Successful Communism

[Gustave5436]

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?

Probably an availability bias. Agrarian states were weaker, and frequently more overstretched, making successful revolts more likely.

However, if we're speaking of social revolution in general (rather than Marxism-Leninism in particular) there are industrial examples, such as the Spanish Revolution.

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.

And yet the overwhelming majority of the human race lives in poverty. This is made all the more interesting by post-scarcity level technology which, if properly utilized, could allow everyone to be "so well off" as to make post-capitalist economics irrelevant.

The problem is that capitalism is an archaic ideology; ideal for the material conditions of the 19th century, not the 21st. Where scarcity does not naturally exist, it is forced to artificially create it; thus, capitalism is a reactionary force which retards social, technological, etc. development.

 

[Karalysia]

I would hesitate to call Spain of 1936 a industrial state. More industrial than China or Vietnam. But its no France or Germany.

The reveloution in Russia was supposed to be merely a taper that would light the spark of reveloution around the world, in the more important industrial countries.

 

[Gustave5436]

I would hesitate to call Spain of 1936 a industrial state. More industrial than China or Vietnam. But its no France or Germany.

Do note that areas where the CNT was strongest were also the industrial areas of the peninsula.

The reveloution in Russia was supposed to be merely a taper that would light the spark of reveloution around the world, in the more important industrial countries.

Odd, considering the brutality with which the State repressed the left. Personally, I'd put the Bolsheviks alongside the bourgeoisie in the egocentric, "megalomaniac" category.

 

[luiz]

And yet the overwhelming majority of the human race lives in poverty. This is made all the more interesting by post-scarcity level technology which, if properly utilized, could allow everyone to be "so well off" as to make post-capitalist economics irrelevant.

The problem is that capitalism is an archaic ideology; ideal for the material conditions of the 19th century, not the 21st. Where scarcity does not naturally exist, it is forced to artificially create it; thus, capitalism is a reactionary force which retards social, technological, etc. development.

The problem with your logic is that it is being rapidly disproved by facts. I mean, the extreme economic development of India and China has lifted hundreds of millions of people from poverty, and continue to do so. The per capita income of the world is above 10k USD - not too bad, all things considered. Nowadays, there is no overwhelming majority living in poverty.

Note that India, China and co. have been able to lift those countless people out of poverty by embracing capitalism. Capitalism is not creating scarcity - au contraire - capitalists are thrilled to see for the first time in history a majority of consumers among the global population. Businessmen want a wealthier population.

Capitalism is killing absolute poverty, at least outside of Africa. Of course, there is still a long way to go, but we're further than we have ever been, thanks to a liberalized flow of goods, capital and services. Not because of anything some bearded German wrote in the 19th Century.

 

[The Imp]

As far as I can tell, small communities such as the kibbutzim came the closest. In fact, this seems to be a pattern of successful communist-like/adjacent enterprises, namely, that they are small.

Large scale attempts have always failed for a variety of reasons, both internal and external. Economic mismanagement and failure seems to be the primary reason for failure in self-avowed communist states. Either the system crumbles or it goes down a capitalist path while retaining the trappings of communism and dictatorial power.

Capitalism... seems to be the path of least resistance at this moment in time. Capitalism simply works without control and direction by the government, while heavily centralized economies need to buck what seems to naturally occur in large industrial and post-industrial societies, and take over and replace every single facet of the economy with the micromanaged will of the government, which by design must be massive and filled with "many parts" that are apt to fail.

Which isn't to say Capitalism is some perfect Utopian ideal. Unrestricted Capitalism sucks. Instead, Capitalism needs to be "diked". (I'm a Social Democrat increase y'all are interested).

However, I have not given up on Communist and communist like endeavors that require central planning and control entirely. In fact, I believe that Artificial Intelligence might provide a means by which a centralized economy might work effectively and equitably. Obviously that time has not arrived yet.

 

[Karalysia]

Communism is not centralized economy. This is a socialist run business

http://www.co-operative.coop/

 

[amadeus]

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.”

I was going to rebut all of this, but I'm feeling antsy and don't want to bother doing all of the necessary research so I'll just take this one bit for right now.

Wikipedia says that by 1916, 56% of people in Russia were literate... this would be 280 out of 500, not 1.

 

[The Imp]

Communism is not centralized economy. This is a socialist run business

http://www.co-operative.coop/

I'm talking about "Communism" in practice, not Communism in theory.

 

[Karalysia]

I was going to rebut all of this, but I'm feeling antsy and don't want to bother doing all of the necessary research so I'll just take this one bit for right now.

Wikipedia says that by 1916, 56% of people in Russia were literate... this would be 280 out of 500, not 1.

Socialism Betrayed says differently, and its a book. I trust it more than wikipedia.

I'm talking about "Communism" in practice, not Communism in theory.

Then you are talking about state capitalism.

 

[The Imp]

Socialism Betrayed says differently, and its a book. I trust it more than wikipedia.



Then you are talking about state capitalism.

And what is your definition of State Capitalism?

 

[amadeus]

Socialism Betrayed says differently, and its a book. I trust it more than wikipedia.

OK, but this discussion includes a reference to the book and immediately afterwards says the illiteracy rate was 56%, which is higher than what I said but far closer to what I said than a 99.8% rate. I tried searching for the book and its references to literacy and the only citation of 1 in 500 I could come up with was this page.

 

[Bill3000]

I've never gotten the difference between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy. Could you explain?


Great minds and all that.

Social democracy: secure the rights of the working class through the creation of the mixed economy welfare state
Democratic socialism: movement to create socialism through reformist, as opposed to revolutionary means

Social democracy originally started as democratic socialism and moderated over time

 

[civver_764]

The soviet union had potential but even under Lenin it wasn't foowing Marx's vision. I really don't consider it impressive, and I'm a staunch communist.

 

[amadeus]

A staunch communist with a millionaire avatar?

 

[The Imp]

The soviet union had potential but even under Lenin it wasn't foowing Marx's vision. I really don't consider it impressive, and I'm a staunch communist.

Thus the term "Marxist-Leninist". Ironically enough, Russia would have been better off if its future "Communist" overlords had listened to Marx and let the capitalists have there day in the sun.

 

[amadeus]

Thus the term "Marxist-Leninist". Ironically enough, Russia would have been better off if its future "Communist" overlords had listened to Marx and let the capitalists have there day in the sun.

But if that had happened, there would have been no communist takeover as people would be too rich and successful.

 

[The Imp]

But if that had happened, there would have been no communist takeover as people would be too rich and successful.

That is the point I'm making.

 

[amadeus]

I figured as much, but I should at least spell it out to the people too dense to think that any large numbers of people would become communists in a society that protects free markets from state meddling.

 

[The Imp]

I figured as much, but I should at least spell it out to the people too dense to think that any large numbers of people would become communists in a society that protects free markets from state meddling.

Oh, actually I am for state meddling, but only for the right kind. Google Social Democrat .

 

[Archbob]

Communism fails because forced equality among all people puts too much power in the hands of the central government.

Besides the fact that not humans are meant to be equal financially and socially. Almost all primates(Bonobos aside I suppose) have a defined hierchical line of dominance where certain individuals wield power over certain others.