A COMMUNIST WORLD?
By Daunte Reed_December 19 2024
(This paper is an abbreviated, edited version of one written on 7/19/2012 by Daunte Reed which was submitted to RCP Publications)
A Somewhat “Impoverished” Vision of Communism
There is all too often something lacking in the way communism is portrayed by revolutionary communists.  If we want to give people (more broadly speaking) a sense of the way that things can (and should) be, we need to, bottom line, represent for genuine communism in the fullest sense possible….
How, then, has “communism” been understood/portrayed?  Expression has been given to communism in various ways, all of which give us a lot to think about.  But there are a couple things that stand out to me that I find bothersome:
First, almost nowhere in the various ways in which “communism” is addressed, spoken of, explained, has there been a more-or-less comprehensive, cohesive and well-rounded picture painted, explaining all its essential features to the extent that we can understand them today. We get different aspects of it in different circumstances (I would even call it “piecemeal”).  And in some things, it all gets (more or less) brought together. But almost never are we given a full, multidimensional look.  It tends to be sketchy.
The lights need to be turned on in this regard. The full promise of communism (to the extent we can envision it) has not been put forward consistently, nor has it been done consistently with conviction.
... Within that, and second, depictions of communism are all too often weighted on the side of what gets negated, abolished, overthrown, buried forever, transcended, etc., which is one massively critical side of it, for sure!  But, don’t we also need to see the other side of things brought to life in the wake of this bygone epoch? When this is done, it is often (not always) perfunctory and/or uninspiring. And this is rather puzzling, because we are talking about the liberation, the emancipation of humanity, are we not?  Is this just a nice concept, elucidated without vibrancy or vitality [and, here, I will also add: “or content”]?
Epochal Contrast—Lighting up the Skies with the Future We are Fighting For
In the following quote, however, the promise of communism in its positive aspect, in its affirmation of a new world, is hit squarely on the head—Bob Avakian, revolutionary leader of a new communism has weighed in forcefully on this:
…There is a profound, and yes epochal, contrast between communist society and not only capitalist society, but all previous societies. This includes an epochal contrast in the conception of freedom and rights. Here it is worth referring briefly to what is discussed in Communism and Jeffersonian Democracy18 concerning positive and negative freedom.
To bourgeois theorists... freedom is conceived overwhelmingly in essentially negative terms. It is cast in terms of protection from the encroachment of government, and protection from other people in society lest they resort (or regress) to a "state of nature." But communism embodies a vision of freedom based on the understanding that freedom lies in the recognition and transformation of necessity—and this actually involves a conception of freedom in a much greater dimension and, yes, a positive character, as well as encompassing aspects of negative freedom, that is, protection from government abuse and abuse by other individuals. This freedom lies fundamentally and essentially in the ability of people to act together, and to struggle over how to act together, to radically transform society, in interrelation with transforming nature: to first of all uproot exploitation and oppression and social antagonism and move to a whole new era beyond all that, and then to interact with each other, and with nature, through non-antagonistic relations, to continue transforming the world and, yes, people, on an increasingly conscious and voluntary basis—not an absolutely conscious and absolutely voluntary basis, which would fly in the face of reality, but an increasingly conscious and voluntary basis. This is a very powerful expression of positive freedom.  [My italics, DR]
From “Birds... Crocodiles...”, Bob Avakian,  Revolution #218, November 28, 2010 http://revcom.us/avakian/birds/birds01-en.html#toc31
“... that the picture...puts things together for people...in a way that is truth and, in its vivid truthfulness, is compelling...”
But vanguard forces have essentially failed to convey this “epochal contrast” “... so that the picture...puts things together for people...in a way that is truth and, in its vivid truthfulness, is compelling...”
(from "Strategic Questions"—“on Propaganda and Agitation:  Being Eminently Reasonable--And Completely Outrageous: Speaking and Writing--With Masses of People in Mind”,  Bob Avakian,  Revolutionary Worker #1176, November 24, 2002, posted at http://rwor.org)
Even though there is talk about “putting an end to the system”, “getting rid of this mess”, “getting rid of exploitation and oppression”, “putting an end to the horror”, “only revolution...”, “not just here, but globally”, “working for the common good”, etc., it all comes across as a litany of tiring, boring, uninspiring (and uninspired!), catch-phrases, without true meaning, without authenticity.  The “promise of communism” does not seem to ring true for its leading forces. It becomes trapped in the confines of being “eminently reasonable” and devoid of being “completely outrageous”.  This can sometimes take shape as a failure to plant the pole of communism.  It leaves the whole concept essentially in the embrace of passionless “explainers” who can’t seem to get beyond all-too-typical “catchphrases”, deadening definitions, and hollow-sounding appeals to reason!  How can this inspire anyone?!
This criticism needs to be deepened.
And ANYONE who wants to fill the role of a communist vanguard, “emancipator of humanity” (another phrase that is fast being turned into an almost meaningless mantra), would do well to take a tip from the Steve Miller Band: “I want to reach out and grab ya” (from the song “Abracadabra”).  
I refer everyone to Avakian’s account in his memoir of how he learned how to “break it down” for the people in the course of reading William Hinton’s historic account in his novel, Fanshen, with a group of basic masses living in the working poor city of Richmons, California [From Ike to Mao and Beyond...: A Memoir by Bob Avakian, pp. 210-211].  It is an example which sharply conveys so much of what needs to be understood, sensed, pointing the way forward. And it can serve as a bedrock orientation of some qualities that need to be imbued by many more of us if we want to “reach out and grab” people broadly.
Vanguard forces need an array of propagandists, agitators, visionaries, and fighters (leaders, who can plant this pole in the best possible way).  But, everyone in the solid core should develop a grasp of how to light up the skies about the future we are fighting for.
So, that’s one important matter—a grasp of how to light up the skies about the future we are fighting for.  And, one could be easily dismissive and put this into a category which may NOT seem so critical, i.e., method, style, or whatever.  But so very much is concentrated in this.  And whether or not we are grasping this can make a great difference, one way or another if we want to start a prairie fire..
Come on, now!  Can you Tell Us What Communism IS?
