Communism=Athoritarian ?

[Commie77]

Since the rise of communism it seems like most/ all the regimes have been athoritarian. Cuba, USSR, china, North Korea ... but is it really authoritarian ? The only country that seems to try to give the people power is Venezuela. Anyway what i want to know if communism is supposed to liberate the people and take care of them why has it always or almost always been authoritarian? Is it because it has to be athoritarian to provide things like guaranteed jobs, health care, and the such ?

[#FF0000]

I think it's a result of the conditions a lot of these countries found themselves in. They were poor, industrially underdeveloped without the means to really defend themselves from imperialist countries. It's not a healthy atmosphere, really.

[Widerstand]

Because it's not communism, and couldn't be. There are far too many hindering forces, such as lack of self-sustainable infrastructure (technology, resources, food supply, energy, etc.), international pressure (embargoes), underestimating the negative effects of undemocratic party/organizational structures and of course the pressure from reactionary forces both within and outside the country. Add to that the left-over conditioning which would require massive re-educational efforts - patriarchy and ethnic conflicts/racism won't just 'vanish' and you pretty much see how 'communism in one country' sets itself up for immediate failure.

Now some of these are less important than others. But I would insists that 'communism in one country' is an obsolete concept, and that we should instead move on to 'communism in one technate', a term borrowed from Technocrats, which I use to describe "any piece of land with the resources and infrastructure to run a fully self-sustained society". Northern America would be one. Modern China as well. Central Europe. Etc.

[ComradeMan]

People= authoritarian?:(

[Widerstand]

People= authoritarian?:(

People raised in an authoritarian system = authoritarian.

[ComradeMan]

People raised in an authoritarian system = authoritarian.

I agree. Most of human history is pretty reactionary and authoritarian, wherever and by whoever- we can't suddenly imagine that because people agree on an economic policy all the rest will just disappear!
:thumbup1:

[trivas7]

In the absence of market mechanisms to rationalize people's behavior brute force is the only means to meet society's material needs.

[Ele'ill]

In the absence of market mechanisms to rationalize people's behavior brute force is the only means to meet society's material needs.

No. People work those current occupations because they enjoy the field- they're good at it- it comes naturally- whatever

They work and actually most likely overwork- in order to afford and barely that- rent- childcare- food- etc..

It would be a wonderful thing to have those basic needs met regardless- and to still engage in the occupation that makes you feel proud- that you're good at- that interests you so on and so forth.

[Dean]

In the absence of market mechanisms to rationalize people's behavior brute force is the only means to meet society's material needs.
Cool dichotomy bro now prove it.

[Bud Struggle]

This point is a major stumbling block for Communist political theory. As much as Communist Revolutions always CLAIM to be egalitarian they consistently turn out to be hell holes of terror and mind control.

This is one point Communists should iron out before they proceed.

[Crimson Commissar]

This point is a major stumbling block for Communist political theory. As much as Communist Revolutions always CLAIM to be egalitarian they consistently turn out to be hell holes of terror and mind control.

This is one point Communists should iron out before they proceed.
Except most of them weren't. Much of that is cold war capitalist propaganda. It's always been the capitalist states that are hellholes, in which people are slaves to the state and the capitalist system. I don't understand how you can say that communism always produces "hell holes of terror" and yet say that Capitalism is completely fine.

[Bud Struggle]

Except most of them weren't. Much of that is cold war capitalist propaganda. It's always been the capitalist states that are hellholes, in which people are slaves to the state and the capitalist system. I don't understand how you can say that communism always produces "hell holes of terror" and yet say that Capitalism is completely fine.

What are you saying? That most of the Soviet Block and Red China where't hell holes? Well maybe according to how you define it. But it wasn't "free" by and streach of the imagenation. There weren't any soviets in the Societ Union, were there? If you calim that Stalin and Mao weren't authoritarian--well that's your choice.

If you think the Soviet purges weren't terror or the Maoist Gang of Four rule wasn't Authoritarian or that the tanks in Hungary or Prague were just parades. Well fine.

