Marxist FAQ: Vanguardism

What is meant by "vanguardism?" The idea of vanguardism conjures among some a scene of a small group of people sitting around a table plotting to do evil deeds under the guise of communism. This could not be farther from the truth. When we speak of the "vanguard" we are talking about a group of class conscious individuals who have dedicated themselves to bringing about the revolution. This group could be small but that would likely not work out. A successful vanguard would need to be quite large and have the ability to rally the proletariat behind it.

So why the emphasis on a dedicated group? Can't the proletariat spontaneously rise on its own? The average worker should not be counted on to rise up in revolution. They are more concerned with daily survival than political activity. It falls to dedicated proletarian revolutionaries to make preparations for the revolution. This dedicated group would be comprised of those members of the proletariat who have decided to make an active stand against the inequalities of the capitalist system.

Then what are the responsibilities of the vanguard? First and foremost is their duty to educate the proletariat and make them aware of the oppression they face on a daily basis under capitalism. Many in the proletariat are so focused on the basics of survival or are so ingrained with capitalist propaganda that they either do not know they are being oppressed or don't have the time or energy to care. The vanguard has a responsibility to raise their awareness to the inequity around them. The second duty of the vanguard is to lead the proletariat towards revolution. This is an extension of the first duty. By raising the proletariat's awareness they move the proletariat towards collective action. Once the proletariat reaches its breaking point the vanguard will perform its next, and potentially last, duty: to lead the proletarian revolution. The revolution will be a trying time and the slightest misstep could derail the entire revolution. An experienced cadre of revolutionaries will be necessary for the success of the revolution. The vanguard will organize and direct the actions of the proletariat towards capitalism's weakest points and ensure the swift demolition of the capitalist system.

Following the success of the revolution the vanguard will no longer be necessary. However, the proletariat may ask the vanguard to form the beginning leadership of the new proletarian democracy due to their experience and knowledge. If that is the case then the vanguard will have one final duty: to faithfully, rapidly, and democratically lead society down the road to socialism and eventually communism. As society moves towards communism the whole of society will become politically aware and will become members of the "vanguard." At that point the vanguard will vanish and instead we will have socialist and then communist society.

I cannot stress enough the importance of the vanguard. It will ensure the effective education and leadership of the proletariat. No socialist revolution has ever succeeded without a vanguard. The largest socialist and communist movements around the globe are vanguardist. If you are a Leninist, Marxist-Leninist, Trotskyist, or Maoist then you are, by your very ideological nature, a vanguardist. Those Marxists who are not vanguardists are waiting in vain for the proletariat to rise spontaneously in revolution. The problem with this "spontaneous revolution" is that it is a utopian fantasy. The proletariat, without proper leadership and direction, will either be placated by Capitalism with luxuries and petty concessions like we see in the West or brutally oppressed as we see in the developing world. Without the active work of vanguardists to keep the movement going, the socialist movement would be either appeased into lethargy or oppressed into submission. Without vanguardism the revolution is doomed to failure.

Repost: Marxist FAQ: Dictatorship of the Proletariat

There has been much confusion among non-Marxists when the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" is mentioned. Most people believe that this means dictatorship in the modern sense of an oppressive system led from the top down by one leader or a small group of leaders and they point to the use of the word "dictatorship" as their proof. However I am here to clear up that confusion. The phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" was coined at a time before the rise of the modern dictatorship and as such has lost the contextual meaning that the phrase meant when the phrase was coined in the 19th century. When the phrase began to be used, "dictatorship" meant absolute leadership. Thus the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" meant the absolute leadership of the proletariat. In practice however I think that the modern equivalent phrase should be "proletarian democracy" and I will use that phrase in the future.

