Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.
This is, of course, the distant ideal and not what Marx and Engles advocated for doing immediately. This is why it’s important to understand the distinction between the ideal of communism and what communists advocate for in the present material conditions.
And because of Citizens United, and Israel, “elected officials by the people” might be a subjective interpretation of our current politicians.
And this is precisely why some form of authority has to exist in order to stop the bourgeoisie and reactionaries from influencing the political system. Even if you got rid of Citizens United and made bribery illegal again, the rich would still exert influence on politics through the press and through their control of the means of production. Citizens United is a symptom of that problem, not the cause. There’s a broader reason why Citizens United became a thing in the first place.
This is, of course, the distant ideal and not what Marx and Engles advocated for doing immediately. This is why it’s important to understand the distinction between the ideal of communism and what communists advocate for in the present material conditions.
How can you assume this is what they ment?
I’m pretty sure if that’s what they ment, they would have said so.
They said a lot of things. Never that.
Communism is an extended form of socialism.
You are talking about something else entirely n
Communism does not advocate for the loss of personal finances.
Communism isn’t what the u.s government and school systems has told you it is.
It’s not giving up all your wealth and work to “the state” so it can be evenly distributed.
That’s ridiculous.
It’s about making the system more fair and equitable.
Billionaires wouldn’t exist.
And top hierarchy class wouldn’t exist that controls everything.
No one could be in control of the media or elections if no one was allowed to exploit others and amass such large amounts of money.
What do you mean? How can I assume that when Engles wrote “money will become superfluous” he meant “money will become superfluous?” Or how can I assume that he’s talking about a distant ideal rather than an immediate course of action? For the latter, it’s literally in the same piece of theory that I linked:
Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations, are the following:
(vi) Centralization of money and credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital, and the suppression of all private banks and bankers.
That’s the short term, immediate measure he’s advocating for, in contrast to the long term idea of “money will become superfluous.”
You are talking about something else entirely n Communism does not advocate for the loss of personal finances.
I never said anything like that.
Communism isn’t what the u.s government and school systems has told you it is.
Lol? I’m literally citing theory. Where on earth did you get the idea that I’m relying on “what the US government and school systems told me it is?” Of course it isn’t that. I’m going off of actual communist theory.
It’s not giving up all your wealth and work to “the state” so it can be evenly distributed.
Look you can argue this point as much as you like but you’re wrong. I’m citing actual theory and you’re going off what “feels right” to you. What you personally believe is “feasible” or “not feasible” is completely irrelevant.
If you won’t believe one of the authors of the Communist Manifesto, then maybe you’ll believe Wikipedia, which says in the first line:
In Marxist thought, a communist society or the communist system is the type of society and economic system postulated to emerge from technological advances in the productive forces, representing the ultimate goal of the political ideology of communism. A communist society is characterized by common ownership of the means of production with free access[1][2] to the articles of consumption and is classless, stateless, and moneyless,[3][4][5][6] implying the end of the exploitation of labour.[7][8]
As I’ve explained to you several times, this is the end goal, an ideal to work towards, and not a policy to be implemented right away. Let me try to explain this to you.
Right now, you need money for everything. You need it for rent, you need it for food, you need it for transportation, for entertainment, for luxuries, etc. This makes people very dependent on the capitalist system, on wage labor, it makes it so that you have no choice but to sell your labor to survive. People will put up with a lot to keep their jobs because they’re afraid they’ll end up on the street otherwise. Some people will even put up with things like sexual harassment at work, or they’ll stay in an unhealthy relationship so they have a place to stay, or sell drugs, whatever. Ain’t no rest for the wicked.
Now, imagine that the state implements a free housing program. Now that you’re no longer dependent on money to avoid being homeless, you are no longer as desperate for it. Of course, there’s still plenty of stuff you can buy with it, but you have a safety net, and with that safety net, the balance of power at your job has shifted - if you get on your bosses bad side, you’ll be faced with a meager living situation but not a desperate one. Because money is no longer used to buy housing, it has become a little bit less critical to your life.
Now, imagine that, one by one, over time, more and more things are moved out of the financial sphere and distributed based on need or fairness. With each step, money becomes a little more “superfluous.” You don’t need it for food or rent, you don’t need it to get to work, you don’t need it to pay for internet, etc. It becomes something that’s used only for luxuries, collectables, imported goods, that sort of thing. Nobody goes around seizing everybody’s money, it just becomes more and more limited in its applications.
Eventually, is it really so impossible to imagine a world where money is so limited that it doesn’t really matter anymore? Where it has become “superfluous” and is eventually eliminated altogether? Obviously, such a transformation could not happen overnight. But we can certainly take steps to move in that direction, like the housing program I suggested. And taking steps in the direction of that vision is what Marx and Engles advocated for. Objectively. Indisputably. Even if you personally can’t imagine it, others have.
If you’re going to keep insisting that I’m wrong, then I have to ask where your ideas about what communism is come from, because they certainly don’t come from reading theory. And I don’t mind explaining things to people, but I do mind when people try to assert that I’m wrong about something without knowing basic facts about what we’re talking about.
