Why aren't you all Communists?

[red_elk]

How would you define communism? State owns the means of production? Was that true in the CCCP?

No, communism is a form of society with common ownership of the means of production. There is no state or classes.
Soviet system was not a communism, according to Soviets themselves.

 

[Hehehe]

No, communism is a form of society with common ownership of the means of production. There is no state or classes.
Soviet system was not a communism, according to Soviets themselves.

So "real" communism has no state? How is that different from anarchy? What happens to those who don't share communist principles? Or to those who violate them?

 

[Traitorfish]

But capitalism did require already existing institutions and organizing mechanisms. Trade, profit, ownership, commodities, price, all existed before "Capitalism". What existing institutions will fill out into its ism to replace that?

Not many people living before the era of capitalist dominance would have foreseen those institutions and mechanisms becoming vehicles of capitalist revolution, though. They only appear as such in hindsight.

That said, it's an area worthy of consideration. Paul Mason's recentish book Postcapitalism explores the possibility that groupsourcing, peer-to-peer networks, wikis, and the like, all prefigure, if not socialism, then something that will exceed and replace capitalism. I can't say I agree with all of his conclusions- there are moments when it feels less like an advance over Marx than a retreat to Proudhon, and overall I think there's a preoccupation with the novel and the digital- and overall it's framed less like a resolution than a sort of sideways stumbling (although, given Mason's politics, I suspect this was as much as anything else a concession to the Fabian politics of the average left-wing Briton). Whatever one's politics, though, there are certainly some interesting ideas that bear exploration.

I mean we can disagree what is and what isn't communism all day long, but anyone who says 1970s Poland wasn't a communist country has 0 credibility on the subject

I'd hazard that Trotsky or Bordiga probably had a little credibility on the subject.

Human nature is not just social - humans are basically pack animals. We're territorial, competitive, and hierarchical.

You can argue that humans are territorial and competitive, but you'd have a very difficult time arguing that humans are naturally hierarchical. Very few simple societies exhibit hierarchical tendencies, and many are actively anti-hierarchical. Hierarchy, real and enduring hierarchy rather than simple inequality of status, emerges falteringly, takes millennia to become entrenched, and centuries more to begin seriously penetrating the workings of everyday life.

Hierarchy is in fact a mess of contradiction. Effective hierarchy depends on there being sufficient social and economic complexity to make themselves necessary, but the greater the complexity, the less effective any one hierarchy becomes. The hierarchy peasant-baron-king is effective because it is simple and direct, because each rung has a clear position in the relation to the others, but ineffective because it supports only a very basic division of labour, so it struggles to exert itself over the business of daily and is easily toppled by those on the lower wrongs. The more complexity that is introduced- sheriffs and stewards and magistrates and monasteries- the more more stable and penetrative hierarchies can becomes, but the less effective any one hierarchy becomes, the less clear and direct the relationships between any of the participants becomes, and the less authority any one person can bring against any other. Authority becomes less and less a characteristic of people and more of institutions.

The historical tendency is not towards the domination of humans by hierarchy so much as towards the domination of humans by institutions, towards a certain perverse equality, in which nobody has any power because all important decisions are made by impersonal institutions. That does not reflect any fundamental human nature, rather, it reflects the exhaustion of human nature, the failure of humanity's hardwired programming to keep pace with an ever-increasing social complexity.

 

[red_elk]

So "real" communism has no state? How is that different from anarchy?

There is no "real" or "unreal" communism, the concept has clear definition. You can look it up in wiki or dictionary.
Communism and Anarchism are close, both are radical left-wing ideologies which share some fundamental principles such as equality and removing of exploitation. There are differences in what they focused on, but I believe other people here can give more qualified answer to that.

What happens to those who don't share communist principles? Or to those who violate them?

Depends on what exactly they do. I guess it can be compared to the people who violate principles of modern Western society (in your terminology). Such as tax evaders or internet pirates.

 

[Hehehe]

There is no "real" or "unreal" communism, the concept has clear definition. You can look it up in wiki or dictionary.
Communism and Anarchism are close, both are radical left-wing ideologies which share some fundamental principles such as equality and removing of exploitation. There are differences in what they focused on, but I believe other people here can give more qualified answer to that.

But I did look up the definition. The problem is that some people here argue that communism isn't real communism, which is why I would like to know what is their definition of communism.

Definition of communism

1: a : a theory advocating elimination of private property
b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2: a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R.
b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably
d : communist systems collectively

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism

Depends on what exactly they do. I guess it can be compared to the people who violate principles of modern Western society (in your terminology). Such as tax evaders or internet pirates.

So let's say for example that I own a family farm, and I decide to keep it privately owned against the wishes of the communists. I collect the fruits of my labor, and I own my farmland and the property that is associated with it. What then? Will this property be taken away from me by using violence? If there is no state, then who's going to do it?