And of course, the other part of “lighting up the skies” is “the future we are fighting for”.  And this is also what I’m trying to get at here.  I think the vision of communism as understood and propagated by the RCP, (with notable exceptions) is somewhat impoverished (maybe I really mean something like “diminished”, “lacking”).  The same can be said about the worldwide communist movement historically.  That’s a pretty strong characterization.  I say “somewhat”, because there is so much richness and wealth in there as well.  
The discussion of “epochal contrast” and how communist society will “[embody] a conception of freedom in a much greater dimension and, yes, a positive character, as well as encompassing aspects of negative freedom” captures it.  It is well worth going back over that and pondering what is being said.  This, in essence, is what has (in significant ways, if not totally) been missing from the portrayal of communism. This is true in the inner circles of vanguard forces, as well as what they promote more broadly among the people.
This can be brought to life in a powerful way.  Indeed, in places, it has been. More than anything, what characterizes the “epochal contrast”, and at the heart of it all, is that humanity becomes a “conscious collectivity”, a “community of humanity”, of freely associating, mutually flourishing inhabitants of Earth.  This is the freedom that communism opens up, and that we aspire to.  And this is true even when we include all the major, vital, defining characteristics of that epochal contrast [such as the social ownership of the means of production, a new relationship between production and distribution (“from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs”), etc.].  At the same time, it should be recognized that there most likely would need to be a common abundance among the people of Earth.
This is what the emancipation of humanity is fundamentally about. Once again:
“...This freedom lies fundamentally and essentially in the ability of people to act together, and to struggle over how to act together, to radically transform society, in interrelation with transforming nature: to first of all uproot exploitation and oppression and social antagonism and move to a whole new era beyond all that, and then to interact with each other, and with nature, through non-antagonistic relations, to continue transforming the world and, yes, people, on an increasingly conscious and voluntary basis... This is a very powerful expression of positive freedom” (BA from the quote from “Birds...Crocodiles...” referenced above)
I mean, you can go down the list of the Four Alls elucidated by Karl Marx:  
“...the proletariat rallies more and more around revolutionary Socialism, around Communism... ... the declaration of the permanence of the revolution, the class dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to the [1] abolition of class distinctions generally, [2] to the abolition of all the relations of production on which they rest, [3] to the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, [4] to the revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these social relations.”  
      (from:  Karl Marx, The Civil Wars in France, (Abstract of Chapter 3)
       Online Version:  Marx/Engels Selected Works (marxists.org) 1999
This has been the most concentrated expression of what we have referred to as communism.  According to Marx’s description, the operative word in our understanding of the “Four Alls” is (and has been) “abolished”. Abolishing them is only half of the goal.  The other half should embody a vision of a communist world. This would be more of an affirmation of positive freedoms.
An Attempt to Flesh Out the Four Alls:
The 1st All:  An end to class distinctions—
An entire epoch of human existence will have been transcended.  As we have understood it, the emergence of classes among humans was preceded by various forms of primitive communalism (and this historic fact alone—even in comprehending such early forms of society that persist, in pockets, today—can and should be understood as refutation of the notion of so-called “selfish human nature”!)  These native, indigenous communal societies probably had / have some expressions of selfishness, but on the whole, it seems, that’s not what has characterized them.  (And in some recent understandings of small pockets of such civilizations which have continued in this modern world, individuals in those societies who persisted in selfish motivations after going through some “ideological” arguments, have been dealt with by resolute means so that they could not corrode the cooperative bases of their communities). People had to work in common, for the common good, because of scarcity, and this demanded general standards of cooperativeness, sharing, and, also, an approach to sustainability, often in brutal settings of unforgiving natural hardships.  
True, these societies may not have been at the level of scientific understandings and approaches to life on earth, the cosmos, the whys and wherefores of things.  But they were applying consciousness, and collective ways to understand how to sustain life. They often grasped important ways that the forces of life were interconnected.  And they lived according to these understandings, even if this was circumscribed by whatever worlds (ecosystems) various peoples found themselves in (and within which they had to carry on with life).  
In addition, it’s worth noting that within their small worlds, many of these earlier societal formations were totally connected to the earth, and many (not all) of them practiced sustainable ways of living in nature.  This can be held in stark contrast to our modern world which has all but severed any sustainable link between human beings and their habitat.  Today, we can look to these earlier understandings and embrace them as “proof” of what humans are capable of!  (And compare / contrast THIS with the ignorance and stupidity about such matters which characterized subsequent “more advanced” incarnations of societal development, up to, and certainly including the disastrous ugliness at the heart of modern human society.  And I’m talking here of prevailing outlooks and ideologies.  There have been, and are, standout, stand up, and passionate voices for righteousness, sanity and sustainability amid the horrors).
In that sense, by comparison, then, can there be any doubt about what level of social formation really has practiced and understood, in the sense of “conscious collectivity”, how humans SHOULD be, MUST be?  On a certain very basic level, there is much to learn and there are indeed the shoots and seeds of what humans, in bringing the communist revolution to life, should look to.  That basic link, which has been severed by modern society, must be restored.  And this severed link has been skirted over and has not fundamentally been acknowledged by the communist revolution, historically speaking.  
This should not mean that we fall into false notions that it’s all about “negation of the negation”, or that there is teleology involved.  But “reality is (and has been) what it is (and has been)”!  Just one obvious and somewhat better-known example:
           The Iroquois Federation’s “Great Law of 7 Generation Sustainability”
"In every deliberation, we must consider the impact on the seventh generation... even if it requires having skin as thick as the bark of a pine." This is an often repeated saying, and most who use it claim that it comes from “The Constitution of the Iroquois Nations: The Great Binding Law.”
In fact, the original language is as follows: In all of your deliberations in the Confederate Council, in your efforts at law making, in all your official acts, self-interest shall be cast into oblivion. Cast not over your shoulder behind you the warnings of the nephews and nieces should they chide you for any error or wrong you may do, but return to the way of the Great Law which is just and right. Look and listen for the welfare of the whole people and have always in view not only the present but also the coming generations, even those whose faces are yet beneath the surface of the ground – the unborn of the future Nation.
