Afaik this happened with every single instance of a communist country. Communism seems like a pretty good idea on the surface, but then why does it always become autocratic?
Attempts to implement communism at the scale of a nation state have always involved significant concentration of power. It may be impossible to do otherwise.
Power corrupts, and concentrations of power attract the corrupt.
So you’re saying with enough checks and balances that distribute power widely enough through legal offices and separations of power, some sort of democratic socialism would in theory be possible (assuming a peaceful transition via pre-deternend legislative changes were in place and ready to be followed)?
For a real Marxist revolution to take place, the entire populace has to stand up at once and decide to make this change. This requires humanity to do some pretty broad and general evolution before we, as a race, are nearly ready. Checks and balances won’t fix the fundamental problem that humans are selfish and want more for themselves at the expense of others.
It’s odd that humans being selfish and wanting more for themselves is an argument for a system where stamping on people to make your share bigger and keeping others down is encouraged rather than trying to dampen those impulses.
Or on the flip side, maybe they seem so much of that philosophical/ethical black hole “Human Nature” in a system where they’re encouraged because our current economic mode strongly encourages them, rather than them being immutable fact?
People forget that humans are evolutionarily based on familial groups above all else. People like to act like humans in the past were all sharing and helping each other for funsies when in reality you’d be slaughtering your neighbors children for their food if it meant your children got to eat.
Humans are 9 meals away from anarchy at all times. The minute things go south it’s every family for themselves. This is a fact for the majority of the human population. That fact extends to periods of prosperity as well because why would I share with a stranger when I could stockpile for my family?
I wouldn’t say it’s human nature, more like nature nature, as everything here seems to revolve around getting something at the expense of others. We’re just doing that at a larger/deeper/ a tad mo intelligent scale.
I wouldn’t say it’s human nature, more like nature nature, as everything here seems to revolve around getting something at the expense of others. We’re just doing that at a larger/deeper/ a tad mo intelligent scale.
If you do the thing and you do it right and you don’t fuck it up. Then it might work.
Marx opined that certain material conditions had to be achieved before a socialist state could be successfully made. These material conditions include bourgeois capitalist democracy. Marx explicitly said that capitalism forges the tools with which it will be destroyed.
A certain subset of communists known as Marxist-Leninists decided that bourgeois capitalist democracy wasn’t necessary if you just oppressed people REALLY hard, you could skip straight to a socialist state. And because they ‘succeeded’ in overthrowing traditional Marxists in 1917 Russia and getting the full power of a massive country to spread their ideology, they’ve had bootlickers calling their particular brand of insanity the only ‘real’ form of communism ever since.
When we think of ‘communist’ countries, we think of Marxist-Leninist countries which tried to jump from feudal societies to socialist societies, which, quite obviously from the results, doesn’t work. Doesn’t stop the cultists from licking boots, of course.
There’s also a story in the hammer and sickle itself. It was spun as a symbol of ‘all workers’ but its original purpose was to depict an alliance between farmers (who owned the land they worked) and the tiny population of wage earners in Russia’s largest cities (who didn’t even own their homes). The farmers saw no reason for the new policies so concessions had to be made.
Lenin’s Russia had to leverage the state apparatus to fiercely industrialize and capitalize, effectively creating an enormous business conglomerate with a company store that encompassed nearly every product in the nation outside the black market. But with all the complacency of abject monopoly. They couldn’t skip generalized capitalism, and so they created it in a way that seriously disadvantaged workers as capitalism does.
In other words: state monopoly capitalism. Wrong direction from marxist withering of state: instead seeks to establish a permanent totalizing state, oppressing all, including the vanguard. Stalin’s paranoia metastasized and now oligarchs pick over the bones.
Centralization of decision-making. It’s ironic actually. One of the main problems of capitalism that Marx described is the separation between labor and ownership. All the talk about “means of production”.
Communism actually makes it worse. In capitalism yes you have the owners who have all the control and reap all the benefits, but you have many capitalists competing, so the power is kinda distributed inside the capitalist class. The way communism was always implemented is through a communist party and state control of the economy.
You get an even smaller group of people controlling the means of production. It amplifies exactly the main problem of capitalism by creating a very hierarchical class society where the party leadership takes a role of what is almost “nobility”.
There’s also just a fundamental problem with planned economies from a purely economic standpoint: they are much less efficient at actually providing the minimum set of goods and services required by a population, and they’re worse at achieving growth. See the most recent Nobel Prize in economics for a citation. Funnily enough, the same paper’s arguments apply equally to oligarchic economies and crony capitalist economies, which are semi-planned economies by a small group of the ultra wealthy.
More specifically to the OP, communist countries have planned economies, which by nature requires a strong authority to tightly control production. Hence why communist states always have very consolidated political power structures. And once the power is consolidated, all it takes is one bad actor to get that power and ruin everything.
