Successful Communism

[Karalysia]

Karalysia, if don't stop trolling, you will be reported. If you have nothing constructive to say, keep quiet.

Accusing me of trolling, in a troll thread, means that you're trolling yourself....this is trolling to the power of 3. So t^3 which makes.... infinity trolling. OMG.

But fine. The Paris Commune while not strictly a socialist state, (it failed to take control of the banks and a number of things Marx criticized) it was a workers state and power was in the hands of the workers. The only reason it failed was it was crushed at the hands of the French imperialists.

Also the Soviet Union during the New Economic Policy under Lenin was a somewhat socialist state his ideas of vanguard of the revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat were being followed. A little known fact is that a market economy of sorts existed during the NEP, particularly among the presents. The problem was that socialism was never suppose to arise in countries like Russia and China, agrarian countries with no proleteriat to speak of. They had no industry and they were poor and backward from years of autocratic rule.

If socialism was to arise Marx predicted it could possibly arise legally in Britian and the USA, and via reveloution in France and Germany. Lenin himself considered Germany to be the true capital of the reveloution, and he felt the reveloution in Russia was only incidental to sparking reveloutions int he rest of the world. Berlin was to be the true center of the socialist movement. Never Moscow.

 

[Fr8monkey]

So my question is, in the last 150 years or so, if communism is supposed to overthrow industrialized nations, why have the only communist nations were agrarian ones?

 

[Cutlass]

Because, given democracy, and given progressive social reforms, capitalism makes virtually everyone so well off that only a very small minority of people want communism.

 

[Karalysia]

So my question is, in the last 150 years or so, if communism is supposed to overthrow industrialized nations, why have the only communist nations were agrarian ones?

That's not strictly true. North Korea was industrilizedish. It had heavy industry, it was well developed, and there was a geniune feeling that communisim in North Korea could really work, and thats what the West was afraid of and they did everything in their power to sabotage North Korea. And we get the basketcase it is today.

Well the socialist movement did take power in industrilized countries. Leon Blum leader of the French Popular Front was the Socialist President of France. In Spain (well not industrialized) in 1936 the anarchists/left took power, in Germany the social democratic party was in power, same in Scandanvia, in Britian the Labour Party, Italy after WWII had a very powerful Communist party which the US did everything in its power to defeat even going so far as t prepare a coup. Hell in Greece the Socialist Party is in power.

 

[spryllino]

So my question is, in the last 150 years or so, if communism is supposed to overthrow industrialized nations, why have the only communist nations were agrarian ones?

I think the answer is probably that the capitalist governments of industrialised nations are more entrenched. Besides, in Russia, the industrialised area supported the Bolsheviks in the civil war, whereas the rest largely supported the whites.

 

[innonimatu]

Also the Soviet Union during the New Economic Policy under Lenin was a somewhat socialist state his ideas of vanguard of the revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat were being followed. A little known fact is that a market economy of sorts existed during the NEP, particularly among the presents. The problem was that socialism was never suppose to arise in countries like Russia and China, agrarian countries with no proleteriat to speak of. They had no industry and they were poor and backward from years of autocratic rule.

Actually I think that the biggest problem is that you can hardly support, let alone sustain, a dictatorship of the proletariat when that proletariat is but a small fraction of the whole population.

Then you have the current world, where "services" employ most working people, but most of those people do not consider themselves "proles"... it's much the same problem, politically.

So my question is, in the last 150 years or so, if communism is supposed to overthrow industrialized nations, why have the only communist nations were agrarian ones?

The USSR and China (just to use the two largest examples) may have started as mostly agrarian, but they changed quite fast towards industrial. Not accidentally.

 

[Cutlass]

delayed double post

 

[civ_king]

Actually I think that the biggest problem is that you can hardly support, let alone sustain, a dictatorship of the proletariat when that proletariat is but a small fraction of the whole population.

Then you have the current world, where "services" employ most working people, but most of those people do not consider themselves "proles"... it's much the same problem, politically.



The USSR and China (just to use the two largest examples) may have started as mostly agrarian, but they changed quite fast towards industrial. Not accidentally.

A proletariat is essentially anyone who sells their labor, so basically everyone who isn't a capitalist

 

[willemvanoranje]

Well the socialist movement did take power in industrilized countries. Leon Blum leader of the French Popular Front was the Socialist President of France. In Spain (well not industrialized) in 1936 the anarchists/left took power, in Germany the social democratic party was in power, same in Scandanvia, in Britian the Labour Party, Italy after WWII had a very powerful Communist party which the US did everything in its power to defeat even going so far as t prepare a coup. Hell in Greece the Socialist Party is in power.

