Can we stop this "socialism isn't communism" meme?

Not an argument!

Are you defining a state as "a tool of one class repressing another" again

"Global society" being a network of communes.

that's what it is though

have some 4 random images guys

Not an argument!

Not capitalism, since capitalism encompasses various aspects of skimming the surplus value via the wage system, with the economy run privately, and in a socialist state things would be organised for workers to run the means of production.

Of course, state run capitalism has been what we have gotten in the past, again the difference between that and socialism being the workers organising things as opposed to having things run "on their behalf".

So? Just because socialism is not "stable" it doesn't exist? A rose by any other name, comrade. Capitalism is not stable. Feudalism is not stable. Society is in a constant state of change and motion, so of course socialism is not stable. We don't want it to be stable because we want to move forward.

Very good, OP! That post is what we call a "statement." A statement makes a claim about a particular subject like this: "OP is a massive faggot."

When will this meme die?
Communes have nothing to do with communism: in a communist society production and distribution is organised globally, communes on the other hand still imply that society is divided into property owning groups. At best communes could be considered a microcosm of communist society, at worst they're just hippy bullshit.

>Communes have nothing to do with communism

Why do you think this you shit?

this is ur brain on leftcomism

why do you have a random picture a a man in a pool with new looking shoes?

It's definitely one of the most unsettling/creepy things that have been posted here.

Well, it says wateraerobicsshop.com on the side of the pic. So maybe he was shopping for water proof runners?

People in the Jamaica totally will just do what people in the Supreme Earth Soviet (voice of the people) "democratically" commands. Yeah, no.

even if you're not, it still has no state

"All the palaver about the state ought to be dropped, especially after the Commune, which had ceased to be a state in the true sense of the term. The people’s state has been flung in our teeth ad nauseam by the anarchists, although Marx’s anti-Proudhon piece and after it the Communist Manifesto declare outright that, with the introduction of the socialist order of society, the state will dissolve of itself and disappear. Now, since the state is merely a transitional institution of which use is made in the struggle, in the revolution, to keep down one’s enemies by force, it is utter nonsense to speak of a free people’s state; so long as the proletariat still makes use of the state, it makes use of it, not for the purpose of freedom, but of keeping down its enemies and, as soon as there can be any question of freedom, the state as such ceases to exist. We would therefore suggest that Gemeinwesen ['commonalty'] be universally substituted for state; it is a good old German word that can very well do service for the French 'Commune.'"

nation-states wont exist m8

forgot flag

marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/

Go read state and revolution retards

...

Unless you mean word revolution there'll be imperialist attempts to tackle down socialism.

what are you doing with a lenin hat if you think that the communist revolution is a national one?

it was a big thing on /int/ 6 months ago

also, its funny because it can be taken in an anacap direction

Live Action RolePlay.

I just don't understand, leftcom bro
I want to get it. I just don't understand what the fuck you're talking about

Lower stage communism and upper stage communism are only distinguish by the presence of the "state", and a lack of post scarcity. There is no "socialism", only lower and upper stage communism(from a Marxist perspective).

whatever, really
your pedantic classification fapping changes nothing
call it transitional state, state capitalism, whateverism

for me personally, socialism means state ownership of the means of production and planned economy, which implies no labour and capital markets

I want a legal system and laws set by direct democracy, with an elected executive branch.
This government organizes production and distribution, with workers at individual firms (government owned) democratically deciding renumeration in the form of labor vouchers. The more productive the society, the more guaranteed resources to each citizen (distribution by need. Aka gauranteed healthcare, education, food, transport etc) with the long-term goal of establishing relations of production where all labor is done voluntarily without direct renumeration, and eventually post-scarcity (people have access to as much material wealth as they desire without having to "pay". Once that level of productivity and automation is reached, whatever the government consists of becomes a voluntary body and doesn't use coercion or violence
What do you call that

even if you're not, it still has no state

"All the palaver about the state ought to be dropped, especially after the Commune, which had ceased to be a state in the true sense of the term. The people’s state has been flung in our teeth ad nauseam by the anarchists, although Marx’s anti-Proudhon piece and after it the Communist Manifesto declare outright that, with the introduction of the socialist order of society, the state will dissolve of itself and disappear. Now, since the state is merely a transitional institution of which use is made in the struggle, in the revolution, to keep down one’s enemies by force, it is utter nonsense to speak of a free people’s state; so long as the proletariat still makes use of the state, it makes use of it, not for the purpose of freedom, but of keeping down its enemies and, as soon as there can be any question of freedom, the state as such ceases to exist. We would therefore suggest that Gemeinwesen ['commonalty'] be universally substituted for state; it is a good old German word that can very well do service for the French 'Commune.'"

