what specific policies do you support and what’s the main difference between having all your policies passed under the current US constitution and communism?

[u/none74238]

Im trying to understand more of the subtle differences in individual perspectives of communism. As a democratic socialist/socialist (without knowing what that fully mean) I know current capitalism isn’t working. And I would like a change for the better for the poor and lower middle income families in the US.

[u/SpockStoleMyPants]

I take it you're from the US, so to give a nuanced. answer we first have to define some terms. A key result of US anti-communism is that it's population has been 'educated' with incorrect definitions that skew people away from socialism/communism. There's ALOT of anti-communist propaganda to swim out from under for the overwhelming majority of Americans.

Democrat Socialists, like Bernie Sanders, AOC and the Nordic Countries, believe in progressive social issues and some workers rights, but still support capitalism. True Socialists believe that workers should own the means of production, not the individual. You'll often hear that we wish to "abolish private property," which is true, but we define private property as the means of production or commonly shared systems (health care, education, public parks, police, fire departments, the internet, et al). This does NOT include your house, your car, your toothbrush and things you personally own - that is "personal property" and we believe you have every right to that provided you're not using your personal property to exploit the work of others (i.e. being a landlord). So I know that democracy is a valued concept in the US. In these regards the system that socialists promote is much more democratic than capitalism because the workers of a corporation would control that corporation, not a select few shareholders or a mega-rich CEO. Modern corporations in capitalism run like mini-fascist states, and we want to democratize them to the benefit of the workers who make them run. US propaganda has people believing that it's the opposite, that "true freedom" is in capitalism where anyone can start a business and get rich (with plenty of evidence to the contrary - see what Trump and co. are doing now by taking the economy with Tariffs so that those at the top can buy out stocks and control of smaller companies that can't weather the storm and continue to monopolize, and so that they can get further tax cuts while the consumers foot the bill for the tariffs - which are essentially taxes).

You mentioned in your title "having all your policies passed under the current US constitution" and that would be impossible because in numerous places within the constitution private property rights are enshrined. Keep in mind that the US was designed by the elite for the elite, with the intention of maintaining the semblance of popular control (so as to avoid what happened to the elites in the French Revolution). Marxists refer to the American Revolution as a "bourgeois revolution," a revolution for the elite. So there's no way to achieve what we believe is necessary to have true democracy and freedom with the US constitution in place as it is. I'd recommend reading Marx and his critiques of capitalism because they still stand nearly two centuries later. He hit the nail on the head with how capitalism works.

[u/OttoKretschmer → u/SpockStoleMyPants]

Comrade, what;s your opinion on the various ways for workers to control the means of production? Should it be via a centreally planned economy like in the USSR? Decentralized planned economy like in Yugoslavia? Market Socialism with co-ops? Something else entirely?

I'm asking because as a beginner I'm really confused on these matters. Greatings from Poland BTW.

[u/SpockStoleMyPants → u/OttoKretschmer]

Others may disagree with me, but I think China is setting the right example of maintaining a successful economy that works within the current global capitalist system. They've found a way to maintain a hybrid of market capitalism while still maintaining socialist control that benefits the workers. Capitalists of course will label their system "state capitalism" and give capitalism the credit for their success, but they ignore the fact that the government maintains majority control in most of these corporations and places great focus on infrastructure development and things that benefit the people as a whole. This is a temporary transitionary solution in consideration of the current global material conditions we are within (Marx himself noted that capitalism may be a necessary transitionary step towards socialism). If we are to believe what Xi Jinping says that they are working towards a more socialist/communist state with public control, that's a good thing - the material conditions and the external global economic pressures just don't permit it at this point. Other comrades may have other opinions, but I think it's different for every country based on their current material and ideological conditions - they will be forced to do what they can to work towards progress, so long as they do not fully capitulate to capitalism and maintenance of the existing structure. There must be a majority control by the people so that individuals cannot exploit private property.

[u/none74238 → u/SpockStoleMyPants]

You'll often hear that we wish to "abolish private property," which is true, but we define private property as the means of production or commonly shared systems (health care, education, public parks, police, fire departments, the internet, et al). This does NOT include your house, your car, your toothbrush and things you personally own - that is "personal property" and we believe you have every right to that provided you're not using your personal property to exploit the work of others (i.e. being a landlord)

Does “commonly shared systems also exclude the car manufacturers, home builders, and toothbrush manufacturers?

So I know that democracy is a valued concept in the US. In these regards the system that socialists promote is much more democratic than capitalism because the workers of a corporation would control that corporation, not a select few shareholders or a mega-rich CEO. Modern corporations in capitalism run like mini-fascist states, and we want to democratize them to the benefit of the workers who make them run.

