How to convince people that Russia, North Korea, Cuba, etc. are not communist?

[☭World Views]

Great site btw:

How do we define:

capitalism

convince people that state capitalism is still capitalism?

[chimx]

Elaborate on what you mean by state capitalism and how it is significantly different than a transitory stage suggested by Marx in the Manifesto, in which he advocates the "centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly". Or Marx's advocacy of a socialist economy based on the principle of "from each according to their contributions".

Capitalism is a wage system through which a capitalist class appropriates surplus value through an exploited productive class.

[Misanthrope]

Cuba, NK and The Soviet Union were all states. Communism is stateless.

[chimx]

Communism spelled with a little 'c' is theoretically stateless. Communism spelled with a capital 'C' is a country ran by a Communist Party.

[Kukulofori]

Explain what communism actually is and why they don't have those traits.

Then draw attention to the fact that the DPRK calls itself a Democratic Peoples' Republic amd ask how credible that claim is.

[Misanthrope]

Communism spelled with a little 'c' is theoretically stateless. Communism spelled with a capital 'C' is a country ran by a Communist Party.


That doesn't make it communist though. A state may call itself communist, it may be ran by people who call themselves communist but that does not make that state communist.

[chimx]

I'm saying that they are too different words: Communist and communist.

In the English language, communist spelled with a little 'c' dates back to 1840, when a Christian Utopian Socialist used the term to describe followers of the late French Revolutionary François Babeuf.

Communist with a capital 'C' didn't start being used until after the October Revolution of 1917 that resulted in the Communist Party obtaining political power in Russia. Since then, Communism with a capital 'C' has been used to describe a political state ran by a Communist Party, where as little-'c' communism is used to describe the ideology of Marx, Babeuf, Lenin, etc.

[jake williams]

Cuba, NK and The Soviet Union were all states. Communism is stateless.
I think this is still an effective answer, partly because it's clear and simple: communism by the main definition of the term (any political term with reasonable currency is going to have a multiplicity of contradictory meanings, but this is by far the most common and mainstream one) must be stateless; these countries have/had states, and so are not communist.

I would start with this. I'd start with this because I think it's a good way to get into the other discussions - why did the states fail to achieve communism (among, of course, numerous other failures), etc. It also allows you, if you wish, to explain the basics of why people advocating a stateless society would advocate a transitory state - whether or not you yourself agree with that transitory state. I really think it's the best way to address the question because I think it's the most accurate way to frame a real analysis of the history.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

I'm saying that they are too different words: Communist and communist.

In the English language, communist spelled with a little 'c' dates back to 1840, when a Christian Utopian Socialist used the term to describe followers of the late French Revolutionary François Babeuf.

Communist with a capital 'C' didn't start being used until after the October Revolution of 1917 that resulted in the Communist Party obtaining political power in Russia. Since then, Communism with a capital 'C' has been used to describe a political state ran by a Communist Party, where as little-'c' communism is used to describe the ideology of Marx, Babeuf, Lenin, etc.

Whatever. The point is Communist states have not achieved communism. It can confuse people to call them Communist states because of this. So why not call them something less misleading?

[Revy]

They're not socialist either, and that's usually how the states identify themselves.

Russia is obviously not even ideologically communist anymore, so you need only convince people that are living under a rock.

[LOLseph Stalin]

For this question I just go with the simple answer that true communism has never existed. People of course give me the same old argument of "what about China, the USSR, and Cuba? They're communist." I just try to go into detail about how each of these countries have never got past the Socialist transition stage which even then eventually fell apart in these countries. I then go on to explain that communism is a stateless society thus is the reason for it not existing in these places. Of course trying to explain this isn't so easy with some people. I guess I'll just have to say they'll either listen to you or they won't. Unfortunately some Free-Market Cappies are too absorbed in their own ideology.

As for the State Capitalism aspect, it helps to explain the actual nature of this concept; the state owns the means of production while the workers have little control thus acting like the Capitalist class. They then oppress the people in the same way ordinary Capitalists do(helps to explain that too).

[Qayin]

Private property exists.

[chimx]

As for the State Capitalism aspect, it helps to explain the actual nature of this concept; the state owns the means of production thus acting like the Capitalist class.

This is remarkably anti-Marxist.

[LOLseph Stalin]

This is remarkably anti-Marxist.

How so? It's a way to explain how State-Capitalism isn't related to Marxism. I don't see how explaining how State-Capitalism isn't Marxism could be Anti-Marxist.

[chimx]

How so?

You said, "the state owns the means of production thus acting like the Capitalist class."

Marx advocated the "extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state". "centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly".

[ArrowLance]

Great site btw:

How do we define:

capitalism

convince people that state capitalism is still capitalism?

Or you could just tell the truth; that they were communist in that communism was their goals. And that many of them made great advances in that direction.

Point out what you think went wrong. Stop being lazy and just dismissing them altogether.

[chimx]

Or you could just tell the truth; that they were communist in that communism was their goals. And that many of them made great advances in that direction.

This is a much better solution. If you are familiar with Russian or Korean history, you would know how the communist parties of these countries were remarkably progressive at times.