Géza Hofi was one of the greatest comedians in Hungarian history. He was active under and very outspoken about the failures of the ruling communist party. One of his most memorable performances was “How many pigs will be born?” (video, unfortunately without subtitles).
Party officials, wearing nice brown trench coats, visit old man Joe’s farm.
“Comrade Joseph, how many pigs will be born?”
“I don’t know.”
“Shut your mouth, peasant, and give me the number.”
“What’s the plan?”
“14.”
“Then it’ll be 14. Have you told the swine? Better that you talk to her, since you’re both on the same level.”(the story goes on, but I don’t want to translate the entire thing)
If you think about it every company is a tiny planned economy with all the power held by a few people, too.
Some of them even make brainwashing propaganda for their employees to think that sacrificing themselves to the company is glorious.
Not every company. There’s plenty of free-lancers around. There’s oddities like valve.
But yes, the idea is a mix of companies, different shapes and sizes, coordinating through markets.
but you have many capitalists competing, so the power is kinda distributed inside the capitalist class.
This isn’t always true, and is arguably not the natural state of capitalism. Capitalism, without state intervention, will tend towards monopoly as economies of scale and market power push out any competition.
Iirc this is what Trade Syndicalism was meant to solve. After all the talk about the people’s rebellion it gets into balancing power by keeping it distributed among unions. So your political career would be to get elected in your union and then serve on the councils at different levels.
So we need to destroy the means of production, got it. Down with anything built after 1825, we living like its 1799!
Couldn’t we live like it’s 1825 if everything after that was destroyed?
Yeah, but I can’t sing that to the tune of Prince’s 1999
Chile was a communist country and didnt become autocratic because of it, the US murdered their democratically elected president then planted a dictator in his place. So my guess is it doesn’t always end that way on it’s own. Russia speedran the capitalism to fascim transition to, it’s been capitalist since 1991, sham elections since 2005, so they’re not a good example of any kind of economic or government system. China has a tight grip on their population but don’t let the propaganda distract you from the fact that the US is just as much a surveillance state as China with the one exception being how much China micromanages it’s people when they leave the country, but I wouldn’t bet against America keeping tabs on expats the same way it was found out that America was spying on its allies in the EU.
I think this question ignores mountains of contexts in an attemtp at reducing a problem into one facet.
The US may collect as much or more information as China but their enforcement actions taken based on this information are far far more limited.
Not always. The US bombed striking workers on Blair mountain, and bombed a Philly neighborhood in the 80s to target activists. A portland protestor who shot a fascist demonstrator in self defence was summarily murdered by the cops days later before they even announced their presence. An unarmed cop city protestor was shot dead after one cop pretended a gunshot behind him was from the protestors. And god help you if youre a Boeing whistleblower or sex trafficker to the politicians. Even if China does this more often its hard to ascribe that to communism if the most anti communist nation in history does the same thing but just less often. These targeted things hide in the statistics for killings by cops because cops in the US kill more people annualy than mass shooters do.
The US has many flaws and these incidents were terrible. But these largely didn’t involve the modern intelligence apparatus we are discussing. We have large numbers of people here on Lemmy actively calling for a socialist revolution but they’re completely safe as long as they follow the law.
Try calling for revolution in China and see how it goes. Leaders of even relatively non-political protest movements or advocates for minority rights are frequently disappeared or executed. In the US, there may be isolated incidents of this nature (typically by local law enforcement) but largely social critics are free to organize legal resistance to the state without repression.
Of course, there are reasons to worry we might be headed in that direction. All the more reason to organize and resist while you still can.
To be clear, I don’t ascribe these actions to communism. China is not communist by any reasonable definition. I ascribe these actions to authoritarianism. While the US is somewhat authoritarian, it is less so than China (at least within its borders—foreign policy is a different can of worms).
Because most real-world implementations of communism was the idea that a “vanguard party” would excercise total control over the country. The idea is eventually the state would “wither away” after communism is acheived.
Yea imagine how that goes. Once a party gets total power, they ain’t giving it up, that’s the problem.
To play devil’s advocate, none of those vanguard parties were ever allowed to exist peacefully. They were always attacked, from the inside and out, by capitalist and fascistic powers. It’s kind of hard to get rid of the state when it is needed to defend from other nations and groups looking to destroy it.
I’m not saying that a Vanguard party would necessarily ever voluntarily give up it’s powers and disintegrate into pure communism without a large part of the world struggling against it, but it would be more likely to.
That is just pure speculation, though, because we live in a world that has shown that it will struggle against communism until the end. The Vanguard Party idea is flawed, because it fails to account for this indefinitely long struggle, and fails time and time again to offer a valid exit strategy into the next stage of Socialism/Communism.
Arguably defense will always be necessary until we actually achieve world peace, you can’t just unilaterally start acting as if you won’t get attacked. So the vanguard party thing is pretty fundamentally at odds with how the world works, if relinquishing control is actually the goal.
