Would Communism Be Better Than Capitalism?

[kochman]

Just because it happened in once scene in one Hollywood movie doesn't make it true. Yes, it happened in an un-resupplied part of Stalingrad during the battle.

It happened a lot on the eastern front from what I have read... Not just at Stalingrad (where they showed the commisars subsequently shooting any who retreated.

There were material shortages on both sides (see winter 41 for the germans blowing it!).

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

and give examples?

Nikita Khrushyov, Leonid Brezhnev, Nikolai Tikhonov, Nikolai Podgorny, Kliment Voroshilov, Konstantin Chernenko, Nikolai Ryzhkov, Mikhail Gorbachev were Soviet leaders at some point and were/are Ukrainians.

Not so. Greed has ruined both forms on a societal level, not to mention, economic, political, and environmental.

Agreed.

They, after all, didn't call it WW2, but the Great Patriotic War. Massive propoganda, etc.
I mean, they were sending men forward, with no rifles, and telling them to pick up a fallen rifle. It takes a lot of guts to do that!

If you ever say it to or in presence of a Russian, be prepared that there's a chance he could beat you in the face. Oh, yeah, how unliberal and stalinist!

 

[Lone Wolf]

And Turkey doesn't even have that much that Europe wants. Russia does.

Yes, but Russia was definitely more developed then the late Ottoman Empire, not that it's such a great accomplishment. Furthermore, Russian WWI failure had more to do with inner instability, rather then a purely military collapse. In a "more competent Tsarist government" scenario it's easy to imagine that instability being lessened (adopting some kind of land reform that redistributed some of the noble landholders' land, for instance. Such a measure would not necessarily be socialist).

But the big contribution of the foreign powers was material, not boots.

Which wasn't that great, either. Furthermore, foreign powers' ability to support counter-revolutionaries with supplies implies the revolution already happening. I don't view the revolution as being historically inevitable, though I'd say that Nicholas did a nice job of making it so.

 

[Crezth]

Good point.
The patriotism of the CCCP during WW2 was pretty huge, and definitely a major factor in the wherewithal. They, after all, didn't call it WW2, but the Great Patriotic War. Massive propoganda, etc.
I mean, they were sending men forward, with no rifles, and telling them to pick up a fallen rifle. It takes a lot of guts to do that!

Well, I think a lot of Russians were motivated to fight out of longstanding love for the motherland and because the Germans were well-reviled.

I am not sure a Tsarist regime would have had the mandate to respond, especially given failings in all previous wars. Then again, they wouldn't have executed their best generals.

Separately,
We should also talk about the deaths of China, since it was brought into the argument as an example of a good communist society...

I'd be interested in hearing anyone explain how Red China was the best possible outcome there. It really seems like the Kuomintang would have been better for them and all their neighbors.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Well, I think a lot of Russians were motivated to fight out of longstanding love for the motherland and because the Germans were well-reviled.

Volunteers started to enlist in masses the first day the news of the war spread. They reacted in some ways faster than authorities. It was truely the whole nation phenomena.

I am not sure a Tsarist regime would have had the mandate to respond, especially given failings in all previous wars. Then again, they wouldn't have executed their best generals.

I do not remember the exact quotation, there was a report at Nazi secret service which said that the Soviets had much better situtation with officers in the way that they were truely from people and commoners, and so were more concerned about the motherland not the career compared to Nazi ones.

 

[classical_hero]

Why are people talking about Cuba, the USSR, and the PRC as if they are remotely communist? I thought they were all socialist dictatorships.

That is the problem I have with trying to discuss Communism, is the fact that when we point to examples when it has been tried, they cry that it is not Communism. It seems that Communists idealise Communism so much, that they fail to see the failure of it when it has been tried. Utopia is just a word that has been made up so people can believe in ideals, rather than reality.

 

[JonBonham]

No because I think this 'unrealistic' ideal communism would be the same as an unrealistic 'ideal' capitalism. In your 'ideal' communism, would I be able to acquire a ton of mansions and just for myself and my family to live in and more 'fuel effiecient non-polluting' cars than I need and other sorts of material possesions just because I want to? If not because everyone has to be equal, then I'd prefer 'ideal' capitalism where charity actually does take care of the poor and the private social systems actually do allow social mobility and while everyone might not be able to become Bill Gates they all have the chance to become extremely comfortable..... I think it's a pointless question because both ideals are unrealistic and impractical. Rather then the best system would be Utopia.

