The Communist Paradox: Fascinating Interaction Between Communism & Capitalism

[wasteofo2]

Just some random thoughts about Communism:

We "fought" the whole cold war to end Communism. We lost tens of thousands of troops in Vietnam, and many more thousands of troops in other armed conflicts around the world in an effort to put an end to Communism. Our whole foreign policy from the end of WWII until the USSR fell apart was dominated to stopping the spread of Communism and encouraging those who opposed it, costing us billions and billions of dollars in everything from giving armed aid to counter-revolutionaries and our own arms build up against the USSR.

Now, Terrorism is the enemy, and Communists aren't enemy #1 anymore.

Meanwhile, at home, we're buying goods from Communist China. After all this anti-Communist stuff, it's COMMUNISTS who can compete bests in many niches of our free market system. Communists sell their goods to Capitalist countries, and Capitalist countries buy their goods from Communist countries. Buisiness owners love free-market systems for a market to buy goods, but when producing goods, buisinesses can't build factories in Communist China quick enough.

After all this anti-Communist stuff, we're ignoring the human-rights violations in China, and giving them huge amounts of our buisiness. If we boycotted China and other Communist countries, we'd have to pay more for basic, (currently) inexpensive goods, because they'd have to be made in America where there's a minimum wage. This would probabally cause a signifigant economic depression, since people would have to pay so much more for basic goods. There would probabally be calls for a higher minimum wage, and for the government to do more to protect the economic interests of the people, IN EFFECT, LEADING US CLOSER TO COMMUNISM.

I'm sure some of the more lasseiz-faire people will say that "If goods were made in America, it would benefit America and Americans, because more Americans would be making money, as opposed to Chinese people making money, and the extra money people are paid for making goods will go back into the economy." However, making buisiness owners employ only Americans in the first place would be limiting the free market. On top of that, it's obvious that by the choice of many buisiness owners, that it's more profitable for them to employ people in Communist countries than in Capitalist countries, again showing that Communists in some cases can compete better than Capitalists IN a Capitalist economy. And, since buisiniesses make more profit employing people to do work in Communist China than in America, by boycotting Communist countries, you'd be signifigantly cutting the profit margins of buisinesses, and as Capitalists anywhere will tell you, the more money that a buisiness makes, the more it benefits people, becuase they can expand, hire more people, and drop their prices.

So anyway, feel free to respond to any of these little paradoxes you want. I just got thinking about the role of Communism in our world and felt the interaction between Communism and Capitalism was really interesting and quite funny in some cases.

 

[fourier jr]

but that's not real communism though. & it's not a paradox either

but i wonder if "big government" is such a bad thing though:

"...Thus it is those activists for social change who believe that American society is faced with problems so daunting that no corporation or entrepreneur is ever going to solve them at a profit carry the burden of convincing the American people that they don't really believe what they think they believe; and that's the public's complementary mindset - that the government is no match for the private sector in getting big and important things done - is equally fallacious, for the government has built up an incredible military machine (ignoring, for the moment, what it's used for), landed men on the moon, created great dams, marvellous national parks, an interstate highway system, the peace corps, student loans, social security, insurance for bank deposits, protection of pension funds against corporate misuse, the EPA, the NIH, the Smithsonian, the GI Bill & much much more. In short, the government has been quite good at doing what it wanted to do, or what labour and other movements have made it do, like establishing worker health and safety standards and requiring food manufacturers to list detailed information about ingredients.
Activists have to remind the American people of what they've already learned but seem to have forgotten: that they don't want more government or less government; they don't want big government, or small government; they want government on their side."

-- Bill Blum

or how about Carter's National Security Advisor's son, Mark Brzezinski in the LA Times, 1994:

"I asked the students to define democracy. Expectig a discussion on individual liberties & authentically-elected institutions, I was surprised to hear my students respond that to them, democracy meas a government obligation to maintain a certain standard of living & to provide health care, education & housing for all. In other words, socialism."

& re: "fighting communism"

"Our fear that Communism might someday take over the world blinds us to the fact that anti-Communism already has."

-- Pulitzer-prize nominee Michael Parenti

 

[wasteofo2]

but that's not real communism though. & it's not a paradox either

Sure, China isn't Communism as Marx envisioned it, but I would argue that China actually is real communism, since every government proporting to be Communist has essentially developed into a totalitarian state essentially the same as China.

