Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Group Info Group Founded 4 Years ago Statistics 93 Members
3,962 Pageviews90 Watchers
I often here both the political left and right boast about the failures and successes of what they conceptualize as a socialist country. The structure of this conceptualization seems to be just a modern nation state starting from the 20th century and ending in the current era that have a socialist political composition. What said composition looks like seems to be a grey area that is debated among the respected advocates of the idea of "socialist countries". For Stalinists what they call "actually extant socialism" are the existing countries in which the proletariat has usurped political power. These are namely North Korea or Cuba with maybe Venezual depending how generous said Stalinist wishes to be.  For the typical right winger any dictatorship that the western media decides to label socialist or communist effectively is an example of a country with the political composition of socialism. I often find myself taking third positionist like stances where I disagree with both sides. On this issue I can not in any honesty say that there is an exception. Actually extant socialism or the Socialism of that Latin American dictator you can't remember the name of seem to equally fall under the category of fantastical and ridiculous. There are namely two reasons why I think this. Firstly, socialism is not a mode of organization that can be relegated to a certain nation. It by definition constitutes a completely new epoch of production in and of itself which to get to we must completely re-organize all social relations and as Marx said destroy all existing conditions. Secondly, the very structure of the nation is that of the capitalist mode of production.

socialism as a new epoch all together:

Socialism has been maligned and thrown through the mud of misrepresentations and misunderstanding for about it's entire existence. Socialism if it were to be defined by any single definition that is posited for it it would have more definitions then the amount of stars in our ever expanding universe. That being said socialism is most definitely not defined by the collective multitude of all definitions that it is thought to hold. Rather it is defined by a single and simple concept. Socialism firstly is the a modal for the reproduction and organization of society at large. This lends itself to why exactly socialism can not be attained within a country. Socialism as the specific mode of societal administration is the complete lack of oppression, the complete lack of outside coercion, and the full expression of all of women's productive capacities and desires. Socialism specifically is categorized by the full and unrestrained common control over societies productive forces. There is a brilliant piece by Enrich Fromm that highlights this in all of it's truthful glory. I will provide a quote from that peice; "For Marx, socialism (or communism) is not flight or abstraction from, or loss of the objective world which men have created by the objectification of their faculties. It is not an impoverished return to unnatural, primitive simplicity. It is rather the first real emergence, the genuine actualization of man's nature as something real. Socialism, for Marx, is a society which permits the actualization of man's essence, by overcoming his alienation. It is nothing less than creating the conditions for the truly free, rational, active and independent man; it is the fulfillment of the prophetic aim: the destruction of the idols." It would be mistake to not quote Marx on the subject as well so I will provide a quote from him as well;
"In fact, the realm of freedom does not commence until the point is passed where labor under the compulsion of necessity and of external utility is required. In the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of material production in the strict meaning of the term. Just as the savage must wrestle with nature, in order to satisfy his wants, in order to maintain his life and reproduce it, so civilized man has to do it, and he must do it in all forms of society and under all possible modes of production. With his development the realm of natural necessity expands, because his wants increase; but at the same time the forces of production increase, by which these wants are satisfied. The freedom in this field cannot consist of anything else but of the fact that socialized man, the associated producers, regulate their interchange with nature rationally, bring it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by some blind power; they accomplish their task with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most adequate to their human nature and most worthy of it. But it always remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human power, which is its own end, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can flourish only upon that realm of necessity as its basis." I will again quote Fromm one more time just to give you the best idea possible of what I am talking about; "Marx expresses here all essential elements of socialism. First, man produces in an associated, not competitive way; he produces rationally and in an unalienated way, which means that he brings production under his control, instead of being ruled by it as by some blind power. This clearly excludes a concept of socialism in which man is manipulated by a bureaucracy, even if this bureaucracy rules the whole state economy, rather than only a big corporation. It means that the individual participates actively in the planning and in the execution of the plans; it means, in short, the realization of political and industrial democracy. Marx expected that by this new form of an unalienated society man would become independent, stand on his own feet, and would no longer be crippled by the alienated mode of production and consumption; that he would truly be the master and the creator of his life, and hence that he could begin to make living his main business, rather than producing the means for living. Socialism, for Marx, was never as such the fulfillment of life, but the condition for such fulfillment. When man has built a rational, nonalienated form of society, he will have the chance to begin with what is the aim of life: the "development of human power, which is its own end, the true realm of freedom." Marx, the man who every year read all the works of Aeschylus and Shakespeare, who brought to life in himself the greatest works of human thought, would never have dreamt that his idea of socialism could be interpreted as having as its aim the well-fed and well-clad "welfare" or "workers' " state. Man, in Marx's view, has created in the course of history a culture which he will be free to make his own when he is freed from the chains, not only of economic poverty, but of the spiritual poverty created by alienation. Marx's vision is based on his faith in man, in the inherent and real potentialities of the essence of man which have developed in history. He looked at socialism as the condition of human freedom and creativity, not as in itself constituting the goal of man's life." From this we can infer that socialism has not ever existed and will not ever exist unless the scope of existing class society is abolished, productive relations and thus all social relations completely rearranged, and the new epoch of communistic production and social relations birthed. Unless you believe destroying all existing relations and conditions and completely starting a new with a completely different set of social relations and conditions is possible within the confines of a single nation state then I suggest we stop talking about "socialist countries" or "extant socialism" as serious fact right away.

