The state became incapable of acting in the interests of workers class, these interests being the interests of society during proletarian dictatorship. The protesters were shot at. Thus we can say that dozens of victims among workers served as the first evidence of the so called nationwide state and the party led by N. Khrushchev in the making. The state property was gradually ceasing to be a form of socialized property and by the end of ies it was essentially acquired features of a peculiar form of private property of those who had actual control over it, i. This was initiated by Gorbachev and occurred in the time of Eltsyn.
At the beginning. The abandoning by the CPSU the main principles issues of Marxism — the issue of proletarian dictatorship, the goal of socialist production and the goal of Socialism — could not help but led to the growth of pro-private property sentiments that finally led to the destruction of the party, the government and the state, all this despite active resistance from communist minority. This is a lesson not only for the communists of former Soviet Union and present Russia; this is a lesson for the whole international workers and communist movement.
The relevance of this issue is determined by the final goals of the struggle that communists lead to get power for their class. This is the issue of what they are going to do in case the workers class comes to power now. What conclusions have been drawn from the mistakes of communists and the betrayal of workers class by CPSU, from the whole practice of socialist construction in USSR? What has to be constructed in the area of economy and why? This issue still divides international communist movement Russia included. We are going to discuss only these who keep calling themselves Marxists and Communists.
On the other hand we keep hearing people calling themselves pragmatists and realists. They consider communists that discuss non-commodity nature of socialist production loony. It is true that market is all around us nowadays. That is Capitalism means first of all commodity production. Here V. Lenin clarified that Capitalism itself is a result of commodity production development and kept pointing out in many of his works that the commodity production inevitably produces Capitalism.
- Optical-Thermal Response of Laser-Irradiated Tissue.
- Advanced Energy Technology;
- Current students.
- Literacy Instruction for English Language Learners Pre-K-2 (Solving Problems in the Teaching of Literacy)!
- Communist Leaders;
- Chinas Environment and Chinas Environment Journalists: A Study.
Nevertheless, under Socialism one can formally find money and a number of the so called commodity-financial relations, though such concepts are nowhere to be found in the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin. Does it mean that the use of terminology pertaining to commodities makes socialist production essentially commodity production? The banknotes used in socialist society are not money in the political-economical sense. They represent an additional indirect index characterizing the volume of production and the quantity of labour required and spent, an accounting unit for calculation and planning, they provide for the functions of control and accounting of directly social; production and distribution that are indispensable for Socialism.
Supporters of the so called market Socialism usually recall the New Economic Politics NEP stressing that Lenin himself told that it was a radical reconsideration of our view of Socialism, it was serious and for a long time. New Economic Politics in the beginning of transitory period from Capitalism to Socialism did envisage a temporary retreat to the freedom of commodity production and turnover, first of all the relations between the government owned sector and the peasantry. Meanwhile Lenin understood perfectly well that there was fight between capitalist and socialist trend. In rural areas it is finished as far as we are talking about the victory over big capital.
He always stressed that we talk about overcoming commoditization, walking away from commodities, negation of commodities in socialist socialized production. Supporters of market usually present NEP as a turning point for Lenin in his understanding of Socialism as commodity production, as return to market not as a temporary necessity, but as goal and prospect. Nevertheless we should mention that NEP is not a method, but politics, and that Lenin and Bolsheviks when introducing NEP never called a development of properties characteristic of socialist production, they considered allowing elements of Capitalism as their retreat.
Second at the same time there were created the most powerful levers to overcome the elements of commoditization of economics transitory to Socialism. Thus along with the increase of the physical volume of products described as commodities though essentially already non-commodities the directly social character of the socialist production intensified and the conditions for the future overcoming of commoditization were also prepared.
Stalin consequently followed in practice the trend of Lenin aimed at overcoming commoditization in the production of the period transitory to Socialism and turning the production into directly social. Yes, there is. What are essential features and requirements of this law? Thus Stalin clearly stressed that the interests of the whole society are of unequivocally highest priority in the system of Socialism.
Meanwhile Stalin built his analysis not only on the basis of Marxist views, but he performed the analysis of objective reality given. Stalin analyses the guarantees provided by proletarian state in order to prevent the restoration of capitalist elements in economy. In socialist economy commoditization exist only as a negation of its directly social nature and belongs to these imprints that are to be overcome in the process of development of Socialism as incomplete Communism to the complete one.
Thus we have all reasons to stipulate that the development of socialist economy means intensification of its directly social character and overcoming of commoditization. The aim of communists should be always the same, i. The advance of socialist economy was ensured as far as the state provided for the organization of production as directly social one. Plan and centralizations are as high achievements of civilization as differential calculus or evolution theory by C.
Nevertheless this achievements can serve the interests of working people only under conditions of proletarian dictatorship in the conditions of directly social production. The decision to abandon the political basis of Socialism, i. The reform presumed that enterprises should estimate their output in rubles and profit and that led to such negative consequences as growing group egoism, deficit and inflation.
Manufacturers were interested to release less products at higher prices, the inequality of exchange between cities and rural areas increased, the share of luxury items and socially harmful products in the range of products produced for personal consumption had sharply increased.