Proletarian democracy is what Marxists are truly trying to establish. But what is proletarian democracy? In proletarian democracy the State operates on a democratic basis with the caveat that the proletariat is the only class that is allowed to participate. This is in contrast with modern liberal democracy where all classes are permitted to participate. Now is usually the point where liberals and conservatives alike cry out in terror "but you are quashing freedom!" In reality, no we are not. By only allowing the proletariat to participate who is truly being left out: the small group of wealthy people who don't have to work at a job to ensure their livelihood. By removing the influence of the wealthy we can finally realize true democracy. Today the rich contribute to political campaigns and corrupt our political system to the core. By removing their influence we remove the corrupting influence of money in politics. This is not the only part of proletarian democracy for if it was then all we must do to institute proletarian democracy would be to do away with private financing of campaigns. Proletarian democracy would also prevent the rich from being able to be elected or seeking election. This ensures that the proletariat is represented in government by itself. Only by totally removing the wealthy from the political process at all levels can we achieve proletarian democracy. But again this is not all because this political system would be further coupled with the socialist ownership of the means of production. These three prongs together not only take away the influence of the wealthy but eventually ensures that they will become members of the proletariat as well. When there are no rich people left then proletarian democracy becomes true democracy in every sense of the word.

There are numerous schools of thought as to what a proletarian democracy would actually look like. Some view it as a single-party state led by a vanguard party. Some view it as a popular front of all leftist groups banding together to ensure leftist consensus and prevent the emergence of a ruling elite. Others of the more anarchist persuasion would do away with the State entirely and have proletarian democracy on a purely informal basis and only at the local level with participation being voluntary. There have been numerous attempted experiments in proletarian democracy but none has proved to be successful due to the corrupting influences of bureaucratism and the outside influence of capitalism upon socialist states. These influences have the effect of degrading proletarian democracy into bureaucratic, elitist systems that reward party loyalty and loyalty to the State over proletarian democratic initiative. Only when the world is transformed into a world of socialism will we truly be able to begin the great experiment in proletarian democracy.

Repost: Marxist FAQ, Part IV

Here is Part 4 of my FAQ series. Today I will focus on the role of the communist movement in capitalist and socialist society and discuss the different theories regarding the development and spread of socialist revolution with an emphasis on the Theory of Permanent Revolution as advanced by Leon Trotsky and Socialism in One Country as advocated by Joseph Stalin. This particular FAQ is also focused on many aspects of the Leninist trend of thought in Marxism of which Leninism is but one of many trends.

Before I go on I feel I must say a few things about Stalin because many people hear his name and immediately dismiss anything he may have done or said. Yes, Stalin was a dictator who ruled the USSR with a strong hand (although he certainly didn't lead the USSR without the help of a dedicated group of close advisers). Yes, he led a government that persecuted many political rivals to a large extent by sending them to execution or the gulag. However, we must view his actions through the lens of history. Stalin emerged as the leader of the USSR at a time when it was being challenged on an existential level by almost all of Europe's other nations and by internal threats that wanted noting better than to unravel the revolution. This led Stalin to look inside the USSR for threats that he viewed as direct challenges to the very existence of socialism in the USSR. Say what you want about Stalin's actions, but his motives were entire logical and thought out with great precision. He had solid ideological reasons for pursuing internal enemies. Strong arguments can be made that had Stalin not sought to remove those internal threats during the 1930s then the USSR may very well have surrendered in the early days of World War II due to internal conflicts. This outcome would have most likely resulted in the triumph of Hitler in that war which would have had profound consequences today. So before you go and dismiss Stalin's ideas out of hand realize that you can look at his ideas and agree with the ideas without agreeing with the actions Stalin took as a leader.

What is the role of the communist movement in capitalist society?

In a capitalist society the communist movement exists to educate the proletariat and move it towards socialist revolution. A communist movement in capitalist society takes the form of a communist political party that will act as the vanguard of the proletariat in leading the revolution. During the revolution the vanguard will lead the proletariat in the revolution as will help the proletariat to establish a socialist society.

What is meant by a "vanguard"?

The communist vanguard is an advanced group that draws the rest of the proletariat towards revolution. Because most members of the proletariat, either because of lack of education, interest, or other reasons, are not politically active then it is up to the most politically active and class-conscious members of the proletariat to be called upon to lead the other members of the proletariat. This group is not separate from the proletariat but rather emerges naturally from the alienation and societal development associated with the development of capitalism.

What is the role of the communist movement after the revolution has established socialism?

After the revolution the communist movement, in the form of the vanguard, will continue to lead society towards communism. The vanguard may take many forms at this point but it will most likely be a political party of some form that adheres to communist ideology. It will be the duty of this party and state organs to work to expand socialism, prevent the return of capitalism, and move society towards communism.

