https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/pretend-im-stupid/9348/5
Through divergence from your ideology, perhaps. It’s a wild thing, I know, and yet, there are economists who advocate anti-market stances (though many socialists embrace the market these days), such as Robin Hahnel. That said, I think the topic was the actual definition of communism, not its feasibility.
Communism is a society where everything is held in common and thus no division of labor is possible or desirable. Due to the hierarchical nature of the state, it is not really compatible with communism, but then again communism is full of confusion and contradictions so why not?
Socialism is similar to capitalism in the sense that it seeks to deploy capital investments at enormous scale, only instead of these investments going to the benefit of private individuals, they are the monopoly of the state (which is why some anarchists describe it as “state capitalism”). This is also why some thinkers have described socialism as just feudalism at an unprecedented scale.
Absolutely not. It was an ultra-socialist state whose ideology was communist as an end-goal. This is why, when the SU came down, some industries started dumping their useless products and witnesses to this sarcastically observed “has communism finally arrived?”
Not really. His communist manifesto was just a blueprint for modern social democracy.
If there is no state, then who abolishes money and markets (voluntary exchange is how we use the term market)?
It just seems to me that if people cannot voluntarily choose money or markets, then there must be some state sort of mechanism (in action and intent if not in name or explicit organization) that is preventing people from choosing to trade freely and develop mediums of exchange (which can only emerge via the market).
Also, I’m not sure what the supposed objection to voluntary exchange is. Certainly I am having real trouble understanding what will replace it in lieu of the state proper.
Sincere questions. If you can explain it that would be really great. I think it’s important to understand other points of view before rejecting them outright. That said, please don’t bury me in sources I won’t read (opportunity costs). Just a short version in your own words should suffice. Cheers.
Right, that is why it is called ‘The Communist Manifesto’ and why Marx called other socialists ‘utopian’ because they propound a theory in which socialism would be need to be welcomed by the mass of people, something similar to social democracy. Marx is a communist through and through.
-
Communism, in its purest sense, is supposed to abolish the State and private property. However, if communism is to exist it requires that wealth be redistributed in an “equitable” manner. Somebody has to plan what will be produced, how much, and how it will be distributed. Somebody has to ensure compliance with all this, and if there is noncompliance, somebody must be there to force it. So there will be a central planning board and people to enforce the “plans”; sounds like a State to me.
-
Socialism is supposed to be a transitory phase to pure communism. Socialism = State ownership of private property, communism = “communal” ownership. Of course, as described above, communism would require some State-like entity to exist anyway.
-
The USSR was socialist.
-
C’mon now!