Communism (en)

The hammer and sickle, communists symbols

The term communism refers to both a political current and the societal form it aims to establish.

The word "communism" and "socialism" share the same ethymologic signification and come from the latin "socius", meaning "common". Their different connotations appeared with their utilisation by current leading different politics, particularly since the 20th century.

Early 20th century communism has been profoundly marked by the works of Karl Marx (marxism) and the attempt at a communist revolution in Russia in 1917, which spiked huge hope and led to the creation of a communist International bringing together millions throughout the world. But this communist movement degenerated into a stalinian bureaucracy in the 1920's. The numerous "communists States" that emerged in the following decades didn't have anything to see with communism but were rather petty totalitarisms.

Most marxists distinguish two phases after a socialist revolution:

• The socialist phase, in which the society is still marked by the the heritage of class separation and its mentality, that still requires an allocation of goods depending on work and a State.
• The communist phase, in which most goods are abundant and distributed for free and where the States, as a tool for constraint, disapears.

Caracteristics of a communist society

The capitalist system creates, structurally, crisis, wars, ecological disasters, etc. It contains itself the seeds of its own destruction. But if we can almost be sure that capitalism will one day disapear, we cannot know what will follow it. The devastation caused by capitalism could very well, for example, lead humanity to its extinction. But humanity could also build, by overthrowing this system, a communist society, whithout classes and exploitation. History shows us that such classless societies have already existed in the past: this is what we call primitive communism, which preceded the Neolithic revolution. Societies of these times were forced to adopt a "communist" functioning, since we did not produce enough for some to be able to monopolize the wealth produced by others. But these were societies where humans being were constantly under threat of natural events, illnesses, etc. It is oviously not such a society that modern communists want. Communism, in its marxist sense, assumes, to be realised, a minimal development of the productive force, that capitalism makes possible.

cannot know in detail how such a society would look: it is men and women of tomorrow who will invent it. But we can still bring out a few caracteristics that would be ones of a free, egalitarian and emancipated society, such as how the communist want it.

Collective property of the means of production and exchange

Under capitalism, the means of production and of exchange are monopolized by an exploiting class. The majority of individuals do not own anything other than their working strengh, that they are forced to sell to capitalists exploiters in order to survive. This means that the private property of the means of production is indissociable, in society, from the existence of antagonists classes in perpetual struggle.

a communist society, the means of production are socialized. It is the society, meaning the whole of the individuals that take part in it, that would own the means of production and exchange: factories, farms, supermarkets, planes, trains, etc. This means that in each business, the bosses would be replaced by workers general assemblies to decide the organization of work, these assemblies coordinating between them, by sending delegates, to make big decisions democratically.

Rational organisation of production and distribution

Under capitalism, it is short-term individual profit that is the driving force of the economy. Each capitalist needs to generate more profits than its competitors. This situation creates crisis, wars, destructions, ecological disasters, etc. On the other hand, a communist society must organize production and distribution of goods and services in a rational way. The decision to produce a certain type of commodity rather than another, for example, would not rely on the immediate economic interest but rather on the current social needs.

There is no competition in a communist society, the different factories, farms, etc. would only be « les différentes sections d'un grand atelier populaire embrassant toute l'économie générale » (trouver citation exacte en anglais). The society as a whole needs to do what administrative councils do today at the scale of their businesses: organize in advance the production and distribution, at least in the broad terms. This way, it is possible to assure the complementarity of businesses rather than competition. This what we call plannification.

There are still debates, amongst revolutionary marxists, about the lesser or greater role that market mecanisms will play or not in a communist society. But no one contests the necessity of a plannification more or less precise.

Democracy

This planning would have nothing to do with stalinian bureaucratic planning. On the contrary, it would be democratic: since the whole society is the master of the means of production and exchange, it is up to the individuals who compose it to make all the economic and political decisions. Contrary to what is sometimes believed under the influence of reactionary discourses, communism does not constitute a restriction of democracy compared to bourgeois democracy, but on the contrary its extension. Communism would see the flourishing of organs of direct democracy (factory councils, neighborhood councils...), and would elect organs on the basis of rotating and revocable mandates. Democracy would not be limited to electing every four or five years a bunch of bourgeois politicians to govern the country, but would include the management by the workers themselves of their work tools (their company for example) and permanent control over their elected representatives. Decisions would be made following free and contradictory discussions.