What are the major theories of socialist development?

There are two main currents in modern revolutionary communism and those are the Theory of Permanent Revolution that was advanced by Leon Trotsky and Socialism in One Country as advocated by Joseph Stalin. There are numerous other theories but they are mostly associated with smaller communist groups that have not had major followings for some time.

What is the Theory of Permanent Revolution?

Permanent Revolution is the theory advanced by Leon Trotsky that states that, in short, not all capitalist societies will become advanced like the nations of Europe and North America and as such the proletariat of those countries must ally with the peasantry to lead a revolution before the full development of capitalism. I will now dissect the various parts of this theory.

The first part of the theory revolves around the idea of uneven development in capitalism. This means that some countries, because of how capitalism develops, will never see the huge productive forces that advanced capitalist societies have. Examples would be nations in Sub-Saharan Africa. These nations are exploited by capitalists mostly on the basis of their resources and so capitalists see no need to develop the industrial powers of those countries. This means that the majority of people in those countries will never be in the industrial proletariat, but rather will be peasants who work the land to produce resource.

Next the theory posits that because of this uneven development the proletariat of those countries must work to begin a socialist revolution with the peasantry because otherwise their society will never develop fully to naturally have a socialist revolution. In this situation the proletariat would initiate a bourgeois revolution to institute democracy and then proceed with a "permanent revolution" and then move directly into socialist revolution.

What are the problems with Permanent Revolution?

First, the theory splits the world up on on a very trivial basis into "developed" and "undeveloped". Most nations develop on a known trajectory from primitive communism (tribalism), slavery, feudalism, and then capitalism. Most of the world right now is in what would be the early stages of capitalism. Therefore, Trotsky saying that some nations simply will not develop proper capitalism has no factual evidence. We need only look at India and China to see that eventually all nations eventually develop industrial capitalism given enough time.

Second, the Theory does not allow for the proper development to take place and forces revolution upon societies that are not yet ready to properly implement socialism. This leads to problems like those in Vietnam where the nation in nominally socialist but, because of improper development, functions more along the lines of state capitalism where the state replaces the bourgeoisie but capitalism as the primary system is retained. This leads to a corruption of communist theory and eventually to the situation observed in China where capitalism is the order of the day but ruled under the guise of false communism.

Third, because of the problems in the second point, the proletariat should not work with the peasantry if possible because it will lead, in cases where the peasantry greatly outnumbers the proletariat, to improper development where society will focus on agricultural development over industrial development. In my view socialist revolution in unprepared societies can only be undertaken when supported from another socialist state that has properly developed socialism.

What is Socialism in One Country?

Socialism in One Country is the theory advanced by Joseph Stalin and is a retort of the Theory of Permanent Revolution. It is a theory that came into existence because of the situation that emerged in Russia following the failure of socialist revolutions in Europe following World War One. Socialism in One Country states that in the event that revolution fails to spread quickly then it is the duty of those states that establish socialism in their country to develop internally and work to spread the revolution after socialism has been established fully. Only by having a fully developed socialist base can the revolution be spread to other nations. This program of internal development and later expansion should be predicated on the condition that socialism has failed to sweep across the world in a brief period of time. Should revolution spread across the globe quickly then Socialism in One Country would not be necessary and would in fact be detrimental.

Socialism in One Country does not describe a mindset where socialism is considered victorious when only one or a few nations establish socialism. Rather it says that should the revolution fail to sweep the world quickly then those societies where socialism has been established should grow socialism internally until socialism has been victorious across the globe. Therefore victory of socialism in one country is totally separate from the total victory of socialism across the globe.

Socialism in One Country is not as rigid as Permanent Revolution because it allows for nations to develop socialism at a pace that is consistent with their own level of development. Socialist states do have a duty to spread the revolution but they are not deemed failures should they fail to spread the revolution as they would be graded under Permanent Revolution Theory. Permanent Revolution Theory also requires socialism to spread across the globe simultaneously, or roughly simultaneously, while failure to do so will result in socialist states degrading over time because of the failure of world revolution, Socialism in One Country does not have this constraint.

What are the problems with Socialism in One Country?