Under the conditions of blooming shadow economics bourgeois transformation of leadership of the party and the government veiled by hypocritical phrases about fidelity to Communism took place. Economics in Soviet Union was of direct social nature whatever the objections of modern apologists of Capitalism. Thus free of charge housing was provided, though one had to wait in long queues. Cold and warm water, electric energy, bread, healthcare and education, public transportation and many other things were also provided for free or at symbolic prices.
Unfortunately the abandoning of socialist course both in politics and economics was performed by the party that kept calling itself communist. In the end of ies a number of public initiative aiming at resisting supporters of Capitalism and defending working people were found.
Scientists from the Scientific Communism Society intensified their activities. We should specially mention the efforts of scientists that opposed market N. Hessin, E. Ilienkov, R. Kosolapov, A. Eremin, V. Elmeev, A. Kashchenko, N.
Soviet Union Emerges From October Revolution
Moiseenko, A. Pokrytan, M. Popov, V. Dolgov, A. Sergeev, D.
Mutagirov, V. Ogorodnikov and a number of others. One of the best Soviet philosophers E. More than that its own immanent forms of relationships between people are veiled here by money-commodity relations and even find in them their formal, legally established expression. Thus these genuine contours of our economy that we have to reveal through our analysis, look outwardly in the form that is not adequate to them — in the form of value. Those who refused to accept this pro-market course were labeled as retrogrades, dogmatists and backward elements.
In his contribution professor A. There is a market of private capitals as represented by stock exchanges and the market of labor. A forced treatment of Socialism by means of Capitalism that is contrary to objective processes will not lead to the increase of productivity and higher level of life, it will lead to their inevitable fall, will cause extensive social protests and grave suffering of people.
Lenin discussed in his book with the same title. The concept of constructing Socialism by way of developing market, commoditization, commodity-money relations, i. In the end of the day there will be only Capitalism. Both revisionism and opportunism can invent as many variants of such models of Capitalism as the justifications for them. Practice has shown us, that if a party calling itself communist speculates within a coherent theoretical paradigm though tears economy apart from political superstructure and considers it as an abstract issue which is beyond politics and classes, this party makes a mistake, moreover, a crime committed against the workers class.
Political mistakes in Socialist construction: departure from the Leninist principles of the development of the Soviet Power and deviation from the party program. In , when international situation was escalating and the threat of war was growing, contrary to the RCP b. Though many of the characteristics of the Soviets were preserved the nomination of candidates for deputies by labor collectives, the high proportion of workers and peasants in the deputy corps, periodic reports of deputies to voters, and the combination of legislative and executive functions in the councils , the election rules that enabled the working class to take advantage of being organized in the process of labor were revoked.
These were prerequisites for a parliamentary system divorced from labor collectives and allowing deputies, especially those elected on the highest levels and from the territory, to ignore the will of the working people with little or no risk of being revoked. The lack of control of state power by labor collectives, and its relative independence from them, contributed to the diminished role of workers in social management and bureaucratization of the whole system of state power.
The socialist character of Soviet power was preserved, and the power continued to act in the interests of the working class to the extent that the leadership of the Communist Party remained faithful to Marxism-Leninism. The rejection of the basic Soviet principle to elect deputies from labor collectives in factories and industrial plants and transition to elections from territories were formally substantiated as the general expansion of democracy, though in fact it was a step toward the transition from the soviet, proletariat democracy to the parliament, bourgeois democracy, implying formal equality and ignoring actual inequality.
Such single formal extension of the equal right to vote to all citizens without exception, including representatives of the former exploiter classes, could not lead to any true expansion of democracy. We think, we can offer the following explanation of this decision. As it has been already mentioned, in , the dramatically escalating international situation — the strengthening of fascism and the growing threat of war — made it essential, on the one hand, to formulate political arguments for the international communists in exposing the slander of the allegedly dictatorial, antidemocratic power in the USSR, and on the other hand, to strengthen the centralization of state administration for this period of preparation and conduct of war.
So, this decision can be understood, as in many respects it was dictated by the situation. With the leading role of the CPSU b , the new approach allowed to regulate the formation of power bodies by the party apparatus and also attracted to the Soviet system some of the so-called disenfranchised nonvoters , which was not at all superfluous in view of the approaching war. However, the mistake was that after the war ended and the root cause of, it was not decided to return to these principles.
However, after the war ended and the root cause of such a rejection Program guidelines for proletarian democracy was eliminated, no decision to return to these principles was taken. It was a mistake. As already mentioned, in the 22nd Congress of the CPSU adopted a revisionist, anti-Marxist program affirming that the dictatorship of proletariat had fulfilled its historical mission and, from the point of view of internal development, ceased to be necessary in the USSR.
With the abandonment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the road to a change in the class essence of the state was opened. The decision of the Khrushchevite leadership to abandon the dictatorship of proletariat in as well as the economic reform of which strengthened the role of market mechanisms in the economy, naturally led to the strengthening of private property tendencies that were destructive for the socialist national economy, led to the degeneration of the Party and state leadership and pettybourgeois decaying of a large part of the working people.
Many years later, when the actions of the revisionist leadership of the CPSU headed by Gorbachev created the appropriate conditions, the rejection of the dictatorship of the proletariat, elections in the territories and metamorphosis of the leading cadres facilitated the counterrevolutionary seizure of power. The developments were as follows.
