Communism: Theory and Practice

[colontos]

Many people on this forum seem to buy into the idea that Communism/Marxism cannot be blamed for the excesses of Lenin/Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot/Kim Jong Il, etc., because these people corrupted Communism in some way and thus they were not true Communists. The same people claim that the USSR, Red China, North Korea, etc. were/are not actually Communist countries.

These people's point is that if a country were to try "real" Communism/Marxism, there could be a positive (the meaning of positive ranging from merely non-mass murdering to Utopian) result. On this post:http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3852401&postcount=76, I argue that Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism are logical outgrowths of Marxism.

In the attached paper, I argue a similar point based on an analysis of Marx's rhetoric in the Communist Manifesto. Please read at least the post on the other thread before replying here.

My point is: We can, and should, hold Marx and Marxism responsible for at least the events in the USSR and Communist China. Marxism to Leninism is generally regarded as a logical development; most modern-day Communists stand by Lenin. Solzhenitsyn in The Gulag Archipelago, though, presents evidence that Lenin began the process that eventually led to the Stalinist purges. Lenin's role in establishing the Red Terror of 1918 is well-known.

Marxism and Communism do lead to mass murder ("class warfare"), repressive and oppressive government ("the dictatorship of the proletariat"), and hate filled rhetoric and rampant dishonesty and inconsistency(many examples, see my paper).

It can be argued that some minor corruptions occured (Russian nationalism, for example) but Communism/Marxism laid the basis for a great many of the needless deaths of the 20th century through famine(China, Russia, North Korea), repression(all Communist regimes), and war(Russian Civil War, Sino-Vietnamese and Sino-Russian Conflicts, Korean War, War in Afghanistan).

If you feel you can defend Communism/Marxism by any method, I encourage you to reply here after reading the other post, and hopefully the paper. Or if you agree with me and wanna slap me five, that's cool too.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Question to communist supporters...

How do you determine what people need? (In response to the premise, "each according to his need")

*high fives*

 

[amadeus]

A lot of good counter-arguments could possibly be that "true capitalism" has never been practiced because of the amount of state intervention in the American economy, European economies, and the Japanese and Korean economies as well.

 

[Richard Cribb]

I will have a look at your paper later, but just some notes:

Many people on this forum seem to buy into the idea that Communism/Marxism cannot be blamed for the excesses of Lenin/Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot/Kim Jong Il, etc., because these people corrupted Communism in some way and thus they were not true Communists. The same people claim that the USSR, Red China, North Korea, etc. were/are not actually Communist countries.

Yes to both. With the reservation that I haven't read your paper(A quick browse did not reveal one), you have so far not presented your definition of communism. Neither can I see any reference to the anarchist and libertarian marxist critique of those societies.
I must unfortunately say that I don't find that completely intellectualy honest.

These people's point is that if a country were to try "real" Communism/Marxism, there could be a positive (the meaning of positive ranging from merely non-mass murdering to Utopian) result. On this post:http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3852401&postcount=76, I argue that Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism are logical outgrowths of Marxism.

I posted in that thread and for the moment I have nothing further to add.

My point is: We can, and should, hold Marx and Marxism responsible for at least the events in the USSR and Communist China. Marxism to Leninism is generally regarded as a logical development; most modern-day Communists stand by Lenin. Solzhenitsyn in The Gulag Archipelago, though, presents evidence that Lenin began the process that eventually led to the Stalinist purges. Lenin's role in establishing the Red Terror of 1918 is well-known.

I agree that Marx can be hold partly responsible, but that is not the same as to claim that Bolshevism is Marxism in practice, see my reference to anti-Leninist Marxists.
I must also add that using Solzhenitsyn as a witness of truth doesn't make your case more comvincing, euphemistically speaking.

Marxism and Communism do lead to mass murder ("class warfare"), repressive and oppressive government ("the dictatorship of the proletariat"), and hate filled rhetoric and rampant dishonesty and inconsistency(many examples, see my paper).

A good advice, a little historical context is a good thing.

