Economy Without Money - Communism in 5 steps

Author: Best.Korea

Posts

Total: 48
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 251
Posts: 6,956
4
6
9
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
9
Many people cant imagine economy without money. Thats because most people are idiots.

I am here to explain it. You see, economy is just production and distribution of products.

Money is used to determine how many products will be distributed to a person. So, a person with more money is able to obtain more products.

But what if there was no money? 

Here are 5 easy steps of making economy without money.

Economy is production and distribution of products. So all what we have to do is to ensure products are produced and distributed.

For production, you need means of production and resources.

Step 1:
Government makes a list of means of production and resources available in a country.

Step 2:
Government decides what to produce. Government observes what is necessary to produce desired product.

Step 3:
Government gathers workers, gives them means of production and resources and tells them to work.

Step 4:
Government deploys observers who observe workers and make them work. Workers who dont produce desired results will not get paid at all and might be forced to spend some time in re-education camp.

Step 5:
After the products are produced, government distributes products to those who work, to members of the government and to military and to anyone government thinks is in need.

This is what I like about money-less Communism. Its simple, yet works.

Most importantly, it conserves resources while protecting society from imperialist agression and ensures morality and good life.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Tellingly, you fail to describe the nature of government.

The nature of government specified by the theory of Communism is the village council.  Village elders would make the decisions about what to produce and how to staff production.  To my mind, communism existed for a long time as a natural dynamic but has never been tested as some kind of constitutional mandate on a national scale.  SInce the village is no longer the fundamental governmental element of modern society and the idea of villages choosing one kind of product to specialize in or factory to build is centuries out of date- let's agree that Communism is an old-fashioned, generally untested theory with little relevance to modern Western democracies.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 251
Posts: 6,956
4
6
9
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
9
-->
@oromagi
"SInce the village is no longer the fundamental governmental element of modern society"

So you no like it becsuse it doesnt seem modern to you?

"and the idea of villages choosing one kind of product to specialize in or factory to build is centuries out of date"

Nobody suggested this in this thread. 

"let's agree that Communism is an old-fashioned, generally untested theory with little relevance to modern Western democracies."

Are you gay? Because you used the term "out of fashion" for 3 times in one comment.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
So you no like it becsuse it doesnt seem modern to you?
  • I am saying Communism is irrelevant
Nobody suggested this in this thread. 
  • but a core principle of Communism.  Not that you'd know that.


Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 251
Posts: 6,956
4
6
9
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
9
-->
@oromagi
Communism is irrelevant to what?

That is core principle? Are you drunk again?

You still havent answered my question. Are you gay?
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,066
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Best.Korea
There's communism and then there's authoritarianism.

And they're not quite the same.

If communism was actually a workable system, it would be utopic.

But it's not.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
sorry to provoke you, dimwit.   Forgot what I was talking to, I guess.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 251
Posts: 6,956
4
6
9
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
9
-->
@oromagi
Dont worry, I am pretty sure a princess like you will get over it.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 251
Posts: 6,956
4
6
9
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
9
-->
@zedvictor4
I prefer the authoritarian Communism like they have in North Korea.

The problem with humans is that they are evil. They only bow to authority. So the Communism is to be authoritarian if it is to exist.

This is why the best system of government is the one they have in North Korea.

Its really simple. Make people work and use the produced goods for the benefit of the government and military.

The only alternative to this is to let people do what they want, and we have seen where that leads.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,066
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Best.Korea
We rarely see anarchy if at all.

Though there are two different styles of authoritative government.

One uses force and oppression, and the other has the capability to use force but doesn't see the need to oppress its populace.

Do you think that there is anyone in North Korea who isn't wary of everyone.

Isn't North Korea a State of suspicion and fear for everyone, including Kim.


Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 251
Posts: 6,956
4
6
9
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
9
-->
@zedvictor4
The population is oppressed to be willing to work and be obedient.

In North Korea, it is clear that you have to work and be happy with your share of the products.

Education is in place to make everyone obedient.

When education doesnt work, the force does.

This is why there is a good level of ideological education and force within society.

There is no point in giving people too much freedom. They would just misuse it.

In North Korea, people are happy simply because they serve Kim Jong Un.

North Korea is a perfect society in every way.

Morally, they are on the highest level in the world.

In a sense of military they have the largest military in the world, which is why US didnt attack them.

In a sense of conserving resources, North Korea uses very little resources and its citizens are already used to being humble.

