Talk:Communist society

Recent edits

This article is about the hypothetical concept of a communist society and economy, it is not about criticisms of the economic policies of former Communist states or about the failure of the Great Leap Forward. Therefore have removed the recent edits in the economic section about collective farming and the issues of certain policies adopted by Communist states. -Battlecry 11:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It is an anecdote in this world for anyone to define Communist economy is NOT a failure in principle and of its hypothetical concept in reality.(114.42.76.140 (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC))

there was no "communist economy" ever implemented. It is an anecdote that somebody thinks that "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was ever put in practice or ever possible. -M.Altenmann >t 17:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

With a single exception: in Moscow 2042 an ingenuous way was described: every morning in Moscow the Communist Party of State Security issues an announcement "Today, the needs of a Soviet citizen are as follows:... ". -M.Altenmann >t 17:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

According to the Communist Manifesto, there is no Communist SOCIETY, but only communist ECONOMY of class struggle, originated from the exceptional confrontation between the wealthy and the unemployed, that shapes a form of Proletarian dictatorship environment similar to the Anglo-Saxons (a race that immigrated from the German tribes where Karl Marx experienced) society of its kind. (114.42.76.140 (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC))

Mertonian norms - and digital superabundance...

Communism is a specific stage of socioeconomic development predicated upon a superabundance of material wealth, which is postulated to arise from technological advances in the productive forces. This would allow for distribution based on need and social relations based on freely-associated individuals.

Cf. mertonian norms, not wanting to get involved in WP:OR, but maybe it would be useful to mention that the collapse of the cost of distribution (due to the internet) allows for the distribution of digitalisable wealth (knowledge, research, music, literature, etc) based on desire rather than need or wealth bears some similarity to the above paragraph, albeit limited to the immaterial. It's outside my domain of expertise, but there must be an abundance of material published on this. 20040302 (talk)

May I please capitalize the first letter in "communist state"?

Socialistguy (talk) 19:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

RGloucester pointed out in a recent contribution to Talk:Polish People's Republic that:

Per MOS:ISMCAPS. Communism, liberalism, socialism, conservatism, revanchism, marxism...no capitalisation for ideologies.

If you think this case is an exception, please explain your reasoning here.

Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Communist society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.futurehi.net/phlebas/text/cultnote.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Anarcho-communism vs Stalinism

I see that Bezet has removed my inclusion of Stalinism in the see also section. Since Stalinism is a form of communism I think it is relevant in an article about a hypothetical communist society. Readers might want to know what communism looks like in practice. If we remove Stalinism from the see also section then we should also remove anarcho-communism. Unlike Stalinism anarcho-communism isn't even a form of Marxism. Liberty5000 (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Liberty5000: The article itself, literally in the lead, states that: the term communist society should be distinguished from the Western concept of the communist state, the latter referring to a state ruled by a party which professes a variation of Marxism–Leninism. You are confusing the two terms. Moreover, a communist society is also the goal of anarchism. Please consult literature if you have any questions about this. BeŻet (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

No,communism is the goal of anarcho-communism. Anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. Is communism a goal of anarcho-capitalism? Obviously not. Liberty5000 (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism, it's a form of liberalism. Nearly all forms of classical and contemporary anarchism sees a communist society, or a version of it, as the ultimate goal, including most forms of individualist anarchism. BeŻet (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

That is your opinion, not an objective fact.The fact is, anarcho-capitalists self-identify as anarchists. But whether or not anarcho-capitalists are anarchists is not really relevant in this debate.I acknowledge that communism is the goal of anarcho-communism. But communism is also the goal of Stalinism, so, by your logic, we should also include Stalinism in the see also section. Also, you didn't really answer my objection. This page is written from a Marxist perspective so non-marxist ideologies like anarcho-communism are completely irrelevant. Stalinism is at least a form of Marxism. Liberty5000 (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Liberty5000: The objective fact is that anarcho-capitalism is widely rejected by anarchists as a form of anarchism. Anarcho-capitalists can self-identify as whatever they want. North Korea self-identifies as a Democratic People's Republic, you don't see anyone seriously arguing it's democratic. Stalinism isn't an ideology like anarcho-communism, it's a description of policies by and form of governance employed by Joseph Stalin, and essentially a word referring to the period he was in power. BeŻet (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