It’s crazy how far down one has to go for the right answer. MLs are by definiton highly authoritarian.
It’s like asking why successful fascist always creat dictatorships… Like that’s their plan.
Ideologically, Leninism supported vanguardism, a variation on Marxism that said that the Communist party was supposed to drag the early-20th-century proletariat into the revolution, instead of waiting for late capitalism where the proletariat would (according to Marx) naturally become revolutionary. This, and the notion of “false consciousness”, authorized Communist parties to go against the expressed (democratic) will of the proletariat, on the theory that the proletariat’s judgment was clouded by false consciousness, while still claiming to act in the interests of the proletariat.
Basically, “we (the party) know better than you (the people)” was ingrained into Leninism from the beginning, and the major communist revolutions either were or became Leninist. Maoism was a branch off of Leninism as well.
Keep in mind that it wasn’t even the proletariat that accomplished the Revolutions, it was the peasantry. Marx wasn’t against the idea but he would have been surprised.
Marx wasn’t against the idea but he would have been surprised
Towards the end, Marx actually expected Russia to go through a communist revolution, and that it may even be the start of the revolutionary wave in Europe. See the preface for the 1882 Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto for reference.
I love learning new things that had just never occurred to me before. It happens a lot more here than it ever did back on Reddit.
Equating all socialism with the authoritarian regimes of the 20th century oversimplifies a complex political tradition.
Dictatorial tendencies are not intrinsic to socialism but are contingent on specific historical and political contexts.
Russia: The Bolsheviks’ turn to authoritarianism was partly due to the civil war, external invasions, and a lack of democratic traditions. These circumstances led to the consolidation of power to preserve the revolution, not as an inevitable feature of socialist theory.
In other contexts, socialist movements (e.g., in Scandinavia) have successfully implemented social democratic policies without authoritarianism.
The role of individual leaders and political choices in shaping socialist experiments. Figures like Lenin and Stalin made decisions that prioritized centralized control, which deviated from the principles of worker self-management and democratic participation.
These deviations were not a necessary outcome of socialism but reflected the particular decisions and dynamics of those historical moments. So a small sample size of major socialist states and people cloud judgement.
External hostility often pushed socialist regimes toward authoritarian measures. For example, the USSR faced significant opposition from capitalist countries, which influenced its militarization and political centralization. This external pressure created a siege mentality that undermined the potential for democratic governance.
Democratic socialism has thrived in various countries, showing that socialism can coexist with democratic principles. Examples include the welfare states of Scandinavia, where socialism has enhanced equality and social welfare without undermining political freedoms.
There is some truth to this but it overlooks the fact that the Bolsheviks were distinct from other socialist parties from the very beginning by their top-down, authoritarian party structure, with Lenin in control. As soon as they gained power, they immediately worked to impose this type of management on the entirety of Russian society by crushing first the Duma, then the Soviets, and finally eliminating any autonomy exercised by their own supporters, the labor unions. They also immediately began engaging in electoral chicanery and postponing or rigging elections in their favor. By destroying or subsuming every other institution in society, the party structure became the primary structure of governance, and Russia became a totalitarian state. Most of this took place even before the civil war and was arguably a major contributor to it.
So why did Russia become a dictatorship? Because the Bolsheviks decided it was desirable based on their understanding and development of socialist theory, and other forces failed to stop them for various reasons. It’s pretty much that simple. The civil war and foreign pressures probably strengthened this tendency but I don’t believe it was the primary cause.
And of course, almost every other socialist revolution since that time was inspired by the Bolsheviks since they “succeeded”. So they largely sought to impose dictatorships as well.
Ultimately it all goes back to Marx and his idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat which is one of the crucial flaws of Marxism in my view.
The dictatorship of the proletariat was supposed to describe the will of a fully conscious proletariat majority being executed by and with the consent of that class. In other words a democracy unclouded by bourgeois interest and false consciousness.
The problem was that at the time of the Russian revolution the proletariat weren’t the majority, the peasants were, and what proletariat there were lacked full class consciousness. So Lenin used the vanguard party to emulate what a dictatorship of the proletariat would do, but that wasn’t an actual one as Marxist would’ve described.
There has been some debate about exactly what Marx intended by this phrase but regardless his intentions, in my view it was always doomed to be abused in this way. This was pointed out forcefully by Bakunin and other contemporaries of Marx in the socialist movement, and it came to pass exactly as they predicted. Who decides what constitutes “bourgeois interest” or “false consciousness”? The party of course, and who controls the party? The party leadership, or in other words, Lenin, Stalin, or whoever else manages to connive their way onto the throne. This is far from a proletarian democracy, and if that’s what Marx wanted, he ought to have chosen his words far more carefully.