End of oppressions

The end of exploitation would undermine the material basis of many other oppressions. For example, generalized racism stems fundamentally from the inequality between countries imposed by imperialism, and, particularly in times of economic crisis, from the attempts of bourgeois politicians to turn workers against scapegoats. However, communists have many debates on the articulation of different oppressions (sexism, homophobia...) with capitalism, and generally recognize the utility, or even the necessity, of specific struggles (feminism, anti-racism...).

The two phases of communism

Marx already mentioned a distinction between a "first phase of communist society", which begins with the proletarian revolution, and which gradually evolves into a "higher phase of communist society". Lenin formalized and developed this distinction, speaking of a socialist phase and a communist phase.

Socialist phase

The first phase results from the seizure of power by the workers, who establish their control over the main means of production, and create a new State (which Marx called the dictatorship of the proletariat) to ensure that the capitalists are defeated internationally. There are therefore several major breaks that introduce a qualitative leap:

• Economic break: collectivization of the main means of production and introduction of planning to meet democratically defined needs within the framework of ecological necessities.
• Political break: replacement of bourgeois institutions by organs of workers' democracy.
• Ideological break: the proletarian revolution can only be conscious, so it can only coincide with an ideological victory over the thoughts justifying capitalist domination.

The first phase would necessarily involve certain continuities with capitalism, which could not be transformed all at once:

• Economic continuity: a certain number of means of production (petty bourgeoisie) would not be collectivized, which implies that planning would not be total, and that the market would still exist.
• Political continuity: as long as the international class struggle continues, a State continues to exist, whose control by the workers remains a major stake.
• Ideological continuity: the victory of revolutionary communist forces does not mean that all prejudices and individualistic reflexes would have disappeared.

“What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges."

Concretely, society cannot yet give each individual what they want without asking for equivalent work in exchange. It is therefore initially a generalization of the model "to each according to his contribution". All the more so, it is impossible to abolish money by decree.

“Hence, equal right here is still in principle – bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case."

However, as Marx pointed out, this equal right contains a certain injustice, since individuals have different capacities (especially physical ones) and different burdens (children...). To take them into account, it is on the contrary modulations of the "equal right" that must be introduced (e.g., allowances for disability, for children...).

“But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby."

We find the idea of a necessary period of transition among various revolutionary socialist currents, as in Emile Pouget, one of the founders of revolutionary syndicalism, who wrote in a writing of anticipation:

“The old man could not, from the outset, make a litter of his prejudices and vestiges of the past persisted. While some basic necessities were made available to all without restriction, others continued to exchange according to the old mode. The notion of value persisted and money retained part of its transactional function, with this restriction that it was limited to trade. Gold had lost its power of “capital” and its holders were no longer able to make it fruitful."

Communist phase

The new socialist relations of production and exchange, combined with an increase in the productive forces to meet needs, are the basis that then allows the evolution towards communist relations of production and exchange.

“In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

In this society that has become a society of abundance, money would no longer need to exist, consumer goods being able to be distributed in self-service. The communist society is organized according to the adage "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

The only restriction that could be considered, due to natural limits, would be a quota system for certain goods (limitation of plane flights, consumption of fish threatened by overfishing...).

Communism having triumphed over the entire planet, the State in the sense of an apparatus of domination of one class would die out (withering away of the State). There would of course remain a large number of political choices to be made (in production, in the fields and applications of scientific research, spatial planning...), but these would be made by society, within democratic organs not separated from it.

In a society where human needs are satisfied for everyone, attachment to private property would have every reason to be reduced to almost nothing. Many utopians and "proto-communists" before the marxists had emphasized that communism would be viable if the roots of conflicts of interest were eliminated.

The divergent interests between nations no longer existing, borders would also die out, probably reduced to cultural and tourist indications.

Communism, a political current

Origins

🔍 Voir : Origins of socialist and communist ideas.

As a political current, communism can be seen as a current that has the same origin as socialism.