However, if we define China as a Communist country, and America as a Capitalist country, their relation is pretty paradoxical. The Communist country, while espousing the evils of Capitalism, needs to sell it's goods to a Capitalist country, because the citizens of a Capitalist nation are better off and can afford to buy these goods, while the Communist ideology that runs China leaves their citizens devoid of the ability to have basic goods. Meanwhile, in America, most believe in economic competition, and to compete, companies go to a Communist country to employ workers for cheap, since they won't get any better in a Communist factory, and then they sell these goods back to Capitalists at a much lower price than if they were made in a Capitalist country.

The Communists need the Capitalists as a market, or they'd make no money, and the Capitalists need the Communists as producers, or else all the goods would cost too much.

& re: "fighting communism"

"Our fear that Communism might someday take over the world blinds us to the fact that anti-Communism already has." -- Pulitzer nomineeMichael Parenti

How much anti-Communist sentiment is there anymore? Do any policy makers talk about how we need to stop communism? I don't believe that I've ever once heard anyone in the Bush administration even utter the word Communism...

 

[fourier jr]

Parenti wrote that in 1969

 

[wasteofo2]

Parenti wrote that in 1969

And so what relevence does it have today? I don't see any...

 

[wasteofo2]

but i wonder if "big government" is such a bad thing though: [communist propaganda]
-- Bill Blum

or how about Carter's National Security Advisor's son, Mark Brzezinski in the LA Times, 1994:
[kids are all socialist]

I'm not making a case against Communism here (though I think it's a ridiculous notion), I'm just noting how Communist and Capitalist countries in todays world are somewhat inter-dependent upon one another, and while both profess to hate the other, they both help each other out quite a bit.

 

[motai]

How much anti-Communist sentiment is there anymore? Do any policy makers talk about how we need to stop communism? I don't believe that I've ever once heard anyone in the Bush administration even utter the word Communism...

I remember hearing Bush say during his inaugural address (seemingly randomly) say the phrase "Shipwreck of Communism." I wasn't particularly paying attention to what he said before or after that, but he did say that.

 

[vanesch]

We "fought" the whole cold war to end Communism. We lost tens of thousands of troops in Vietnam, and many more thousands of troops in other armed conflicts around the world in an effort to put an end to Communism. Our whole foreign policy from the end of WWII until the USSR fell apart was dominated to stopping the spread of Communism and encouraging those who opposed it, costing us billions and billions of dollars in everything from giving armed aid to counter-revolutionaries and our own arms build up against the USSR.

I never understood why the US was so very anti-communist. Except maybe that a system like the US, where everything is supposed to be based upon competition and fighting, needs a bogeyman in order to function.

After all, communism was a kind of society experiment, just like the putting aside of the "ancien regime" was in the revolutionary years at the end of the 18th century. So if it was a bad experiment, then those involved would find out at their own expense, and if it was a good experiment, then why be against it ? If the US thought that their system was better, why not just take advantage of the fact that the others would get behind ? And if they thought that communism was better, why not adopt it :-) ?

Of course, the expansionist visions of dictators like Stalin and Mao were something to recon with. But why intervene in say, South America where there was no such menace ?

I think it was a religious war, honestly.

 

[wasteofo2]

I never understood why the US was so very anti-communist. Except maybe that a system like the US, where everything is supposed to be based upon competition and fighting, needs a bogeyman in order to function.

Well ideologically, the USA is supposed to be about competing and working hard to get ahead, not everyone being equal.

After all, communism was a kind of society experiment, just like the putting aside of the "ancien regime" was in the revolutionary years at the end of the 18th century. So if it was a bad experiment, then those involved would find out at their own expense, and if it was a good experiment, then why be against it ?

It turned out that it was a bad experiment. No damned communist nations even bothered to follow Marx's vision of achieving full industrialization/capitalism before becoming Communist, and thus none of them had the means to actively support their whole population in any signifigant way. Furthermore, every single one turned into a dictatorship essentially. After WWII, it was apparent that Communism just lead to violent opressive dictatorships and mass poverty/starvation.

 

[vanesch]

Let us take statement (1):

Well ideologically, the USA is supposed to be about competing and working hard to get ahead, not everyone being equal.

