Eh, it’s kinda both. Yes, it’s nice to stay on one topic like how we can make communism the best it can be and learn lessons of the past. But when people look at some of those decisions/theories and say “that sounds terrible, I’d rather keep what I have” then you really gotta cross-compare. America is only as well off as it is because of slavery, corruption, death and destruction. It’s just not death and destruction of their own people and land, so most American citizens don’t “see” that. Or if they do, it’s a “well, that sucks, we should do better” kind of thing, but lack real recognition that the system benefits them so much. As well, the capitalist autocracies have been way more deadly and authoritarian and corrupt than anything communist, and it’s important for people to learn about the differences.
A: “Communism is authoritarian” B: “Wehll, sometimes, but capitalism is too, and it is MUCH worse” A: “Don’t commit whataboutism” B: “Uhhhh, but we have to compare systems to know which is better and which is worse…”
I mean they violated some if tge main principles outlined by Marx, like the other states, who almost all followed the lenin-stalin-model, so yeah. Prove me wrong.
The functioning of their government is absolutely unequivocally communist. They have allowed some form of capital interests, which I would not consider communist in definition, but the government retains control over nearly all those interests and the plan they’ve put forward from the beginning is to renationalize industries as they reach a point of competitive development with the western world.
I’m going to preface this with saying I don’t support communism or centrally planned socialism, so this isn’t me handwaving things away. It’s just that this is a nuanced topic and definitions are important, and the red scare has sucessfully lied to most people about what these words mean.
The government being in control of everything is not the sole defining feature of communism. Socialism is where the people own the means of production (business assets), typically through the government owning it all. Communism takes that a step further by removing currency and markets from the system and using some other system to determine how to create and allocate goods and services. And for the people to own the means of production through the government, they need to have an actual say in the government.
Basically to have centrally-planned socialism or communism, you need the government owning all business assets in addition to something like a democracy or republic form of governmental policy. If you don’t have a governmental policy that is controlled by the people, then the people don’t own the means of production and by definition you don’t have socialism or communism. You have one of the various forms of autocracy/oligarchy/etc.
The issue we see here with people conflating modern day China, the USSR, etc with communism is that the change in government started out as socialist or communist movements, but then got coopted by fascists who removed political agency from the people, but also decided to keep calling themselves communists. However, overthrowing a form of government and pretending you’re still that form of government doesn’t magically make it true. North Korea isn’t democratic or a republic just because the rulers call themselves it. Similarly, China’s government is defined by its actions: state capitalist and not communist.
I’m far from an expert on communism. But the government, and especially a single person, retaining power over the state and economy is far from communism, it’s more authoritarian. Communism in it’s very base is the citizens owning the means of production, not the state owning those. This in no way is represented in China, where the state has a lot of power over the economy and owns parts of some companies, but there are still capitalists owning factories and workers working there.
But that is no joke at all. It is what every honest historian will tell you. If you take communism as it was defined by Marx (not that this would be the best system or even what I would propse, parts of it maybe) then no society actually tried that.
According to www.heritage.org/index/ranking for instance, there are 24 countries in the world with freer economy than USA.
The right wing, climate change denying, Heritage Foundation is not a reliable source. That’s nowhere near an unbiased analysis, but an opinion piece. No one can seriously believe the US to be less “free market” than like half of western Europe.
That’s like asking the North Korean government to create an index of democracy.
And that’s why we have barriers to entry stifling competition lobbied for by the big players in said industry? Insulin is only the price it is because the government enforces the patent that says pfizer is allowed to have a monopoly on it, if other people were able to produce and sell affordable generics pfizer would have to drop their price or go out of business, but if you try the government comes, kidnaps you, and if you resist kidnapping, kills you.
Try to sell a product that the government decides you owe them money for: Weed? Jail. Moonshine? Jail. Weed in a legal state but didn’t break off the 50% protection money to the government? Jail. Unlicensed insulin? Jail. Drawing of a mouse too close to a famous one? Jail.
The US has what is called crony capitalism, not free market capitalism. Free market capitalism economy is what the Agorists like SEKIII want (but they refuse to call capitalism arguing that “real capitalism” is crony capitalism and “free market economies” are not “capitalist” at all and is actually leftist in nature.)
Communism fails every time it is tried because it goes against human nature of constantly comparing yourself to others and trying to improve yourself. You will never do harder work if you can get the same reward for easier work, and you will look for other, less moral ways of getting the bigger reward.
Communism sounds great but it will never work until we have unlimited resources and completely automated labour.
They did attempt to be communist, but they failed like every other attempt will fail. Greed is basic human nature, and those who have it more than others will find a way to abuse the system, get in charge and ruin it.
I’m not arguing your other points, but this isn’t always true. Humans seem to crave respect, not necessarily monetory wealth. If you want you can read more about gift economies.
That’s funny because I do easy work for a great paycheck yet we have a harder time hiring than in my previous job which didn’t pay as well and was harder.
I’m in my mid thirties, my current job (first time for this employer) is the best paid and offers the best conditions and is the easiest one I’ve ever worked and they need to give us a retention bonus so people don’t leave for another department.
I’ll leave it at that so I don’t dox myself.
Edit: Don’t know why people are downvoting? It’s an office job that requires a high-school diploma, I’ve worked physical jobs before that paid less and where we weren’t short staffed as we are in my current job. Happy?
Nah, that’s just wrong. You can compare yourself in other ways than how much fake money you earn. Fun thing is: truly communistic society would mean easier work for most people.
And communism does work in small scale enviroments. Families, cooperatives, tribes. Sometimes neighborhoods.
This whole “Sounds great but won’t work” rhethoric is just what the ones that would loose their power in communsim want you to think. If you dig into it you will see, that there were and are a lot of efforts to discredit the idea.