There are no spoiled people in North Korea. You must work hard to produce for the government and advance the military.

The idea of a single minded unity is that one person decides what the others will think and what the others will do.

This is a copy of a nature's system of government used in wolf packs.

In nature, strongest rule and determine everything. In democracy, stupid majority rules and ruins everything.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,066
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Best.Korea
Well, all that I can add is:

Morality is a variable concept.

Happiness cannot be forced.

And contentment is bliss.

And I'm not sure that contentment can be found in a State of fear.


Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 251
Posts: 6,956
4
6
9
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
9
-->
@zedvictor4
The fear in North Korea, as I said, is used to defend society and ensure perfect morality and military first policy.

It is like when circumcision was promoted in USA to defend against STD.

So really, if fear can be used to defend society from USA and its disgusting policies, North Korea has recognized that and used fear for that purpose.

Americans are sad because they cant buy the new iphone. Meanwhile, North Koreans are happy with 100$ smartphone so that more resources can be devoted to the military.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,066
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Best.Korea
I have a ten-year-old Nokia that only does texts and calls.

I have my even older trusty lap-top for any other techno type stuff.

I certainly wouldn't waste my money like North Koreans or smartphone users do.

As I said, contentment is bliss.

And there's no contentment in a State of fear.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 251
Posts: 6,956
4
6
9
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
9
-->
@zedvictor4
You have laptop and a phone?

Well, it seems like you are wasting money that could be used to develop military or indoctrination.
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 205
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@oromagi
@Best.Korea
In fact, money does and did exist under communism. As Oromagi pointed out, the more meaningful difference is basically the extent to which production is consolidated under an ethnically ingrained center. However I wouldn't put it as far back as villages. Communism, at least in the Marxist version, is a mythologization of the industrial nation state, and it is in fact modernist. Ethnic identity, nationalism, finance, and communism are really variations of the modernist theme. Preindustrial societies did not have a fundamentally racial or ethnic basis of organization. The "public sphere" characteristic of the national self-understanding, is maintained through what Mcluhan called the "communal services" of the industrial environment. Communism is a territorial politics in which the disturbing forces of preindustrial brutality, and postindustrial, digital decentralization are both held at bay and the internal world of the nation becomes a self-perpetuating panacea.

“The mechanizing process that began in the eighteenth century and led to the development of new service environmentsthe press, the highway, the postal routes—was soon augmented by steam and rail. By the middle of the nineteenth century the extent of environmental services available to the workers of the community greatly exceeded the scale of services that could be monopolized by individual wealth. By Karl Marx’s time, a “communism” resulting from such services so far surpassed the older private wealth and services contained within the new communal environment that it was quite natural for Marx to use it as a rear-view mirror for his Utopian hopes. The paradox of poverty amidst plenty had begun. Even the pauper lived, and lives, in an environment of multi-billion dollar communal services. Yet communal wealth developed by the mechanical extensions of man was soon outstripped by the electric services that began with the telegraph and which steadily enhanced the information environment. With the advent of an electric information environment, all the territorial aims and objectives of business and politics tended to become illusory. By now Communism is something that lies more than a century behind us, and we are deep into the new age of tribal involvement.”
- Marshall Mcluhan 
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 251
Posts: 6,956
4
6
9
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
9
-->
@rbelivb
This thread was simply about moneyless Communism and economy without money, it was not about claiming that Communism cant have money nor that there are no different versions of Communism.

Communism in North Korea uses mixed economy. For example, farmers dont pay taxes in money. Rather, they pay taxes in products.

Every farmer has an obligation to produce fixed amount of products for government.
If he produces more than fixed amount, he keeps the extra that he can sell.
If he produces less than fixed amount, he is taken to re-education camp where it will be explained to him why he must work better.
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,838
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Best.Korea
The flaw in your idea is govt being in charge of anything.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 251
Posts: 6,956
4
6
9
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
9
-->
@sadolite
There is no flaw there. North Korean economy is perfect military economy that cannot be outmatched by any other country.
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,838
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Best.Korea
Yes yes yes, you are right I am wrong
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,066
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@rbelivb
Don't be fooled into thinking that true communism has ever functioned.

Over the years many authoritarian regimes have been wrongly labelled as communist.

Do you think that throughout the years of bread queues in the "Communist" East, that the social elite ever had to queue for bread?
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 251
Posts: 6,956
4
6
9
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Actually, I would prefer to have more poverty if it meant stronger military.