Soon after the XXVIII Congress under the influence of petty bourgeois and bourgeois elements in the party, its leadership under the guidance of Gorbachev completely abandoned communist strategy and replaced it with the so called common reason and the course towards Perestroika, to actual transition to the other, bourgeois social order — Capitalism.
Such situation can be explained both by basic theoretical ignorance of some and conscious anti-communism of others. Revisionist, mutated to anti-communist leadership of the CPSU who contributed to growing bourgeois and petty bourgeois parties under the slogan of political pluralism some of them even in the form of platforms within the CPSU allowed finalizing anticonstitutional setting up of parliamentary system as a ready instrument to perform the dictatorship of bourgeoisie.
Foreign politics were also subordinated to the latter. Communist, i. They claimed that the course towards market would lead to heavy suffering of the people and to downfall of the party itself. The crisis intensified and gave birth to a number of conflicts: those were the conflict between central government and the republic, between legislative and executive authorities, within the executive bodies themselves till all those conflicts culminated in a generalized conflict in the form of the so called GKCHP State commission on the introduction of the state of emergency.
Nevertheless incompetent and irresolute actions of the said committee that basically followed the same market course only provoked the fit of anticommunist hysteria. The events of August allowed bourgeois forces to follow the course to Capitalism openly, they signed the infamous treaty on disbanding the USSR and exchanged the Red banner for the one of the old Russia, that was once used by the Nazi collaborator general Vlasov.
By the beginning of nineties Socialism had been temporarily defeated not only in the USSR but also in many other countries of the world. The Council of Economic Cooperation as well as the Warsaw Treaty were both disbanded, whereas the forces of bourgeois counterrevolution that had come to power started to reconstruct Capitalism in all former socialist European countries. The final dissolution of the remnants of Soviet power and the socialist character of ownership in Russia was connected with the events of October There were other mistakes.
These were mistakes committed in the course of struggling, mistakes of pioneers, the mistakes that could be and were corrected. Present-day communist wings of our time and literature. Anti-science and pseudo-. There are described reactionary feudal Socialism, petty bourgeois, conservative bourgeois, utopian and religious Socialisms. All features of these wings described by the classics are still topical as in one way or another all modern theories, wings and perversions of scientific Communism can be reduced to them.
All of them were gradually reduced to the bourgeois Socialism with the development of Capitalism. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations; reforms, therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between capital and labor, but, at the best, lessen the cost, and simplify the administrative work, of bourgeois government.
Bourgeois Socialism attains adequate expression when, and only when, it becomes a mere figure of speech. Free trade: for the benefit of the working class. Protective duties: for the benefit of the working class. Prison Reform: for the benefit of the working class. This is the last word and the only seriously meant word of bourgeois socialism.
Modern varieties of bourgeois Socialism fit perfectly to this description. Eurocommunism is a right wing deviation in the Communist movement, a policy and theoretical foundation of a set of biggest communist parties of the Western Europe in the second half of the XX century. Opportunists abandoned the proletarian dictatorship, they practically tackled an improvement of capitalism, thus refusing from their main goal — from the socialist revolution.
Gradually on the basis of Eurocommunism there appeared a party of Euroleft, which includes a number of parties, that still go on to call themselves Communist, with some of such parties even from the former Soviet republics — the Communist Party of Moldavia. All these parties adhere to the position of Anti-Stalinism. It is these parties, who claim, that Stalinism and fascism are equally totalitarian systems.
Many of these parties refused from proletarian symbols of Hammer and Sickle as if they have been outdated. Others have only their historical tradition and Communist Choice like that of Gorbachev as the only revolutionary theory positions left. Today these parties are inscribed into the legal system of the EU, among other things they are political subjects, registered by the EU laws and financed from the EU budget.
Reactionary character of this direction, actually up to anti-communism is evident. Market socialism is a reverse traffic from socialism towards capitalism. Such parties receive good financing from the state budget for such parliamentary limitation. Any other non-parliamentary forms of class struggle with the bourgeois political system are not applied by these parties, and even if such struggles are declared in words, they are terminated in practice.
Substantial features of their relegation policy are as follows:. Just to be clear let us remind, that since the beginning of the new bourgeois parliament of Russia the State Duma, that started in the CPRF had among its parliamentarians several tens of traitors defectors , who left their party faction and sided with the bourgeois regime, and among them two former chairmen of parliament Rybkin and Seleznev.
First time in during the confrontation between of President Yieltsin and the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation in the most critical moment Zyuganov in his TV statement called on people to refrain from participation in the political struggle, and to stay at home. Next day the House of Soviets was bombarded by tanks. Right after the CPRF took part in the subsequent elections, left the common front of boycott and thus helped to Yieltsin to get the referendum approval for his bourgeois constitution, took the place of opposition with the Communist name in the first State Duma Russian Parliament.