In what sense was it not an actual effort? Just because it quickly slid into non-marxism doesn’t say anything about the initial idea of the revolutionaries. Bakunin predicted exactly what would happen with Marxism, and it did every time.
If you are against an authoritarian state, the only viable way to communism is to skip the dictatorship part directly and just have anarchism.
It's like saying democracy sucks because look at states like Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo and German Democratic Republic.
When people proclaim to be something doesn't make it true.
True communism is pretty much impossible, same as true capitalism.
There have been some short-lived small-scale experiments like the “United Order”, but nothing that actually survived more than a few months with more than a few thousand people.
Well, it is feasible. You just need to give people replicators and free living space, and they will eventually learn to use their skills to enrich the world we live in. And boldly go where no one has gone before.
Realistically, it would look something like how the Anarchists organized society in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, or how Rojava is organizing today with communal federations. Anarchism sidesteps the inevitable authoritarian regime that various Marxist theories have by not installing a ‘temporary’ vanguard state that quickly becomes autocratic and dictatorial, they just jump straight to decentralizing power immediately by giving it to the people.
You can have socialism, or anarchy, which we’ve seen before, but communism cannot function in one country alone, unless said country is completely and absolutely self reliant.
A major part of communism is internationalism, which is why socialist countries had the Comintern. (Communist International). Besides a political/social system, communism has a strong basis as an economic system. You can’t apply communist economic system principles to the capitalist market.
To my knowledge, no existing country is self reliant to the point that they can completely cut off trade with the rest of the world. USSR didn’t do it, China didn’t do it and they were the two biggest countries at the time.
That, of course is all a very surface level ELI5, and if you want to ask something more specific or in depth, feel free to.
Without search engine and without going into detail that is out of the scope, anarchy is a different path to a classless system. Said classless system is different enough from communism to warrant discussion but close enough for that discussion to be devolving into anarchy vs socialism most of the time to differentiate the path to that system.
Said path in anarchy is comprised of setting up collectives that start small, neighborhood small, and gradually evolve. Each collective shares almost everything between its members and there’s no leadership or ranking across its members.
Anything deeper than that leads to a long discussion that is out of the scope of this thread and definitely out of the scope of the ELI5 the post I originally replied to needed or had the philosophical basis to understand possibly. I’m not saying one is better than the other, but they are quite different approaches to a similar goal, a classless society that money does not rule all.
Anarchist checking in, so, y’know, bias and all that. But I’d say it’s just as impossible to have anarchism in one country. Bearing in mind, I’m an anarcho-communist, and not terribly familiar things like mutualism, so that may be different. I tend to view, as do (to my knowledge) most ancoms, communism and anarchism as synonyms. The difference is how we get to the end point, not the end point itself. A stateless, classless, moneyless society. We’ve had the Spanish anarchists, and some examples of societies like Madagascar, where there are villages and region that function in an anarchistic way, but True Anarchism™ couldn’t function in a single country/region. It needs to be international in it’s scope for all the same reasons communism needs to be international in it’s scope. Anarchist political methods can function at a smaller scale, but we can’t have a fully anarchist society until it’s global.
Which all just means that I’m an anarchist because I prefer the methods to achieving the shared goal, not because I disagree on the goal itself, if that makes sense.
Unless you’re an ultra-orthodox marxist, there is no such thing as trüe communism™.
There always have been many different ideas what „communism“ is, e.g. there have been various „nationalist communist“ ideologies (complicated by the fact that the Russian SFSR called everything „nationalist“ that wasn’t 100% aligned with its ideas of the Soviet Union, e.g. Hungary).
There are also no clear boundaries between communism, socialism, and anarchism, e.g. Kropotkin with his theories of anarchist communism.
That being said, I don’t think communism is a system (either social or economic), it’s strictly an idealogy, meaning it’s a way to achieve something, i.e. the classless and stateless society. If you follow that thought to its logical end, you cannot even „achieve“ communism at all, since at this point e.g. the proletariat ceases to exist, and as a result you cannot have a „dictatorship of the proletariat“.
In feel like you make it complicated to arrive at your conclusion here. Communism, as described by Marx and Engels and to some degree Lenin, is something very specific that covers most aspects of the society. Political, social and economic. Marx himself wrote books upon books on the economy of a socialist, communist system.
It is not an abstract “I don’t like capitalism so let’s try something different” approach. And yes, many have tried to adapt it, as you mentioned which is why those different approaches carry a different name ‘anarchist communism’ in your example. Because they are different enough from flat out communism.
No, I have a very easy explanation what communism is, it’s just that nobody else agrees is the issue.
different approaches carry a different name
Yeah, well… So let’s see, we have: Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Titoism, Gulyáskommunizmus (both, as mentioned before, considered „nationalist communism“ by other communists), Rätekommunismus, Realsozialismus, Maoism …
So, which one of those is the true communism?
Joking aside, most of the 20th century was spent with people killing other people because they had slightly different opinions on what true communism means, so it’s really not me who made things complicated.
And you keep using different names to describe them. As you should. Communism is not one thing and never was. But when people refer to base or true communism, the answer is just one.
It’s how it was defined in the communist manifesto in 1848. You could say it’s Marxism, but I dislike that naming since others played a big role on forming it as well, like Engels and others who based on Marx’s mostly economic study added the philosophical and political angles.
Every theme or name change after the manifesto (that is not found in later revisions by the communist international) is attempts at adapting it with different angles and for different purposes and circumstances, aka NOT base or pure communism. Don’t bundle everything in one basket and try to make sense, same way that bundling Putin’s Russian form of Capitalism with US’s imperialism and French Revolution’s early capitalism together doesn’t make sense either.
