Is communism inevitable?

Is communism inevitable?
George Asare
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 29, 2012

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 55
#1 - Quote - Permalink
1 of 3 people found this post helpful
Posted Jan 11, 2013 - 4:35 PM:
Subject: Is communism inevitable?
First, let me define communism. Communism (or socialism, if you prefer, they mean the same thing) is a global classless, stateless, wageless, moneyless society where the means of productions re commonly owned and democratically controlled and the doctrine "to each according to his/her ability to each according to his/her need prevails.

Through the use of historical materialism, Marx and Engels explained how all previous modes of production went through periods of ascendancy - when the social relations promote the development of the productive forces - but that eventually the productive forces develop to the point that they outgrow the social relations, which become a fetter on their future development. The mode of production then becomes decadent. And if a new set of social relations aren't put into place - through a revolution - then the mode of production stagnates and rots on its feet, undermining the very conditions that make a new mode of production viable.

Sound familiar? World war, mass poverty, economic crisis, environmental destruction?

Though, I do not believe that communism is inevitable, in fact I believe humanity may never even reach a global communist society.
dimaniac
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 02, 2013

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 32
#2 - Quote - Permalink
0 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted Jan 11, 2013 - 4:40 PM:

Global social democracy(low income inequality) is inevitable unless capitalists will move their production to free market fascist country.

George Asare wrote:
stateless
Who will control selfish people that don't care about equality?
Maw
Archimedean nihilist
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 29, 2010
Location: Lost Carcosa

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1048
#3 - Quote - Permalink
4 of 5 people found this post helpful
Posted Jan 11, 2013 - 4:46 PM:

No, nothing is "inevitable", and thinking that a better future is assured to us could lead us into a state of passivity so that fixable injustices are not corrected.
psychotick
Dazed and confused
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Oct 05, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 1461
#4 - Quote - Permalink
0 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted Jan 11, 2013 - 6:14 PM:

Hi,

Short answer - No. Communism is not inevitable. But that isn't to say that things won't slide to the left from time to time. (And to the right.)

Also moneyless / wageless? Communist and socialist philosophies both allow for money and wages. It's a question of who pays them and how they decide that's at issue.

Cheers, Greg.
swstephe
PF Addict
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: San Jose, California

Total Topics: 39
Total Posts: 1426
#5 - Quote - Permalink
1 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted Jan 11, 2013 - 9:37 PM:

Actually, what Marx and Engels described, in my opinion, was the inevitable cycle of capitalist exploitation and violent revolution of the workers. Communism was originally supposed to be a someone controlled transition into a classless society. The cycle is what is inevitable. But then I think Marx's view was through the filter of his times. The Industrial Revolution was brand new and the model of the world was very simple.

George Asare
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 29, 2012

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 55
#6 - Quote - Permalink
1 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted Jan 11, 2013 - 10:49 PM:

I'm afraid it is YOU who needs to learn about communism and socialism. Marx and Engels used the two terms more or less interchangeably, to mean the same thing.
Intelligence
Very Young Philosopher

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 03, 2012
Location: Washington State

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 144
#7 - Quote - Permalink
0 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted Jan 11, 2013 - 11:18 PM:

George Asare wrote:
I'm afraid it is YOU who needs to learn about communism and socialism. Marx and Engels used the two terms more or less interchangeably, to mean the same thing.


No, you clearly did not read Marx.

Socialism has many different complications that communism does not; attitude towards private property is an example.
swstephe
PF Addict
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: San Jose, California

Total Topics: 39
Total Posts: 1426
#8 - Quote - Permalink
2 of 3 people found this post helpful
Posted Jan 13, 2013 - 1:24 PM:

There is a difference between Communism and Socialism. Marx and Engels used both terms, but for 2 different systems. Today it is generally used interchangeably -- even by groups that should know better. If I remember correctly, Communism was seen as a transitional system, (with state control), leading to Socialism, (with public control).
unrealist42
Resident
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 366
#9 - Quote - Permalink
1 of 2 people found this post helpful
Posted Jan 15, 2013 - 10:01 PM:

Many current socio-economic arrangements, like capitalism and socialism, are predicated on the common presumption that resources are scarce, wealth needs to be accumulated for investment to be possible, and this requires sacrifices.

With the rapid advance of technology over the past few centuries resources are no longer scarce and there is an enormous surplus of accumulated wealth, enough to accommodate a decent standard of living for everyone on the planet with plenty left over to continue investment into the foreseeable future.

Since resource and accumulated wealth scarcity is no longer a global problem but local scarcity still exists because the existing structure continues to operate on old presumptions, using accumulated wealth to control resource allocation, which is now creating scarcity artificially.

Arguments for a continuation of this grossly unequal economic arrangement are becoming increasingly invalid. The socio-economic arrangement will shift one way or another. The long term continuation of inequity will require violent repression on a massive scale, perhaps a return to Fascism. This will of course, divert enormous resources and invite their destruction. The protection of artificial scarcity could easily result in a return to real scarcity.

If the other path is taken and equity is to be achieved non-violently it will result in Communism. The elimination of scarcity removes the need for inequality, inequity, nations, states, wages, wealth and the need for mechanisms like markets and money. This is not to say that we are anywhere close to this stage but if progress continues apace we are no more than a century or two away.
ScottieX
Forum Veteran

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2013

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 676
#10 - Quote - Permalink
1 of 3 people found this post helpful
Posted Jan 15, 2013 - 11:33 PM:

It seems more logical to say that a lack of scarcity removed the need for equality. So I dont care as much if you have two cars as long as I have 1. maybe bill gates can have 1 million cars.

I tend to see the future as more communist in a Chinese sense. And that fascism is a fairly low energy state more so than communism.
Download thread as
  • 80/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.