Modes of production, comrade!
The social relations and productive forces (labor and means of production) of a particular society.

No, there is no state in lower phase communism ("free and equal producers"), and you don't need to be "post-scarcity" for upper-phase communism.

pic related

Looks like it's gonna be hard, sadly.

How can you have from each according to his ability to each according to his needs without most work being automated.

Doesn't exist in communism

The separation of the sphere of labor from all other spheres of life is destroyed in the revolution

what does revisionism is bad have to do with socialism is the stage between capitalism and communism?

uum, socialism and communism mean the same thing. There is no "stage" between capitalism and communism

Stop being so pedantic. You know what I meant.

not necessarily, but there will obviously be a network of organisational bodies, such as communes. They won't be autonomous and independent though.

OP's right though. I haven't seen anybody in this thread managing to conceptualize this ominous transitory mode of production. If anything, it goes like this:
capitalism -> revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat -> material human community (socialism).
I think returning to Marx's use of both terms (socialism as the mode of production, communism as the real political movement behind sublating capitalism) would lead to less confusion.

I think the ICC makes a good point when they say that during the dotp the law of value is still functioning to an extent but the conscious action of the working class is dismantling it until the law of value completely vanishes.

communism comes from the latin word communis which means "common" and not commune.
Jesus christ.

See:

ew
they aren't even leftcom, they are idealist neo-luxemburgian sectoid robots

If all you mean by that is "value lasts until the revolution finishes completely re-organizing society" then, yes of course, but if you mean that value persists after the revolution, then no, absolutely not.

The ICC is shit on the transition, they think the "state", the "dotp", and the councils are all different things. They essentially just use wordplay to pin all of the nasty, gruesome stuff on this ephemeral "state" that will carry everything out but isn't itself the dotp.

Left com is a disease.

Communism is an end point. Socialism and communism are more or less the same, but once capitalism is completely abolished, you wouldn't say "we have achieved socialism" you would say you have achieved communism.
States like the soviet union had not achieved communism, so calling them socialist is ok.

No you nitwi-
Oh.

Holy fuck how are leftcoms not utopian socialists

Imagine using such big words while saying literally nothing like leftcoms do literally all the time

Oh, like a state which produces commodities and pays workers the value of their labor power, and competes with other states on the world market, gives its various departments instructions based on analysis of profit, etc.?

Capitalism can be run by workers.
Value is social relation, and not one reducible to "worker ←-> boss".
Firms run by workers can accumulate capital, it doesn't matter if the firm is democratically run.

What I mean by "stable" is self-reproducing relations of production (although there are of course contradictions which tend towards the transformation of the system)

That is to say labor still exists, but "work" does not.

And there are two phases of communism

this, obviously.
And I don't like the ICC, it's just a remark that I found useful.

Socialism isnt Communism, But Communism is Socialism

ah!

...

accidentally left shitposting flag on

you saw nothing!!!

do you have any experience with orgs, though?

I am actually currently working with the ICT (although I'm not a member). I disagree on some issues (critique of work, "dialectical materialism", etc.,) but I think they're doing really good work. They're been really supportive and nice.

I think there's some shit going down w/ the Canadian section, which will probably have to start over, but the ICT is going to release a statement soon I think.

what happened?

essentially, the GIO (the canadian section), took on a member who has a excellent past, and did not let the rest of the ICT know (the ICT isn't really a strictly centralized organization, it is more of a collection of organizations trying to come to a collective understanding and agreement and help create the party, but they really should have let the rest of the ICT know), the reasons they haven't released a statement is because he is currently seeking help/therapy and he hasn't actually been formally accused of anything and they want to have all the facts before they make a public statement about the actions they are taking to solve the current issue and make sure it doesn't happen again, which, while I wish they would issue some kind of statement in the meantime, I understand why they want to wait and am sympathetic to them (they aren't trying to hide anything, they have a statement prepared, they just want to make sure they get everything figured out and have a solid plan to prevent it from happening again and to make sure women in the future feel safe)

forgot about the word filter, "excellent" was not the word meant, I meant "problem*tic"

Is that Katya? A Katya image i don't already have. Thanks a lot.