                    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Where has ANY historically subsequent human society even touched the insight and scope (and poetic vision!) of “7 Generation Sustainability”?  You will not find it!  Anywhere!  Even in the best, even in the “highest pinnacle”, the GPCR (the Cultural Revolution in China).  Aside from the “Seven Generation Sustainability” tenet that “self interest shall be cast into oblivion”, and its counterparts: “fight self, repudiate revisionism” and “serve the people” (important slogans from the GPCR), we will not find an overarching approach such as this simple and profound doctrine, this basic moral guidepost, this “GREAT BINDING LAW” in the guiding principles of the first socialist societies.
Nothing in the lexicon, the science, the history of the communist revolution, appreciates THIS fundamental approach to conscious collectivity / sustainability, save perhaps Marx’s thoughts on “usufructories” which was touched on in Avakian’s piece, “What a Look at a World Map is Good For”):
“From the standpoint of a higher economic form of society, private ownership of the globe by single individuals will appear quite as absurd as private ownership of one man by another. Even a whole society, a nation, or even all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not the owners of the globe. They are only its possessors, its usufructuaries, and, like boni patres familias, they must hand it down to succeeding generations in an improved condition.” (1967, III, p. 776)
This is in Reflections, Sketches & Provocations by Bob Avakian (“The Land Question in the Final Analysis is a Global Question, or, What a Look at a World Map is Good For”).
Primitive Communal Societies Offer Potential Proof, But They Were Not Really “All That”
This consideration also would have bearing on the discussion of various strands of “productive forces” lines, and “what level” of productive forces must be in place in order for the communist revolution to be successful.  Abundance, too, is a prerequisite and is related to the level of productive forces.  But, as well, who can say what level of abundance is necessary?  By raising this question, I don’t mean to make light of the need for abundance.  After all, for example, how can we get to communism if the overwhelming majority of humanity, however equalized this might become, spends the great bulk of its life laboring to produce life’s necessities (And a relative handful is left to “work with ideas”)?  This problem is posed very richly and provocatively in Ursula K. LeGuin’s The Dispossessed  (Interestingly, LeGuin is a self-described anarchist.), and it is taken by the horns in important strands of Avakian’s new synthesis.
As well, in these earliest of societies, there were tribal wars, scarcity, and sometimes brutal paths to resolving contradictions among the people.  There was also a pronounced and deep division of labor between male and female for the obvious reasons we know today, and, which we also know, has very sharp ramifications in modern society.  
The World and Societies Change
And as people, in their carrying on with life, began to develop better means to procure the necessities of life (better tools for hunting and gathering, primitive agriculture, agricultural implements, animal husbandry, etc.), and they began to produce more than they needed (hand-to-mouth, day-to-day), classes and class distinctions emerged.  (And we all know what sources to refer to for this understanding).
Just briefly, the advent of, and the predominance of, slave society saw a particular kind of class formation take hold among people:  the vast majority of humans became slaves, owned outright, as any other form of property, by slave owners—the masses of people were shackled as “talking tools”, upon whose backs civilizations and empires were built.  The owners of this “property” were the masters of those societies.  They fashioned the standards, structures, laws, dynamics, belief systems and prevailing ideologies of those societies.  Other strata functioned within these set-ups as well.  And all of this ensured, codified, and enforced the bondage, subjugation, and productive capacities of their “talking tools”.  And all of this codified and ensured the positions, privileges, access to knowledge and the wealth of the privileged and rulers of those societies which the slaves themselves, in utter bondage, created and produced—not a “conscious collectivity/ community of humanity” by any stretch of the imagination.
And, continuing with the odyssey of humankind, with the emergence of feudal society which supplanted slavery on a world scale (with notable exceptions, for a while), we see the great bulk of humanity held in chains of a different type, reduced to being serfs who may not have been outright chattel, but who had no land or right to land, and were compelled to toil for lords and other monarchic overlords who did in fact own the land. They were peasants, serfs, subjects—the oppressed and exploited of societies ruled by, fashioned by, enforced by kings, queens, princes, lords, and various other strata of feudal nobility.  
These toiling masses, if not outright owned as in slavery, were chained to the land of their rulers and overlords, and in a perpetual state of crushing debt.  They were kept in ignorance and were fed religious justifications for their servitude along with all kinds of superstitious explanations for many of life’s mysteries.  It was the ruling elites of these feudal societal constructs that held “state power”, fashioned the standards, structures,  laws, dynamics, and belief systems of those societies, which ensured, codified, and enforced the subjugation, and productive capacities of their “subjects”, and that codified and ensured the rule, privileges, access to knowledge, and the wealth of those societies for the feudal lords and monarchs which the serfs and peasants themselves, in utter bondage, created and produced.  
In the world today, human society is essentially characterized by capitalism / imperialism. Much is currently understood about this form of class society, with its particular class formation(s).  But there is also much that is not understood, or about which there are big illusions.  The class structure of capitalism is characterized by the overwhelming majority of the masses of people being deprived of any means to live other than their so-called “right” to sell their ability to work to those who DO own the means to life—the capitalist-imperialists--who fashion the basic standards, laws, dynamics, and belief systems of the societies in which they hold state power, ensuring their dominance over the overwhelming majority of people, codifying and enforcing their positions of privilege and access to the knowledge and the wealth of human society (which the masses of people themselves have created and produced under some of the worst of conditions).  
In all previous class societies, as well, varying degrees of impermanence and transitory dynamic were at work—restlessness and turbulence, a straining against constraints, envisioning and embracing the hope for a better world... rebellions, uprisings, revolutions of the exploited and oppressed.
With capitalism, the proletariat emerged, which, as a class, had no interest in any form of class society, and which, as a class, had every interest in carrying out the two radical ruptures (these are what Marx referred to as the radical ruptures in relations among human beings, and in the realm of ideas).  The communist revolution, where it succeeded, brought forth the class society we refer to as the dictatorship of the proletariat, in which the proletariat is the ruling class and consciously directs society (not in a “straight line” way by any means) in a process of transition toward communism.  Often hidden (and not up- front and evident), this is a unique and fundamental characteristic of the proletariat, and its interests as a class.  More about this is addressed in Avakian’s synthesis (especially the two key aspects of the concept of “solid core with a lot of elasticity”, and his explorations of “internationalism”).  
When capitalism / imperialism, and classes and class distinctions, generally, are abolished, what might classless society look like?