He asked for pure communism, I answered for that. If he asked about Trotsky, I’d focus more on the permanent revolution and the Fourth International. If he asked of Stalin, I’d talk about his socialism in one country theory
Yeah well, so you’re an orthodox Marxist and I disagree with you ¯*(ツ)*/¯
But when people refer to base or true communism, the answer is just one.
Aha, is that so?
I dislike that naming since others played a big role on forming it as well
Yeah, you could say that!
So! Let’s talk about Restif de la Bretonne who was using „communist“ and „communism“ 60-70 years before Marx writes the „Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei“. Babeuf (who called himself a „communalist“) already tried to incite a communist revolution in the 1790s. De La Hodde calls the Parisian general strike in 1840 „inspired by communist ideas“. In 1841 the „Communistes Matérialistes“ publish „L’Humanitaire“, which Nettlau calls „the first libertarian communist publication“.
And how come that a certain bloke named Karl Marx in his 1842 essay „Der Kommunismus und die Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung" finds that communism had already become an international movement. Hey, I know that name! 🤔
Tell me, how exactly is Marxism (or whatever you want to call it) the one and only trüe communism™ when there’s decades of different variances of communism and movements of people calling themselves communists before the „Manifest“?
Just face it: your beloved Marxism is just one variant of communism, which for a variety of reasons has become the best known. But it’s certainly not „base communism“.
I’m actually not. I think many approaches have their pros and cons. Anarchy sounds a lot better as a path to a classless system, I don’t disagree with Trotsky’s permanent revolution, though I am heavily against his 4th International (and to a big degree the 3rd one as well) and I think that socialism is the hardest way to make it work, but if it does, is probably the best since it prepares the populace to think in a different way.
But good for you for figuring me out when I haven’t done that myself in over 20 years I’m in politics.
As for that dick contest about communists before Marx and their books, because it is a dick contest at this point, I never claimer Marx was the first to talk about communism, or use that word. Even the manifesto was commisioned by a pre existing party namely the Communist League. A party that existed before Marx and Engels came in contact with them.
But Marx was in fact the first to bring those ideas together, from philosophy to economy to politics etc and describe a full featured system that covered it all (for his time, times changing and things adapt), which is why is the one most well known and remembered with his name attached to it. Take it further, back to ancient Greek philosophers why don’t you?
The original poster asked an ELI5 of communism. While what you say is not wrong, it’s far from ELI5. Even for someone like me who spent years reading on all that, there were a couple of things you mentioned I didn’t know about. At the end of it all there’s a reason that if you look at the history of communism most will refer to Pre-Marx and after. And a simple answer to a simple question of “what be?” has to start somewhere. I chose Marx since it’s probably the best entry point for someone who has no idea.
Nothing of that changes that calling Marxism „the one and only true/base communism“ is ridiculously wrong on several levels and absolutely not helpful for an „ELI5“ on communism.
And if you’re so concerned about leftist infighting you might just stop acting like there was an apodictic definition, that would certainly help. Someone already pointed out the irony to you hours ago, it seems you still haven’t realized that.
That’s also not what I said, that Marxism is the one and only true communism. The fuck is that supposed to mean in the first place. For someone so intent on digging relics and using big words, you either can’t read or refuse to do so. He asked what communism is, I mentioned Marx. Go ahead and mention Aristotle for all I care. Hell I didn’t even mention Marx until you answered me.
As for the infighting you’re the one with your knickers in a bunch because I answered Marx. I am not fighting anyone and the two people that disagreed with me, it was polite and we reached an understanding while in disagreement. You on the other hand put on a great show of that infighting. I’m done with that charade. Have a good day.
And the fact that you don’t consider communism partly an economic system is baffling. From Marx onwards the entire idea of socialism and communism is based on the Capital.
That’s also not what I said, that Marxism is the one and only true communism.
But when people refer to base or true communism, the answer is just one.
🥱
And the fact that you don’t consider communism partly an economic system is baffling
It’s rather baffling that you, considering orthodox Marxism „true communism“, would think that. What kind of „economic system“ did Marx promote? And where do I find that in the Manifest?
Are you referring to central planning? That’s a feature of Soviet style communism, it was invented at the beginning of the 20th century.
As a matter of fact, Marx actually had little to say about how a post-capitalist society should actually look like, besides some commonplace quotes like „production organized on the basis of common ownership by the nation of all means of production“, which is neither original nor chiefly communist.
describe a full featured system that covered it all
Yeah, and do you know what the system Marx wrote about was? It was capitalist society. Marx was an analyst.
If you knew what Marx actually wrote and thought, you’d find that he was heavily influenced by classic economists like Adam Smith and was rather fond of free trade (as were his peers).
Also you’re completely wrong about:
You can’t apply communist economic system principles to the capitalist market.
Again, you would need to specify what exactly you mean, but there’s not much that hasn‘t existed short of taking full control of the market. Pre-neoliberal Europe was quite heavily invested in state owned companies and production, France had for most of the post-war era what can be classified as centrally planned economy.
You on the other hand put on a great show of that infighting.
Another mistake you make: I’m not infighting. I’m merely calling out the bullshit you hand out as „ELI5“, because quite frankly you haven’t got the faintest clue about what you call „base or true communism“ in the first place.
That only tells me that you’re scouring Wikipedia and the Internet for surface reading to be feeding your imaginary conflict.
Marx supported free trade. That’s true. Why? Because it would hasten the economic imbalance between the classes and help create a revolution. No, he was not Ben Shapiro of the 19th century. He thought that things must get worse before they get better and that free trade would make them worse.
You also mention how he was heavily influenced by Adam Smith. He critiqued him heavily in both Das Capital and the Theories of Surplus Value.
That’s like saying Engels was a fan of Duhring because he wrote a doorstopper called Anti-Duhring. That’s plain wrong and trying to murk the waters.
