Communism is not when the workers own the means of production or capital (Anarchosyndicalism, Market socialism, mutualism)

Communism is not when the state owns all capital (USSR, Cuba, NK, ML in general)

Communism isnt about building productive forces for some alleged future socialism (China, Vietnam, Dengism)

Communism is not about acheiveing "real democracy" (Anarchism, autonomism. libertarianism)

“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.” ― Karl Marx

The present state of things are - the existence of the value-form, commodities and their exchange, wage-labor, private property : all of which are interlinked and cannot be abolished piecemeal. These are the categories that actually describe capitalism, this was what Marx uncovered.

The elimination of these things does not occur by imagining their replacement and working towards an ideal imagined society, but by working on the present premises. It is a movement, and the truths of the next society is uncovered by the movement itself, i.e. the knowledge of the concrete aspects of communism is discovered in practice.

Until there exists a movement, it is fruitless to engage in utopian theorizing and prattling about action or activism. The movement must arise from the working class itself and only itself, as it becomes conscious of itself and actively works to abolish not just the capitalist class but also itself.

Movements by working class people to reform capitalism, such as the DSA, most trade union activity, electoralism, "anti-imperialism" a.k.a allying with local bourgs against international bourgs, and all other such activity is not revolutionary and communists do not want anything to do with it.

It is true that truly revolutionary working class people are a tiny minority, and don't exist as a real movement anywhere in the world, but this doesnt mean that communists dilute their concrete goals and their theory to appeal to the masses. In this sense, we are anti-democratic and "authoritarian".

I've written all this because one of the principles communists have is they "disdain to conceal their views and aims". As unpopular as these views may be among leftists (which communists are not), they are nevertheless our actual views and principles that will not be changed.

  • JuneFall [none/use name]
    ·
    4 years ago

    So how do you explain that Marx was active in multiple trade unions and associations? The answer is that the sentence you quoted isn't meant to be diminishing of action, but to underline that only what changes the current state is the movement which is the communist movement.

    This also doesn't mean that you shall just sit idly by hoping that spontaneously the working class gets conscious as one body from one moment to the other (in this case Marx's wouldn't even have bothered with writing the Capital), but it means that actions that bring forth the movement are good. This means that actions which aren't yet class struggle are good, if they can be reframed as such and guided by the will of the working class - in Marx's conception - a communist party / the First or Second International.

    So go forth to the DSA if you have no less, but don't forget you will only be a "true" communist if you are part of the movement which brings forth the change of things.

    Why is private property (means of production) talked so often about? Well the answer is easy, it is a very material thing that people intuitively understand and that is guarded by the might of the state and the threat of violence. It is the core ingredient in capitalism. Thus attacks on it and its current state are attacks on the system itself, which naturally are only effective if it doesn't remain a scattered act, but one subsumed under the working class itself.

    One last point: China had successful revolutions which did not follow the path Marx's prescribed for the industrialized capitalist west. This is to be expected when looking at the material conditions of regions and how they are bound into the web of social relations.

    • sayssanford [none/use name]
      ·
      4 years ago

      So how do you explain that Marx was active in multiple trade unions and associations? The answer is that the sentence you quoted isn’t meant to be diminishing of action, but to underline that only what changes the current state is the movement which is the communist movement.

      Many movements can change society, not just the communist movement. We are only interested in the communist movement, which we understand to be quite specific.

      This also doesn’t mean that you shall just sit idly by hoping that spontaneously the working class gets conscious as one body from one moment to the other (in this case Marx’s wouldn’t even have bothered with writing the Capital), but it means that actions that bring forth the movement are good.

      Correct.

      This means that actions which aren’t yet class struggle are good, if they can be reframed as such and guided by the will of the working class - in Marx’s conception - a communist party / the First or Second International.

      Good according to whom? What even is good defined by? This is such a vague, idealist and nonsensical statement. What is the "will" of the working class?

      Why is private property (means of production) talked so often about? Well the answer is easy, it is a very material thing that people intuitively understand and that is guarded by the might of the state and the threat of violence. It is the core ingredient in capitalism. Thus attacks on it and its current state are attacks on the system itself, which naturally are only effective if it doesn’t remain a scattered act, but one subsumed under the working class itself.