This also dovetails with another key flaw in Marxism which is its class reductionism. Political leaders can and do have distinct interests from the proletariat, even when they may have once belonged to that class. We see this tension clearly in every supposed proletarian government in history, and many others besides. So in addition to the problems of top-down hierarchy, the decision to have Bolshevik leaders be full-time revolutionaries was also a large contributor to their alienation from the people whose interests they claimed to pursue, and the horrific violence they soon inflicted in on them.
GREAT answer!
External hostility often pushed socialist regimes toward authoritarian measures.
THIS. This is THE reason most Marxists give for the necessity of authoritarianism in the first stages of transition to a Communist society.
That makes pretty good sense to me, but what about China? They are no longer in the first stages correct? What’s their excuse?
Note: all of this is steal manning dengism, I am not a tankie advocating for it
They are in the first stage. Classical Marxist theory divides development into two revolutions / stages:
-
The first revolution is the bourgeoisie overthrowing the feudal order, eg. The American revolution, the English civil war, French revolution of 1830. After the bourgeoisie take over they will use the proletariat to industrialize and develop the means of production. This will eventually lead to a boom in efficiency and production, the peasants moving from the countryside to cities, and abundance of necessities. Eventually though everyone’s needs will be met and without an expanding market to profit from capitalist will be forced to produce more efficiently with less labor to get profits from there now limited market. This will lead to mass layoffs and unemployment which leads to
-
The socialist revolution where the proletariat overthrow the bourgeoisie and sieze the productive forces. They will then distribute labor fairly so you have 8 people working 10 hours instead of 1 person working 80 and 7 others unemployed. This then leads to communism where people have control over production and use it to guarantee well being and leisure instead of profit.
In order to get to this communist phase though you need to industrialize and develop the means of production so you can provide people with basic needs with little labor. The problem is the two major countries where socialism took hold, Russia and China, were still largely agrarian feudal societies. So they had to develop the means of production, Russia, and maoist china did so with 5 year plans, which had some success and some catastrophic failure but was ultimately pretty inefficient. So after mao a new leader in China named deng Xiao ping took over and followed a policy of allowing capitalism into the country to develop the means of production and industrialize. This unleashed powerful forces in the country that needed to be tamed by an even more powerful state, otherwise they would take over like they did in other capitalist countries. Then all the bloodshed from the original Chinese revolution would be for not as they would have to do another revolution to remove the bourgeoisie again. So the state maintains tight control to avoid “regressing” into a capitalist democracy until they fully develop and industrialize. At which point they will use that powerful authoritarian state to disposses the capitalist class and usher in communism.
Thanks for that explanation!
So, arguably, a country like the US is a better place for such ideals to minimize the time spent in the first phase and hasten the transition to the second phase since we are already industrialized?
(Not, by the way, that I say this to suggest it is necessarily a fair tradeoff for the first phase. I’m not making a judgement there at all.)
Yes, marx always thought a socialist revolution would come in the late stages of industrial capitalism. Everyone thought it was going to be in Germany up until WWI. The problem is capital becomes entrenched and people become comfortable, especially if they benefit from imperialism and exploitation abroad or of a minority racialized underclass.
Another problem with skipping the first revolution and industrializing under socialism is it gets blamed for the the horrors of industrialization. The early stages of industrialization are always horrific with long hours, bad working conditions and slum living conditions. Combine that with general conservatism and desire to stick to a traditional life and you have to coerce the peasents into going into the cities to become industrial laborers. Capitalism did this through enclosure and farm consolidation, the soviets did it more blatantly, sometimes at gunpoint. Either way it builds an animosity with the system that robbed you of your traditional life.
-
Post Qing/Early Republican China was an absolute mess of competing factions, and it’s here that the CCP - with strong Russian backing was born.
The 1920s and 30s saw the government of the Republic of China decide that defending itself from Japan was less important than crushing the Communists, and was embroiled in civil war (and a continuation of the warlord battles consolidating power post-Qing collapse) with both sides receiving foreign support.
In the end, the Japanese invasion became big enough Chaing Kai-shek was forced to work with/not actively fight against the CCP, which the Communists took as an advantage to resupply and restock and engage in guerilla war against Japan while letting the Republic’s forces waste manpower and supplies with the pitched battles, so the Communists were able to overwhelm the Chinese Government in the reopening of the civil war after the end of the Second World War.
Early Communist China spent its life on a war footing, expecting (quite validly as declassified US documents show) the Korean War to push into China itself if the UN forces weren’t held in the peninsula, or the Civil War to warm up again with Chiang trying to retake the mainland with US backing.
This led all led to, from during the Long March in the first part of the Chinese Civil War and into Mao’s rule of the PRC, the establishment of a strong authoritarian government ideology. And while after the failing of the Great Leap Forwards and the resulting famine, led to Mao’s politiking ending the push to a less centralised power body with the Cultural Revolution and his taking back centralised power over the country.
