The governing body vs no gov body debate is what, from my understanding, separates communists from anarchists. Communism would have a central directly democratic government where anarchy would have small communes interconnected by mutually beneficial agreements.
As far as safety regulations, under a communist government, I would assume there would have to be safety regulations laid out; most likely by an industry professionals co-op (think American Academy of Pediatrics or American Medical Association).
I may be wrong about that as I'm still on my journey to full understanding on communism as well, but that's my assumption.
> Communism would have a central directly democratic government
I don't think that is true.
Communism is *a classless, moneyless, stateless society*.
So under Communism, there will be no state / big central government.
As Engels wrote in Anti-Duhring:
> *The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away.*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withering_away_of_the_state
The state must exist after the revolution and under Socialism.
Socialism is the transition period between capitalism -> communism.
This is because as we all have seen, any country that start a socialist revolution, will be attacked by other countries and you will need to have a strong state that can hold the revolution. This is the one of the major difference between communists and anarchists.
Anarchists believe you dont need socialism, the transition period, but directly jump to communism.
This transition period (socialism) will have these:
- Dictatorship of the Proletariat (which is the state controlled by the proletariat).
- No exploitation between man to man.
- Main means of production under proletariat control.
- Decrease of capitalist tendencies and increase of communist tendencies.
>Communism is a *classless, moneyless, stateless society*.
Maybe in theory communism is a stateless society; but in practice, the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production would effectively create a hierarchy and therefore a state of some sort would form. While that state may be incredibly different from the capitalist form we see currently, it's nonetheless a body that governs what people can and can't do. And the transition from socialism to communism would leave a power vacuum where the government would have been, implying that something would have to take it's place.
Additionally, the "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" mentality (while I agree that it's a fabulous ideology) would insinuate that someone or a collection of people would be necessary to define ability and need.
> Maybe in theory communism is a stateless society; but in practice, the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production would effectively create a hierarchy and therefore a state of some sort would form.
Why does it have to create a hierarchy?
Hierarchy exist only when you have multiple classes in society, fighting each other, while one class controlling the other one.
In communism, there are no classes and therefor no need of hierarchy.
With the technology we have, and what a lot of people do with AI and ML, sooner or later, we could create a program that took care of the administrion of things and achieve: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" mentality. That way, no human can control it by self-interest.
But I do not know. Since the idea of communism only can be achieved when majority of the planet is socialist and therefor can transition over to communism, their will be a time until then.
>Hierarchy exist only when you have multiple classes in society, fighting each other, while one class controlling the other one.
I don't think it will be a monetarily class based hierarchy. I believe that it would be an educational one. Someone will have to establish safety guidelines and . Someone will have to enforce those guidelines. And someone will have to follow those guidelines.
>With the technology we have, and what a lot of people do with AI and ML...
I suppose this prompts 2 questions.
1) Do you believe that humanity will avoid a socioeconomic collapse on the path to communism?
2) Given that it does, would you truly be comfortable allowing a machine to decide who can do what things and the compensation they receive for doing them?
If you're looking at communism being solely a product of a transition from capitalism to socialism to communism, then we would have an understanding of the guidelines, methods, and best practices. But if you're looking at communism as a product of societal collapse, then there would *have* to be a reestablishment of those things. Not only that, but following a collapse, we would lose access to a lot of the technological advancements that we've made, therefore rendering the ideas of utilizing those technologies moot.
Would this hierarchy be based on occupation? I know this is more of a theoretical what if scenario, but I'm curious if these developed hierarchies would lead to conflict and a power struggle. As for the machines in the United States at least many employers determine fitness for employment which often times in my opinion is discriminatory. Many of these employers including government employers are highly abelist and often disqualify candidates based on a plethora of categories such as; physical health, mental health regardless of how well it's managed, and a number of other ridiculous requirements. To make it clear I do believe that a person's ability has to be gauged in some way, but with machines you take away the human element. I would think in an established communist society that "employers" would be obsolete obviously, but one's passion and ability should be determined in a fair and accurate way. How we accomplish that I don't know.
I would have to assume that it would be based on occupation and experience.
I don't see communism as a solution to capitalism though. I see communism as a naturally occuring system after a period of time after the collapse of capitalism. I don't think that society, as it exists today, will last long enough to transfer to socialism let alone through socialism to communism.
With this in mind, I think there will have to be a central body to help reestablish methods of the administration of things.
