Isn't it counterproductive to always claim "there's never been true communism"

[Eagle_Syr]

As true as the statement is, that the world has never realized true communism in the purest sense of the word, I think if we constantly dismiss any attacks on attempted communism by saying "well, they never achieved real communism so it doesn't matter", we just sound like total idealists. And the truth is, idealism is a very good thing. But we shouldn't defend communism by stating that it hasn't yet happened and so people can't criticize it.

I think we do need to acknowledge that the USSR and other examples did, at least, attempt to achieve communism and highlight their successes and failures. The truth is, "communism" achieved alot in the USSR and made many successes in many of the places it was attempted...I think it's important to illustrate that, and demonstrate that the failures were more often than not due to external forces (such as US intervention and war)

[Questionable]

The reason some people oppose the legacy of the USSR is because they don't feel like their leadership was moving towards communism at all.

[Peoples' War]

As true as the statement is, that the world has never realized true communism in the purest sense of the word, I think if we constantly dismiss any attacks on attempted communism by saying "well, they never achieved real communism so it doesn't matter", we just sound like total idealists. And the truth is, idealism is a very good thing. But we shouldn't defend communism by stating that it hasn't yet happened and so people can't criticize it.We haven't achieved Communism, so we can't say that it "will look like x".

It's true, it hasn't happened, and we can point that out in a debate. However, we can't stop there. We have to argue, from a materialist standpoint, WHY it hasn't happened and WHY we can't describe what society will look like, etc.


I think we do need to acknowledge that the USSR and other examples did, at least, attempt to achieve communism and highlight their successes and failures. The truth is, "communism" achieved alot in the USSR and made many successes in many of the places it was attempted...I think it's important to illustrate that, and demonstrate that the failures were more often than not due to external forces (such as US intervention and war)
The USSR didn't try the achieve communism, that is the issue. Marxist-Leninists will argue contrary, that it did try. However, it is fact that in these nations, progress was made.

It is not, however, an excuse for what the regimes did.

[#FF0000]

It's pretty hand-wavy when you say it like that (TR00 COMMUNISM). Even though I think it's in a way, true -- Russia was basically a capitalist society not long after the revolution. It couldn't be anything but. The revolution in Europe failed.

[Lokomotive293]

As true as the statement is, that the world has never realized true communism in the purest sense of the word, I think if we constantly dismiss any attacks on attempted communism by saying "well, they never achieved real communism so it doesn't matter", we just sound like total idealists. And the truth is, idealism is a very good thing. But we shouldn't defend communism by stating that it hasn't yet happened and so people can't criticize it.

I think we do need to acknowledge that the USSR and other examples did, at least, attempt to achieve communism and highlight their successes and failures. The truth is, "communism" achieved alot in the USSR and made many successes in many of the places it was attempted...I think it's important to illustrate that, and demonstrate that the failures were more often than not due to external forces (such as US intervention and war)

I think you are making an important point. Dreaming up a utopian communist society and dismissing any attempt at building an actual socialist state as "not really socialist" if it doesn't fit that utopia immediately IS idealist, and won't get us anywhere.
There is something like the real world, the real material conditions, that we have to work with if we ever want to achieve anything.
I believe it is very important to point out the achievements of the actually existing socialist states such as the USSR, and the lies that are often spread about them by the bourgeois media. We also, however, need an analysis of their mistakes, within the context of the historical conditions they found themselves in, and the reasons for their failure.

[Thirsty Crow]

As true as the statement is, that the world has never realized true communism in the purest sense of the word, I think if we constantly dismiss any attacks on attempted communism by saying "well, they never achieved real communism so it doesn't matter", we just sound like total idealists.
I don't think this is true.
As I've stated in another thread, the program of the abolition of capital as a social relation of production - i.e. communism - has consistently stated as its precondition that communism cannot be definitely built, or achieved, in a single coutry or even a bloc of countries, and that political domination of the working class is necessary on a world basis. This isn't a matter of hand waving and facile dismissal, it's simple political and theoretical consistency, which goes hand in hand with a rigorous class analysis of the regimes which called themselves socialist.



And the truth is, idealism is a very good thing. But we shouldn't defend communism by stating that it hasn't yet happened and so people can't criticize it.
The point is that the idea that communism has been tried and shown to fail is invalid as it rewrites what communists themselves have to say on the necessary conditions for communism and imposes its own views (basically that of the state owning the entire economic apparatus).
People can and should criticize the results of revolutionary struggle and draw their own conclusions. Some of those might be that revolutionary struggle is unviable nowadays, and therefore the argument should be shifted to that terrain (as I don't think this is the case), but what you are talking about is an entirely different argument.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I believe this phrase in fact does make one sound like a dogmatist. I prefer to say "We haven't reached Communism yet".

[Mr. Natural]

Here is how Marx and Engels defined communism: "We shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." (Manifesto). In other words, communism is thorough, bottom-up democracy practiced in all socio-economic areas of society.

In what sense did the Soviet Union ever resemble communism? Indeed, the Soviet Union became a horrific refutation of communism, Marxism, and anything resembling a society that would appeal to people.