Mao’s legacy has lingered, and the '89 protests led to a decided nailing shut of the slow shift wider democratic rule in the PRC, at least until Xi is gone and his picked successor is deposed, as the CCP feel that remaining in power is more important than anything else.
deleted by creator
Not sure if /s
External hostility often pushed socialist regimes toward authoritarian measures. For example, the USSR faced significant opposition from capitalist countries, which influenced its militarization and political centralization. This external pressure created a siege mentality that undermined the potential for democratic governance.
This is something that I wish more people who talked about this would acknowledge and engage with. I get it, authoritarianism isn’t good. It’s not like we want that. It’s not the goal. But it’s really easy to sit on the sidelines from a relatively cushy life in the imperial core and judge all the people out there who are dealing with the historical reality of colonialism and feudalism and the current reality of imperialism. They are actively engaged in the practical task of liberating themselves from forces, both external and internal (old power structures/privileges) that seek to violently return them to a condition of servitude. The decisions they made have to be viewed through the lens of that context.
That doesn’t mean we can’t discuss and criticize them, but it’s worth engaging in the nuance of the history rather than out of hand dismissing their attempts as inherently illegitimate, evil, and/or misguided. What were the conditions they were operating under? What dangers did they face? Were their actions the best strategy for achieving the future they wanted? Was what they gave up too great? Did they have the capability to take a more open path? Have/had their decisions irreparably led them astray or were/are they still on the path to that eventual communist society on some time scale?
If you think they’re wrong for what they did, you still have to be able to answer the question of how you protect your revolution from forces that will spy on you, sabotage your industry, fund right wing militias to terrorize people, sanction and blockade you, or even invade you? Or if you think the path wasn’t even violent revolution in the first place, what is your answer to how you get to where you want to be when the power structure that would need to allow this is also invested in not allowing this? It’s a bit harder to see how this is made difficult or even impossible in liberal “democracies,” but it should be uncontroversial to acknowledge that some kind of force was necessary to escape from illiberal systems like Feudalism in Russia/China or from colonial regimes like in Vietnam.
The one thing I’d push back on from your comment is about the welfare states of Europe. That’s not really what socialism is about. They’ve made life better for people in their own country, yes, but it’s on the backs of those exploited in the third world. That’s why communism is inherently internationalist. “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” You need to be able to build a movement that can work to lift everyone up with you, or at least not drag them down for your own benefit. I’d be interested to have more of a discussion on this, but that’s the standpoint I’d start from.
democratic socialism has thrived in in imperial states
Imagine asking a question to a less qualified, more ideologically antagonistic group of people than you just have.
That’s fair, but frankly, in my experience, the average American’s idea of communism is “evil bad oppression big gubmint dictatorship”. I was never taught in school about the theory behind communism or the practical government of the USSR (regardless of how close they may or may not have been), so I have little understanding into how these systems actually work and whether it’s actually beneficial for those under them. I’m trying to rectify that on my own time but there’s many people who don’t care enough to do so and just parrot the same thought terminating cliches like “human nature”.
Since you said you’re trying to rectify that, allow me to hijack and recommend my introductory Marxist reading list. Section 1 is all you need to get the basics and a decent contextualization of AES states, but you can feel free to continue onward. Nearly every work has an audiobook and a text format linked, and the 2 works without an audiobook are short (and there are hopes of getting an audiobook for them, fingers crossed!).
I’m almost finished listening to Blackshirts and Reds by Parenti, one of the books in the list that @Cowbee@lemmy.ml posted as a reply to your message. I think it’s been a great introductory book - brief and easy to understand.
It’s wide-ranging book even though it’s brief, and one of the things I found interesting about it was that he not only gave credit where it was due (ex: producing vastly more egalitarian society with all the benefits that come with that) but he also pointed out some shortcomings, such as the failure of centrally planning national economies, like someone else has pointed out in another comment here. I highly recommend the book.
Edit: I also wanted to say props to you for being open-minded and trying to learn and understand instead of just swallowing the narrative we’ve been fed our whole lives.
Yep, exactly why I put it there! In the eyes of many non-Marxists, the USSR was an irredeemable monster of a country. This leads to conflicts with the general rising opinion of Marx among liberals as well, that must mean either the USSR wasn’t Marxist, or that Marx himself is outdated. On the contrary, more mundane yet heroic than all, the USSR was real, not a paradise and not a hellscape. Marxism in the heads of dreamers is always going to veer towards impossibility and be pure and free of struggle, when history tells us otherwise. In fact, such an attitude is anti-Marxist.
The reason I put it there is because Parenti has done what I believe to be the best job contextualizing and myth dispelling surrounding AES. Most people seem to think mere awareness that the Red Scare existed means that that was something from the past, and not still ongoing. They believe simple awareness allows them to see through it all, without actually digging into it.
There are a great many reasons to remain a Marxist and to continue believing in Public Ownership and Central Planning, but without learning what did and did not work we will repeat their mistakes. Thanks for sharing!
