I’ll preface with saying that I’m only a random Communist. Please take what I say with a grain of salt, even if I come off as confident.
Regardless of your opinion on the war, it is not going to affect its course unless you go fight there, with a few exceptions.
Unless you live in Russia or Ukraine, your priorities should be:
- pressuring your country’s government for non-interventionism, including sanctions. Capitalist States have only the interest of capital in mind, and their intervention will hurt the people further
- fighting racism in your communities, especially the new wave of anti-Russian hate.
If you live in Poland or Romania, you should also be fighting the racism against non-Ukrainians (mostly foreign students) seeking refuge. Most of them just want to go home. The fact that the police are attacking them is extremely ridiculous.
Yes. Since your argument seems to be based on USSR was communist, Putin is the direct descendant of the USSR so Putin is communist. I’ve been focusing on debunking the second assertion but if that’s not enough i’m happy to tackle the first one. There was a communist revolution in Russia/Ukraine in 1917, and the bolsheviks crushed it. There was no communism under the USSR after that, only State capitalism. It’s very relevant to this discussion because “invading ukraine” is precisely part of what destroyed communism in the USSR.
Yes it’s a paraphrase. But to be fair some of Marx’s own wordings are fairly close. I don’t remember those i read previously (from books he published later in his life), but for what it’s worth from exactly 5 seconds of “googling”: “this dictatorship is only a transition to the dissolution of all classes and leads to the formation of a classless society.”
Of course it has. Communism (or anarchism) is a quasi-natural state of things in many circumstances (see also Graeber on this topic). Most communities throughout the history of humankind have lived without what we understand as private property or work, and millions of people live to this day in self-organized communities without rulers. These people are practically building communism without intermediate steps or broken promises, or even political police: they are accomplishing a lot more than Stalin or Mao ever did who just reproduced the structures of the old Empires and painted them red (which has arguably nothing to do with communism).
I agree that communism will lead to a return to this natural human state. There’s a reason why we use the word revolution. When we talk about a revolution of the earth around the sun, it is the earth returning to the same position it was a year ago. That’s what a revolution is, an instance of something revolving, which implies an eternal cycle.
But of course, the earth doesn’t really return to the same place, because the sun is moving too. So it’s more of a spiral. That’s one of the main ideas of dialectics: everything is in motion, all change is connected. So even if we can narrowly contrive a useful picture of the earth in an eternal cycle, in the big picture, something has still changed. History doesn’t repeat itself but it rhymes.
So the point of this ramble is to say that while there will most likely be a lot of similarities between this final stage communist society and primitive communism, they are not the same thing. What’s ironic is that the end of primitive communism and the beginning of this final communism are both events driven by the same thing. An overabundance of commodities.
When this happened the first time, it gave rise to the institution of private property, because people now had something worth protecting and stealing. In the future, overabundance will lead to the dissolution of private property. Because everyone’s needs and desires can be met the institution of protecting one groups desires over an other’s will be redundant.
So already we see a key difference. Primitive communism existed because of scarcity, the communism of the future exists because of overabundance.
I’m not sure what you are referring to because you could be referring to a lot of different things. Maybe the Zapatistas or Rojava? I guess not Zapatistas because they have leaders. But Rojava only exists in the context of a civil war and a state of anarchy which also allowed far right groups like ISIS to flourish. And Rojava is also financially backed by the US government. But maybe I assume too much and there is a different example you have?
No that’s not my argument. Putin isn’t a communist. What I said more specifically was that Russia is a popular front like China was during WWII. China wasn’t communist during WWII, but the communists were a strong faction in alliance with the others in China. Because there is a contradiction between the country and the imperial ruling class that is principal. The contradiction between the national bourgeoisie and the working class is secondary at the moment.