Why Communism Failed

[CELTICEMPIRE]

I wouldn't say that communism "failed" any more then any other utopian ideology failed. It's just that it never truly existed in the way that it was intended, and the Soviet Union was poorly managed under the Brezhnev years. Basically, the USSR fell because Brezhnev was an idiot.

"Communism is its true sense has never been practiced", well, almost nothing in it's purest form can. Take Democracy for example. You don't want a pure Democracy do you, just parts of Democracy. We need to have representatives and an executive body. Nothing can really exist in it's pure form. Communism as Marx envisioned it would have probably lasted 10 years tops.

 

[aelf]

I thought it should match your post.

Or you just have no come back. If you did, you'd have posted it. Instead, you opted for the juvenile response. Oh, well.

Nothing can really exist in it's pure form. Communism as Marx envisioned it would have probably lasted 10 years tops.

This is based on completely nothing.

 

[Agent327]

Or you just have no come back. If you did, you'd have posted it. Instead, you opted for the juvenile response. Oh, well.

Hey, if you post something juvenile I´m quite happy to give you quid pro que, junior.

This is based on completely nothing.

Actually, the fact that nobody ever tried Communism Marx´ style might give you a clue about the viability of that particular utopia.

 

[Tarquelne]

Actually, the fact that nobody ever tried Communism Marx´ style might give you a clue about the viability of that particular utopia.

I was thinking of posting that as a joke a few pages ago.

The big problem with judging communism-the-philosophy based on communism as it existed in Russia and China is that they both weren't just "imperfect" examples of communism, they were thoroughly screwed-up nations with strong traditions of authoritarianism and violence that, at the end of nasty civil wars, ended up with screwed-up, violent and highly-authoritarian governments that were perhaps better described as "warlord states" than anything else. Big surprise.

In a lot of ways the communism was more window dressing than anything else. It defined the jargon used in the power struggle more than what the struggle was actually about. There certainly were some "true believers"... they tended not to last long in positions of power. (Or life.)

And the revolution absolutely *destroyed* Chinese fashion.

I suspect communism made things somewhat worse in that it, for example, gave convenient excuses for mass purges... but, hey, were Stalin or Mao the kind of guys who really *needed* an convenient excuse? I don't think so. Both countries were trying to break away from their previous form of government and that would have provided plenty of excuses. I suppose communism might have gotten the leaders thinking "progressively", which is bad. There are few things more dangerous than a power-mad dictator with a bright and shiny new idea.

Russia and China are much better examples of how revolutions can go bad and - probably - just how difficult it'd be to shift to a "good" or "true" communist state. (Or non-state.) In both cases Marx, IIRC, could have justifiably said "Told you!"

 

[Tahuti]

The big problem with judging communism-the-philosophy based on communism as it existed in Russia and China is that they both weren't just "imperfect" examples of communism, they were thoroughly screwed-up nations with strong traditions of authoritarianism and violence that, at the end of nasty civil wars, ended up with screwed-up, violent and highly-authoritarian governments that were perhaps better described as "warlord states" than anything else. Big surprise.

Pre-"Communist" Russia and China also hadn't exactly Capitalist economies.

EDIT: These countries didn't even had a bourgeoisie of any significance at the time of revolution.

 

[aelf]

Hey, if you post something juvenile I´m quite happy to give you quid pro que, junior.

Uh yeah, sure, JEELEN.

Actually, the fact that nobody ever tried Communism Marx´ style might give you a clue about the viability of that particular utopia.

Aside from the fact that this is meaningless nonsense, I don't see how it's even related to the controversial assertions made in that post. Here's a hint, in case you don't get it: The first assertion is that "Nothing can really exist in it's pure form", which is also susceptible to being metaphysically inconsistent given the beliefs of the poster who made that assertion; the second assertion is that "Communism as Marx envisioned it would have probably lasted 10 years tops", which strikes me as completely arbitrary (why 10 years? How do you know? Could it not last another day longer past the 10-year time frame?).

 

[Traitorfish]

Have the Chinese really passed that point, already?

Yes and no. A lot of it comes down to just how much of a patchwork the Chinese economy actually is, so while the Stalinist project played out as Bordiga described in some regions, in others the peasantry are still economically constituted more or less as they were before the civil war. I don't think that any Unified Theory of Stalinism can encapsulate the complications of Chinese economic development, Bordiga's merely offers a useful insight.

I did in post 143.

You also say in post 143 that "if anybody needs more explanation in detail, I´ll be happy to oblige". So oblige.

Indeed: a broken arm is a property, a rationalist epistemology is a property, a reputation for boorishnness is a property.

Ah, so you're just using the word to denote something entirely different than what everyone else uses it to denote. Glad we cleared that up.

"Communism is its true sense has never been practiced", well, almost nothing in it's purest form can. Take Democracy for example. You don't want a pure Democracy do you, just parts of Democracy. We need to have representatives and an executive body. Nothing can really exist in it's pure form. Communism as Marx envisioned it would have probably lasted 10 years tops.

