How to Make Communism Work(ish)

[amadeus]

What I find so vexing about communism (stateless) is that there is going to be no state, so no coercion, but there is also going to be no private industry. But if there is no coercion, there presumably is no stopping private industry. Thus, it would seem then that there would be no communism.

 

[Vylinius]

Communism can't work because of how humans are on any level that it can still be called communism and last more than a generation or two without turning into merely a dictatorship with a centralized economy which were basically every single "communist" state so far in modern history. In all honesty the United States will never be communist, europe can never be communist for long in any major form, and that goes for the rest of the world as individual freedoms are put before the good of a nation and the world economy. I would love to see this thread bring about the creation of some working form of communism, but honestly the utopia sought by communism can not come without major cultural remodeling of the current modern world. Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Germany all give me hope for at the very least socialism. Anyways, just my two cents on this subject.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

I humbly suggest you buy a history book published in the last twenty years.

I bet I read more of them than you.

Soviet ideology in Russia was extremely successful: it morphed agrarian theological country into highly urbanized and industrialized world super power, it culturalized and integrated into civilization ethnic groups which were then on the level of nomadic and medieval societies, it improved well-being of farmers and workers, it built best education system in the world, built up strong scienctific institute and contributed to world science a lot, it stopped Nazism when most of the Europe was defeated, it made first artificial satellite and first man into space, it gave economic, political and military support to many nations.

What failed was not soviet or communist ideology or system, it was the policy of westernization, "democratic" and capitalist reforms.

 

[Vylinius]

I would call a lot of that a bit over dramatic, but honestly its accurate or at least as far as I know. Of course it leaves out the bloody rule of Stalin over the people and all of his mass murders, and claims it built the best why not say a very good education system. I might be wrong though.....we need Dachs in here to clarify.

 

[Ajidica]

What failed was not soviet or communist ideology or system, it was the policy of westernization, "democratic" and capitalist reforms.

The USSR started going down the tubes under Brezhnev and was really starting to suffer under Andropov/Chernenko. Although Gorby made the end of the USSR come around faster, his policies ensured there was some degree of continuity in government when the USSR finaly dissolved. Without Gorby the USSR probably would have survived into the new millenium, but the result wouldn't have been pretty or in any way desirable.
That things went to hell in a handbasket afterwards has more to do with Yeltsin being incompetant and the poor way state assets were sold off.

In short, it was the failure of the Soviet model under Brezhnev that created such a poor situation that Gorby's reforms were unable to have the desired effect.

 

[amadeus]

Soviet ideology in Russia was extremely successful

Aside from the millions dead and the decades of freedomless misery, how could this great system that worked so well fall like a house of cards in 1991? You say that imperialism was the culprit, but if the Soviet system worked so well, why couldn't it overcome this alleged imperialism? Furthermore, how can you call any system that depends on American welfare a success?

 

[Ajidica]

To be fair, the Soviet system did turn an imploding feudal state into a world power that dominated geopolitics for almost 50 years and the result is still considered a great power.

 

[amadeus]

It's millions of years of fossilized rock that makes Russia the "great power" it is today more than anything. Would we really care if Russia implodes were it not for those great natural resources?

What the Soviet Union "accomplished" in building industry was nothing particular to its ideology, it was just the ruthless use of force. If Russia had become a fascist or Nazi state rather than a communist state, it could have made the same developments.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Aside from the millions dead and the decades of freedomless misery

That's bias, not an actual history.

how could this great system that worked so well fall like a house of cards in 1991?

1. As I said: that was the result of westernization and capitalist reforms.
2. Soviet Union made nations of ex-Russian Empire free to self-determine themselves and secured this right by its constitution. Without that 1991 would never be possible.

 

[Dachs]

And of course the law that any social-political-economic ideology adopted in Russia is doomed to fail.

What makes Russia so special?

 

[amadeus]

That's bias, not an actual history.

Well, I just so happen to be biased against mass death and suffering.

1. As I said: that was the result of westernization and capitalist reforms.

Why would they make those reforms if the system worked?

2. Soviet Union made nations of ex-Russian Empire free to self-determine themselves and secured this right by its constitution.

The Soviets never had any intent on releasing those nations from captivity, though. Also, the Soviets annexed those countries after they first gained independence in 1918.

 

[Dachs]

Why would they make those reforms if the system worked?

To be fair, a fair number of stupid rulers have tried to mess with the system even though it worked. Exhibit A is the Roman Emperor Iulianus Apostata, but a few other notable types are guys like lij Iyasu (V) of Ethiopia and the Holy Roman Emperor Friedrich II.

Of course, that doesn't mean Gorbachev was one of them.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Well, I just so happen to be biased against mass death and suffering.

You are biased against USSR and Russia.

Why would they make those reforms if the system worked?

Because that's politics. There are at least three factors:

1. Soviet leaders were trying to make compromises with the West to avoid Cold War turning into nuclear armageddon and simply to remain a diplomatic power.

2. There was inner struggle of political powers and figures, always. One of such struggles contributed a lot to the myth of "evil Stalin", btw.

3. Soviet people were influenced by Western propaganda and culture, so were naturally the Soviet politicians.

The Soviets never had any intent on releasing those nations from captivity, though. Also, the Soviets annexed those countries after they first gained independence in 1918.

The only countries annexed were the three Baltic countries.

 

[Hygro]

A very strong welfare state, a highly mechanized industrial economy, and a 20-hour or shorter workweek with lots of paid vacation and health/maternity/etc leave.

There, you have communism.

 

[Gigaz]

Is there anyway to make Communism work in any form? Our are we (Communists) all screwed?

Communism is possible and is practised at many places all over the world in small communities. As long as a community is sufficiently small and all members know each other, people can not misuse the system to gain advantages. Someone will always notice if you take too much and work too slowly. In a soviet style communism, noone would care about that. Communism is your own choice. There are still many reasons why you would not want to join such a community.

 

[aelf]

The best that comunism can do is to vanish from the earth! We do need social politics but one based in solid grounds.

And I submit that you wouldn't know where solid ground was if it can be found.

 

[Cutlass]

What I find so vexing about communism (stateless) is that there is going to be no state, so no coercion, but there is also going to be no private industry. But if there is no coercion, there presumably is no stopping private industry. Thus, it would seem then that there would be no communism.

Having no state never means having no coercion.