nations as tools of capital:

The modern nation state is in essence tangled up with the modern order, as a structure it exists as the incarnation of the modern political scene of the last few hundred years. To talk about nations in any other context would simply not be informed. This is our first clue as to bourgioes nature of the nation. The modern form of political composition in the last few hundred years, the global political scene as it were is described by bourgioes relations of property. The existence of the class without property and the class with that is compelled to sell it's labor power to class with property out of lack of property. On it's own this is completely inconsequential to proving my point, but coupled with other evidence it is a window into the bourgioes nature of the nations and it's operations.

Rosa Luxembourg gives the example of Poland. She notes how the national sovereignty, development, and subjugation ebbed and flowed with the trends of capital at any given time. She noted how sometimes Poland was prohibited by global capital to retain some amount of national sovereignty, but the movement capital had other interests Poland would become subjugated. This lends itself as Luxembourg goes on to show to the whole history of the nation itself, the history of the entanglement of the nation and bourgioes society.

The nation is in fact the economic and over all cultural tool of bourgioes society. It exists to perpetuate the control of the the global bourgioes over the global working class and thus exists to re-organize society and revolutionize production to the needs of capital and of the desired amount of surplus value extraction expressed by the bourgioes classes. The nation itself is an agent of bourgioes society. If this is the case then how can we speak of socialism confined to nations?

The moral of the story is pretty obvious, if we wish to critique, advocate for, generally analyze socialism, we must recognize that thinking socialist countries can or do exist is completely out of the universes in terms socialism as it is actually constituted as way of organizing and administrating production.
More Journal Entries

Group Needs

I am going to create a website for this page. I need trustworthy admins. reply with a gmail address so i can make you an admin

Gallery Folders

deviation in storage by DeeJay-Alien
deviation in storage by DeeJay-Alien
deviation in storage by DeeJay-Alien
deviation in storage by DeeJay-Alien


Writen works


You're not here because you're not logged in
  • :iconmylittletripod:
    Visited here 4 days, 23 hours ago
    Isn't a member
  • :iconmenapia:
    Visited here 5 days, 16 hours ago
    Isn't a member
  • :iconredflag450:
    Visited here 1 week, 1 day ago
    Isn't a member
  • :iconn0-username:
    n0-username - Members
    Visited here 1 week, 4 days ago
    Submitted a deviation 1 week, 4 days ago
  • :iconsoyunmito:
    Visited here 1 week, 5 days ago
    Isn't a member

Group Info

We will strive for the revolution. Stand by me comrades!
Website link:…
Wordpress link:…
Founded 4 Years ago
Jan 31, 2012


Group Focus

93 Members
90 Watchers
3,962 Pageviews
Daily Pageviews




Journal Writers




Monthly Stats

Group Activity

Weekly Stats

nothing happening
1 accepted
4 accepted
nothing happening
nothing happening

Newest Members


Add a Comment:
OmicronPhi Featured By Owner May 17, 2015  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Please remove the satanist stuff. Laveyan satanism is anti-anarchist as fuck.
Gerszewski Featured By Owner Mar 18, 2015
Anarchism is the theory that all forms of government are incompatible with individual and social liberty and should be abolished. Communisn, on other hand, is an any social theory that calls for the abolition of private property and control by the community over economic affairs.

Communists believe that all wealth should be produced and distributed according to the doctorine from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs and that the administrative mechanism to control such production and distribution should be democratically organised by the workers themselves. They further insist that there should be no private ownership of the means of production and no trading of goods except through the official channels agreed upon by the majority.
theyoungabstracter Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2014
And I was wondering what would be some great place in America for which kind of protest?
theyoungabstracter Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2014
Can someone explain to me what Anarcho- Communism is?
And explain to me what normal Communism I am an Anarcho- Individualist mostly. But personally a Christian Anarchist, I wanted to educate myself or be educated on the political principals of this system. I made a form of my own but not very complete yet.
MyLittleTripod Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist


Anarchist communism is a form of anarchism that advocates the abolition of the State and capitalism in favour of a horizontal network of voluntary associations through which everyone will be free to satisfy his or her needs.