Meh, the idea of a "pure form" of any social-political typology is basically nonsense. A society is either constituted within the fundamental terms of a given social typology, or it isn't; it's either communist, or it's not. These are categories which we abstract from concrete social and political realities, they aren't some transcendent Idea which a given society participates in to a varying degree.

(Edit: By way of illustration,

Spoiler :

A triangle is either a triangle, or it is not a triangle, as illustrated on the left. There isn't a "pure triangle" which other three-sided, three-angled shapes resemble to a greater or lesser degree, as illustrate on the right. So too with social formations.)

Pre-"Communist" Russia and China also hadn't exactly Capitalist economies.

EDIT: These countries didn't even had a bourgeoisie of any significance at the time of revolution.

You can't really discuss whole countries, let alone ones as big as Russia and China, in as sweeping terms as this. The industrial cities of Russia and China were all thoroughly capitalistic by the time of the revolution (or in China's case, "revolution"), and although they didn't contain a particularly prominent bourgeoisie, that was because of the degree to which investment was conducted by foreign capital and by the state, rather than reflecting any non-capitalist nature on their part. Only the countryside was pre-capitalist- or perhaps "proto-capitalist", in many places- and that's exactly Bordiga's point, that the historical function of the Stalinist state was to permit the rapid penetration of rural society by capitalism and so to establish capitalist social relations there without either having to wait for the slow and unreliable plod of history on the one hand (á la Bukharin).

Actually, the fact that nobody ever tried Communism Marx´ style might give you a clue about the viability of that particular utopia.

I'm curious; what is "communism Marx-style", and how does one go about "trying" it?

 

[Camikaze]

But time and time again, you have demonstrated that you don't fall under the category of most people when it comes to your understanding of the meaning of words, so I suppose we can't blame you for misunderstanding.

Never seen such an excellent description of oneself. Congrats aelf.

That's a pathetic response.

I thought it should match your post.

Or you just have no come back. If you did, you'd have posted it. Instead, you opted for the juvenile response. Oh, well.

Hey, if you post something juvenile I´m quite happy to give you quid pro que, junior.

Uh yeah, sure, JEELEN.

Moderator Action: Seriously?

Drop it or take it to PM.

 

[Leoreth]

Meh, the idea of a "pure form" of any social-political typology is basically nonsense. A society is either constituted within the fundamental terms of a given social typology, or it isn't; it's either communist, or it's not. These are categories which we abstract from concrete social and political realities, they aren't some transcendent Idea which a given society participates in to a varying degree.

It's interesting that you argue that way because I think I recall you defending communism on grounds of "it hasn't actually been properly implemented yet".

 

[Crezth]

Indeed: a broken arm is a property, a rationalist epistemology is a property, a reputation for boorishnness is a property.

Hahaha what?

 

[Abegweit]

There is no need for articles, the reason is very simple: human nature. In order to transition to communism you need to hand large amounts of power to a central government to enforce it, governments are run by people and people like power. People are greedy, corrupt, and power hungry. The exact problems that make capitalism bad at times dont disappear because you want to do communism IMO.

While your argument are all true, you should look at Mises a bit further. He never made any of these claims. He pointed out that communism is impossible no matter what human nature is. That's because communism is fundamentally impossible. Even if people are angels, it still fails.

 

[Tarquelne]

Hahaha what?

I filed a torpedo patent on your rationalist epistemology.
PM me when you want to settle.

 

[Crezth]

I filed a torpedo patent on your rationalist epistemology.
PM me when you want to settle.

I can't PM anyone unless I fill out the proper paperwork, as my intellectual faculties for PMing people are the property of my bank.

 

[Agent327]

Hahaha what?

Apparently you are unaware that ´property´ has a dual meaning.

Property is that which is acquired

covers them both.

You also say in post 143 that "if anybody needs more explanation in detail, I´ll be happy to oblige". So oblige.

And that´s what I did. Just try scrolling back a bit and check.

Ah, so you're just using the word to denote something entirely different than what everyone else uses it to denote. Glad we cleared that up.

Not really. I guess you also missed the that ´property´has more than one meaning, which my definition covers nicely. You´re now the third person to have missed that.

Meh, the idea of a "pure form" of any social-political typology is basically nonsense. A society is either constituted within the fundamental terms of a given social typology, or it isn't; it's either communist, or it's not. These are categories which we abstract from concrete social and political realities, they aren't some transcendent Idea which a given society participates in to a varying degree.

(Edit: By way of illustration,

Spoiler :

A triangle is either a triangle, or it is not a triangle, as illustrated on the left. There isn't a "pure triangle" which other three-sided, three-angled shapes resemble to a greater or lesser degree, as illustrate on the right. So too with social formations.)