Thank you for continuing to suggest Parenti’s book! I think you’re the poster who has been regularly suggesting it in your posts as a first read, correct? If that’s the case, it was thanks to you that I read it! It’s a great book. Once I finish this I will work down the rest of your reading list.
Thanks for the kind words! I do throw it around a lot, haha. If people actually read what I link, that’s a massive victory! Feel free to ask any questions you may have about it. I also think following Blackshirts up with the famous Yellow Parenti Speech is a great way to close out that section.
You’re welcome! I just wanted to let you know that you’re making a difference. :) Thanks for the offer to answer questions and also for the link to the speech!
Easy.
Ask this question almost literally anywhere else on the Internet.
The english speaking internet
I don’t think the Polish parts are going to be friendly either.
Lots of reasons, but here’s one:
Because one of, if not the main purpose of money is to provide a decentralized way of transferring information about economic needs and capabilities. Without that mechanism in place, the only way of determining where goods can be created and where they need to go (a massive problem that it is a daily miracle we don’t generally have to deal with) is by an overbearing authoritarian state.
Spoken like someone that hasn’t paid attention to the supply chains of places like Walmart.
We already have command economies. They exist and are functional. The owners are simply siphoning away the surplus value.
So you’re saying you agree?
Walmart is absolutely a result of capitalism, those intricate supply chains are in place to make money. Maybe we could do it without a common way to track needs for a while, but would it adapt? Would the alternative resist corruption better? The invention of Money almost seems an inevitable consequence from one perspective.
I don’t think this answers the original question, but it’s an interesting side topic.
The invention of Money almost seems an inevitable consequence from one perspective.
That really depends on what you mean by money and how it’s used in the economy. David Graeber wrote a really great book covering this called “Debt: The First 5,000 Years” that I highly recommend.
As large as Walmart is, it is still absolute peanuts compared to the scale and (especially) dynamism of global production and consumption as a whole. Global supply chains have to change much faster and in arbitrary ways, compared to the centralized chains of something like Walmart, which in turn is also still subject to the external pressures of competition – even just hypothetical competition based on some hypothetical course of action is a powerful constraint.
Most universal answer I can give is:
Every country that has attempted communism has been desperate and vulnerable.
Desperate to find a strongman to save their crumbling old government, and vulnerable to having the CIA appoint their own strongman in turn.
That’s a dumb take, given that the two largest communist countries so far were both founded before the CIA ever existed. Lenin started the authoritarianism of the USSR by 1923 (not terribly long after WWI, although the Bolshevik coup took a while to consolidate power), and the revolution in China that put Mao Zedong in power in 1945, shortly after the end of Japanese occupation. But, as with the Russian revolution, the Chinese revolution had been going on for some time prior to WWII.
Meanwhile, the CIA didn’t even exist until 1946. The predecessor to the CIA, the OSS (Office for Strategic Services) was founded in 1942, specifically as part of the wartime effort.
Moreover, the US fought in two wars to prevent communists from taking over, since the communist governments were unfriendly to US interests, notably Kim Il-Sun in North Korea (took power in '48), and Ho Chi Min in Vietnam (took over part of Vietnam in '45). Additionally, Fidel Castro overthrew the Cuban gov’t led by Fulgencio Batista; Batista had the support of the US, and was friendly to US interests in the region, while Castro was decidedly not. The US attempted multiple time to overthrow Castro, and failed each time.
So the idea that the CIA is appointing the heads of communist countries is simply not supported by facts.
Lenin started the authoritarianism of the USSR by 1923
Lenin started earlier than that… It started almost right after the Black Army aided the Red Army to defeat the White Army… The Red Army turned around, and murdered workers in the Black Army, because “They didn’t do socialism, and went right to implementing full communism”…
I should have been a little more precise; 1923 was, IIRC, when he’d consolidated power. It wasn’t an instant process as soon as the tsar and his family had been murdered, and the government overthrown.
There’s a lot of confusion in these comments regarding Marxist theory, presumably from people who haven’t actually engaged with the source material, so I want to clarify something I see repeated frequently in this thread with little pushback. The Marxist theory of the State is not the same as the Anarchist, nor the liberal. Marx defined the State as a tool of class oppression.
The reason I state this is because there’s a confused notion that Marxists think there should be
- An unaccountable Vanguard
- The Vanguard does stuff. At a certain arbitrary point the Vanguard dissolves and society embraces full horizontalism
I’ll address these in order. First, the Vanguard is in no-way meant to be unaccountable, nor a small group of elites, but the most politically active, practiced, and experienced among the proletariat elected by the rest of the proletariat. The concept of the “Mass Line” is crucial to Marxist theory, that is, the insepperability of the Vanguard from the masses. If this line is broken, the Vanguard loses legitimacy and ceases to be effective, whether it falls into Tailism or Commandism. These tendencies must be fought daily, and don’t simply vanish by decree.
Secondly, the basis for Marxian Communism is the developmental trends of Capitalism. Markets start highly decentralized, but gradually the better Capitalists outcompete and grow, and as they grow they must develop new methods of accounting and planning. Capital concentrates in fewer and fewer hands, yet socialization increases as these conglomerations begin to reach monstrous heights and require incredibly complex planning. The development of such methods and tools is the real, scientific foundation of Public Ownership and Central Planning.
Continuing, once the Proletariat takes control and creates a Proletarian State, the Proletariat, the more experienced among them the Vanguard, gradually wrests from the bourgeoisie their Capital with respect to that industries and sectors that have sufficiently developed. This process continues until all Capital has been folded into the Public Sector, at which point laws meant for restraining the bourgeoisie begin to become superfluous and “die out.” The Vanguard doesn’t “dissolve” or “cede power,” but itself as a concept also dies out, as over time new methods of planning and infrastructure make its role more superfluous. Classes in general are abolished once all property is in the Public Sector, and as such the State no longer exists either, as there isn’t a class to oppress.
This is why Marxists say the State “withers away.” It isn’t about demolishing itself, but that Marx and Engels had a particular vision of what the State even is, and why they said it could not be abolished overnight.
Hope that helped! As a side note, asking this on Lemmy.world, an anti-Marxist instance, is only ever going to get you answers biased in that direction. I suggest asking on other instances as well to get a more complete view.
Lemmy.world, an anti-Marxist instance
I wouldn’t call Lemmy.world anti-Marxist. I would say there has definitely been some knee-jerk to the heavy-handed moderation of Lemmy.ml, but being opposed to the more extreme methods of Lemmy.ml doesn’t mean opposition to Marxism in concept. It means you’ll get a broader set of responses since criticism won’t get deleted by the mods/admins, but there are still plenty of leftists on Lemmy.world.
Similar to how opposing Stalinism doesn’t mean one opposes Marxism, you know?
Lemmy.world defederated from the largest explicitly Marxist aligned instances, their thread going over why spells out pretty clearly that opposition to liberalism was the key determining factor in doing so. Lemmy.ml isn’t even a Marxist instance, only admin’d and moderated by Marxists, yet is the instance with undeniably the most conflict with Lemmy.world currently among their federated instances. Moreover, many lemmy.world mods have expressed negative opinions towards Marxism directly, here’s an example.
Lemmy.world is a liberal instance, is admin’d and moderated largely as such, and has taken deliberate measures against Marxism and Marxists. I believe it’s fair to consider Lemmy.world to overall be anti-Marxist. Does that mean no users share Marxist sympathies? No, of course not, but overall the bias is clear. Similarly, by defederating from the larger Marxist-aligned instances, a thread on Lemmy.world is shutting out the viewpoints of most of the Marxists, rather than having a “broad” view, this minimizes the variance in responses.
Just my 2 cents.
I’d agree the MLs aren’t Marxist. I don’t think a Marxist would unironically stan China Russia and north Korea.
On what grounds do you say Marxist-Leninists aren’t Marxists? The world over, the vast majority of Marxists fall under the umbrella of Marxism-Leninism.
You can’t just claim ownership of all communism and claim everyone falls under the ML umbrella, especially when MLs support dictatorial regimes that are antithetical to communism.
I am not “claiming ownership of all Communism,” I am accurately stating that Marxism-Leninism is by far the most common form of Marxism, as it is the basis for the vast majority of AES states past and present. It has real, practical foundations and as such has continued popularity internationally. This is less true in the West, where AES states are violently combatted daily.
I guess there’s a disconnect on what Marx actually thought and what they believe then, as op has pointed out. And the whole Russia China north Korea thing.
Well, first of all, Lenin betrayed the revolution and implemented a new form of Feudalism, not communism. His party lost the 1917 election, and he threw a hissy fit that launched a civil war.
All because he thought that his way was best, so he created a totalitarian dictatorship. And then handed it over to Stalin, who made everything worse.
Marx himself said that communism needed to rise out of capitalist democracy. It cannot rise out of a dictatorship, because dictators never voluntarily give up power.
This is extremely wrong on several accounts, to the point of absurdity in several parts.
First, Lenin did not “betray the revolution.” Lenin and the Bolsheviks carried out the revolution. Had they not had the real support of the working class via the Soviet system implemented prior to the establishment of the USSR, they could not have established Socialism to begin with.
Secondly, Lenin did not “implement a new form of feudalism.” This is utterly divorced from reality. Feudalism is characterized by agrarian peasantry that live on land owned by a feudal lord, till the land, pay rent to said lord, and manufacture for themselves the bulk of their consumption. The Soviet model was that of a Soviet Republic, characterized by Public Ownership and Central Planning, both of which are key aspects of Marxism as conceived by Marx himself, not Lenin.