While I view it as the most complete theory of socialist development it is not without its flaws. First it does not always make it a goal to spread socialism at the fastest pace but is accepting of a slower, more deliberate spread of socialism and for this reason it can be seen as advocating a more complacent, less revolutionary stance on socialist development. Second, it is purely meant as a theory of necessity and as such does not have the urgency and completeness of being a universal theory. Third, the main reason that Trotskyists try to deride the theory is by claiming that Socialism in One Country is a "Stalinist" attempt to remove the revolutionary aspect from communism and while that is certainly a possible criticism I dismiss it as naive and driven by sectarianism.

_________________________

Well that is not as complete an overview as I would like but it is a basic description of the two theories.

Repost: Marxist FAQ, Part III

Well here is Part 3 in my FAQ series. Last time I explained the basics of value and accumulation. Today I will focus on wages.

How are workers paid under capitalism?

Under capitalism, workers, or rather the proletariat, do not have the means to produce items and then sell them and so they must sell the only resource they have available in abundance, their time and physical ability to work. They must sell this resource on an open market where employers bid with workers for a price to their labor. This can be any amount, although in many counties there is typically a minimum wage that employers are required to pay. Theoretically workers and employers are free to negotiate the pay rate.

Pay usually takes the form of any hourly wage or a salary that is the assumed value of the labor the worker provides. The rate of pay can be determined by a number of factors including: difficulty of work, skills necessary to complete tasks, availability of replacement workers, education required, etc.

Is the capitalist wage system fair?

If the capitalist wage system functioned as it was intended then it could be argued that the system is "fair" but what wages fails to grasp is that the richest in society do not have to work for wages and thus are exploiting workers in order to enrich themselves. On top of this is the problem that a worker who builds an entire car may not, because of the incentive to pay less for work than what it should actually be worth, be able to buy the car they just built.

Capitalism, and its wage system, is based upon exploitation of the worker. Under capitalism a worker may provide labor that provides $20 per hour in value, but because of the need to generate profits, employers may only pay the worker $10. This is an economic necessity under capitalism because corporations have a legal responsibility to generate profits for the owners of the corporation. Non-corporate entities have the same motivation because the owner(s) of the company naturally want to generate profits for their businesses as well.

Can capitalist wages ever be fair?

In a simple answer, no. Since the need to generate profits is inherent in capitalism there will always be a need to pay workers less then they should be earning. Capitalism would immediately fall apart if workers were paid a wage equal to the wealth they actually generate because this would leave nothing left for the capitalist. 

What is the socialist alternative to the capitalist wage system?

There are many alternatives available but the most convincing, at least to me, is the use of labor credits. Using labor credits a worker would earn credits based on the amount of work done which would then be amplified by the difficulty, danger, or necessity of the work in question. For example say Jimmy was a coal miner and Tom was an accountant. Both of them worked an 8 hour day earning them both 8 labor credits. Jimmy's job is inherently very dangerous and so he would get a 2 credit bonus. Tom's job requires special training and so he got a 2 credit bonus. Because Jimmy's job is naturally undesirable an incentive of 1 bonus credit is added to his work. So under this system Jimmy would receive 11 credits to Tom's 10.

Some may criticize this because they would say that all the education and responsibility of an accountant should inherently allow them to make more, however if one were to look at the usefulness of each task, and the dangers involved (I would dare any accountant to try being a coal miner for a day and tell me that they deserve more pay then a coal miner) then it makes sense for coal miners to make slightly more.

This system also isn't rigid. Should there not be enough accountants then the State could introduce a bonus for accountants in order to incentivize people to be accountants. This would work for any job. Socially undesirable but necessary jobs would result in more pay in order to ensure that enough people would work in those necessary jobs.

How would one use their credits?

So as has been explained previously, under socialism every individual would receive everything necessary to survive by default (food, home, transport, healthcare, etc.) at no cost to themselves. However luxury items or things that go beyond basic necessities would be purchased with labor credits. Naturally prices would be dependent on the labor that went into making the item in question, thus removing profit, for example a car would cost more credits than a chair.

Doesn't that system encourage laziness since people could survive without working?