Anarchist communism is also known as anarcho-communism, communist anarchism, or, sometimes, libertarian communism. However, while all anarchist communists are libertarian communists, some libertarian communists, such as council communists, are not anarchists. What distinguishes anarchist communism from other variants of libertarian communism is the formers opposition to all forms of political power, hierarchy and domination.

Anarchist communism stresses egalitarianism and the abolition of social hierarchy and class distinctions that arise from unequal wealth distribution, the abolition of capitalism and money, and the collective production and distribution of wealth by means of voluntary associations. In anarchist communism, the state and property no longer exist. Each individual and group is free to contribute to production and to satisfy their needs based on their own choice. Systems of production and distribution are managed by their participants.

The abolition of wage labour is central to anarchist communism. With distribution of wealth being based on self-determined needs, people will be free to engage in whatever activities they find most fulfilling and will no longer have to engage in work for which they have neither the temperament nor the aptitude. Anarchist communists argue that there is no valid way of measuring the value of any one person's economic contributions because all wealth is a collective product of current and preceding generations. Anarchist communists argue that any economic system based on wage labour and private property will require a coercive state apparatus to enforce property rights and to maintain the unequal economic relationships that will inevitably arise.

Well known anarchist communists include Peter, or Piotr, Kropotkin (Russia), Errico Malatesta (Italy) and Nestor Makhno (Ukraine). Kropotkin is often seen as the most important theorist of anarchist communism, outlining his economic ideas in books The Conquest of Bread and Fields, Factories and Workshops. Kropotkin felt co-operation to be more beneficial than competition, arguing in Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution that this was illustrated in nature. Anarchist communist ideas were very influential in the introduction of anarchism to Japan through the efforts of Kôtoku Shûsui in the early 1900s who corresponded with Kropotkin and translated his works. Alexander Berkman and Emma Goldman(who were both deported from USA in 1919) became important proponents of ‘Communist anarchism’ and became especially critical of Bolshevism after they discovered its devastating reality first-hand in Russia, and after the Red Army's crushing of the Kronstadt uprising. They in turn had been influenced by German-born émigrée to the USA, Johann Most, who had earlier helped bring anarchist communist thought to Britain though his contact with Frank Kitz in London around 1880 (see Anarchist Communism in Britain for a full historical account).

Many platformists refer to themselves as anarchist communists, although other anarchist communists are uncomfortable with some areas of the Organisational Platform document, such as the issue of ‘collective responsibility’ as supported by Mahkno but opposed by Malatesta. While historically many anarchist communists have been active anarcho-syndicalists, many are critical towards those syndicalists who seek some form of self-managed wage system rather than its abolition, pointing out that any system which maintains economic relations based on reward of effort and exchange is not communist.

Modern day anarchist communists are represented in several organisations within the International of Anarchist Federations, including the Anarchist Federation (Britain). Platformist anarchist communists include the Workers Solidarity Movement (Ireland) and the North-Eastern Federation of Anarchist Communists (USA). Many nascent Eastern European, Russian and Caucasian anarchist groups identify with anarchist communism and there is a strong anarchist communist current amongst contemporary Latin American and Caribbean anarchist organisations.

theyoungabstracter Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2014
Thank you for the information sir :)
TheSpikeAndKey Featured By Owner Jun 17, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
        Communist Rioter Revolting ! please consider thanks
Kevin2097 Featured By Owner Oct 26, 2014  Hobbyist Filmographer
Do you like Sherman Peabody?
Do you like North Korea and Kim
Jong Un?
Do you love Che Guevara?
Do you hate shrek?
Then please click this!!

EuropeanCowboy Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2014
I am applying for a $1,500 scholarship from the Fraser Institute. I am required to write a 1,000-1,500 essay on the rise of Crony Capitalism and what to do about it. I would like my main point in the essay to be a case for center and radical left politics and why they're still relevant. Part of this, at least for my purposes, is proving that Marx's theories are still relevant. Can anyone, anyone at all, direct me to somewhere in Marx's writings where he either

-predicted the rise of cronyism
-criticized unfettered stock markets
-predicted large economic crashes like the 1920's depression and the 2008 recession.

Add a Comment: