<p>@ThatOneWeirdGuy </p>
<p>The “communist” governments that you say claimed millions of lives were not communist at all. The Soviet Union was state capitalist. North Korea is a degenerated worker’s state. China is state capitalist, they even have Macau and Hong Kong labeled “Special Administrative Regions”, essentially places were enterprise is less controlled and China can cash in on sea trade through raw capitalism.</p>
<p>Communism has no state, currency, or class. The Soviet Union, North Korea, or any “communist” government ever in existence had all of those. They were not communist. This is an unfortunate topic for communists because assumptions are made with the atrocities of the Soviet Union in the background, which was not even a communist government.</p>
<p>The Soviet Union had good beginnings - it was a proletarian movement, however I believe Lenin somewhat corrupted it with his idea of the “Vanguard party”. As i read in “The Coming Insurrection” (essentially an Insurrectionist Anarchist ‘manifesto’), the second small groups get into power it has the potential to become a milieu which in turn becomes an official entity, which allows for government. The vanguard party envisioned by Lenin is a group of “professional revolutionaries” that have to lead the proletarians because the common man simply isn’t smart enough to know how to do it himself. The common man is receptible to compromise and will bite at the little things that the state will give him. So, Lenin and his comrades ran the revolution. However, that vanguard party soon took power - and while Lenin managed it fairly well until his death, it became a power-battle between Trotsky and Stalin, the latter obviously taking charge. Stalin created a legacy we will not forget, the Communist Party became corrupted and became a dictatorship. He destroyed the New Economic Policy that was working for a while, implementing 5-year plans characterized by mass collectivization and rapid industrialization. Stalin did a lot to consolidate his power, but many of the estimates created by the U.S. agencies and other third-party agencies are exaggerated, in my opinion. He was an evil dictator, but not as much as he is painted out to be.</p>
<p>The issue with the Soviet Union in my eyes was - it was rushed. I believe that once the working class takes power, they have to transition to communism through a prolonged period of socialism. Socialism is when the working class is in POLITICAL power in the state. The idea here is that with the working class in power, there is no need to protect private property, which is viewed as the sole purpose of a state in the communist sense. Due to that, the state is no longer necessary. As the constructs of bourgeoisie government are removed, we progress to a society devoid of class and currency. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Communism itself has never been put in practice. No society has ever evolved to that point. You have brought up the classic human nature card. We communists have heard that one many times. Here you go:</p>
<p><a href=“Science overturns view of humans as naturally 'nasty'”>http://phys.org/news/2012-02-science-overturns-view-humans-naturally.html</a></p>
<p>Humans, like all animals, are hardwired to be cooperative. We need each other to survive, and that is learned from a very young age. It is the state that corrupts people and makes them power-hungry. Those that gain power in a state want more. So, what better thing to do than to rid of the state itself?</p>
<p>I think it is also important to make the distinction between the anarchist and communist viewpoint.</p>
<p>In general, an anarchist wants to overthrow the state and rid of it immediately after the revolution.
A communist wants to overthrow the state and take charge of it, then since the state no longer serves any meaningful purpose, it will “wither away”. Communism and anarchism are not interchangable terms. There are anarcho-communists, anarcho-syndicalists - some many agree or disagree with the above definitions I have provided. </p>
<p>I am a Marxist - meaning I believe that Marx’s political theory is what will happen one day and we need to be ready for it. Marx, 150 years before our time, successfully predicted the rise of an income tax, an increasingly widening wealth gap, globalization(and thus an indirect and direct censorship of local culture), and the “reserve army of labor”, among many more. I believe there will be a point, in the next few hundred years, the situation will become unbearable for the common person. I think a revolution WILL occur some day based on this economic issue.</p>
<p>I don’t make the distinction on HOW revolution should be done. Lenin advocates communism everywhere with a vanguard party. In contrast, Stalinism advocated for communism in ONE country. I personally disagree with that in particular because it would be hard for a communist society to discuss and adopt a consistent foreign policy with other nations. I think the revolution will have to be run by those who are in the scenario itself. We cannot predict what a revolution will be like or look like. I don’t necessarily want a revolution or advocate one. However my belief is that a revolution will inevitably occur one day, and the people living in that time should be ready for it. I’m not an edgy 13 year old who wants to revolt against opresion!111!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>These are not bad questions. What do you believe that the state “withering away” completely represents? I think I should clarify on what a state is. On google dictionary or something, it says “a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government”. The idea with the communist revolutionary theory is that we must take control of the state. This does not mean direct destruction of state infrastructure(like universities, hospitals, roads, etc.) </p>
<p>There are varying opinions though on how a communist society should be governed. (Keep in mind though, government does not mean a state). An idea I think would work is that towns and surrounding areas should be divided into communes, where direct democracy can be implemented. These communes will be bordered and designs so that they can produce anything they need within its borders. New York City and the surrounding country side could be a possible commune. If for some reason a commune is unable to provide itself with a necessary resource, say, food, I am sure there is another community that would have a surplus of food. Some believe that instead of communes there should be wide tracts of land that would be governed by direct democracy. I disagree with that viewpoint because direct democracy on a large scale can become tedious and ineffective.</p>