Second time it was during the presidential elections, when Zyuganov as a candidate for presidency got to the second tour and then turned of his activity, but, nevertheless, as it is well known now, he got a majority of votes, however he refused from struggling, and recognizing the electoral falsification he was the among the first to congratulate Yieltsin with his victory. And third time after the crisis and default after the resignation of Premier Kirienko, the CPRF and Zyuganov personally supported the government of Primakov-Maslyukov, which devaluated the Russian rouble by about 4 times and paid up to the Russian workers multibillion salary and wages debts by these devaluated roubles and thus turned of the wave of popular manifestations against the authorities.
But comrades from the CPRF liked the role of capitalism saviors so much, that they raised this slogan of Popular Confidence Government to the level of their Party Program.
The first organization of women workers
As the result of electoral success they just promise to set up a Popular Confidence Government. Communism for China more and more turns into a product of inside consumption for management and control of working people masses. We enter into a mortally dangerous skirmish in the field of ideology, — Lenin said.
With all that Bolsheviks used the NEP and were taking necessary measures to strengthen the state sector, the centralized foundation in management and planned economy. Chinese comrades, in our view, are moving in the opposite direction. Economic achievements of China, certainly, impress and deserve most of respect, but they do not necessarily mean success in the construction of Socialism.
Such a satisfaction, as Lenin said, can be provided by capitalism too. Both countries are sure to be rather far from the construction of classless society — Communism. Chinese working people suffer not just from the highest level of exploitation, that is proved by high density of their presence in hardest black jobs in Russia, but the ever harder oppression of purely capitalist elements, and almost complete impossibility of struggle of the working people against this capitalism.
And plans of construction of the foundation of socialism, prolonged by the CPC for one hundred years, pose the question about any advantages of such a socialism over ordinary capitalism. With all that the Chinese capitalism plays a very active role in the World: on one hand, being a business partner of the American imperialism, on the other hand, actively integrating it self into the economies of many other countries and participating in the intensification of exploitation of their workers.
For example, Chinese companies take part in privatization of seaports in Greece, that is actively defied by the Communist Party of Greece and the Greek working people. Chinese companies are particularly famous for their exploitation of oilfield workers and miners in Kazakhstan. The shooting of workers in Zhanauzen in is known to the proletarians of the whole World. And in as far as their forums of the parties sympathizers of the socialist idea is concerned, they look more like assemblages of scholars-quacks of socialdemocracy, distorting the ideas of Scientific Socialism.
I have to say, though it hurts, that we predict a sad repetition of the CPSU fate by the Chinese comrades.
Communism Timeline - HISTORY
Thus, we can note, that opportunism is not simply leading the Communist movement in the wrong direction; moreover, in alliance with the bourgeois authorities, it stands up against the orthodox, that is, revolutionary Marxism. This fact was noted yet by Vladimir I. Lenin, when he said, that bourgeoisie always supports the opportunistic party, which in its name and political language is closer, is more like a real revolutionary party.
The right deviation, revisionism and apostasy did not stop with gorbachevism — the destruction of the CPSU and the USSR in , it is still in action. Socialism of the 21st century: a sort of improved capitalism in Latin America and other countries. Proceeding with our review, let us note, that it is fashionable today to speak of a certain 21st century socialism. But what else it can be? Perhaps not that of the 20th or 19th century. For those living there is only this century — the 21st one. Certainly, good wishes and progressive measures stand behind this slogan. But questions of general laws, necessary and obligatory signs of socialism depart on the second and third plan, that is, there is a departure from the theory of scientific communism as a science.
It is also opportunism, even if today it brings some temporary success. This success is not a reliable one, it is not fixed in the political system. With some minor change of outside political conjuncture current state of affairs or of the inside situation reactionary forces quickly return the given positions. The example of heroic Venezuela right after the death of Ugo Chaves until nowadays is very characteristic for back-and-oscillating motion of their socialism. Life has proved the truth of the founders of Marxism, that. Communism is a science, and it should be treated accordingly.
In order to put this position into reality, communists should be guided by the theory of Scientific Communism. In the 20th century, the parties standing on the platform of the.
- Karl Marx, Yesterday and Today | The New Yorker?
- Communications in Mathematical Physics - Volume 302.
- The vocabulary of science?
- Soviet Communists on the Factory Floor: – – EuropeNow.
- Fires Were Started (BFI Film Classics)!
- You Got Nothing Coming: Notes from a Prison Fish?
- Women before, during and after the Russian Revolution?
- Academic Subject: Communism & Socialism!
- Navigation menu;
- Our Post-Communism: The Legacy of Karl Kautsky.
- Subject Area: Communism & Socialism;
- Drama Is Her Middle Name (The Ritz Harper Chronicles, Book 1).
Orthodox Marxism, united in the Communist third International. The Twenty-one Conditions of admission to the Comintern held tasks of communist parties, i. And today there are not few parties in the World, which stand on the positions of revolutionary Marxism. The theoretical thought has not being dying down, and research work of scholars, standing on Marxist and Leninist positions, is going on.
Long live to Marxism and Leninism, the teaching about revolutionary struggle of proletarians of all countries. Should we long for socialism, once capitalism can provide rather high level of welfare to people? Apologists of capitalism respond to this question by their call to refrain from revolutions and to follow the road of evolution. As if one should try to obtain social justice and protection in the framework of existing social system, and avoid upheavals, perturbations and cataclysms, that are pregnant with civil wars. Shortly speaking, they call for the national unity and struggle for the prosperous fatherland: for Russia, for the Ukraine, for Greece or any other country headed by its native national bourgeoisie.
