Cunobelin
I aint no hippo
Im no pinko but i often wondered that if stalin hadnt brutalised the russian people for so many years and was more true to Marxist doctrine could Russia, or China for that matter have achieved communism?
Could Communism have worked?
- Thread starter Cunobelin
- Start date
- Status
There have never been sole winners in a society, the art is to create as few losers. Communism failed.
There has never been a communist state, in which civilian discontent wasn't nourished by that ideology. So you oppress, but it has the opposite effect. But somehow, the ideology has managed to establish itself so well, that everyone is dependant on it, their very existance is determined by communism. They are put in the position where they can't afford to let go of it. There's the key. Then you can oppress as much as you want to, i.e. Stalin, Mao etc., without meeting resistance. It's brilliant, really, it's very thorough human thought, and yet, it isn't in the long run. It's very tragic, tragic that still in 2003, we watch by as yet another communist experiment unfolds in North Korea.
There has never been a communist state, in which civilian discontent wasn't nourished by that ideology. So you oppress, but it has the opposite effect. But somehow, the ideology has managed to establish itself so well, that everyone is dependant on it, their very existance is determined by communism. They are put in the position where they can't afford to let go of it. There's the key. Then you can oppress as much as you want to, i.e. Stalin, Mao etc., without meeting resistance. It's brilliant, really, it's very thorough human thought, and yet, it isn't in the long run. It's very tragic, tragic that still in 2003, we watch by as yet another communist experiment unfolds in North Korea.
napoleon526
Emperor
Working for the good of the group and abandoning any thought of making money for personal gain goes too far against human nature. Perhaps one day, Communism will prove successful if we as a species evolve beyond the need to aquire wealth.
Cunobelin
I aint no hippo
in communist countries were the people so blinded to their plight by oppression that they had no reason to object to their treatment?
RobertH2O
Chieftain
Communism could potentially work, but I'm not sure.
First, I don't think government can do everything. In communism you'd have to have a massively powerful centralized government with a huge bureaucracy. Governments such as those tend to get bogged down in the small stuff. We are tlaking about a government that micromanages everything, and it simply doesn't work.
I don't believe in the centrally planned economy. There are too many variables, and any economic system needs to be flexible. You cannot predict what is going to happen in thenext year, nor predict what will be needed. With communism there is no flexibility.
The Soviet Union is a bad example to be using to base whether communism could have worked. Under Marx's original theory, there was a process, or evolution to communism. Feudalism to capitalism to communism. Russia was in a fairly feudalistic society still in 1917. There is also a certain amount of industrialization that was involved in Marx's theory. Russia did not have the industrialization Marx believed was necessary to propelling capitalism to communism. Lenin sought to skip the middle part and go straight to communism. There was no bourgeoisie in Russia. Also, Lenin changed Marx's view of the political structure by claiming that Russia needed a central communist authority that ruled on behalf of the people, instead of the people ruling for themselves. Coupled with the lack of a bourgeoisie, this created a sort of party bourgeoisie that was in control of the government. In a sense, it was exactly the vision Marx had in relation to the end of capitalism.
I'm not a communist, I don't believe it can work. i don't trust the government. I think the government can do a lot of good, but it can't do everything. There's a very fine line between the point were it can do a lot fo good, or more harm than good. Being a Republican and a socialist of sorts, I believe in a more decentralized socialism based on state and local control. The central government should and must have a role, but there should be a partnership between the other government entities in which all three share control.
First, I don't think government can do everything. In communism you'd have to have a massively powerful centralized government with a huge bureaucracy. Governments such as those tend to get bogged down in the small stuff. We are tlaking about a government that micromanages everything, and it simply doesn't work.
I don't believe in the centrally planned economy. There are too many variables, and any economic system needs to be flexible. You cannot predict what is going to happen in thenext year, nor predict what will be needed. With communism there is no flexibility.