Third, the election in the liberal bourgeois government. Russia in 1917 had 2 governments, the Soviet Government supported by the Workers and Peasants, and the Provisional Government supported by the Bourgeoisie and Petite Bourgeoisie. The Socialist Revolutionaries won the election in the Constituent Assembly for the bourgeois government, however faith in the bourgeois government was already gone! The Soviet Government toppled the Provisional Government, solidifying itself as the only legitimate government. Lenin did not throw a “hissy fit,” the point of the Constituent Assembly was to show just how detached from the will of the Working Class the bourgeois government was.
Fourth, the notion of the USSR as a “totalitarian dictatorship.” This is false on both accounts. The Soviet Democratic model is well documented, such as by Pat Sloan in his book Soviet Democracy. The Soviet Republic extended democracy to economic production, and was a dramatic improvement for workers over the Tsarist regime and the bourgeois Provisional Government. The USSR was also not a dictatorship, the General Secretary was not a position of absolute control, even the CIA didn’t believe it to be.
Fifth, Marx himself. This is perhaps your most absurd claim. Marx never once said Communism “rises from Capitist Democracy.” Marx was both entirely revolutionary, believing reforming Capitalist society without revolution to be impossible, and similarly did not even believe Capitalism was required for said Communist revolution to take place. Marx believed Markets have a tendency to centralize, laying the foundations for Public Ownership and Central Planning. Even in a Socialist state, markets can and will exist. From Marx:
The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
Marx believed Capitalism makes Communist revolution inevitable by its own mechanisms, but not that Capitalism is required to perform said revolution! We see with real, practical experience that the Proletariat is the true revolutionary class, but even in countries where the Proletariat make up a minority of the population as compared to the peasantry revolution is still possible. Markets cannot be abolished overnight, but that doesn’t mean it is not a Socialist system.
I seriously recommend you read theory, or revisit it if you’re just rusty. If you want help, I made an introductory Marxist reading list, and I’d love feedback.
Wow, the alternate reality you live in must not be littered with millions of bodies of the people Lenin and Stalin murdered.
They were both monsters and, by every single definition, totalitarian dictators. But you keep on worshiping them
Similar to how opposing Stalinism doesn’t mean one opposes Marxism, you know?
What do you think ‘Stalinism’ is, besides “Marxism but bad” as framed by people who are already staunchly anti-marxist?
What do you think ‘Stalinism’ is, besides “Marxism but bad” as framed by people who are already staunchly anti-marxist?
I’ve been told by people who hold communist ideals that there’s a difference between Marxism and the brutal totalitarian implementation that was Stalinism in practice. People far more knowledgeable than I am have made this distinction better than I can articulate.
Would you argue there isn’t a distinction?
Marxism isn’t a religion, it’s a social and political science. It’s not a list of rules about what you’re supposed to do, it’s a method of understanding social and historical forces. The socialist revolution was supposed to happen in Germany according to Marx. When the conditions of the world change the people who are alive then are the ones who have to interpret and react to them. So Stalin was doing Marxism in the context of the 1930’s soviet union.
Sounds sensible from an economics perspective but what about violence? How can state wither away when there needs to be control of violence?
From what I understand the people individually would be responsible for helping each other which is why there’s a strong emphasis on an “armed proletariat.” An example, I believe from State and Revolution, was that of a common person helping someone who was being mugged. We’d all have a responsibility to help each other.
Not entirely sure on their concept of military protection though. Except for lenin they didn’t really live in an age of crazy military capabilities so it was always man vs man not man vs b52 bombers.
It’s the opportunist problem. We see this throughout rebellions in history, not just when communist countries are made. Basically, anytime conditions are bad enough for the people to demand change it’s really easy for someone to trade on their ignorance. They can push policies that sound like they’ll help but really consolidate power. And if anyone speaks up, they’re an enemy of the people.
For a non Communist example of this in modern history check out the French Revolution.
Check USA right now.
Yup. And I’ve spent the last decade and a half telling people the working class isn’t going to take it anymore.
The Paris Commune is a great example of the class war being brutally engaged by the bourgeois.
Because communism is the end goal, but one of the transitionary phases is the dictatorship of the proletariat , where a representative of the people is given sweeping power to prevent a counterrevolution from the bourgeoisie.
But that kind of power is hard to give up; foreign powers are trying to sew discord, and it’s really convenient to get stuff done. It’s ok, you’re one of the good guys anyways, right?
So communism never really makes it past that stageAbsolute power corrupts absolutely
Those who seek power least deserve it
I think those quotes answer your question well enough
Most countries we would label as communist didn’t form as Marx expected. Marx expected relatively advanced nations to revolt and claim control over capital. Instead, most Communist revolutions occurred in generally despotic and less developed countries.
When times are good, the government can use the material improvement of people’s lives as a reason to be in power. However, if times stop being good, the government becomes more overtly autocratic to maintain control.