 

[Traitorfish]

Why oh why did I forget to red diamond this thread.

*sigh* Well, at least I can try to answer some of the on-topic, non-Kochman-instigated comments...

I'll give an example - can you tell what year this quote is from? "therefore I exhort you to consider that now the time is come... in which you may... cast off the yoke of bondage, and recover liberty."

When I first read that quote, it struck me how modern it sounds. IMO people have wanted the same things throughout history. Yes, we live better and have more freedoms now (at least in certain countries), but I think that is a product of the greater wealth of the current time, not in a change in human nature. It's not that human nature can't change, or doesn't change at all, but it is a very slow process, and has not occurred to a measurable degree over our recorded history (which, granted, is a very small part of human history).

Spoiler :

the answer is 1381, it's the English priest John Ball

I don't disagree that there are certain recurring themes throughout human history, and a resentment of oppression and a striving for self-government are among them. But what do these themes actually mean, abstracted from their historical context? Is the "liberty" of the English peasant c.1381 that of the Parisian san cullote c.1789 or the Catalan industrial worker c.1936? Was Sitting Bull's fight for "freedom" against the US government fundamentally interchangeable with, say, Robert Bruce's fight for "freedom" against the English, Michael Collins' fight for "freedom" against the British, or Nestor Makhno's fight for "freedom" against the Bolsheviks and Whites? We can certainly abstract points of commonality for them, but I'm not sure that we can simply assume that in making these abstractions we retain the fullness of these "freedoms". It may be that the commonalities we find don't represent any shared essence, but rather a partial image. Now, I recognise that this is historicistic viewpoint, and not everyone will agree with it, but I think that they are legitimate points that have to be addressed before we can attempt to draw any broad conclusions about "human nature".

Both have their goods and bads. I would rather a system that encompasses the good qualities of both.

What do you imagine that such a system would entail?

That is the problem I have with trying to discuss Communism, is the fact that when we point to examples when it has been tried, they cry that it is not Communism. It seems that Communists idealise Communism so much, that they fail to see the failure of it when it has been tried. Utopia is just a word that has been made up so people can believe in ideals, rather than reality.

That's perhaps a fair point for those who cry "state capitalism" in a revisionistic manner- the Eurocommies, the "anti-Revistionists", and so on- but there are also theoretical tendencies which have been critical of the development of Russian "socialism" since the beginning- initially a supportive criticism, of course- mostly concentrated in what is known as the "Communist Left". One of the main theorists within this tendency was Amadeo Bordiga, the leading figure of the Italian Abstentionists and, later, left-communists, who gave a relatively readable overview of his analysis of the Soviet Union here, if you care to read it. Just to prove that it's not all utopian backtracking, you understand.

I do not remember the exact quotation, there was a report at Nazi secret service which said that the Soviets had much better situtation with officers in the way that they were truely from people and commoners, and so were more concerned about the motherland not the career compared to Nazi ones.

It helped that Stalin had the remnants of the Tsarist officer corps butchered in the late '30s, of course.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

It helped that Stalin had the remnants of the Tsarist officer corps butchered in the late '30s, of course.

Tsarist officers ended mostly as White movement. And those who were "butchered" (to be more precise: mostly just dismissed or arrested, not executed) were done so because they were exposed of separatist or anti-government activity (and of course there were other things from incompetency, for which you could be dismissed, to a serious crime like murder, for which you could be executed yourself).

'30s were still in many senses revolutionary times, and there were still powers other than central one associated with Stalin, who struggled among each other in the Soviet government or outside against it. And there were people who in case of a war would side with possible enemy regardless of the agenda of the latter. Also, injusticies were possible and took place as in any other major revolution epoch.

Not to mention that except "Tsarist officers" there were experience and officers "of the Reds" gained during the revolution.

 

[aelf]

That is the problem I have with trying to discuss Communism, is the fact that when we point to examples when it has been tried, they cry that it is not Communism. It seems that Communists idealise Communism so much, that they fail to see the failure of it when it has been tried. Utopia is just a word that has been made up so people can believe in ideals, rather than reality.

I'm not in the mood to engage in complex discussion, so I'm going stick to addressing this idiotic argument for now. The statement "Communists idealise Communism so much that they fail to see the failure of it when it has been tried" is not saying anything new. It's simply restating the idea that those states were Communist in a substantive way, in response to which one could respond once again with the objection that they could be in no way considered Communist except by those too lazy to get past mere labels. Looks like you got precisely nowhere, failing even to defend your assertion that Communism "has been tried".