The Soviet Union is a bad example to be using to base whether communism could have worked. Under Marx's original theory, there was a process, or evolution to communism. Feudalism to capitalism to communism. Russia was in a fairly feudalistic society still in 1917. There is also a certain amount of industrialization that was involved in Marx's theory. Russia did not have the industrialization Marx believed was necessary to propelling capitalism to communism. Lenin sought to skip the middle part and go straight to communism. There was no bourgeoisie in Russia. Also, Lenin changed Marx's view of the political structure by claiming that Russia needed a central communist authority that ruled on behalf of the people, instead of the people ruling for themselves. Coupled with the lack of a bourgeoisie, this created a sort of party bourgeoisie that was in control of the government. In a sense, it was exactly the vision Marx had in relation to the end of capitalism.
I'm not a communist, I don't believe it can work. i don't trust the government. I think the government can do a lot of good, but it can't do everything. There's a very fine line between the point were it can do a lot fo good, or more harm than good. Being a Republican and a socialist of sorts, I believe in a more decentralized socialism based on state and local control. The central government should and must have a role, but there should be a partnership between the other government entities in which all three share control.
klazlo
Avatarless Sociologist
It depends on how you operationalize communism, or in other words, what are those characteristics, for which you say: "ok, it is communism". Sticking to the original Marxist ideology would not work even without Stalin's terror, because the society changed a lot compared to which Marx lived in. Ironically these changes were partly caused by the application of Marxist ideas themselves, for example nobody could predict the impact of women's full employment or education on other parts of the society. The theory was not flexible enough to deal with these changes, especially after 1945.
Ohwell
Deity
I am a firm believer in that anything can work. May not have yet, but I think it can.
Archer 007
Rebirth
You much understand tht Communism is an unfinished theory. He died while writing the Communist Manifisto IIRC. Look at Das Capital, 2000 pages in very very small type. No doubt saying the Manifisrto is shorter.
Sultan Bhargash
Trickster Reincarnated
Despite the temptations to voting No or Capitalism rocks, Cunobelin not-of-Hippo, I went ahead and voted "Yes"...
Communism could have worked, but not on the large national scale of the USSR or China, or even really Cuba. Communism works best in Communes (of course), very small organizations of willing participants, like the Israeli kibbutz or like several communes founded in the United States in the late 1800s (like the Oneida commune).
If you could have replicated such "feel good" cells into clusters of communes large enough to fill an island you might have started to get some where with that level of organization.
But, as players of the "nation states" online game find out, as soon as you have unwilling people party to a commune, you have a problem. You either have to suppress them, excommunicate them, or risk the dissolution of the system. The "communal" nature of the system means that you can't take the option we've got in capitalist societies- ignore them and they'll sink or swim regardless...
Communism could have worked, but not on the large national scale of the USSR or China, or even really Cuba. Communism works best in Communes (of course), very small organizations of willing participants, like the Israeli kibbutz or like several communes founded in the United States in the late 1800s (like the Oneida commune).
If you could have replicated such "feel good" cells into clusters of communes large enough to fill an island you might have started to get some where with that level of organization.
But, as players of the "nation states" online game find out, as soon as you have unwilling people party to a commune, you have a problem. You either have to suppress them, excommunicate them, or risk the dissolution of the system. The "communal" nature of the system means that you can't take the option we've got in capitalist societies- ignore them and they'll sink or swim regardless...
klazlo
Avatarless Sociologist
The Manifesto was written in 1848 (Marx died in 1883), originally as a detailed theoretical and practical programme for the Communist League, an international association of workers at that time.
There were several types of socialist movements and Marx's version was only one at that time. His aim in the Manifesto was partly to convince the proletarian class that his ideas and approaches are the proper ones.
Only later became the Manifesto as now known: the 'Bible' of the working class.
joespaniel
Unescorted Settler
Sultan Bhargash made an excellent response to the issue.
It just doesnt mesh with human nature.
It just doesnt mesh with human nature.
MajorGeneral2
Just happy to be here
Exactly. Though even small communes often don't work, they can (and have). However, it takes people of very high moral standards, generally. It coudn't work on a very large level. Too many people start seeking personal profit. Also, though the state is supposed to gradually wither away, according to Marx, the opposite is what generally happens.
smalltalk
monkey business
Communism - what is this?
