View Full Version : It's not Communism!


MajorGeneral2
Mar 09, 2002, 02:21 PM
I'm sure others reading this already know, but China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. are not Communistic, they're Socialistic. Communism represents the "perfect" society a nation passes through, according to Marxism. Socialism comes before that, and becomes Communism after the state has withered away (people do things because it's best for society). Here are the "stages" of society according to Karl Marx:
Tribal Communalism
Slave Labor
Feudalism
Capitalism
Socialism
Communism
These are all based on Marx's idea of a "Class Struggle."

Hitro
Mar 09, 2002, 08:40 PM
Well, yeah, but... what do you wanna point out about it?

Vrylakas
Mar 09, 2002, 08:48 PM
Actually, historical experience has shown the model to work more like this:

:confused: :king: :mad: [Industrial Capitalism][punch] :aargh3: [Revolution][Communism]:splat: :spank: :cringe:[Communist Collapse] :beer:

Hitro
Mar 09, 2002, 08:50 PM
You forget the following stage: [Mafia Rule/Growing poverty] ;) :lol:

Simon Darkshade
Mar 09, 2002, 11:23 PM
Yes, I do concur with the graphical analysis, and wish to query exactly what this tells me that I would not be able to read in the Communist Manifesto, or a Red propaganda rag...:confused:

Hamlet
Mar 10, 2002, 10:23 AM
Errrrrrrmmm, what the devil is the point of this thread? I know all this already. What point are you making?

sgrig
Mar 10, 2002, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by MajorGeneral2
I'm sure others reading this already know, but China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. are not Communistic, they're Socialistic. Communism represents the "perfect" society a nation passes through, according to Marxism. Socialism comes before that, and becomes Communism after the state has withered away (people do things because it's best for society). Here are the "stages" of society according to Karl Marx:
Tribal Communalism
Slave Labor
Feudalism
Capitalism
Socialism
Communism
These are all based on Marx's idea of a "Class Struggle."

You are right. In the Soviet Union, we never said that we live in a 'communist' state - we said we lived in a 'socialist state', but ruled by the Communist Party. 'Socialism' was considered as an intermediate social structure during which true, utopical 'Communism' would be built.

Communism is indeed a utopia, where, according to Marx people would be able to 'work according to abilities, and earn according to their needs'.

Socialism in the West means something completely different than it was in the Eastern Block, so I guess that's why in the West the social structure in the Soviet Block was simply named 'Communism' after the name of the ruling party.

The point of this thread is that most people in world are wrong, in that they say Soviet Union, China, Cuba etc are/were communist.

Juize
Mar 10, 2002, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by MajorGeneral2
I'm sure others reading this already know, but China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. are not Communistic, they're Socialistic(..)

China = Capitalistic.

allhailIndia
Mar 11, 2002, 01:23 AM
I'M BACK

Anyway, I feel that a lot of times people do get mixed up between communism and socialism. Actually, in alot of places, socialictic principles have been applied under democracies and republics and worked. Communism prefers only one party rule. I think that is the main difference

Chairman Qu
Mar 12, 2002, 02:40 PM
China doesn't really = capitalistic. Maybe in the modern distorted sense, but not in the original sense, which stressed money as a means to gain personal happiness, rather than power over others. It's really a cronyist socialist state, with a few semi-capitalistic elements like limited private property. It's still quite impossible to do much without political friends.

Richard III
Mar 12, 2002, 02:55 PM
Yes, socialism is not necessarily the same thing as communism. But Soviet socialism was close enough to something more extreme that communism might as well do as a name for it.

But to care at all is splitting hairs to a certain degree. Condemning someone for calling the USSR or post-'81 Poland or Stalinist Romania "communist" when it's really "socialist" is not too different from condemning someone for calling Franco's Spain "fascist" when it was 'really' just "authoritarian nationalist." Sure, the distinctions are real, but not deep, and not worth dwelling over as far as I'm concerned unless we all just signed up for PoliSci 100, which I'm happy to say I thought I had finished for good in 1989.