And then (2):

It turned out that it was a bad experiment. No damned communist nations even bothered to follow Marx's vision of achieving full industrialization/capitalism before becoming Communist, and thus none of them had the means to actively support their whole population in any signifigant way. Furthermore, every single one turned into a dictatorship essentially. After WWII, it was apparent that Communism just lead to violent opressive dictatorships and mass poverty/starvation.

Although essentially I think (2) is correct (one could argue whether communism automatically leads to it, or whether in all these experiments somehow the thing got corrupted, but that doesn't change the fact), and if you say (1) is also correct, then my point was:
Why the hell didn't the USA LIKE others to embrace communism ? If you know , following (2), that they will get into oppressive dictatorships and mass poverty and starvation, it is all the easier, following (1) to "be the best".

That's why I don't understand the US hate for communism in other parts of the world.

It is a bit as the hare, who thinks that running the fastest is the greatest thing in the world, who gets angry at the turtoise for having such a heavy thing on its back, because that will forbid him to run fast ?

Instead of thinking: "that fool will at least be a piece of cake in the competition"

 

[member 5645]

1>I never understood why the US was so very anti-communist. Except maybe that a system like the US, where everything is supposed to be based upon competition and fighting, needs a bogeyman in order to function.

2> So if it was a bad experiment, then those involved would find out at their own expense, and if it was a good experiment, then why be against it ?

3> If the US thought that their system was better, why not just take advantage of the fact that the others would get behind ? And if they thought that communism was better, why not adopt it :-) ?

4>Of course, the expansionist visions of dictators like Stalin and Mao were something to recon with. But why intervene in say, South America where there was no such menace ?

5>I think it was a religious war, honestly.

1> You have a poor understanding of the USA
2> We don't live in a bubble. Why do you care what the US does? If we collapse our currency, why should you care? If we open our own style of gulogues (sp?) then why do you care?
3>Except that the spread of communism was synonymous with the spread of the sphere of influence of the USSR . Removing the ability to trade at fair prices, or have multinational companies operate elsewhere? I can't see why that would be bad for us
4>Of course they were. Who knows, I mean, Cuba is just a little country that wasn't a big deal, right?
5>WOW. So what religions were fighting? Christianity and...the non-religion of communism?

 

[vanesch]

1> You have a poor understanding of the USA

Probably. But it does seem that the US needs something to act against. To make life spicy, I guess :tongue:

2> We don't live in a bubble. Why do you care what the US does? If we collapse our currency, why should you care? If we open our own style of gulogues (sp?) then why do you care?

I don't think I would care, honestly. I would vent my opinion about it, but I would never support any action to correct it, in any way. BTW, you *are* collapsing your currency :tongue:

3>Except that the spread of communism was synonymous with the spread of the sphere of influence of the USSR . Removing the ability to trade at fair prices, or have multinational companies operate elsewhere? I can't see why that would be bad for us

Why would you like to trade, except with yourself ? Now, the sphere of influence of the USSR, that's maybe something that was also _induced_ by fact that communists knew they shouldn't knock on the door of the USA, or better, that they would need protection against the USA and its anti-communist policy. If the USA would have been more neutral, maybe the influence of the USSR would have been less important, who knows.

4>Of course they were. Who knows, I mean, Cuba is just a little country that wasn't a big deal, right?

Indeed, it wasn't a big deal.

5>WOW. So what religions were fighting? Christianity and...the non-religion of communism?

No, it was the ideology of capitalism against the ideology of communism. I meant religious war such as between PC fans versus Mac fans.

 

[russ_watters]

Regarding the OP, the "Domino Theory" dominated US foreign policy in the cold war. It was the idea that if we don't stop communism from spreading in a few hotspots like Korea and Vietnam and Afghanistan, it'll spread like falling dominos. This was based on Marx's work (workers of the world, unite!) and the implication was that all communists were the same and all were in league with each other. Korea seemed to support that, with China's entrance into the war. It was always believed that China and the USSR would ally with each other to spread communism - in reality, they wouln't have. Knowing this, its not too hard to let go of the old idea that all communists are the same.

Sure, China isn't Communism as Marx envisioned it, but I would argue that China actually is real communism, since every government proporting to be Communist has essentially developed into a totalitarian state essentially the same as China.

I agree. Marx had a theory. Well, experimentation proved his theory wrong and led to a new theory: attempted communism leads to totalitarianism.

The Communists need the Capitalists as a market, or they'd make no money, and the Capitalists need the Communists as producers, or else all the goods would cost too much.