Bad example: triangle is an abstractum. So it always exists in its pure form. Unless it´s not a triangle, but as you point out yourself - then it´s not a triangle. And the whole argument about Communist vs not-Communist sprang up from the perceived conception that Communist regimes aren´t actually Communist regimes. Now, since these Communist regimes describe(d) themselves thus, and were supported by Communist parties, plus are generally viewed as being Communist regimes, who´s now not agreeing with a generally accepted definition? When a thread is called Why Communism failed most people perfectly understand what´s being meant.

I'm curious; what is "communism Marx-style", and how does one go about "trying" it?

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.

As to aelf´s post:

Simply saying that something is nonsense doesn´t make it so. Now, if one posts an actual argument, you may expect an actual riposte.

 

[Tahuti]

It's interesting that you argue that way because I think I recall you defending communism on grounds of "it hasn't actually been properly implemented yet".

That's because Traitorfish's definition of Communism is fundamentally different from the homonomynous political buzzword, that is generally used to describe everything that the user of that buzzword hates, including - but not limited to - Traitorfish's definition of Communism, "European" welfare states and - last but not least - chicken stew for breakfast.

 

[Abegweit]

It does sometimes seem that the only difference between the capitalist and the communist is the former thinks the rich works harder than the poor and the latter thinks the poor works harder than the rich.

Strange phrase "works harder". If I work eighty hours a week to plan how to steal from you, working a mere forty hours, am I better or worse than you? The question answers itself.

They both use the same language of "freedom" and "human rights".

Oh. Indeed they do. All state thieves mask their intentions in the language of freedom and human rights.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's interesting that you argue that way because I think I recall you defending communism on grounds of "it hasn't actually been properly implemented yet".

I'm not suggesting that the USSR et al. were communist, just of an undesirable type, but that they were definitely not communist. This is as opposed to the idea of "impure communism" suggested by CelticEmpire, which would place them somewhere on a sliding scale between "communism" and "not communism". I didn't make that very clear before, sorry.

And that´s what I did. Just try scrolling back a bit and check.

Evidently I didn't follow you, so if you could try again?

Not really. I guess you also missed the that ´property´has more than one meaning, which my definition covers nicely. You´re now the third person to have missed that.

If we're using your definition, I'd say that the word "property" has no meaning. Which is a little different.

Bad example: triangle is an abstractum. So it always exists in its pure form. Unless it´s not a triangle, but as you point out yourself - then it´s not a triangle.

Um, what?

And the whole argument about Communist vs not-Communist sprang up from the perceived conception that Communist regimes aren´t actually Communist regimes. Now, since these Communist regimes describe(d) themselves thus, and were supported by Communist parties, plus are generally viewed as being Communist regimes, who´s now not agreeing with a generally accepted definition? When a thread is called Why Communism failed most people perfectly understand what´s being meant.

Yeah, I don't think you're following me at all. My comments weren't intended to be a semantic quibble about the word "communism"- I haven't said a word about it in the entire thread- it's about how we understand communism itself, as a form of society. So this really has nothing to do with anything I've actually said.

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.

I have no idea what you just said.

 

[Agent327]

Evidently I didn't follow you, so if you could try again?

You have to be a bit more specific then.

If we're using your definition, I'd say that the word "property" has no meaning. Which is a little different.

I see. Words that have multiple meanings have no meaning. Very elucidating.

Um, what?

You can´t understand me paraphrasing you?

Yeah, I don't think you're following me at all. My comments weren't intended to be a semantic quibble about the word "communism"- I haven't said a word about it in the entire thread- it's about how we understand communism itself, as a form of society. So this really has nothing to do with anything I've actually said.

This ´semantic´ comment doesn´t address anything I said, really... but:

I'm not suggesting that the USSR et al. were communist, just of an undesirable type, but that they were definitely not communist.

is what I´m referring to. Unless ofcourse that´s another thing you haven´t said...

I have no idea what you just said.

Somehow I´m not surprised... It´s just plain English though.

 

[Leoreth]

I'm not suggesting that the USSR et al. were communist, just of an undesirable type, but that they were definitely not communist. This is as opposed to the idea of "impure communism" suggested by CelticEmpire, which would place them somewhere on a sliding scale between "communism" and "not communism". I didn't make that very clear before, sorry.

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?

 

[aelf]

Bad example: triangle is an abstractum. So it always exists in its pure form. Unless it´s not a triangle, but as you point out yourself - then it´s not a triangle. And the whole argument about Communist vs not-Communist sprang up from the perceived conception that Communist regimes aren´t actually Communist regimes. Now, since these Communist regimes describe(d) themselves thus, and were supported by Communist parties, plus are generally viewed as being Communist regimes, who´s now not agreeing with a generally accepted definition? When a thread is called Why Communism failed most people perfectly understand what´s being meant.

You're absolutely right that we have a different understanding of what communism means from most people. Congratulations for grasping the concept of semantic differences. And although most people brush off semantic arguments as inconsequential, they can be extremely important when there is a particularly interesting pragmatic aspect that explains the existing differences in meaning. In communism's case, that's the entire Marxist tradition (which has its own history), which cannot simply be ignored in favour of a superficial historical view.