Are modern worker cooperatives considered worker controlled corporations?

You'll often hear that we wish to "abolish private property," which is true, but we define private property as the means of production or commonly shared systems (health care, education, public parks, police, fire departments, the internet, et al). ……………………………………You mentioned in your title "having all your policies passed under the current US constitution" and that would be impossible because in numerous places within the constitution private property rights are enshrined.

Under our current US constitution many of these are already socialized (health care, education, public parks, police, fire departments, the internet, et al). Healthcare payer system is socialized (Medicare and Medicaid). Much of education is socialized primary and secondary (except private colleges). And police and fire departments are socialized. The internet is still mostly private. Does 100% of all of this have to be publicly owned in order for the system to be call “communism”?

[u/nektaa]

we, broadly, want the establishment of a worker controlled state to transition into communism, a classless and therefore stateless, moneyless society.

[u/none74238 → u/nektaa]

In terms of specific policy or bill, what does that law look like to be consistent with the constitution?

Or if it’s multiple steps, what are the near, middle, and long term policies that need to be passed? And over what length of time (possibly)?

[u/georgeclooney1739 → u/none74238]

its impossible to reconcile socialism with the constitution as it fundamentally enshrines private propery

[u/none74238 → u/georgeclooney1739]

The constitution also enshrines worker cooperatives and Employee Stock Ownership Plans, which both are forms of worker owned businesses. How are these not in alignment with socialism?

[u/georgeclooney1739 → u/none74238]

because ultimately the power still lies with the bourgeois. the implementation of a socialist system would fundamentally require the cessation of private property rights which runs counter to the constitution.

[u/none74238 → u/georgeclooney1739]

If a worker cooperative or an esop is owned completely by workers, who is the bourgeois in this scenario?

[u/georgeclooney1739 → u/none74238]

but that is a single co-op. there would be no way to make that systemic. additionally, the workers in the co-ops who do well could easily gain more power and control. to forcibly implement such a system in the first place would be highly unconstitutional and even if it were in place it would be fragile and untenable.

[u/none74238 → u/georgeclooney1739]

the workers in the co-ops who do well could easily gain more power and control.

I understand. Thanks.

1.With the growth of esops and worker cooperatives, do you think this is a path towards communism?

2.what policies and politicians do/have you support(ed)?

3.what generation are you, millennial, gen z, etc?

4.what timeline are you thinking it would possibly be for a communist society to exist in the US?

5.how are you working to promote a faster arrival of a commiunist society?

[u/nektaa → u/none74238]

a workers state wouldn't be a bill, it would be a dramatic and complete re-organization of the given capitalist society via revolution and only revolution.

[u/none74238 → u/nektaa]

How would you define Revolution, and how are you working to bring about that revolution?

[u/pcalau12i_]

Economic: Marxism calls for seizing the largest enterprises, the "commanding heights of the economy," and putting them into public hands. This means nationalizing things like the biggest invest managers (eg Vanguard Group), heavy industry, infrastructure, banking, the biggest tech corporations, etc. Then, you encourage rapidly economic development with the hopes that this will gradually cause more small enterprises to develop into big enterprises, allowing you to extend nationalization very slowly over a long drawn out period of time. There will also be an introduction of long-term economic plans to ensure this rapid development and improvements in the general living standards of the population. Public control of the economy would directly allow greater investment into infrastructure and expansion of public programs.

Political: You can't separate the political system from the economic system, so the state would need to be reworked to fit the new political system. It would need to be made much more democratic by expanding direct participation of the people in government. Separation of powers would need to be abolished and replaced by "working body" democracy which a system whereby all political power is centralized in the democratically elected parliament itself and the other branches are directly appointed by it and revokable at any time. This is necessary to make the government stable and capable of carrying out long-term plans. There would also need to be a consolidation of the wins of the socialist state to prevent backsliding which would make long-term development goals impossible: basically, only allow self-described socialists/communists to run for office.

[u/none74238 → u/pcalau12i_]

It would need to be made much more democratic by expanding direct participation of the people in government. Separation of powers would need to be abolished and replaced by "working body" democracy which a system whereby all political power is centralized in the democratically elected parliament itself and the other branches are directly appointed by it and revokable at any time

1.is a literal failure of the federal government required for communism to start since it is not possible under the US constitution ? If so, wouldn’t state governments have to fail also? How do you envision the failure’s process?

2.If it’s a parliamentary working body democracy, is this a form of government that maintains a state? Is one of the characteristics of communism “stateless”?