I'm not sure about that - China is different from Russia in that they are not fully industrialized. A significant fraction of their population is still in the Middle Ages. I think the US-China relationship is more about that than about communism and capitalism having a symbiotic relationship (add to that the fact that China's growth in the last decade is almost entirely due to moderation and movement toward capitalism). It may be, though, that developed and developing have a symbiotic relationship.

I never understood why the US was so very anti-communist.

Its quite simple: Freedom(we like it) and imperialism(we don't like it). Communism => totalitarianism (which generally includes imperialism), as wasteofo2 noted.

Why the hell didn't the USA LIKE others to embrace communism ? If you know , following (2), that they will get into oppressive dictatorships and mass poverty and starvation, it is all the easier, following (1) to "be the best".

You utterly misunderstand America. Americans don't just want to "be the best" in the world and screw everyone else, we want everyone else to have what we have. That's the whole reason we stayed in Iraq after knocking off Saddam - and indeed, why we rebuilt France and the rest of Europe after WWII.

I don't think I would care[about collapsing American currency], honestly. I would vent my opinion about it, but I would never support any action to correct it, in any way.

You most certainly would care because a collapse of the American economy would devistate the world economy.

Why would you like to trade, except with yourself ?

Why trade? What? France is a member of the EU... Trade is important - crucial even - to domestic and the global economies.

 

[wasteofo2]

That's why I don't understand the US hate for communism in other parts of the world.

It is a bit as the hare, who thinks that running the fastest is the greatest thing in the world, who gets angry at the turtoise for having such a heavy thing on its back, because that will forbid him to run fast ?

Instead of thinking: "that fool will at least be a piece of cake in the competition"

Well, Communist nations were a threat to us and our allies in a military sense, and despite the US having a competitive attitude, many in the USA also feel we should help those less fortunate than ourselves. It's not like the USA is full of 290 million lasseiz faire capitalists who think everything that happens to everyone is entirely their fault.

 

[Smurf]

Calling China communist is like calling America Democratic. They're both far and beyond what they hold themselves to be.

 

[Smurf]

I'm not making a case against Communism here (though I think it's a ridiculous notion), I'm just noting how Communist and Capitalist countries in todays world are somewhat inter-dependent upon one another, and while both profess to hate the other, they both help each other out quite a bit.

Maybe that's because they're so-called 'hate' is political rhetoric and the so called "Communist" countries are actually quite mixed economically (as are the so called "Capitalist countries).

Add: One of the biggest mistakes in today's society is the thinking that Communism and Capitalism are opposite sides of a spectrum.

 

[wasteofo2]

I agree. Marx had a theory. Well, experimentation proved his theory wrong and led to a new theory: attempted communism leads to totalitarianism.

Interesting to note, that part of Marx's theory was that Communism was to occur after Capitalism had already taken place and the nation was fully industrialized, and that an industrial nation which went through a signifigant period of Capitalism has never actually attempted Communism. I don't think Marx's theory has ever been tested, infact, the way all these "Communist" nations fail somewhat supports his theory, that you need Capitalism first, and then Communism will come.
That's just another part of the Paradox, every Communist nation ever has completely ignored one of the main tennents of the Communist Manifesto.

I'm not sure about that - China is different from Russia in that they are not fully industrialized. A significant fraction of their population is still in the Middle Ages. I think the US-China relationship is more about that than about communism and capitalism having a symbiotic relationship (add to that the fact that China's growth in the last decade is almost entirely due to moderation and movement toward capitalism). It may be, though, that developed and developing have a symbiotic relationship.

I'm not really talking about Communism and Capitalism in a grand sense, really just in the US-China sense, since we didn't exactly have a huge dependence on Soviet products and did fine during the USSR's existence. Your note of the fact that China's been growing by becoming more capitalist etc. just shows even more of the Paradox, the only way that the self-proclaimed Communist nation can advance in the world is to compete Capitalist style, moving away from Communism. But, at the same time, they're industrializing and becoming more capitalist, and more people are actually benefiting, the standard of life in China is raising. At the same time that they're moving away from Communism, they're actually following Marx's plan and moving towards it. Communism in China is really more like an Aristocracy, where the government officials and a few small sub-societies are very wealthy, and the majority of the people are very poor - creating huge class divisions, as Marx saw in pre-capitalist socieites (which China is/was). Now that China's becoming more Capitalist, the quality of life is raising for more people, and they're sucessfully industrializing, which is exactly how Marx saw it. And hell, the rhetoric in China is still very anti-Capitalist, so who knows, even if they become fully Capitalist and industrialized, they may one day actually try a fully industrialized Communism...