Is it so? What does the experience of our socialism, that was perhaps not so replete, but real? What was there, that was better than civilized and corpulent capitalism? Nor do we learn what types of consumption have a "nature that requires communal consumption.
Consequently, we don't really know how far Marx would extend his principle in practice. All we can be certain of is that cooperation will cover far more than it does today. Marx speaks, for example, of new "social organs" coming into existence which are the institutional forms of new social activities as well as new forms adapted for old ones. Of greater significance than the spread of cooperation is the fact that it is qualitatively superior to what goes by the same name in earlier periods. Marx believed that production is social in any society since it is always carried on inside some relationship with other people.
However, the cooperation involved varies from tenuous, unconscious and forced, to close, conscious and free. In communism, interdependence becomes the recognized means to transform the limitations set by what was until now unrecognized interdependence. Because people at this time are "brought into practical connection with the material and intellectual production of the whole world," interdependence is world-wide and grasped as such.
Perhaps nothing in the communist society helps explain the extraordinary cooperation which characterizes this period as much as the individual's new conception of self, which, in turn, could only emerge full blown as a product of such cooperation. In discussing the first stage of communism, we saw that the satisfaction of social needs had become the accepted goal of material production.
By full communism, this goal has sunk into the consciousness of each individual, determining how he or she views all the products of his or her work. Besides the sense of devotedness which comes from feeling oneself a part of a productive unit and the productive unit a part of oneself , each person gives his best because he is aware of the needs of those who use his products and because he conceives of those needs as his own.
He realizes that the better he does the more satisfaction he gives.
This desire to please is not associated with any sense of duty, but with the satisfaction one gets at this time in helping others. Assuming the role of communist, Marx proclaims, "in your joy or in your use of my product, I would have the direct joy from my good conscience of having, by my work, satisfied a human need This should not be so hard to conceive when we think of how close friends and relatives often get pleasure from the happiness they give each other. Human togetherness has become its own justification. A third characteristic distinctive of the communist society is the replacement of private property by social ownership in personal as well as public effects.
Small businesses, however, still existed at least at the beginning of the first stage, and articles subject to direct consumption were still owned as private property. Most people attached great value to the particular objects they used for these were not easy to replace, and, in any case, cost money labor vouchers which could be spent on something else.
Under such conditions, cooperation did not extend to sharing all that one had with others, and the grasping attitude so prevalent today still had to be reckoned with, though probably less among the proletariat who had fewer material possessions to begin with, than among the small-holding peasants and the remnants of the bourgeoisie. Private property, by its very nature, secures the owner special rights over and against all non-owners. This is the situation in communism; the clash of competing interests has disappeared and with it the need to claim rights of any sort.
We have just seen how aware each communist person is of the effect his actions have on others and how concerned he is with their obtaining satisfaction, both because his own personal needs require it and because he has conceptualized himself as a social being of which they are integral parts. It is this which allows him to say, "The sense and enjoyment of other men have become my own appropriation. Of private property in land, Marx says, "From the standpoint of a higher economic form of society, private ownership of the globe by single individuals will appear quite as absurd as private ownership of one man by another.
It should be clear that it is never a matter of people depriving themselves for the sake of others. Consumption for all citizens is that which "the full development of the individual requires. Private property has always been based, in a fundamental sense, on the existence of material scarcity. This applies to the dictatorship of the proletariat as well as to earlier periods. What one man or a few had could not be acquired by the many, because there simply was not enough to go around.
Demand exceeds supply; those who Have use the idea of private property and the coercive power of the state to reinforce their position; those who Have Not compete for the social product with every means at their disposal from beggary to revolution. But, when supply is so plentiful that everyone can have as much of anything as he wants just for the asking and where the things wanted in earlier class societies because of the power and status they represent are no longer wanted , the social relationships that rest on existing scarcity are turned upside down.
Who today would begrudge another person a drink of water, or, for that matter, all the water he wants? If water were scarce, however, those who had it would board it, or would charge a price for what they let others use. Water would become an item of private property. In communism all material goods have become as abundant as water is today.
Only on this foundation, can people view whatever they happen to be using at the moment as social objects, as products made by everyone for everyone. There is no longer "mine," "yours," "his," and "hers" but only "ours. Another unique attribute of communist society is the masterly control which human beings exercise over all the forces and objects of nature. Previously, people were chiefly objects of nature, and their happiness and often their lives depended on their mechanical power and skills, the demand for their work or products, and many other events and processes whose effects were equally uncertain.
In communism, Marx declares the task "is to put in place of the supremacy of exterior conditions and of chance over individuals, the supremacy of the individuals over chance and objective conditions. For Marx, the "laws of nature" which are said to govern us are "founded on the want of knowledge of those whose action is the subject to it.
People understand their total environment, how it functions and what its possibilities are. Implicit in Marx's view is the belief that when communist people fully comprehend nature they will not desire anything which stands outside their effective reach. This belief, in turn, is based on his conception of how far people's reach actually extends in communism and accompanying assumptions regarding the creative potential of their cooperation.