Communism:
Gov't hires you to build some highways that you could travel for free if you had a car.
Social Marketeers
Gov't collects taxes and builds some highways that you can travel for free.
Free Marketeers
Private Companies are building the highways and let you travel it for a fee.
What I'm pointing at is public/government spending ratio. This ratio goes from 30-50% for most western nations. Maybe we have already become 30% communist?
Communism:
Gov't hires you to build some highways that you could travel for free if you had a car.
Social Marketeers
Gov't collects taxes and builds some highways that you can travel for free.
Free Marketeers
Private Companies are building the highways and let you travel it for a fee.
What I'm pointing at is public/government spending ratio. This ratio goes from 30-50% for most western nations. Maybe we have already become 30% communist?
Sultan Bhargash has pretty much summed it up.
Communism works in theory, it appeals to our small communal ideals but conflicts with everything else that makes us human.
History has proven thats is a utopian dream that turns to nightmare when applied as a state government.
Ants seem to like it though.
Communism works in theory, it appeals to our small communal ideals but conflicts with everything else that makes us human.
History has proven thats is a utopian dream that turns to nightmare when applied as a state government.
Ants seem to like it though.
Hamlet
Manic Depressive
An awful lot of nonsense about Marxist theory being spouted here, I see.
To answer: No, Communism could never have worked.
To seperate the question, actually, Soviet-style Communism could well have endured if it had achieved global dominance or compete domination.
However, if we are talking about the eventual flowering of the stateless utopia that Marx envisaged, then no, that could never have happened. I doubt it ever will.
To answer: No, Communism could never have worked.
To seperate the question, actually, Soviet-style Communism could well have endured if it had achieved global dominance or compete domination.
However, if we are talking about the eventual flowering of the stateless utopia that Marx envisaged, then no, that could never have happened. I doubt it ever will.
West German
Warlord
Communism could have worked in Russia had the rulers been less brutal and more competant. The only reason it was overthrown was that they ran out of food. But Russia is a cold place and food doesn't always grow great there.
Cunobelin
I aint no hippo
I wonder why so many people bought into the idea in the first place and why they stuck at it so long. I mean was it ever anything more than a totalitarian regime wherever it was established as the government?
Congrats on 300 posts West German!!!
Congrats on 300 posts West German!!!
Sultan Bhargash
Trickster Reincarnated
Yeah Congrats, WG...
Cunobelin, as to why so many people "bought into it" - at first- because there were so many people living below the standards of their neighbors to the west. Because from brutal, insensitive monarchy, any political system probably feels like a step up...
Later, people bought in to it for the same reason they buy into anything; they were born into it, raised to believe in it, and made to feel powerless to change it...
Cunobelin, as to why so many people "bought into it" - at first- because there were so many people living below the standards of their neighbors to the west. Because from brutal, insensitive monarchy, any political system probably feels like a step up...
Later, people bought in to it for the same reason they buy into anything; they were born into it, raised to believe in it, and made to feel powerless to change it...
Remorseless
Relentless
Sultan's original post (excellent SB by the way) points to the core of the problem: communism, as envisioned by Marx and Engels, was actually predicated on a "stateless" state, where there really was no central government, just groups of communes (soviets in Russia) where the different communes negotiated trades of services and goods (the teacher commune would teach your children in exchange for bread from the bakers' commune). As Sultan stated, this works only at the smallest leve, because once you go above that, you run into the state question. And, like Napoleon and the French Revolution in the late 18th Century, the main problem comes from outside reactionary forces intent on forcing you back into the old ways of doing things.
As a theory, it ranks up there with Utopia. Practically, no, it can't work. As I've said before, the only thing going for capitalism is, despite its many flaws and inherent imbalances, it works better than any other system we've devised.
As a theory, it ranks up there with Utopia. Practically, no, it can't work. As I've said before, the only thing going for capitalism is, despite its many flaws and inherent imbalances, it works better than any other system we've devised.
- Status
Similar threads