Despite all this, I highly recommend all revolutionary internationalist communists get in touch with them, they are very supportive and do a lot of good work (I think they are going to start a podcast)

Is the leftcom flag just a shitposting flag or are they genuinely this retarded?

cognitive dissonance much?

Its a legitimate question. I just do think you all can really be this stupid so they leftcom flag has to be a shitposting flag like an-fems or Stalin

My name Gilles Dauvé and I approve of this message.

But srs, Communization still has a lot of holes in it, but I believe it's addressing the main problem of previous revolutions - while also laying the groundwork for the path forward.

...

This thread:

anonymity makes everybody an expert on Marx and the critique of political economy, eg. all the suckdems and Rojavists claiming that coops are basically socialism.

Well it is socialism, in a sense.

not in the marxian sense, though.

cute

case in point

...

nah, that's the communization dude (I think?). Leftcom-flag posters (me and that other dood in this thread) are "italian" leftcoms (correct me if I'm wrong).

Well Marx, never distinguished between the terms. But the fact is that while socialism was a word popular before Marx, and now has very little to do with him (Swe SocDems love to speak about the socialism we had in the 60-70s) while, as Zizek notes, communism remains a radical term.

I would agree with that.

I'd put myself in the Italian tradition, although I would take some ideas from the Marxist communization currents

That's some bullshit.

USSR wasn't anymore "radical" than scandinavia

this thread:

Sorry, didn't mean that to come out so harsh sounding, comrade!

...

Yeah, it's me. And the butthurt from illiterates in this thread is great as always.

Did I claim that? What I mean is that Communism remains radical in the sense that it symbolizes upheaval and change, whereas socialism has become synonymous with welfare state.

It is according to Marx, which you'd know
if you've actually read Marx, since he did.

Yes? But the way it's described " shows he clearly didn't imagine it as a continuation of the capitalism system, nor a mode of production in it's own right:
"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." Critique of the Gotha Programme

Yes, but not in the way ML and trot kids imagines it.

Glad we cleared that up, your hurt ego is your own problem.

Too true. At Berkeley I had a professor talking about the socialist Scandinavian countries. She was a self proclaimed Marxist. I cringed. And Norwegians love to call themselves socialists while defending (regulated) capitalism and going on about how communism is great on paper but doesn't work in reality, dictatorships, mass murder, muh human nature etc.

Also, me being a noob: Care to do a short explanation of Marx' transitional stage and ML's transitional stage?

Again, I didn't mean to come of so harsh before, comrade.

It was implied.

You wouldn't agree "communism" is synonymous with "stalinism" for most people, just as much as "socialism" is with "welfare state"?

Threads like these are why leftcoms may just be the best category of posters on Holla Forums. They could very well be the ones to save us from rampant LibSuccery, tankies and anarkiddery.

...

how exactly does communism prevent activists from using force to take more because they want it or feel they deserve it?

take more what?

and "activists" are not some kind of independent agents free from the rest of society

...

K. Marx, Critique of the Gotha programme:
When is your transitional stage supposed to happen?

There's more actual communists on Holla Forums than just the two left coms here tbh fam.

Leninists generally perceive of a transitional stage as happening for a long period of time as a form of "lower" communism - which they call socialism. Under this period, money and the state is still maintained - thus also the need to suppress budding capitalist elements. Different Leninist envisage this in different terms of time, Bordigists believe it to be quite short, and advocate a gradual abolishment of money from the start; for MLs and Trotskyists, this is rather a question of decades. This is also the reason for why orthodox Trotskyists didn't pronounce the USSR state capitalist, to them it was just a question of the wrong leadership.

Marx rather envisaged the transitional period as very short, as the mere period of active revolution. After that, money (and the value-form) should be abolished immediately, which ends the capitalist elements and with it the capitalist and proletarian classes. This thus also ends the central role of a (Marxist) state: mediating the class struggle for the benefit of the ruling class.

Can't deny this, but communism also brings to mind the student protests and it's this gesture of resistance, this genealogy, I want to maintain.

The Idea of Communism is, more than any other, defined by the word "Revolution".