In the class societies of the past, during the revolts that punctuated history, it sometimes happened that some imagined more egalitarian societies, or even completely egalitarian ones. This always took idealistic forms: myths of returning to an ancestral golden age, religious millenarianisms, philosophers' dreams... For the simple reason that there were no real material bases to materialize a classless society. It happened that following large revolts (or colonization), major land distributions took place, but inequality always tended to reappear.

In modern times in Europe, utopia writings multiplied, many of which had socializing aspects. Like the ancient model of Plato's Republic, these writings have the characteristic of describing with great meticulousness the ideal organization according to their author, which reflects their profoundly subjective aspect. But through these writings remained alive the idea that society could be much better, that if men and women did not have to fight to survive, they would be much happier and more virtuous.

The Age of Enlightenment developed reflections on the difference between man in the state of nature and in civilization, hence on human nature and the impact of social organization. Acting on the political lever to radically transform society was becoming conceivable. At the very time of a great bourgeois revolution like the Revolution of 1789, some began to fight against the bourgeoisie itself, anticipating socialism. One of the precursors of communism is Gracchus Babeuf, who concretely envisioned the pooling of labor and the products of labor.

Early 19^th century

Cabet's brochure in 1840

In the 1830s, some utopian socialists designated themselves as "communists". This is the case of Etienne Cabet, or the German Weitling. This reportedly influenced the Owenite Barmby who is said to have been the first to use the term in English in 1841. Some assert that the word communism appeared before the word socialism.

The writings of Babeuf were rediscovered in the 1830s, and inspired a whole "neo-Babouvist" communist current around Théodore Dézamy, Albert Laponneraye, Richard Lahautière, Jean-Jacques Pillot. Unlike people like Fourier, they took a renewed interest in the French revolution, either directly (Laponneraye admired Robespierre), or by wanting to surpass it (for Lahautière, just as Babeuf surpassed Robespierre, Babeuf must be surpassed). They are partisans of a revolution.

"Citizens, the goal towards which we strive is real equality achieved by means of the community of goods. A strong, devoted popular dictatorship seems indispensable to us to shape our morals, destroy obstacles, and finally to smooth the paths that must lead us to the application of this principle. " Profession of faith of the egalitarian workers, 1840

The republican revolutionary Blanqui developed a critique of private property in the 1830s that placed him de facto in the communist current, even if there do not seem to be any proven texts where he explicitly uses the term. The term "communism" was then little differentiated from the term "socialism" which was born at the same time, even if it already had a more radical connotation. It was defined by Sainte-Beuve in 1840 as a "socialism advocating the suppression of private property". More strongly than others, communists insisted on the reality of the class struggle. They did not count on the goodwill of the ruling classes to achieve another type of society. Persuadés qu'ils faut changer la société pour changer les individus, ils accordent une importance décisive aux conditions matérielles de la vie. Thus one of them, Théodore Dézamy, criticized those who believed "that to shape man to their liking it was enough for them to want it in an obstinate and energetic manner".

He would also criticize the "peaceful communism" of Cabet, who claimed to unite capitalists and proletarians.

First English publication of the Communist Manifesto (1850) in The Red Republican

In the early 1840s, "communist banquets" (very working-class) were held in Paris. In 1842, the young Marx designated communism as a movement already visible in Germany, France and Great Britain. Heine who had lived in Paris since 1831 wrote on June 15, 1843: "the communists are the only party in France that deserves attention." In 1846, under the influence of Marx and Engels, the League of the Just became the Communist League.

Engels would say that "socialism meant in 1847 a bourgeois movement, communism a working-class movement". The opposition is a bit too stark, as socialist currents also reached a certain number of workers. L'Atelier, the first newspaper written by workers, defended the Christian socialism of Buchez. Even if the term existed before Marx and Engels, it was these two thinkers who fixed the word communism in its current usage.

In the Communist Manifesto, the word communist is used to designate a certain part of the socialists, to the exclusion of feudal socialists, petty-bourgeois socialists, "true" socialists and bourgeois socialists. The communist label applies to the currents that emerged during the era of antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat, which proclaim the demands of the latter, and which recognize the existence of a class antagonism.