I have pretty much abandoned my previous Communist views about equality, and adopted Songun system with military first policy and government having all the power.

I still call it Communist, even tho it has nothing to do with Communism described by Karl Marx.

7 days later

Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Best.Korea
Actually, I would prefer to have more poverty if it meant stronger military.
Umm, I think you need to reconsider what a country is supposed to do for their citizens. The government is the server, not the ultimate receiver.

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,066
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Intelligence_06
Take 26 million people and programme them with a consistent data set and you end up with North Korea.

Aberrations will occur and will be removed, and this will be regarded as necessary.

In this respect, the North Korean system of population management is fascinating for the outside observer.

Don't we witness this to a certain degree in China?

With the suppression of ethnic individuality.

And also, to a degree isn't free will a misnomer wherever we live?

Don't we all submit to a system of population control, however liberal our systems might seem in comparison to NK?

39 days later

Conservallectual
Conservallectual's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 70
0
2
7
Conservallectual's avatar
Conservallectual
0
2
7
Communism is bull****

No, 'true' communism has been tried. Cuba, North Korea, the soviet union, Maoist China, and Vietnam, and etc. have all abolished private property, abolished religion, abolished individualism, etc. The results? 

Cuba, the commie country I am most familiar with still uses horse & buggy as a regular form of transportation, there is no wifi for the unaffiliated(except in parks so you can burn in the sun) the air conditioners available only work for 1 room, also there is no fast food(heck there isn't even much food, the markets are empty). Also you want the cool gadgets from the US? Well you must import them. Also the money is worthless, they use US dollars instead.

19 days later

AleutianTexan
AleutianTexan's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 115
0
3
7
AleutianTexan's avatar
AleutianTexan
0
3
7
-->
@oromagi
@Conservallectual
@Best.Korea
Best.Korea,
Government decides what to produce. Government observes what is necessary to produce desired product.
How does the government fully understand what is needed for the economy? Prices that are developed through supply and demand help best divert resources as needed to create the best allocation of resources. How does the government respond to shortages or over production without prices to use as a metric?
Government gathers workers, gives them means of production and resources and tells them to work.
The government doesn't just give the means of production to the workers. If it did, that would look like council communism under Tito's Yugoslavia or the Kurdistan Worker's Party. The idea under more totalitarian leftism like Maoism or Juche is that the state is the conglomeration of the workers, being the dictatorship of the proletariat, and therefore them owning the means of production is the workers owning the means of production.
Most importantly, it conserves resources while protecting society from imperialist agression and ensures morality and good life.
My friend, North Korea is a satellite state of China. Juche, while being able to be, at best, a defense partner with China against the West, and, at worst, a militarized puppet of China, is unable to resist imperialism. The Bandung Conference and Non-Aligned Movement both prove that ideology and imperialism are separate issues.

oromagi,
The nature of government specified by the theory of Communism is the village council.
No? Communism, looking past different instantiations, is that an authoritarian state, which is a representative of the proletariat/working class, takes ownership of the means of production. Marx created communism under the idea of a "dictatorship of the proletariat". Lenin turned this into the vanguard party in the Soviet Union, with a strong one-party state to protect the federated democratic system they had in place. These have always been nationalist descriptions for how to structure society, hoping to turn individual nation states into a one world communist government eventually.

Conservallectual,
Cuba, the commie country I am most familiar with still uses horse & buggy as a regular form of transportation
Western sanctions that stop the importation of vehicles will do that to any nation. This doesn't show a flaw of communism, but the damage imperialism and bullying from the first-world can cause on smaller nations. Sanctions also explain poor wifi, air conditioning, and food supplies.

However, it is important to note that Cuba has been able to keep classic 50's cars running forever, showing an innovation that it is important to note. The level of intelligence and education that can also be seen in Cuban doctors that are so amazing that they are sent as aid to disasters proves that communism cannot be called a complete failure.

oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@AleutianTexan
 Communism, looking past different instantiations, is that an authoritarian state,
  • False.  If you read Das Kapital, you will discover that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels did not explicitly endorse autocracy in their writings. They believed that the working class, or "proletariat," would overthrow capitalist societies through a revolution and establish a classless, stateless communist society. They believed that the state would "wither away" in this new society, as there would no longer be a need for a governing authority to maintain social classes and enforce private property rights.  Marx would spit in your eye for saying that Communism was a State and kick you in the balls for calling that State authoritiarian.
  • There are no really sustained actual examples of a Communist economy as theorized  by Marx implemented anywhere in the world since that Theory's publication.
which is a representative of the proletariat/working class, takes ownership of the means of production.
  • Badly mistaken.  Marx kept the commune small.  Any kind of national anything or representative anything would not be Communism, by Marx's definition.
Marx created communism under the idea of a "dictatorship of the proletariat".
  • False.  Joseph Weydemeyer coined the term.  However, Marx and Engels also believed that during the transition period from capitalism to communism, an interim state would be necessary to suppress the resistance of the capitalist class and to establish the new socialist system and both sometimes referred to that interim using Weydemeyer's terminology.  The idea of dictatorship was not autocracy, but  a temporary and specific phase of the transition period, where the working class holds the power and the state, to suppress the capitalist class and establish the new socialist system. This dictatorship was not meant to be permanent and authoritarian, but rather a means to an end, in order to achieve the classless and stateless society.
Lenin turned this into the vanguard party in the Soviet Union,
  • Yes, Lenin exploited the utopian labels of Communism to implement his fascist dictatorship.  That doesn't make Lenin or any of his comrades Communists in any honest way.
with a strong one-party state to protect the federated democratic system they had in place.
  • Oxymoron. The Soviets themslves were not particularly democratic during the few months Lenin permitted them to live.
These have always been nationalist descriptions for how to structure society, hoping to turn individual nation states into a one world communist government eventually.
  • Communism is a utopian economic theory with no substantial precedents in post-tribal civilizaton.  If you think Marx was shooting for one world government, then you haven't understood the first thing Marx wrote.  As Marx himself said, "if that what Marxism means, then I am no Marxist."

Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 251
Posts: 6,956
4
6
9
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
9
-->
@AleutianTexan
This is an old forum topic. I cannot return to it right now.
AleutianTexan
AleutianTexan's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 115
0
3
7
AleutianTexan's avatar
AleutianTexan
0
3
7
-->
@oromagi
They believed that the working class, or "proletariat," would overthrow capitalist societies through a revolution and establish a classless, stateless communist society.
You describe the dictatorship of the proletariat, but the issue with your description is that only works if the entire world transitions at the same time. If North Korea doesn't have a totalitarian state that devotes so much time to the military, then the US would regime change. This means that, unless the world becomes communist at the same time, communist nations have to remain, at the very least, under the dictatorship of the proletariat until global communism is achieved. As Lenin with the vanguard correctly identified, this then has to be authoritarian to combat against reactionary elements, internally (white army) and externally (the literal invasions that happened right after the revolution).
Marx kept the commune small
Any example of this in the text? I would argue that, even if he defends worker councils, there's no reason this can't federate into a national democracy. 
Yes, Lenin exploited the utopian labels of Communism to implement his fascist dictatorship.
1. Lenin is, if not a communist, not a fascist. These are literal polar opposites in cultural and economic practice.

2. Lenin is the perfect instantiation of communism. When turning any theory into praxis, there is differences that have to be made. To take an idea in the abstract, implement it in the world, and act like it isn't the exact same, well, yeah. The material conditions of Russia weren't accounted for by Marx because he couldn't consider every social location. On top of this, Lenin was just propping up the dictatorship of the proletariat to protect against reactionaries.
  • Oxymoron. The Soviets themslves were not particularly democratic during the few months Lenin permitted them to live.
The CIA admitted that the Soviet Union was much more democratic than they propagandized, even saying Stalin (leagues more authoritarian than Lenin) was merely the leader of a strong party. The soviets (worker councils) elected leaders that went to regional areas and it federated up. Lenin built this system during his rule because he was doing what the dictatorship of the proletariat did, establish communism in a transition phase.
If you think Marx was shooting for one world government, then you haven't understood the first thing Marx wrote.
1. Marx is not the end all be all. Liberals don't read Hobbes and then ignore the rest of the work that has been created in the philosophy, and to treat communism/leftism the same way ignores how ideas grow and get better.