I never said Capitalism was completely fine. Corporatism is a real problem. So is our slightly representitive government. But there are no tanks or Stazi. You can say "Fuck America" of "Fuck Britain" without getting thrown in jail.

Listen---Communism has SO FAR never lived up to its promise. The West isn't good, but that isn't the question--Communism has always been Authoritarian.

[ComradeMan]

Except most of them weren't. Much of that is cold war capitalist propaganda. It's always been the capitalist states that are hellholes, in which people are slaves to the state and the capitalist system. I don't understand how you can say that communism always produces "hell holes of terror" and yet say that Capitalism is completely fine.

Well Chomsky did call the Soviet Union Evil, the Derg in Ethiopia were pretty vile, North Korea speaks for itself, Pol Pot- enough said- only Cuba really holds itself up at all- and not without reproach. The problem, which Bud misses, is that they have been pretty damn worse since the collapse of communism. I don't think you can deny the historical mismanagement of so-called communist nations.

[Crimson Commissar]

What are you saying? That most of the Soviet Block and Red China where't hell holes? Well maybe according to how you define it. But it wasn't "free" by and streach of the imagenation. There weren't any soviets in the Societ Union, were there? If you calim that Stalin and Mao weren't authoritarian--well that's your choice.
Stalin? Yeah, I agree with that. Mao? Possibly, but he seemed like a good leader to me.


If you think the Soviet purges weren't terror or the Maoist Gang of Four rule wasn't Authoritarian or that the tanks in Hungary or Prague were just parades. Well fine.
Soviet purges? Yeah, authoritarian. The situation with Hungary/Czechoslovakia though, I believe it was....somewhat necessary. The US had done much worse things, like intervening in Vietnam. If the Soviets didn't intervene in those countries, they could have turned back to capitalism. The US would have used it to claim that "the people were rejecting communism" and would have spread even more of their bullshit propaganda.


I never said Capitalism was completely fine. Corporatism is a real problem. So is our slightly representitive government. But there are no tanks or Stazi. You can say "Fuck America" of "Fuck Britain" without getting thrown in jail.
No tanks? Lol, maybe not here. But go ask the people of Iraq or Afghanistan about that. I also don't understand the shit that's often said about the Stasi. Only people I ever hear complaining about them are either westerners who never lived under Communism or the children of East Germans who weren't even BORN when they were around. Most people who lived in East Germany, the ones that I've talked to at least, didn't seem to have a problem with the Stasi. Sure, life wasn't perfect there. It's not exactly what I would call a perfect representation of socialism. But it seemed like it would be a HELL of a lot better than Capitalism.


Listen---Communism has SO FAR never lived up to its promise. The West isn't good, but that isn't the question--Communism has always been Authoritarian.
Again, it's not authoritarian. Stalinism could be used as an example of authoritarian communism, but...that was during damn World War 2, and slightly before that. Quite a long time ago, and the Soviet Union was still only recently formed. Cold war era communism was much better IMO. As I said before, not perfect, but a much preferable alternative to capitalism, and I'm sure it would have progressed into true Socialism if Capitalism was defeated.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm sure it would have progressed into true Socialism if Capitalism was defeated.

Good Answers to my points--we could quibble on those points forever. But on this last point--you know, I JUST DON'T BELIEVE SO.

Comraqde Man make some good points, too. I would just like to have seen a Communist Country deliver on the freedom and decocracy promise.

Just once.

[ComradeMan]

Good Answers to my points--we could quibble on those points forever. But on this last point--you know, I JUST DON'T BELIEVE SO.

Comraqde Man make some good points, too. I would just like to have seen a Communist Country deliver on the freedom and decocracy promise.

Just once.

Mine would- everyone would have the democratic right to choose who was in the party! ;)

[Bud Struggle]

The problem, which Bud misses, is that they have been pretty damn worse since the collapse of communism.

I don't quite understand--what is it that I miss? Things are worse since the collapse of Communism?

Well they could have been better that's for sure and George Bush and all his wars was a one of a kind source of assholary of all time.

(Actually defending George Bush must be a lot like defending Stalin--you kind of like the side he's on, but what a fuck up for doing things to better the world.)