During the uprising of March 18, 1871 (Paris Commune), Thiers' government cried "communism"

Thinkers like Babeuf, Saint-Simon, Owen, Fourier are designated by Marx and Engels as "communists", even if they were "utopian" communists. These communists, because they conceived their utopia from above, in isolation, and wanted to apply it to the real world, tended to clash with the notion of individual liberty.

In the vision of Marx and Engels, this opposition did not exist:

"We are not of those communists who seek to destroy individual liberty, who wish to turn the world into one huge barracks or into a gigantic workhouse. There certainly are some communists who, with an easy conscience, refuse to fight for individual liberty and would like to eliminate it from the world because they consider it a hindrance to universal harmony. But we have no desire to exchange freedom for equality. We are convinced (...) that in no social order will freedom be as well guaranteed as in a society based upon communal property... (let us put) our hands to work in order to establish a democratic state wherein each party would be able by word or in writing to win a majority over to its ideas..."

During the 19^th century, many attempts to realize communist micro-societies took place. Particularly in the United States (where it was easy to take possession of land), numerous experiments of egalitarian agricultural communities took place, following the precepts of various theorists (Fourier, Owen, Cabet, Weitling...). But these establishments only gathered activists already committed to communist principles, and could not survive very long in a hostile environment.

Blanqui stands a bit apart. Marx and Engels admired him greatly for his communist republicanism and his determination in action. In April 1850, an ephemeral Universal Society of Revolutionary Communists was even proclaimed between Marx and Engels, two Blanquists, and a radical Chartist.

Late 19^th - early 20^th century

Towards the end of the 19^th century, the majority of the working-class movement tended to be progressively organized or influenced by currents claiming to be socialist or social democratic. Engels persisted in saying that he and Marx were more specifically communists, finding the term socialism too vague, but for them, this was something secondary. They believed that the construction of mass organizations bringing together the working-class movement (First International, German Social Democratic Party...) was more important than ideological purity, because they had great confidence in the fact that the class struggle would favor clarification and the objective march towards communism.

Consequently, the term communism was no longer really used by the followers of Marx and Engels towards the end of the 19^th century. At that time, however, one can find in the libertarian movement some claiming to be communists:

• In 1878, in Mexico, a group of anarcho-communists created a "Partido Comunista Mexicano" in the San Martín Texmelucan valley, quickly crushed by the army.
• In 1910, the Revolutionary Communist Federation was created in France, renamed two years later the Anarchist Communist Federation. This was the first anarchist organization of national scale.

After 1917

LongLiveTheThirdInternational.jpg

The current connotations of the word communism have much more to do with what would happen in the 20^th century than with the small organizations that had previously called themselves so. After the nationalist betrayal of the socialist leaders in 1914 and the Russian revolution of 1917 which brought to power social democrats (the Bolsheviks) who had maintained internationalism, the socialist movement split globally.

The word communism was used again by the founders of the Third International to introduce a distinction from the socialists and social democrats loyal to the Second International. Including the word communist in the party's name was even part of the twenty-one conditions enacted by Lenin for admission to the III^rd International.

Subsequently, several currents claimed to be communist :

• the Trotskyists, who readily call themselves "revolutionary communists" or "internationalist communists" ;
• the Stalinists, Maoists, etc., who generally call themselves "communists" and "Marxist-Leninists" ;
• members of former Stalinist parties who have today become social democrats and reformists, like the French Communist Party ;
• certain anarchist currents, such as the "libertarian communists" ;
• certain anti-Leninist Marxist currents, such as the "left communists". Among them, supporters of Luxemburgism and council communism.

All these currents claim, at least formally, to be anti-capitalist, and assert their desire to establish a classless society without exploitation. Naturally, they do so with varying degrees of inconsistency and more or less in good or bad faith.

Post-war period

In the period following the Second World War, socialist and communist ideas would often be used as a catalyst for popular mobilization. But beyond words and certain interesting theorizations, it was (left-wing) nationalist parties that would direct independence movements quite vertically, and set up bourgeois, developmentalist, and interclassist states (bonapartisme sui generis). In the CPs originating from Stalinism, this interclassism was presented as a stage, whereas in other cases like Arab socialism, the class struggle was explicitly repudiated.