As for the central planning it was first established as a method from planned economy in social states by the Soviet Union, that’s true. But its theoretical basis stems from Marx’s work and words. “To my mind, the so-called ‘socialist society’ is not anything immutable… It’s crucial difference from the present order consists naturally in production organized on the basis of common ownership by the nation of all means of production.” that sounds familiar? Written in Marx’s letters in 1890.
But no, I was not referring to central planning, but the abolishment of capitalist goals as surplus value, profit driven economy etc, that are most definitely based on his works. Yes, he was not the first to propose that “Oy, killing miners for scraps is bad and you’re bad for doing it.” but nobody before (to my knowledge) had done such an extensive work on the downfalls of capitalist economy and how something else could even be planned or work.
I’m getting tired of you using catchy article headlines and wiki skims to prove me wrong because you don’t like Marx. In fact, I don’t care if you do or not, or what type of communism you prefer. But stop spreading lies for the people that are not familiar with the subject.
In fact, I don’t even care much about Marx. Of the big ones to speak on socialism/communism, I much prefer Engel’s more philosophical approach than Marx’s economic analysis. I find the analysis boring.
So, just to let you know before I block you utter <bleep>, I was reading Marx when you were just a wet spot, and I actually do happen to „like“ him. But funny that you only now come quoting him, after I handed you half of the exact quote you’re giving. But I’m the one scouring Wikipedia 😂
Resorting to personal attacks. Typical. Way to come up on top in an argument. Attack the person, not the argument.
And I don’t. Give me philosophy over economics any time. That doesn’t mean I don’t see his value. And how comes you’re still confused after giving me the quote already?
I’ve got no horse in this race, I just want to point out the irony of asserting that there is only one “true” communism in reply to a comment about how leftists have spent the last century arguing over what “true” communism even is.
Wish it was that simple. Left is fighting over it for decades, if not centuries. Even killing each other, instead of focusing that energy against the right. And yes, it’s as stupid as it sounds.
There were no actual efforts to establish communism
Period. Relying on the “temporary” government to relinquish their power is…foolish. If you’re building a system for the greater good, hierarchy will always undermine that goal. Unequal amounts of power does not a just system make.
This time without hierarchy wherever possible. And we’ll keep most of the capitalistic economy as is, just redistribute the wealth so that everybody is safe and happy. Cut the bullshit jobs, make produced goods more durable and sustainable, so that the last at least ten times as long, cut more jobs in producing, distribute the remaining work to all the people, everybody who wants to get a little extra can do this by working, most will. I certainly would still work even if i did not have to, even if there is no monetary benefit. Doing a job that is nice and that you like is fun, because you’re doing your part.
Hey, I can think what happened in Eastern Europe was just authoritarian dictatorships, backed by Muscovite colonialism & branded as communism just the same as what happened in parts of South America was just authoritarian dictatorship, backed by American imperialism & branded as laissez-faire capitalism.
Also I can think communism has never actually been tried, and that it’s functionally impossible (therefore people should stop advocating for it).
Hey, I can think what happened in Eastern Europe was just authoritarian dictatorships, backed by Muscovite colonialism & branded as communism just the same as what happened in parts of South America was just authoritarian dictatorship, backed by American imperialism & branded as laissez-faire capitalism.
Also I can think communism has never actually been tried, and that it’s functionally impossible (therefore people should stop advocating for it).
That’s pretty much the opposite of what I said. Bangladeshi children sewing your clothes under horrible conditions while H&M and it’s shareholders make billions isn’t (for the most part) your personal moral failing, but a systemic issue within and due to capitalism.
Because the single only way to do communism is how the UdSSR did it, there’s no other way.
And of course it’s only possible to either agree with the whole of a specific ideology, or none of it. There’s no “good parts of communism” or “bad parts of capitalism” it’s only ever all good or all bad.
The vague idea of getting the same as everyone else, while not having to actually make the effort, appeals to sheltered and unappreciative western kids who feel oppressed because they have to put down thier entertainment device and do thier maths homework.
Is that so? People in the early days of the Soviet Union were doing math far beyond their Western counterparts, for free, and they grew up to fight Nazis. I guess they were just priviledged little kids reading books who were begging to have everything for free without trying. Liberating Auschwitz was just a bunch of sheltered rich kids crying about not getting free cake after dinner…
So I am a middle aged man, living with my family in a 140 sqm house with a garden, built in 2019 in one of the richest countried of the world. We go on vacation 2 times a year, eat good, do a lot of freetime activities like amusement parks, eating out, etc. Both my wife and me work on well payed proffessions and are at least in the top quarter of people in our country regarding wealth. And I know for a fact that many people earn less for far more work, because I used to be one of them. Only in my country, one of the richest in the world. I was fortunate, because I was gifted with a pretty good brain and other things that are absolutly not my doing, but there are a lot of people in low paying and minimum wage jobs that work a lot harder than me.
TL;DR: Capitalism is no meritocracy. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. It’s a fucked up system and we need something more fair.
Consider the military. Soldiers have different roles but they are given the supplies they need to continue doing their jobs. Everyone contributes to a larger goal.
Who told you western teenagers were too dumb to understand this fact and would fail to include the remedies to their ideology when they rile up against capitalism?
The problem is that places like the USSR were just authoritarian using communist wordsand concepts to keep people in line. It was just state-run capitalism. Communism is fundamentally about not having a ruling class.
Just like the “democratic” people’s republic of Korea isn’t a democracy, the USSR wasn’t socialist.
What does “praising” mean? Being critical of what we learned in school about the USSR?
What does “communism” mean here? Advocating for the type of social democracy that’s done pretty well in much of Europe?
I mean I know tankies “exist” but I rarely see them. Just because we’re all critical of capitalism doesn’t mean we’re all dumb enough to want to re try what the soviet union did. It’s almost like our kids will die under capitalism so we’re willing to think outside the box for once.