 

[Aquamarine]

Interesting to note, that part of Marx's theory was that Communism was to occur after Capitalism had already taken place and the nation was fully industrialized, and that an industrial nation which went through a signifigant period of Capitalism has never actually attempted Communism. I don't think Marx's theory has ever been tested, infact, the way all these "Communist" nations fail somewhat supports his theory, that you need Capitalism first, and then Communism will come.

East Germany and Czechia was industrialized before Communism. And Stalin did build an enormous military industry by transforming Russia into a concentration camp. Communism still failed.

Communism fails because

1. The assumption that people will magically change their nature. The desire for power and status will cease to exist. As will corruption, violence, envy and wars. People will become completely altruistic and endlessly work for the common good.

2. The failure of central planning. It is usually impossible to predict something as complex as the economy and how resources should be allocated. In capitalism, this solved by trying many solutions and letting competition find a good one.

 

[vanesch]

East Germany and Czechia was industrialized before Communism. And Stalin did build an enormous military industry by transforming Russia into a concentration camp. Communism still failed.

Communism fails because

1. The assumption that people will magically change their nature. The desire for power and status will cease to exist. As will corruption, violence, envy and wars. People will become completely altruistic and endlessly work for the common good.

2. The failure of central planning. It is usually impossible to predict something as complex as the economy and how resources should be allocated. In capitalism, this solved by trying many solutions and letting competition find a good one.

You will probably be surprised, but I agree with you
Indeed, what makes Communism fail lamentably is that there are so many egoist bastards around

Ok, I don't agree with you 100% on your second point, but only say, for 90%. For many things it is right, but for _some_ things, I think that central planning can still work better. A main area is fundamental scientific research, which should benefit at least partly from "central planning and funding" (although individual competition also plays a role). The reason is that any direct material benefit can easily take 50 years or more to pay down. And there are a few other things I think that are best centrally planned.

But we were not talking about whether communism is a good or a bad idea. The question was why the US was so terribly aggressive against everything communist, even if it had to support nasty dictators to do so. I wonder if not a big part of the cold war was instilled by this very strong reaction on the part of the US. With some hindsight, I don't really know whether the USSR was such a big threat after all.

 

[BobG]

I think the US was more anti-USSR than anti-Communist, even though, already being anti-Communist certainly made it easier to be anti-USSR. And while the US may have wound up the most powerful of the anti-Soviets, it was really a shared Europe/US fear of the USSR (hence NATO).

While we certainly didn't like the USSR prior to WWII, we didn't have an intense enough dislike of each other that we couldn't be allies. What happened at the end of WWII and immediately after is what really built up the mutual paranoia.

During the war, the only thing we really had in common was the fear of a military power dominating Europe and the rest of the world. Prior to WWII, it was Germany that looked to be that threat. Considering the devastation WWII caused, there was a good possibility that eliminating Hitler would only clear the way for someone else to step in and finish the job Hitler started.

On one side, you had a nation that lost about 10,000 people a day, including civilians, because a good part of the war was fought in their country. Their driving force (at least according to them) was to never have a war fought on Russian soil again - hence their grab of Poland and Eastern Germany at the end of the war and their continued 'acquisition' of buffer states.

On the other side, we could look at what the USSR did at the end of war and have visible proof that our worst fears were valid. The USSR did take over Eastern European countries and what guarantee was there that they weren't just finishing the job Hitler started? Stalin was just as ruthless as Hitler and the acquisition of Eastern European industries should have improved their ability to move even further west, should they have desired.

Yes, there was mutual fear between the US-USSR. Probably more than was actually warranted, since I'm pretty sure the US never had any desire to invade or colonize the Soviet Union and the USSR probably had no plans to take over all of Europe. But the USSR's actions in Europe certainly warranted some serious apprehension over just large a 'buffer' they needed. And, considering Soviet history, it's at least somewhat understandable they'd be a little nervous at the only remaining superpower cozying up to Western Europeans and permanently basing the strongest military left so far away from home and so close to the USSR.

