Submitted by sudo in Communism

This is copied from a pamphlet someone handed me at a protest. This seems like a really good introduction to communism, for those who are willing to listen. I censored the name of the communist party that published it, to preserve my anonymity.


You probably think communism is bad, right? If you do, why do you think so? Is it because you have read about Marxism extensively, and decided it was harmful? Or, is it because others have told you that communism is bad? If it's the latter, then this pamphlet is for you.

If you belong to a political party, imagine a member of an opposing party were to describe your party. Would that description be an accurate representation of your political party? Of course not – it would be biased against your party. The same is true of communism – capitalists have spread all kinds of misinformation about communism. What most people think communism is is completely different from what it really is. So, if all of your knowledge of communism comes from the word of capitalists, forget it – it's probably wrong.

In order to understand communism, you must first understand something called dialectical materialism. You may think materialism means an obsession with worldly things, but that is not the type of materialism we are talking about here. Dialectical materialism is the philosophy of change. One assertion of dialectical materialism is that everything in nature is connected to and shaped by its surroundings (this applies not only to animals, but also to humans: human life, behavior, and thought are all shaped by their surroundings). Therefore, nothing in nature can be understood if it is considered in isolation from its surroundings. Dialectical materialism also says that nature is always in a state of change – that something is always dying out, and something else is always arising and developing. This means whatever the dominant force in a certain system is will not necessarily last forever – a different one may arise and take its place.

Another law of dialectics is that quantitative changes lead to qualitative changes. One example of this law in nature is boiling water – as you increase the temperature of the water (a quantitative change), the water will eventually boil (a qualitative change). Another example would be a town government – for a very small town, they may have direct democracy, where each citizen of the town can vote on a bill. However, as the town's population grows (a quantitative change), there will come a point at which there are simply too many people to participate in the government, and at that point, the town may change to a system of representative democracy, where citizens elect representatives to vote on bills in their place (a qualitative change).

Yet another law of dialectical materialism is that these changes do not happen haphazardly, but instead follow the law of contradictions. The dominant force in a system is called the thesis. If there are contradictions in the thesis, they will manifest themselves as the antithesis. As time goes on, the antithesis will grow stronger, until the thesis and antithesis violently collide, and annihilate each other. What is left over is called the synthesis, which will become the new thesis. If there are contradictions inherent in this new thesis, the cycle will repeat itself. For the town government example, direct democracy would be the thesis, and the town's growing population is the antithesis, which grows stronger as the population increases. Eventually, the two forces reach a tipping point, and the town switches to representative democracy (a synthesis). These four principles of dialectical materialism can be used to understand many things in nature, including many parts of human history, which we will do shortly. For more information on materialism, read Dialectical and Historical Materialism by Joseph Stalin (available at www.marxists.org, direct link).

Human history follows the laws of dialectics. Each epoch in human history thus far has had contradictions inherent to it, and each following epoch was born of a dialectical synthesis. When human civilization first began, humans organized themselves in tribes, since it was a natural extension of the family structure. As populations grew, the tribal organization could not effectively govern the people, and the ancient communal system was synthesized (not to be confused with communism). Under this system, landowners shared ownership of their land with each other, and made slaves work on the land (ancient Rome is a prime example of this mode of production). The ancient communal empires all over-extended their borders, and could not retain their territories, so they eventually collapsed. The state that the countryside was left in gave rise to feudalism, where in the country, lords used serfs to work on their land, and in the towns, journeymen and apprentices created commodities in the guild system. Feudalism fell to capitalism when the industrial revolution introduced new technology that made mass production possible, and more profitable than the feudal mode of production. For more information on past modes of production, read Chapter 1, Section A, Subsection 3 of The German Ideology, by Karl Marx (available at www.marxists.org, direct link).

Each previous mode of production ultimately fell due to contradictions inherent to that mode of production. Will the same happen for capitalism? Marxists say it will, because capitalism contains unsustainable flaws as well. This contradiction lies in the two classes of capitalism – the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie are the owners of the means of production (the means of production are the tools used to produce certain commodities, like a hammer used for metalwork, or a sickle used to harvest crops). The proletariat are the workers; people who are hired by the bourgeoisie to use the means of production to produce commodities. Under capitalism, the people who use the means of production – the proletariat – do not own the means of production. This is the contradiction inherent in capitalism. This contradiction causes several problems, which will be responsible for the downfall of capitalism.

One of these problems is surplus value. Surplus value, in short, is where capitalists do not pay workers for all of the value they have created. In order to understand this, we must first understand that labor creates value – indeed, a completed wooden chair is worth more than the raw materials needed to make a chair, and the only difference between the two is that the completed chair has had labor applied to it. Now, if the planks of wood needed to make a chair are worth $5 (hypothetically), and a completed chair is worth $50, we would expect the worker to be paid $45, since that is the amount of value they created. However, this does not happen under capitalism – the worker is paid a small fraction of the value they created. The leftover money – the surplus value – goes to the capitalist, even though the capitalist did not perform the labor. In many cases, the worker is only paid enough to survive – enough money to feed them and give them shelter, so that they can continue to work. (In cases where the worker is paid more than they need to survive, this is a concession to the working class, to delay revolution. Even here, the capitalist keeps some surplus value.)