Late 20^th century

The crimes of Stalinist regimes were long denied by "communist" parties, but over time increasingly numerous dissident voices made themselves heard (notably among fellow traveler intellectuals). Communism ended up being associated by mainstream opinion with a bureaucratic and dictatorial regime. The collapse of the USSR hastened the decline of the international communist movement, and mainstream opinion took advantage of it to convey the idea that communism, in addition to being tyrannical, was economically inefficient. At the end of the 20^th century, neoliberalism appeared triumphant; socialist parties were all evolving towards social liberalism (often followed by the remnants of the communist parties).

21^st century

Socialist and communist ideas started from a very low point at the beginning of this 21^st century. However, there are signs of a renewed interest in socialism. In the United States and the United Kingdom, for example, the millennial generation views socialism much more favorably than boomers, so much so that some speak of a millennial socialism. While the generation marked by the Cold War continues to declare itself very clearly hostile to communism (only 7% support), 36% of millennials claim to approve of it (2019).

It is interesting to note that it is mainly the communist label that serves as a scarecrow, and that support for egalitarian measures is in itself much more widely popular. Two-thirds of citizens in the United States believe that the wealthiest do not pay enough taxes, and 70% believe that economic inequalities are a major problem. Half believe that a "complete change of the economic system is necessary". The same goes for France, where 57% judge that "to establish social justice, one would have to take from the rich to give to the poor", whereas only 23% declare themselves on the left / far left (2022).

Utopias and real movement

Utopian communism

Many past utopias imagined societies in which human beings would live in an idealized form of communism. We speak of utopian communism to designate these visions in which property is radically abolished. These societies are "communist" on several levels:

• community of labor: work is carried out together. Often, this involves an idealization of communal peasant work (agrarian communism), as opposed to work on the small isolated plot (and to the merchant, craftsman...).
• community of goods: the goods produced are not appropriated but shared among everyone according to needs.

Some have attempted to realize such visions in ideal communities, which almost systematically disappeared very quickly.

Real movement

Communism does not just designate an ideology, but a real force, which has the capacity to transform society because it relies on the current contradictions of capitalism. Marx and Engels insisted heavily on this point :

"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence."

Capitalism does not "naturally" bring about communism, but it has created the social base to overthrow it and contradictions that can only be resolved in a revolutionary overcoming :

"The countless contradictory forms of the social unity could not be eliminated by peaceful metamorphoses. Besides, all our attempts to explode them would be Don Quixotism if we did not find, hidden in the entrails of the society as it is, the material conditions of production and the relations of distribution of the classless society."

Possible communism

Thus it is by relying on what already exists and what is reasonably foreseeable that one can envision what would be pooled together, and not by projecting a subjective ideal onto humanity:

• The community of labor is already largely realized by capitalism, which has replaced small, isolated means of production with industrial means. Communism would therefore inherit this pooling, and rid it of its alienating character: while currently the work collective is subjected to an externally defined objective (of profit), by transitioning to self-organization, work would recover its meaning. The high productivity of modern industry also allows for spending less time at work, and changing jobs much more easily. This is a far cry from an agrarian communism drowning individuality in a collective eternally and cyclically doing the same work in the fields.
• The community of goods no longer has to be an objective in itself. Modern production makes it possible to produce enough for most everyday consumer goods to be abundant. In the case of "luxury" goods, rare goods, or goods costly to produce in terms of ecological impact or labor time, the population will be able to decide on a case-by-case basis. Either a ban (no yachts or private jets...), or rationing (plane trips, overfishing...), or pooling (carsharing...).

Criticisms

Among the most classic and basic criticisms of the idea of communism, it is often heard that :

• no one will want to do hard labor anymore if everyone receives goods at will according to their needs ;
• if private property is abolished everyone will fight to grab a larger share of the common production and this will dissolve the community.

Engels already mentioned these criticisms in 1845.​​

Notes and references

• Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, 1847
• Nikolaï Boukharine, The ABC of Communism, 1923
• Ernest Mandel, What is communism ?, 1987