[Niccolò Rossi]

You said, "the state owns the means of production thus acting like the Capitalist class."

Marx advocated the "extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state". "centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly".

Don't be silly. Two can play at that game.


"But the transformation, either into joint-stock companies, or into state ownership, does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies this is obvious. And the modern state, again, is only the organisation that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the general external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head." (Engels, Anti-Duhring, 1877)

Quite frankly Chimx, I don't understand the point you are making. Without making snide one liners, what are you actually saying?

[Radical]

They're not Communist only because they CANT be communist in there current state.

Cuba is a perfect example of a country on a journey to Socialism.

[Asoka89]

Workers did not control the means of production.

Socialism originally = "social democracy" for a reason it was meant to actualize democracy. Meaning instead of the psuedo-democracy of capitalist countries which affords limited democracy and freedoms in the political sphere we would have social and economic democracy under socialism. Addition without subtraction.

[chimx]

Don't be silly. Two can play at that game.

"But the transformation, either into joint-stock companies, or into state ownership, does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies this is obvious. And the modern state, again, is only the organisation that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the general external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head." (Engels, Anti-Duhring, 1877)

Have you read the entirety of that critique? Actually I haven't read the whole thing, but apparently I've read more than you. If you go down just a few more paragraphs, you'll read:


Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and more completely transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians, it creates the power which, under penalty of its own destruction, is forced to accomplish this revolution. Whilst it forces on more and more the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialised, into state property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. [i]The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production in the first instance into state property.

In your quotation, Marx is talking about socialized industry within a capitalist state, such as joint-stock companies which became popular in England from the mid-1840s onward I believe. It has always been the program of communists to seize political power and have the state own the means of production. My point is that people throw around the term "state capitalism" far too freely and seem ignorant of this basic tenet of communist theory.

[chimx]

Workers did not control the means of production.

Socialism originally = "social democracy" for a reason it was meant to actualize democracy. Meaning instead of the psuedo-democracy of capitalist countries which affords limited democracy and freedoms in the political sphere we would have social and economic democracy under socialism. Addition without subtraction.

I think that this is the first valid point. In my opinion, for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat to have state-run industry that is socialist in nature, political participation by the working class has to exist. But democracies can vary. The question is how much democratic political participation is necessary for this to truly exist. Was Soviet democracy sufficient? How about that of Cuba's?

[Asoka89]

I think that this is the first valid point. In my opinion, for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat to have state-run industry that is socialist in nature, political participation by the working class has to exist. But democracies can vary. The question is how much democratic political participation is necessary for this to truly exist. Was Soviet democracy sufficient? How about that of Cuba's?

Well.. the party-state should be eliminated. I hope that's clear, what I mean is the conflation of the ruling socialist party and the state apparatus.

Also there should be no restriction on the self-organization of the working class. The old Stalinist cry "why have independent organs of workers power when the state is a workers' state" won't fly. Basically I would advocate keeping free speech, assemblage etc. During the revolutionary period of course these things will need to be bent a bit, I'm a pragmatist, but in principle they should remain.

I see no alternative but for there to be a substantial role for the market in consumer goods at least. "After Capitalism" is a good model for this and should be mixed with some planning of the macro level (democratic of course).

[LOLseph Stalin]

You said, "the state owns the means of production thus acting like the Capitalist class."

Marx advocated the "extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state". "centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly".

You do know I was talking about State Capitalism, right?

[gorillafuck]

That doesn't make it communist though. A state may call itself communist, it may be ran by people who call themselves communist but that does not make that state communist.
They didn't/don't call themselves communist......

[chimx]

You do know I was talking about State Capitalism, right?

I know that you are referring to "state capitalism". I'm criticizing the term and presumably your application of it to the USSR, Cuba, etc.

[Pogue]

I don't think we really need to convince them this. I'll elaborate later.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I know that you are referring to "state capitalism". I'm criticizing the term and presumably your application of it to the USSR, Cuba, etc.

By the way, I view the USSR and Cuba as Degenerated Worker's States and China as State Capitalist. Just thought I would point that out. I was just explaining State Capitalism because the OP was asking about it. Sorry if I wasn't more clear.

[Durruti's Ghost]

I know that you are referring to "state capitalism". I'm criticizing the term and presumably your application of it to the USSR, Cuba, etc.

What do you call a situation where the State owns the means of production and is not controlled in a sufficiently democratic manner by the working class, if not state capitalism?

[Communist]

How many would support PLP's deviation from Marxism in their "fight directly for communism (http://www.plp.org/pamphlets/whycommunism.html)" then?

>>The former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and China returned to capitalism many years ago. Capitalism, not communism, is failing all over the world.
The two-stage strategy of first socialism, then communism, failed to lead to communism. It led back to capitalism. Therefore, we must fight directly for communism.<<

I see this as incorrect but suspect some here may not.

[Niccolò Rossi]

They're not Communist only because they CANT be communist in there current state.

Cuba is a perfect example of a country on a journey to Socialism.

Cuba is not communist and can not be communist, as you note. However, equally, Cuba is not socialist, nor can it be socialist. Nor is Cuba 'on a journey to socialism' or 'building socialism', nor, once again, can it be.

