I'm pasting a shortish essay from a comrade on another list (with permission) about the nature of communism for your consideration and possible criticism.
Very well put. Except for this bit:
>Communism can only be democratic. At one time communism was also known as
>"social democracy", a phrase which shows well that democratic control would
>extend to all aspects of social affairs, including the production and
>distribution of wealth.
That's not how I see it exactly.
> There is an old communist slogan which speaks of
>"government over people" giving way to "the administration of things",
>meaning that the public power of coercion, and the government which operates
>it, will have no place in communism.
Yes. The government of people giving way to the administration of of things, means doing away with the government of people. But it is mistaken to get bogged down in differentiating between "government" and "administration", as this section goes on to do.
The difference between "government" and "administration" is not all that relevant in this context, the old communist slogan can also be expressed as "government over people giving way to the government of things". The important difference is between what is governed, or administered, not whether it is called governing or administering.
Socialism is the democratic government (or administration) of the economy, the means of production. *Only* the economy, not the people. So it is not the government (or administration) of "*all* aspects of social affairs", as explained in this essay. That still, in many respects represents socialism (or communism) as a totalitarian form of government, in the sense that it conceives of it as continuing to control all aspects of society. It is crucial to recognise this distinction and the essay doesn't quite do so.
Totalitarian "government" is undesirable, a totalitarian "administration" is no better.
What list was this on anyhow?
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas