A discussion on the necessity and possibility of communism

Following an online ICC discussion meeting on the question of communism, two close sympathisers combined forces to produce this account of the meeting, which we think clearly draws out its principal themes and conclusions.

Recently, a few comrades close to the ICC met with the organisation to discuss some of the most fundamental questions for revolutionaries regarding the real possibility of and material necessity for communism. The ‘basic’ nature of the topic is all the more reason for its continued conscious discussion by those approaching militancy. Comrades old and young and from across the world participated with real militant intent, showing the universal importance of these questions for the proletariat and its revolutionaries. Such fraternal and rich international discussions are the lifeblood of the revolutionary minority, and in a period where revolutionaries remain generally isolated and small in number, they provide vital opportunities for political clarification.

The discussion was divided into three points:

1. Why is communism possible and necessary?
2. What are common doubts and objections?
3. What could a future classless society look like?

Communism is possible and necessary

Communism as an idea has existed throughout almost the entire history of class society, with descriptions of an ideal society free from oppression and inequality evident from as far back as ancient Greece. However it is only today that communism becomes a real possibility.

The entire history of class society represents only a tiny fraction of humanity’s history. For several million years early hominins and eventually modern humans lived in what Marx called ‘primitive communism’. It was only with the development of agriculture and the adoption of a sedentary lifestyle that productive surpluses led to the growth of the division of labour and property and the emergence of the first class societies.

In the subsequent millennia, various systems of exploitation have come and gone, brought into being each time by the victory of a class born in the previous society. Historically, this class was always a property-owning, exploiter class whose revolutionary goal could only be the establishment of a new system of exploitation. As such, in the ancient world, it was not the exploited slaves - incapable at this point of calling into question the system of private property itself - but the rural nobility which represented the future. Likewise, under feudalism, it was the urban bourgeoisie which held the next society within itself as a revolutionary class.

Though this bourgeoisie - today the ruling class - does all they can to deny it, capitalism has a history of its own and is no less transient than these past systems of exploitation. From its inception in late medieval Europe to the beginning of the 20th century, global expansion was the order of the day for capitalism. The explosion of World War in 1914 was an imperialist carve-up which showed that the period of capitalism’s ascendency was over. The world was united in a global system - meaning bourgeois wars could no longer have any expansive and thus progressive role - and the development of the productive forces was such that production for need and not profit was a real possibility. The proletariat too became a global class, one whose interests are its own class interests and not those of capitalist society.

Whereas in past societies communism could be no more than a vague dream, capitalism has today laid the material basis for its establishment, making it not only a real possibility but the only possible alternative to the barbarity of capitalism which increasingly threatens the very survival of humanity. This clear understanding of what makes communism possible and necessary today delineates marxism from anarchists who claim it was always a possibility dependent on the agitation of individuals.

Doubts and rejections

Against the most frequently encountered rejections of communism - that it is impossible to come about because of the greed inherent in ‘human nature’; that in a moneyless society there would be no incentive to work or innovate, or that communist revolution could only lead to the societies of the old USSR or today’s China - comrades affirmed some of the fundamentals of the marxist perspective: that human behaviour is learned and socially reproduced and thus not based in a human nature which remains constant no matter the historic period; and that humans are no more inherently greedy or power hungry than they are in need of the threat of starvation as a motivator to work or innovate.

Participants agreed on another point brought up in the discussion: that the once dominant ideological campaign presenting the collapse of the USSR as the ‘death of communism’ and ‘the end of history’ does not hold nearly as much weight for today’s youth as it did 30 years ago. The ‘victory of capitalism’ did not inaugurate an era of peace and prosperity but only a new phase of capitalism’s death spiral, characterised by increasingly chaotic and unpredictable imperialist conflicts, a worsening ecological crisis and ever-increasing attacks on the working class. Today, many young people are quite aware of the threats posed to the very existence of humanity.

While the discussion of these common rebukes of communism is important - revolutionaries should always be prepared to clearly present their ideas - it is only through the struggle of the working class that the necessity for revolution and real possibility of communism can be demonstrated.

What might a classless society look like?

During this concluding section of the discussion, comrades warned against falling into the trap of preparing ‘cookbooks for the future’ and thus forgetting that communism is first and foremost the culmination of the struggle of the proletariat and the necessary alternative to the future of ecological and military destruction offered us by the bourgeoisie. However, it is possible to use the methods revolutionaries, including Marx and Engels, employed in the past to sketch some brief outlines of what life could be.

All participants agreed that many blights which today may seem all-encompassing and insurmountable would disappear in the absence of the class society in which they developed and from which they draw their fundamental life force: racism, patriarchy, homophobia, trans-phobia would certainly all be consigned to history. Likewise, nations, states and the wars between them would cease to exist in a society without classes.

In place of these will be established a society of production for human need - not exchange. Labour will emerge as life’s prime want in a society free from the division of labour and private property which forces workers into decades of drudgery in exclusive and highly specific disciplines. In contrast to the anarchy of capitalist production and its absurdities from the point of view of the survival of humanity, the products of this labour would no longer, as Marx put it, appear as an alien force over the producers but would be fully controlled on a global scale by all of humanity and oriented towards the fulfilment of human need.

Furthermore, the geographical organisation of humanity, today dictated by the needs of class society, will appear entirely different under communism, leading to the demise of the opposition between town and country. Today’s megacities of 20 million and more can only give way to more sustainable population distributions. This, along with a transformed relationship between humans and animals, and an application of modern scientific medical advances unhindered by decadent capitalism, could well consign the massive pandemics of class society to the past.

But communism will not be a utopia: humanity will still face many difficult questions. The current spiralling ecological crisis, for instance, will surely shape how we live for centuries or millennia to come. On top of this, the bourgeoisie will no doubt employ all its military capacity to preserve its rotten society. Revolutionary war against such an enemy can only result in catastrophic destruction, but such catastrophic destruction is today capitalism’s way of life. Thus, while these questions would surely be some of the first faced by a victorious proletariat, it is only that proletariat and the classless future for which it fights which has the capacity to pose real solutions.

There are clearly many aspects of these questions which could not be covered in a single discussion. However, this only shows once again the importance of revolutionaries continuing to devote time to such topics.

L and N, June 2024