 

[franznietzsche]

Just some random thoughts about Communism:

We "fought" the whole cold war to end Communism. We lost tens of thousands of troops in Vietnam, and many more thousands of troops in other armed conflicts around the world in an effort to put an end to Communism. Our whole foreign policy from the end of WWII until the USSR fell apart was dominated to stopping the spread of Communism and encouraging those who opposed it, costing us billions and billions of dollars in everything from giving armed aid to counter-revolutionaries and our own arms build up against the USSR.

Now, Terrorism is the enemy, and Communists aren't enemy #1 anymore.

Meanwhile, at home, we're buying goods from Communist China. After all this anti-Communist stuff, it's COMMUNISTS who can compete bests in many niches of our free market system. Communists sell their goods to Capitalist countries, and Capitalist countries buy their goods from Communist countries. Buisiness owners love free-market systems for a market to buy goods, but when producing goods, buisinesses can't build factories in Communist China quick enough.

After all this anti-Communist stuff, we're ignoring the human-rights violations in China, and giving them huge amounts of our buisiness. If we boycotted China and other Communist countries, we'd have to pay more for basic, (currently) inexpensive goods, because they'd have to be made in America where there's a minimum wage. This would probabally cause a signifigant economic depression, since people would have to pay so much more for basic goods. There would probabally be calls for a higher minimum wage, and for the government to do more to protect the economic interests of the people, IN EFFECT, LEADING US CLOSER TO COMMUNISM.

I'm sure some of the more lasseiz-faire people will say that "If goods were made in America, it would benefit America and Americans, because more Americans would be making money, as opposed to Chinese people making money, and the extra money people are paid for making goods will go back into the economy." However, making buisiness owners employ only Americans in the first place would be limiting the free market. On top of that, it's obvious that by the choice of many buisiness owners, that it's more profitable for them to employ people in Communist countries than in Capitalist countries, again showing that Communists in some cases can compete better than Capitalists IN a Capitalist economy. And, since buisiniesses make more profit employing people to do work in Communist China than in America, by boycotting Communist countries, you'd be signifigantly cutting the profit margins of buisinesses, and as Capitalists anywhere will tell you, the more money that a buisiness makes, the more it benefits people, becuase they can expand, hire more people, and drop their prices.

So anyway, feel free to respond to any of these little paradoxes you want. I just got thinking about the role of Communism in our world and felt the interaction between Communism and Capitalism was really interesting and quite funny in some cases.

1) China is not Marxist. Repeat: Not Marxist. On paper they may be communist, but in reality they're no more communist that sweden. Just far more totalitarian.

2) China does so well because it fixes its currency to the dollar, rather than letting it fluctuate freely. This means their currency is higher valued than it should be, and gaurantees them good prices on imports. Congress is threatening a 27% tax on all imports from china if they don't change this.

3)China is no longer truly communist. If it was, our businesses could not hire people there.

There is no paradox, you just don't know what constitutes a communist economy (oxymoron) and what does not.

 

[Smurf]

Anyone who thinks the USSR and China were communist needs to actually read the Communist Manifesto and (name escapes me - the other one). As already pointed out every communist revolution in history has blatantly ignored several major tenents of communism.
We need to stop confusing Sovietism with Marxism, they are two completely different systems that somehow ended up with the same name.

Marxists follow Marxist principles, Stalin followed his own principles and the west called him Communist, it really doesn't matter if people think Sovietism doesn't work, I agree with you, but there is absolutely no way you can attach that to a failure of Marxism.
So stop saying "Communism won't work" because you've got a lot of guts to say that when we've yet to try it and it's obvious that our system we have now is hardly flawless.

 

[wasteofo2]

Gah, I've already said that I know China isn't Marxist...

I've read the damned manifesto, when I say Communist, I'm referring to historical Communism, not ideological Communism.

And goddamnit, I already SAID in response to russ that I realized Marxist communism has never been tried.

 

[franznietzsche]

Gah, I've already said that I know China isn't Marxist...

I've read the damned manifesto, when I say Communist, I'm referring to historical Communism, not ideological Communism.

And goddamnit, I already SAID in response to russ that I realized Marxist communism has never been tried.

Well all that propaganda, it was about real communism, even if it was directed at the Leninists and Maoists.

And also, note that while your statements about business practices are true, capitalist nations have much higher standards of living.