Marx is saying, in effect, that much of what people today want to do but cannot will be done under the ideal conditions of communism, that what remains are things which the extraordinary people of this time will not want to do, and most important, that what they will want to do which we do not we caught a glimpse of what this might be in presenting the material prerequisites of communism they will easily accomplish. Yet, so complete is their grasp of the interconnected parts which constitute communist reality that Marx foresees natural science and human science will become one.
In learning about either society or nature, the individual will recognize that he is learning about both. Communist people cannot change the climate or can they? As for the rest, Marx seems to believe that a united and cooperating humankind can dominate nature directly, and his conception o the productive potential of industry seems closer to the reality we expect for tomorrow than the one we have today. We are told that "The reality which communism is creating is precisely the real basis for rendering it impossible that anything exist independently of individuals, in so far as things are only a product of the preceding intercourse of individuals themselves.
As for those objects and processes not already a part of human intercourse, Marx declares man, "for the first time, consciously treats all natural premises as the creatures of men, strips them of their natural character and subjugates them to the power of individuals united. Viewing people's ties with nature as logically internal relations over which each person in conjunction with his or her fellows has now gained conscious mastery, Marx can claim that in communism "nature becomes man. Marx does not supply us with a map of communist topography, so we are left with the notion that physical changes are enormous without knowing in much detail what they are.
We have already come across some of them, such as the spatial reorganization of town and countryside. Probably nothing shows the extent to which Marx foresaw human domination over nature better, however, than his comment that language will "submit to the perfect control of individuals. The key to the individual's newly arrived at domination over nature lies in the peculiar quality of communist cooperation. Marx labels cooperation in any historical period a "productive force," which is a way of saying that the form of social interaction as such is partly responsible for the quantity and quality of its products.
According to Marx, "It is just this combination of individuals assuming the advanced stage of modern productive forces, of course which puts the conditions of the free development and movement of individuals under their control. A fifth striking feature of communism is the absence of external rules and with it of all forms of coercion and discipline. Aside from work in factories and on farms, none of the activities people engage in at this time are organized by others, from outside; that is to say, there is nothing they must do and no predetermined manner or time restrictions they must follow in doing it.
On the other hand, coordination is the minimal demand which social production, per se makes on all its participants. Hence, some organization, headed by someone whose job it is to coordinate productive tasks, is required of every society. According to Marx, "in all kinds of work where there is cooperation of many individuals, the connection and the unity of the process are necessarily represented in a will which commands and in functions which, as for the leader of an orchestra, are not concerned with partial efforts, but with the collective activity.
It is therefore a productive work which must be accomplished in any mode of combined production. However, even in production, the organization which Marx foresees in communism is a far cry from what exists today. Though factories and farms still possess managers, their duties are simply to coordinate the efforts of those who work under them; they act as leaders of an orchestra. Since people in communism are frequently changing jobs, we can assume that at one time or another almost everyone will serve as a manager. The orchestra which is being directed is always willing and enthusiastic, since its goals and those of the manager are the same, viz.
In capitalism, workers do as little and as shoddy a job as they can get away with and their bosses are constantly after them to work even more and harder than they could if they were really trying. In communism, laziness, which Marx views as an historically conditioned phenomenon, would die a natural death. Marx claims fines, dismissals, threats, etc. Marx claims such discipline "will become superfluous under a social system in which laborers work for their own account, as it has already become practically superfluous in piece-work.
What have we learned about work in communism? Without coercion and full of mutual concern, in pleasant surroundings and for relatively short periods each day week? Frequently changing tasks, they find both joy and fulfillment in their cooperation ands its momentous achievements. Unlike Fourier, however, who compares work in communism to play, Marx says it will be earnest and intense effort as befits any truly creative activity.
If this qualification places work in the realm of necessity, however, it doesn't follow that work is an un-free activity. In his most forthright statement on this subject, Marx calls human freedom "the positive power to assert his true individuality. Consequently, Marx can speak of work in this period as the "activity of real freedom. If people in communism are so cooperative that the only productive organization is that minimum required by economic efficiency, then, we may expect that even this minimum will disappear in the non-work areas of life. In one listing, we learn that soldiers, policemen, hangmen, legislators, and judges are equally unnecessary "under proper conditions of society.
With the sole exception of production, all forms of organization adopted in the dictatorship of the proletariat serve in the role of Wittgenstein's ladder for communist people; they enable them to climb into communism, only to be discarded then they get there. Perfect success is too much to ask from the full-time job Marx gives each communist person of being his brother's keeper. Marx declares that, "under human conditions, punishment will really be nothing but the sentence passed by the culprit on himself. There will be no attempt to persuade him that violence from without, exerted on him by others, is violence on himself by himself.
On the contrary, he will see in other men his natural saviors from the sentence which he has pronounced on himself; in other words the relation will be reversed. Guilt is a burden that can only be removed by others. In communism, society's role has changed from punishing wrong-doers to reassuring and soothing them to help relieve their self-inflicted anguish.
We should not be surprised to learn that in these conditions there is no place for a state. Simply put, the state withers away because there is nothing further for it to do. The main work of the dictatorship of the proletariat was to destroy all remnants of capitalism and to construct the foundations for full communism.