2. Looking at the ideas of Marx, the dictatorship of the proletariat can not be transitioned to a stateless society until after global communism is achieved, otherwise, there are still reactionary threats to the organization.


oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@AleutianTexan
You describe the dictatorship of the proletariat, but the issue with your description is that only works if the entire world transitions at the same time.
  • In fact, it doesn't work at all.  Hence utopia.  By definition, Communism depends on the "withering away" of dictatorships and the  peaceful widespread evolution of anarchy, which this reader of history considers a lovely fantasy.
If North Korea doesn't have a totalitarian state that devotes so much time to the military, then the US would regime change.
  • After winning World War III presumably, no foregone conclusion there.  
This means that, unless the world becomes communist at the same time, communist nations have to remain, at the very least, under the dictatorship of the proletariat
  • And therefore, to the mind of Marx and Engels, never become Communist.  To Marx's thinking, you could either be Communist or you could be a nation but not both.  There's no point to discussing the dictatorships of Stalin or Castro or Mao or Kim as examples of Communism since none ever seriously attempted to implement Marx's theory or even attempted Weydemeyer's theory of a dictatorship by the proletariat.
until global communism is achieved.
  • You mistake Communism as a plan to acheive globalism rather than as a counter-reaction to the inevitablility of globalism in the wake of the discovery of the Americas, which is how Marx put the case.
As Lenin with the vanguard correctly identified, this then has to be authoritarian to combat against reactionary elements, internally (white army) and externally (the literal invasions that happened right after the revolution).
  • Identified "correctly" to the benefit of Lenin's career, and very definitely not correctly when one considers the well-being or welfare of the Russian people.
Any example of this in the text?
  • The word "communism" refers to the French concept of the commune, which were those villages which sucessfully separated from the oversight capacity of the local baron, noble, or magistrate, the same word from which community is derived.  The local community was envisaged as the fundamental structural element of Communism: 
    •  Construction, on public lands, of great palaces as communal dwellings for associated groups of citizens engaged in both industry and agriculture and combining in their way of life the advantages of urban and rural conditions while avoiding the one-sidedness and drawbacks of each.
    • Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
    • A corollary of this is that the difference between city and country is destined to disappear. The management of agriculture and industry by the same people rather than by two different classes of people is, if only for purely material reasons, a necessary condition of communist association. The dispersal of the agricultural population on the land, alongside the crowding of the industrial population into the great cities, is a condition which corresponds to an undeveloped state of both agriculture and industry and can already be felt as an obstacle to further development.
    • No capitol cities, no centralizations of distribution or power, Communism envisions a landscape of equally distributed suburban communities with a community center making local decsions and promoting local interests.
I would argue that, even if he defends worker councils, there's no reason this can't federate into a national democracy. 
  • Well, then you would argue without complete comprehension.  Marx and Engels believed in Democracy as the core dynamic of local decsion-making but  Marx and Engels would have considered any "Federation" or "National" anything a failure to realize the promse of Communism.
Lenin is, if not a communist, not a fascist. These are literal polar opposites in cultural and economic practice.
  • It is true that most definitions of Fascism  include some declaration of anti-communist principle but, like Orwell, I fail to see any important distinction between Hitler's and Lenin's cultural or economic practice.  Both achieved hyper-industrialization through mass slavery, mass murder of the ruling class,  fetishization of bourgeoise nationalist culture, and hyper-industrialization by tanks, planes and machine guns at the expensive of proletariat blood, freedom, equality.  If, for example, we use Umberto Eco's checklist for Fascism, we see that Lenin or Stalin qualify just as easily as Hitler or Castro or Mao.
    • "The cult of tradition"
    • "The rejection of modernism"
    • "The cult of action for action's sake"
    • "Disagreement is treason" 
    • "Fear of difference"
    • "Appeal to a frustrated middle class"
    • "Obsession with a plot"
    • "Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy" because "life is permanent warfare"
    • "Contempt for the weak"
    • "Everybody is educated to become a hero"
    • "Machismo"
    • "Selective populism"
    • "Newspeak"