And those policies were Marxist policies because Stalin was a Marxist.I would argue that Stalinism is an ideology. Those who defend Stalin are ideological Stalinists.I have a question for you. Do you agree that anarcho-communism is non-marxist? Liberty5000 (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's non-marxist in the sense that Kropotkin argued, that the fruit of labour should belong to the community as a whole, whereas Marx argued it should belong to the worker. Kropotkin also believed that society itself should immediately transform itself into a communist society, whereas Marx supported a two phase-approach. If you want to learn more, I recommend reading Kropotkin's writings. BeŻet (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

You didn't respond to the part where I argued that Stalinism is an ideology. Also, even if Stalinism isn't an ideology, why would that matter? Is technological determinism an ideology? Liberty5000 (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The "See Also" section is supposed to list important related articles. I don't understand how this 25 year period is relevant, or how it aids the understanding of the concept of communist society in any way. The only reason why we are discussing Stalinism as an ideology is because of you comparing it to anarcho-communism, the latter explicitly talking about a communist society. BeŻet (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

But this article is about communism from a Marxist perspective, not an anarchist perspective. You claim that communism is the goal of anarcho-communism. That applies also to Stalinism. Also, Stalinism doesn't just refer to the 25 years in which Stalin was in power. Hoxha, for example, was an ideological Stalinist. Liberty5000 (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Anarcho-communism very explicitly talks about a communist society, and therefore it is included in the list (I implore you read Kropotkin or other anarchists). If we were to include Stalinism, why don't we then include libertarian socialism, libertarian Marxism, syndicalism, Trotskyism, Maoism, Leninism, Tkachevism, Magonism, Lassallism, Blanquism, Neozapatism... The connection between Stalinism and a communist society is trivial. It is more relevant to talk about it in the context of a communist state. BeŻet (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. If we include anarcho-communism we might as well include all of those other ideologies. Compared to Stalinism, Anarcho-communism is a very marginal ideology. Tens of millions of people lived under the Stalinist system. How many people have lived in an anarcho-communist system? Stalin was a communist who was explicitly committed to the creation of a communist society. In what way is the connection between Stalin and a communist society trivial? Let's not forget that Wikipedia is not allowed to claim or imply that anarcho-communism is somehow more authentically communist than Stalinism. That would be a violation of the NPOV policy. Liberty5000 (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I think what would aid this discussion would be you consulting the anarcho-communism article to get a better understanding of why it's relevant to include it here. The key differentiator here is that anarcho-communism wanted to instantly transform into a communist society, while most non-anarchist socialist movements imagine a step in between. Moreover, millions of people lived under an anarcho-communist system: around 7 million in Makhnovia, 2 million in KPAM and most prominently several million in Catalonia - but it's pointless to compare the two because Stalin never claimed he achieved a communist society. I'm not sure how better to explain to you why anarcho-communism is relevant here, but Stalinism isn't. BeŻet (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, Stalin did claim to have achieved a communist society. He claimed to have achieved the first phase of communism. Liberty5000 (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

That's totally incorrect. He never claimed he achieved a communist society. He may have claimed to had achieved the first step towards full communism, which in this case was state capitalism. Please consult sources more carefully, and consult the communist state article which explains this. BeŻet (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

My argument runs like this:

1.This article is written from a Marxist perspective.

2.Stalinism is a form of Marxism.

3.Anarcho-communism is not a form of Marxism.

4.Therefore, Stalinism is more relevant than Anarcho-communism.

Your arguments are:

1.Stalinism is not an ideology.

I would argue that Stalinism is in fact an ideology. To the extent that Stalinism is not a standalone ideology it is simply Marxism. Which makes it relevant to this article.

2.Communism is the goal of Anarcho-communism.

This argument is faulty because this applies also to Stalinism.

3.Anarcho-communism wants to instantly transform into a communist society while Stalinism imagines a step in between.