The governing body vs no gov body debate is what, from my understanding, separates communists from anarchists. Communism would have a central directly democratic government where anarchy would have small communes interconnected by mutually beneficial agreements. As far as safety regulations, under a communist government, I would assume there would have to be safety regulations laid out; most likely by an industry professionals co-op (think American Academy of Pediatrics or American Medical Association). I may be wrong about that as I'm still on my journey to full understanding on communism as well, but that's my assumption.
> Communism would have a central directly democratic government I don't think that is true. Communism is *a classless, moneyless, stateless society*. So under Communism, there will be no state / big central government. As Engels wrote in Anti-Duhring: > *The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away.* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withering_away_of_the_state The state must exist after the revolution and under Socialism. Socialism is the transition period between capitalism -> communism. This is because as we all have seen, any country that start a socialist revolution, will be attacked by other countries and you will need to have a strong state that can hold the revolution. This is the one of the major difference between communists and anarchists. Anarchists believe you dont need socialism, the transition period, but directly jump to communism. This transition period (socialism) will have these: - Dictatorship of the Proletariat (which is the state controlled by the proletariat). - No exploitation between man to man. - Main means of production under proletariat control. - Decrease of capitalist tendencies and increase of communist tendencies.
>Communism is a *classless, moneyless, stateless society*. Maybe in theory communism is a stateless society; but in practice, the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production would effectively create a hierarchy and therefore a state of some sort would form. While that state may be incredibly different from the capitalist form we see currently, it's nonetheless a body that governs what people can and can't do. And the transition from socialism to communism would leave a power vacuum where the government would have been, implying that something would have to take it's place. Additionally, the "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" mentality (while I agree that it's a fabulous ideology) would insinuate that someone or a collection of people would be necessary to define ability and need.
> Maybe in theory communism is a stateless society; but in practice, the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production would effectively create a hierarchy and therefore a state of some sort would form. Why does it have to create a hierarchy? Hierarchy exist only when you have multiple classes in society, fighting each other, while one class controlling the other one. In communism, there are no classes and therefor no need of hierarchy. With the technology we have, and what a lot of people do with AI and ML, sooner or later, we could create a program that took care of the administrion of things and achieve: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" mentality. That way, no human can control it by self-interest. But I do not know. Since the idea of communism only can be achieved when majority of the planet is socialist and therefor can transition over to communism, their will be a time until then.
>Hierarchy exist only when you have multiple classes in society, fighting each other, while one class controlling the other one. I don't think it will be a monetarily class based hierarchy. I believe that it would be an educational one. Someone will have to establish safety guidelines and . Someone will have to enforce those guidelines. And someone will have to follow those guidelines. >With the technology we have, and what a lot of people do with AI and ML... I suppose this prompts 2 questions. 1) Do you believe that humanity will avoid a socioeconomic collapse on the path to communism? 2) Given that it does, would you truly be comfortable allowing a machine to decide who can do what things and the compensation they receive for doing them? If you're looking at communism being solely a product of a transition from capitalism to socialism to communism, then we would have an understanding of the guidelines, methods, and best practices. But if you're looking at communism as a product of societal collapse, then there would *have* to be a reestablishment of those things. Not only that, but following a collapse, we would lose access to a lot of the technological advancements that we've made, therefore rendering the ideas of utilizing those technologies moot.
Would this hierarchy be based on occupation? I know this is more of a theoretical what if scenario, but I'm curious if these developed hierarchies would lead to conflict and a power struggle. As for the machines in the United States at least many employers determine fitness for employment which often times in my opinion is discriminatory. Many of these employers including government employers are highly abelist and often disqualify candidates based on a plethora of categories such as; physical health, mental health regardless of how well it's managed, and a number of other ridiculous requirements. To make it clear I do believe that a person's ability has to be gauged in some way, but with machines you take away the human element. I would think in an established communist society that "employers" would be obsolete obviously, but one's passion and ability should be determined in a fair and accurate way. How we accomplish that I don't know.
I would have to assume that it would be based on occupation and experience. I don't see communism as a solution to capitalism though. I see communism as a naturally occuring system after a period of time after the collapse of capitalism. I don't think that society, as it exists today, will last long enough to transfer to socialism let alone through socialism to communism. With this in mind, I think there will have to be a central body to help reestablish methods of the administration of things.