It can be argued that some minor corruptions occured (Russian nationalism, for example) but Communism/Marxism laid the basis for a great many of the needless deaths of the 20th century through famine(China, Russia, North Korea), repression(all Communist regimes), and war(Russian Civil War, Sino-Vietnamese and Sino-Russian Conflicts, Korean War, War in Afghanistan).

If you think that famine, exploitation and wars would have been absent but for Marx, you must live in some different dimension. I am fully aware of the ghastly record of those coordinatorist regimes, but they were not exactly paradises initially either.

If you feel you can defend Communism/Marxism by any method, I encourage you to reply here after reading the other post, and hopefully the paper. Or if you agree with me and wanna slap me five, that's cool too.

Like I said, I will have a look, but I can't promise anything.

How do you determine what people need? (In response to the premise, "each according to his need")

I don't. People do, since this is situational.
But I hope we can agree that people do have some basic needs, and that under the current system not everybody get those fullfilled.
Apart form that, I can only refer to my sig (yes I know, it is a heck of a lot to read).

A lot of good counter-arguments could possibly be that "true capitalism" has never been practiced because of the amount of state intervention in the American economy, European economies, and the Japanese and Korean economies as well.

That depends on your definition of capitalism.

 

[colontos]

Yes to both. With the reservation that I haven't read your paper(A quick browse did not reveal one), you have so far not presented your definition of communism. Neither can I see any reference to the anarchist and libertarian marxist critique of those societies.
I must unfortunately say that I don't find that completely intellectualy honest.

As I noted in the other thread, I believe it's clear that I am referring to Communist as defined by Marx and as practiced by various regimes that have called themselves Marxist. A quick definition of Marxist Communism: workers, initially represented by a workers' state or dictatorship of the proletariat, control the means of production; economic/class hierarchies are abolished. What's your definition?

I agree that Marx can be hold partly responsible, but that is not the same as to claim that Bolshevism is Marxism in practice, see my reference to anti-Leninist Marxists.

Anti-Leninist Marxism has never been put into practice. In my view, this is because it's impossible. I claim that Lenin's adjustments of Marxism are logical outgrowths because they make the possibility of Communist revolution more realistic. Anti-Leninist Marxists have never accomplished anything, because their theory renders them unable. Marxism does not work without Leninism. Leninism does not work without Stalinism. That is my point.

I must also add that using Solzhenitsyn as a witness of truth doesn't make your case more comvincing, euphemistically speaking.

I agree he's hardly an impartial witness, but in the case I referred to, he backs up his claim by presenting a number of Soviet documents proving Lenin's role in setting up the system of torture, terror, and prison camps. The proof is irrefutable, Solzhenitsyn's political stance doesn't matter.

If you think that famine, exploitation and wars would have been absent but for Marx, you must live in some different dimension. I am fully aware of the ghastly record of those coordinatorist regimes, but they were not exactly paradises initially either.

Were they paradises? No. But did millions of people die of famine? Also no. As is often stated, a democracy has never experienced a major famine. Exploitation, wars, sure, but part of my point is that it's mostly authoritarianism to leads to these things, and Marxism inevitably leads to authoritarianism. Therefore, Marxism leads to war and exploitation just like all authoritarian regimes; plus Communism seems to have the added side effect of famine. So would the four horsemen, so to speak, have been absent without Marx? No, of course not. But they would have been greatly lessened.

That depends on your definition of capitalism.

You seem to like to define your way out of things.

The thing about true capitalism never having been practiced is not a counter-argument, however; it doesn't really have anything to do with this issue.

 

[HawkeyeGS]

I think if you bother to read posts made by communist defenders you will see they are not trying to defend or justify Lenin, Stalin or any of those 'characters'. All I have been saying is that you cannot say that communism is bad simply because all the communists in power over the last 100 years have been bad. It just isn't logical. Communist bashers seem to be of the impression that Communism can be contrasted to democracy. democracy is a method for electing governments. Communism is a philosophy for running your economy.

You can have a democratic-communist government if you like (oh and if the US doesn't bring you into a cold war). The communist figures of the 20th century are pretty poor ones but that does not make communism bad. They wanted to forge an empire which shared some common ground that was radicially different to something the western superpowers shared. Hence seeing the capitalist traits of Britain, France and the US they decided communism. They could have chosen satanic worship or any number of radical philosophies but this was easiest for them. Communism failed in a big way but not because it was naturally evil but because it was adopted by a pack of lunatics that were destined for a cold war with another pack of lunatics (of a different economic ideal) accross the Bearing.