Because prices would be dependent on the labor that went into making the item then people would be incentivized to work (none of the drivel that conservatives promote when they say a socialist society would be a society of freeloaders). I don't know about you but the idea of getting just enough food to survive and then sitting around doing nothing is not my idea of a good time or a happy life. If you wanted the newest video game, you'd have to go work. Want that fancy new phone? Go work for it. The entire system is devised to incentivize work while ensuring the most fair distribution of wealth. While there are bound to be a few people who simply refuse to work they will also be the people who will sit in the most spartan apartments with no nice things to call their own.

What is to keep people from subsidizing the laziness of others?

Essentially nothing. However under the labor credits system that I promote the credits are assigned to individuals and only those individuals, or their spouses or dependents, can redeem their credits. So say that Jimmy works hard and earns 100 credits in a week. Jimmy's neighbor Tom sees Jimmy's success and thinks, "Hey, I'll just take some of his credits and use them, he won't even notice." Well since the credits are in Jimmy's name (most likely using something like a debit card) then Tom, who is not authorized to take from Jimmy's credit account, would not be able to simply take the credits. While there is nothing to prevent Jimmy from helping Tom, Jimmy would have to do so of his own accord. And since prices are dependent on the labor used to produce the item being sold Jimmy would not want to screw himself out of his hard earned credits to help lazy old Tom.

What would wages under communism look like?

Communism would have no wages. Basically we need to also view the labor credit system as a socialization system. It is designed to make people equate work with personal gain and laziness with boredom and spartanism. The goal is to eventually reach a point where all, or almost all, members of society work because they want to work and help their community. The byproduct of work would then be that they have the ability to gain items in accordance with the work they provide. Eventually this would morph and evolve society until everyone only bought the items they want or need rather than simply trying to empty the entire store because they can. Under communism there would be no prices and no credits because they would not be necessary. People would not need to have their consumption regulated by credits because they would have no desire to take more than they need or that they feel they desire. Keep in mind that such a society would not emerge in a year, a decade, or possibly even a century. The transition from socialism to communism is a long process because it would not only be an economic revolution, but a revolution challenging our entire understanding of what constitutes our society and our behavior in that society.

Doesn't this enable people to take at will without giving anything back?

Theoretically yes but communism would only be reach once society would have no desire to endlessly and pointlessly consume. If masses of people are simply taking everything from the stores and not working then it is not a truly communist society. As the mantra goes, in a communist society work is "from each according to their ability." and products are provided "to each according to their need." Each individual would determine their own ability and need but socialization and education would guide everyone to provide all they are capable of and take responsibly that which they need.

_________________________________

Well that is all for wages under capitalism, socialism, and communism. It is by no means complete and, especially in regard to socialism, reflects my views very heavily. Next time I will delve into the role of communist movements and the competing theories of socialist development with an emphasis on the Theory of Permanent Revolution as promoted by Leon Trotsky and Socialism in One Country as promoted by Joseph Stalin. These form the main basis upon which sectarianism has developed and split the revolutionary communist movement since the 1920s. While there are other theories and movements out there, Trotskyism and Marxism-Leninism are the two largest and so I will go over the basics of their similarities and differences next time.

Repost: Marxist FAQ, Part II

Here is my second post in my Marxist FAQ series. I had a difficult time in determining which questions to address since my choice of questions would tend in the direction of my own beliefs, rather than Marxism in general, bu here it goes. I decided to focus on very simple, fundamental idea and concepts in order to facilitate more detailed FAQs later on.

What is the Proletariat?

The proletariat are any individuals who must sell their labor in order to earn wages. So if you work for someone else then you are a member of the proletariat. This may sound vague or general but that is because believe it or not most people, especially in industrialized nations, are members of the proletariat. They are also the only class of society that is constantly growing due to the processes associated with capitalism. All Marxists also believe that only the proletariat is capable of leading the socialist revolution that will replace capitalism.

What is the Bourgeoisie?

The bourgeoisie is the class of society that garners its wealth from the labor of others. This is exemplified by those capitalists that own large corporations and gain all their wealth simply by sitting around and waiting for the dividends and trust funds to pay for their lifestyles. But every individual who gains their wealth by exploiting the work of others is a member of the bourgeoisie. This class is the smallest class in industrialized society and is getting smaller as wealth is accumulated by fewer and fewer people.

What is the Petty Bourgeoisie?