Ozz
Mar 12, 2002, 11:42 PM
There has never been a Communist state (Tribes are not states)
Modern communism=Military Dictatorship

amadeus
Mar 13, 2002, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by Ozz
There has never been a Communist state (Tribes are not states)
Modern communism=Military Dictatorship

From my understanding of what you say, there were Communist states and would be: the Soviet Union, Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovokia, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Albania, Cuba, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Ethiopia, and Mozambique.

Richard III
Mar 13, 2002, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by Ozz
There has never been a Communist state (Tribes are not states)
Modern communism=Military Dictatorship

Better, I think:

Modern communism=one party dictatorship by socialist party

Adebisi
Mar 14, 2002, 04:52 PM
edit

Lucky
Mar 15, 2002, 12:01 PM
It would be really interesting to see who of all who disagree with the thread starter has really read any works on Communism from Marx, Engels or Lenin. :rolleyes:

The original ideas of Communism, as "invented" by Karl Marx, have NEVER been totally or even partly put into practice in any socialist state.

I suggest that all who say that the Soviet Union or any East European country or China is real Communism read the original definition of Communism. There is nothing said of a singly party, or any specific party system at all.

Most of you mistake the real Communism with a "communistic" government, as it is simplified being used in the Civ games, too.

The thread starter“s list is absolutely correct when we talk about the theoretical form of Communism.
And most "communistic" countries have NOT ever declared their system to be true Communism.

In East Germany, the former GDR, where I grew up, our system was Socialism. The one party was a socialistic party. And after the initial struggle to rebuild the infrastructure after WW2, the officials declared the new system of the "Real Existing Socialism". Even they agreed that the complete implementation of the communistic idea was far away.

So you have to make it clear whether you talk about the theoretical form of Communism, as described in those works mentioned above and many fictional books OR if you discuss the existing form of "communistic" governments.
There is a great difference between both terms and one should know exactly what he talks about before dismissing ideas and opinions of others!
So I fully agree with the thread topic.
It“s NOT Communism!
:D

Juize
Mar 15, 2002, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by Chairman Qu
China doesn't really = capitalistic. Maybe in the modern distorted sense, but not in the original sense, which stressed money as a means to gain personal happiness, rather than power over others. It's really a cronyist socialist state, with a few semi-capitalistic elements like limited private property. It's still quite impossible to do much without political friends.
If last sentence is true, then it is China = Corruption. :/

Richard III
Mar 15, 2002, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by Lucky
It would be really interesting to see who of all who disagree with the thread starter has really read any works on Communism from Marx, Engels or Lenin. :rolleyes:

Well, me for one. Oh and my lifelong best friend was an active Trotskyite for 10 years, and another - in his late fifties - had been brought to Moscow to study during his days as a member of the CP. Oh, and wait, there were all those guys I worked with in BC who were in the CPCML, and so on, and so on, and so on...

Part of the problem here is that some people don't judge everything solely on the "pure" conception as contained in one book or another. Evolution matters too.

Christianity as described to by the disciples of Christ in the Bible or as practiced by the early European church is quite different from its modern incarnation. Would you seriously argue that - in the absence of an extreme literalist following of the bible - that the vast majority of the 900 million-odd christians out there aren't actually christian at all?

The capitalist world as described by Adam Smith is very different from that of today, but would you argue that the differences are so strong as to mean that countries like Canada, Britain, the US, New Zealand, etc. aren't REALLY capitalist?

Come on.

Simon Darkshade
Mar 15, 2002, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by Lucky
It would be really interesting to see who of all who disagree with the thread starter has really read any works on Communism from Marx, Engels or Lenin. :rolleyes:

Well, I have read and studied all of the above authors works, along with quite a bit of other analysis and related material. And I remain of my previous opinion: What is this telling us that we could not read in the Manifesto of the Communist Party?

Octavian X
Mar 15, 2002, 10:25 PM
In the history of the world, a true communist state never existed. The Soviet Union, China, Veitnam, Cuba, etc. were/are simply dictatorships. The beginning of the USSR was promising, with Lenin at its head. When Stalin came to power, greed took over, and the USSR left the path to a Utopian society. Either way, a communist "state" would never exist, because true communism means that the state would dissolve.

amadeus
Mar 15, 2002, 11:53 PM
There's no "true Communism."

The Soviet Union, Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovokia, those were Communist states.

How many backwards countries have to fail at Communism before it comes "true?"