Laws, organization, discipline, coercion, etc. But now communism is the reality, and capitalism is history. Marx says, "When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of associated individuals, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. Marx rephrases this question to read, "What social functions will remain in existence there that are analogous to present functions of the state?
The three main functions of any state are legislation, adjudication, and administration.
Of legislation, Marx says, in communism all forms of parliamentarism will be "ranged under the category of nuisances. They are battlefields of the class struggle, battlefields on which the ruling economic class, obtaining its majority by means fair and foul, legislates repeated defeats for the opposition. But the people of communism are agreed on all the subjects which could possibly come before a parliament. Where interests merge and decisions are unanimous it is not necessary to go through the formality of counting hands. Further-more, all really major decisions, those bearing on the structure of communism itself, have already been taken by this time.
People have what they want, that is, communism, and there is nothing for a legislature, whose main function is to make changes, to change. Whatever minor adjustments are required are at best undertaken by the people on the spot, directly. The judicial arm of government, too, is based on an assumption of necessary conflict between people. From the quasi-sanctification of a raised bench, the ruling class, in the person of some of its more pompous representatives, renders biased interpretations of one-sided laws.
But if this conflict doesn't exist? A typical case which comes before courts everywhere is a suit for injuries. Rather than insisting on revenge or compensation, our victim would probably join with co-workers and neighbors to east the guilt of the person who injured him. All "claims for damages" will be dispensed with in this way, by the people concerned directly. The other cases which come before our courts today, those involving murder, robbery, kidnapping, forgery, etc. They have been made either impossible, since everything people want is free and legal papers which secure special rights and powers don't exist, or unnecessary, since there is nothing people want that requires such anti-social measures.
What, then, is the need for the courts? The case of the administration is a bit more complicated. One main function of the administrative branch of government is to enforce the laws. In communist society, where there are no laws and where social norms are accepted and heeded by all, this function no longer exists. But another task remains which is comparable to the coordination provided by factory managers.
In the area of production, communist society as a whole, like its individual enterprises, will require the general supervision of managers. Duplication was well as gaps in production and services have to be prevented. Coordinating efforts, therefore, will be needed at all the major crossroads of social life, wherever, in fact, a traffic director is useful in helping people get where they want to go. Some might argue that this coordinating function conceals acts of legislation and adjudication, and that administrators are the new law-givers and judges of this period, but communism is unique in having administrators and administered who are striving to achieve the same ends.
Their mutual trust and concern with one another are likewise complete. Consequently, the minor alterations and judgements required are accepted as expression of a common will. Recall, too, that each individual has come to conceive of his fellows as parts of himself, as extensions of his nature as a social being, so even when he is not directly involved in administration he feels himself involved through his relations with those who are.
Furthermore, since the activity of coordinating social life at its various levels is something everyone will undertake at some time or another, there is no special strata of administrators. To describe this state of affairs in terms of "legislature," laws," courts," etc. This work of administration, more properly of coordination, is the only function in communism which is analogous to the duties of a modern state. Distributing these administrative tasks takes place through an election which Marx describes as a "business matter. In any case, victory does not "result in any domination.
In these conditions, Marx is able to claim, "The whole people will govern; there will be no one to be governed. Could a complex industrial society by run in this manner? Marx believed it could not be run as effectively in any other. After all, many of the worst administrative complexities are byproducts of present social organization and its accompanying attitudes.
The extensive red-tape bureaucracies for which modern day "socialist" countries are noted do not offer any indication of what to expect when the special conditions Marx lays down for communism have been fulfilled. Likewise, a great deal of administrative calculation in government as elsewhere is devoted to getting people to obey rules they don't like, deciding what incentives to offer and how to punish slackers; manipulations connected with improving the position of privileged segments of the ruling class or trying to harmonize competing social interests are other components of existing complexity.
With new aims and standards, and, above all, new communist people, most of what makes social administration an unfathomable labyrinth will disappear. Simple cooperation within each functional social unit together with single purpose coordination between them provides communism as an advanced industrial society with all the "administration" it requires. Sixth and last, communist society is also unique in the kind of human groups it has and doesn't have. No doubt, for many people a world where these distinctions cannot be made is inconceivable.
Yet, this is just the situation Marx introduces us to in communism. First of all, our glove is no longer divided into countries. One should recognize, however, that the term "nation" has been imported from the vocabulary of another time. The world as a nation performs none of the functions associated with the nations of old. Both as a producer and as a consumer, the individual is profoundly affected by the disappearance of the sate.
If art can free itself of the limiting effect of customs, so can material production and indeed everything else people do once the constraints of nationhood and nationalism are removed. I have already noted Marx's belief that everyone will eventually speak a single language. Latin and Latin culture have enriched the lives of millions long after the decline of the Roman empire, and I expect the same fate awaits most other tongues and traditions which are now widespread. The cosmopolitanism of people as producers is matched by their new cosmopolitanism as consumers.
People are able to use and fully appreciate all manner of products. Of this period, Marx says, "Only then will the separate individuals be liberated from the various national and local barriers, be brought into practical connection with the material and intellectual production of the whole world and be put in a position to acquire the capacity to enjoy this all-sided production of the whole earth the creations of man. Religious divisions between people have also ceased to exist in communism with the demise of all mystical beliefs.