Communism can't pick its followers.

 

[Shaihulud]

Lenin/Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot/Kim Jong Il

I noticed that this are all 1st or 2nd generation communist leaders, I suppose it is possible that communism will continue to evolve and change with the times, these new leaders were in the "experimenting" stage I suppose. The other alternate system of governance, democracy has a longer time historically to iron out its difficulties and newer methods were implemented until the democracy of today, possibly communism will eventually evolve to a point where it can accomodate human foibles. This is just an idea i had on the spur of the moment, so its propably not very accurate.

 

[colontos]

I think if you bother to read posts made by communist defenders you will see they are not trying to defend or justify Lenin, Stalin or any of those 'characters'.

I know they aren't. They are trying to distance those leaders from Marx, and in this way keep Marx 'pure.' My argument is that its impossible to do that. Pay attention to what I'm saying.

All I have been saying is that you cannot say that communism is bad simply because all the communists in power over the last 100 years have been bad. It just isn't logical.

Anybody else find this really funny?

Communist bashers seem to be of the impression that Communism can be contrasted to democracy. democracy is a method for electing governments. Communism is a philosophy for running your economy.

You can have a democratic-communist government if you like

This shows a very simplistic view of Communism. Not only do I disagree with you, but Marx disagrees with you. Marx made it very clear that democracy is a purely bourgeois form of government, created to accomodate the interests of that class. Communism, Marx says, requres a dictatorship of the proletariat that will eventually change into a workers' state and wither away as government becomes unnecessary in a perfect Communist society. You most definitely cannot have a democratic-communist government and keep with the principles of both.

The communist figures of the 20th century are pretty poor ones but that does not make communism bad. They wanted to forge an empire which shared some common ground that was radicially different to something the western superpowers shared. Hence seeing the capitalist traits of Britain, France and the US they decided communism. They could have chosen satanic worship or any number of radical philosophies but this was easiest for them. Communism failed in a big way but not because it was naturally evil but because it was adopted by a pack of lunatics that were destined for a cold war with another pack of lunatics (of a different economic ideal) accross the Bearing.

A truly bizarre analysis of history. I doubt that Trotsky and Lenin sat around in smoke filled rooms, saying, "Well, they've already got capitalism; let's try something new. Satan-worship? Nahhh, let's go with Communism."

My argument is that those "poor figures" of 20th century communism are the inevitable result of Marxist ideology. Most of them were not lunatics; Lenin, Trotsky, and Ho Chi Minh were probably closer to geniuses. They were, however, consumed by an evil ideology. Evil too strong a word for you? It leads inevitably to mass murder, repression, and usually famine. Call that what you will.

Communism can't pick its followers.

Granted, but it can pick its methods. And from Marx onward it has always chosen the bloody sword and the dishonest pen.

 

[colontos]

I noticed that this are all 1st or 2nd generation communist leaders, I suppose it is possible that communism will continue to evolve and change with the times, these new leaders were in the "experimenting" stage I suppose. The other alternate system of governance, democracy has a longer time historically to iron out its difficulties and newer methods were implemented until the democracy of today, possibly communism will eventually evolve to a point where it can accomodate human foibles. This is just an idea i had on the spur of the moment, so its propably not very accurate.

Well, that's an interesting point, but Washington and Jefferson didn't have to murder thousands of people when they were figuring things out. Also, China today is in the fourth generation, and is still marked by political repression and lack of basic freedoms. Russia in the fourth generation (Brezhnev) was still marked by the same problems. The USSR was nicer in 1980 than in 1930, but it still wasn't nice.

 

[Richard Cribb]

As I noted in the other thread, I believe it's clear that I am referring to Communist as defined by Marx and as practiced by various regimes that have called themselves Marxist. A quick definition of Marxist Communism: workers, initially represented by a workers' state or dictatorship of the proletariat, control the means of production; economic/class hierarchies are abolished. What's your definition?