Lenin is the perfect instantiation of communism
  • Upon arrrival in St. Petersburg  Lenin refused any power sharing coalition with any Leftist or Socialist faction.  Lenin assembled an army, appointed himself chief executive and within weeks began to reject the authority of any polticial entity in Russia, period.  Just because Lenin used the word Communism a lot didn't make him a good practicing Communist any more than Lous XIV's use of the word Christian make that King a good practicing Christian.  Every time Lenin faced a choice between sharing power with anybody and keeping power for himself, Lenin consolidated power under his dictatorship and like any perfect instantiation of Fascism, commenced to murdering everybody that held on to any power apart from his.  There was never a moment in Lenin's life where it might be fairly said that Marx would have been proud of Lenin's work.  Lenin betrayed every Communist principle the moment that principle slowed his rise to de facto Czar.
Lenin was just propping up the dictatorship of the proletariat to protect against reactionaries.
  • Less than a year after making himself dictator, Lenin established the Cheka to dispose of all rivalries.  By 1920, Lenin was mass murdering peasant uprisings demanding  the right to publish their opinion.  If Lenin was only propping up the proles until they could stand unopposed, then we should have seen Lenin begin to share power after he successfully mass-murdered hundreds of thousands of poltical rvials but Lenin only consolidated power.  If Lenin was ever sincere about Communism, he would not have snapped up the fanciest palace in Moscow as personal residence while millions of proles starved homeless.
The CIA admitted that the Soviet Union was much more democratic than they propagandized, even saying Stalin (leagues more authoritarian than Lenin) was merely the leader of a strong party.

  • I am not aware of the CIA making such an admission. The CIA has a history of providing intelligence to the US government, but it also has a history of providing disinformation to foreign governments and organizations. Additionally, the Soviet Union under Stalin's leadership was a one-party state with limited political freedoms and widespread repression of dissent. While it's true that the Soviet Union had some elements of democracy, such as elections, it was a highly authoritarian state.
The soviets (worker councils) elected leaders that went to regional areas and it federated up.
  • False.  By September of 1917, Lenin was appointing Trotsky the Chairman of the Petrograd Soviet and Trotsky was declaring his contempt for Democracy as "bourgeoise."  The Soviets were demonstrably more democratic under the Czar and in opposition to that Czar than under the Bolshevik's phony elections, managed by assasination.
Lenin built this system during his rule because he was doing what the dictatorship of the proletariat did, establish communism in a transition phase.
  • False.  Lenin brought a wrecking ball to the weak and ineffectual democratic processes of all prior existing Socialist and Liberal institutions in Russia.  By the time Lenin gets sick in 1921, anybody publicly supporting any kind of real power for the people is dead or dying a concentration camp thanks to Lenin.
Marx is not the end all be all.
  • Marx and Engels defined the Theory of Communism and remain the final authority on that concept's definition.  If you think that Lenin or Castro or Mao followed the principles of Communism, you are quite desperately, objectively wrong.  If you think that what harm those dictators inflicted  in the name of absolute power should be called Communism anyway in spite of the absence of any application of theory, then you are setting up a straw man for easy condemnation.  Communism is a silly fantasy that badly mistakes the primate's dependencies on leaders and authority but to say that Lenin represents the essence of Communsim is a ridiculous as citing the Spanish Inquistion as representative of the Sermon on the Mount.  Yes, critics like to use the Inquisition as a critique of Christianity but those waves of genocide and torture had as little to do with Christ's original theory of salvation as Lenin's genocides have to do with the Communist Manifesto.
Liberals don't read Hobbes and then ignore the rest of the work that has been created in the philosophy, and to treat communism/leftism the same way ignores how ideas grow and get better.
  • Unlike Marx, Hobbes did not coin the term LIBERALISM or set out in detail, as did Marx, the parameters of that concept's theory.  There is a terrible tendency in the oversimplifications of polticial discourse by Twitter, to think of Liberalism, Leftism, Progressivism, Populism, Socialism, Communism, etc as one monolithic principle when they are in fact independent notions all, with contradictions aplenty and a much smaller Venn diagram of agreement than the pundits of FOX News dare suppose.    Some ideas grow and get better but the defintions of terms and concepts should never be as fungible as the fashion of the season.  We know what Marx and Engels called Communism and we know that Marx despised the violent  opportunists who employed  his name to their poltiical self-service.  Some ideas grow old and get better but the notion of dictators is older than humanity itself and the dictator's use of fashionable theories and philosophies to justify coup is as old as words.  We don't do anybody any favors by failing to recognize dictators by their deeds or justify any dictator by arbitrary reductions to label.
 Looking at the ideas of Marx, the dictatorship of the proletariat can not be transitioned to a stateless society until after global communism is achieved, otherwise, there are still reactionary threats to the organization.
  • Looking at the history of Mankind, dictatorships sporting fancy labels like proletariat are mostly indistinguishable from other dictatorships.  A stateless society is a society that badly  mistakes human nature, represents little more than provocation to better armed states, and has minutes left to live.   All anarchists are clowns at heart and best left outside the city gates when night falls.