If a worker becomes unhappy with this arrangement, and demands that they be paid for all of the value they have created, the capitalist can easily fire them, and replace them with a member of the reserve army of labor (unemployed workers). Because there are more workers than jobs, there will always be some unemployed workers under capitalism, and since human needs (such as food and shelter) are not free in capitalism, workers are forced to work to survive. Unemployed workers can be used to replace workers who (rightfully) demand to be paid more, since the unemployed worker will take the job, because they will then be able to afford their basic needs. Strikes give the workers limited leverage in having their demands met, but they cannot force the capitalists to pay them for all of the value they've created. For more information on surplus value, read Chapter 3 of Karl Marx by Vladimir Lenin (available at www.marxists.org, direct link).

Another problem of capitalism is alienation. Under capitalism, workers cannot see themselves in the products they create – the products become alien objects, exerting power over the workers. Since labor is forced, workers do not work to satisfy a need, but instead work as a means to satisfy external needs. Workers can only find enjoyment in lower, animal pleasures (such as eating), and find no joy in distinctly human labor. Should a worker win the lottery, or receive some large inheritance, they would not return to their job (this shows the alien nature of it). They might take expensive vacations, and do other things to satisfy their personal desires, but they will eventually grow bored of this, and take up some productive activity. This labor will not be alienated, because they are doing it of their own free will. It is to satisfy a need or want, and they would enjoy doing it. Workers would be free to partake in this kind of labor in communism, but they are alienated from their labor under capitalism. This is yet another undesirable feature of capitalism. For more information on alienated labor, read Estranged Labour by Karl Marx (available at www.marxists.org, direct link).

Ultimately, all of these problems will lead to the downfall of capitalism. In order to continue to function, the bourgeoisie must exploit the proletariat. Yet, the more they do this, the more the proletariat will resist it (worker resistance is the antithesis). This resistance will grow to a tipping point, where the workers will overthrow the capitalists in a revolution. They will replace capitalism with socialism, a system where workers collectively own their means of production. Under this system, production will be planned, and workers will focus on producing commodities with high use-values (a use value determines how “useful” a commodity is – something like food has a high use-value, since humans need it to live, whereas jewelry has a low use-value, since it is mostly a Veblen good). Socialism will be a transition phase to communism, where production is so streamlined that all human needs are free, and very few people will have to work (many will choose to, though). Communism will be the final mode of production, because there are no more socio-economic classes, so there are no contradictions inherent to the system, meaning there will be no antithesis that will lead to the downfall of communism.

Now that you understand a couple of the problems inherent in capitalism, and have a basic understanding of communism, it is time to debunk some common myths and misunderstandings about communism. One common misunderstanding is that there will be no private property under communism, so you will have to share your house with strangers. This is a misunderstanding of what communists mean by “private property.” When Karl Marx used the word, he was referring to property which is used to create surplus value. Nowadays, private property's definition has changed to mean any property owned by an individual (communists refer to this type of property as a possession). Communists have no objections to possessions, meaning you could still own your own house under communism. The only time a possession becomes private property is when the owner hires a worker to use the possession to create commodities, then keeps surplus value.

Another myth is that socialism looks like a good idea in theory, but it fails in practice, because humans are greedy by nature. The mistake here is assuming that human nature is constant and unchanging. Human nature is influenced by its surroundings, just like other things in nature. Under capitalism, people are conditioned to be competitive and greedy, because that is necessary for survival. Under socialism, these conditions would no longer be present, so there is no reason to believe most people would be inherently greedy. Moreover, some primitive humans organized themselves in groups similar to modern-day communes, which can't be explained by this static view of human nature. This myth also ignores the accomplishments that socialist countries have already achieved (read “Do Publically Owned, Planned Economies Work?” by Stephen Gowans, direct link).

Yet another myth is that socialism leads to governments that oppress their people, and that socialist governments are responsible for the deaths of millions of people. The first part simply makes no sense – a government that oppresses its people cannot possibly be socialist, because that would mean the proletariat is not in power (this is not a “no true Scotsman” fallacy, because oppressive governments are literally incompatible with the definition of socialism). As for the second part, many of the numbers of people reported to have died under socialism are grossly inflated (read “Lies Concerning the History of the Soviet Union” by Mario Sousa, direct link, as well as “Did Mao Really Kill Millions in the Great Leap Forward?” by Joseph Ball, direct link). Furthermore, the people making this claim make no mention of the number of people who have been killed by capitalists states – they focus only on socialist countries.

Some people think capitalism can be converted to socialism by working within the system. This will not work for reasons already listed, but it also will not work because the bourgeoisie have secured political power for themselves, and they have created barriers to entry in the political system that prevent proletarians from being elected to office (one of which is the immense amount of money needed to “get one's name out” in elections – only mainstream Republican and Democratic candidates are well known; few people know the names of third party candidates, or their proposed agendas). The bourgeoisie will not give up their power unless they are forced to, by a violent revolution.

This is only a brief introduction to communism – there is far more to understand. (Party name censored) has a reading list for people who want to learn more about communism (direct link - (link is broken)). If you agree that capitalism is a corrupt system, and you want to help fight for socialism, you should join a communist party, and educate other workers about the evils of capitalism.

13

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

SpiritOfTito wrote

Good introduction with your first reference from Stalin. Sigh.

No idea why Stalinism is still a thing given how he murdered all the original bolsheviks.

5

sudo OP wrote

I didn't write this, but I skimmed that article. It looks like he's just talking about Dialectical Materialism, so, besides it being written by Stalin, there shouldn't be anything "Stalinist" about it.

4

MHC wrote

I was in a party that claimed to be broad based socialist. The leadership turned out to be un-reconstructed old-time commie! They chucked me out.

0