Superstition has given way to science, and individual fear and weakness to the power of the community. What Marx calls "the witchery of religion" is no more. The truth is that religion has stopped being a matter of concern. People are neither for nor against it; they are disinterested. As with the state, religion simply withers away as its functions, particularly of explanation and compensation, disappear.
The distinction between city-bred and country-bred people also falls by the wayside in communism where the whole countryside is spotted with cities and cities are equally invaded by the countryside. Divisions between people on the basis of class were practically non-existent in the first stage of communism, where everyone was already a worker. In one place, Marx goes so far as to claim that with everyone engaged in productive work classes cease to exist. As for setting people apart because of their occupations, this went out with permanent occupations. Each person in communism engages in a variety of productive tasks.
Probably the least known of Marx's projections for communism has to do with the end of racial divisions. Marx did not enjoy floundering so deeply in the unknown; nevertheless, his single expression of opinion on this subject is very forthright. While discussing the effect of environment, Marx says, "The capacity for development of infants depends on the development of parents and all the mutilations of individuals, which are an historical product of ancient social conditions, are equally capable of being historically avoided.
Even the natural diversity of species, as for example the differences of race, etc. Marx spoke of the "earthly family" being destroyed "both in theory and practice" in communism. Marx is guilty of none of these sins. To begin with, the form of the family that he claims will disappear is the bourgeois family. According to him, this is a form based on capital and private gain, in which economic advantage is the main reason for entering marriage, in which the male has practically all the rights, in which parents have almost totally power over their children, and in which the stifling closeness between members of the family excludes most kinds of intimacy with other people.
It is in this sense that Marx maintains the family had practically ceased to exist among the proletariat. The communist alternative to the family is never stated very clearly, but it can be pieced together from Marx's scattered comments on this subject. Its main features appear to be group living, monogamous sexual relationships, and the communal raising of children.
The group living aspect is apparent from Marx's contrast of the family with what he calls a "communal domestic economy. Whether people eat in communal dining rooms, sleep in the same building, share household tasks, etc. A great deal of the abuse leveled against communism has been directed at what is really a phantom of the bourgeois imagination. The abolition of the family and free love, that is indiscriminate sexual activity by both sexes, are almost always joined together in the minds of those who criticize communism. Marx, however, opposes sexual promiscuity at least for adults both for the society in which he lives and for communism.
His hostility to the sexual antics of the bourgeoisie and the sarcasm with which he treats charges of the same in communism are clear evidence of this. The universal love which was alluded to in our discussion of cooperation in communism odes not include engaging indiscriminately in the sexual act, for Marx acknowledges there will continue to be something like unrequited love and calls it a misfortune.
To grasp Marx's views on this subject, it is necessary to see that he is wholly on the side of love and lovers, that he demands a full quality for both partners, and that he views sexual love in communism as the highest expression of the new kind of relationship which exists between all people in this period. In The Holy Family , that extended review of Eugene Sue's novel Mysteries of Paris , Marx sides time and time again with the most sensual characters, with those who can and want to love.
The communal raising of children is never mentioned explicitly, but can be deduced from other aspects of communist life which seem to require it. For Marx, aside from minor differences due to heredity, a child's development is determined by his or her environment, an important part of which is the parental home. In capitalism, parents have considerable control over their children's health, education, work, marriage, etc. In communism, parents will no longer be allowed to exercise a destructive influence on their children. This does not mean that they will be forcibly separated form their young.
Given communist sociality, that is without the pervading selfishness and emotional insecurity which characterize current parent-child relations, communist parents will want a community no less perfect for their children than the one they construct for themselves. Not only children, of course, but adults as well require special conditions to realize their full human potential. We have already seen the importance Marx attaches to free time.
Though he never deals with the drain children are on their parents, particularly on mothers, he surely was aware of it. Already living in the "communal domestic economy," the arrangement which seems best suited to permit self-realization of young and old alike is some kind of communal raising of children. Parents and children simply spend as much time together and apart as their respective development requires.
Unlike today, however, the time together is no longer rooted in necessary work and customary duties, but in the same desire to satisfy common needs which characterizes all social contact in the communist society. It should be clear by now that Marx is far more precise about the social and other division which will disappear in communism than about what will replace them. Nations, religions, geographical sections, classes, occupations, races and families are to disappear, but what new social categories will emerge?
Before attempting an answer it is important to specify that Marx viewed all such division as barriers to the direct contact between people and, therefore, to the fulfillment of human potential in so far as it requires this contact. With the overturning of these barriers, people can see, appreciate, and react to each other as individuals, rather than as members of the groups into which they were either born or educated. People can no longer be treated as instances of a kind when the kinds of which they are instances themselves disappear.
Erasing social lines per se , then, is a major task of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and fusion of the once separate and distinct social categories is one of the surest signs that communism has arrived. However, even communism contains boundary lines of a sort which allow some distinctions between people to be made. From what has been said, it would appear that these new subdivisions, like the social organs they contain, are consciously designed functional units which merely express the most efficient and human ways of getting things done.