[ComradeMan]

I don't quite understand--what is it that I miss? Things are worse since the collapse of Communism?

Well they could have been better that's for sure and George Bush and all his wars was a one of a kind source of assholary of all time.

Well a lot of Eastern Europeans I have met seem to be of the opinion that although it wasn't great before it's a damn sight worse now. There was the recent poll of Romania (ironically the most pro-Western Eastern Bloc state) that suggested the majority thought life better in the good old days.

[Bud Struggle]

Well a lot of Eastern Europeans I have met seem to be of the opinion that although it wasn't great before it's a damn sight worse now. There was the recent poll of Romania (ironically the most pro-Western Eastern Bloc state) that suggested the majority thought life better in the good old days.

Well I think it was better in 1985, too.:sneaky:

[Crimson Commissar]

Well a lot of Eastern Europeans I have met seem to be of the opinion that although it wasn't great before it's a damn sight worse now. There was the recent poll of Romania (ironically the most pro-Western Eastern Bloc state) that suggested the majority thought life better in the good old days.
Yep. Most Eastern Europeans I talk to seem to be quite supportive of communism. And the ones that aren't still believe that their country would be a lot better if it was still communist. It's clear that the people don't like capitalism. I just don't understand why they aren't DOING anything about it.

[Bud Struggle]

Yep. Most Eastern Europeans I talk to seem to be quite supportive of communism. And the ones that aren't still believe that their country would be a lot better if it was still communist. It's clear that the people don't like capitalism. I just don't understand why they aren't DOING anything about it.

Most Americans think things were better when Reagan was President. Bring back the COLD WAR!!! :)

[ComradeMan]

Most Americans think things were better when Reagan was President. Bring back the COLD WAR!!! :)

Well the Cold War did have it's positives too-- there was more equilibrium and James Bond films made more sense and were better. Fucking reactionary I say undoing 45 years of Cold War- now no one knows where they stand anymore either.:lol:

[RGacky3]

Most Americans think things were better when Reagan was President.

Most people that think that were in their 20s or younger when Reagen was around, everyone thinks things were better in their 20s.

[ComradeMan]

Yep. Most Eastern Europeans I talk to seem to be quite supportive of communism. And the ones that aren't still believe that their country would be a lot better if it was still communist. It's clear that the people don't like capitalism. I just don't understand why they aren't DOING anything about it.

What do you suggest they do?

[Commie77]

What do you suggest they do?

I think he is suggesting they vote for a communist party... :P

Its weird how Romanians think life under communism was better. I though Ceausescu was a bastard? maybe i need to read more.

[ComradeMan]

I think he is suggesting they vote for a communist party... :P

Its weird how Romanians think life under communism was better. I though Ceausescu was a bastard? maybe i need to read more.

Not as easy as that. You only get voted in if you have the right connections and now with the Soviets gone those connections are no longer there.

[Bud Struggle]

I think he is suggesting they vote for a communist party... :P

Its weird how Romanians think life under communism was better. I though Ceausescu was a bastard? maybe i need to read more.

They didn't like him.

http://julianhopkins.net/uploads/pics_0910/jh_pic_091003_CeausescuDead.jpg

[Kiev Communard]

They didn't like him.

As far as I understand this, the people who claim that they are in favour of Communism in Romania are not for Ceauşescu's rule to return as it was back then. They are mosy likely supporters of some sort of "democratic socialism", which is still far better than Ceauşescism.

[Crimson Commissar]

What do you suggest they do?
Revolution? That's how most communist states are made.

[Amphictyonis]

Since the rise of communism it seems like most/ all the regimes have been athoritarian. Cuba, USSR, china, North Korea ... but is it really authoritarian ? The only country that seems to try to give the people power is Venezuela. Anyway what i want to know if communism is supposed to liberate the people and take care of them why has it always or almost always been authoritarian? Is it because it has to be athoritarian to provide things like guaranteed jobs, health care, and the such ?