The petty bourgeoisie is that class that could be seen between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. They are individuals that own small business or are craftsmen. They are not in the proletariat because they exploit the work of others to gain their wealth but neither are they members of the bourgeoisie because they still regularly have to work in order to gain their wealth. This class is in a unique position because they are inclined to help the proletariat on many issues because they are not abundantly wealthy but they also side with the bourgeoisie on other issues because they must defend their own right to accumulate wealth at the expense of the proletariat. According to Marxists this class will eventually disappear into the proletariat as the bourgeoisie continues to accumulate wealth at the expense of those classes below them.

What are the means of production?

The means of production are any industrial inputs used to produce other things. This extends from a hand loom all the way up to industrial robots used to make cars. When used in the context of Marxist theory it also refers to anything that is used to produce other things. The iron used to make a car is a means of production just as much as the machine that assembles the car. In the course of a socialist revolution all the means of production will be taken by the proletariat in order to prevent future accumulation of capital by the bourgeoisie. When communists talk about abolishing private property, they are mostly talking about abolishing the ability to own means of productions, along with a few other things.

What is the surplus value of labor?

The surplus value of labor is the value of a produced item that is in excess of what a worker can claim to the value of the item. Let us use the example of a nail factory. Say a worker is paid $10 an hour but produces $20 worth of nails in that hour. Because the worker has no claim to the nail machine or the nails then the factory owner gains the additional $10.

What is the accumulation of capital?

The accumulation of capital is the process by which the bourgeoisie takes the surplus value of labor in order to create more surplus value. This process creates greater and greater amounts of wealth for the bourgeoisie. Using the previous example, suppose the nail manufacturer takes the $10 surplus from the nails and invests that in a new machine that produces $30 worth of nails an hour. Because of the profit motive inherent in capitalism the manufacturer does not have any incentive to raise wages so wages for the workers remain the same. Should this process continue into infinity, eventually the surplus value generated by the nail factory will be enormous and because capitalists are constantly striving for greater profits, they will seek to retain as much of the surplus value as possible thus ensuring that they continue to accumulate larger and larger amounts of capital and wealth.

Isn't the accumulation of capital a good thing?

Well it is for capitalists because it ensures them a larger and larger share of the profits and thus their own personal wealth. Some argue that the accumulation of capital is good because it allows for more and more efficient production. And while that may certainly be the case, efficiency usually comes at a cost to workers and the environment. For the proletariat the accumulation of capital does not help them one bit because it can have the effect of either nudging them out of the production process, relegating them to unemployment, or forces them to sell their labor for lower and lower prices, thus reducing their wages to the point that they cannot afford even the basic necessities of life.

Is there accumulation of capital under socialism?

Accumulation of capital also occurs under socialism but then it serves the purpose of moving society towards communism. In this situation accumulation of capital is good because it will be benefiting the whole of society rather than a small group of capitalists. Also, since items are not sold for profit then neither the state nor individuals will be unfairly charged for the surplus value associated with items under capitalism. Accumulation of capital under socialism is then more a gradual expansion of the means of production rather than the production of items in order to generate profit.

____________________

Well that is all for today. Hopefully this will allow everyone to gain a better grasp over the basics of Marxist theory. We will use this knowledge in the future to tackle more complex concepts. Next time I hope to go over the wage system under capitalism and how compensation should be determined under socialism. I may throw a few other things in as well to aid transition to more complex topics but that will be for a later time.

Repost: Marxist FAQ, Part I

So I have been asked many questions over my life as to what Marxism, Communism, and Socialism actually are. Many times these questions were made in jest, by people with false preconceived notions, but I answered them with the real facts. Not to say I convinced anybody but I at least made an active effort to reverse the leftovers of Cold War propaganda that still permeate our society's views on what socialism actually is. I'll start with the basics and move on to more complicated topics. This will be the start of a series that I hope to continue. Keep in mind that some of the answers I provide may stem from my personal beliefs but I try to include those beliefs held by others in the Marxist movement for comparison.

What is Communism?