I think the quotation provided in your signature is actually very revealing on this point:

"I began revolution with 82 men. If I had to do it again, I would do it with 10 or 15 and absolute faith.
It does not matter how small you are if you have faith and plan of action."

Fidel; can socialism and proletarian revolution be made by anyone but the proletariat? What ever happened to "The emancipation of the working class must be conquered by the working class themselves"?

[Niccolò Rossi]

Have you read the entirety of that critique? Actually I haven't read the whole thing, but apparently I've read more than you. ... In your quotation, Marx is talking about socialized industry within a capitalist state, such as joint-stock companies which became popular in England from the mid-1840s onward I believe.

Yes, Chimx, I have read it and I do know this. I don't see why you have to try and be a smart-arse about it.


It has always been the program of communists to seize political power and have the state own the means of production. My point is that people throw around the term "state capitalism" far too freely and seem ignorant of this basic tenet of communist theory.

I don't think SWI explained the concept in the best possible way, however you don't have to be a genius to understand that the non-proletarian nature of the state is implied in her post.

Another point which you have ignored is whether state capitalism is a fitting description for the economic system which operates under the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Concretely chimx, what is your position on the 'socialist states'. The OP asks "How [can you] convince people that Russia, North Korea, Cuba, etc. are not communist?", besides from saying "this is communism, none of these societies pass the test", why not dig a little deepe and explain what they were.Your next post ("In my opinion, for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat to have state-run industry that is socialist in nature, political participation by the working class has to exist") seems to reveal that you pose the question on the national scale in terms of democracy.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Cuba is not communist and can not be communist, as you note. However, equally, Cuba is not socialist, nor can it be socialist. Nor is Cuba 'on a journey to socialism' or 'building socialism', nor, once again, can it be.

I think the quotation provided in your signature is actually very revealing on this point:

"I began revolution with 82 men. If I had to do it again, I would do it with 10 or 15 and absolute faith.
It does not matter how small you are if you have faith and plan of action."

Fidel; can socialism and proletarian revolution be made by anyone but the proletariat? What ever happened to "The emancipation of the working class must be conquered by the working class themselves"?

However in the end, it was a mass spontaneous revolution. So the working class did emancipate themselves as 60 men is big enough for bourgeois government, but will they emancipate themselves from imperialist aggressor?

[Niccolò Rossi]

However in the end, it was a mass spontaneous revolution.

I think this is very arguable. Even if we accept the participation of the masses in the 'revolution' subsequently we can equally talk about mass support and participation in all sorts of bourgeois 'revolutions', movements and even election campaigns (and yes I realise you will claim there is a qualitative difference between these and the Cuban revolution).


So the working class did emancipate themselves as 60 men is big enough for bourgeois government, but will they emancipate themselves from imperialist aggressor?

I have no idea what you are saying here. The working class can emancipate itself from 'ordinary old capitalism' but requires smalls bands of middle class military men to emancipate themselves from imperialist domination? Give me a break, this is pathetically anti-marxist.

[Bright Banana Beard]

I have no idea what you are saying here. The working class can emancipate itself from 'ordinary old capitalism' but requires smalls bands of middle class military men to emancipate themselves from imperialist domination? Give me a break, this is pathetically anti-marxist.But it wasn't a smalls band of middle class after Fidel got in, it actually grew to large base still supporting the government to this day. But then you will revert back to the beginning the day ignoring the context from the latter day.

[Asoka89]

Fidel and company sparked a mass movement, but I wouldn't reject the characterization of Fidel and Che and company as "Blanquists".

[el_chavista]

The capital C affair is not convincing. I think the problem is that the word communism is for both an ideology and a social economic regime whilst capitalism is only for the late.

Just think about what is a communist -a politician- and a capitalist -the representative of the exploiting class.

So the confusion is when the capitalist propaganda calls "communist countries" those countries with a government of the Communist Party.

[Ovi]

Or you could just tell the truth; that they were communist in that communism was their goals. And that many of them made great advances in that direction.

Point out what you think went wrong. Stop being lazy and just dismissing them altogether.
It was never their goal. It was their propaganda. The same way capitalists praise personal freedom and democracy. It's just bullshit.

[Manifesto]

I don't think you really can. They will say "Then why are they called Communist?" and you could explain how communism has no State and they would probably call that fairy land or something.

[Shin Honyong]

Workers did not control the means of production.

Socialism originally = "social democracy" for a reason it was meant to actualize democracy. Meaning instead of the psuedo-democracy of capitalist countries which affords limited democracy and freedoms in the political sphere we would have social and economic democracy under socialism. Addition without subtraction.

This is especially true with the DPRK. The group that eventually would become the rulers of the DPRK (Kim Il Sung and his guerrilla group) were more loyal to the peasants and generally gave them better concessions then they did the workers. The workers in the DPRK had already had control of the means of production and the DPRK took much of it away when they begin centralizing power. Some of the most militant pro-worker founders of the DPRK (O'Kisop being the most famous) were eventually purged for their position on worker's autonomy and control.