Hamlet
Mar 16, 2002, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by Lucky
It would be really interesting to see who of all who disagree with the thread starter has really read any works on Communism from Marx, Engels or Lenin. :rolleyes:

I have read a lot on Communist theory, and some much of Marx's works, etc, that's precisely why I DON'T need this thread. This board is for discussion, not direct education.

Originally posted by rmsharpe
The Soviet Union, Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovokia, those were Communist states.

A 'Communist state' is practically a contradiction in terms.

I suggest you read up on the actual objectives of marxism.

All the states we have witnessed in the 20th century have been dictatorial socialist regimes.

Originally posted by Octavian X
The beginning of the USSR was promising, with Lenin at its head.

In what sense? Lenin was, in many ways, no different from Stalin, at least in methods.

MajorGeneral2
Mar 16, 2002, 03:55 PM
My purpose for this thread was simply to make a point. Several political parties have called themselves the "Communist" party, but have failed to achieve true Communism. Also, Socialist states have not gone torward Communism in nearly abolishing government, rather, it has grown. Rather than going from Socialism to Communism, they have gone from Socialism to dictatorships.

klazlo
Apr 04, 2002, 01:31 PM
Just to make some points if someone has still some interest (I just found this topic).

No states in the eastern block were considered themselves as "communists". They were socialists as sgrig noted. Furthermore socialism means different in the east and in the west (in east I mean basically the eastern european former socialist states, since the asian and african version of socialism was quite different because of the cultural differences).

So we (as I grew up in Hungary) were socialists because everybody could see in these countries that we're not in the communist paradise yet, we have to work hard, we have to deal with some differences in welfare etc. That was the main reason why socialism was invented, just to point out continously that "yeah, we're almost there in the communism, we just have to work for it a little bit". And nobody knew what will happen if we reach communism so it was pretty safer for the party to say we're just on the way.

From the west - mainly because of the media usage - this two sometimes means the same, maybe communism was more popular because socialism similar to "society" or "social" and these words could not be argue as evil that easy.

Mītiu Ioan
Apr 05, 2002, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by Lucky
The original ideas of Communism, as "invented" by Karl Marx, have NEVER been totally or even partly put into practice in any socialist state.


Marx never said in detail how will lok a "communist" society !! He just criticise the capitalism ( using a debatable economical theroy ... ).

Lenin is the "creator" of communism !! :mad:

Regards

Hamlet
Apr 05, 2002, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by Mītiu Ioan
Lenin is the "creator" of communism !! :mad:

The first part of your post I generally agree with.

However, Lenin is not the 'creator' of Communism. Lenin merely took Marx's original ideas and tried to both make them politically acceptable for early 20th century Russia, and put his own personal 'spin' on them, so to speak.

For both these reasons, it is fundamentally flawed.

Leninism is not the ultimate word in Communist theory, although it is (rather foolishly, I might add) taken as almost biblical by many Communists.

It is, just like Trotskyism, Maoism, etc one person's basic ideas on how best to apply Communist theory to achieve the utopia Marx described.

Magnus
Apr 05, 2002, 05:13 PM
In theory true communism is anarchy.

Communism as it has been seen in the real world so far is simply beaurocratic absolutism.

Mītiu Ioan
Apr 06, 2002, 05:41 AM
Originally posted by Hamlet
Leninism is not the ultimate word in Communist theory, although it is (rather foolishly, I might add) taken as almost biblical by many Communists.


I never said that Lenin is the "ultimate word" in Communist ideas !!

But he is the first who describe a "applicable" package of measure for implement communism !

Of course, Mao, Trotzki and other had have different views, but Lenin was the first ...

Probbably my bad english was the cause of this misunderstanding ... :(

Regards

Hamlet
Apr 06, 2002, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by Mītiu Ioan
I never said that Lenin is the "ultimate word" in Communist ideas !!

Gotcha. I probably jumped on you before thinking. :(

History_Buff
Apr 06, 2002, 11:32 PM
As far as Marxist theory goes, I do believe that a society enters Communism first where a leader works to provide equaliity for all, then steos down to allow a true socialist state, one wit no leader, no gvernment, and people treat each other well becuase we are so nice. I can defineatly see that coming soon. . .