Communism has never risen. Class society has never been abolished. Closest long term large scale abolition of class was Spain during the revolution. Russia had to industrialize under capitalism. As far as I know the USA, in order to industrialize, enslaved millions of people and later forced children and adults to work in deadly work place conditions. There was also the matter of exterminating the natives and parasitically colonizing the globe (which also killed millions).

Russia isn't an example of communism it is an example of a nation attempting to rapidly industrialize therefore setting the foundation for socialism and planting the seed for communism.

North Korea is isolated from the world. It lives under 'false scarcity'. Other than having an idiot at the helm maintaining class society North Korea would be much better off if the rest of the globe were socialist. They wouldn't be economically isolated and the strict controls over food/work/life would not be necessary. I'm not a fan of North Korea but I can also be smart enough to realize North Korea isn't deploying it's military around the globe killing millions of people (THE USA). That's authoritarianism at it's finest. North Korea is pretty well self sufficient- their negative impact on the global community is minimal compared to that of the USA but it does need to develop into a more democratic society as time goes on. It's defiantly not a good example of an advanced communist society.

[ComradeMan]

Revolution? That's how most communist states are made.

Revolutions need organisation and it's a bit hard to organise when covert forces act as agents provocateurs and but bullets in the back of people's heads..... get me?

[Die Rote Fahne]

In each example the political power was not given to the proletariat, but held by the party. That party, in turn, became the new bourgeoisie.

In saying that we must note that neither communism, nor the dictatorship of the proletariat, has ever occured.

The party taking a dictatorial role has shown, time again, to result in the abrubt hault of the revolution, and to then bring about state capitalism or collective beuracracy.

[Bud Struggle]

In each example the political power was not given to the proletariat, but held by the party. That party, in turn, became the new bourgeoisie.

The question is how might that be changed in the future?

[Amphictyonis]

The question is how might that be changed in the future?

By restricting reactionaries on RevLeft :)

[Die Rote Fahne]

The question is how might that be changed in the future?

Through eliminating the idea of a vanguard party. The revolution must be led by workers with the intention of democratic election of the preferred socialist programme.

[Bud Struggle]

Through eliminating the idea of a vanguard party. The revolution must be led by workers with the intention of democratic election of the preferred socialist programme.

I agee there the Vanguard is just another name for the Bourgeoisie. The problem you face without the Vanguard is that the Proletariat has to be for the most part Class Conscious--something that seems to be pretty difficult to achieve.

[Robert]

Mao? Possibly, but he seemed like a good leader to me.Well, yes. I think he definitely had "it." Comrades followed him on the miraculous Long March (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/long_march_1934_to_1935.htm) after all..

As for his administration, well, he has to take some if not all the responsibility for the famine following the Great Leap Backward. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine) Even the most conservative estimates put the death toll at over 20 million. The government now admits there were 15 million "excess deaths".

That's a lot of dead people.

I don't understand it ... there were big giant watermelons for everyone:

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSMtV0fUqOY8gZ4SVoc4lLw-5ZEZHdmsCElUo_SwFIA4EHRmx4&t=1&usg=__cxwdmpzL4mQoGRw56XXh3Xik9nU=

[Post-Something]

I think for a state to aim for communism as a goal, to be honest, is almost doomed to be authoritarian. Marxism and its political strategy's are really made specifically to subvert capitalist economies into fighting itself, into creating revolution within a country. Because of this, any society that holds marxism leninism (or whatever other name you want to give it) as its driving ideology will have to protect against a counter subversion from other countries. There are some steps that simply have to be taken that will come under the header of authoritarian. For example immigration, you can bet that any marxist transition state is going to be really cautious about who they let in. Same with the media and foreign imports. Youre also gonna want to organise a pretty strong army and defence, right? And whose going to do this all? A state. Youve got all the ingredients there for a pretty authoritarian system Id say..

[Die Rote Fahne]

I agee there the Vanguard is just another name for the Bourgeoisie. The problem you face without the Vanguard is that the Proletariat has to be for the most part Class Conscious--something that seems to be pretty difficult to achieve.