 

[vanesch]

As already pointed out every communist revolution in history has blatantly ignored several major tenents of communism.
We need to stop confusing Sovietism with Marxism, they are two completely different systems that somehow ended up with the same name.

Yes, but it is possible that "communism on paper" is something that cannot dynamically exist within a society made of human beings ; in that when you try to apply it, it exists for 3 days, and then automatically evolves into something else, typically a totalitarian regime, sovietist style.

A bit like ice cubes in boiling water: it is dynamically not stable.

 

[franznietzsche]

Yes, but it is possible that "communism on paper" is something that cannot dynamically exist within a society made of human beings ; in that when you try to apply it, it exists for 3 days, and then automatically evolves into something else, typically a totalitarian regime, sovietist style.

A bit like ice cubes in boiling water: it is dynamically not stable.

But sure is fun to watch!

 

[russ_watters]

We need to stop confusing Sovietism with Marxism, they are two completely different systems that somehow ended up with the same name.

That's a little misleading. Explanation to follow...

Marxists follow Marxist principles, Stalin followed his own principles and the west called him Communist, it really doesn't matter if people think Sovietism doesn't work, I agree with you, but there is absolutely no way you can attach that to a failure of Marxism.

Now that simply isn't true: Stalin (and don't forget Lenin) called themselves communists. Lenin, especially, most certainly was a follower of Marx (Stalin was mostly just a psychopath). And don't forget - "The Party" was The Communist Party. The west didn't pull that out of the air - they got it from the mouths of the Soviets(same goes for China).

So stop saying "Communism won't work" because you've got a lot of guts to say that when we've yet to try it and it's obvious that our system we have now is hardly flawless.

Well here's the problem with that statement: Since Lenin was a follower of Marx and did try to implement a version of his vision, we most certainly can say that. There is a catch-22 implied by your statement (the usual one with regard to communism) that simply isn't correct: 'it wasn't tried, so you can't say it failed.' It simply isn't true - it was tried a number of times. Trouble is, it wasn't workable as Marx outlined it. Why? His work was all theory and no application.

For an analogy, a lot of people in the US complain that we're not holding to the principles of the Declaration of Independence (or even, to a lesser extent Locke's Two Treatises). Well, the Declaration, like Manifesto and the Two Treatises is a theory document, a statement of general principles, not a functioning government document. It has to be adapted and applied to reality to set up the actual structure of the government. Lenin made an honest effort to do just that - to take this statement of principles and ideals and turn it into a functioning government. He failed because the principles of Marxism are flawed.

edit: http://www.zaadz.com/quotes/topics/communism/ is a great page of Communism quotes. My favorite is this one from Lenin:

We must hate — hatred is the basis of communism. Children must be taught to hate their parents if they are not communists.

And a great one from Regan, which I agree with:

How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

MORE: This one from Lenin says it pretty clearly:

The goal of socialism is communism.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well here's the problem with that statement: Since Lenin was a follower of Marx and did try to implement a version of his vision, we most certainly can say that. There is a catch-22 implied by your statement (the usual one with regard to communism) that simply isn't correct: 'it wasn't tried, so you can't say it failed.' It simply isn't true - it was tried a number of times. Trouble is, it wasn't workable as Marx outlined it. Why? His work was all theory and no application.

All you can say historically is that Lenin, a genuine Marxist, did try to implement his vision of the state that would lead to communism, a state of primary accumulation directed by the vanguard party. This was necessarily, in Marxist view, a harsh process, and Lenin should be held to account by history for the cruelties perpetrated under his leadership. He got just so far with his plans and died. He was succeeded by Stalin, who as you point out, was just a psychopath, and who is responsible for the worst genocides in history. Subsequent communist states are inevitably modeled on the "successful" communist state of stalinist Russia (well they did overtake and surpass Nazi Germany, and kept up with the USA militarily for 40 years). So it's fair to say that in all communist states after the USSR, stalinism, not marxism, was the pattern. The last real marxist who tried to found a state was Lenin, and his state, harsh as it was, was hijacked by a monster.