      Most socialist criticisms of private property are basically that workers dont have enough access to it. An actual attack on private property, i.e. its abolition, is synonymous with the communist goal of abolishing the value-form and exchange of commodities.

      One last point: China had successful revolutions which did not follow the path Marx’s prescribed for the industrialized capitalist west. This is to be expected when looking at the material conditions of regions and how they are bound into the web of social relations.

      China had a successful bourgeois revolution.

      • JuneFall [none/use name]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Before I get to the meat, one quip:

        What even is good defined by?

        It is defined by "The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence". The reality of actions which are the first steps of a non conscious class struggle are what makes those good - and good is meant in the sense of valuable for the communist movement. However not even large strikes are class struggle, though they can be expression of class struggle. If we go with Marx/Lenin we would need the organized will of the working class and that means "a party" or at least a unity of subjective and objective conscious and understanding of the real existing movement (which isn't only were the strikes happen), but is global as we are workers of the world.

        This is such a vague, idealist and nonsensical statement. What is the “will” of the working class?

        You can read more Marx and about the International Workingmen's Association to get what the will of the working class is. Though to be fair Marx's associations never reached enough integration within the working class to be able to dialectical be able to tell what the will of the working class is.

        idealist and nonsensical statement

        If you read it as such, it is, if you read it as how it is meant, and how Marx's practice was, as the factual and material real existing historic moment in which something happens, that if analyzed and influenced by conscious actors builds up a point that either strengthens the real existing movement on one hand, or shows contradictions of the system on the other hand (or improves skills of the people involved, etc. etc.).

        To the meat then:

        We are only interested in the communist movement, which we understand to be quite specific.

        Do you think you are part of the communist movement and as such a communist?

        The answer naturally is no, you are not a part of the communist movement (except a side note of things yet to come), as the real existing movement isn't there yet, which is precisely why it is necessary to stir shit up (aka "The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence").

        It is good that you found some theory, but your understanding on them is yet to be developed. The answer btw. to my question in regards to why Marx was active in unions and associations is that - at least after the divergence from the Junghegelians and Feuerbach (which you ought to know quoting the Deutsche Ideologie) - Marx's focus in live was precisely to be the midwife for the new society with others and create a unified party (e.g. 1848's communist manifest is a consequence of that) that was to connect the several parties of which many called themselves communist and to - hopefully - be as such part of the real existing movement. Though Marx himself wasn't too sure that it would be something that would happen within his lifetime, though he was sure that the movement's which actually would be able to overthrow the current state of things would be birth from specific action and organization.

        This means that what you ought to take from your reading is the following:

        • you can call yourself a communist (in the sense of the manifesto or whatever), but you are only one in the real conception Marx underlined in the Deutsche Ideologie, if and only if you are part of the real existing movement which does away with the present state of things (which didn't happen and as such you aren't quite one, yet).

        • from the manifest stems that it is important as communist to say what goals there are (no private property, likely doing away with types of value forms or specific exchanges), however this doesn't mean that as spy you say "I am a communist", or that you get to decide who is a communist (history will show that, though you are free to dunk on groups which don't say that the radical solution (in the sense of radix - the root - so a solution which solves a problem by fixing the root the problem stems from) is doing away with private property, etc. etc.). It also doesn't follow that at any point you have to non stop say that you are a communist (remember that Marx himself was victim of the laws against socialism and in parts was able to evade them by lying, still at conferences and in publications he was unabashed in his opinions, this is different to telling your public transport neighbour you want a dictatorship of the proletariat).

        • from the 18th of Brumaire stems that it is important to work with people and groups that aren't communist and to be aware of a militant and forceful reaction. From that stems also, that for a revolution you have to work together with people that aren't communists. In a similar vein this might bring your monolithic view about when in China there was a revolution that was in your eyes bourgeois into question. The first sentence of this paragraph also means that you have to improve your skills to be able to reach more people and a base of power that is able to actually be powerful. This isn't the case if you separate yourself from the workers (unless you are Mao, or Zapatista and can use peasants and soldiers to revolt; or are in Russia and can use peasants, unemployed, soldiers, women, etc.). So you have to find a way between keeping up your conscious and working with people. If you fail at this chances are you will not be part of the real existing movement etc. etc.