I’d love for the west to embrace more communist/socialist ideas into it’s democratic system (and some would be wildly popular) but ya the people praising China and the former USSR like they are/were amazing are delusional. The communist sublemmy is freaking coocoo. It’s just a bunch of china shills screaming into an echo chamber about how amazing China is and that the rest of the world are liars about China. I seriously saw someone making the claim that China is basically perfect and there’s no criticisms that can be made.
Just because you’ve been blessed from limited exposure to lemmygrad (a Lemmy instance) doesn’t mean everyone has been so lucky.
Yes, they literally pine for the USSR. Yes, they literally venerate Stalin. They’re not just saying “capitalism bad”, they’re saying “the specific implementation of social and economic policies of the USSR is what we want”.
Look at state’s created in the image of the USSR, like China. Everything they are doing today is correcting every single mistake made by past Communist leaders, both within China and the entire existence of the USSR from start to finish. You can’t recreate the USSR, even if you wanted to, anyways. Unique conditions are unique. Anyone who tries to repeat the creation of something like the USSR without the same conditons as 1917 Russia would create a state that would be overthrown in a matter of months or maybe a few years.
I’ve never seen anybody advocate for recreating USSR the way it existed. What people actually say is that USSR managed to accomplish a lot of positive things despite the problems it had, and there are a lot of valuable lessons that can be learned from it both positive and negative.
It’s also absurd that people keep fear mongering about existing Communist projects because each one of them is rooted in history, culture, and material conditions that it arose of. It’s pretty obvious that if socialism ever came to the west then it would have its own unique characteristics based on western culture and values. These are idiotic arguments designed to shut down discussion and scare people away from even thinking about communism as an alternative to the capitalist hellscape they live under.
I got to open my eyes more, because I don’t see anyone praising communism. What I do see quite a lot is people praising the ultra rich that have made their fortune through exploitation of the poor and public subsidies.
I am from Eastern Europe and I share this sentiment when I see anyone from the West defending communism. The issue is complicated but, to put it bluntly:
No, Timothy, communism didn’t fail in Eastern Europe because it was implemented wrongly. This is a very complicated topic but the tldr summary is “It is a broken idea, it did not work and it will never work. The natural and logical outcome of any attempt at Marxism is a bloodbath followed by autocracy.”
That being said, communism isn’t the only way to achieve a more equitable society. You have social democracy (in Lennin’s words - communism’s greatest adversary); organized labour movements; collectivist anarchism; communitariasm, etc.
Communism, as applied in the 20th century, violently fought against or oppressed all of these movements and is incompatible with any of them.
Not to mention that in most countries nowadays orthodox communists have been hugely discredited for excusing the Russian war of annihilation against the Ukrainian people.
In conclusion, if you live in the USA or Western Europe and you are unhappy with how corporate greed has ruined society, don’t look to communism for answers. There are many other proposed solutions out there - go and research these. Communism is very well known, which makes it easily accessible to people who want change - but it is never, ever the solution.
At the same time I had a colleague that had to immigrate to Canada from Yugoslavia in her 40s and she told me life there even as a Serb + Catholic couple was the best she has ever experienced until things started to go bad in the 80s…
being from eastern Europe doesn’t automatically make your position on communism any more credible, especially when statistically most of your peers disagree with you
Also it’s really hilarious how you claim that communism is more accessible to westerners than social democracy, like ???
Yeah, in the West, we are suffering from unregulated capitalism and it’s hurting us badly. But that certainly doesn’t mean communism is good, especially authoritarian communism (which is exactly what we have historical examples of). We need social safety nets, better taxation, and fucking choices in the west.
Communism is authoritarian by nature. If everyone doesn't subscribe to the communist ideology, then the model simply doesn't work. This means you literally have no choice in a communist society but to be subjected to it. You also need some sort of authority to enforce the redistribution. Who decides who does that, and who gets what? My opinion is that the only way it'd work is maybe with AI, but even then, those in power will likely just manipulate the technology to continue to benefit themselves.
On the same hand, even if you don't subscribe to capitalist ideology you're forced to participate.
We (at least in the U.S.) have no real safety net for people who are unable to provide for themselves for whatever reason. Capitalism is great if you're the one with the capital but if not the world can be a brutal, uncaring place and you can quite literally die on the street.
Crime is endemic to capitalism and I feel like better social safety nets would pay huge dividends in a lot of ways.
Capitalism is not an ideology though. It's just what naturally happens when humans interact with each other. Saying it's an ideology is like saying atheism is a religion. No, it's what happens when there is no religion.
Crime is also not endemic to capitalism. It happens in all societies, including communist ones.
There are many many primitive societies with no concept of capital or capitalism so I think I'd take issue with your assertion that capitalism is "just what naturally happens when humans interact with each other."
Absolutely. There is nothing “natural” about capitalism. It sprung up in some place of the world (not all) a couple of centuries ago. Thousands of years of humanity and no capitalism before that.
There is nothing natural or inevitable about capitalism. Historical determinism is plain wrong. Capitalism is just one of many ways to organize a society. Its time will pass in due course. Probably not in our lifetimes, unfortunately.
Luckily this is a forum and we can all contribute to the discussion. If you read the comment you replied to you'll see they mentioned living under unregulated capitalism; I was adding to what they'd said.
The type of “communism” you accuse some people to be praising is probably rather the democratic and social system of the Scandinavian countries that works super well in Europe.
I don’t know basically anyone actually saying UdSSR was good (except tankies but fuck them), because it was obviously not; it was a horrible and oppressive dictatorship. Funny enough, the only people I kind of hear this from are rather the people who actually lived in the DDR and say stuff like “Not everything was bad back there” and having it rather positive in their memory.