I don’t know about China but the U.S does not have term limits for Congress. So. No. It does not have a rotation.
And because of Citizens United, and Israel, “elected officials by the people” might be a subjective interpretation of our current politicians.
Term limits = limit corruption. That’s something that’s a big problem with our justices as well.
Also , most leftist, who support communism, consider communism to still involve money being exchanged.
I don’t think Marx advocated for no money to exist or be exchanged.
We can’t do trade and barter for everything.
It sounds like your interpretation of communism is a hippie commune or co-ops. Not really the same thing.
Hippie communes can only work at a small scale. Same for co-ops.
Again, Engles:
This is, of course, the distant ideal and not what Marx and Engles advocated for doing immediately. This is why it’s important to understand the distinction between the ideal of communism and what communists advocate for in the present material conditions.
And this is precisely why some form of authority has to exist in order to stop the bourgeoisie and reactionaries from influencing the political system. Even if you got rid of Citizens United and made bribery illegal again, the rich would still exert influence on politics through the press and through their control of the means of production. Citizens United is a symptom of that problem, not the cause. There’s a broader reason why Citizens United became a thing in the first place.
How can you assume this is what they ment?
I’m pretty sure if that’s what they ment, they would have said so.
They said a lot of things. Never that.
Communism is an extended form of socialism.
You are talking about something else entirely n Communism does not advocate for the loss of personal finances. Communism isn’t what the u.s government and school systems has told you it is.
It’s not giving up all your wealth and work to “the state” so it can be evenly distributed.
That’s ridiculous.
It’s about making the system more fair and equitable. Billionaires wouldn’t exist. And top hierarchy class wouldn’t exist that controls everything.
No one could be in control of the media or elections if no one was allowed to exploit others and amass such large amounts of money.
What do you mean? How can I assume that when Engles wrote “money will become superfluous” he meant “money will become superfluous?” Or how can I assume that he’s talking about a distant ideal rather than an immediate course of action? For the latter, it’s literally in the same piece of theory that I linked:
That’s the short term, immediate measure he’s advocating for, in contrast to the long term idea of “money will become superfluous.”
I never said anything like that.
Lol? I’m literally citing theory. Where on earth did you get the idea that I’m relying on “what the US government and school systems told me it is?” Of course it isn’t that. I’m going off of actual communist theory.
I never said anything like that.
Pretty sure they didn’t mean there wouldn’t be any money.
That’s just not feasible.
They probably meant being wealthy would be superfluous.
Amassing a bunch of money wouldn’t get you anything extra.
Look you can argue this point as much as you like but you’re wrong. I’m citing actual theory and you’re going off what “feels right” to you. What you personally believe is “feasible” or “not feasible” is completely irrelevant.
If you won’t believe one of the authors of the Communist Manifesto, then maybe you’ll believe Wikipedia, which says in the first line:
As I’ve explained to you several times, this is the end goal, an ideal to work towards, and not a policy to be implemented right away. Let me try to explain this to you.
Right now, you need money for everything. You need it for rent, you need it for food, you need it for transportation, for entertainment, for luxuries, etc. This makes people very dependent on the capitalist system, on wage labor, it makes it so that you have no choice but to sell your labor to survive. People will put up with a lot to keep their jobs because they’re afraid they’ll end up on the street otherwise. Some people will even put up with things like sexual harassment at work, or they’ll stay in an unhealthy relationship so they have a place to stay, or sell drugs, whatever. Ain’t no rest for the wicked.
Now, imagine that the state implements a free housing program. Now that you’re no longer dependent on money to avoid being homeless, you are no longer as desperate for it. Of course, there’s still plenty of stuff you can buy with it, but you have a safety net, and with that safety net, the balance of power at your job has shifted - if you get on your bosses bad side, you’ll be faced with a meager living situation but not a desperate one. Because money is no longer used to buy housing, it has become a little bit less critical to your life.
Now, imagine that, one by one, over time, more and more things are moved out of the financial sphere and distributed based on need or fairness. With each step, money becomes a little more “superfluous.” You don’t need it for food or rent, you don’t need it to get to work, you don’t need it to pay for internet, etc. It becomes something that’s used only for luxuries, collectables, imported goods, that sort of thing. Nobody goes around seizing everybody’s money, it just becomes more and more limited in its applications.
Eventually, is it really so impossible to imagine a world where money is so limited that it doesn’t really matter anymore? Where it has become “superfluous” and is eventually eliminated altogether? Obviously, such a transformation could not happen overnight. But we can certainly take steps to move in that direction, like the housing program I suggested. And taking steps in the direction of that vision is what Marx and Engles advocated for. Objectively. Indisputably. Even if you personally can’t imagine it, others have.
If you’re going to keep insisting that I’m wrong, then I have to ask where your ideas about what communism is come from, because they certainly don’t come from reading theory. And I don’t mind explaining things to people, but I do mind when people try to assert that I’m wrong about something without knowing basic facts about what we’re talking about.