcement apparatus", given Marx own criticism of the state as a tool for class oppression you could not hope to reform or take over the state without risking a recreation of the same problems as the state tries to maintain its authority, but need to destroy the state immediately. A criticism that precipitated the anarchists leaving the First International, but also many later splits. With respect to religion, the notion tend to be that ancillary goals like an end to religion would come simply from removing poverty and providing education, from the thinking that people flock to religion to seek comfort when their lives are hard, and so it's not necessary to do anything about it per se. > that one doubts it would permit a future where there were no longer any working masses. The very basis for the rise of socialist thought was the notion that the rise of capitalism made a level of productivity possible where the amount of labour necessary to sustain society would drop. Marx spends the first half of the first chapter of the Communist Manifesto fanboying over the productivity increases made possible by capitalism and describes its downfall as coming from crises of simultaneous over-production and under-employment - in other words a sharp reduction in the need for labour, but without the social structure to allow the labour and its proceeds to be shared. So in that sense, maybe still "working masses" but masses no longer limited by a need to maximise hours of work to earn a living.
- mathieuh 3y ago
  For me as an anarcho-communist, the problem with religion isn't believing in something supernatural per se, it's the fact that organised religion is just another hierarchical apparatus (like the state) which gives some people power over others. Christian anarchism is quite an influential strain for example, and I'm sure the other major religions probably have groups with similar ideas. So I don't think ending religion would be a specific goal, not for me anyway. Of course, if someone starts some cult somewhere or starts telling people some god said they should be in charge well then that's a problem, but I think that goes beyond the specifics of religion. It always comes back to hierarchies in my opinion. Whether it's racism, sexism, organised religion, capitalism, or whatever–the root of the problem is one group of people having power over others.
  - OfSanguineFire 3y ago
    In such a future, what do you do, then, with people who actually want hierarchies? The most important virtue for a monastic, for example, is obedience, and myriads of people deliberately seek out that lifestyle.
    - orwin 3y ago
      You can have hierarchies without great power imbalance. That's how the Makhnovstina or the POUM organized.
    - bilvar 3y ago
      Well as Marx stated, whoever doesn't have the proletariat mentality should be exterminated. The practical problem (of course apart from the moral for the rest of us who are not Marxists) is, how do you exterminate a group of people without a state? That's why anarcho-Communism/Marxism is an oxymoron, collectivism needs someone to dictate and organize the collective action, it cannot be stateless.
      - vidarh 3y ago
        > Well as Marx stated, whoever doesn't have the proletariat mentality should be exterminated. Citation? Multiple searches turned up nothing like this for me. > That's why anarcho-Communism/Marxism is an oxymoron, collectivism needs someone to dictate and organize the collective action, it cannot be stateless. This presumes "collectivism", but many forms of socialism sees enabling extreme individualism as the goal. E.g libertarianism was founded by the anarcho-communist Joseph Dejacque

vidarh 3y ago

Leninist-derived forms of communists argue for a transitional period, but many other forms of socialism and communism argues it needs to come to pass by destroying the state, and Marx himself shifted towards that, e.g. when after the Paris Commune criticised them not for not replacing the state but for not going further in tearing down the old state (a shift that gave the basis for e.g. libertarian Marxism) That was also the principal criticism against both Marx and later the Bolsheviks from the left: That rather than "need some kind of perpetual enforcement apparatus", given Marx own criticism of the state as a tool for class oppression you could not hope to reform or take over the state without risking a recreation of the same problems as the state tries to maintain its authority, but need to destroy the state immediately. A criticism that precipitated the anarchists leaving the First International, but also many later splits. With respect to religion, the notion tend to be that ancillary goals like an end to religion would come simply from removing poverty and providing education, from the thinking that people flock to religion to seek comfort when their lives are hard, and so it's not necessary to do anything about it per se. > that one doubts it would permit a future where there were no longer any working masses. The very basis for the rise of socialist thought was the notion that the rise of capitalism made a level of productivity possible where the amount of labour necessary to sustain society would drop. Marx spends the first half of the first chapter of the Communist Manifesto fanboying over the productivity increases made possible by capitalism and describes its downfall as coming from crises of simultaneous over-production and under-employment - in other words a sharp reduction in the need for labour, but without the social structure to allow the labour and its proceeds to be shared. So in that sense, maybe still "working masses" but masses no longer limited by a need to maximise hours of work to earn a living.

mathieuh 3y ago
For me as an anarcho-communist, the problem with religion isn't believing in something supernatural per se, it's the fact that organised religion is just another hierarchical apparatus (like the state) which gives some people power over others. Christian anarchism is quite an influential strain for example, and I'm sure the other major religions probably have groups with similar ideas. So I don't think ending religion would be a specific goal, not for me anyway. Of course, if someone starts some cult somewhere or starts telling people some god said they should be in charge well then that's a problem, but I think that goes beyond the specifics of religion. It always comes back to hierarchies in my opinion. Whether it's racism, sexism, organised religion, capitalism, or whatever–the root of the problem is one group of people having power over others.
- OfSanguineFire 3y ago
  In such a future, what do you do, then, with people who actually want hierarchies? The most important virtue for a monastic, for example, is obedience, and myriads of people deliberately seek out that lifestyle.
  - orwin 3y ago
    You can have hierarchies without great power imbalance. That's how the Makhnovstina or the POUM organized.
  - bilvar 3y ago
    Well as Marx stated, whoever doesn't have the proletariat mentality should be exterminated. The practical problem (of course apart from the moral for the rest of us who are not Marxists) is, how do you exterminate a group of people without a state? That's why anarcho-Communism/Marxism is an oxymoron, collectivism needs someone to dictate and organize the collective action, it cannot be stateless.
    - vidarh 3y ago
      > Well as Marx stated, whoever doesn't have the proletariat mentality should be exterminated. Citation? Multiple searches turned up nothing like this for me. > That's why anarcho-Communism/Marxism is an oxymoron, collectivism needs someone to dictate and organize the collective action, it cannot be stateless. This presumes "collectivism", but many forms of socialism sees enabling extreme individualism as the goal. E.g libertarianism was founded by the anarcho-communist Joseph Dejacque