Not so different.
I would say a social system based on the principle " "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" Furthermore, It would be a society where classes and the state is abolished.
But please have a look at your definition and then on those societies you mention. Do you really think that they were class- and stateless? Do you think the workers controlled the means of production?
In that case I can only wish you speedy recovery, I have nothing more to add in this discussion.

Anti-Leninist Marxism has never been put into practice. In my view, this is because it's impossible. I claim that Lenin's adjustments of Marxism are logical outgrowths because they make the possibility of Communist revolution more realistic. Anti-Leninist Marxists have never accomplished anything, because their theory renders them unable. Marxism does not work without Leninism. Leninism does not work without Stalinism. That is my point.

I think this reveals your political agenda. But let me just ask you then. Are you familiar with those I mentioned? Or with labour history?

Were they paradises? No. But did millions of people die of famine? Also no. As is often stated, a democracy has never experienced a major famine. Exploitation, wars, sure, but part of my point is that it's mostly authoritarianism to leads to these things, and Marxism inevitably leads to authoritarianism. Therefore, Marxism leads to war and exploitation just like all authoritarian regimes; plus Communism seems to have the added side effect of famine. So would the four horsemen, so to speak, have been absent without Marx? No, of course not. But they would have been greatly lessened.

First of all, many of those countries were not democracies.
Secondly people die of different reasons. I don't know if you are familiar with the comparative study by Amartya Sen of post-independence India and Communist China. It covers the years 1949 to 1979, and concludes that capitalist social policy in India killed more than 100 million people, a total exceeding the deaths caused by all so-called Communist states after 1917, including the mass famine in China in the late 1950s.
Thirdly, you still neglect historical facts, as the Russian civil war and the foreign intervention and what effects that had on an already poor and mismanaged country.
Still today, in a largely capitalist-dominated world, poverty and hunger is not exactly a rare phenomena.
And enlighten me, where did I say that I am against democracy?
That said, you seem also to be totally neglecting the importance of Marx and the great historical role organized labour played in the struggle for political, social and economical rights also for the less fortunate.
And finally, which country is holding the world record in military interventions? The Peoples Republic of America (I think they fairly recently surpassed Rome)!

You seem to like to define your way out of things.

Pardon me? I just adhere to the principle that one should agree on what one is talking about. Don't you?

The thing about true capitalism never having been practiced is not a counter-argument, however; it doesn't really have anything to do with this issue.

The thing is that I didn't bring this in, but I disagree that it should be irrelevant.
On the contrary, a black book of capitalism is sorely missed.

 

[colontos]

Not so different.
I would say a social system based on the principle " "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" Furthermore, It would be a society where classes and the state is abolished.

Yes, but even Marx stated the need for a temporary dictatorship. Unfortunately, a self-limiting dictatorship can never exist.

But please have a look at your definition and then on those societies you mention. Do you really think that they were class- and stateless? Do you think the workers controlled the means of production?

They claimed to be classless; they claimed to be on the way to stateless. They were employing the philosophies supposed to lead to that society. The Communist society is an empty dream, however. There will always be Stalins and Brezhnevs ready to put a stop to it.

I think this reveals your political agenda. But let me just ask you then. Are you familiar with those I mentioned? Or with labour history?

Yes, my friend. But so what? You keep trying to outflank me in the knowledge department, but you aren't making any points. And it does reveal my political agenda, in that my political agenda is the debunking of the theory that Marx is an innocent bystander in the train wreck of the 20th century.

First of all, many of those countries were not democracies.
Secondly people die of different reasons. I don't know if you are familiar with the comparative study by Amartya Sen of post-independence India and Communist China. It covers the years 1949 to 1979, and concludes that capitalist social policy in India killed more than 100 million people, a total exceeding the deaths caused by all so-called Communist states after 1917, including the mass famine in China in the late 1950s.

I did not say they were democracies. I am familiar with Sen's work, which is enough reason to disregard it. The study I assume you are refering to, called
More than 100 Million Women are Missing, is a criticism of gender inequality in Asia. It has nothing to do with capitalism.