I am against the vanguard, but i am not against a party whose job is to spread class conscious and/or head the revolution. However, that party cannot claim to represent the entire working class and must bow to free general elections by the workers to choose their socialist program of choice.

[Revolution starts with U]

There has to be something done about the culture of some places tho. Workers that are anti-union just, austro-libertarian and tea party popularization... What's the matter with Kansas?!

[Post-Something]

I heard Zizek say that Kansas was never like that, and that it used to be the hub of secular populism, or something to that effect. America has been through a lot of very strong cultural changes since the 1960's, I think this kind of fundamentalism must be a reaction to them. It acts as a destabilizing force in a country once it loses its religion and its culture is weakened. Thats why during revolution Marxists make such a point about criticizing religion, cultural values about sex, psychologyical disposition, and intensifying worker relations. Its much easier for the country to fall into conflict that way. Think about it, America is actually a very divided country right now, isnt it? On the one hand you have really staunch christian conservatives who believe in the free market, but there is also another side which has been growing, a wishy washy pacifist liberal left, and with a growing divide, youre bound to get some groups hitting the margins.

[Commie77]

Communism has never risen. Class society has never been abolished. Closest long term large scale abolition of class was Spain during the revolution. Russia had to industrialize under capitalism. As far as I know the USA, in order to industrialize, enslaved millions of people and later forced children and adults to work in deadly work place conditions. There was also the matter of exterminating the natives and parasitically colonizing the globe (which also killed millions).

Russia isn't an example of communism it is an example of a nation attempting to rapidly industrialize therefore setting the foundation for socialism and planting the seed for communism.

North Korea is isolated from the world. It lives under 'false scarcity'. Other than having an idiot at the helm maintaining class society North Korea would be much better off if the rest of the globe were socialist. They wouldn't be economically isolated and the strict controls over food/work/life would not be necessary. I'm not a fan of North Korea but I can also be smart enough to realize North Korea isn't deploying it's military around the globe killing millions of people (THE USA). That's authoritarianism at it's finest. North Korea is pretty well self sufficient- their negative impact on the global community is minimal compared to that of the USA but it does need to develop into a more democratic society as time goes on. It's defiantly not a good example of an advanced communist society.
Ok so you condone North Korea for treating its people like shit but you don't like that the USA kills people worldwide. I understand your frustration with the USA( i get angry with what they do many times) but condoning the actions of north korea? come on man they treat there people like shit, they constantly brain wash them and barely give them anything.

[Commie77]

Communism has never risen. Class society has never been abolished. Closest long term large scale abolition of class was Spain during the revolution. Russia had to industrialize under capitalism. As far as I know the USA, in order to industrialize, enslaved millions of people and later forced children and adults to work in deadly work place conditions. There was also the matter of exterminating the natives and parasitically colonizing the globe (which also killed millions).

Russia isn't an example of communism it is an example of a nation attempting to rapidly industrialize therefore setting the foundation for socialism and planting the seed for communism.

North Korea is isolated from the world. It lives under 'false scarcity'. Other than having an idiot at the helm maintaining class society North Korea would be much better off if the rest of the globe were socialist. They wouldn't be economically isolated and the strict controls over food/work/life would not be necessary. I'm not a fan of North Korea but I can also be smart enough to realize North Korea isn't deploying it's military around the globe killing millions of people (THE USA). That's authoritarianism at it's finest. North Korea is pretty well self sufficient- their negative impact on the global community is minimal compared to that of the USA but it does need to develop into a more democratic society as time goes on. It's defiantly not a good example of an advanced communist society.

IF communism has never risen why support it ? It seems like to be communist you must have faith in the system

[trivas7]

Cool dichotomy bro now prove it.
The laboratory of history has already proved this; I realize that history isn't your strong point.

[trivas7]

it would be a wonderful thing to have those basic needs met regardless...
tanstaafl

[Kiev Communard]

The laboratory of history has already proved this; I realize that history isn't your strong point.

The "laboratory of history" proved that both "free market" and centralized bureaucratic planning are equally inefficient and in the end lead to economic collapse.