Idk, as a socialist I look at it as a broadly genuine effort to create socialism that came before its time in a fairly unfavorable place which then failed precisely because the conditions weren’t really favorable plus there were no real historical antecedents so by definition they didn’t really know what they were doing.
It merits study, I don’t hate everything I see from the USSR (free healthcare, free higher education, heavily subsidized rents, and a policy of full employment don’t all seem like bad things) but more look to it as a historical example and less as a model.
In some ways I think it could be compared to the French revolution – it’s not that the French Revolution and its collapse into Bonapartism proved that abolishing feudalism and establishing a freer social order was fundamentally impossible, it just proved that the conditions weren’t really in place in France in the 1790’s.
Then of course the USSR heavily influenced most other revolutions that came after it during the 20th century so now we have mountains of data about how that specific approach just doesn’t seem to be very effective.
This is generally the thought process that Marxists have. The USSR definitely wasn’t perfect, but it is the first real example that the proletariat was capable of uniting and other throwing the capitalist system. The USSR is fantastic to study to try and determine why it failed. Similarly China is a great resource to study to understand how capitalism can be re-established from within the party.
Most modern communist groups actively engaging in an attempt at revolution were inspired by the Chinese revolution and the cultural revolution that came after it, but none of them are trying to recreate the USSR or China because as we can clearly see those states failed to maintain a socialist character.
Since China is communist like tankies believe, you also forgot a fascist police state with total control over the internet tot he point where you’ll get a police visit if you post a meme critical of the government.
Why are there so many Chinese people reading American news and posting memes on WeChat? They just keep getting arrested and censored while being able to post in jail, and no one removes their old or new posts?
Answer the question. Why are all these Chinese people reading foreign news with a VPN and posting memes on Chinese sites (with their real name and info attached) with no punishment? Even people in North Korea have seen how American cops treat black people, and they weren’t punished for finding that information. How did all these people do it? How did they dodge the government while using their real face, name, cell info, and identity attached?
Reading arguments about these concepts while many people completely disagree what their definitions are feels like treading water waiting to exhaust myself and drown.
Maybe the point is the policies and anyone who argues about words is part of the problem.
Well the definitions are pretty clear, some people might just be uninformed because mixing the two has been very common in the right’s communication for decades.
Your first and second point combined basically means that everybody has to live in some government designed and funded flat. If you don’t like that, there’s nothing to be done. Same with food and everything. Oh you don’t like the government mandated 1500kcal protein slurry per day? Sucks to be you then… Of course it doesn’t have to be bad, but you are enabling a system where it could be bad and nobody could do anything about it.
Yeah, I don’t see why #2 is necessary. Make the government have to compete with the free market. If you’re poor, you get a government-funded apartment, but if you’re wealthy, you can afford a luxury condo.
There are food banks in my city, and nobody believes that they’re a threat and they’re going to put supermarkets out of business. You could just have standardized, ubiquitous food banks run by the government.
I think they mean all this business with water and housing. Investment properties are a plague all over this country. They inflate the price of housing so that someone can make a living off of someone else’s need for shelter.
More like: People on the internet being critical of the current system, Americans on the internet saying “COMMUNISM BAD” as if USSR style state capitalism is the only other possible option.
How else would it work? You need some power structure that actively forbids a free market and private ownership. And that power will sooner or later be abused.
You can’t just imagine some utopia where nobody has to work, and everything is free, and call that communism.
You can’t just imagine some utopia where nobody has to work, and everything is free, and call that communism.
Those are the anarchists (usually, definitions get fuzzy)
Most communists recognize the need for a transition state, we call that Socialism.
This isn’t a utopia we’re pitching, it’s hard work, and there will always be controversy, and people will have to work, we will just work less, and we will strive toward working even less over time.
And that power will sooner or later be abused
There’s LOTS of evidence that, right now, under capitalism, that abuse is veeeeery bad. We can learn the lessons of previous socialist attempts, but capitalism? That’s shown to be corrupt and beyond repair.
As well, right now, under capitalism, your politicians are bought and paid for by capitalists. Power is already being abused beyond control. Under a socialist system, it would be illegal to donate to politicians. Political campaigns would run within a short, standardized window of time, with equal funding, and commercials would be illegal, it would just be a platform of ideas and opinions. The people would vote for the person who best represents them, normal people.
This exist in Cuba, right now. It’s SO much harder to take power from a system that actually represents regular citizens, instead of a system that is bought and paid for by the highest bidder.
The core tenant of every form of Communism, regardless of if said party or organisation follows it, is as follows: that the means of production should belong to the workers who work them. If the means of production are not in the hands of the workers, then they are not communist. If they are in the hands of a CEO or a corporation, you have private capitalism or market capitalis like the US. If you put them in the hands of a state, they are in the state, you get state capitalism ala China or the USSR.
The power structure of the state protects an upper class, be it billionaires or “the party”. If you abolish the state, but not capitalism, capitalism will rebuild the state (which is why Anarcho capitalism fails every time) and vice versa (which is what happens with Marxist Leninism).
For a Communist or communalist society to work it needs to be Anarchist or classically Libertarian (aka like Bakunin or Kropotkin proposed, not “money first”). It needs to have a horizontal and democratic decision making process that is decentralised, federated, and involves all the members of the community or communities effected. If there is to be a state, it should be to facilitate the colaboration of communities in a bottom up manner. These are the features of almost every single effective or successful Anarchist or Socialist movements from Rojava or the Zapatistas, as well as non-political movements like the Open Source Movement, railway preservatiion movement, and even the early RNLI.
The power structure thant would forbid a free market would be the collective weight of everyone else rather than a state that, sooner or later, becomes the jackboot of capital.
The system you describe cannot exist. An anarchist or libertarian state in the real world can neither regulate nor defend itself from other states. It’s a fantasy that would collapse immediately upon implementation in all possible real world circumstances.