 

[Aquamarine]

All you can say historically is that Lenin, a genuine Marxist, did try to implement his vision of the state that would lead to communism, a state of primary accumulation directed by the vanguard party. This was necessarily, in Marxist view, a harsh process, and Lenin should be held to account by history for the cruelties perpetrated under his leadership. He got just so far with his plans and died. He was succeeded by Stalin, who as you point out, was just a psychopath, and who is responsible for the worst genocides in history. Subsequent communist states are inevitably modeled on the "successful" communist state of stalinist Russia (well they did overtake and surpass Nazi Germany, and kept up with the USA militarily for 40 years). So it's fair to say that in all communist states after the USSR, stalinism, not marxism, was the pattern. The last real marxist who tried to found a state was Lenin, and his state, harsh as it was, was hijacked by a monster.

Lenin killed millions deliberately in slave labor camps, executions and man-made famines.
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm

And no, there was no stalinist master plan the all the communist states tried to follow. Several of them condemned him and his system even when he still was alive and almost all after his death. And they repeatedly tried to change the system to make marxism work. The Great Leap Forward, the culture revolution, red khmer ruralization and Korean Juche are only the more infamous of these many attempts. More unknown are the repeated significantly different approaches over time in every communist country to make the economy work. In the end they all failed.

 

[Smurf]

Lenin killed millions deliberately in slave labor camps, executions and man-made famines.
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm

No one ever said they liked Lenin's methods. Besides, starting in russia couldn't have been easy in a country with little to no industrialization, and a huge gap between rich and poor, most certainly not where Marxist theory was intended to be applied.

 

[Smurf]

Now that simply isn't true: Stalin (and don't forget Lenin) called themselves communists. Lenin, especially, most certainly was a follower of Marx (Stalin was mostly just a psychopath). And don't forget - "The Party" was The Communist Party. The west didn't pull that out of the air - they got it from the mouths of the Soviets(same goes for China).

Right. My bad, didn't mean to imply that.

 

[russ_watters]

All you can say historically is that Lenin, a genuine Marxist, did try to implement his vision of the state that would lead to communism, a state of primary accumulation directed by the vanguard party. This was necessarily, in Marxist view, a harsh process, and Lenin should be held to account by history for the cruelties perpetrated under his leadership. He got just so far with his plans and died.

I agree with all of that.

He was succeeded by Stalin, who as you point out, was just a psychopath, and who is responsible for the worst genocides in history. Subsequent communist states are inevitably modeled on the "successful" communist state of stalinist Russia (well they did overtake and surpass Nazi Germany, and kept up with the USA militarily for 40 years). So it's fair to say that in all communist states after the USSR, stalinism, not marxism, was the pattern. The last real marxist who tried to found a state was Lenin, and his state, harsh as it was, was hijacked by a monster.

This part is tougher. I did say Stalin was mostly just a psychopath: he was a psychopath with a plan. He didn't just randomly kill 25 million people: he did it under the auspices of communist reforms. In fact, I think in a lot of ways, his version of crazy fit well with Marxism: according to Stalin, people were just commodities. Resources. Numbers on a page. There is a famous quote, with a double meaning, formerly up in the Holocaust museum: "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic". If you're going to go for state control, treating people that way is the most efficient way to do it: you collect, spend, and re-allocate your resources as best for The State.

 

[loseyourname]

Better to follow Thomas More than Marx if you really want a communal society. Keep it small and self-sustaining. The closest approximation I can really think of are isolated religious communities like those of Amish and Mormon fundamentalists. I doubt such an idea could ever work for a large nation-state.

 

[Mercator]

Communism does not exist

There has never been a communist regime on this earth. All discussions about the Soviets or Maoism are idle, because they were just dictatorial regimes. Some of them, like the Chinese "communist" dynasty are still successful today, not because they are communist, but because they are dictatorial. Because they are dictatorial, they can claim anything they like, even claim to be communist while in practise doing exactly the opposite of what communism means. Discussing the utopian dream of communism in the context of todays reality is like flirting with quantum physics to explain simple physics. And like quantum physics, communism is just a slogan for most of the crowd. They maybe nice people to have a beer with, but someone who is unable to distinguish between socialism and communism should perhaps bring his discussion to the local bar instead of here.

 

[selfAdjoint]

In fact, I think in a lot of ways, his version of crazy fit well with Marxism: according to Stalin, people were just commodities. Resources. Numbers on a page.

Geeze, where did you get this notion of marxism? This is what Marx accused capitalism of! Marxists, however deluded on other things emphasize the humanness of the people. Stalin did NOT behave that way and he was NOT a true marxist. Some have called him a State Capitalist. The USSR was all about primary accumulation; about "overtaking and surpasssing" at all costs.