[trivas7]

The "laboratory of history" proved that both "free market" and centralized bureaucratic planning are equally inefficient and in the end lead to economic collapse.
Equating the efficiency of free markets with centralized bureaucratic planning again ignores history, bro. There is no comparison.

[Kiev Communard]

Equating the efficiency of free markets with centralized bureaucratic planning again ignores history, bro. There is no comparison.

Believing in efficiency of "free markets" (and even using such a term, when the history presents the picture of constant intervention of the state within the framework of "actually existing capitalism") is itself quite ahistorical.

[Technocrat]

Since the rise of communism it seems like most/ all the regimes have been athoritarian. Cuba, USSR, china, North Korea ... but is it really authoritarian ? The only country that seems to try to give the people power is Venezuela. Anyway what i want to know if communism is supposed to liberate the people and take care of them why has it always or almost always been authoritarian? Is it because it has to be athoritarian to provide things like guaranteed jobs, health care, and the such ?

It's helpful to distinguish between the mode of production and the mode of governance. The USSR was a "socialist oligarchy" run by the bureaucracy without the "consent of the governed." Modern China is a capitalist oligarchy run by a socialist-style bureaucracy - aka "communism with Chinese characteristics."

Nowhere in the world has actual "democratic communism" or "democratic socialism" been realized.

Democratic communism would have the "consent of the governed" and the mode of production would also be democratic.

Many people abandoned communism after the horrors of the USSR became known. More critical thinkers like George Orwell realized that the USSR never was communist and continued to advocate for socialism/communism while denouncing forms of authoritarianism (dictatorship, oligarchy, monarchy, etc).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell#Political_views

[Technocrat]

Believing in efficiency of "free markets" (and even using such a term, when the history presents the picture of constant intervention of the state within the framework of "actually existing capitalism") is itself quite ahistorical.

Yep. Past rulers (kings, emperors) sought greater control over markets and despised the merchant class, for the most part. The "invisible hand of the market" is a modern idea.


The "laboratory of history" proved that both "free market" and centralized bureaucratic planning are equally inefficient and in the end lead to economic collapse.

How has history shown that centralized planning is as inefficient as free markets?

I think history has shown quite the opposite. Every time there is a major crisis in America, the solution has been greater government (bureaucratic) control over markets. Think World Wars I and II and the Great Depression (The New Deal).

If we look at the USSR, they came no where close to America's per capita consumption of resources. All of the extra crap that Americans consume has had no discernible effect on reported happiness levels since the 1950s. The "free market" is probably the least efficient system for allocating resources that has ever been devised. The economist uses the word "efficiency" in a completely different sense from the scientist or engineer. Efficiency to a scientist or engineer is defined as output divided by input. Efficiency to an economist is just another word for "profitability."

[Dean]

The laboratory of history has already proved this; I realize that history isn't your strong point.

Looking at history through rose-tinted glasses doesn't change what history means.

[Kiev Communard]

How has history shown that centralized planning is as inefficient as free markets?

I would distinguish there between possible future scientifically planned economy, and "administrative" bureaucratic type of planning having existed in the USSR and its block's nations. The former, if realized, will be adequate form of socioeconomic organization, while the latter is not.

[Dean]

Equating the efficiency of free markets with centralized bureaucratic planning again ignores history, bro. There is no comparison.

Thats why GM's bureaucracy nearly caused its own collapse which was only prevented via gov't intervention.

[Nicholas Popov]

Because it's not communism, and couldn't be.

Deviation from the revolutionary ideas in Russia began after the death of Lenin.
It is impossible to build a new society without innovation in management. The power of one person means return to former tsarism. Lenin's idea of the Soviets (Council of several participants) was a necessary innovation at that time and the first step towards collective intelligence. But fixed leadership (headed by the Secretary) has remained the same. A six-time convicted criminal, J. Stalin took advantage of this mistake, and shortly after Lenin's death has destroyed most of the revolutionary creators. Leon Trotsky did not escape this fate also.

Stalin has replaced romanticists-thinkers on dogmatists and careerists, and also usurped the power in republic. Creative stage of Russian revolution has ended.