 

[Lexicus]

But I did look up the definition. The problem is that some people here argue that communism isn't real communism, which is why I would like to know what is their definition of communism.

I already gave my definition. Generally speaking the dictionary is a horrible source for the definition of words like "communism" that are subjects of long-standing academic contention.

I collect the fruits of my labor, and I own my farmland and the property that is associated with it. What then? Will this property be taken away from me by using violence? If there is no state, then who's going to do it?

I'd imagine you'd find yourself in trouble after the first person you shoot for coming onto "your" land.
If there is no state, how would you decide to "privately own" anything in the first place?

 

[AdamCrock]

Then there is of course the practical applications of communism. Every time communism has been tried, it has failed. Every time it fails, communists tell us how that wasn't "real" communism.

I agree with You "HeHeHe" and the case as it -usually- was supposed to be communism at the beggining but turned out wrong and I'm not a communist and I'm telling You this because I think that everytime communism has been tried it turned out to be a totalitarian dictatorship in the end (therefore failing to be a communism at all). There's also no doubt about the dreadful cult of personality associated with pseudo-communist states, not to mention that there's that hereditary rule thing - I mean just look at The-Great-All-Powerfull-Mighty-Awesomely-Brilliant-Eternal-Ever-Shining-Star-Emperor-Kim-Jong-Un The Great (Might have been awesome Monty Python sketch eh? ) Enlightened Leader of North Korea who just happens to be the son of The-Great-All-Powerfull-Mighty-Awesomely-Brilliant-Eternal-Ever-Shining-Star-Emperor-Kim-Jong-IL The Magnificent of North Korea , son of The-Great-All-Power.......Il-Sung ...

Spoiler Monty Python :

If someone actually feels like a little Monty here it is :

I just see no reason to try communism. So far, it has a terrible track record and nothing about it compels me to try again.

I feel pretty much the same way

Edit: Oh from the definition You've posted I think that communism ought to be 2.b - "The Larch" (oh sorry too much Python today ) I meant of course episode 2b - "The Marxist theory"

 

[Smellincoffee]

I have this thing against mass murder. Also, I've experienced and read enough to realize that top-down planning of anything as complex as an economy is so futile that only an ivory-tower academic with no connection to reality could think it's possible on a massive scale. Also, I subscribe to the Gandhian principle of non-aggression, also known in libertarian circles as the non-aggression principle, which bars telling people what to do, where to work, where to live, how much they can pay people to work for them, etc.

Also: communist architecture is so god-awful that I can only wonder why mass suicides didn't rival mass killing by the state as a means of death in communist country.



Disclaimer: Was a social-democrat in college who wrote papers on the Frankfurt school; then I got into Emma Goldman, Emile Carles, and Gandhi, and sort of shifted into left-libertarianism. Then at some point I was subscribing to Reason magazine. I still have a collection of recordings of the Internationale in various languages, various novels and such written in the Marxist worldview, etc.

 

[Lohrenswald]

Social democracy like in the Nordic countries probably would have been much closer to what Marx wanted than what communism ever was.

nah

Also, I've experienced and read enough to realize that top-down planning of anything as complex as an economy is so futile that only an ivory-tower academic with no connection to reality could think it's possible on a massive scale.

sounds like an arguement for communism and against capitalism

Also: communist architecture is so god-awful that I can only wonder why mass suicides didn't rival mass killing by the state as a means of death in communist country.

better than the junk made these days
it also strikes me as quite untasteful to suggest architectural styles should lead people to suicide, and not things like labour exploitation

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm telling You this because I think that everytime communism has been tried it turned out to be a totalitarian dictatorship in the end (therefore failing to be a communism at all).

Dictatorship is actually the exception in Marxist-Leninist regimes. The predominant form of government is one-party oligarchy, ranging from the very collective forms of leadership seen in post-Maoist China to the strongman systems seen in Yugoslavia or Cuba. Stalin and Mao's dictatorial periods only lasted maybe a decade or so, and were the outcome of long periods of factional strife within an established one-party system, and both returned to the oligarchical norm after the deaths of the dictator. Pol Pot was arguably a dictator, but his regime was short-lived even by revolutionary standards; the greater part of Campobdia's history as a Marxist-Leninist state was a one-party oligarchy after the "people's republic" model. Ceausescu's Romania, the Kim dynasty in North Korea, and maybe Hoxha's Albania represent the only really enduring dictatorship among the Marxist-Leninist states, and all of those are regimes note for their departure from the norms of the Marxist-Leninist states, both domestically and internationally- to put it bluntly, how bloody weird they were, even by the loose standards of revolutionary dictatorships.