It is the obligation of conscientious leftists to understand and denounce what happened in the Soviet Union and to promote real anarchism/communism.

[piet11111]

I say "there has never been a communist state" because those "socialist" societies the capitalist point to as "true communism" are deliberately chosen because they where terrible places to live.

Clearly its important to immediately refute the implication that we want to recreate those places where we live and then proceed to explain what it is what we do want.

If we let our opponents get away with claiming that those places are what we have in store for the people we already lost the debate.

Seriously what would you think if you heard a communist say that North Korea is moving towards socialism and that he wants to make your country a socialist state.
To me that would sound like he would turn my country into North Korea and that is absolutely something i would oppose.

[Q]

As true as the statement is, that the world has never realized true communism in the purest sense of the word
There hasn't been communism in the modern ages in any sense of the word. Primitive communism, our species-being as that is the way the human species has lived and evolved about 90% of its existence, is of course a completely different matter. It is the goal of communists to achieve the type of freedom we enjoyed in those days, but on a modern basis.



... and so people can't criticize it.
But there is every reason to criticize the counterrevolutionary regimes that was the USSR and its satellites! We should take its lessons and apply self-criticism. Sadly, much of the left today still hasn't overcome the legacy of Stalinism, which is witnessed from the anti-democratic milieu in the far left sects, to the idea that Greece has to leave the EU to build a socialist alternative by itself.


I think it's important to illustrate that, and demonstrate that the failures were more often than not due to external forces (such as US intervention and war)
This is simply untrue. As Hillel Ticktin argues rather well (http://www.revleft.com/vb/russiai-theories-soviet-t168685/index.html), the USSR had an internal logic in its decline. It could only and inevitably collapse back into capitalism. It was a non-mode of production and as such a historical dead end.

[Thirsty Crow]

It is the goal of communists to achieve the type of freedom we enjoyed in those days, but on a modern basis.I don't think this is actually true or that a narrative of reclaiming the once lost freedom (or something else, depends on the choice of words) is useful since I don't think one can meaningfully talk about "freedom" in relation to a (pre)historical period marked by a almost complete dominance of nature over human beings, so to speak, and especially since I can only conceive of freedom as in the self-development of human society which necessarily takes place on the basis of the production of surplus and mastery (or guardianship, if we wished to appease environmentalists since in no way do I advocate a destructive relationship towards the ecosystems human beings are part of) over nature.


Sadly, much of the left today still hasn't overcome the legacy of Stalinism, which is witnessed from the anti-democratic milieu in the far left sects, to the idea that Greece has to leave the EU to build a socialist alternative by itself.Sure, the point is that it is ridiculous to assume that the Greek working class and its allies can build socialism in isolation, but still, I don't think it is possible to pursue revolutionary politics without openly stating that the European Union is no vehicle for such ends (and that a territorially based working class will find itself immediately expelled from EU if they were to take power).



This is simply untrue. As Hillel Ticktin argues rather well (http://www.revleft.com/vb/russiai-theories-soviet-t168685/index.html), the USSR had an internal logic in its decline. It could only and inevitably collapse back into capitalism. It was a non-mode of production and as such a historical dead end.
I never came accross a theoretical foundation for Ticktin's innovation in Marxist theory. Indeed, it seems somewhat ridiculous to state that a society might be based on a...non-mode of production, since that would imply the impossibility of class analysis of that society reaching definite conclusions (or that it is a historicallynovel mode of production - that would be the counter-argument if such an analysis found that there exists a radical difference between the historically existing, prior modes of production, and this society). So, would you recommend some helpful sources?

[Permanent Revolutionary]

I think we do need to acknowledge that the USSR and other examples did, at least, attempt to achieve communism and highlight their successes and failures.
http://i1190.photobucket.com/albums/z460/Skull0298/Random%20Funny/no-meme.jpg

[Q]

I don't think this is actually true or that a narrative of reclaiming the once lost freedom (or something else, depends on the choice of words) is useful since I don't think one can meaningfully talk about "freedom" in relation to a (pre)historical period marked by a almost complete dominance of nature over human beings, so to speak, and especially since I can only conceive of freedom as in the self-development of human society which necessarily takes place on the basis of the production of surplus and mastery (or guardianship, if we wished to appease environmentalists since in no way do I advocate a destructive relationship towards the ecosystems human beings are part of) over nature.
I wasn't really talking about the low level of technology or our impact on nature. What I was talking about has to do with labourtime. Primitive communism was based on affluent resources, primarily in food. Thus our work-time was extremely low, compared to today, which enabled us many freedoms. Chris Knight's Blood Relations delves into the subject, but a useful overview can be read here (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/786/sexandthehuman.php), among other places.

It is only with the collapse of these affluent resources (mainly big game hunting preys) that we see class society appear. In other words: The agricultural revolution started as an act of despair as it meant an absolute brick drop decline of living standards. And with the agricultural revolution came of course the social counterrevolution that introduced class society.


