What document is referred to as the source to build a successful, correct, Communist society?
Every single religion has their holy books to reference on what rules they have to follow (The Christians have the Bible, the Muslims have the Qur'an, etc.), and the U.S. Constitution is referred to as the defining document if you want to create a successful Democratic-Republic. So, what is the document that defines Communism, what it is, and how it will work and be successful?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
youtu.be
m.youtube.com
twitter.com
the Conquest of Bread, the Ego and his Own, the Communist Manifesto, Critique of the Gotha Program, State and Revolution, etc would be good places to start. There isn't one authoritative text, since there are multiple conflicting communist ideologies
I'm probably going to get flack, but there is none (tankies and M-L's can get mad now).
That said, neither is the constitution the defining document on how to construct a Republic, nor was it that at the time of its drafting. Republics had been rising and falling around Europe for a long time since Rome and all the American founders had were some loose philosophical concepts outlining liberal ideology that they tried to mash together into a single document on the hopes that for at least the first quarter century it'll hold so the early nation can recover from founding bullshit and work from there and evolve over-time.
Being critical on the execution for a moment: I'd really say rigid absolutism in carrying out ideology really needs to be dropped. Propose some vague ideas and rules and set aside hot-topics for a later date just so things can started before the mutual gulag'ing can begin.
There isn't one. We can not predict with certainty what comes after revolution and producing such a document now would be like writing the US Constitution, to use your example, before the American Revolution began.
Could that be the reason why Communism hasn't worked? Because no one actually knows what the Hell it actually means? They just latched onto a good sounding theory instead of trying to refine it?
All the founding fathers did was took what worked from the Greeks, the Romans, and the Bible (All societies which were a Democracy at some point). Also, their "stop-gap" after the Revolutionary War was the Articles of Confederation (Which they reviewed a few years later going "Yeah, this doesn't work").
Certainly there would be, at least, one point in history that could be used a prime example (Considering how human nature hasn't changed in thousands of years).
we all know what it means (a stateless, classless, currency-less society), we disagree on how to achieve it. But no, imperialism and revisionism have been far more damaging than a lack of left-unity
Whatever. Read the Communist Manifesto, but bear in mind that this was written around 150 years ago and some parts are not the best for the moment. That and Communism is not something static, but it is in eternal becoming like anything else.
Human nature meme aside, there wasn't a successful liberal revolution until after the burgers did it, why would that be different with a communist revolution? We do not know when the revolution will occur and we will not know it is a success until it has succeed.
And enlightenment faggots who were very much a product of their material conditions.
don't trash the enlightenment they were good boys
Then, how do you plan to prevent anarchy? Isn't that one of the reasons why the French Revolution is referred to as one of the biggest fuck-ups in history when it came to a change in regime?
That shouldn't mean anything. If the document is as enlightening, as you claim it to be, then the message should be timeless. It shouldn't just apply to an isolated incident in world history.
How? Doesn't that mean that Communism could evolve to a point where it's the exact opposite or contradictory of what this user is saying:
I remember there being one other revolution after the 1700s that was defined as successful, but the name of it escapes me?
All the founding fathers were Bible-thumpers.
There is none. Whenever communism fails it's always dismissed as not a true Scotsman.
The French Revolution, which again didn't have a road map of how to do it successfully and ended up putting Napoleon in charge as emperor.
Which does not change the influence the enlightenment thinkers had on them.
Communism is in becoming in the sense that there is no clear cut way to "doing" communism. What I could recommend you would be utopian works like the one that gets posted around by Cockshott, of which there is one thread up right now. But communists must over all consider the realities and adapt their theories to it, not pretend one text applies universally.
What you're describing is Utopianism, something Marxism explicitly rejects. Marxism seeks to be the real movement that abolishes the current order of things, not a state of affairs to be established.
lol is this a joke?
i'm assuming that you mean anarchy as in chaos, because communism is inherently anarchist. You prevent it preferential to not lose your shit, like any society. plenty of resources and well-functioning democracy are at the core of this
*by making it preferential not to lose your shit. whoops
nigga if we had an instruction manual we would have done it right by now
...
So, you're repeating what this user said: That Communism is an anarchistic society.
Then, wouldn't the best way to achieve a Communist society would be through peaceful and willing measures? After all, it worked for Liberia (Until the coup in the 80's). They were able to willing reform their country back in the 1820's through peaceful measures, and it turned out swimmingly for them. Why couldn't the same work for Communism?
No.
The state isn't immediately abolished, it withers away once the last remnants of bourgeois society have been destroyed, since the function of the state is the enforcement of class society.
Immediately, we need the state to assert the dominance of the proletarian class and secure the fruits of the revolution.
Layman's terms?
theoretically yeah, no violence is better than violence; however, it is not in the bourgeoisie's interest to progress past capitalism, and thus forceful, if not outright violent, measures most likely necessary to achieve real change
...
The last remnants of class society as it was formed under capitalism and the dominance of the capitalist class.
The political supremacy of the working class. That is, wage-earners. We establish a system in which normal wage-earning working people control society and the state, in contrast to capitalist society where society was dominated by property relations and the capitalist class that controlled that property.
This was the narrative that was shoved down my throats since I was a young child. It's bogus. Class is based on property relations, nothing more. The bourgeoisie could have acquired that property through any number of means. "Meritocracy" is simply a modern ideological myth used to justify the current class order. It's similar to feudalism' "Great Chain of Being", only secular.
You didn't watch the video I provided, did you? If you did, you'd know that I agree that the way the myth of "Work hard, get a good job, and retire" is a complete and utter farce.
Well, yes.
Also, here bourgeois doesn't mean middle class (they're middle class in regards to the feudal system), it means property owners and managers of capital.
Then, I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Just drop all the fancy terminology, and deliver it straight.
This isn't fancy terminology, it's the usual jargon you find in Marxist thought.
And if you want a more simple run down, here you go, watch these, they'll get you caught up with the basics.
youtu.be
youtu.be
m.youtube.com
James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
I think you've got the wrong idea. The bible and most other religious texts weren't written all at once and then implemented immediately after, they all had large portions written as their respective religions developed. The Constitution itself wasn't even written until 5 years after the revolution, when the assumptions of how the US should have been (the Articles of Confederation) were proven wrong. Lots of different ideas floated around before the war, and there wasn't a compete consensus.
Communism is just like this, only it hasn't had its successful phase yet. While some ideas are held by all communists like abolition of private property, there are lots of disagreements on how to build a communist society. Without a successful revolution, there can be no defining document.