 

[kochman]

Tsarist officers ended mostly as White movement. And those who were "butchered" (to be more precise: mostly just dismissed or arrested, not executed) were done so because they were exposed of separatist or anti-government activity (and of course there were other things from incompetency, for which you could be dismissed, to a serious crime like murder, for which you could be executed yourself).

'30s were still in many senses revolutionary times, and there were still powers other than central one associated with Stalin, who struggled among each other in the Soviet government or outside against it. And there were people who in case of a war would side with possible enemy regardless of the agenda of the latter. Also, injusticies were possible and took place as in any other major revolution epoch.

Not to mention that except "Tsarist officers" there were experience and officers "of the Reds" gained during the revolution.

In your words, in other words... Stalin was a hero. He was justified in his killings. He did nothing worse than any other leader of his time.

 

[Traitorfish]

Tsarist officers ended mostly as White movement.

A surprising amount ended up in the Red Army, actually- something like 50,000 officers and 200,000 NCOs. Most were liberals of a middle class background who ended up with the Reds because they were seen as being the closest thing to a legitiamte national government, given the shambolic and often less-than-democratic alternatives offered by the Whites. A lot retired after the war, for various reasons, but there were still a few kicking around by the Purges, and they didn't very well of it.

But, my point was merely to remark upon that one aspect of history, not to discuss the Purges as a whole, so I'll leave it at that.

In your words, in other words... Stalin was a hero. He was justified in his killings. He did nothing worse than any other leader of his time.

Kochman, would it kill you read the OP of a thread and try and stay within the topic it lays out, or at least the topic which evolve organically from the original discussion? I know you have a little crusade to wage, and it's very cute, the explicit purpose of this thread was to step away from the gritty realities, and not to re-hash what has been hashed and re-hashed since before any of us were born. So kindly

 

[classical_hero]

I'm not in the mood to engage in complex discussion, so I'm going stick to addressing this idiotic argument for now. The statement "Communists idealise Communism so much that they fail to see the failure of it when it has been tried" is not saying anything new. It's simply restating the idea that those states were Communist in a substantive way, in response to which one could respond once again with the objection that they could be in no way considered Communist except by those too lazy to get past mere labels. Looks like you got precisely nowhere, failing even to defend your assertion that Communism "has been tried".

They claimed to be communist, so why did they fail to be communist in your opinion. That seems to be the standard of ownership of an idea, those who claim to be followers of an idea, so were did they go wrong.

 

[aelf]

They claimed to be communist, so why did they fail to be communist in your opinion. That seems to be the standard of ownership of an idea, those who claim to be followers of an idea, so were did they go wrong.

Oh, okay. Do you really need me to go and find some twisted sect that claims to be Christian so that I can use the same logic on you? By god, you know they exist.

PS: They did not all claim that their countries were Communist either.

 

[Traitorfish]

I always wonder why their use of "socialism" and "communism" provokes these demands for explanation, but nobody ever seems to put much thought into their claims to "democracy". Seems a double standard.

 

[kochman]

I always wonder why their use of "socialism" and "communism" provokes these demands for explanation, but nobody ever seems to put much thought into their claims to "democracy". Seems a double standard.

Because democracy isn't a fairy tale idea?

 

[classical_hero]

Oh, okay. Do you really need me to go and find some twisted sect that claims to be Christian so that I can use the same logic on you? Lord knows they exist.

PS: They did not all claim that their countries were Communist either.

Then Communism is unrealistic if people who tried to implement it and failed so miserably. We have had plenty of attempt as communism and they all failed, perhaps that shows it does not work in the real world and thus ideal communism just won't work.

 

[Traitorfish]

Because democracy isn't a fairy tale idea?

Very trite.

Then Communism is unrealistic if people who tried to implement it and failed so miserably. We have had plenty of attempt as communism and they all failed, perhaps that shows it does not work in the real world and thus ideal communism just won't work.

Or perhaps it shows that Marx was right all along, and that "trying communism" is as doomed to fail as any other utopian program.

 

[aelf]

Then Communism is unrealistic if people who tried to implement it and failed so miserably. We have had plenty of attempt as communism and they all failed, perhaps that shows it does not work in the real world and thus ideal communism just won't work.

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. Indeed, knowing so little about Communism, both its theory and history, I don't see how you can entertain anything close to certainty on this topic.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

If the USSR, PRC, DPRK, or Cuba are not real Communist societies than what is?