The 2nd All:
 An end to all the production relations upon which classes rest— Under capitalist-imperialism, all the means to life—the highly developed machinery and other means of production which require great numbers of people to come together in common to socially produce the necessities of life, and the means to life, in the factories, mills, mines, fields, oceans, etc., and which produce abundant necessities for life on a global scale. And these means of production and all the wealth of human society created by these forces of production—as well as the land and the natural resources of the planet—are privately owned by (or accessible only to) a small minority of human beings, the very rich and powerful, the capitalist, imperialist classes.  This essential character of the capitalist system—the highly socialized productive forces of society the world over being privately owned and controlled by a rich and powerful handful has called forth the need for (and the possibility of) the communist revolution. The blind dynamics of that ubiquitous, life-devouring, unrelenting profit-hungry economic demon with its insatiable drive for the accumulation and reproduction of capital throughout the world have sucked the lifeblood out of humanity, crushing lives and destroying spirits in a murderous process of grinding exploitation.  This system has brought about the destruction of millions of lives in devastating, global, gangster-like turf wars.  It has also, through its workings and dynamics, been responsible for bringing our home, planet Earth, to the brink of ecological disaster.  
When humans bring all this, too, to an end, what will they have in its stead?
The 3rd All:
An end to all the social relations which correspond to those production relations—the many forms of oppression woven into the fabric of human society, forced upon Black, Brown, indigenous and other nationalities, upon females, and upon people who are of diverse sexual orientations, the caste system and its counterparts the world over; the built-in disparity between a relative minority who work mainly with their minds  (turning knowledge into private property and a source of superiority, privilege, advantage), and the overwhelming majority of humanity who work mainly with their hands, resigned to and imprisoned in the lower depths of stratification; the tyranny of patriarchy and the insular narrowness and tyranny of the patriarchal family and all of its religious reinforcements and justifications in human society—these are some of the most glaring examples of social relations.  They are expressions of the class dictatorship of the bourgeoise.  They may be enforced brutally, blatantly, openly, or simply “locked into” the dynamics of given societies as “just the way things are”, or simply “the way life is”.
When all this is banished from human existence, what will social relations among human beings look like?
The 4th All:  
The revolutionizing of all the ideas that correspond to those social relations—This (the 4th of the Four Alls) is really not given the attention it should be.  So, here, time and space are devoted to it.  In any discussion of communism and the transition to it, the Four Alls generally have not been gone through one-by-one and fleshed out.  But, within that, the fourth All is not explored nearly enough!  Not that it’s totally neglected.  There is almost always some mention of it, like: “the notion that someone has the “right” to exploit another person (or racist ideas, or misogynist ideas, or whatever)” will seem (in a communist world) as ridiculous as the thought that one person can own another as a slave seems ridiculous to us today.  But humanity is not that far removed from slavery, or feudalism (and forms of feudalism and its ideological stranglehold are very much alive in significant portions of the globe).  
And WE are talking about an end to all forms of class society, entirely!  Humanity will finally have moved beyond the era of the different forms of class societies that have permeated, defined and stamped a significant (if relatively brief) chunk of human history.  It will, as part of that, bury and transcend the epoch of capitalism which is the final chapter of exploitative class society.  What I’m saying is that to cast the emancipation of humanity in the same light as the abolition of slavery as a form of class society is off the mark.
The communist revolution is truly earth shaking exactly because it is NOT about replacing one form of class society with another form of class society.  And communism will be such a radical departure from the whole era of class society, that people will wonder, looking back in time, how in the hell human beings EVER put up with any of it!  But, of course, there is a scientific explanation for it all which is given to us by historical materialism.  It involves the question of the relationship between thinking and being.  This is a fundamental philosophical question.  As well, there are rich imaginings in some cultural works which are very provocative (e.g., Woman on the Edge of Time by Marge Piercy, and The Dispossessed by Ursula K. Leguin).
Without backing into that discussion here (which must be continually looked at and be on the “front burner”), it is, in reality, FINALLY POSSIBLE to end the long, dark night!  And, at no other time in human history has it been possible to do so.  This is eloquently conveyed in the new manifesto:  Communism:  The Beginning of a New Stage.  (http://revcom.us/Manifesto/Manifesto.html)
When we talk about the 4th All, the “revolutionizing of all the ideas that correspond to those social relations”, this is so far beyond just something that follows in the wake of abolishing the other three (which is often how it seems to be presented and perhaps considered).  The revolutionizing of ideas is essential, vital, and critical to the cause of communism, every step and leap along the way.  The Four Alls are totally bound up with one another. And, the revolutionizing of all the ideas is of such importance, that humanity will not advance to communism without that happening.  The revolutionizing of all the ideas is all about the consciousness of human beings, and it is a fundamental reason why I advocate that what will mark humanity in a communist world is ABOVE ALL, that it becomes a CONSCIOUS COLLECTIVITY / community of humanity the world over.
Stepping back, and trying to flesh out the revolutionizing of all the ideas (as I’ve taken a stab at above with the other three Alls), we could look at the “abolish” part of the ideas which correspond to all those relations.  
And of course, all those relations will have been abolished.  But, to reiterate, perhaps, what’s been spoken to (for the most part) when the fourth All is discussed—humanity will have abolished and moved beyond all of the following:  racism, national chauvinism, male chauvinism, misogyny, hatred of different forms of sexual expression among people, cruel treatment of animals etc., and all the small-minded narrowness and prejudices that accompany and are part and parcel of the general ideologies propping up class societies, and that pit people as individuals or as groupings, against one another, promote notions of superiority over others, and foster selfish outlooks—just an aside, this calls to mind the slogan from the GPCR (the Cultural Revolution in China):  “Fight self!  Repudiate revisionism!”—which could actually end up, ironically, in a form of self-cultivation, if viewed mainly in a more immediate and / or narrow context.  But I think this slogan should be taken to heart in a very fundamental kind of way, and also have meaning in any number of particular contexts—selflessness being a bedrock quality of humans in a communist world, and a defining feature of humans struggling to bring that world into being!  
The GPCR also upheld the slogan / concept “Serve the People” in opposition to all forms of selfish and narrow-minded outlooks.  Is this not, roughly, how some of the fundamental aspects of “revolutionizing ideas” should be understood?
