Why communism?

A strong and democratized socialist state sounds fucking awesome.

I don't understand why we'd take the risk of destroying it.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

.

Peronsally I am a socialist not a communist. Communism is impossible with modern technology, so let the future look after itself. At some later point, it might be feasible.

what exactly do you mean?

Dude you need to read. Technology makes communism better

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn

The US destroyed Chile because it was going to achieve real communism through modern technology.

democracy is a sham.

Because fuck states.
A socialist state is useful for defending and upholding the project of building communism, but that's about it. The means are not the ends.

Actually on the contrary, communism will be made possible solely because of technological advancement

He didn't express himself well.

...

If there's a state, there are classes.
If there are classes this is capitalism, not socialism.
Democracy in capitalism is a myth.

Dear user, I have the regret to inform you that you are a socdem.

PS: read Marx.

Help, I can't decide anymore if these are just Reddit plebs or Holla Forumstards baiting.

socialism is communism

this

Nice try, Pol.

Sage for Facism

I honestly agree with OP. Mere post-scarcity is not enough to dissolve all class structure and government, imo

What do you think "dictatorship of the proletariat" means?

Isn't it basically an ironic term, as by eliminating capital and the bourgeois class, all other classes are effectively made nil, including the proletariat? Proles only exist in relation to Bourgs, they are no longer proles when they themselves own the MOP, because the no longer sell their labor, having their surplus value extracted by the alleged owner.

I mean, I suppose most surviving capitalists would be in some sort prison, or re-education camp for the less criminal ones who are more willing to change. But unless the workers do not actually democratically run society (even if it is through elected, immediately recallable and fully accountable officials) it is classless.

There's already a thread about this. Couldn't you at least skim wikipedia before shitposting?

Thus again, it is not enough simply to remain faithful to the communist Idea; one has to locate within historical reality antagonisms which give this Idea a practical urgency. The only true question today is: do we endorse the predominant naturalization of capitalism, or does today's global capitalism contain antagonisms which are sufficiently strong to prevent its indefinite reproduction? There are four such antagonisms: the looming threat of an ecological catastrophe; the inappropriateness of the notion of private property in relation to so-called "intellectual property" ; the socioethical implications of new techno-scientific developments (especially in biogenetics); and, last but not least, the creation of new forms of apartheid, new Walls and slums. There is a qualitative difference between this last feature-the gap that separates the Excluded from the Included-and the other three, which designate different aspects of what Hardt and Negri call the "commons;' the shared substance of our social being, the privatization of which involves violent acts which should, where necessary, be resisted with violent means:
-the commons of culture, the immediately socialized forms of "cognitive" capital, primarily language, our means of communication and education, but also the shared infrastructure of public transport, electricity, the postal system, and so on;
-the commons of external nature, threatened by pollution and exploitation (from oil to rain forests and the natural habitat itself) ;
-the commons of internal nature (the biogenetic inheritance of humanity); with new biogenetic technology, the creation of a New Man in the literal sense of changing human nature becomes a realistic prospect.
What the struggles in all these domains share is an awareness of the potential for destruction, up to and including the self-annihilation of humanity itself, should the capitalist logic of enclosing the commons be allowed a free run. Nicholas Stern was right to characterize the climate crisis as "the greatest market failure in human history" So when Kishan Khoday, a UN team leader, recently wrote: "There is an increasing spirit of global environmental citizenship, a desire to address climate change as a matter of common concern of all humanity;' one should give all weight to the terms "global citizenship" and "common concern"that is, to the need to establish a global political organization which, neutralizing and channeling market mechanisms, expresses a properly communist perspective.
It is the reference to the "commons" which justifies the resuscitation of the notion of communism: it enables us to see the progressive "enclosure" of the commons as a process of proletarianization of those who are thereby excluded from their own substance. We should certainly not drop the notion of the proletariat, or of the proletarian position; on the contrary, the present conjuncture compels us to radicalize it to an existential level well beyond Marx's imagination. We need a more radical notion of the proletarian subject, a subject reduced to the evanescent point of the Cartesian cogito.

(…)
The ongoing enclosure of the commons concerns both the relation of people to the objective conditions of their life processes as well as the relation between people themselves: the commons are privatized at the expense of the proletarianized majority. But there is a gap between these two kinds of relation: the commons can also be restored to collective humanity without communism, in an authoritarian-communitarian regime; likewise the de-substantialized, "rootless" subject, deprived of content, can also be counteracted in ways that tend in the direction of communitarianism, with the subject finding its proper place in a new substantial community. In this precise sense, Negri's anti-socialist title, GoodBye Mr. Socialism, was correct: communism is to be opposed to socialism, which, in place of the egalitarian collective, offers an organic community (Nazism was Not Socialism, not national communism).
In other words, while there may be a socialist anti-Semitism, there cannot be a communist form. (If it appears otherwise, as in Stalin's last years, it is only as an indicator of a lack of fidelity to the revolutionary event.) Eric Hobsbawm recently published a column with the title: "Socialism Failed, Capitalism Is Bankrupt. What Comes Next?" The answer is: communism. Socialism wants to solve the first three antagonisms without addressing the fourth-without the singular universality of the proletariat. The only way for the global capitalist system to survive its long-term antagonism and simultaneously avoid the communist solution, will be for it to reinvent some kind of socialism-in the guise of communitarianism, or populism, or capitalism with Asian values, or some other configuration. The future
will thus be communist . . . or 'Socialist.
As Michael Hardt has put it, if capitalism stands for private property and socialism for state property, communism stands for the overcoming of property as such in the commons. Socialism is what Marx called "vulgar communism;' in which we get only what Hegel would have called the abstract negation of property, that is, the negation of property within the field of property-it is "universalized private property:' Hence the title of the Newsweek cover story of February 16, 2009: 'We are all socialists' and its subtitle, "In many ways our economy already resembles a European one;' is fully justified, if properly understood: even in the US, the bastion of economic liberalism, capitalism is having to re-invent socialism in order to save itself. The irony of the fact that this process of coming to "resemble Europe" is further characterized by the prediction that "we [in the US] will become even more French" cannot but strike the
reader, After all, Sarkozy was elected as French president on a platform of finally finishing off the tradition of European welfare-state socialism and rejoining the Anglo-Saxon liberal model-and yet the very model he proposed to imitate is now returning to just what he wanted to move away from: the allegedly discredited path of large-scale state intervention in the economy. The much-maligned European "social model;' decried as inefficient and out of date under the conditions of postmodern capitalism, has tasted its revenge. But there is no reason for joy here: socialism is no longer to be conceived as the infamous "lower phase" of communism, it is its true competitor, the greatest threat to it. (Perhaps the time has come to remember that throughout the twentieth century social democracy was an instrument mobilized to counteract the communist threat to capitalism.) Thus the completion of Negri's title should be: GoodBye Mr. Socialism . . . and Welcome, Comrade Communism!
(..)
Fidelity to the communist Idea thus means that, to repeat Arthur Rimbaud, il faut etre absolument moderne - we should remain resolutely modern and reject the al too glib generalization whereby the critique of capitalism morphs into the critique of "instrumental reason" or "modern technological civilization:' This is why we should insist on the qualitative difference between the fourth antagonism-the gap that separates the Excluded from the Included-and the other three: it is only this reference to the Excluded that justifies the use of the term communism. There is nothing more "private" than a state community which perceives the Excluded as a threat and worries how to keep them at a proper distance.

...

Please respond.

I think my intent was pretty clear, but thank you for getting it at least