This argument would exclude Marxism from the see also section since Marxism also imagines a step in between. And even if it didn´t this argument would still be wrong. It´s the ultimate goal that matters. Liberty5000 (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what more I can explain and say other than, please consult articles about stalinism and anarcho-communism, which should help you in your understanding of the issue. A communist society is not uniquely tied to Marxism, neither is free association of individuals (which is both a Marxist and Anarchist concept). The article could be improved by talking more about a communist society in the anarcho-communist context, but by no means does this exclude anarcho-communism from being mentioned. I can explain again, although not sure what's the point: the reason why anarcho-communism is mentioned, and dozens of other ideologies are not is because anarcho-communism puts emphasis on instant transformation into a communist society. Is there anything unique in the context of a communist society when talking about Stalinism? BeŻet (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

You can't say anything because your arguments have all been destroyed. You could say that Stalin had unique methods when it came to achieving communism. Liberty5000 (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

This is not a YouTube comments section, we are not teenagers and we don't "destroy" arguments here. I have pointed out several false statements that you have made and insisted you consult literature so that the issue is clearer to you. Saying that "anarcho-communism" isn't Marxist and therefore does not belong here shows quite frankly a big lack of understanding of the history of socialism, and how free association of producers is considered both by Marxists and Anarchists as a goal and a key element of a communist society. Like I said plenty of times, the concept of a communist society is not unique to Marxism. You have not demonstrated any reason why Stalinism should be included here over any other term. All you are saying is that Stalin wanted to achieve a communist society, ignoring all nuance like, for example, the socialism in one country doctrine opposing the classical Marxist view, and by some critics seen as putting the goal of a communist society on the backburner. BeŻet (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Where is the criticism section

This article is not neutral and has no counter positions to its propositions. For instance, how will it solve the scarcity issue of ever-emerging technologies which are not yet cheap enough to reach the post-scarcity iteration. Do they cap technological progress once it meets basic needs, or do they not distribute emerging technology until everyone can have it controlling distribution at the state level? Balupton (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Issues like these are discussed in other articles such as Economic calculation problem. A communist economy by definition does not have this issue. We cannot know what a communist economy looks like since we are not in one. KetchupSalt (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Disputed change

A couple of days ago, I changed this text in the article:

A communist society is characterized by common ownership of the means of production with free access to the articles of consumption and is classless, stateless, and moneyless, implying the end of the exploitation of labour.

to this:

A communist society is characterized by common ownership of the means of production with free access to the articles of consumption and the resultant state it is claimed would be classless, stateless, and moneyless, implying the end of the exploitation of labour. [Emphasis added to show change]

I did not think this would be a controversial change, since there has never been, in the history of the world, a society which reached this utopian state, therefore it is literally impossible to know what that society would be like. Thus, it is only claimed by Marxist theorists that such a society would be classless, etc.

Clearly, several editors disagreed with the addition, and wish to revert to the original statement. I'm asking here for a consensus discussion: which of these two versions (or perhaps some third one) is preferred by the editors on this page? I'll ask first in this informal way, but if the results are unclear, or there is little response, I'll re-frame it as a formal RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I think I'm inclined to agree with the two editors who reverted your changes. This is all a theory, so extra verbosity seems unnecessary. If it isn't classless, stateless and moneyless, it is not a communist society. These are its defining features. –Vipz (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this obviously. It should also be kept in mind that the notion of primitive communism, the mode of production employed by pre-agrarian societies (and arguably early agrarian ones too), is supported by modern archeological finds. These societies are stateless because there is no surplus to extract, and without surplus there can be no classes, and without classes there can be no state. It is important to understand that a distinction is made between government and state, where the former exists in all societies but the latter only in societies where there are classes. This state of affairs persist up until some time after the Ubaid culture. KetchupSalt (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the reverters and previous two commenters. The change adds nothing except confusing extra words. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Utopian or Realistic?

A communist society in Marx' view would be practical due to the productive forces moving against private property. Save for post-scarcity and lack of issues, a communist society in terms of common ownership appears feasible.

That is, the reason a communist society is utopian is due to literature, not practice (as seen in the Spanish Revolution of 1936, evidence that such can operate) on the subject.

It is also vital we recognize capitalism, a social construct, is mutable -- its laws as well. Economics being a social science, "laws" in the study of economic systems are simply consistencies. Capitalism is not eternal; history proves such.

Finally, utopias are subjective. Marx' vision of communism differs from mine personally -- less optimism and more luddism. A liberal per say would enforce their own capitalist realism, claiming economics is a hard science with immutable laws (although a social science analyzes mutable social constructs whose laws are as well). It is inconceivable to conclude anthropology and sociology are irrelevant while the science studying merely how and not what should be is the answer.

I move to remove this article from the utopia category due to improper attribution. ManOfDirt (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)