“The Mind-forg’d Manacles”
We must also throw another aspect into this mix and affix it firmly into any understanding of the revolutionizing of ideas, because while it has been touched on, addressed, mentioned; the significance of it, I believe, is not really grasped: “internalized oppression”, and also its counterpart, “internalized oppressiveness”.  We could ask, simply:  What is it that keeps the “slaves...in thrall” (from the Internationale)?  It is, indeed, the weight of oppression and exploitation, the literal and figurative chains of class society.  And as real as any of the chains characteristic of any class societies, is the chain of oppression internalized.  
This resounds, breathtakingly, in the poem, “London”, by William Blake—
                      London
               by William Blake
     I wander thro' each charter'd street,
     Near where the charter'd Thames does flow,
     And mark in every face I meet
     Marks of weakness, marks of woe.

     In every cry of every Man,
     In every Infant's cry of fear,
     In every voice, in every ban,
     The mind-forg'd manacles I hear.

     How the Chimney-sweeper's cry
     Every black'ning Church appalls;
     And the hapless Soldier's sigh
     Runs in blood down Palace walls.
    
 But most thro' midnight streets I hear
 How the youthful Harlot's curse
 Blasts the new born Infant's tear,
 And blights with plagues the Marriage hearse.
“Oppression internalized”, has different manifestations, but, basically, they all come down to acceptance of the way things are, people accepting the notion that they, themselves, are to blame for their own oppression, and even taking on roles of oppressiveness inculcated by society.  In the face of the inhumane “logic” of class societies, people despair and lose hope.  They settle in, sometimes tacitly, sometimes consciously, to play the hand they are dealt, living and dreaming, thinking and interacting, and sometimes raging, within the cage, and not looking too far beyond the confines of that game.  In brief, these are ways of thinking that, in whatever ways this is manifested, acquiesce to, and reinforce the stranglehold of class society.  And these mindsets accept the notion that “we [are and] have been naught” (again from the Internationale). How fundamentally altering would it be for humans to grasp hold of the basic emancipating statement in the Internationale: “...We shall be all...”!
Sunsara Taylor’s discussion of this in her article, What do you have to say About Internalized Oppression? (http://revcom.us/a/220/tough_questions-en.html)  is dead on.  It concentrates fundamental aspects of what we seek to overthrow, and, as well, fundamental aspects of what we seek to bring into being, a very important part of “revolutionizing ideas”, and worthy of mention.  
It’s funny, but, that article stood out to me as something out of the ordinary (for all too much of the Revolutionary Communist Party’s (RCP’s) agitation) because it very profoundly and simply captured a glimpse of how the world could be different, and brought it to life.  It was very much in the vein of Avakian’s “Imagine” clips from his Revolution Talk.  (To hit home with this even more, I suggest listening to Nina Simone’s “I Wish I Knew How it Would Feel to be Free”).  Go back to BA’s “Imagine” video clips!  No more “defeated people” mentalities!  No more accepting blame and responsibility for the oppression and oppressiveness of the way things are!  “Arise ye slaves, no more in thrall / The earth shall rise on new foundations / We have been naught, we shall be all!”  We should all be much more passionate about this.  
“Putney Says the Girl Is Got to Have Soul!”
The makers of the communist revolution, the emancipators of humanity, need to have a conquering spirit, and a lot of soul.  (And, I hope that this is more sensed and internalized as opposed to becoming an incantation or meaningless mantra).  Anyone recall the scene from the often-witty 60s movie, Putney Swope, in which one of the board members of “Truth and Soul”, a “new”, “revolutionary” “all Black” advertising (!) company, is pictured mindlessly and repetitively chanting the chairman of the board’s edict: “Putney says the (“Boorman 6 Girl”) girl is got to have soul!  Putney says the girl is got to have soul!” over and over and over again?  And if the vanguards get this right, and empower people, and learn from people about this, then the concepts of “truth and soul” and conquering spirit may well stand a chance of actually being set free to become defining features of humanity as a whole in a communist world.  This is situated squarely in the realm of consciousness, ideas, and the revolutionizing of them.  And, I want to go back to the Four Alls to try to bring to life how what gets abolished will have new and truly, thoroughly revolutionary ways of life on Earth in their places (some of this is already indicated in what I’ve suggested about the 4th All.)
But, first, here are some pointed questions—
Would Anyone Care to ‘Walk like’ a “Young Hegelian?” (that’s question #1)—
Second:  Where are Bob Avakian’s “young Hegelians”?  Third:  Fundamentally, where are communism’s “young Hegelians”?  This little quote by Engels from Socialism: Utopian and Scientific can focus this for us:
 “The great men, who in France prepared men’s minds for the coming revolution, were themselves extreme revolutionists. They recognized no external authority of any kind whatever. Religion, natural science, society, political institutions – everything was subjected to the most unsparing criticism: everything must justify its existence before the judgment-seat of reason or give up existence. Reason became the sole measure of everything.... Every form of society and government then existing, every old traditional notion, was flung into the lumber-room as irrational; the world had hitherto allowed itself to be led solely by prejudices; everything in the past deserved only pity and contempt”.
This is about the total condemnation of the entire social order with its relations of production, class distinctions, social relations, and prevailing ideologies.  
At this stage in history, when human beings can thoroughly transcend its dark night and transform the very face of humanity, when they have actually carved out territory and made earth shaking forays, in the first wave, consciously advancing toward the promise of communism, the call for the “right” to be a capitalist exploiter (big or small) is not only “irrational”, it is totally “depleted, failed, spent”, retrograde, and ridiculous  (some synonyms for “bankrupt”). It is profoundly criminal / criminally insane! It is the dead hand of the past!  It is “worthy” and “deserving” ONLY of being “flung into the lumber-room...”!  It must “give up its existence”!   It is a major link in the chains on humanity.  
And we must represent for the communist future in the fullest sense.  
If Marx and Engels (more than 150 years ago) could advocate for such a condemnation, defiance, and (yes!) stand a la the “extreme revolutionists” of the bourgeois revolution vis a vis feudalism, can’t we, as partisans and representatives of the complete and total rupture with all previously existing forms of human society, as harbingers of a new world, match that fire, that passion, that scientific spirit?  You know?!  “Who’s on trial in history’s court?” is a question that must be given prescience and immediacy.