Thirdly, you still neglect historical facts, as the Russian civil war and the foreign intervention and what effects that had on an already poor and mismanaged country.

The Bolsheviks were obviously a major participant in the civil war and committed many atrocities. You'll also note that in one of my posts I indeed refered to the civil war. The effects of the foreign intervention were negligible; if you believe that they had a significant effect, then you have fallen for Soviet propaganda.

Still today, in a largely capitalist-dominated world, poverty and hunger is not exactly a rare phenomena.

But, in democratic countries, wide spread famine and government sponsored are rare phenomena. They are not in Communist countries.

And enlighten me, where did I say that I am against democracy?

Never said you did.

That said, you seem also to be totally neglecting the importance of Marx and the great historical role organized labour played in the struggle for political, social and economical rights also for the less fortunate.

You're finally right! That's exactly what I'm doing. Organized labor was not Marx's creation, and in fact he did not have a high opinion of labor unions in England. Was Marx important? Yes. Was his impact almost purely negative? Yes.

The thing is that I didn't bring this in, but I disagree that it should be irrelevant.
On the contrary, a black book of capitalism is sorely missed.

Write it; no one will be embarrassed by it when compared to that of Communism.

 

[bhsup]

I just don't understand why academics can't accept that the majority of people call the USSR and Mao's China communist nations. Okay, so it may not fit the theory of communism, but big deal, word usage is not static.

Give it up and accept that to the majority of the population, communism IS what was in the USSR, North Korea, and so forth. Just like to the majority of the population a hacker is a bad person who illegally breaks into other computer systems without permission, regardless of what programmers may want the word to mean. Does gay mean happy or homosexual? Are rubbers a pack of condoms or a pair of galoshes from the 1930s?

As for myself, whenever I refer to the USSR and so forth, I will never stop referring to them as communist nations. People can either accept what I mean by that, or waste time and continue their arguments that "it's not communism."

 

[Akka]

Many people on this forum seem to buy into the idea that Communism/Marxism cannot be blamed for the excesses of Lenin/Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot/Kim Jong Il, etc., because these people corrupted Communism in some way and thus they were not true Communists. The same people claim that the USSR, Red China, North Korea, etc. were/are not actually Communist countries.

Bah, when we see the large corporations bribing officials or using their financial leverage to lobby, when we see economical exploitation and oppression, capitalists say that it's because of "badly implemented capitalism", and that in "true capitalism", everyone has its chance, yadda yadda...

So, well...

 

[Richard Cribb]

I just don't understand why academics can't accept that the majority of people call the USSR and Mao's China communist nations.

Of course you don't.

Give it up and accept that to the majority of the population, communism IS what was in the USSR, North Korea, and so forth.

Sorry Mac, but it is not that easy. I am fed up with that people like you shall be allowed to throw Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot in my face every time I for instance propose a more even distribution of wealth.
I have shown ad nausem that your last sentence is not true, at least have the decency and fantasy to come up with a fitting term for that sort of political systems.
Hierarchic authoritarian societes are not communist. Period.

Just like to the majority of the population a hacker is a bad person who illegally breaks into other computer systems without permission, regardless of what programmers may want the word to mean.

Sorry, but this is something different.
Everybody pretty much agrees about what a hacker does, what differs is whether they find it a good or bad thing. The disagreement is here a moral one.

Does gay mean happy or homosexual? Are rubbers a pack of condoms or a pair of galoshes from the 1930s?

Again not the same.
It is true that words can get new meanings, but that is not the same as we can just change the meaning of the existing ones. That is not the same as to say that it is not done, because to stick to Marx, the ruling ideas is that of the rulers. Which is exactly why the less conformistic among us need to be alert about this sort of things.

As for myself, whenever I refer to the USSR and so forth, I will never stop referring to them as communist nations. People can either accept what I mean by that, or waste time and continue their arguments that "it's not communism."

You may call a dog a cat if you so like.
But if you persist on using wrong terms for political ideologies and systems, you must also expect to be corrected.

 

[Xenocrates]

The way I see it both capitalism and communism are based on ideal models of human behaviour and psychology:

Communism demands that people in positions of power will not become corrupt, that there isn't great diversity within classes and that the people only demand progress.

Capitalism demands that people in position of power don't become corrupt, that 'the masses' don't demand progress (*), that they are capable of and willing to make choices and that they want to play games with their lives.


I think that they are both equally idealistic and that it's not a question of which system works better but of how they should be mixed and how that mix should change over time.

(*) progress is at the centre of both credos but in capitalism progress can be seen as merely the multiplication of complexity but under communism as solving social and physical problems. Progress in the social and infrastructural sense ceased in the West when capitalism achieved supremacy.

 

[Eukaryote]

I'd never say North Korea is communist. It has a dictator instead of a chariman and the people have no money or power. If it's not socalist it doesn't count as communist, it's just a country with a command econemy. I'd even call North Korea Facist which is the exact opposite of communist.

 

[Swiss Bezerker]

I agree drool. Probably because we have or have had the same geography textbook.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

I don't. People do, since this is situational.
But I hope we can agree that people do have some basic needs, and that under the current system not everybody get those fullfilled.

Well, no I tend to like VERY absolute definitions of such things if I were to take something as my absolute moral crusade. But I will humour you. As for basic needs, what do you define them as? That which is necessary to prevent people from dying? Well that is inaccurate, since all you really do is extend life. But anyway, lets boil them down to food, water, and shelter (since that seems to be the consensus amongst people that try to determine such things).

So now lets take the United States...the embodiment of the decadent capitalist ideal. Virtually everybody has access to water, and everyone has access to food. "But Sobi, poor people go hungry in the states all the time". Well, what I see is a poor population that is far more obese than the rest of the population. The poor in capitalist countries are suffering from too many calories, not too few, so I would say capitalism does an excellent job of providing these basic needs.

As for shelter, ya, there are a lot of people on the streets, but relative to the total population, these numbers are miniscule. Nothing on the scale of an entire underprivileged working class. The bulk of the homeless are mentally ill people released from the institutions that Reagan closed down, and I DO think this was a mistake. I think it is a good idea to provide safe institutions for the mentally ill.

But still, you probably have other basic needs to identify. It isn't enough to just say, "we all agree that people have things called basic needs". You actually have to define them if you want to deliver, and since I highly doubt your definition is the exact same as mine, we end up having an arbiter to decide for us. The larger the extent that basic needs need to be arbitrated, the larger the bureaucracy and ultimate authoritarian control.

You say "People do", when telling me who decides needs. What people? Individuals? If individuals decide what they need based on their own relative value, how do you set up a system for them to trade these self-determined relative values with each other? Its called capitalism.

 

[punkbass2000]

A lot of good counter-arguments could possibly be that "true capitalism" has never been practiced because of the amount of state intervention in the American economy, European economies, and the Japanese and Korean economies as well.

What about Industrial Revolution era England? I can't tell you for sure that there was no intervention at all, but there certainly was little regard for workers' rights.

 

[carniflex]

So now lets take the United States...the embodiment of the decadent capitalist ideal. Virtually everybody has access to water, and everyone has access to food. "But Sobi, poor people go hungry in the states all the time". Well, what I see is a poor population that is far more obese than the rest of the population. The poor in capitalist countries are suffering from too many calories, not too few, so I would say capitalism does an excellent job of providing these basic needs.

Capitalism is worldwide.
Famine also.
You cannot say that the absence of famine in some countries is due to capitalism and its existence in other is not.
Capitalism, defined as private property of means of production, is a system aimed to giving money to an aristocracy: the owners, by taking it from the workers, thus enlarging social inequality and the risk of famine.

But still, you probably have other basic needs to identify. It isn't enough to just say, "we all agree that people have things called basic needs". You actually have to define them if you want to deliver, and since I highly doubt your definition is the exact same as mine, we end up having an arbiter to decide for us. The larger the extent that basic needs need to be arbitrated, the larger the bureaucracy and ultimate authoritarian control.

Do you think a collective decision can only be bureaucratic and authoritarian ?
Have you ever heard of democracy ?
Anyway, your dramatisation of this question is ludicrous:
When you've understood that infinite accumulation of material goods does not make happiness, there is not much varation about the definition of basic needs any more.