@MostlyBirds@abbiistabbii, anarchy is the system to which a mature and sovereign society automatically converges, but for this current humanity is still too young as specie, the evolutionary state can be compared with that of a child in puberty, regarding behavior. An anarchic system would necessarily lead to a collapse total of the current society (Lord of the Flies effect). A long way still to go.
anarchy is the system to which a mature and sovereign society automatically converges, but for this current humanity is still too young as specie, the evolutionary state can be compared with that of a child in puberty, regarding behavior.
This is completely made up nonsense. There’s a reason no one takes anarchists seriously.
So the first thing to consider is that anarchy is a very diverse field of thought, so there isn’t one answer to questions about it.
An anarchist society faced with violence from outsiders could:
Form militias on a voluntary basis. Transitive hierarchical structure can be voluntary and compatible with anarchism (think of a volunteer fire department). Remember, the key is such efforts are not coercive in an anarchist community, they are voluntary and collaborative so they require the community having the will to organize for its own defense.
Employ decentralized resistance / guerilla warfare. This can be extremely effective.
If allies and neighbors are watching, engage in nonviolent resistance. This is difficult and requires getting the message out to other groups and the attacker’s constituency to pressure them.
Diplomacy. Anarchists generally don’t support representationalism and prefer consensus, but communities can choose to empower diplomats and make deals with others when the time calls for it. This could be with other anarchist communities, other states to ask for aid, or even with the attacker. Building solidarity with like minded and compassionate communities can endanger the attacking group’s reputation and resources, and can be a powerful deterrent to an aggressor.
Remember that an attacker wants something. If they aren’t getting what they want out of a conflict, or if the costs are greater than what is gained, they are likely to stop pursuing it. Anarchist communities likely have different values, and resource extraction is the most likely reason to attack such a community; making it extremely difficult or impossible to do that is something an organized community can achieve.
Think about Vietnam; while Vietnam was and is not anarchist or non-hierarchical, a decentralized military strategy with deep support from the population led to victory over a technologically superior invader. For an example closer to anarchy, you can read up on the Zapatistas, who employed decentralized resistance to the Mexican government and won.
Last, I want to add that the above is more or less true of any community or country that is attacked by a larger force, whether they are communist, or capitalist, or stateless. Economic and social structure are not going to protect any group from being attacked, and doesn’t guarantee victory no matter how organized the defense may be.
Note that one of the merits behind an effective modern army is its ability to maintain regular troops that are trained, equipped, drilled and rotated with a reserve on a regular basis - something that’s usually achieved with a centralized form of organization and is backed by resources that in the current day are provided by a state. What’s the plan on providing modern weaponry, persistent intelligence, as well as infrastructures for logistic, communication, ordinance etc’ for a militia that’s “transitive” by nature? who’s going to keep an eye on those resources and make sure they don’t breed power tripping warlords, terrorists or even simple crime organizations? what’s the plan on keeping track of munitions and deadly weapons after the militia is disbanded?
Employ decentralized resistance / guerilla warfare. This can be extremely effective.
Highly effective to a degree and can still be bleed-out, toppled or at the very least kept under control with a more organized army. Also decentralization can easily turn to feudalism with armed groups if they start going against each other for whatever reason, such as in the case of political subversion exploiting inherit weaknesses in a non-centralized structure (divide and conquer, etc’).
If allies and neighbors are watching, engage in nonviolent resistance. This is difficult and requires getting the message out to other groups and the attacker’s constituency to pressure them.
What’s a nonviolent resistance going to do to a threat actor who’s eventual plan is political subversion and/or an incursion? why would they give a s*it as long as the war-effort on their side goes uninterrupted by the target or their allies until they decide to escalate?
Transitive wasn’t the best term to use, you’re right to ask about that - I was referring to structures that are temporary, voluntary, and established as necessary. Non-hierarchical communities can form such voluntary hierarchies for specific tasks, much like the fire department analogy.
Your comments seem to question the resilience of smaller, less militarized societies against well-resourced, aggressive forces. Unfortunately, the vulnerability to more powerful entities is not unique to communities practicing non-hierarchical or alternative systems; it’s a universal issue.
Examples like the Zapatistas, India’s independence, and Vietnam’s resistance against a superpower demonstrate that less militarized societies can sometimes successfully resist more powerful adversaries. These examples don’t guarantee success but show that various forms of resistance can be effective.
An ideal anarchistic community focuses on mutual aid and sustainable, non-coercive living. They, like any small community, are susceptible to violent disruption or displacement by larger hierarchical entities. The fear of warlords or similar figures, as you mentioned, essentially acknowledges the ever-present human tendency to consolidate power.
The Doukhobors offer another insightful case study. They’re not anarchists due to their patriarchal Christian family structures, but their community-oriented, pacifist lifestyle echoes anarchist ideals. Historically, they’ve been displaced by the state due to their rejection of many governmental norms. Wherever they resettled, they reliably transformed inhospitable land into productive farmland. Some argue this cycle of displacement and land cultivation was strategically orchestrated by the Canadian governmen to exploit their agricultural expertise. In their case, they demonstrate resilience instead of resistance.
It’s common for people encountering anarchist philosophy for the first time to question its practicality against militaristic threats and it’s a valid question. But the harsh reality is, regardless of a society’s structure or philosophy, it remains vulnerable to aggressive entities with superior military resources.
