Would Communism Work Better Today than it Did in Russia?

[TheJungle]

One way that Russia failed in Communism was that they we're trying to go from a serf based, agrarian economy to an industrial power. I think Marx (or some other early theorist) said communism can only happen when capitalism has evolved as much as it can.

So, if modern Europe or America were to attempt this, with our already amazing industry and production, would it fare any better? I say yes because Lenin and Stalin had to make an economy out of nearly nothing, the same can be said for Mao and Castro, neither country of theirs was industrialized by the time of the revolution. Since the West has already made industry and has plenty of produce to go around, could a revolution fare better here than there?

[ZombieGrits]

Its hard to say. Supposing that a 21st century communist society wasn't constantly under siege by capitalist powers or in a civil war with reactionaries, it would probably work a lot better. Not only have we (hopefully) learned from the mistakes of the past, but communications advances like the internet would make a planned economy easier to manage & a direct democracy easier to achieve.

[The Ben G]

I think it most likely will be better. The largest factor that I say this is that it didn't work in the first place.

[Psy]

Its hard to say. Supposing that a 21st century communist society wasn't constantly under siege by capitalist powers or in a civil war with reactionaries, it would probably work a lot better. Not only have we (hopefully) learned from the mistakes of the past, but communications advances like the internet would make a planned economy easier to manage & a direct democracy easier to achieve.
I've been thinking about that and a successful communism region could have the problem of workers migrating to it that would actually ease revolutionary tension in the capitalist world. For example lets say Paris 1968 resulted in France becoming a true workers state, well then you could have had the problem of instead of workers around the world following in French workers steps they just move to France, this would make it harder for capitalist to crush a French workers state as it would get a huge influx of manpower but it would also isolate France making it a island in a sea of capitalist just like Russia with the biggest difference being France in 1968 being industrialized thus actually able be a workers state.

[ZombieGrits]

I've been thinking about that and a successful communism region could have the problem of workers migrating to it that would actually ease revolutionary tension in the capitalist world.

Yeah and unfortunately that would make it necessary to have soviet-style "export of revolution" so to speak. The crackdown on workers' movements that the formation of a socialist society would inevitably cause in capitalist countries would make a home-grown revolution difficult if not impossible.

Sigh. So many things to consider...

[ArrowLance]

Well undoubtedly the state of Russia had a huge part in the eventual decay of socialism in the area. Communist attempts today would fare better if that were the only thing changed but a more global capitalist ideology would hinder it more than it did in the cold war.

[Psy]

Unfortunately, just the means of production being well developed does not guarantee the success of communism.

It does since it means a worker state can drown capitalists in a abundance of cheap commodities.



Ultimately it boils down to how the proletariat is able to maintain its power over the land-owning and industrial bourgeoisie. This can be possible only through class struggle and the proletariat exercising the dictatorship of the proletariat over these classes. The proletariat were able to bring backward countries like Russia and China to a vastly improved level. So there is no reason why the same should not happen in more advanced countries. However the capitalist class is far more entrenched and many times more powerful in advanced imperialist countries. This poses a serious challenge to the proletariat in those countries, whereas in the neo-colonial countries, like those in the Third World, the proletariat can possibly be victorious more easily since the bourgeoisie are not all that well-developed. However, wherever a revolution takes place, it all depends on the class consciousness of the proletariat and the military and economic power they are able to wield, as a class, over the capitalists.
While the capitalist is more entrenched they are also losing control of markets and are far more at risk at the market turning against them, meaning they are more sensitive to labor disruptions now then before.

[robbo203]

One way that Russia failed in Communism was that they we're trying to go from a serf based, agrarian economy to an industrial power. I think Marx (or some other early theorist) said communism can only happen when capitalism has evolved as much as it can.

So, if modern Europe or America were to attempt this, with our already amazing industry and production, would it fare any better? I say yes because Lenin and Stalin had to make an economy out of nearly nothing, the same can be said for Mao and Castro, neither country of theirs was industrialized by the time of the revolution. Since the West has already made industry and has plenty of produce to go around, could a revolution fare better here than there?

Communism did not "fail" in Russia since it never exiated there in the first place! What the Bolshevik constructed , by Lenin's own admission, was a system of state run capitalism - state capitalism.

Not only was the material infrastructure in war-torn Russia quite inadequate to support a genuine communist society; there was no widespread mass communist consciousness in the sense of people wanting and understanding communism as a stateless non-market alternative to capitalism. It is a fundamental principle shared by Marxists and anarchists alike that communism cannot be imposed from above but has to emerge from the masses below in a majoritarian revolution. This simply did not happen in Russia at the time which was, in any case, an overwhelmingly peasant-based society with a small working class (that actually got even smaller during the period of civil war).

[TheNewSteez]

Communism today so far has not worked at all because nations like China that say that they are communist are pretty much just nitpicking at communist ideals that work for there benefits. First of all Chinese should not even be in tradde agreements with Any other country and they are a huge part of the debt we owe because of out"trade Agreements"

The only way copmmunism would work is if a nation had all the resources it needs without engaging in trade and currency with other countries. And would really use the full ideals of communism with some democracy mixed in.

my Opinion for what its worth

[mikelepore]

The contrast isn't between the system working versus not working. The contrast is, when you set up the system, did you say that the people were going to control the means of production, and then really do it, or did you say that the people were going to control the means of production, but then not do it. The Bosheviks said it, but then they didn't do it.

***

Typical dialogue on a typical afternoon --

Russian worker: "I observe that several procedures are inefficient, and I have a few suggestions about how to improve them."

Russian cop: "You're under arrest for expressing disloyalty to the state."

[RebelDog]

The contrast isn't between the system working versus not working. The contrast is, when you set up the system, did you say that the people were going to control the means of production, and then really do it, or did you say that the people were going to control the means of production, but then not do it. The Bosheviks said it, but then they didn't do it.

***

Typical dialogue on a typical afternoon --

Russian worker: "I observe that several procedures are inefficient, and I have a few suggestions about how to improve them."

Russian cop: "You're under arrest for expressing disloyalty to the state."

Pretty much what I would say. Socialism is about producer self-management of the economy and the Bolsheviks were fundementally opposed to this. They dismantled the free soviets and empowered managers and left workers without any decision making power. The Bolsheviks never intended to have or let workers self-manage industry. Any future success must have the working class acting in their own interests to achieve power over production. No Bolshevik or any one alse is ever going to hand workers their emancipation, they must achieve this themselves.