Now, that's not to defend these regimes. An oligarchy can be ever bit as destructive as a dictatorship. But it's important to remember that the Marxist-Leninist regimes represent a particular type of regime- an allied cluster of types, really- specific to a particular period of world history, rather than a particular iteration of some abstract transhistorical spirit of "Totalitarianism". Presenting your opponents as evil incarnate is bad politics, bad history, and bad for your brain.

Also: communist architecture is so god-awful that I can only wonder why mass suicides didn't rival mass killing by the state as a means of death in communist country.

Communist architecture is bad because it is an inept imitation of Western architecture. All the architectural evils of Moscow are found in prototype in London or Paris.

 

[inthesomeday]

Definition of Communism (no source, made by me):

1. A socioeconomic organization of the human population in which resources are collectively produced and consumed, and in which there are no economic, social, or political classes (the latter means statelessness)
2. Any ideology which upholds the values of [point 1], especially when believing revolution is the only means of attaining this structure

 

[Patine]

I have this thing against mass murder.

That occurs in capitalistic societies too. It just not termed as such. Such as whole areas practically starving to death because capitalistic deficiency left no jobs and no businesses there, and the hard right (especially in the US) is viewing welfare programs as a "social evil." Also, wars begun by nations fully embracing capitalism on contrived casus belli whose main goal is actually to seize foreign resources for mega-corporations lobbying said governments, and that cause an inordinant amount of civilian death than one would expect when most of these militaries use things termed "smart bombs" and "precision bombing," but these civilian casualties are not "officially" as mass murder - they're termed "civilian collateral damage" or "acceptable losses in civilian populations" instead.

 

[AdamCrock]

Communist architecture is bad because it is an inept imitation of Western architecture. All the architectural evils of Moscow are found in prototype in London or Paris.

To my knowledge about communist architecture it is actually called "monumentalism" - the type of architecture meant to raise BBB (Big Badass Buildings - as I like to call it ). Those buildings were actualy (as part of the propaganda) meant to inspire people ("Look how big and great things we can achieve and build if we work together in socialism". In reality however I think they actually intimidated and scared people away. They were often gray, devoid of artism and really really huge (with too many windows - this was on purpose so that people would think that the building hosts a whole lot of people and workers). I think that the communist "monumentalism" was rather modeled and inspired from pre-existing buildings like "Lubyanka" in Moscow.

I live in Poland and there are a few post-communist buildings in my city that are great examples of "monumentalism" like the city hall (now renovated to be more colorful and artistic but I remember the days when it was huge, gray and imposing and scary

 

[red_elk]

So let's say for example that I own a family farm, and I decide to keep it privately owned against the wishes of the communists. I collect the fruits of my labor, and I own my farmland and the property that is associated with it. What then? Will this property be taken away from me by using violence? If there is no state, then who's going to do it?

Depends on actual implementation, but I would suppose you will be allowed to keep reasonable amount of land as personal property (reasonable in sense that it won't interfere with other people's right to also have some personal land). Growing and selling stuff from home farms would be allowed too. But owning large farms and having employees working there for you won't be allowed, just as now it is forbidden to have slaves. Even without state, some sort of law enforcement will be in place, because crimes won't magically disappear.

 

[red_elk]

As for Soviet architecture, there are also plenty of good examples.

Take Moscow subway for instance:

Spoiler :

Or Moscow State University:

 

[Patine]

That subway station looks like it was built in the days of Tsars. That was their esthetic style - chandeliers and all...

 

[AdamCrock]

I'll have to agree that the Moscow State U. doesn't look all that dreary It is however a bit oversized for it's function (so I think it's still carrying a "message" I described earlier in my post) . Still.... don't You think it has too many windows ?

 

[red_elk]

That subway station looks like it was built in the days of Tsars. That was their esthetic style - chandeliers and all...

It's Komsomolskaya station, built in 1935. I think architectors wanted to preserve some existing Moscow style, so it looks somewhat similar to Russian Empire palaces architecture.

I'll have to agree that the Moscow State U. doesn't look all that dreary It is however a bit oversized for it's function (so I think it's still carrying a "message" I described earlier in my post) . Still.... don't You think it has too many windows ?

It's actually only main building of the university, there are many others. It's big, but not big enough for 40000 students.

 

[red_elk]

Sorry for derailing thread a bit, I just stumbled upon a video of Pripyat city, made before and after Chernobyl disaster.
This is a good example of how Soviet "naukograd" (science city) looked like back then, including architecture and all the other stuff.

It was built in 1970 and populated mostly by power plant workers and their families. The entire city (~50,000 people) was evacuated and abandoned next day after reactor explosion. Sad to watch all this now.

 

[Ajidica]

Soviet architecture may have been a bit on the dreary side, but they were building at a time when architects throughout the world were seemingly in a quest to see who can make their building look most like a minimum security prison.

You also get some downright weird architecture, that looks like it came from the set of Star Trek.
http://www.bbc.com/news/in-pictures-36764708