In the wake of the resolution of the Four Alls, what might a communist world look like?
In place of the domination of the planet by a tiny minority that profited from subjugating and exploiting the vast majority of people, as witnessed through slavery, feudalism, and capitalism; in place of all the exploitative economic production relations upon which those classes and class distinctions rested; in place of all the oppressive and twisted social relations arising from those production relations; and, in place of all the ideas which characterized and reinforced those relations—human beings and human society will be the embodiment of a conscious collectivity / human community, mutually flourishing, freely associating.  
I sometimes find myself looking at this simply, as the “two radical ruptures” (in relations and in ideas).  I really believe that concentrates it, and that the first radical rupture (in relations) embraces the first three of the 4 Alls.  The second radical rupture (in ideas) is, of course, the 4th All.  
As well, “conscious collectivity / community of humanity” is simply how the two radical ruptures become manifesteed.   People the world over would be freely, voluntarily, collectively and consciously, working, living, creating for all of humanity and would care for the planet.  
All this would take place in contexts of many, sometimes heavy and serious, difficulties posed (necessity will always assert itself and confront humanity with major challenges).
From Avakian: “Views on Socialism and Communism: A Radically New Kind of State”
““the productive forces do continue to develop and do tend to be handed down from one generation to another. And yet these productive forces confront each generation as an external force, especially in a society in which people do not have the basis and the understanding to approach them in a conscious and planned way. Even in a situation where they can do that, in a socialist and still more in a communist society, there is always necessity that confronts people…
“Mao, as part of his whole "Mao-esque" approach to things, made these comments that are captured in things like Chairman Mao Talks to the People, where at one point he says: “You don't believe that in communist society there will still be the contradiction between the forces and relations, and between the economic base and the superstructure? I do. Ten thousand years from now, what's outmoded will still have to give way to what's new…”
“It is true that, in communist society, in a communist world, the character of necessity and the interrelation between necessity and how people deal with necessity will be radically different than it is now, but there will still be necessity and the need to transform it. There will still be the character of the productive forces and the production relations that generally correspond to that. There will still be an economic base, there will still be relations of production, and—again, not being mechanical, but understanding this in a dialectical sense, understanding that, yes, there is relative autonomy and initiative in the superstructure—there will be, at any given time, a superstructure that more or less corresponds to the relations of production. And there will still be all the dynamism involved in all this. Productive forces will continue to develop, and this will continue to transform the production relations from relatively appropriate forms for the development of the productive forces into fetters on the productive forces… That's how it works.
“And once again the superstructure will come into conflict with the new production relations that are being developed, and there will be struggle to transform the superstructure further, in line with the changes in the production relations—changes which, in turn, are being called forth by the development of the productive forces. Even in communist society, this will be true.”                     
[“…That’s how it works” (!) This is a real development of a materialist conception of communism by Avakian]  
And then there is the following:
    From: Democracy, Can’t We Do Better Than That? By Bob Avakian
It is only possible today to conjecture, and to dream, about what expressions social contradictions will assume in the future communist society and how they will be resolved. How will the problem be approached of combining advanced productive forces, which require a significant degree of centralization, with decentralization and local initiative (whatever "local" means then)? How will the rearing of new generations of people – now carried out in atomized form, and through oppressive relations, in the family – be approached in communist society? How will attention be paid to developing specific areas of knowledge, or to concentrating on particular projects, without making these the "special preserve" of certain people? How will the contradiction be handled of enabling people to acquire all-around skills and knowledge and at the same time meeting the need for some specialization? What about the relation between people’s individual initiatives and personal pursuits on the one hand, and their social responsibilities and contributions on the other? It seems that it will always be the case that, around any particular question, or controversy, there will be a group – and as a general rule a minority at first – that will have a more correct, advanced understanding, but how will this be utilized for the overall benefit while at the same time preventing groups from solidifying into "interest groups"? What will be the relations between different areas and regions – since there will no longer be different countries – and how will the contradictions between what might be called "local communities" and the higher associations, all the way up to the world level, be handled? What will it mean concretely that people are truly citizens of the world, particularly in terms of where they live, work, and so on – will they "rotate" from one area of the world to another? How will the question of linguistic and cultural diversity versus a world union of humanity be handled? And will people then, even with all their understanding of history, really be able to believe that a society such as we are imprisoned in now actually existed – let alone that it was declared to be eternal and the highest pinnacle humanity was capable of reaching? Again, these questions, and many, many more, can only be the object of speculation, and of dreaming, today; but even to pose such questions, and to attempt to visualize how they might be addressed – in a society where class divisions, social antagonism, and political domination no longer exist – is itself tremendously liberating for anyone without a vested interest in the present order.”
And, in this light, and in drawing on the above insights by Avakian, the following must be strongly asserted (and it is a suggested answer to my previous question:  …Can you tell us what ‘communism’ IS?”):
The Promise of Communism
All the means to life, the means by which people produce food, housing, clothing and other necessities, will be the common property of humanity as a whole, seized by the masses of people in their billions (in the course of the worldwide communist revolutions) from the hands of the ruling classes who once owned and controlled them as private property (which ensured their character as capital, for the accumulation of capital, for profit)—they will, instead, be used and developed for the good of all of humanity, with the powerful component of sustainability, and for no other reason.
Anywhere on earth, when challenges arise, when needs and problems arise, this conscious collectivity / community of humanity will wrangle over what the needs, challenges, and problems are, and they will pull together with all the resources which will have become available to humanity as a whole and, with a firm grasp of the bedrock importance of sustainability, will meet those challenges and needs, and solve those problems.  This will be aided by simple, stripped-down forms of governance which will be circumscribed by the boundaries of “the administration of things”.  This will all be imbued with and embody the most deep-going spirit of “global community” and may be carried out on local, regional, continental and world-wide levels.  All humans will take part in different ways in governance and administration, and no one will become a full-time / permanent administrator or governing individual.  In this way, also, these functions will never become the sole province or domain of any individual or small group.