The most basic of all questions. Communism is a stateless, classless society that has evolved past all the trappings of capitalist society. All individuals are completely equal in every manner of speaking. Society is completely democratic from the ground up. Everything in society is done for the good of all. In a communist society overabundance of resources and production has instituted a situation whereby any individual can attain almost any item they desire, at any time, at no cost. This is only possible after a sustained period of transition whereby increased automation of industrial activities have relegated physical labor into either non-existence or irrelevance. Individuals, free from the constraints of producing goods, are free to pursue any activity they desire for their own improvement or the betterment of society (think Star Trek). Under communism, because of the education implemented under socialism, individuals always work to benefit society of their own free will and will not take more than they need. Laziness by choice is not a social ill because individuals are socialized to actively work for society and to despise laziness. Only those physically or mentally incapable of work, either because of illness or age, do not work and they are guaranteed full and happy lives. Overconsumption is also not an issue because of the combination of constant overproduction and the effects of socialization to instill the desire only to consume that which is necessary. This society can only be achieved after a prolonged period of socialism and is the end goal of all true socialist and communist movements. In this society all individuals, regardless of circumstance, are guaranteed all of life's necessities: food, water, housing, health care, education, cultural enrichment, and leisure. The mantra of a Communist society would be "From each according to their ability. To each according to their need."

What is Socialism?

Socialism is the transitional period between capitalism and communism. Socialism is instigated when the working class has gained total control over the means of production (factories, mines, etc.) and has instituted the beginnings of a classless, stateless society. Unlike in communism, individuals are not entitled to all the benefits of society but must work for their benefits. This can take many forms, but the one most favored by Marxists are the use of labor credits (more on those in a later post) in the place of money. In a socialist society individuals are guaranteed the basics of life, but must work in order to gain any other benefits like ownership of a house or car. A socialist society would have the mantra "From each according to their ability. To each according to their work."

What happens to private property?

Contrary to most of the propaganda, communism and socialism does not remove private property, it only removes private ownership of capital and the means of production. Individuals are still the owners of their clothing, food, homes, cars, family heirlooms, and personal items. Under socialism and communism only that property that is used to generate wealth, like factories or apartment complexes for example, is taken by the state. This is to prevent to accumulation of large amounts of wealth by a small group of individuals who in reality perform very little actual labor. The taking of property would also be limited to large things like industrial machinery, not grandpa's baseball card collection (which while possibly valuable does not constitute "capital"). Naturally restrictions would have to be established to prevent individuals from abusing ownership rights (like limiting a family to owning one house to prevent accumulation of wealth through rent) but the conception of private property as known by most common people will remain intact.

Don't Communists hate civil liberties like freedom of speech?

Most certainly not. In fact we adamantly defend them just as much as most liberals. However, we look at these rights through the lens of Marxist theory. One individual speaking their beliefs is fine, but a huge multinational corporation using money to run campaign ads is not. Marxists get a bad reputation because of the actions of the leaders of corrupt nations like China and the former USSR. Under communism individuals would be much more free than they are under capitalism because they would not have to worry about what effect their statements would have on their job prospects or anything else.

Would a communist society be democratic?

Definitely yes. Because the influences of huge corporations and ultra-rich business tycoons would be removed, society would be truly democratic for the first time in human history. People would finally be free to vote their conscience without undue outside influence. Also, because communist societies are structured from the bottom up individuals would have a much larger say over local policies then they can ever hope for under current circumstances.

How will Marxists take power?

By any means necessary. All of us would love for the transition to be peaceful but history has shown otherwise. At every turn the forces of global capital have used violence and suppression to cling to power and we do not expect that to change. They have shown that they are willing to kill hundreds of millions of people using every means available to ensure that they stay in power. We hope for a peaceful transition but prepare for a drawn out struggle.

Who will lead the revolution?

There are many answers to this question. Marxists have been debating this issue since the mid-nineteenth century so naturally opinions differ. Some believe that the working class will one day spontaneously rise up and take power. Some think that the revolution won't be a revolution at all, but rather a slow peaceful transition in the framework of modern liberal democracy. I prescribe to the belief that only a dedicated group of revolutionaries can incite the working class to recognize their horrible situation under capitalism and then lead the people in a revolution to overthrow capitalism, but my belief is but one of many.

Well there are the first seven questions I have decided to answer. I will post more later on. If you have any questions you wish to ask then ask away. I am more than happy to answer questions asked out of honest curiosity.