Why Communism Failed

[Traitorfish]

@Jeleen: To be quite honest, I have an incredibly hard time understanding anything you're saying, so I'm going to have to drop this discussion while we both have a shred of dignity left.

Okay, but do you think it's actually possible to implement Communism in a non-communist country? The usual progression (as intended in the USSR as well) has Socialism as the first step on the path to Communism, but if Communism is a discrete concept, does this mean there's still a "quantum leap" from Socialism to Communism, instead of a gradual change?

I don't really do the whole capitalism>socialism>communism thing, so I can't really answer this. That's something from the Orthodox tradition, which I don't have much interest in.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

May I suggest you read up the old boy himself on that. And BTW, Marx himself wasn´t a Marxist, nor did he try it out himself. Again, that might tell you something about the viability of Communism.

It might do you a bit of good to read up on "the old boy" himself. The line "I am not a Marxist" is a smartassed quip by him about a French labor leader who falsely claimed the mantle of Marxism. He responded that if their politics represented Marxism, then he was not a Marxist.

Observe.

Okay, but do you think it's actually possible to implement Communism in a non-communist country? The usual progression (as intended in the USSR as well) has Socialism as the first step on the path to Communism, but if Communism is a discrete concept, does this mean there's still a "quantum leap" from Socialism to Communism, instead of a gradual change?

I am, however, of a more classical persuasion, so I'll be happy to answer the question.

The answer, essentially, is yes. Socialism is the reaction to capitalism, its antithesis. Communism will be a synthesis of what the two opposites do best (efficacy and equitable distribution), a socially stable product.

 

[holy king]

the extremes are extremely dangerous places to be, and almost never the preferred solution anyway.

this actually means nothing.

to speak of extremes you need a certain reference system inside which two things are extremes.

what you say is like saying in feudalism, too much power residing with the king is a bad extreme as well as too much power residing with petty lords. (centralism-federalism).

you would be right in what you are saying, but what you dont account for is the possibility to actually change the whole reference system and get rid of feudalism.

 

[plarq]

The same thing applies after feudalism. Say centralized government and decentralized government, both have pros and cons and neither offers an overwhelming advantage of the other.

 

[Traitorfish]

The concrete political forms which to which the terms refer is very different in each society, though, so all you're really observing is that on a very high level of abstraction there are certain recurring patterns, not that the political questions facing a society remain the same.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Well in a democracy your vote counts while in feudalism your count votes (sorry , old gag I just figured it fitted in) .

 

[Agent327]

It might do you a bit of good to read up on "the old boy" himself. The line "I am not a Marxist" is a smartassed quip by him about a French labor leader who falsely claimed the mantle of Marxism. He responded that if their politics represented Marxism, then he was not a Marxist.

That might be true, but that isn´t the point; Marx wasn´t a Marxist in the sense that, despite all his efforts to promote Communism, he never tried to bring Communism into practice. (Not too mention, ofcourse, that Marx, being Marx, didn´t need to be a Marxist. By the same token that Jesus wasn´t a Christian, to name but another example.) His ideas about how Communism should be brought into practice remained in the vague - which might go a long way to explain the various strands of Marxism that actually developed.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

That might be true, but that isn´t the point; Marx wasn´t a Marxist in the sense that, despite all his efforts to promote Communism, he never tried to bring Communism into practice.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. He helped found the First International, the International Workingmen's Association (a badass name if there ever was one). He agitated constantly for communism, and wrote about it as much as he talked about it.

All that aside, even if he hadn't, doing so is not the qualifier for being a Marxist.

(Not too mention, ofcourse, that Marx, being Marx, didn´t need to be a Marxist. By the same token that Jesus wasn´t a Christian, to name but another example.)

Christ wasn't a Christian because that would mean worshiping himself. A Marxist does not worship Marx, he utilizes Marx's methodology to understand societies past and present. In fact, one need not even be a communist to be a Marxist. Just ask Svetlana Aplers or Meyer Schapiro.

His ideas about how Communism should be brought into practice remained in the vague - which might go a long way to explain the various strands of Marxism that actually developed.

I don't know how vague you can get than the Paris Commune. He wrote a book about while it was happening, ferchrissake.

Many of the "various strands" of Marxism that emerged in the 20th Century were attempts to adapt Marxist socialism to societies where it was inappropriate to do so, they were not due to vagaries in the man's writing, philosophy, or language. The orthodox expansions of Marx do just that: expand him, because surprise surprise, society and capitalism change, just as he said they do.

I suggest you read more of our Ask a Red thread instead of polluting it as you have.