Governance of humanity in a communist world will be fundamentally in the hands of humanity as a whole, will aid in individual and group pursuits and initiatives, and will be dedicated to assuring that all of humanity can flourish.  All humans will, to the best of their ability, struggle to understand the world, share their insights, understandings, and challenges, with all, and will spend time working to meet the material needs of all (as opposed to slaving their lives away for masters, lords, corporations).  The attitude and motivation of humans will be to embrace a conquering spirit—not toward other people or the earth—but toward all the mysteries and unknowns that will forever emerge, even as so many will, in time, become understood.  A communist world will be teeming and vibrant with controversy, artistic flourishing, innovation, and challenging of the parameters of what becomes common, shared understanding at any given time.  
Every human will be viewed by all as a contributor to the human family, will embrace and behold one another (in all their diversity and individuality) as equals.  All human beings will be motivated by the desire to seek truth, to struggle for it, to go against convention, if need be, to take part in grand struggles and debates, and dialogues in seeking truth, to keep their vision cast to the farthest horizons, the future distant, the generations to come, and to care for the planet.
All the borders will have been torn down and the whole world will be open to all.
There will no longer be a need for money, and money will have disappeared as a medium of exchange or value.  In the realm of the necessities of life, all things will be assessed from the standpoint of what is needed and what is useful, not in terms of what possible [exchange] value any exchange or endeavor may bring.  
In the realm of the production and distribution of all of the necessities for life, the foundational tenet will be “From each [and all?] according to their ability, to each [and all?] according to their needs”.  Humans in a communist world will contribute in whatever ways they can to producing and distributing these basic needs for their fellow humans, and all will have the right to, and will be guaranteed, food, shelter, clothing and other necessities of life.  The conscious collectivity of humans will continually assess what "needs" and "wants" are (as ever-changing and expanding categories), and how they will be provided for.  This will all be done in the context of sustainability, with everyone’s sights cast to the farthest horizons, the generations to come, the care of the planet, the future distant.
There will no longer be a need for dictatorships of the proletariat as the “necessary transit point” to a communist world.  States and state apparatuses, including courts, jails, armies, police, etc., will have been abolished and will be superseded by the conscious collectivity of humanity.
There will no longer be a need for vanguard communist political parties, and they will have been abolished.  The simple administration of all that is needed for a free, mutually flourishing, conscious collectivity / world community of humanity, will be put to work all over the world.  Within that dynamic, at any given point along the way, individuals, groupings, entities will continuously arise and coalesce who will play leading roles in that global community / conscious collectivity, and who are exemplary inspirations to all, popularize new breakthroughs, and agitate for them much like the “young Hegelians”.  
But these will not involve fixed or permanent stations or assignations, and the conscious collectivity will continuously bring forward and look toward, and foster, new forces, and shoots and seeds which point to the future.
There will no longer be wars.  People will resolve differences and contradictions in the spirit of a conscious collectivity, using peaceful (even if contentious) means to reach common understandings, with battles over differences, over what should be considered “right and wrong” reverberating through all of human life.
Education and knowledge will be accessible to all, and communist humanity as a whole will ensure that knowledge will not become the set domain or province of small or specialized groupings, even while individuals or smaller, specialized groupings focus or concentrate on specific endeavors.  Humanity as a whole will be imbued with a thirst for understanding the many mysteries of planet Earth, and its environmental, ecological dynamics, including its role as a species in this global ecosystem; and, humanity as a whole will look to the stars and beyond to understand the mysteries and dynamics of the universe of which it is a living part, taking up all the scientific approaches which had previously been the domains of scientists and the ruling classes that had “employed” them.
All the means to healthy life (which is closely tied to understanding and protecting ecological interconnections) will also be in the hands of the conscious collectivity of humanity.  All of humanity will have access to (and will contribute to understandings about) health, medical science, medical necessities, medical treatment, and knowledge about health and environmental/ecological dynamics will be promoted and available to all.
The means to a rich cultural life and access to all cultural/creative supplies, mediums, works, venues, etc., will be available to all.  The creative spirit will be nourished, encouraged and celebrated. The diverse cultural expressions of the peoples of earth will be embraced and become qualities of the conscious collectivity of humanity, so long as those expressions do not embody or promote exploitative and oppressive ideas and social relations which had characterized class societies historically.   
Children and elders will be embraced in the conscious collectivity, cared for, and be a part of all human striving. The sense of awe and wonder that children awaken to, and the wisdom and understanding that elders have come to, will help all of humanity to flourish.  The rebelliousness of youth, and their general propensity to imagine the world "as it can and should be", as opposed to comparing "the way it is" to “the way it was”, at any given time, will be embraced and become part of the flourishing of humanity.  Children will not be constricted by the “nuclear family”, but will be able to interact fully with all others, even while biological ties can continue to be recognized and respected.
The communist revolution will “[bring] into being a world that really values and respects gay people and lesbians, and transgendered (or LGBTQ) and sees their love and their lives as valid... [it] is about overcoming racism and all the oppression and horrors that have gone along with it and that fosters learning about and forging relations of respect and equality between people of different nationalities or races.” [from:  “What do you have to say about ‘internalized oppression’”, by Sunsara Taylor, http://revcom.us/a/220/tough_questions-en.html] Sexuality in communist society will be based on the qualities of mutual flourishing and free association.  It will not be conditioned by any constrictions, edicts, prejudices and values which so characterized class societies in human history.                                                                                                                                                   
The great divide between men and women which defined their relations for millenniums will be overcome, as all forms of male dominance, patriarchy, male chauvinism, and assigned gender roles, fall forever, and true common ground is brought to life between men and women [males and females]—equals in every human endeavor throughout the world.  
Lighting up the skies and the path ahead
In all of this, in seeking to bring this future into being, Avakian’s synthesis is vital to the struggle for a completely new world. And there is no doubt that this is where the importance of the kind of leadership we need is profoundly underscored.  