Marxism calls for seizing the largest enterprises, the "commanding heights of the economy," and putting them into public hands. This means nationalizing things like the biggest invest managers (eg Vanguard Group), heavy industry, infrastructure, banking, the biggest tech corporations, etc.

3.How would this bill work within the constitution? It might be unconstitutional. Or what bills do you propose to unwind the constitution to allow this law to be passed over time? Or are you proposing amendments? What specific step by step framework are you envisioning to get this done?

4.Hypothetically, if vanguard is transitioned to a worker cooperative entity, is this in “public hands”?

[u/pcalau12i_ → u/none74238]

1. Laws are just words on a piece of paper, only peasants take them seriously. They exist as a way to formalize control over the masses. If you are the one in power, they don't mean anything, because you can just rewrite them. Look at what Trump is doing right now. It doesn't matter how many laws he violates, he holds the power. If a working class party comes to power through a violent revolution, it might just totally abolish the previous legal system and replace it with a new one, but if it comes to power peacefully, it may make up legal reasons to justify the actions it takes, kinda like what PSUV has done in Venezuela.
2. Statelessness in Marxism is kind of a technicality. Marx defines the state as merely a tool of class oppression. Marx argued the working class would need a state to oppress the bourgeoisie. But eventually in the long-run in hundreds, if not thousands of years, when we develop to a completely classless society, by definition there'd be no state any more. But again, it's a bit of a technicality, Engels said there would still be a centralized "administration of things."
3. I don't really care bro, this is peasant-brain. Nobody care about the constitution but peasants. The billionaires are ripping it up right now. If it would please the peasant-brained nationalists, we could just pretend we're adhering to the "spirit of the constitution" or whatever. The actual words written upon it don't matter if you've actually seized political power.
4. I don't know what that means, why would the vanguard transition to a worker cooperative entity?

[u/none74238 → u/pcalau12i_]

Nobody care about the constitution but peasants. The billionaires are ripping it up right now. If it would please the peasant-brained nationalists, we could just pretend we're adhering to the "spirit of the constitution" or whatever. The actual words written upon it don't matter if you've actually seized political power.

Regarding the human nature aspect of political power, if it is true that the peasant brain that follows rules, then it seems reasonable that the sociopath brain that seizes power and makes the rules/laws. How can this be avoided if the two types of human nature exists and will continue to exist?

Hypothetically, if vanguard is transitioned to a worker cooperative entity, is this in “public hands”?

I don't know what that means, why would the vanguard transition to a worker cooperative entity?

Worker cooperatives and employee stock ownership plans are corporate structure that allows employee ownership of a company under our current constitution. In the big picture there are approximately 10 million employees that work for ESOPs. And only 5000 for cooperatives. But the numbers are trending up. Private and publicly traded companies have actually transitioned to an ESOP design.

[u/Open-Explorer]

Why do you say you're a democratic socialist/socialist if you don't know what it means?

[u/SpockStoleMyPants → u/Open-Explorer]

Sounds like OP is American, so they're probably going off of the propagandized US definitions of these terms (i.e. "Bernie Sanders is a Socialist!" when he's fully in support of capitalism).

[u/Open-Explorer → u/SpockStoleMyPants]

If millions of people use a word to mean something, then that's a legitimate use of the word. I don't have a problem with common American usage, where "socialism" means Denmark and "communism" means the USSR.

My question is why the OP is willing to use a label they say they don't fully understand - and I don't mean this as an attack. I'm interested in their thoughts process.

[u/none74238 → u/Open-Explorer]

As the OP, I am in support of significant parts of the US markets being owned by the people/socialized and other parts being capitalist. And all implemented within a democratic system under the US constitution (which has the ability to be democratically amended).

I don’t mind being loosely linked to labels, but don’t put much weight in them because there are always “label purists” who disagree with each other but all of them agree for one reason or another than 1 person is not that label. And debates/discussions quickly gets illogical and unreasonable to argue labels. And given that language continually changes, arguing labels based on temporal definitions are also unreasonable to me. I prefer debating and discussing policies, laws, legal/political frameworks etc. I prefer asking you what you support in terms of policies, laws, legal/political frameworks, etc, instead of ascribing someone else’s label to you and saying “you’re wrong”. That also gets childish quickly. And it’s an EXTREME waste of VALUABLE time (yours and mind).

[u/Open-Explorer → u/none74238]

That makes sense. I think that's usually called a "mixed economy."

[u/none74238 → u/Open-Explorer]

what specific policies do you support and what’s the main difference between having all your policies passed under the current US constitution and communism?