Wait, wait, wait. That's a pretty heterogenic group you are talking about there. The claim that these were actual socialists is debatable, but I think you agree with me that a person with socialist ideals and maybe even some policies that are loosely based on them, do not make a socialist country. Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, England, etc. have never been socialist countries.

A proletariat is essentially anyone who sells their labor, so basically everyone who isn't a capitalist

You're forgetting the self-sufficient farmer... which is not uncommon in an agrarian society.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

The most successful examples of non-Marxist communism would be small religious communities where individuals believe their is a divine mandate to work together and where those who do not contribute can be excommunicated.

 

[willemvanoranje]

Interesting thought. Especially since this does not have to be based on religion. It can simply be that humans think of it as the only morally just option, or even the only feasible option.

 

[civ_king]

Wait, wait, wait. That's a pretty heterogenic group you are talking about there. The claim that these were actual socialists is debatable, but I think you agree with me that a person with socialist ideals and maybe even some policies that are loosely based on them, do not make a socialist country. Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, England, etc. have never been socialist countries.



You're forgetting the self-sufficient farmer... which is not uncommon in an agrarian society.

That is intentional because communism should only be attempted in an industrialized/industrializing country

 

[willemvanoranje]

Then I somehow missed the point, because that was exactly what I was thinking. I think innomatu was exactly trying to agree that the socialist revolution in Russia and China was a bit at odds with theory?

 

[Karalysia]

Ideally what would have happed in the Soviet Union is that it would have started to move toward a more democratic system in the 1950's. The Soviet Union in the 1950's was growing economically, doing better than the capitalist countries, it had industrialized, it was powerful, secure, and prosperous.

At this point is when a socialist democracy should have been developed, when the workers should have been given control of the means of production.

It didn't happen. And that was a tragedy.

The Soviet system was great at developing a backward country rapidly. It worked great and turning he Soviets into a industrial power. But the problem was centralized planning is unwieldly, its inflexible, it leads to excessive beuracracy, possobility for corruption, the creation of a second economy and all sorts of other issues. Thats why the Soviet economy began to stagnate in the 60's under Breshnev.

Androprov realized these problems and tried to reform it and was very sucessfull while he lived, but he died early, and Gorbachev took over, and well he persued the wrong sort of reforms, did it at the wrong time, and did it too fast.

 

[Fr8monkey]

And how many people died in the glorious name of the USSR? Russia under communism was worse than Germany under Hitler.

 

[willemvanoranje]

Which leads me to the question whether it is socialism or communism, in that case, or merely the statist-development model which does not need to be socialist or communist of course.

 

[Karalysia]

And how many people died in the glorious name of the USSR? Russia under communism was worse than Germany under Hitler.

Irrelevant, and not by a long shot.

There was equality when it came to security, healthcare, housing, education, employment, and culture for all citizens who included the workers in factories and farms. The achievements of the Soviet Union included elimination the exploitation of the capitalist class, ending inflation, unemployment, discrimination against racial and national minorities, poverty, and inequality in wealth, education, income, and opportunity. Employment was guaranteed and there was free education from kindergarten to universities, free healthcare for all, workers received a month’s vacation. In 1917 1 out of 500 people could read and right while in 1967 everyone was literate. The inequality in incomes between the worker’s salary and the professional’s salary was only 10 times, while in the US CEO’s were paid 480 times the wages of workers. As the American sociologist Albert Szymanski said “While the Soviet social structure may not match the communist or socialist ideal, it is both qualitatively different from, and more egalitarian than, that of Western capitalist countries. Socialism has made a radical difference in favor of the working class.”

 

[holy king]

germany under hitler was worse than germany under hitler.

 

[innonimatu]

Androprov realized these problems and tried to reform it and was very sucessfull while he lived, but he died early, and Gorbachev took over, and well he persued the wrong sort of reforms, did it at the wrong time, and did it too fast.

In 1917 1 out of 500 people could read and right while in 1967 everyone was literate. The inequality in incomes between the worker’s salary and the professional’s salary was only 10 times, while in the US CEO’s were paid 480 times the wages of workers. As the American sociologist Albert Szymanski said “While the Soviet social structure may not match the communist or socialist ideal, it is both qualitatively different from, and more egalitarian than, that of Western capitalist countries. Socialism has made a radical difference in favor of the working class.”

It seems that we've been reading the same book, except that you are far less critical of the ideas within it than I was.

 

[Karalysia]

Socialism Betrayed? It has its issues, the main problem I had with it was its defense of authoritarianism, where they essentially said that democracy wasn't necessary for socialism to advance, and seemed to argue that glasnot and loosening control of the media was a mistake by Gorbachev, it seemed to imply that he should have clamped down. But it was an effective defense of Soviet socialism for the most part.

I've also been reading Hobsbawm Age of Empires and Age of Extremes,