If we’re following Marx’s historical materialism (that society has transitions has a society, roughly being feudalism -> capitalism -> socialism -> communism), I think the next best step is a transition from capitalism to socialism is union ownership. Personally, I think worker co-ops and general syndicalism with a competing in a market for the worker owned businesses would be a great in between step that would not involve a crushingly oppressive state. The goal should be to keep it decentralized so one power structure being consumed by corruption doesn’t sink the fleet
Achieving communism thru the state (called vanguard parties) isn’t all that well liked by many types of socialists and communists, especially those of us in the west. A lot of us prefer to take inspiration from mid-1900s labor groups who, while not achieving socialism that we want, created infinitely better working conditions and power dynamics for working class people. Most of the people who ran those organizations were socialists/communists in and of themselves, and they often times relied more upon collective direct action than just electoralism.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong but if you boil it all down communism is when the state acts as a central power to decide how to allocate wealth and resources to the people. Does anyone here actually think you could trust the state ever ever ever to do this right? You can’t trust a centralized power no matter how much they claim to be of the people. It’s not that the state is inherently evil, it’s that humans are incredibly biased and flawed.
Communism is a community dictating how it should behave itself and how it allocates skills and resources.
If authoritarian centralized power focused on capital is Reddit, decentralized independent federated communities that dictate how they should behave themselves and allocate skills and resources would be lemmy
Thanks for the reply and I hear what you’re saying however I think the issue with that argument is that each federated community still has centralized admins with authority. For example Ruud at lemmy world could wake up one day and impose some crazy shit. Or he could give his friends better moderating positions than others, etc.
My point is that even in community based organizations you still have human administrators who have to make decisions for the community which ultimately leads to corruption of the system. That’s what my original argument was.
Edit: will go ahead and add that the same thing happens in capitalism however the huge difference is that there any many capital owners to distribute resources (ie companies, corporations, the state) VS in communism it is only the state that distributes the resources.
Maybe so. But, in reality every communist country has a state. I get that could be the “transitory” stage between capitalism and pure communism, or a tainted form of communism altogether. Cool. Let’s assume we get past that and are able to get to that idealized version of communism. Let’s have a thought experiment. Let me preface by saying I am not trying to have a gotcha moment, but honestly think this through out loud. In pure communism, who manages the water utilities? Like, who makes sure that water is delivered to the people and that it is safe to drink?
I don’t really think you need a state to have administrative powers over large things like food production, power, and other utilities. Ideally the communities would be fully self sufficient in power, food, water, housing, etc. Big power plants that supply power to a massive amount of people would be difficult to set up, but is still possible with enough community effort.
The biggest threat to communism and socialism is that capitalist countries will starve them out of international trade (or do more active things to try to prevent a successful communist movement) because they won’t play ball. It would be extremely easy for a capitalist team to destroy a few small crops and kill any chance of self sufficiency- meaning they’d have to depend on trade with those capitalist countries.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I kind of see what you’re saying, but on the other hand it seems like there is a big ? between revolution and pure communism. Like here’s a hyperbolic meme-y way to look at basically what communism is proposing: step 1- revolution with whatever means necessary, dissolve the state and all the things that people rely on 2- ??? 3- find ourselves in a pure communism society that functions and is a place that people want to live. That’s going to be a tough sell for most the worlds population.
And I agree that capitalist countries will starve out communist countries. But I think that leads to another point, communism is weak when it comes to dealing with threat actors or disasters. That’s why the risk for authoritarianism is so high.
And I would like to push back on your idea that communities that are fully self sufficient wouldn’t be in a way a form of state themselves. Sure it’s more local, but you still have power concentrating within leaders of a community. If the water stops working, who’s going to fix it? There needs to be a system of accountability and specialists. These specialists will need to have resources to survive. These resources will be provided by the community. And so. You can see how this leads to the development of a state wether you call it local government or a “community”
Yeah the revolution has to be done very carefully or else a TON of people will die of starvation in the transition. I think dissolving the state is necessary, but disrupting things like farms and power plants etc would remain and would be worked by the people who worked there under capitalism (though, no bosses). It’d essentially make all businesses a worker owned co-op, which we know to work since there’s quite a few successful co-ops around now.
I don’t think governors or mayors or bosses are the people who gets their hands dirty to help the water start flowing in a community again. And I doubt the workers need to be threatened with homelessness so they do that job. Just have average people do the job that needs being done. They are able to fix community issues similar to people who know how to build houses. Similar to people who can set up local networking. Similar to farmers. Similar to doctors. Their needs are also met by people who are able to provide to them. Specialists can still exist, but they don’t have any sway over how the community is run more so than anyone else in that community.
“The state is the institution or complex of institutions which bases itself on the availability of forcible coercion by special agencies of society in order to maintain the dominance of a ruling class, preserve the existing property relations from basic change and keep all other classes in subjection.”
To not have hierarchies of power means to not have a state. Thinking that a state could be just a group of people who settle issues that need to be settled is one interpretation, though that’s not what many, if any communists think when they say “state”. The structure of power currently resembles a pyramid scheme in a lot of people’s eyes. The people at the top have made the game (capitalists), maintain the game (through politics), put people in place to uphold the game (police), and the people at the bottom pay for the game (workers).
Yeah it’s not a perfect metaphor. Though, I guess even if an admin is terrible and abused their power, it has way less influence on Lemmy as a whole than if Spez abused their power on Reddit. Also, you’re free to create and host your own instance and run it however you’d like.
To make the metaphor more apt, every member of the server would own a part of the server and could vote democratically on how they want the server to run. It would involve no hierarchies of power, so there’s no mods and admins. Though, I really don’t know how this would work technically in regards to having thousands of people own a server (or if it’s even possible).
So like the Lemmy platform, communism would be easier to manage the less people are involved. That’s why people say that communism only works in tribes and small villages. I’m not under the illusion that it wouldn’t be difficult, and I think communism would lead to a bit more of an insular society as a whole, but I think that if everyone had realistic expectations and goals, it definitely seems more ideal that the current situation where we’re just being yanked around by the whims of ultra rich people trying to skim more from the top of the people doing actual work.
Add comment