Sure, the point is that it is ridiculous to assume that the Greek working class and its allies can build socialism in isolation, but still, I don't think it is possible to pursue revolutionary politics without openly stating that the European Union is no vehicle for such ends (and that a territorially based working class will find itself immediately expelled from EU if they were to take power).
No state is a vehicle for revolutionary ends. That is not the point. The point is that the existence of the EU creates the possibility of a unified European working class as the political struggle can be waged on a continental level. A possibility European communists can act on and where our political responsibility lies.


I never came accross a theoretical foundation for Ticktin's innovation in Marxist theory. Indeed, it seems somewhat ridiculous to state that a society might be based on a...non-mode of production, since that would imply the impossibility of class analysis of that society reaching definite conclusions (or that it is a historicallynovel mode of production - that would be the counter-argument if such an analysis found that there exists a radical difference between the historically existing, prior modes of production, and this society). So, would you recommend some helpful sources?
Hillel Ticktin started the task of creating a new political economy back in the 1970's and the main body of work is in the journal he founded, Critique (http://www.critiquejournal.net/). Introductory sources can be found in the thread I linked to in the quote you made. The reasons for "reinventing the wheel" regarding political economy are explained in a supposed critique of his theories that is published on LibCom (http://libcom.org/library/what-was-ussr-part-2-hillel-ticktin-aufheben). A quote:


For Ticktin, the fundamental obstacle which prevented Trotsky from developing his critique of the USSR is to be found in the very origins of this critique. As we saw in Part I, Trotsky's theory of the USSR as a degenerated workers' state originated from earlier criticisms of the Party leadership and the NEP that had been advanced by the Left Opposition during the 1920s. In advancing these criticisms, there had been a distinct division of labour. Trotsky, as the sole member of the Left Opposition within the Politburo, had concentrated on the broad political issues and detailed questions of policy. Preobrazhensky, on the other hand, had been left to set out the 'economics' which underlay these political and policy positions of the Left Opposition.

As we saw in Part I, Preobrazhensky had sought to develop a political economy for the period of the transition of Russia from capitalism to socialism in terms of the struggle between the two regulating mechanisms of capitalism and socialism that had been identified by the classical Marxism of the Second International. For the orthodox Marxism of the Second International, the basic regulating principle of capitalism was the blind operation of the 'law of value'. In contrast, the basic regulating principle of socialism was to be conscious planning. Form this Preobrazhensky had argued that during the period of transition from capitalism to socialism these two principles of economic organization would necessary co-exist and as such would be in conflict with each other.

However, for Preobrazhensky, in the relatively backward conditions prevailing in Russia there was no guarantee that the principle of planning would prevail over the law of value on purely economic grounds. Hence, for Preobrazhensky, it was necessary for the proletarian state to actively intervene in order to accelerate accumulation in those sectors of the economy, such as state industry, where the principle of planning predominated at the expense of those sectors, such as peasant agriculture, where the law of value still held sway. It was this theory of 'primitive socialist accumulation' which had underpinned the Left Opposition's criticisms of the NEP and their advocacy of an alternative policy of rapid industrialization.

When Stalin finally abandoned the NEP in favour of centralized planning embodied in the five year plans many members of the Left Opposition, including Preobrazhensky himself, took the view that the Party leadership had finally, if rather belatedly, come round to their position of rapid industrialization. As a consequence, Preobrazhensky along with other former members of the Left Opposition fully embraced Stalin's new turn and fell in line with leadership of the Party. Trotsky, on the other, maintained a far more critical attitude to Stalin's new turn.

Of course, even if he had wanted to, Trotsky was in no position to fall in behind Stalin and the leadership of the Party. Trotsky was too much of an enemy and rival to Stalin for that. However, Trotsky's broader political perspective allowed him to maintain and develop a critique of Stalin's Russia. While Trotsky welcomed Stalin's adoption of a policy of centralized planning and rapid industrialization he argued that it was too long delayed. The sudden zig-zags of policy from one extreme position to another were for Trotsky symptomatic of the bureaucratization of the state and Party and indicated the degeneration of Russia as a workers' state.

Through such criticisms Trotsky came to formulate his theory of the USSR as a degenerated workers' state. Yet while Trotsky was able to develop his critique of the new Stalinist regime in political terms, that is as the political domination of a distinct bureaucratic caste that had taken over the workers' state, he failed to reconsider the political economy of Stalin's Russia. In accordance with the old division of labour between himself and Preobrazhensky, Trotsky implicitly remained content with the political economy of transition that had been advanced in the 1920s by Preobrazhensky.

For Ticktin it was this failure to develop Preobrazhensky's political economy of transition in the light of Stalin's Russia that proved to be the Achilles' heel of Trotsky's theory of the USSR as a degenerated workers' state. Of course, given that Trotsky could at the time reasonably expect the USSR to be a short-lived phenomenon he could perhaps be excused from neglecting the long and arduous task of developing a political economy of the USSR. For Ticktin, his followers have had no such excuse. As we shall now see, for Ticktin the central task in developing Trotsky's analysis of the nature of the Soviet Union has been to develop a political economy of the USSR.