 “The restoration of capitalism in China, the seizure of power by the revisionists after Mao’s death, was a tremendously discouraging thing for every revolutionary in the world.  But what it did was force us to confront more deeply the problems and contradictions involved in carrying forward the revolution toward the goal of communism.  That was a choice you had, either you would go more deeply into that and try to develop a more profound and all-around understanding of that and be able to go forward again on the basis of that, or else you would be defeated by it.” (“Questions for These Times” by Bob Avakian, Revolution. Winter/Spring 1986, p. 58)
“We should WANT this” (How Avakian opens up all the controversies of communism):
As important as Avakian’s comprehensive look at the necessity faced by these leaders (in the most intense of situations) has been, and as important as it is for people broadly to understand such circumstances, Avakian is not simply recounting what they were up against and dealing with (much less using such circumstances to justify wrong-doing). Avakian has been wielding science and passion and making epistemological breaks with, and criticizing, what has become conventional wisdom in the worldwide communist movement, historically, on some of the all-important foundational concepts and the methods and approaches to some of these matters.  And on that basis, he has brought forth a new synthesis.  
So, it will not do to simply state something to the effect that, for instance, Stalin faced enormous necessity on different fronts, or didn’t have much experience to go by in dealing with any of this, (and leave it at that!) as an explanation—or as an excuse, even! (because, that’s how it can easily be taken or read by anyone listening)—for such things as not being able to distinguish between friends and enemies, equating the well-being and security of the socialist state with the needs of the international struggle, etc.  
Yet, this is how this has been “broken down” for people in numerous circumstances. This will not do! Yet, in whatever ways these excavations are sometimes put forward, they are all too often left at that!
“You Shouldn’t Kill Friends”
So, when someone like Cornell West says something like “Stalin was a gangster” (and) “You shouldn’t kill friends”, we have to agree wholeheartedly that we shouldn’t act like gangsters in making our revolution, and we shouldn’t kill friends. And we should point out that Avakian has said as much in such works as End of a Stage... where he rakes Stalin over the coals for his incorrect approach to the whole question. To my knowledge, in such situations where such challenges have been raised, this has not been in anyone’s arsenal.  Is there any doubt that there is some unity with West’s critique here?  
At the same time, obviously, people like West labor under some conditioned prejudices about much of the history of communism.  They have had sand thrown in their eyes by the ideological offensive, and their own failure to think outside that “narrow horizon” box (which is a very big box to think outside of, as we know!).  Our attitude on that count should be firm, but patient.
And we need to find the ways to embrace the Cornell West’s out there and, with that arm around their shoulders, carry out our side of the dialogue with the heartfelt new voices that Avakian has given life to.  There is also much to unite with and to learn from where West is concerned.
What must come through, to people far and wide, should be the excitement and conviction; the passionate intensity; the authenticity of a solid core, a party, and its leadership who all have determined that the promise of communism is within the potential grasp of the masses of people throughout the world. There is a momentous battle to realize this.  And we must engage it.
Calling up, Chanting up, Raising up our Infinite Sky
In the first wave of the communist revolution, significant sections of humanity arose and set about remaking the world.  Those decades were hard fought and won...and then lost all-too-soon to coups by capitalist roaders within the vanguard parties (in the S.U., and then in China).  They were years of transition, the first strides toward a conscious collectivity / a worldwide community] of freely associating, mutually flourishing humanity.
The truths about such things as  overthrowing Tsarist autocracy, driving out imperialism, overcoming hunger and starvation, universal education, universal health care, successfully defending the socialist countries against imperialist threats, attaining literacy, major increases in life expectancy, getting rid of harmful drug addictions, universal healthcare, liberation of women, breaking down of the three great differences, and the great advances of the “revolution within the revolution”, the GPCR, have all been pointed to as examples of the way the world can be changed.  
Of all the great achievements, such as those listed above, which we uphold in our history, there is no doubt in my mind that the advances, beginning yet real and profound, toward the realization of the two radical ruptures, are far and away the most crowning achievements. They are deeply linked to the “positive freedom” which the promise of communism concentrates. They are shoots and seeds of communism:  
From the steps and leaps toward social ownership of the means of production, to the placing of needs and uses at the forefront of human society, and the striking down of the profit motive, to “serve the people”, this can be seen; from the socialist new things (new ways of thinking and doing), to the unleashing of artistic and scientific endeavors and making them, increasingly, the domain of the masses of people; the earth-shaking, soul-stirring GPCR with its power seizures from below, its challenging, mass (and massive) level of communist spirit, debate, and struggle, and more—the people aspired to forge a path to that conscious collectivity / human community.  They were, in fact, led and empowered (!) by their vanguards to aspire and advance toward those ends.
The great achievements are also illustrative of the importance of the 4th All.  The great achievements throughout history serve as proof positive that significant strides have been made by the masses of people and their vanguard leaderships which illuminate paths toward the global community of humanity.  
There have also been significant problems, wrong-headedness, wrong methods, approaches, outlooks, which have, at one and the same time, undercut and countered the struggle for the emancipation of humanity, and which have left the door open to revisionism ascending and capitalism, with all its exploitation and oppression, being restored, as we know.
Avakian’s synthesis is also a concentrated and profound deepening of the mass line [The mass line is an orientation for communist vanguards synthesized, originally, by Mao.  It basically and fundamentally calls on the vanguards to, in everything they do, rely on the masses, and empower them to take up the cause of making revolution in order to resolve the 4 Alls.  Its implementation can, and should, be carried out on many different levels.  A good place to get a basic sense of the mass line would be in Mao’s Quotations, the chapter on the mass line.  This can be seen in all the elements of Avakian’s new synthesis.  I mean this, first and foremost, in a basic and underlying sense as opposed to more limited expressions of the mass line (although these are also extremely important in any circumstances).  For example: “The people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the making of world history” is one of the basic concepts, while “unite the active to win over the intermediate...”, or “take the ideas of the masses, scattered and unsystematic...” can be seen as more limited facets.]
All the breakthroughs of Avakian’s new synthesis (internationalism; United Front Under the Leadership of the Proletariat; solid core with a lot of elasticity; a correct understanding of “truth”, and more, should be considered as foundational tenets for a humanity which aspires to free itself and usher in a whole new epoch of a human existence beyond the “Four Alls”.


greetings, comapañeros
a shout
an embrace
to the rose’s dance
‘cross solid earth
on devil dust feet
past toxic constructs
in torrid waves of primal rhythm
whirling heedless
stoked and afire
with beckoning haste
to at last stand breathless
at last stand breathless
breathless at last
…on famished shores
calling up
chanting up
raising up
our infinite sky

*******